Support NeoGAF

[DeathIsTheEnd]

Add to that a curriculum that mandates learning about an origin of life concept that is not true

Are you talking about the school's educational curriculum here? And if so what would that be?

 

[Raist]

Are you talking about the school's educational curriculum here? And if so what would that be?

Let me guess, abiogenesis?

 

[Dunk#7]

Don't you all think it is a little rash to take a small finite piece of current, known history and extrapolate it as far back as you can imagine?

How far back do we actually have quantitative and qualitative information about the distances between objects in our universe?

Isn't it wrong to make an assumption that since everything is currently slowly moving apart that it must have all been together at one point?

How do we know that the universe has followed the same trends all the way back to the beginning? We are taking very small amounts (comparatively) of data and using it to make assumptions about an unknown past.

Just as the Earth goes back and forth between warmer and cooler periods of time is it not also possible that the universe oscillates in terms of distances between objects?

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

Don't you all think it is a little rash to take a small finite piece of current, known history and extrapolate it as far back as you can imagine?

How far back do we actually have quantitative and qualitative information about the distances between objects in our universe?

Isn't it wrong to make an assumption that since everything is currently slowly moving apart that it must have all been together at one point?

How do we know that the universe has followed the same trends all the way back to the beginning? We are taking very small amounts (comparatively) of data and using it to make assumptions about an unknown past.

Just as the Earth goes back and forth between warmer and cooler periods of time is it not also possible that the universe oscillates in terms of distances between objects?

Let me translate:

"None of this extremely complex physics makes sense if you look at it through the viewpoint of common sense and simplified analogies, therefore it's silly to even consider it.

I mean, when I throw a ball in the air it comes back down, right? I bet the universe is like that too."

 

[Mario]

Add to that a curriculum that mandates learning about an origin of life concept that is not true

If you mean abiogensis, is presenting it as an unproven hypothesis or incomplete theory incorrect when it most closely fits the available evidence?

Also, being incomplete as a theory does not make it "not true", merely "possibly not true".

Creation has zero scientific evidence. Does that make it "not true"?

Don't you all think it is a little rash to take a small finite piece of current, known history and extrapolate it as far back as you can imagine?

I'd suggest watching this as a way to answer your questions. It is a digestable (and interesting) take on how we can come to such conclusions based on multiple types of evidence.

'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

 

[wayward archer]

Right, it was a lesson. And like everything else in the Bible, the eyewitness accounts help bolster faith.

BUT, Jesus layed down a pretty clear mandate. Those who did not need to see are set apart from Thomas and his like.

I believe this is true although most Christians are not Evangelicals by a long shot. The rest don't need to challege their faith too terribly much, not in a skeptics way, because there's no reason to. They have reconciled enough in their mind to answer the questions pertinent to them. They accept a whole lot more adjustments in thought then given credit for such as evolution . Basically, they are happy.

I don't think they have reconciled anything. From my own personal experience they are basically programmed, like a computer, to associate any kind of feelings with God immediately.

And most Christians are not evangelicals, but these are the ones that have the most political power these days in America, parts of Europe, elsewhere and are really setting the stage for militant atheism, by making political policy that fits in with their view of scripture.

I also think the push to homeschooling is a direct result of a push to obliterate religion altogether from school including personal displays of it. To tell a person they can't pray because it offends somebody is stupid, yet that is what some school say can't be done. Clubs and organizations I get, but not a person who is praying over a lunch meal. I also don't think it's a big deal for a non-sponsored group of Christians talking about the Bible (Actually insert whatever religion you want). It's their way of life and out of all groups, those nerds affect peer pressure in no substantial way.

Even Jesus says spiritual life and secular life both have their place and both should be honored. Christians have tried to spin "Render unto Caesar..." or that all leaders should be honored because God put them there in many different ways to avoid this conclusion but to me they are inescapable. Pray in secret, not out in public like the Pharisees.

Add to that a curriculum that mandates learning about an origin of life concept that is not true and people leave and admittedly not just the evangelicals.

And here we come to our first major break in viewpoints. The curriculum teaches what the evidence points towards, nothing more. If God had a tangible, measurable presence in the world, that would be taught. Unfortunately he does not.

The curriculum does not teach that God didn't do anything, only that evolution seems to occur and that there is zero evidence to support that everything on the planet was created in seven days, or designed at all.

It's ridiculous to think that if God wanted to create us, he couldn't or wouldn't want to do it organically, almost algorithmically, if that was his plan. The only major reason evolution is railed against so strongly is because it defies the documentary view of Genesis.

It's not that the home schooling actually mirrors the first 3 chapters of Genesis, it's that it allows one to omit that part and it's not affecting their kid's intelligence in the slightest.

It's really because educated people are more likely to abandon all religious thought, and they are afraid of it.

The insulation is not against Jesus teaching either.

Our second major break. It absolutely is. Jesus was ALL about reaching out to non-jews. The whole idea of "Christians" wasn't even invented until Paul. In Jesus' day there was no bible, no organization, nothing. It was him, 12 disciples, assorted other followers, and he commanded them to go out and make new disciples and spread his teaching: a teaching which emphasized loving God and others and not being worldly as it's major points. Nothing more. Jesus doesn't really say "worship me" anywhere in the synoptic gospels. He says "believe in me". I think based on everything else he said that is more "believe what I am about". Read the first three gospels again with this in mind: He never once tries to paint himself as the focal point of his teaching. His message is what is important to him.

The night before his death, a big part of Jesus' prayer was about keeping his disciples out of the world.

Once again, I think you're wrong but I know we're not going to see eye to eye and you're going to take the Christian's view over the bible's infallibility over all else.. The prayer in John is fan fiction. I guess I should mention now I only consider the synoptic gospels to be even remotely accurate (and that's before the additions that came later). John represents a push back against gnostic thought (it was absolutely written as a response to the Gospel of Thomas) and is heavily influenced by Pauline thought, which very much include's Paul's aversion to Christians living amongst non-christians, something that deviates from Jesus' message (looking at everything else he says in the bible, and more importantly what he does) and draws many assumptions and makes many claims that wasn't recorded in the synoptic gospels. Basically what happened in John 15-17 is so important that if it actually happened I can't imagine it not being recorded somewhere else. John is Pauline fan fiction. There was a bunch of that around the 2nd century, and John is only in the bible because Pauline christians had the most impact, and wiped out every other writing that disagreed with them.

You have to understand neither Jesus nor God in any way said the Bible was going to exist. They didn't require it (Jesus never says "Write all this down please"), Jesus never mandates a religion. His whole ministry was about spreading a message of loving God and our fellow man. We are specifically to become disciples of that message. That is exactly what Jesus says. The words most conservative christians hate to hear: Jesus really was a hippie in a lot of ways.

Christians are supposed to be seperate because society has a powerful influence on how one lives. It actually tries to dictate that. Scripture makes it pretty clear that Christians control their interactions with the world not the other way around, so many are wary of being told what to do when it is neutral to contrary of their beliefs.

