Religion and Lack of Religion

[shy ♡]

:\ No. They're not. They're Jews. And they don't deny people cancer treatment because if you live by the old testament (or the Torah) then you live by 'respect life above all else', and 'respect thy neighbor', and 'treat others as you'd wish to be treated'.

Also 'no haircuts' is just a misunderstanding of the actual rule. Sigh. I don't understand how anyone can live according to a poor translation of a book.

 

[bulbasaur]

Yeah no. There's a lot in your post I want to talk about, but this is what I'm going for at the moment. The bible isn't consistent with itself at all. You can't criticise science for changing on a dime and love the bible for it's consistency when it's full of contridictions, with a good amount listed here.


Okay, so the "text free of contradiction" is null for Christianity and Judaism (and possibly Islam). Check above post for a sizeable list. Could you give some examples of "religious texts directly contradict[ing] early scientific theories, and turn out to be correct after hundreds of years?", instead of just stating they exist. And the Great Flood story is featured in the folklore of such diverse places as the Middle East, India, China, Australia, southern Asia, the islands of the Pacific, Europe, and the Americas. These religions cannot take claim for it as evidence of their own existence when this story was incredibly popular already. All they did was tack on their own religious names and themes. Not a full explanation, really, but I don't think there is one, at present. It certainly isn't a grounds for believing in the religion all on its own.

Not any specific religion, but a religion, which would explain this better than what other explanations I could find (of course, if MD's link is true, then this case is closed).

The poor reading comprehension of whoever made that list astounds. If there's some you'd like me to explain, I can probably do that; in general, most of the things on that page are funny because they're taken out of context.

An example would be that, contrary to beliefs at the time, air has weight.
--When He imparted weight to the wind
And meted out the waters by measure (Job 28:25)

Tarvos:
"In fact, in response to this I would like to post a good old rant written by Graham Hughes (a world traveller and awesome dude). Clicky, go down a little to skip the blog entry bit and read the stuff he wrote about fundamentalism. You will find it enlightening."

I find it insulting. At the first personal insult I stopped reading. Is there a version of this without all the personal attacks? From what I gleaned, though, it seems like the person was trying to work to, because we rely so much on Science, we should not be compelled to believe in God? In which case, I assert that the Scientific Method and Religion are not mutually exclusive.

MD:
"How [would it take faith to believe scientific theories]?"
Science attempts to explain phenomena it observes. Even if the observations are consistent with an explanation, it may not be correct (although it probably is). It just represents the most likely explanation out there, and until we have something better, having the faith to believe it is good.

As for your links for the ark, I'm not sure what source to believe. The link you gave me tells of no biological carbon found, while this other source tells of Carbon-14 dating it to 4800 years ago.

"... What historical evidence are you referring to, and how reliable is it?"
Mostly, how could so many separate cultures each have deities? How could some beliefs, if they were wrong, last for thousands of years (Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism)?

Poly:
"it was written like a bunch of stuff someone made up to explain the universe"
Science is a bunch of stuff someone made up to explain the universe!

 

[Tarvos]

I find it insulting. At the first personal insult I stopped reading. Is there a version of this without all the personal attacks? From what I gleaned, though, it seems like the person was trying to work to, because we rely so much on Science, we should not be compelled to believe in God? In which case, I assert that the Scientific Method and Religion are not mutually exclusive.

You need to get thicker skin if you see someone disagrees with you, mate. Also, you really have NOT READ THE WHOLE DAMN THING, because you were put off once somebody did NOT actually believe in God and thus deigned it possible to use a few terms that really point out how egregiously insane religion is to someone who was not brought up being religious. Put yourself for a moment in my shoes: I am an atheist. I am the least religious person on the planet. What the hell would you think if you saw someone spouting the things they did? Really, there is nothing particularly insulting in that blog post, even if he is being serious about its threats (and you should be able to notice when he's exaggerating for comic effect and separate this from his actual point). If he had wanted to be truly insulting, it would have been much much worse than this.

