Curious

[zwzsg]

It's in fact proved that nobody believed the earth was flat, ever because the Bible has always stated the earth is a "globe".

What the church fought was not that the earth was round. It was that the earth circled around the sun. Because to admit the earth goes round the sun, was to admit the earth is not the centre of the universe.

Secondly, I'd probably go for the simple reading of the Bible. How a book so old can portray such relevant and accurate meaning is beyond me. Some of It's texts are simply beautiful in many a sense of the word. They address many issues I can relate to in every day life whilst being specific and not being too general.

Lol, what? Bible is just a patchwork of very old story, irrelevant to nowadays life, and that don't make much sense unless a priest cherry pick and gloses over them. It takes a great deal of indoctrination to fail to see that.

Christ, at least according to the bible, was not judged and condemned for being troublesome. The judge refused to judge against him, and effectively just decided to cede to the whims of the religious leaders demanding his head for political reasons.

Well, the judges were the religious leader. The Sanhedrin, a council of jewish religious leaders, are the ones who judged him and wanted him dead. Because at the time Israel was owned by the Roman empire, they had to ask the authorisation of the roman authority, Ponce Pilate, who according to tbe bible wasn't that keen on killing Jesus, but still let it happen. The main chief against Jesus was officialy idolatry, but yeah, he was condemmned mostly for political region: The local judges thought that if they let him brew trouble any longer, going around proclaiming to be King of Jews and all, there could be a harsh Roman responce crushing everyone in the ara, so in order to protect their people, they decided to preemptively get rid of Jesus before he could cause an actual uprising.

Science cannot disprove God.

It can, but it would be considered impolite to say it.

Science and it's representative (Richard Dawkins ) have for many years stated that they are "working" on finding the ultimate reason for the Big Bang.

Citation needed. Richard Dawkins is a biologist, not an astrophysist, so he can't be doing any research on the Big Bang. There isn't that much research going on about what caused the Big Bang, as there isn't much sense in that question: We're trapped inside the limits of the universe created by the Big Bang, and will never be able to access anything outside of it, so it's senseless to even try. It's only pseudo-scientist, such as journalists, philosophers, and people doing science vulgarisation, that ask question such as what was before Big Bang. The actual scientists are just researching about what happens immediatly after big bang, going closer and closer to it. If the question of what caused Big Bang really trouble you, I once found a cute explanation. Not sure it's scientifically correct, but it's mind-appeasing: Time was created by the Big Bang, before Big Bang, there was no time, so there is no before Big Bang.

Also, unlike religion, science is more a process, a way to approach problem, than a set of definitive answer. Science is an effective method to apprehend the world, find truth, determine the natural law that govern the world, so that you can then build things that works and reliably predict things out of your reach. But teaching the finding of sciences like Gospel is not science itself. So, saying are still patch of ignorance in current scientific knownledge in no way disprove science.

By the way, does your bible says what created God?

I will continue to disbelieve [...] evolution [...]

Hey, there's a question that always trouble me about people like you that don't believe in evolution: Do you believe in selecting breeding by the human hand? That is, do you believe the tales about how farmer got fatter cows by crossing their fatest cow and bull together, do you believe the story about how dog breeder can produce dogs of a given size and color by keeping on crossing dogs offspring that are the closest to their goal, do you believe the superstition about how you're more likely to get a fast running horse if both horse parents have won races, etc... ?

[Teutooni]

These two contradict.

Right. Your political and religious views seem very fundamental christian to me, yet you claim you are not christian?

[thelawenforcer]

i dont get your opposition to evolution and the big bang? surely the big bang would play nicely into the creation theory? on the other hand, evolution is a fact, theres no believing/not believing in it, it happens.

[thelawenforcer]

Science cannot disprove God.

It can, but it would be considered impolite to say it.

renders god redundant more like, making a theistic god almost impossible, but a deistic god would always be a possibility.

[Sucky_Lord]

Science cannot disprove God.

It can, but it would be considered impolite to say it.

