138 replies to this topic

[vodkamaru]

Exactly. Want is the key word there, which makes it not really work. So the whole thing of being 'forced' and 'under control' is a stupid assumption.

I don't believe it's a set of rules, or a system of control. You're supposed to WANT to follow Jesus' teachings, follow in his example.

If you feel you're being forced to, then it is works without faith, which is not how you get to heaven.

I don't think the problem lies in following the original teachings. The problem lies in following rules that religious leaders lay out because of those teachings. I doubt many people are going to say they feel controlled and don't want to do good things for other people. The real control problem comes when a homosexual is rejected by his/her family unless (s)he "decides" to become straight, when atheist families are run out of town because of their "godless" beliefs, when women are forced to live a life as her husbands property, when infidels are getting decapitated, using faith to deny science , etc. These are all examples of blatant hypocrisies found in the actions some religious believers. Of course these aren't neccessarily the norm, but you can't deny that these things happen. I don't think the belief is the problem, just how people decide to interpret what the belief implies.

But yeah... maybe get back on topic. The part that surprised me is that there is just as much evidence for evolution as there is for atoms. Do you guys "believe" in atoms? Turns out you are atoms.

Edited by vodkamaru, 13 June 2007 - 01:02 PM.

[wisp]

I have been hoping for something exactly like this article, Vod. A Jehovah's Witness dropped off a pamphlet a week or two ago at my apartment trying to convince me that evolution was false because there was not enough evidence in the fossil record for it... and I was wanting to read up on that from an actual scientific perspective. Can't combat misinformation if you don't know the real facts, yanno?

[Reflectionist]

Exactly. Want is the key word there, which makes it not really work. So the whole thing of being 'forced' and 'under control' is a stupid assumption.

I don't believe it's a set of rules, or a system of control. You're supposed to WANT to follow Jesus' teachings, follow in his example.

If you feel you're being forced to, then it is works without faith, which is not how you get to heaven.

I don't think the problem lies in following the original teachings. The problem lies in following rules that religious leaders lay out because of those teachings. I doubt many people are going to say they feel controlled and don't want to do good things for other people. The real control problem comes when a homosexual is rejected by his/her family unless (s)he "decides" to become straight, when atheist families are run out of town because of their "godless" beliefs, when women are forced to live a life as her husbands property, when infidels are getting decapitated, using faith to deny science , etc. These are all examples of blatant hypocrisies found in religion. Of course these aren't neccessarily the norm, but you can't deny that these things happen. I don't think the belief is the problem, just how people decide to interpret what the belief implies.

The examples I underlined are anomalies that have nothing to do with how the religion is set up, but rather more to do with idiotic people and their own agendas. Did Christ not say to Love everyone more than yourself? If that's so, then how can you even think about blaming those problems underlined above as a problem with the Religion.

I don't know about using faith to deny science, though, that just seems a little far fetched. Science was my best class in high school, and it does (apart from very few, small specific instances) appear to enforce Christianity, and not deny it. And while I'm on the subject, so does Archaeology. And the History that can be tested. For instance, if you looked at everything in the Bible that didn't have anything to do with spirituality, then it would be a very accurate Historical book.

We know that a man named Jesus lived in that area at that time period and did the things he did (i.e. taught, walked around, etc. ) so it's not that I don't believe the bulk of science to be correct, it's that I believe that the bulk of religion could be right as well, and wether you think there's enough evidence for either side, there's always a part of you that wants to scream that God exists, because everyone wants something in their life changed.

Edited by Reflectionist, 13 June 2007 - 12:09 PM.

[vodkamaru]

The examples I underlined are anomalies that have nothing to do with how the religion is set up, but rather more to do with idiotic people and their own agendas. Did Christ not say to Love everyone more than yourself? If that's so, then how can you even think about blaming those problems underlined above as a problem with the Religion.

I don't think the belief is the problem, just how people decide to interpret what the belief implies.

Agreed. I miscommunicated that earlier in the post using the word religion instead of believers or religious people. Consider it edited, cherry-picker. I'm not going to argue that religion is causing these things, but it is the driving force, right? I mean if it was believed that homosexuality was no different then heterosexuality, then those problems would never come up. People suck, yeah, but they're getting these ideas from somewhere. I think thats the ultimate problem. Can you take the agenda out of these religious groups? It seems that the religion gets changed to fit the agenda.

I don't know about using faith to deny science, though, that just seems a little far fetched.

Have you heard of creationism?

Edited by vodkamaru, 13 June 2007 - 01:11 PM.

