The Religion Discussion

[No Mediacore]

Fonies

[Slartibartfast]

That's the problem. Your answers are not shaped by evidence but the assumption that the bible is right. I base my views on what the evidence that is presented to me at the point in time. Krauss has written the most comprehensive book on the big bang for laymen to understand and his arguments are valid. So to is Dawkins with evolution. If however new evidence came to light that prove them wrong or offered a better explanation then I would change my view.

I think we have finally reached an impasse. Your best arguments have not convinced me and my most logical arguments have not swayed you.

As fun as this was I think I'm done arguing for now.... again lol. I'll pop in from time to time but if I feel to. No hard feelings.

[No Mediacore]

its only blacksheep and dem wasting time and effort to educate a Ms. man name starBart hoss

[Habit7]

Can you present to objective, repeatable, observable evidence of something coming nothing?

Or objective, repeatable, observable evidence of new phyla coming from a precursor?

No, you accept it by faith placed in what you see as good reason, I too place my faith in good reason. But to say you have objective, repeatable, observable evidence and I don't, is intellectually dishonest.

[Slartibartfast]

I will admit, I requires a touch of faith but not in anyway comparable to yours. The faith it requires is faith in the scientists' abilities in mathematics, science and reasoning. The belief it requires is a reserved belief like the reserved belief a girl will give a guy that tells her he is well endowed. Sure he may be right, but it's in her best interest to not blindly believe him.

In religion it's a blind faith and belief that is required. Even when you are wrong you are not allowed to admit it. You are not allowed to question unless you first decide that thw answer is yes (or Jesus... some say Jesus is always the answer)

In science you are encouraged to ask and disprove and challenge authority. This is completely different and incompatible with the way of religion.

In terms of a repeatable, observable evidence, I know you would like to see a big bang created in a lab but sadly that is a limitation of science. That would destroy all life on earth if it were to happen. Different ways are needed to discover evidence. Much like dinosaur skeletons are evidence that dinosaurs lived, cosmic background radiation and the ratios of elements in the universe are evidence of the big bang. But again, this should not be blindly believed. It may be proven wrong someday.

[Habit7]

To believe that something can naturally come from nothing requires more than "a touch of faith." It requires faith even against laws governing thermodynamics and matter to name few. But the reason why you choose to believe it is not that you lack evidence for God, it is that you demand your personal autonomy from God and you refuse to bow the knee to your Creator.

I don't know which religion you are referring to but in Christianity blind faith in not exercised there. It is according to the most verified book of antiquity, culminating in a real man who died and resurrected, seen by real ppl, recorded within their lifetime for veracity and they died as martyrs refusing to recant what they saw. That is one among the many evidences for my religion.

So while I love science as much as the next guy, I love history too. And the creation of the universe, earth, life and other past events are historical occurrences, not scientific theories. If you truly celebrate how malleable science is then don't pound your fist for something that can change next week.

[AdamB]

we have no proof of adam and eve either

fixed...

[ruffneck_12]

we have no proof of adam and eve either

we have no proof of adam and eve either

fixed...

U er fix anything lol

[No Mediacore]

Not even God waste time fixin that ho he trow she out.

[MG Man]

we have no proof of adam and eve either

we have no proof of adam and eve either

fixed...

U er fix anything lol

pretty much sums up adamb's contributions to this ched

[Slartibartfast]

To believe that something can naturally come from nothing requires more than "a touch of faith." It requires faith even against laws governing thermodynamics and matter to name few.Quantum physics has different rules from classical physics. But the reason why you choose to believe it is not that you lack evidence for God, it is that you demand your personal autonomy from God and you refuse to bow the knee to your Creator.
A bit of both. I demand autonomy from something that does not exist.