It can't, because as was said before, Christianity will run and hide in another shadow.

These two contradict.

Right. Your political and religious views seem very fundamental christian to me, yet you claim you are not christian?

He cant be a Christian because

The only reason I am not a Christian is because I am too weak to live by it's morals. I have tried but at my age, it's just too hard for me to achieve. I hope that perhaps one day I'll have the courage to truly accept Christianity into my life.

Maybe one day he'll have the courage to accept an all-forgiving saviour deity into his life

[zwzsg]

For instance, god is supposed to listen to prayers. With proper statistical studies, it's been proven prayers don't work.

i dont get your opposition to evolution and the big bang? surely the big bang would play nicely into the creation theory?

Yes, it would, but it doesn't work like that. Right wing christian nuts are using denial of big bang and evolution as a trojan horse to reintroduce religious indoctrination into the compulsory education of innocent american children.

[Jazcash]

It's in fact proved that nobody believed the earth was flat, ever because the Bible has always stated the earth is a "globe".

What the church fought was not that the earth was round. It was that the earth circled around the sun. Because to admit the earth goes round the sun, was to admit the earth is not the centre of the universe.

I wouldn't know what the "church" fought against. I'm simply telling you that the Bible stated the earth was a globe long before people could fly into space and actually prove it.

Secondly, I'd probably go for the simple reading of the Bible. How a book so old can portray such relevant and accurate meaning is beyond me. Some of It's texts are simply beautiful in many a sense of the word. They address many issues I can relate to in every day life whilst being specific and not being too general.

Lol, what? Bible is just a patchwork of very old story, irrelevant to nowadays life, and that don't make much sense unless a priest cherry pick and gloses over them. It takes a great deal of indoctrination to fail to see that.

Some of the Bible is old and irrelevant, however, most of it is true to the modern world and unless you've read at least bits of it then you have no place to state what it teaches.

Science cannot disprove God.

It can, but it would be considered impolite to say it.

Richard Dawkins personally offered a large sum of money some time ago for anybody who could disprove the Bible. It never happened. If you're going to say science can disprove God, give some examples, proof or justification as to why you say that it can. Otherwise, there's no point saying it can.

By the way, does your bible says what created God?

The concept of God is that he is the ultimate creator. "I am the alpha and the omega". The beginning and the end.

I will continue to disbelieve [...] evolution [...]

Hey, there's a question that always trouble me about people like you that don't believe in evolution: Do you believe in selecting breeding by the human hand? That is, do you believe the tales about how farmer got fatter cows by crossing their fatest cow and bull together, do you believe the story about how dog breeder can produce dogs of a given size and color by keeping on crossing dogs offspring that are the closest to their goal, do you believe the superstition about how you're more likely to get a fast running horse if both horse parents have won races, etc... ?

The forced cross breeding of species is not relevant to evolution.

[Sucky_Lord]

The forced cross breeding of species is not relevant to evolution.

You clearly have absolutely no basic knowledge of biology, so please refrain from using any biology in defence of your delusions

[Jazcash]

For instance, god is supposed to listen to prayers. With proper statistical studies, it's been proven prayers don't work.

Just because he listens to prayers doesn't mean he does anything about them all. I myself don't believe that God performs miracles today and I don't believe in spiritual healing and all that crap.

You cannot statistically disprove the power of prayer. Especially if you consider a prayer to be something that is done by anybody for the purposes of greed.

i dont get your opposition to evolution and the big bang? surely the big bang would play nicely into the creation theory?

Yes, it would, but it doesn't work like that. Right wing christian nuts are using denial of big bang and evolution as a trojan horse to reintroduce religious indoctrination into the compulsory education of innocent american children.[/quote]

The Big Bang is a Theory. It's simply an old guess that scientists once made and if you choose to not believe in God, you turn to it simply because it's the only alternative you've got. It's a bad as a childhood rumour where somebody assumes something about somebody else, alerts somebody else of their assumption and after a while it turns into the common belief.

Without proper opposition or direction, that belief becomes common knowledge in the average person's head.