The problem is the government & society uses a lowest common denominator in order to cover all citizens who aren't criminals. Christianity uses the highest common denominator which specifically excludes those that don't accept Christian teaching, meaning that we do indeed think we are better than the average Heathen Joe. Just in case it's not notice, I'm exagerating for brevity's sake.

Yet we're still supposed to love them. You can't do that without going to them. Loving them 'from afar' is empty and hollow. Even the unrighteous and the tax collectors love their neighbors. Jesus says go beyond that. Love everybody. Personally practicing our love for God is specifically supposed to be a private and very personal experience. Paul turned it into a Mystery Cult that flaunts themselves in public and has everybody trying to one up each other, and brought along the worship ceremonies and everything associated with that (worshipping Jesus instead of following his message). Personally I think the Jesus of Mark, Matthew, Luke would have been horrified by this.

Parents worried about that see alternate schooling as a solution.

They see it as a way to preserve their strict interpretation of the bible, which includes a healthy fear that controls almost every decision in their lives. You can't look at the whole homosexuality debate going on now and then tell me you don't agree with that.

 

[Dunk#7]

Let me translate:

"None of this extremely complex physics makes sense if you look at it through the viewpoint of common sense and simplified analogies, therefore it's silly to even consider it.

I mean, when I throw a ball in the air it comes back down, right? I bet the universe is like that too."

It is not a matter of using common sense.

The problem is that many of the current theories depend on assumptions that may or may not be true. There is no way for us to know if trends and properties have remained consistent all the way back to the beginning of time.

Many, if not all, of the current theories operate on the basis of consistencies extrapolated well beyond the known, testable history that we have today.

Basing everything on top of major assumptions does not provide a basis for proof.

 

[wayward archer]

There is no way for us to know if trends and properties have remained consistent all the way back to the beginning of time.

But there's no evidence that they haven't either. That is your problem if you want to argue against that, demonstrate something that we can observe that deviates from the current model. People have been trying for thousands of years so good luck with that.

I don't think you realize how easy it would be to destroy any theory science has today with tangible proof. This is exactly why creationism and Intelligent Design fail. They have nothing. They point to gaps in another theory and try to speculate themselves into those gaps. But in the end they have nothing.

 

[gerg]

The problem is that many of the current theories depend on assumptions that may or may not be true. There is no way for us to know if trends and properties have remained consistent all the way back to the beginning of time.

That the universe is regular is an assumption upon which science has to work to progress. It is a "core belief" of science, if you will, in the same way that believing in a divine being might be considered a core belief of religious thought.

But actually, more than that, believing in the regularity of the universe (per cause and effect) is a human intuition which we quite literally could not function without. When you go to pour coffee out of the jug in the morning you do not expect the jug suddenly to turn into water, or for the coffee to flow up instead of down. No, for you have a naturalistic expectancy in cause and effect, and you intuitively believe that the future will be similar to the past.

This intuitive belief is neither rational nor irrational - it is arational.

Now, of course, just because we have a certain intuition does not mean that we can't discuss whether or not we should hold such an intuition - indeed, that is what Hume successfully did when he so profoundly attacked our concepts of cause and effect, highlighting that we actually have no logical reason to hold them. But, then again, although it relies on it, science isn't philosophy. As I said above, in science you must assume that the future will follow the past, and likewise that the past was like the present.

In any case, writing this post has made me realise just how long it has been since Philosophy A-level.

 

[Raist]

Don't you all think it is a little rash to take a small finite piece of current, known history and extrapolate it as far back as you can imagine?

How far back do we actually have quantitative and qualitative information about the distances between objects in our universe?

Isn't it wrong to make an assumption that since everything is currently slowly moving apart that it must have all been together at one point?

How do we know that the universe has followed the same trends all the way back to the beginning? We are taking very small amounts (comparatively) of data and using it to make assumptions about an unknown past.

Just as the Earth goes back and forth between warmer and cooler periods of time is it not also possible that the universe oscillates in terms of distances between objects?

Do you think it's a likely possibility that all of a sudden all the molecules of oxygen would group in the top left corner of the room you're currently sitting in? Or that sugar would stop dissolving in your coffee tomorrow morning?
If you're not questioning these, then what is the rationale behind questioning the consistency in the way the universe is expanding?

 

[Dever]

It is not a matter of using common sense.

The problem is that many of the current theories depend on assumptions that may or may not be true. There is no way for us to know if trends and properties have remained consistent all the way back to the beginning of time.

Many, if not all, of the current theories operate on the basis of consistencies extrapolated well beyond the known, testable history that we have today.

Basing everything on top of major assumptions does not provide a basis for proof.

Well, actually there sort of is a way too see if the universe has remained consistent. By observing extremely distant galaxies, we're not only looking out into space, but also back into time. Due to the finite speed of light, light from distant galaxies has taken billions of years to reach us. So when we look at a distant galaxy, we don't see it as it exists now, but as it existed billions of years ago. If the universe had changed drastically between now and then, we would expect these distant galaxies to behave in ways they normally don't behave in. Maybe they would spin in a way that would show that the gravitational constant wasn't actually constant. But this, as far as I know, is not what we find. Of course, there's some assumptions in these observations as well. For example we assume that the light we receive came from actual galaxies, that the Devil didn't just conjure up some light and send it coming our way to fool us.

But if these sorts of assumptions deter you from accepting something, why do you readily accept that the universe even existed, say, two months ago? And I can't believe you would find any solace in holy books written by men. Wouldn't you have to assume for example that God doesn't lie?

Isn't it wrong to make an assumption that since everything is currently slowly moving apart that it must have all been together at one point?

The microwave backround demonstrates that the universe used to be extremely hot and dense.

Just as the Earth goes back and forth between warmer and cooler periods of time is it not also possible that the universe oscillates in terms of distances between objects?

Again, not a physicist, but I would say that if this were the case, we would see it by observing the spectrum shifts of distant galaxies. There would be periods where the spectrums would be blueshifted(=contracting) and periods where they would be redshifted(=expanding).

 

[devenger]

Just as the Earth goes back and forth between warmer and cooler periods of time is it not also possible that the universe oscillates in terms of distances between objects?

Yeah, it is possible. You just roughly described the Oscillating Universe theory. That's why your statement about scientists only considering one theory flat out isn't true. But we have to observe the universe changing direction of expansion before it has evidence.

Many, if not all, of the current theories operate on the basis of consistencies extrapolated well beyond the known, testable history that we have today.

Basing everything on top of major assumptions does not provide a basis for proof.

This is what I referenced before, attempting to poke holes in scientific theories doesn't make creationism anymore scientific

The Big Bang theory isn't proven, it just has the most evidence to support it. The fact that you don't know or believe this is proof that there's no argument to be had here.