[Hylian Jedi]

I have been hoping for something exactly like this article, Vod. A Jehovah's Witness dropped off a pamphlet a week or two ago at my apartment trying to convince me that evolution was false because there was not enough evidence in the fossil record for it... and I was wanting to read up on that from an actual scientific perspective. Can't combat misinformation if you don't know the real facts, yanno?

Did they at least provide some logical examinations with at least a few proofs or was it just commenting with no facts to support what they were saying?

[wisp]

Vague things like "the fossil record is full of holes" and such were thrown in there.. but mostly it was just stuff like looking at features that animals have on their bodies that are so well suited to their environments, and saying it couldn't possibly have happened without a designer..

[Hylian Jedi]

They should have at least showed research to back up what they were saying

[Reflectionist]

The examples I underlined are anomalies that have nothing to do with how the religion is set up, but rather more to do with idiotic people and their own agendas. Did Christ not say to Love everyone more than yourself? If that's so, then how can you even think about blaming those problems underlined above as a problem with the Religion.

I don't think the belief is the problem, just how people decide to interpret what the belief implies.

Agreed. I miscommunicated that earlier in the post using the word religion instead of believers or religious people. Consider it edited, cherry-picker. I'm not going to argue that religion is causing these things, but it is the driving force, right? I mean if it was believed that homosexuality was no different then heterosexuality, then those problems would never come up. People suck, yeah, but they're getting these ideas from somewhere. I think thats the ultimate problem. Can you take the agenda out of these religious groups? It seems that the religion gets changed to fit the agenda.

Where exactly does the Bible say "I the Lord hate fags?"

And yes, the religion sometimes does get changed to fit the agenda, or at least the popular opinion of the religion does. But if you can seriously consider yourself to be above those actions and not condone those actions, why can't you in the same breath turn a blind eye to the people who change religion for the attention and go with what the Source says?

In all honesty, that's what I'm trying to do. I honestly and truly make an effort to see what is in my religious doctrine before believing what someone else says about it. I'm not easy to be decieved like that. I won't take someone elses word for something, I want to see it for myself; to find a reason to believe it for myself.

And I would suggest that if, and only if, you want to give this Christianity thing a shot, please do yourself a favor, and don't pay attention to what everyone else says about it, because it's not horrible at all. It's just what you make of it, and what you let others make of it for you. So just figure it out for yourself before going off on a tangent on how horrible it is.

I don't know about using faith to deny science, though, that just seems a little far fetched.

Have you heard of creationism?

Yes, I have. Irrelevant. I'm not sure what to believe on literal creationism. Not like in the way of what is usually understood by the term, at least. Although there are some good logic mind games to be had with that one as well.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I don't know about using faith to deny science, though, that just seems a little far fetched. Science was my best class in high school, and it does (apart from very few, small specific instances) appear to enforce Christianity, and not deny it. And while I'm on the subject, so does Archaeology. And the History that can be tested. For instance, if you looked at everything in the Bible that didn't have anything to do with spirituality, then it would be a very accurate Historical book.

Except, of course, for the fact that Jericho didn't have walls when the Israelites first arrived there. But that's probably one of those very few, small specific instances, isn't it?

We know that a man named Jesus lived in that area at that time period and did the things he did (i.e. taught, walked around, etc. ) so it's not that I don't believe the bulk of science to be correct,

What has that got to do with science? History, perhaps (and by the way, I haven't found any decent secular sources that mention Jesus at all).

[vodkamaru]

(and by the way, I haven't found any decent secular sources that mention Jesus at all).

Shocking...

[Arturo]

That's just false. It's true that not many historians of that time speak about him, but there are mentions.

Firstly, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus mentions him twice, in the "Antiquities of the Jews". The first one is just concerning his brother James, who was the leader of the Church. It seems the high priest took advantage of the death of the roman governor to be able to have James killed.

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:

The second is much more explicit, but more controversial. It says:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the]Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,[9] those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day;[10] as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

There seems to be consensus that, while the Christians re-wrote the text to make the Jewish writer say he had resurrected, a part of this text was written by him. It is possible that the Arabic version, which says he was a good man and that his followers said he had resurrected.

Then, with more Jewish sources, the religious sources talk about a certain Yeshu who performed miracles using evil magic, who was hung on Passover's Eve, who was the son of an adulteress and a roman soldier and who claimed to be God.

And as for Roman historians, Tacitus mentions him in the Annals:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

I know there are not MANY mentions, but there certainly are.

Edited by Arturo, 14 June 2007 - 02:34 PM.

[Reflectionist]

(and by the way, I haven't found any decent secular sources that mention Jesus at all).

Is that because all of the 'decent secular sources' that you find are the ones that deliberately don't mention Jesus? Kind of in the same vein as the people who want to not mention the Holocaust because it offends people.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Is that because all of the 'decent secular sources' that you find are the ones that deliberately don't mention Jesus? Kind of in the same vein as the people who want to not mention the Holocaust because it offends people.