And his point was: you rely on science. This means you are a HYPOCRITE for saying that any, any, any of us believe that science is just a theory. You are a hypocrite if you call us fundamentalist, because everytime you use a toaster or step on a plane, you are using scientific techniques and trusting them to make sure you are fed and clothed. You are a scientific fundamentalist as much as I am because you're not a goodie gumdrops person who would actually walk off a cliff to prove gravity isn't real or evolution isn't real.

You cannot rebuff saying "Science is religion because it requires faith" because you are using that same faith to justify everything normal and aspiritual that you are doing in your life right now. The faith you are talking about, the blind faith in religion, is a very different kind of faith and has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing here, which is the probability of normal events happening and how science predicts them. It does not work like that.

Also, the mutual exclusivity is a strawman. Please don't try to divert from my point and argue pertaining to what I am actually saying, here, please. This topic is complex enough as it is without you providing all the unwanted and unnecessary sidetracking and backtracking and forwardtracking and adding in all the semi-irrelevant stuff clogging up this type of debate on a daily basis.

Mostly, how could so many separate cultures each have deities? How could some beliefs, if they were wrong, last for thousands of years (Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism)?

You do realise, just for a moment, that this is a question that is a) loaded (it assumes that just because beliefs are lasting, they must be true, which is a fallacy) and b) there are so many possible ways to answer that question without invoking any existence of God whatsoever?

I could set out a reason for you why I personally think that religion has endured for such a long while, but I also know you will not enjoy the explanation because it's going to paint religion in quite a bad light (I believe it's a type of brainwashing, in short).

Science is a bunch of stuff someone made up to explain the universe!

Anything is a bunch of stuff someone made up to explain the universe. The question really is, what's your backup for making the statement. And this is where the definition of making stuff up comes in - science isn't making stuff up in the sense that they just think of things and then claim them to be true. Scientists observe, keep detailed logs, and spend horribly large amounts of time observing minute details, processes and phenomena it is silly to think about the amount of time and effort invested into it. In other words, if you want an explanation for why science works, all you need to do is ask the local scientist in your area who happens to be knowledgeable on the topic and you'll get a good, decent-working answer with a shitload of sources at your disposal to peruse, check out, and investigate almost any time you like. That's how science works.

Religion just says that's the story. That's a kind of big difference, you know. To say science is stuff people made up to explain the universe is not only demeaning to those (like me) who have spent hours working on science and making it work, it's not just belittling to those who have spent hours and hours making your planes fly and your cars drive and your neighbourhood green and your electricity function, but it's just also plain wrong.

If anything is insulting to a scientist, it should be that statement you just made.

 

[hopeandjoy]

Why do so many cultures have deities? Because the first one did.

 

[Autumn]

Science is a bunch of stuff someone made up to explain the universe!

let me rephrase that

it was a bunch of stuff with little to no evidence supporting it that someone made up to explain the universe

also, science isn't "made up" but people have already argued that

 

[Coroxn]

The poor reading comprehension of whoever made that list astounds. If there's some you'd like me to explain, I can probably do that; in general, most of the things on that page are funny because they're taken out of context.

Where's the context that explains:
1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6

4. God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16

18. God accepts human sacrifices
2 Sam 21:8,9,14/ Gen 22:2/ Judg 11:30-32,34,38,39
God forbids human sacrifice
Deut 12:30,31

and
25. Lying approved and sanctioned
Josh 2:4-6/ James 2:25/ Ex 1:18-20/ 1 Kings 22:21,22
Lying forbidden
Ex 20:16/ Prov 12:22/ Rev 21:8

Seems like some fairly mutually exclusive stuff to me.

 

[Cerberus87]

The Bible does not remain the same message because the way it's been interpreted has changed along the years, so much so that there has been split in Catholicism and there are dozens of small churches in countries that all interpret the Bible differently.