At no point does Big Bang not true = God did it. Its apples and oranges. Leave the apples in one basket and take the oranges to church.

You want to talk science? Support your theory.

(And unfortunately, this is where the runaround starts. I have high school FB friends that jump on every physics post I have, and counter with links. The links go to Christian websites that have article after article doing the same thing you're doing here. They take one piece of data, they apply a logical fallacy or a full on misunderstanding of the data. They say see? Science makes no sense. These scientists are stubborn atheists who refuse to see the plain truth before them. Then there's the equivalent of a trollface.jpg, that says if science loves this theory that's so obviously wrong, what's wrong with creationism? Then there's a Scripture quote (the most important element in a scientific paper).

Then I point out that there's no science in the article. Then they point out that regular scientists don't study this, so these are the only kind of sources available. I say, look again, you are smart people, there is NO science in this. Then they say I'm too stubborn to accept what they call "evidence." They say intelligent design is a scientific theory, I say 'intelligent design' is a term Christians made up to dodge the claim that creationism is a religious belief, not a theory. It's like L. Ron getting taxed and saying 'Ok fine, we're a church then.' Ok fine, we stopped saying God, now its a scientific theory.

This is why I said agree to disagree a few posts ago, Dunk. because I'm not interested in repeating this cycle ad nauseam with every gunslinger that wanders into town with a Bible. Then I'm accused of not having an open mind. I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion with people of different opinions. I'm not trying to pretend that respect of your beliefs includes accepting creationism as science.

That's why I blew you off with 'Do some reading if youre interested', because I'm not here to try and cram science down your throat.)

tl/dr: Creationism gets scientific theory status when one shred of evidence is presented. We disagree on the value of creationist evidence.

 

[Dunk#7]

Again, not a physicist, but I would say that if this were the case, we would see it by observing the spectrum shifts of distant galaxies. There would be periods where the spectrums would be blueshifted(=contracting) and periods where they would be redshifted(=expanding).

The problem is that we have such a small segment of time to look at.

If you look at a very, very small segment of a circle it looks like a straight line.

I understand the concept of determining time based on the speed of light and distance, but how do we know that light cannot travel faster than we currently know? We can only test light in our finite area of the universe. Who is to say that there are not unknown mediums between us and distant stars that allow for light to speed up? We can only judge distantly by appearance.

There are just far too many assumptions that we are laying "facts" on top of.

I am not saying that they are not true, just that is it possible for them to not be true.

I know that poking holes into scientific theory does not prove God, but the contrary is also true. Poking holes into creation ideology does not prove science.

All I am getting at is that until we can substantially prove the origin we should leave all possibilities open to consideration.

 

[Dunk#7]

That the universe is regular is an assumption upon which science has to work to progress. It is a "core belief" of science, if you will, in the same way that believing in a divine being might be considered a core belief of religious thought.

But actually, more than that, believing in the regularity of the universe (per cause and effect) is a human intuition which we quite literally could not function without. When you go to pour coffee out of the jug in the morning you do not expect the jug suddenly to turn into water, or for the coffee to flow up instead of down. No, for you have a naturalistic expectancy in cause and effect, and you intuitively believe that the future will be similar to the past.

This intuitive belief is neither rational nor irrational - it is arational.

Now, of course, just because we have a certain intuition does not mean that we can't discuss whether or not we should hold such an intuition - indeed, that is what Hume successfully did when he so profoundly attacked our concepts of cause and effect, highlighting that we actually have no logical reason to hold them. But, then again, although it relies on it, science isn't philosophy. As I said above, in science you must assume that the future will follow the past, and likewise that the past was like the present.

In any case, writing this post has made me realise just how long it has been since Philosophy A-level.

If I only knew the history back one day then I would have a very skewed view of the universe.

If it was raining all day the previous day then I would assume that it would rain all day the following day. This would be based on my finite knowledge of the known past.

However, if I had a larger segment of time to look at I would know that it rains some days and other days it is sunny.

Without a knowledge of the past our assumptions about consistencies could be very, very far off.

 

[JGS]

BUT, Jesus layed down a pretty clear mandate. Those who did not need to see are set apart from Thomas and his like.

No, it has to do with the fact that after this appearance no one was going to see Jesus again anyway. Thomas lacked the helper that Jesus promised his disciples would receive which they did in Acts. His disciples did not understand everything that was going down. They were wholly prepared for Jesus to go all "one man army" on the Roman Empire, preserve Jewish tradition, and restore Jerusalem. When that didn't happen and he died they couldn't grasp the whole resurrected 3 days later bit. Thomas was just the more vocal of them.

I don't think they have reconciled anything. From my own personal experience they are basically programmed, like a computer, to associate any kind of feelings with God immediately.

You have to be careful about using personal experiences. If I can't use them, I'm not sure why you would be able to as a counterpoint. After all, from my personal experience, I am in a congregation of people who do nothing but worship based on have their questions answered to satisfaction. However, it's not that big of a deal if that's not what is satisfying them since nothing else is showing up better on the horizon for them. A hint: Calling people with individual feelings and emotions brainwashed and programmed is not a good way to convince them you are correct.

In all honesty, it appears that your personal experience is tied to evangelicals and then projecting those views to the rest of us.

And most Christians are not evangelicals, but these are the ones that have the most political power these days in America, parts of Europe, elsewhere and are really setting the stage for militant atheism, by making political policy that fits in with their view of scripture.

I disagree. I say they have little political power and the Republican Party should drop them as a platform. The more they focus on their wants, the more likely Republicans will tend to lose outside their districts.

Stats show overwhelmingly that most people are religious meaning that the religious elect the officials that atheists want. Obama would have never been elected without sizeable help from the religious and probably would have won with no support from atheists.

I also think they are a red herring of sorts to overlook the reality that atheists, even militant ones, have nothing to worry about except their ideas being continually discounted. It's simply a market share thing and atheists want a bigger piece of the pie just like everyone else.

I see this everytime the evolution argument pops up and although it's painfully obvious evolution is going nowhere in science class, the perception brought about by the worst atheists is that evolutionary teaching is endangered in the classroom which is ludicrous. Fear of evangicals is simply a hook to use to back up the alleged backwards thinking of all religion.

Even Jesus says spiritual life and secular life both have their place and both should be honored. Christians have tried to spin "Render unto Caesar..." or that all leaders should be honored because God put them there in many different ways to avoid this conclusion but to me they are inescapable. Pray in secret, not out in public like the Pharisees.

This is true but homeschooling is not being a hermit. Christians not only associate with the outside world, they support it greatly with their moola. This doesn't mean they should do drugs, get hookers, or support a teaching they feel is false.

And here we come to our first major break in viewpoints. The curriculum teaches what the evidence points towards, nothing more. If God had a tangible, measurable presence in the world, that would be taught. Unfortunately he does not.