No, no. It's just that I've had difficulties getting a hold of things that aren't highly disputed and controversial, like the second Tacitus quote Arturo provided.

Anyway, I've been curious.

Do you think the denial of Evolution is down to poor science education and the lies perpetrated by the likes of Ken Ham? Or is it an insecurity of faith? They're so insecure in their faith that they have to believe in a 100% literal Bible...? I'm also tempted to think that a lack of logical thinking is involved too, because most of the absolutely awful Creationist statements I've seen show a distinct lack of logic. (Luckily, no such statements have appeared here so far...)

[Reflectionist]

Is that because all of the 'decent secular sources' that you find are the ones that deliberately don't mention Jesus? Kind of in the same vein as the people who want to not mention the Holocaust because it offends people.

No, no. It's just that I've had difficulties getting a hold of things that aren't highly disputed and controversial, like the second Tacitus quote Arturo provided.

Anyway, I've been curious.

Do you think the denial of Evolution is down to poor science education and the lies perpetrated by the likes of Ken Ham? Or is it an insecurity of faith? They're so insecure in their faith that they have to believe in a 100% literal Bible...? I'm also tempted to think that a lack of logical thinking is involved too, because most of the absolutely awful Creationist statements I've seen show a distinct lack of logic. (Luckily, no such statements have appeared here so far...)

Well, of course any document that mentions Jesus at all is going to be highly disputed and controversial, you really just have to take it for what it is.

Its a bit of everything, in my opinion. Certainly I'm no science expert, and I'm not pretending to be, which is why I haven't ever ruled out evolution--- AS a tool or method of Creation.

Obviously, I couldn't write about my own Birth, so to say that humans could've written about how they came to be is credulous at best, but I still believe there is some sort of Intelligence to that. The human body (and every natural process, for that matter) works too perfectly to be considered blind chance, or blind luck.

Also, I'm not quite sure who Ken Ham is, so I'll stay away from that subject; unless you want to enlighten me?

And of course, there are idiots in the world, so you shouldn't let them decide your views on religion for you. I know it seems like a trivial subject, but if the whole idea of answering to your creator on any level has any truth to it, it instantaneously becomes a monumental event that just can't be overlooked.

And let's face it, no amount of science or logic or whatever is going to 100% remove the possibility that God exists.

[MikePetersSucks]

The human body (and every natural process, for that matter) works too perfectly to be considered blind chance, or blind luck.

Too perfectly, you say?

[Reflectionist]

The human body (and every natural process, for that matter) works too perfectly to be considered blind chance, or blind luck.

Too perfectly, you say?

As in, everything we need has been accounted for.


And on another note, if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around?

[Arturo]

*bangs head against a wall*

We haven't evolved from monkeys. We share common ancestors with monkeys. They have evolved as well.

[MikePetersSucks]

In other words: Monkeys are our cousins, not our grandparents.

EVEN IF we were descended directly from monkeys, it wouldn't mean anything. Evolution isn't something all members of a species take part in simultaniously. Conditions can be different for Species A living in Enviornment 1, let's say, a Desert, will need different traits and qualities than Species A living in Enviornment 2, say...a tundra.

the Desert-living group might need to evolve genes that require them to burrow in the sand to cool off or find food, while the Tundra-living group might need to develop jaws that can chew tough, frost-bitten plants or need to grow fur in order to keep warm.

While at first, these will start off as merely two breeds of the same species, conditions would keep changing, and the two groups would have to keep changing with them. Eventually, the changes become so vast that the two can't rightfully be called the same species, or are genetically incapable of breeding.

[vodkamaru]

Why do people who aren't even educated about the topic arguing against it?

[MikePetersSucks]

I would guess it's because they don't even want to CONSIDER the possibility that their holy scripture, or whatever, is wrong. Or, if they're not religious, they just think the idea is ridiculous based on misconceptions and don't bother to learn.

[vodkamaru]

The human body (and every natural process, for that matter) works too perfectly to be considered blind chance, or blind luck.

Too perfectly, you say?

As in, everything we need has been accounted for.

The environment wasn't hand selected by god to perfectly fit how humans work. Humans evolved to match the environment just like every other organism. Nature adapts. Sometimes creatures adapt to the point where old limbs/organs no longer serve their old purpose. Quite remarkable.

Edited by vodkamaru, 19 June 2007 - 01:07 PM.

[arunma]

Why do people who aren't even educated about the topic arguing against it?

Or for it. I've noticed that among atheists there are quite a few "science worshipers" out there who have little or no education in science. If I ever start noticing that behavior here on Contro, I think I might start a thread about it.