 

[bulbasaur]

You need to get thicker skin if you see someone disagrees with you, mate. Also, you really have NOT READ THE WHOLE DAMN THING, because you were put off once somebody did NOT actually believe in God and thus deigned it possible to use a few terms that really point out how egregiously insane religion is to someone who was not brought up being religious. Put yourself for a moment in my shoes: I am an atheist. I am the least religious person on the planet. What the hell would you think if you saw someone spouting the things they did? Really, there is nothing particularly insulting in that blog post, even if he is being serious about its threats (and you should be able to notice when he's exaggerating for comic effect and separate this from his actual point). If he had wanted to be truly insulting, it would have been much much worse than this.

Not believing in God doesn't mean that this person has to call those who do - not their ideas - "mental".

And his point was: you rely on science. This means you are a HYPOCRITE for saying that any, any, any of us believe that science is just a theory. You are a hypocrite if you call us fundamentalist, because everytime you use a toaster or step on a plane, you are using scientific techniques and trusting them to make sure you are fed and clothed. You are a scientific fundamentalist as much as I am because you're not a goodie gumdrops person who would actually walk off a cliff to prove gravity isn't real or evolution isn't real.

I did not call you fundamentalist. Besides, isn't it just fine and dandy to rely on such scientific discoveries, even if they are just theories, as what I read of your article claims?

You cannot rebuff saying "Science is religion because it requires faith" because you are using that same faith to justify everything normal and aspiritual that you are doing in your life right now. The faith you are talking about, the blind faith in religion, is a very different kind of faith and has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing here, which is the probability of normal events happening and how science predicts them. It does not work like that.

I did not imply science is religion. I just say that it requires minimal amounts of faith.
Religion is not blind faith, as you seem to call it. Most of those who believe in it (from those who I talk to) actually weigh the odds against other possibilities, then decided that those possibilities are probably not true!

You do realise, just for a moment, that this is a question that is a) loaded (it assumes that just because beliefs are lasting, they must be true, which is a fallacy)

Well, because beliefs are lasting, they probably are true. Not necessarily, though. It is loaded in the sense that it turns the responsibility of proving it onto you.

and b) there are so many possible ways to answer that question without invoking any existence of God whatsoever? I could set out a reason for you why I personally think that religion has endured for such a long while, but I also know you will not enjoy the explanation because it's going to paint religion in quite a bad light (I believe it's a type of brainwashing, in short).

Please do explain (as long as there's no personal insults)!

Anything is a bunch of stuff someone made up to explain the universe.

Not "anything", but lots of stuff. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary wasn't made to explain the universe, nor was the menu at some restaurant.

Religion just says that's the story. That's a kind of big difference, you know.

To be fair, it is a well constructed, mainly consistent story.

To say science is stuff people made up to explain the universe is not only demeaning to those (like me) who have spent hours working on science and making it work, it's not just belittling to those who have spent hours and hours making your planes fly and your cars drive and your neighbourhood green and your electricity function, but it's just also plain wrong.

While belittling people who spend hours and hours trying to decipher religious texts so that your supposed after-life is saved is okay? I appreciate scientific advancements, I honestly do. But that doesn't change that, in the science labs I've participated in, you have a hypothesis or a prediction which is making things up that seem likely, then proceed to verify or disprove it.

If anything is insulting to a scientist, it should be that statement you just made.

I'm not trying to attack scientists personally; where did you get that from my post? I'm trying to say that scientific theories are not end-all-be-all. Having a theory that lasts 2000 years is a pretty good sign, though.

Conor:
1: During Gen. 1.31, God is satisfied with his works. However, by Gen. 6.6, the Devil had corrupted man.

4:This one's a bit tricky, but in essence, Moses only saw God's image. http://www.firstcenturychristian.com/answers/answers_145.htm explains it plausibly.

18: Deuteronomy 12:31 forbids human sacrifice of your own sons and daughters.