This is incorrect. There is no evidence pointint to the origin of life that has developed in the classroom. None. Nada. Zippo. It's garbage, but it's an extremely minor piece of garbage in the context of all science teaching. I'm not worried for my kids on this but get that other might be. I'll leave the whole God's existence thing alone for brevity's sake. I'm thinking this is going to be a long post.

The curriculum does not teach that God didn't do anything, only that evolution seems to occur and that there is zero evidence to support that everything on the planet was created in seven days, or designed at all.

Most have no problems with evolution- even the home schoolers. Evangelicals probably, but that is not the issue except in the sense that creation is linked to evolution rather than linked to origin of life. That's a media thing though.

It's ridiculous to think that if God wanted to create us, he couldn't or wouldn't want to do it organically, almost algorithmically, if that was his plan. The only major reason evolution is railed against so strongly is because it defies the documentary view of Genesis.

I'm breaking this up too much, but again, people overall have no problems with evol;ution except that it is linked to how life got here in absence of God. It's innaccurate to state that people who advocate evolutionary teaching advocate your version of how life got here. That is not normally the case and there are pages and pages of stuff in this very thread that show that. In fact, I was lol'd so much for suggesting that genesis and evolution could co-exist it becames a wasted exercise in telling me what I must believe in. It's why I don't discuss it in any major detail anymore. It's a waste of time.

Now multiply that across the thousands of schools out there and THAT is the reason you have blowback from the religious regarding evolution. It's annoying to discuss and also a need to defend their view of life.

It's really because educated people are more likely to abandon all religious thought, and they are afraid of it.

This is not true. It may be the case in the science community, but that doesn't really mean much- especially considering the repercussions of someone claiming to be a scientist and devout.

Our second major break. It absolutely is. Jesus was ALL about reaching out to non-jews. The whole idea of "Christians" wasn't even invented until Paul. In Jesus' day there was no bible, no organization, nothing. It was him, 12 disciples, assorted other followers, and he commanded them to go out and make new disciples and spread his teaching: a teaching which emphasized loving God and others and not being worldly as it's major points. Nothing more. Jesus doesn't really say "worship me" anywhere in the synoptic gospels. He says "believe in me". I think based on everything else he said that is more "believe what I am about". Read the first three gospels again with this in mind: He never once tries to paint himself as the focal point of his teaching. His message is what is important to him.

I'm not quite sure where you got the idea I disagreed with the bold. Again insulation is not isolation.

However, it is incorrect about no orginization and no scripture. Christianity was a name given for followers of Christ and they have been around since Jesus baptism. Following him is not worshipping him and I don't think there was ever a requirement to do so. The reason to follow him was because he directed worship to God and was the perfect example of doing so. Because of that he was qualified to fill the role of High Priest (& eventually warrior king).

NT was based on Jesus' teachings about his role given to him by his father and it followed the exact same pattern of writing down information so as not to be forgotten. There was no Bible for sure (How could there be since it wasn't complete until well after Paul's death?), but there were certainly scrolls out the ying yang.

Jesus was a faithful Jew even as he was saying he was the Law's replacement. So order, faith, knowledge of scripture was always required since Moses' day.

Once again, I think you're wrong but I know we're not going to see eye to eye and you're going to take the Christian's view over the bible's infallibility over all else.. The prayer in John is fan fiction.

If I disagree, it's not out of blindness to the truth of the matter. The problem is that whenever anyone says that, they leave it at that.

Humor me and assume i will understand why you think a gospel is fiction and why the synoptics of all things are the accurate. With that said, there's no particular reason to consider the rest of it until that done.

To me, it's merely explaining away a contradiction in your view. Again that has nothing to do with Scriptural fallibilty.

You have to understand neither Jesus nor God in any way said the Bible was going to exist. They didn't require it (Jesus never says "Write all this down please"), Jesus never mandates a religion. His whole ministry was about spreading a message of loving God and our fellow man. We are specifically to become disciples of that message. That is exactly what Jesus says. The words most conservative christians hate to hear: Jesus really was a hippie in a lot of ways.

No one said that, although there are plenty of references where God says to write things down and most books of the Bible provide a pretty good reason for writing stuff down- it's what you do to retain information.

Protecting ourselves from influences contrary to Jesus' teaching (let's leave Paul & John out of it) is not contrary to loving our fellow man.

Yet we're still supposed to love them. You can't do that without going to them. Loving them 'from afar' is empty and hollow. Even the unrighteous and the tax collectors love their neighbors. Jesus says go beyond that. Love everybody. Personally practicing our love for God is specifically supposed to be a private and very personal experience. Paul turned it into a Mystery Cult that flaunts themselves in public and has everybody trying to one up each other, and brought along the worship ceremonies and everything associated with that (worshipping Jesus instead of following his message). Personally I think the Jesus of Mark, Matthew, Luke would have been horrified by this.

Again there is a disconnect with what I said and what you think I said. However, matthew 24 & 28 clearly indicate that Christian teaching is a shared experience- not one to be holed up an personal. It's supposed to imitate the way Jesus did it. Jesus was many things, but quiet and introspective around others was not one of them.

They see it as a way to preserve their strict interpretation of the bible, which includes a healthy fear that controls almost every decision in their lives. You can't look at the whole homosexuality debate going on now and then tell me you don't agree with that.

I don't agree with that at all. Christianity doesn't even adress most decision in our lives, only the important ones. You can't hold people to worship by scaring. It's simply not possible for the majority. It didn't require any extra fortitude by you to break away. It's no different from most others. They just like where they're at.

The homosexuality debate transcends Christianity and stems largely from the fact that many heterosexual people don't view it as a natural act. If it's not natural than why should the marriage be? That's the debate raging around the world with the US being the focal point for some reason.

 

[wayward archer]

If I only knew the history back one day then I would have a very skewed view of the universe.

If it was raining all day the previous day then I would assume that it would rain all day the following day. This would be based on my finite knowledge of the known past.

However, if I had a larger segment of time to look at I would know that it rains some days and other days it is sunny.

Without a knowledge of the past our assumptions about consistencies could be very, very far off.

When that evidence reveals itself it will be evaluated and treated fairly.

I promise you that God is not ruled out by science. Science simply does not speculate on God because of a lack of evidence. Science also does not speculate on Cthulu because there's no direct, observable evidence for him, either.

Atheist scientists will say that there is no god, as Christian scientists will say they is a god. But science -in general- and the scientific process is not saying either of those. It's saying, here is evidence that everyone can observe, record, measure, insert into known equations... here are the conclusions we can draw from that.

"Science" isn't out there trying to remove God. Science is out there trying to expand knowledge based on what we observe.

 

[Dunk#7]

When that evidence reveals itself it will be evaluated and treated fairly.

I promise you that God is not ruled out by science. Science simply does not speculate on God because of a lack of evidence. Science also does not speculate on Cthulu because there's no direct, observable evidence for him, either.