I don't know which religion you are referring to but in Christianity blind faith in not exercised there. By saying the bible is infallible demonstrates blind faith as that statement shows that you will believe whatever is in the bible regardless of evidence against it (i.e. belief in it is not evidence based because it is always true) It is according to the most verified book of antiquity, culminating in a real man who died and resurrected, seen by real ppl, recorded within their lifetime for veracity and they died as martyrs refusing to recant what they saw. That is one among the many evidences for my religion. I didn't study history (I have a basic knowledge of it) so I will admit that I cannot argue against this. However, there are lots of areas that where the bible has been proven wrong (on this very forum) which disproves the notion that it is infallible. I don't see the need of studying it and it's origins in depth if the advocates for it believe it to be infallible when it is not.

So while I love science as much as the next guy, I love history too. And the creation of the universe, earth, life and other past events are historical occurrences, not scientific theories. I don't see why the two must be mutually exclusive. The scientific theories are to help us gain a better understanding of our origin. If you truly celebrate how malleable science is then don't pound your fist for something that can change next week. I'm sure this was supposed to be your "coup de grâce" but it shows your lack of understanding of the significance of science. Take a trip to my "This week in science" thread to see why I celebrate science.

So why not celebrate the "malleability" of science. It is what allows it to progress. Normally with disproof comes a better understanding of the question at hand. Look at the history of the atomic model for example. Also note that this "fist pounding" is part of the scientific process. To disprove something, both sides have to defend their position, and in the end, the loser (should) gladly change his/her mind and congratulate the winner on helping them gain a better understanding.

In short, the main difference is this
The scientific approach to a question is to find the best possible answer with evidence to back it up. If the evidence turns out to be circumstantial or the answer has certain assumptions or limitations, that must also be presented.

The religious approach to a question show how the bible already answered this question and prove that the bible is correct. Religious people confuse this with a scientific approach because it has the words "show" and "prove", but they neglect the following assumptions which taint their answer.

1. The bible is correct (because it is infallible). Nothing and no one should be treated as though they are infallible. (Yes this includes, Einstein, Tesla, Newton, Dawkins, Krauss, DeGrasse Tyson, Hawkings etc.)
2. The bible was talking about the issue at hand (Habit I don't think this is an issue with you personally, but it is for people who argue about the "metaphorical" interpretation of the bible)

[Habit7]

I see you are venturing again into areas where you lack sufficient knowledge, much like your assertion that the laws of thermodynamics and matter come into question in quantum physics. When the claim of the infallibility of the Bible is made it can't be an exercise in blind faith because the claim can be easily refuted by showing fallibility in the Bible.

However I think you are mixing up biblical infallibility with biblical inerrancy especially with respect to science. Likewise, proven errors in what the Bible speaks on with challenge the claim of inerrancy. These are not blind faith gesture but quite the opposite, opening the Bible to scrutiny and validity to which for more than 2000 years the Bible stands the test.

Blind faith is believing in something naturally coming from nothing.

[Slartibartfast]

When the claim of the infallibility of the Bible is made it can't be an exercise in blind faith because the claim can be easily refuted by showing fallibility in the Bible.This was done several times in this very thread.

However I think you are mixing up biblical infallibility with biblical inerrancy especially with respect to science. Likewise, proven errors in what the Bible speaks on with challenge the claim of inerrancy. These are not blind faith gesture but quite the opposite, opening the Bible to scrutiny and validity to which for more than 2000 years the Bible stands the test.Lol... that's purely the opinion of those that blindly believe in the bible. Not to construed with fact.

Blind faith is believing in something naturally coming from nothing. Re-read what I wrote. You clearly didn't understand what I said.

[Habit7]

When the claim of the infallibility of the Bible is made it can't be an exercise in blind faith because the claim can be easily refuted by showing fallibility in the Bible.This was done several times in this very thread.

Says the guy who thinks fallibility is God committing adultery in supernaturally causing the virgin birth of Jesus

[Slartibartfast]

When the claim of the infallibility of the Bible is made it can't be an exercise in blind faith because the claim can be easily refuted by showing fallibility in the Bible.This was done several times in this very thread.