25: The verse before your James 2:25 says that the ends justifies the means, and cites Joshua 2:4-6 as an example. The other all lie to achieve a positive effect.
I'm guessing that the Proverbs and Revelations verses are for those who lie to achieve evil means. The Exodus verse is, in modern-day language, "You shall not lie in court".

 

[opaltiger]

Genesis 1 says God created other animals before Adam. Genesis 2 says God created Adam before other animals. I'm not sure how you can possibly explain that, and surely the Creation is one of the things you'd really hope the Bible would get right.

Having a theory that lasts 2000 years is a pretty good sign, though.

You seem to be implying the Bible has the same status as a theory. Why?

 

[bulbasaur]

Genesis 1 says God created other animals before Adam. Genesis 2 says God created Adam before other animals. I'm not sure how you can possibly explain that, and surely the Creation is one of the things you'd really hope the Bible would get right.

Notice the pluperfect tense used in chapter 2: "19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky." (If this is the passage you're referring to)

You seem to be implying the Bible has the same status as a theory. Why?

Well, even though I personally spurn it, it tries to explain of the nature of God, of Jesus, of what's to come, and offer evidence (the text itself) independently observed and verified many times over. The troubling thing is that the results are inconsistently reproduced and the documentation is possibly not reliable.

 

[Light]

The poor reading comprehension of whoever made that list astounds. If there's some you'd like me to explain, I can probably do that; in general, most of the things on that page are funny because they're taken out of context.

I second this.

 

[opaltiger]

Notice the pluperfect tense used in chapter 2: "19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky." (If this is the passage you're referring to)

Genesis 2:5-7 imply that there is no life on Earth before Adam, though I grant you it doesn't specify about animals. It definitely confirms that plants came after Adam, though, which contradicts Genesis 1.

Well, even though I personally spurn it, it tries to explain of the nature of God, of Jesus, of what's to come, and offer evidence (the text itself) independently observed and verified many times over. The troubling thing is that the results are inconsistently reproduced and the documentation is possibly not reliable.

You can't just say things like "independently observed and verified many times over". I have no idea what you mean by that - I certainly haven't noticed many independent verifications of the Bible. Even if there are, why does that make it a theory? Is it falsifiable? Does it make predictions? Does it explain ranges of phenomena, including newly discovered phenomena? It's true no one can quite agree on how to separate science from non-science, but I am having difficulty thinking of any criterion under which the Bible would be called a scientific theory.

 

[Light]

Genesis 2:5-7 imply that there is no life on Earth before Adam, though I grant you it doesn't specify about animals. It definitely confirms that plants came after Adam, though, which contradicts Genesis 1.

What version are you using?

Originally Posted By: NIV
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

So there were no shrubs and plants hadn't sprung up yet 'cause they hadn't been watered. And then they're watered. And then comes Adam.

You can't just say things like "independently observed and verified many times over". I have no idea what you mean by that - I certainly haven't noticed many independent verifications of the Bible. Even if there are, why does that make it a theory? Is it falsifiable? Does it make predictions? Does it explain ranges of phenomena, including newly discovered phenomena? It's true no one can quite agree on how to separate science from non-science, but I am having difficulty thinking of any criterion under which the Bible would be called a scientific theory.

I would say a prophecy is akin to a theory, which the Bible has many of those. Also, we can make falsifiable predictions about what happened in the past based on what is recorded in the bible.

 

[bulbasaur]

Genesis 2:5-7 imply that there is no life on Earth before Adam, though I grant you it doesn't specify about animals. It definitely confirms that plants came after Adam, though, which contradicts Genesis 1.

Meh, it's quite unclear, I agree. Looking at different translations, how I'd interpret it is as such: "5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground. 6 So the LORD God made streams come up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
This makes a lot more sense, as plants could have grown (for some time) with water but without a human.