Atheist scientists will say that there is no god, as Christian scientists will say they is a god. But science -in general- and the scientific process is not saying either of those. It's saying, here is evidence that everyone can observe, record, measure, insert into known equations... here are the conclusions we can draw from that.

"Science" isn't out there trying to remove God. Science is out there trying to expand knowledge based on what we observe.

Sounds good to me.

That would be perfectly fine if that is how things are, but I tend to get the feeling that many in the scientific community make it a point to downplay the possibility of creation.

Religion and Science do not have to be mutually exclusive. They both have their place and they can co-exist.

 

[Kinitari]

If I only knew the history back one day then I would have a very skewed view of the universe.

If it was raining all day the previous day then I would assume that it would rain all day the following day. This would be based on my finite knowledge of the known past.

However, if I had a larger segment of time to look at I would know that it rains some days and other days it is sunny.

Without a knowledge of the past our assumptions about consistencies could be very, very far off.

In your example, you are talking strictly observation, and poor observation at that. You can't equate that with how science works. Scientists would think "Okay, it has rained every single day for all time, if that is the case, what would we see?" - they would test this theory out, and from looking at what they know about rain, they would conclude - no, it couldn't have, or else the world would not look like it did. So then they think "Okay, maybe it only rains on certain days" - and then they'd test this out, and yeah, it would make sense. Then they would observe the effect rain has on the environment, and try to extrapolate how frequently it rains, where it rains most, and where the rain comes from.

What you described is more akin to religious thinking "Okay, it rained today. It probably always rains. That makes sense, I like it, I am sticking to it".

Sounds good to me.

That would be perfectly fine if that is how things are, but I tend to get the feeling that many in the scientific community make it a point to downplay the possibility of creation.

Religion and Science do not have to be mutually exclusive. They both have their place and they can co-exist.

First of all, you're a young-earth creationist, no? If you are - there is a reason Science downplays 'that' sort of creation.

Secondly, if you are not, and you think God started the big bang billions of years ago, that is strictly a personal belief - if Science acknowledges that, they would have to acknowledge all personal beliefs as well. It is better they do not, and stick to what they know and can observe. There is absolutely no point to bring God into the equation - even if he exists, he hides it really really well - so no point looking for him.

 

[Orayn]

There is no way for us to know if trends and properties have remained consistent all the way back to the beginning of time.

Well, what are we supposed to do when there's not yet a reason to assume otherwise?

 

[devenger]

I know that poking holes into scientific theory does not prove God, but the contrary is also true. Poking holes into creation ideology does not prove science.

No one is poking holes in creation ideology. We're outright discarding it for not being a scientific theory.

"Does not prove science", I don't even know what that means. "Science" isn't one idea that can be disproved. Its a discipline that only considers evidence. That means God can't be included, because it can't be proven. The contrary is absolutely not true.

All I am getting at is that until we can substantially prove the origin we should leave all possibilities open to consideration.

Ok, Dunk, creationism is on the table as a scientific possibility. What's your first experiment?

 

[Raist]

All I am getting at is that until we can substantially prove the origin we should leave all possibilities open to consideration.

Are you open to the possibility that god was made up by a bunch of drunk jerks who decided to write the bible on a boring friday night?

 

[Dever]

Sounds good to me.

That would be perfectly fine if that is how things are, but I tend to get the feeling that many in the scientific community make it a point to downplay the possibility of creation.

Religion and Science do not have to be mutually exclusive. They both have their place and they can co-exist.

Depends what kind of creation you're talking about. If it's the young earth kind, sure, science is pretty much downplaying that possibility. I think you need to apply your skepticism of the assumptions that science makes to the assumptions your religion makes.

 

[Dunk#7]

Well, what are we supposed to do when there's not yet a reason to assume otherwise?

Well my basic concept here is that we are basing theories on assumptions.

Since that is the case you have to leave the other possibilities that do not adhere to that assumption as potentially valid.

 

[Kinitari]

Well my basic concept here is that we are basing theories on assumptions.

Since that is the case you have to leave the other possibilities that do not adhere to that assumption as potentially valid.

Are you really okay with opening up that can of worms just to keep God in the mix? Do you understand that I could make up a theory right now, and under your specifications, it would have to be considered potentially valid? Do you not see the frivolity of it all?

 

[Dunk#7]

Are you open to the possibility that god was made up by a bunch of drunk jerks who decided to write the bible on a boring friday night?

Yes, I would be open to that possibility.

However I would then look at the known history and find that that was not the case.

I would then take my assumption of Biblical truth and extrapolate it back to where God created the universe.

Just as science takes its assumptions and extrapolates them back to point at numerous theories on the beginning of the universe.

 

[devenger]

Ok, Dunk, creationism is on the table as a scientific possibility. What's your first experiment?

Seriously.

 

[Raist]

Yes, I would be open to that possibility.

However I would then look at the known history and find that that was not the case.

I would then take my assumption of Biblical truth and extrapolate it back to where God created the universe.

Just as science takes its assumptions and extrapolates them back to point at numerous theories on the beginning of the universe.

Known history? Do you know the exact history of the bible? Because if you do, that doesn't bode well for your interpretation of it.
And even then, who's to say the people who wrote these documents weren't lying. Can you prove that?

 

[Orayn]

Well my basic concept here is that we are basing theories on assumptions.

Since that is the case you have to leave the other possibilities that do not adhere to that assumption as potentially valid.

I can see what you're getting at, and I feel the need to cut you off. No naturalistic phenomenon is off the table for science.

I would then take my assumption of Biblical truth and extrapolate it back to where God created the universe.

Just as science takes its assumptions and extrapolates them back to point at numerous theories on the beginning of the universe.

There's one tiny, tiny distinction. Science is a comprehensive method that collects data through rigorous testing and experimental methods, all using the best tools we have available.
The Bible, on the other hand, is a 2000+ year old collection of mythology. Why should we assume it's true? Why not the Iliad? Why not the Ramayana?

 

[Kinitari]

Yes, I would be open to that possibility.

However I would then look at the known history and find that that was not the case.

I would then take my assumption of Biblical truth and extrapolate it back to where God created the universe.

Just as science takes its assumptions and extrapolates them back to point at numerous theories on the beginning of the universe.

You are comparing the 'truths' out of an unverifiable book to the 'truths' achieved through years of rigorous observation, debate and the slow dismantlement of the known universe? It's not the same thing. The truth in that book is no different than the truth in any other book - if it can't be verified, it's useless.

 

[Dunk#7]

Are you really okay with opening up that can of worms just to keep God in the mix? Do you understand that I could make up a theory right now, and under your specifications, it would have to be considered potentially valid? Do you not see the frivolity of it all?

Yes, I do. The issue here is that we really do not know.

The human mind may not even be capable of knowing. We are trying to figure things out as best we can, but that does not mean we are right.

We have changed our minds numerous times already. Scientific theories are constantly changing as we grow in understanding.