[vodkamaru]

I hope this video will help explain the concept of (natural and artificial) selection in nature. You may not be able to see selection happening due to the amount of time it takes, but the effects are obvious. Man's hand in selection is also obvious. We breed animals and plants which alter their genetics much faster than evolution. Just look at all the different breeds of dog, another example of artifical selection. If you can accept the idea of artificial selection, it seems like natural selection shouldn't even be a question.

Edited by vodkamaru, 21 June 2007 - 01:20 PM.

[arunma]

What has that got to do with science? History, perhaps (and by the way, I haven't found any decent secular sources that mention Jesus at all).

I see a couple problems here, which I think you yourself are aware of. First of all, I assume that you have appointed yourself the arbiter of which sources are "decent," and which ones are not. You know as well as I that there is no short supply of extrabiblical references to Jesus.

Secondly, the distinction between secular and religious sources is purely artificial. As far as ancient writings go, there is no such classification

[Reflectionist]

Why do people who aren't even educated about the topic arguing against it?

Agreed. You clearly don't know anything about Christianity except by what you've been told by an obviously unChristian biased source. And then you say that source isn't biased, but any site, any reference, any at all, that even mentions the possibility of God being real, well, I tell you what, it's just obviously biased and shouldn't be trusted at all.

That's exactly how you think. And then you have the gall to freakin' insult others about their beliefs.

You sir, are a freakin' idiot.

I refuse to waste my time on a forum where all that happens is that I get ridiculed, because up until you posted we've been having a nice conversation, free of any serious personal attacks, and there for the general benefet of everyone's knowledge.

Then you come in. "Why do people who aren't even educated about the topic arguing against it?"

You disgust me, and I hope for the worlds sake that you are taken out of the gene pool before you have a chance to pass on your idiocy.

Edited by Reflectionist, 22 June 2007 - 08:51 PM.

[wisp]

Hmm, I smell hypocrisy. Reflectionist, I really don't think you have much room to complain about someone else 'attacking' you personally.. the majority of your posts in this forum contain some kind of personal attack on someone else, this one included. Just because "he did it first" doesn't mean you should do it too, and honestly I am sick of having to read this childish mess all the time.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I see a couple problems here, which I think you yourself are aware of. First of all, I assume that you have appointed yourself the arbiter of which sources are "decent," and which ones are not.

Nope, although I think I may be overtly harsh.

You know as well as I that there is no short supply of extrabiblical references to Jesus.

Now I disagree. There is a short supply, not to say there isn't any decent evidence to suggest Jesus exists. I'm not saying that.

Secondly, the distinction between secular and religious sources is purely artificial. As far as ancient writings go, there is no such classification

Sure there is. You think Tacitus is a religious source?

[Arturo]

You are incredibly biased.

There are tons of extrabiblical support for Jesus' existance. They are called Apocryphal Gospels. And they are many. Many many many.

There is no decent material that supports that Jesus didn' exist: Tacitus and Flavius Josephus believe he existed (Josephus accounted Jesus' brother martyrdom) also the Religious Jewish sources confirm his existance. They say he was hung on Passover's eve, taht he performed miracles and so on.


That's why the great majority of historians think he exists. Because there is nothing to suggest otherwise.

[MikePetersSucks]

The Apocrpyhal Gospels are still religious works, and most of them are even nuttier than the Bible. "So, yea....All these female figures in the Bible, like Eve, Noah's wife, Virgin Mary, and Mary Magdeline are all reincarnations of each other and that snake from the Garden, and her name is Sophia, Jesus's ghost wife who gave birth to the Biblical God (Whose evil) without the real God's permission. Really. Jesus told us so himself."

[vodkamaru]

Why do people who aren't even educated about the topic arguing against it?

Agreed. You clearly don't know anything about Christianity except by what you've been told by an obviously unChristian biased source.

Sorry, I was raised Catholic until i graduated highschool.

If my comment offended you that much then just ignore me but saying that we evolved from monkeys and then wondering why they're still here shows a gross misunderstanding of evolution. Why come to a debate armed with that level of knowledge?

any reference, any at all, that even mentions the possibility of God being real, well, I tell you what, it's just obviously biased and shouldn't be trusted at all.

That's just completely untrue.

You disgust me, and I hope for the worlds sake that you are taken out of the gene pool before you have a chance to pass on your idiocy.

Once again you resort to your special brand of verbal abuse. I just called you out and now you're getting pissed off. Calm the fuck down. By the way, why couldn't you just PM me this. It's obviously directed at me. Does the whole forum need to know what you think of me?

Edited by vodkamaru, 24 June 2007 - 12:17 AM.