You can't just say things like "independently observed and verified many times over". I have no idea what you mean by that - I certainly haven't noticed many independent verifications of the Bible. Even if there are, why does that make it a theory? Is it falsifiable? Does it make predictions? Does it explain ranges of phenomena, including newly discovered phenomena? It's true no one can quite agree on how to separate science from non-science, but I am having difficulty thinking of any criterion under which the Bible would be called a scientific theory.

There are testimonies from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Moses, David, Solomon, and more.
As for falsifiableness: extraterrestrial life, ancient civilizations/rulers referred to in the Bible that don't exist, gaping inconsistency within itself would kill any possibility of the Bible being true, for a vast majority of believers.
It does make predictions: the hundred of prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament; the predictions of what to come in Revelation.
It does explain the phenomenon of existence. Not quite so with newly discovered phenomena (then again the theory of gravity didn't quite explain any newly-observed phenomena in Newton's time)

 

[Phantom]

Argh we are REPEATING a conversation that's already happened. Except now there's no Pwnemon

I am now going to repeat what I said then. I would link posts, but there are soo many and they are so deep... yeah...

About the science is always changing point. That's the point of evolution! The world is ever changing! Nothing is stationary! That's the point! In fact the planets are called 'planets' because they are never stopping, always in constant motion! That's the point!

Ah the "God of the Gaps"...


Now who wrote the Bible?

The various dialects and word usage used in the law books suggest multiple sources and revisionism. It's thought that Yahweh (the god of the bible, also known as 'The God of Abraham') was part of polytheistic myths where different countries had different gods. Yahweh was the god of war and became Israel's god. And then they were revised when Deuteronomy (the last of the Torah) came about to make it monotheistic.

Which explains the massive amount of holy wars in the law books, the fact that there are various phrases indicating multiple gods. Why Yahweh/Moses were so against worshipping of other gods and why Yahweh is consistently referred to as 'the LORD your God'.

Similar things to the Jesus story had been done again and again before Jesus and it's thought that it was reused by the authors of the Gospels. Virgin births, three day resurrections, saviours and similar phrases like "Horus the Child" come from the Egyptian myths about Horus.

There is some evidence to suggest that the genesis creation story (namely the first chapter), existed before the book Genesis did. And was part of a polytheistic religion. Hence the leftover of:

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

There is also evidence of lots of civilisations being older than Noah's flood.
Of the four Gospels in the New Testament; Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Three of them, Matthew, Mark and Luke, are called the synoptic gospels. This is because they agree moderately well on the life and teachings of Jesus, although each is a little different from the other two.

The Gospel of John is a different matter. Some scholars believe that John was originally written in a Gnostic community and was subsequently edited to remove some of the more clearly Gnostic material, although the gospel still has similarities with the Gnostic ways.

John differs from the synoptic Gospels because it is not just listing events in the life of Jesus. John is more thematic in nature and less chronological, and provides more theological discourse on the person and work of Christ.

The Bible is imperfect because humans have been trying to "perfect" it for centuries. Chapters have been removed, even entire Gospels....

For example...

The Gospel of Judas (Removed unknown time)

Psalm 151
Wisdom of Solomon
Susanna
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees
Sirach
Baruch
Tobit
Bel and the Dragon
Azariah
Epistle of Jeremiah
Prayer of Manasseh
4 Ezra OR 2 Esdras
Judith
Additions to the Book of Esther
1 Esdras
(Were all removed from the Protestant Bible in 1769.)



In fact certain points contradict each other for example:

There are two versions of the creation story, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

Also the fact that there are two in the FIRST PLACE.

First (Genesis 1:1-2:3)
(Humans were created after the other animals.)

"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image."

Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)
(Humans were created before the other animals.)

"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. "

First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3)
(Animals were made first. The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

(ANIMALS MADE FIRST)

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them;male and female he created them.

Also how can there be livestock? Why would it be called livestock anyways? weird.

Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Moving to the Gospels and later:

Can one pray in public?