Who says we actually have the ability to fully understand our universe? We can keep trying, but it doesn't mean we will ever get there.

 

[Dunk#7]

You are comparing the 'truths' out of an unverifiable book to the 'truths' achieved through years of rigorous observation, debate and the slow dismantlement of the known universe? It's not the same thing. The truth in that book is no different than the truth in any other book - if it can't be verified, it's useless.

There are a lot of things out there that cannot be verified, but that does not make them untrue.

Just because something cannot be proven does not remove the possibility of it being true.

 

[Raist]

There are a lot of things out there that cannot be verified, but that does not make them untrue.

Just because something cannot be proven does not remove the possibility of it being true.

In science, it absolutely does. That's why creation has nothing to do in a science class.

 

[Orayn]

Yes, I do. The issue here is that we really do not know.

The human mind may not even be capable of knowing. We are trying to figure things out as best we can, but that does not mean we are right.

We have changed our minds numerous times already. Scientific theories are constantly changing as we grow in understanding.

Who says we actually have the ability to fully understand our universe? We can keep trying, but it doesn't mean we will ever get there.

Now you're just getting into semantics. No, we haven't proved every scientific theory with metaphysical certitude, but a great deal of them are true beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt.

 

[Kinitari]

Yes, I do. The issue here is that we really do not know.

'We really do not know' is vague, and I am going to challenge that. What do we really not know? How about this, we know with as much certainty that is possible to achieve, that Evolution theory, and all it encompasses (man from earlier ape-thing, all creatures from common ancestors) - is a 'known truth'.

The human mind may not even be capable of knowing. We are trying to figure things out as best we can, but that does not mean we are right.

There is no point considering anything that is outside of our capacity to know. Simple as that. If we can't ever know it, then what is the point considering it?

We have changed our minds numerous times already. Scientific theories are constantly changing as we grow in understanding.

We will also continue to change our mind if necessary - learning and growing and having what we 'know' be shown as incorrect is not a problem with Science. It is a problem with religion. Especially considering that our understandings have been changing for hundreds of years away from a religious understanding of the universe. Change we can believe in, I guess.

Who says we actually have the ability to fully understand our universe? We can keep trying, but it doesn't mean we will ever get there.

We understand it enough that we can manipulate and use our knowledge to our advantage. By understanding the universe, we are able to make things. This is the simplest and most important part of this whole discussion. Because of what we know, we move forward - denying more knowledge because it might possibly step on some religious toes is the idea that we should hold back our progress for what amounts to a nice story. And I would debate that it is even that nice.

 

[Kinitari]

There are a lot of things out there that cannot be verified, but that does not make them untrue.

Just because something cannot be proven does not remove the possibility of it being true.

But it does make it pointless.

 

[wayward archer]

You have to be careful about using personal experiences. If I can't use them, I'm not sure why you would be able to as a counterpoint.

I never said you couldn't use personal experiences. Just said that inner experiences that you can't directly share except through verbal communication are not really valuable. I can take you to thousands of churches all over America to demonstrate what i'm talking about.

In all honesty, it appears that your personal experience is tied to evangelicals and then projecting those views to the rest of us.

Not projecting anything onto you personally.

Christians not only associate with the outside world, they support it greatly with their moola. This doesn't mean they should do drugs, get hookers, or support a teaching they feel is false.

NO ONE is asking a Christian to do any of those things. Nor support them. Nor accept them. NO ONE. Don't force other people to adopt this worldview. Even God felt it important to give Adam and Eve freedom to make a choice (well, that didn't literally happen, but the story's message is still important I feel).

Snipping a bunch of this for brevity's sake.

I agree abiogenesis has little evidence. We know certain proteins necessary for the way we think it can happen are able to form spontaneously, but we haven't seen it actually happen yet. Considering that if it did happen it probably took millions of years, this is not surprising. It has more evidence for it than ID or creationism, however. If it is taught as absolute truth anywhere then it shouldn't be. I certainly wasn't taught that in public school.

Humor me and assume i will understand why you think a gospel is fiction and why the synoptics of all things are the accurate. With that said, there's no particular reason to consider the rest of it until that done.

To me, it's merely explaining away a contradiction in your view. Again that has nothing to do with Scriptural fallibility.

I think parts of the bible are fiction for a number of reasons.

A) They were validated by men. Neither Jesus nor God directly validated them. The books we kept were validated by 2nd-5th century theologians, amongst a plethora of documents that were deemed to dangerous to let survive and were destroyed. Christians accept that it is God's word simply because another person has told them so.

B) When I came to these conclusions, I was actually very strong in my faith at the time. I wanted to prove the bible was right. I wanted to become a Christian apologist who could convincingly argue for Mainstream Christian thought. I wasn't looking to tear anything down.

C) John is almost all commentary. It utilizes ideas about christianty that developed during Paul's tenure. Just up and accepting Paul and everything he said because he helped established the church is the equivalent of adding Joel Osteen's prosperity theology in the Bible because he brought a lot of people into his church.

D) I am working off the (very logical in my mind) assumption that Jesus brought us all the information we actually need to know. Paul adds a bunch of stuff. A tremendous amount of stuff. A lot of it is directly lifted straight out of Greek and Roman spiritual thought of the day and does not jibe with Jesus's message.

You hold the view of the bible you do because it fits your view, just as I do. That's the nature of it all. I'm not holding this position because I want to have sex with a man, or because I want to keep all my money and not take care of the poor, or because I want to associate with non-believers, or any ulterior motive. I actually consider myself to be a very good Christian, insofar as what Jesus said, and no one else.

Again there is a disconnect with what I said and what you think I said. However, matthew 24 & 28 clearly indicate that Christian teaching is a shared experience- not one to be holed up an personal. It's supposed to imitate the way Jesus did it. Jesus was many things, but quiet and introspective around others was not one of them.

Yes you are absolutely supposed to tell people to Love God. Love each other. Don't cling to worldly things. Direct communion with God is very private. It is not to be performed at the start of a public class, where people are often ridiculed for not joining in.

You want to pray in school, that's fine. Bow your head and pray so everyone can see you. This is in direct violation of something Jesus said.

You can't hold people to worship by scaring.

We'll agree to disagree. Fear has controlled people in a lot of different ways throughout history. I never said it was the only factor in someone's faith, just that it influences a lot of things.

Compare religions that don't have eternal punishments to ones that do. It's plain as day to me.

 

[devenger]

Dunk, I couldn't get you to stop jumping up and down yelling "Creationism" and now i can't get a response.

Not having a response is my point. There is no experiment you can perform that can prove God's hand in the Universe, so you don't include it in science. Please stop asking us to.

edit: I just realized this last statement was in essence part of my original comment that sparked this debate. Full circle, that's what I meant by the run around.

 

[Dunk#7]

Dunk, I couldn't get you to stop jumping up and down yelling "Creationism" and now i can't get a response.