Says the guy who thinks fallibility is God committing adultery in supernaturally causing the virgin birth of Jesus

Nah nothing fallible there. God created Mary and she wasn't with Joseph at the time of divine insemination. Besides, God is the father, so it's more like a case of incest where Joseph got seconds.

[Habit7]

[bluefete]

Said the Boy who grew up to be Albert Einstein:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10 ... =2&theater

icky Foe Grin Isaiah 45:7... (I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things). !! Basically it doesnt say that God is evil but God who loves freely gave man freedom of choice.. Let me prove this fact..!

God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden to give Adam and Eve a choice to obey Him or disobey Him. Adam and Eve were free to do anything they wanted, except eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2:16-17, “And the LORD God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.’”

If God had not given Adam and Eve the choice, they would have essentially been robots, simply doing what they were programmed to do.God created Adam and Eve to be “free” beings, able to make decisions, able to choose between good and evil. In order for Adam and Eve to truly be free, they had to have a choice. All things were created by God but out of mans foolishness sin and evil entered the world when Adam and Eve ate the forbbiden fruits

[Habit7]

bluefete don't believe everything you read on the internet.

The word translated in Isaiah 45:7 as evil, connotes an antiquated meaning of evil which really means calamity (disasters). As such, most modern translations use the most contemporary term calamity as the verse clearly is not saying God creates evil in the sense we know it today.

[Slartibartfast]

But why make such a horrible repercussion for such a simple choice.

That's like me telling my son "You can have any flavour of ice cream that you desire... except pistachio, F(*#kin green alien $h!t. If you ever eat pistachio I will dig a hole and build a huge fire inside of it, and then throw you in"

Some people might say I am a crazy person. Why didn't God make the punishment something less eternal... like sickness. Couldn't he just make the apple poisonous? That wouldn't take away the freedom of choice.

Now you may say "But even though that doesn't take away his freedom of choice... it influences it because he wouldn't want to eat a poisonous fruit"

For which one could reply "Temptation is also an influence of choice, albeit in the opposite direction"

I mean, tell any child to never eat a mango and I guarantee you they will still eat it.

[bluefete]

But why make such a horrible repercussion for such a simple choice.

That's like me telling my son "You can have any flavour of ice cream that you desire... except pistachio, F(*#kin green alien $h!t. If you ever eat pistachio I will dig a hole and build a huge fire inside of it, and then throw you in"

Some people might say I am a crazy person. Why didn't God make the punishment something less eternal... like sickness. Couldn't he just make the apple poisonous? That wouldn't take away the freedom of choice.

Now you may say "But even though that doesn't take away his freedom of choice... it influences it because he wouldn't want to eat a poisonous fruit"

For which one could reply "Temptation is also an influence of choice, albeit in the opposite direction"

I mean, tell any child to never eat a mango and I guarantee you they will still eat it.

You think God is a joker or what?


Romans 5:12-21King James Version (KJV)

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.


I don't know how your parents raised you, but mine were quite strict. If they said not to touch or do something and you did it, the punishment was swift, severe and painful.

Does that mean my parents did not love me? Of course not.

That taught the lesson of consequences for actions.

[ruffneck_12]

hail satan

dai all I hadda say

[megadoc1]

yuh sure that's all yuh hadda say?

[ruffneck_12]

nah, I saving the rest for a rainy day

[3stagevtec]

I don't know how your parents raised you, but mine were quite strict. If they said not to touch or do something and you did it, the punishment was swift, severe and painful.

Does that mean my parents did not love me? Of course not.

That taught the lesson of consequences for actions.

This explains a lot...

[nareshseep]

I don't know how your parents raised you, but mine were quite strict. If they said not to touch or do something and you did it, the punishment was swift, severe and painful.

Does that mean my parents did not love me? Of course not.

That taught the lesson of consequences for actions.

This explains a lot...

Yup it does...

[maj. tom]

Iran: Happy video dancers sentenced to 91 lashes and jail
19 September 2014
BBC

Six Iranians arrested for appearing in a video dancing to Pharrell Williams' song Happy have been sentenced to up to one year in prison and 91 lashes, their lawyer says.