Matthew 6:5-6 Jesus condemned public prayer.

1 Timothy 2:8 Paul encouraged public prayer.

If we decide to do good works, should those works be seen?

Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works."

1 Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that ... they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation."

This contradicts: Matthew 6:1-4 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them…that thine alms may be in secret." Matthew 23:3-5 "Do not ye after their [Pharisees'] works ... all their works they do for to be seen of men."

When was Christ crucified?

Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour and they crucified him." John 19:14-15 "And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?" John 19:14-15.

Has anyone (mortal) ascended up to heaven?

Elijah went up to heaven: "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." 2 Kings 2:11
John 3:13"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man."

Is scripture inspired by God?

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God." 2 Timothy 3:16

compared to:
1 Corinthians 7:6 "But I speak this by permission and not by commandment."
1 Corinthians 7:12 "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord."
2 Corinthians. "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord"


The Bible contradicts itself, therefore it is not perfect. Edit something a thousand times and it will never have the same meaning. There are THOUSANDS of versions of the Bible, all claiming by fervent believers that THEIR version is correct.

NOW: if you were to tell me that when I was Christian that I was a "bad" one, then you are as well. See according to the Catechism it's, get this, YOUR fault that I'm atheist. Yep. You failed in YOUR duty to keep me nice and Christian. Your fault. Now you have to say that in your next confession.

CCC 2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion. 61 The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."

 

[Tarvos]

Not believing in God doesn't mean that this person has to call those who do - not their ideas - "mental".

If you're not religious, claiming to believe a religious story certainly appears to be just that - mental. This is why I asked you to empathise with my position, that of the religious unbeliever

I did not call you fundamentalist. Besides, isn't it just fine and dandy to rely on such scientific discoveries, even if they are just theories, as what I read of your article claims?

It is fine and dandy, but you don't get to claim that religion is ok just because science requires faith (which is a totally different kind of faith and like I said below, distracting). This is such a poor argument...

I did not imply science is religion. I just say that it requires minimal amounts of faith.

The same minimal amount of faith it requires to function and be a normal human being. This minimal amount of faith, as you call it, has nothing to do with the topic at hand and is really distracting from the real discussion.

Religion is not blind faith, as you seem to call it. Most of those who believe in it (from those who I talk to) actually weigh the odds against other possibilities, then decided that those possibilities are probably not true!

No. Blind faith is exactly what it is. (Besides, it's not about weighing the odds; but even if you're going to go that route the odds of god existing are basically infinity to one against. If you'd properly weighed the odds you would know that).

No, people have faith despite the evidence. That's what blind faith means. Even if we show most religious people all the evidence in the world they will still say they are religious.

Well, because beliefs are lasting, they probably are true.

I. I am amazed. Wow. Just absolutely wow.

I am going to take a small step back, and read this again.

Just because we've held for a long time that the earth was flat doesn't mean we were wrong about it. How long you hold a belief does not have any impact on its truth value, and furthermore some beliefs that are wrong have been held for so long it's actually kind of disturbing.

Not necessarily, though. It is loaded in the sense that it turns the responsibility of proving it onto you.

The problem is I have zero responsibility to prove anything, because I didn't come up with the cock-and-bull story here. You did ;)

Please do explain (as long as there's no personal insults)!

It's been perpetuated by brainwashing. People have (been) forced to bring up their kids religiously by the immensely powerful and rich churches that populate this world. It's very easy to believe that something is true when it's been drilled into you from childhood, but that doesn't make it true.

Not "anything", but lots of stuff. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary wasn't made to explain the universe, nor was the menu at some restaurant.

It. Was. A. Joke.

To be fair, it is a well constructed, mainly consistent story.

Please don't say these things if you want to keep houses all over the world clean. Someone might splutter their morning coffee all over the kitchen table. The Bible a mainly consistent story?

In what universe do you even live?

What are you smoking?