Not having a response is my point. There is no experiment you can perform that can prove God's hand in the Universe, so you don't include it in science. Please stop asking us to.

edit: I just realized this last statement was in essence part of my original comment that sparked this debate. Full circle, that's what I meant by the run around.

Have I ever once claimed that you could prove creationism? I know that it is not possible.

My only point is that we also cannot prove any other explanation about the beginning of the universe.

I believe that there is evidence that points to both, but each of our initial points of view blinds us into choosing one concept over another. We disagree with what the evidence points to and that will never be changed.

My point is that no matter what origin story you choose it requires faith to believe it as it cannot be proven. I understand that there are evidences that point to the universe being merged together at some point in the past, but that still does not get you to the beginning. It only gets you part of the way there and evidences can be interpreted different ways.

 

[Kinitari]

Have I ever once claimed that you could prove creationism? I know that it is not possible.

My only point is that we also cannot prove any other explanation about the beginning of the universe.

I believe that there is evidence that points to both, but each of our initial points of view blinds us into choosing one concept over another. We disagree with what the evidence points to and that will never be changed.

My point is that no matter what origin story you choose it requires faith to believe it as it cannot be proven. I understand that there are evidences that point to the universe being merged together at some point in the past, but that still does not get you to the beginning. It only gets you part of the way there and evidences can be interpreted different ways.

Your only point is to try and give your view point the semblance of validity by trying to equate the 'faith' we hold in a scientific interpretation of the universe with the faith you hold in an old book. These are not equatable - one is fundamentally required not only to us, but by every creature we know about, for the sun to keep doing what it does, for the universe to keep working as it does. It is no more faith than having faith in the idea that I won't start floating upwards tomorrow for no reason.

The faith you hold is baseless, and essentially derived from an old book. A book that could very easily have been fabricated, a book that has been altered, changed and retro-fitted to make even the slightest bit of sense in the world we live in. Full of contradictions and falsehoods and inconsistent even in it's portrayal of a deity. You hold that faith because you like it, not because it is in any way substantial.

Those are not the same thing. Please don't try to equate them, you aren't the first person who has, and you won't be the last.

 

[devenger]

Have I ever once claimed that you could prove creationism? I know that it is not possible.

You said it should be considered a scientific theory. therefore, it has to be provable. Not proven, 100%, in the past, but provable, as in we can experiment and get expected results.

My only point is that we also cannot prove any other explanation about the beginning of the universe.

And thats where I point out that you're wrong. Big Bang has not been 100% proven, but it has physical evidence supporting it. Creationism does not.

My point is that no matter what origin story you choose it requires faith to believe it as it cannot be proven.

And you are flat out wrong about this. There's a graph above that someone generously posted so you could see one of the many examples of scientific evidence. We observe the universe, we propose a theory, we test it, and the outcome either fits our expectation, or doesn't. Both results tell us a little bit more about the physical universe. That is called science.

You're trying to equate every cosmological supposition with your creation myth, and it's just not true. It's not even an opinion. You can jam your fingers in your ears and keep saying that scientific theories require faith. The only faith science upholds is that the universe might be knowable. You've already said that it isn't, that we'll NEVER know. Luckily, the scientific community doesn't agree with you.

edit: I agree with a lot of Kinitari's points, but I don't have an opinion on your actual religious belief, besides not sharing it. Just keep it out of my science text books, please. (full circle)

 

[Dever]

Have I ever once claimed that you could prove creationism? I know that it is not possible.

My only point is that we also cannot prove any other explanation about the beginning of the universe.

I believe that there is evidence that points to both, but each of our initial points of view blinds us into choosing one concept over another. We disagree with what the evidence points to and that will never be changed.

My point is that no matter what origin story you choose it requires faith to believe it as it cannot be proven. I understand that there are evidences that point to the universe being merged together at some point in the past, but that still does not get you to the beginning. It only gets you part of the way there and evidences can be interpreted different ways.

Hmm, so believe that there's evidence that points to a 13,7 billion year old expanding universe and there's evidence of a 6000 year old universe? Wouldn't the evidences necessarily be contradictory? Only one of those options can be true. Why do you think NASA isn't sending satellites to space to test out predictions made by the creation "theory"? Does creation make any testable predictions?

 

[WillyFive]

Hmm, so believe that there's evidence that points to a 13,7 billion year old expanding universe and there's evidence of a 6000 year old universe? Wouldn't the evidences necessarily be contradictory? Only one of those options can be true.

You'd think so, but since both sides use the same evidence and spin it in different ways, you end up with what we have today.

They definitely do contradict each other, it's all on which side you are willing to support more.

 

[Orayn]

Have I ever once claimed that you could prove creationism? I know that it is not possible.

My only point is that we also cannot prove any other explanation about the beginning of the universe.

I believe that there is evidence that points to both, but each of our initial points of view blinds us into choosing one concept over another. We disagree with what the evidence points to and that will never be changed.

My point is that no matter what origin story you choose it requires faith to believe it as it cannot be proven. I understand that there are evidences that point to the universe being merged together at some point in the past, but that still does not get you to the beginning. It only gets you part of the way there and evidences can be interpreted different ways.

Even if we agree on the point that science doesn't "prove" anything in the absolute, gnostic sense, it's still dishonest and downright wrong to say that it's the same as any other creation story. Does the idea of making observations and gathering evidence based on the physical world just not register with you?

You'd think so, but since both sides use the same evidence and spin it in different ways, you end up with what we have today.

They definitely do contradict each other, it's all on which side you are willing to support more.

Missing the point like the Fist of the North Star. Science and religion are. Not. The. Same.

 

[Count Dookkake]

You'd think so, but since both sides use the same evidence and spin it in different ways, you end up with what we have today.

They definitely do contradict each other, it's all on which side you are willing to support more.

The bolded is not true.

 

[Dever]

You'd think so, but since both sides use the same evidence and spin it in different ways, you end up with what we have today.

They definitely do contradict each other, it's all on which side you are willing to support more.

But in every instance it's the same thing. Solid scientific theories like the big bang have always predicted what we would find. Creationists have then taken those results and modified their stories to fit the new evidence. You never see a creationist make testable predictions based on holy scripture. Take for example Isaiah 40:22:

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,

And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,

Who ustretches out the heavens like a curtain,

And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Spoiler

insert portal 2 reference

It's a pretty popular creationist claim that this passage is describing the expansion of the universe with God "stretching out the heavens" and everything. But this was only noticed after the expansion of the universe became a mainstream scientific fact made evident by the redshifts of distant galaxies. It's not like any holy man before Hubble looked at that passage and thought: "Hey, maybe this passage means that the universe is expanding! We could actually test this by measuring the redshifts of galaxies!". Real theories make predictions, creation science only postdicts.

 

[JGS]

I never said you couldn't use personal experiences. Just said that inner experiences that you can't directly share except through verbal communication are not really valuable. I can take you to thousands of churches all over America to demonstrate what i'm talking about.