[Sucky_Lord]

The Big Bang is a Theory. It's simply an old guess that scientists once made

You clearly have no basic understanding of physics, please refrain from using physics in defence of your delusions

[Jazcash]

The forced cross breeding of species is not relevant to evolution.

You clearly have absolutely no basic knowledge of biology, so please refrain from using any biology in defence of your delusions

I have very little knowledge of biology. I am not using as defence, I'm stating it's not relevant.

If you believe in "evolution" you believe in natural evolution, not forced evolution. If you think humans came about because the dinosaurs forced monkeys to fuck chickens then you're very much mistaken for the actual theory of evolution.

All these things start out as ideas which eventually turn into commonplace. One day, some guy saw a monkey, thought "That looks a bit like a human", and so the idea grew and he forced himself to find justification for it.


As for evolution and the Big Bang being a fact. Refer to my earlier post. There is no such thing as a true fact which is the same in everybody's mind. Not to mention, most of the proof of the Big Bang is of what happened and how it happened. Not "did it happen?".
I'm fine for you to go ahead and justify how the Big Bang is scientifically correct, but I'd be more interested to see if you can prove if it did actually happen.

Lets say I can prove that the earth was once a big gobstopper. I have scientific evidence to prove that it's possible and that it could have happened. However, there's no way I can even begin to state if it did actually occur when I'm living in the 21st century.

[Sucky_Lord]

Lets say I can prove that the earth was once a big gobstopper. I have scientific evidence to prove that it's possible and that it could have happened. However, there's no way I can even begin to state if it did actually occur when I'm living in the 21st century.

If you can "prove" it, then it, along with evolution, is irrefutably correct.

If you think humans came about because the dinosaurs forced monkeys to fuck chickens then you're very much mistaken for the actual theory of evolution.

Erm.. no? Thats not what I believe at all?

If you believe in "evolution" you believe in natural evolution, not forced evolution

Both are the random mutations in the DNA of cells that allow the carrier better chances of survival, and therefore better chances to pass on the mutation.

I, unlike you, know exactly what evolution is, where it is applied, when it is relevant, and what I'm talking about.

[Jazcash]

Lets say I can prove that the earth was once a big gobstopper. I have scientific evidence to prove that it's possible and that it could have happened. However, there's no way I can even begin to state if it did actually occur when I'm living in the 21st century.

If you can "prove" it, then it, along with evolution, is irrefutably correct.

So you're saying that if something is possible, it most definitely happened? What sort of logic is that?

If you think humans came about because the dinosaurs forced monkeys to fuck chickens then you're very much mistaken for the actual theory of evolution.

Erm.. no? Thats not what I believe at all?

Then shutup.

If you believe in "evolution" you believe in natural evolution, not forced evolution

Both are the random mutations in the DNA of cells that allow the carrier better chances of survival, and therefore better chances to pass on the mutation.

I, unlike you, know exactly what evolution is, where it is applied, when it is relevant, and what I'm talking about.

I'm not going to argue with you on biological facts because most people here more a lot more than I do about biology. What I will argue with is that the theory of evolution is not based upon selective breeding which you seemed to eager to disagree with me on.

[Sucky_Lord]

So you're saying that if something is possible, it most definitely happened? What sort of logic is that?

No, I'm saying if you can "prove" something, then it definitely happened. You're totally misquoting me now and embarrassing yourself.

When did I say anything about "Dinosaurs forcing humans the fuck chickens" as my belief in evolution? You made that up and decided that I said it.

What I will argue with is that the theory of evolution is not based upon selective breeding which you seemed to eager to disagree with me on.

Could you please just highlight for me the differences between selective breeding and evolution? (Ignoring the "forced evolution" part, because that has nothing to do with the scientific basis of evolution)

[Jazcash]

So you're saying that if something is possible, it most definitely happened? What sort of logic is that?

No, I'm saying if you can "prove" something, then it definitely happened.

And I disagree with that. What about that don't you understand? If you prove something, that's all very well, proving whether it happened or not is a different matter.