While belittling people who spend hours and hours trying to decipher religious texts so that your supposed after-life is saved is okay? I appreciate scientific advancements, I honestly do. But that doesn't change that, in the science labs I've participated in, you have a hypothesis or a prediction which is making things up that seem likely, then proceed to verify or disprove it.

No, but it changes the entire situation when you gather evidence. based on previously verified knowledge and then proceed to use it to verify your hypothesis.

You are dismissing hours of work spent on GATHERING EVIDENCE TO MAKE SURE THE PREDICTION IS CORRECT. THE PREDICTION IS NOT JUST ASSUMED TO BE TRUE, IT'S ONLY ASSUMED TO BE VALID FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS MADE IN AFTER WE SPENT HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS CHECKING THAT IT WAS TRUE AND THAT THERE ARE NO LOOPHOLES, DISCREPANCIES, ETC.

Get it?

Evidence. This is the single thing you need to understand. Science makes claims that we can reliably have faith in because they are verified claims ANYONE, including you, can go and verify.

Religious people have faith because it's God's Word. This is such a huge difference it is not even funny.

Religion just claims God exists point blank without any verification whatsoever. Wikipedia would say citation needed. ;)

I'm not trying to attack scientists personally; where did you get that from my post? I'm trying to say that scientific theories are not end-all-be-all. Having a theory that lasts 2000 years is a pretty good sign, though.

I've already addressed this, but let me say that at least, science has backup.

 

[Phantom]

Religion is not blind faith, as you seem to call it. Most of those who believe in it (from those who I talk to) actually weigh the odds against other possibilities, then decided that those possibilities are probably not true!

Ah, Pascal's Wager? The 'safer' route is to "believe so in case I am right I don't have worry, and if I'm wrong so what"? /oversimplification

I'm sure you've heard of 'indoctrination'? If not, look it up. Because that's the one thing that just derailed your entire argument there.

Take my experience growing up in private catholic schools, how about you take a look at the seven sacrements, see how much choice I had.

In the Catholic Church you go through seven Sacraments, there are four 'basic' ones that all Catholics need to go through and one before they die. In a Private Catholic school usually they are laid out for you when and where you receive your sacraments.

1. Baptism- Most are baptised as babies, within a few months after birth. ( holy water marked over head, some stuff with a candle, blah blah blah)

2. Reconciliation (Confession)- In second grade we went through Reconciliation classes. Teaching us what we needed to do during Confession. Prayers, what you say to the priest etc. In fact I still the Act of Contrition... "O my God I am sorry for my sins. In choosing to do wrong and failing to do good. I have sinned against you whom I should love above all things. I firmly intend, with your help, to do good, to sin no more, and to avoid whatever leads me to sin. Amen." I learned that when I was seven. IT'S BURNED INTO MY BRAIN.

3. Eucharist - you-car-ist- (Communion) For almost three months in second grade (along with Confession class they were taught at the same time in my school) how to receive the Eucharist. AKA Jesus in handy cracker form. Learned handy things like what to do if you drop the host, (EAT IT EAAT IT NOW!), and which hand goes over the other. (Create a cradle with your hands like you're holding baby Jesus kids! Left hand over right, and when the host is on your left hand pick it up with your right and deposit it on your tongue!)

4. Confirmation- the reason I am pissed that I went through Confirmation is because it finalized my 'commitment' to the Catholic Church. AKA the only way I can be 'removed' from it's list of worshippers is to be EXCOMMUNICATED!! DUNDUNDUN! Since we're Baptised as babies we go through final Confirmation when we're older, usually between 8-10th grade, through a month long class and community service and a large Mass lead by the Archbishop. We even take a Saint's name. I chose St. Elizabeth. You receive a handy oil cross on your forehead and say "Yep I believe!"

5. Marriage- obvious

6 Holy Orders- Becoming clergy, nun, priest etc.

7. Last Rites- Get blessed and freed of sin before you die.

Note, I oversimplified things.