The sentences were suspended for three years, meaning they will not go to prison unless they reoffend, he adds.

The video shows three men and three unveiled women dancing on the streets and rooftops of Tehran.



In six months, it has been viewed by over one million people on YouTube.

The majority of people involved in the video were sentenced to six months in prison, with one member of the group given one year, lawyer Farshid Rofugaran was quoted by Iran Wire as saying.

The "Happy we are from Tehran" video was brought to the attention of the Iranian authorities in May, after receiving more than 150,000 views.

Members of the group behind the video were subsequently arrested by Iranian police for violating Islamic laws of the country, which prohibit dancing with members of the opposite sex and women from appearing without a headscarf.

They later appeared on state-run TV saying they were actors who had been tricked into make the Happy video for an audition.

The arrests drew condemnation from international rights groups and sparked a social media campaign calling for their release.

Williams, whose song was nominated for an Oscar earlier this year, also protested at the arrests.

"It is beyond sad that these kids were arrested for trying to spread happiness," he wrote on Facebook.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29272732

[Habit7]

Dozens of Christians 'including women and children' are arrested in Saudi Arabia after tip-off to state's Islamist police force

28 people were arrested at home of Indian man in the eastern city of Khafji
Reports claim women and children were among the congregation
Human rights activists have appealed to the U.S. to help secure release
In Saudi Arabia it is against the law for Muslims to abandon their faith

By Matthew Blake for MailOnline
Published: 08:57 GMT, 15 September 2014 | Updated: 11:25 GMT, 15 September 2014


Islamist police in Saudi Arabia have stormed a Christian prayer meeting and arrested its entire congregation, including women and children, and confiscated their bibles, it has been reported.

The raid was the latest incident of a swingeing crackdown on religious minorities in Saudi Arabia by the country's hard-line Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.

The 28 Christians were said to be worshipping at the home of an Indian national in the eastern city of Khafji, when the police entered the building and took them into custody. They have not been seen or heard from since, raising concerns among human rights groups as to their whereabouts.

Nina Shea, director of the Washington-based Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom, told FoxNews.com: 'Saudi Arabia is continuing the religious cleansing that has always been its official policy.

'It is the only nation state in the world with the official policy of banning all churches.

'This is enforced even though there are over two million Christian foreign workers in that country. Those victimized are typically poor, from Asian and African countries with weak governments.'

Activists are now calling on the U.S. to use its considerable influence in the region to help secure the release of the incarcerated Christians.

A spokesperson for the Saudi government claimed to have no knowledge of the arrests, according to Fox News.

But the English-language newspaper, The Saudi Gazette, as well as several Saudi Arabic-language news outlets, have reported on the arrests.

Arabic-language news channel, Akhbar 24, said the arrests came after the Kingdom's religious police got a tip about a home-based church.

The report also reported that 'distorted writings of the Bible were found and musical instruments, noting their referral to the jurisdictional institutions.'

At least 3.5 million Christians live in the Gulf Arab region, mostly Catholic workers from India and the Philippines.

In Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, it is against the law for Muslims to abandon their faith, a practice known as apostasy. Proselytising for other religions or practising them openly is also illegal.

Judges have considerable leeway in how to interpret the kingdom's Sharia code of Islamic law and are not bound by sentencing guidelines or a system of precedent. Both capital and corporal punishment are legal.

Last year King Abdullah, who has promoted limited reforms since coming to the throne in 2005, opened a centre for religious dialogue in Vienna that drew criticism because of Saudi Arabia's own lack of religious freedom. In 2008 he sponsored an inter-faith conference in Spain.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... force.html

[No Mediacore]

habit2at like a blacksheep lacking sunlight living in a cave surrounded by idols

[rspann]

For God so loved the world,that he gave his only son, and whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

[nareshseep]

For God so loved the world,that he gave his only son, and whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Good for you. But I don't believe any of that.