When did I say anything about "Dinosaurs forcing humans the fuck chickens" as my belief in evolution? You made that up and decided that I said it.

The only biological thing that I said was that selective breeding is not how natural evolution works and you said "You clearly have absolutely no basic knowledge of biology" which implies you disagreed with my statement.

Could you please just highlight for me the differences between selective breeding and evolution? (Ignoring the "forced evolution" part, because that has nothing to do with the scientific basis of evolution)

zwzsg brought up the topic of "selecting breeding by the human hand" which is what I was talking about. I understand how evolution works and where you're confused. You think that I think that cross breeding is irrelevant in evolution. Obviously, it's relevant because that's how evolution works. I was disagreeing with the forced interspecies breeding which is when you cited me as knowing nothing of biology.

If you're going to quote me and insult my knowledge of the obvious then do it properly instead of just doing it without reading.

[momfreeek]

I used to know a guy who adamantly believed in the 'bible code'. It was an algorithm for reading selected letters of the bible to create new texts that he claimed predicted the future.

He had an endless series of statements that he claimed proved it was true. Lots of vague statments that (with hindsight) could be seen to describe real world events. Apparently this proved god (as god had hidden the code in the bible).

Of course, the whole thing was bollocks. You could prove any point in a vague way but being so vague it was useless for actually predicting anything. Because he could match things to stuff that really happened in the modern world he was absolutely convinced. It was pretty easy to show that the whole idea was ridiculous, but he would not budge.. he was so invested in the idea he just could not hear any different.

However it is read, there is obviously a lot of fiction in the bible (noahs ark is clearly not god-honest truth). Its easy to justify this fiction once you know it is that ("its just a story", "its not meant to be read like that" etc).. but that ignores the fact that it has been misleading for so long, for so many.

[Licho]

Its impossible to argue with people not educated in the subject you want to argue about.

You cannot transfer knowledge in 2 sentences to someone who refuses to even understand how science works and whats the difference between it and religion.

If someone wishes to believe into something without reason, I suggest you let them do so.
I hope, that over time such people show lower reproductive success (no need for drugs, god will heal me!) and eliminate this annoying trait from humans!

[Sucky_Lord]

If you prove something, that's all very well, proving whether it happened or not is a different matter.

You clearly have absolutely no understanding of the word "proof", and your contradictions are painful to read

The only biological thing that I said was that selective breeding is not how natural evolution works and you said "You clearly have absolutely no basic knowledge of biology" which implies you disagreed with my statement.

Exactly, selective breeding is the same as evolution, it's just been sped up. So yes, I do disagree with you, and I still have no idea how you then decided that I believe

humans came about because the dinosaurs forced monkeys to fuck chickens

You think that I think that cross breeding is irrelevant in evolution. Obviously, it's relevant because that's how evolution works. I was disagreeing with the forced interspecies breeding which is when you cited me as knowing nothing of biology.

Of course I dont think that. Im going to quote you for what you said, and why I disagree:

The forced cross breeding of species is not relevant to evolution.

You clearly have absolutely no basic knowledge of biology, so please refrain from using any biology in defence of your delusions

"Forced cross breeding of species is not relevant to evolution", of course it is relevant. It partially proves evolution.

You've misquoted me repeatedly and refused to consider the science behind what I'm saying.

At least we sort of answered Regret's question: It is possible to have totally different 'beliefs' for you, and 'theories' for me, yet not punch each other in the face.

[Jazcash]

You cannot transfer knowledge in 2 sentences to someone who refuses to even understand how science works and whats the difference between it and religion.

Agreed. The same can be said of religion however.

As for Sucky_lord, there's no point in us arguing. We cannot shape each other's beliefs on a forum board. I'm only partaking in this topic because I'm trying to convey what I believe, not what I think you should all believe.

I don't really wish to attack your beliefs, I simply want to defend my own. It's all too often that beliefs and movements get slated and people's judgements about them are changed because there is no real defence for them.