All this stuff, implanted in my brain. Hell I went to a funeral for my great grandfather two weeks ago. And during the Mass I kept having this feeling like I should be doing something. (Leftover I assume from being a server for so long.)

It's like I became a freaky cult-child, having prayers and ritruals burned into my brain.

Also, as I've said before:

We are all atheists in respects to Zeus and Thor. Their faith that their people had for deities were as strong as any faith or belief now with the God of Abraham. How could people with such faith toss away this faith and instead worship another? Proof that faith is fleeting.

I believe that religion, especially this blind faith, is dangerous. Millions, no, billions, have died in religious conflict, in the name of their respective gods. Isn't killing still killing whether or not it is in the name of a deity? Is it still wrong to believe that killing is bad? Should I walk over to my neighbor who is Muslim and shoot him, and when the police question me I say it was because he was a non believer? It sounds wrong because it is. Yet millions have died in the same conflict for the sake of faith and religion. The Crusades, the Spanish Conquistadores, the Inquisition, the French Wars of Religion, Protestants vs. Catholics, Thirty Years War, Taipeng Rebellion, the Islamic notion of Jihad, the Jewish Milchemet Mitzvah, the Christian Milites Christi, the Holocaust, the Reconquista, and many more.

 

[opaltiger]

Meh, it's quite unclear, I agree. Looking at different translations, how I'd interpret it is as such: "5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground. 6 So the LORD God made streams come up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
This makes a lot more sense, as plants could have grown (for some time) with water but without a human.

Phantom's post clearly shows the contradiction, so I'll drop this.

There are testimonies from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Moses, David, Solomon, and more.

You're using parts of the Bible to "independently" verify the Bible. Forgive me if I am not convinced.

It does make predictions: the hundred of prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament; the predictions of what to come in Revelation.

Maybe you could actually name some of these.

It does explain the phenomenon of existence. Not quite so with newly discovered phenomena (then again the theory of gravity didn't quite explain any newly-observed phenomena in Newton's time)

It did in the next century, though. The Bible's had two thousand years and counting, and its claims are still all ad hoc.

 

[bulbasaur]

I'm going to withdraw out of this (I've changed my attitude) because Phantom made a very good point in his second post.

Please note though: The two stories of creation are compatible if you look at the second in non-chronological order; I don't smoke; the Bible does tell a mostly-consistent story; the "us" in Phantom's first verse is referring to the Trinity; see this page (especially 4 and 10) for recently-fulfilled prophecies; any religious text verifies a hypothesis (the doctrine of its religion), not itself; what is CCC2125?; there are dozens of versions of the Bible out of necessity, because each translation does not touch the heart of everyone; ascended in John 3:13 means, by one's own power where Elijah (and Enoch) were taken up to heaven; I suppose that there was a period of time between when Pilate gave the death order and when Jesus was actually crucified, which happens to be 21 hours; you should do good for the glory of God, while alms should be secret because if you're dumping massive amounts of money in public, you're just glorifying yourself; Jesus is using hyperbole when he says, "when thout prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou hast shut thy door, pray", while Paul encouraged prayer whenever, even in public, but not "showing off" to others as "Lifting up your holy hands" is a metaphor; I'd like to see some links which back Phantom up (for the first part of his post); I don't see how the Holocaust is a religious war; there is evidence to back most religions up (it's a matter of the amount of and the quality of evidence, as you pointed out); when Newton first formulated his theory of gravity, he had to give evidence of it - he might have said that gravity not existing was "cock-and-bull" but in the end, he was the one who had to provide evidence for gravity; how did "indoctrination" derail my argument?

I'm sorry that you have no option to "unconfirm" or anything, Phantom. Have you talked to your minister about it (or made him do CCC2125)?

 

[hopeandjoy]

Why would the trinity (a Christian symbol) be in Genesis (a Jewish religious text)?