That's all from me on the subject of religion, if you wish to discuss it further then feel free to PM some time.

[zwzsg]

Some of the Bible is old and irrelevant, however, most of it is true to the modern world and unless you've read at least bits of it then you have no place to state what it teaches.

Heathen! The bible is the word of God! God does not ever make error. God does not change his mind! God is all knowing! And yes, I do have read chunks of the bible.

Just because he listens to prayers doesn't mean he does anything about them all.

Are you telling me god is ignoring all and every prayer addressed to him? Because if so, I must have missed the point of prayer. I was pretty sure that god answered to at least some prayer. Cold facts shows he does not.

Especially if you consider a prayer to be something that is done by anybody for the purposes of greed.

No. Both old testament God and new testament Jesus made it rather clear that you can't use their miraculous power to gain money, women, power, fame. No, what I'm refering to, is honest prayer from pure hearted christian to save innocent beings from unjust afflication. The typical case being when a child gets a cancer, and the family prays from for him/her.

Sure, preacher will tell you about some of those many accounts from miraculous recovery that doctors can't explain. But what they will not tell you is that there are exactly as many miraculous recovery if you pray or not, if your follow Jesus's teaching or Mahomet's teaching, if you believe in a greater being or not. But sadly you need to accept a bit of science, especially math and statistic, to understand why a single case proves nothing, that the law of great number only applies to great numbers, and since accident and sickness are rather rare, and miraculous recovery even rarer, registering and sorting lots of them requires methods that you'd libel scientific.

You cannot statistically disprove the power of prayer.

I can. Measure the recovery rate of cancer in christian people, and in atheist people: They are the same. This prove prayer has no power.

This guy explains it better:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god1.htm
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god11.htm
...

The Big Bang is a Theory.

Don't forget the word "theory" takes a slight change of meaning between everyday language and scientific language. While in everyday language, a theory is something far fetched and likely to be untrue, in science theories keeps being named theories long after they've been confirmed multiple times. The usual way to show that a scientific theory really holds, and is useful, is to be able to draw conclusion from that theory that you wouldn't get otherwise, then test if the conclusion the theory predict are actually found. There's been such predictions from the big bang theory, that were later found, such as the background radiation of the universe, the red shift of far objects, the relative composition of elements, ...

Richard Dawkins personally offered a large sum of money some time ago for anybody who could disprove the Bible. It never happened. If you're going to say science can disprove God, give some examples, proof or justification as to why you say that it can. Otherwise, there's no point saying it can.

Disproving the bible is easier than disproving god, since the bible is more clearly defined, and the bible is filled with self-contradiction.

The concept of God is that he is the ultimate creator. "I am the alpha and the omega". The beginning and the end.

The concept of Big Bang is that it is the ultimate creator. The beginning of everything.

The forced cross breeding of species is not relevant to evolution.

Excuse me?

1) You did not answer the question. Do you believe in the power of human controlled cross-breeding, yes or no?

2) It is relevant to evolution. By creating sub-species in a controlled experiment, you show that species evolve when condition are imposed on them.

you turn to it simply because it's the only alternative you've got.

Actually, no. It would be far more easy for me to believe in a static or cyclical universe, that in one with a beginning.

And did you get the point about how the the truth or completdness of a particular science finding is largely irrelevant about the righteoussness of science as a whole? Unlike religion, science does not proclaim to hold every truth about everything, 100% correct, from the start. It's an iterating process, able to recognise its own past error. It's also strange to see people like you always oppose science and christianism, like if science was another kind of religion. Science is not holy teaching dispersed onto the crowd by a scientist clergy. It's just a formalisation of the common sense logic that every human, except idiot and devout christians, possess. Science is not limited to particle accelerator and white labs filled with vial of strange chemical, it's a way of making deductions then testing them, a method that can even help you in everyday's life if you wished to open your eyes and try to understand better the world around you instead of doing what you're told / what everybody else does. Science and religion should be largely irrelevant to each other, the only trouble is logic can debunk christianism as the collection of fairytale that it is.