Not projecting anything onto you personally.

I'm not doubting that, I think I could take you to tens of thousands of other churches that don't have people sitting there like baked potatoes content in knowing nothing- including a lot of the ones you would take me to. It's a simplistic take on faith that doesn't really hold up.

Even Dunk #7 who is being taken to task for stating his views on creation is explaining what satisfies him about it right now and his debaters are only trying to disprove his view- certainly not saying anything worth accepting of theirs. He is satisfied and not merely saying "derp" in explaining it.

NO ONE is asking a Christian to do any of those things. Nor support them. Nor accept them. NO ONE. Don't force other people to adopt this worldview. Even God felt it important to give Adam and Eve freedom to make a choice (well, that didn't literally happen, but the story's message is still important I feel).

Adam & Eve had 100% free choice.

Also, no one is making anyone doing anything. There's just no reason to associate with ones who do those things either. It's not a forced thing, it a who is the best person to associate thing. They are not it and there's no reason for Christians to be anywhere near them nor a mandate/expectation to be.

I think parts of the bible are fiction for a number of reasons.

A) They were validated by men. Neither Jesus nor God directly validated them. The books we kept were validated by 2nd-5th century theologians, amongst a plethora of documents that were deemed to dangerous to let survive and were destroyed. Christians accept that it is God's word simply because another person has told them so.

This is incorrect.

The OT was repeatedly validated through Jewish history. It was referred to time and again by other in the OT as well as most of the NT. There is no question as to canonicity by the beginning of the 1st century.

The NT being validated in the 2nd century is true regarding copies maybe (5th century is way late), but the letters themselves were written when they were suppposed to be unless proof is provided otherwise. Most have issues with it only from the skeptics viewpoint that find the miracle/prophecies impossible.

Finding copies in the second century only verifies that there were earlier writings.

B) When I came to these conclusions, I was actually very strong in my faith at the time. I wanted to prove the bible was right. I wanted to become a Christian apologist who could convincingly argue for Mainstream Christian thought. I wasn't looking to tear anything down.

Honestly, I could say the same thing when discussing my lack of belief at one time. I could also say that when I had a strong belief inn other matters but changed them to reflect newfound knowledge.

C) John is almost all commentary. It utilizes ideas about christianty that developed during Paul's tenure. Just up and accepting Paul and everything he said because he helped established the church is the equivalent of adding Joel Osteen's prosperity theology in the Bible because he brought a lot of people into his church.

John was an original apostle, a head of the church, & a friend/family member of Jesus. The statements you've made have no more weight than the last time you said it was fiction. Other Gospels mirror Paul much more than John's does. If anything, John's is the hippie version.

D) I am working off the (very logical in my mind) assumption that Jesus brought us all the information we actually need to know. Paul adds a bunch of stuff. A tremendous amount of stuff. A lot of it is directly lifted straight out of Greek and Roman spiritual thought of the day and does not jibe with Jesus's message.

The assumption is incorrect. Jesus told enough and performed enough miracles to have disciples to start the work. He stated that the work will grow only after he leaves and God provides additional help. He stated that he would have appointed men running the congregation on earth and dispensing food at the proper time. Acts (Not written by Paul) shows Paul being appointed by Jesus to accomplish what he does. Acts shows that Paul's teaching were consistent with his actual writings and with the views of the apostles. To be blunt, there's no contradictions between Paul and Jesus even if John were a phony...which he's not.

You hold the view of the bible you do because it fits your view, just as I do. That's the nature of it all. I'm not holding this position because I want to have sex with a man, or because I want to keep all my money and not take care of the poor, or because I want to associate with non-believers, or any ulterior motive. I actually consider myself to be a very good Christian, insofar as what Jesus said, and no one else.

This is just another attempt to explain my belief without asking me. What makes your view any better?

Yes you are absolutely supposed to tell people to Love God. Love each other. Don't cling to worldly things. Direct communion with God is very private. It is not to be performed at the start of a public class, where people are often ridiculed for not joining in.

You want to pray in school, that's fine. Bow your head and pray so everyone can see you. This is in direct violation of something Jesus said.

This is incorrect. There is nothing wrng with public prayer. The model prayer was done in public. There has never been a prayer circle so large that it intimidated others. in any event, that has nothing to do with the indiviual praying on their own.

Direct communion with God is something that is encouraged at every opportunity. Cultural pressure are the things that limit it, not Jesus of all people.

We'll agree to disagree. Fear has controlled people in a lot of different ways throughout history. I never said it was the only factor in someone's faith, just that it influences a lot of things.

In history for sure, but not even in the first century congregation was the threat of death and torment the motivator for people becoming Christian. It just doesn't happen. Of course, if a church leader was threatening to burn me in oil, then I would be scared. This has never happened to me or anyone I know. This is not the Dark Ages and people do what they want. People do not remain with a church that tels them they are going to burn forever unless their butts are in the seat. It certainly didn't work for the Catholic Church which is why they are wisely kinder and gentler.

Compare religions that don't have eternal punishments to ones that do. It's plain as day to me.

You're probably not there that often, but you can watch an evangical show on TV and know this isn't the case. It's easy to see that the eternal torment doctrine is applied to those who have not been saved- whatever that means for that religion. The teaching is wrong but it's not what keeps people there, it's the blessings.

 

[wayward archer]

Even Dunk #7 who is being taken to task for stating his views on creation is explaining what satisfies him about it right now and his debaters are only trying to disprove his view- certainly not saying anything worth accepting of theirs. He is satisfied and not merely saying "derp" in explaining it.

This kinda illustrates a fundamental different we probably won't be able to overcome here in this conversation. Nobody is trying to "disprove" his view. They are demonstrating that there really isn't any evidence to support it. Just like most people here aren't trying to "disprove" God, they are just pointing out the fact that there is zero tangible evidence.

This is incorrect.

The OT was repeatedly validated through Jewish history.

Who validated them? Jewish priests talking for God? Mohammad and many Imans validate the Koran. Why don't you believe what it says? "Because I know it's true in my heart" isn't validation. People are capable of believing something so much it becomes real for them. I'll be the first to admit I am capable of doing this, although I like to think that I don't. I'd be extremely receptive to evidence that shows the bible is the direct word of God for instance. But unless every religion out there is true then large amounts of the world's population are capable of this as well, including Christians.

Validation really isn't possible at this point, 2000 years later. It's not going to happen. Anyway, doesn't matter. Paul doesn't tell us that his writings are sacred either, and most of what he says seems very focused on keeping belief strong amongst the various communities and giving them advice on how to keep their congregations together and avoid having members picked off from other mystery cults like the Cult of Dionysus or Apollonius of Tyrea or Mithra that were popular at the time. Applicable today? I dunno. This isn't that discussion. But he definitely changed things quite a bit.

Most have issues with it only from the skeptics viewpoint that find the miracle/prophecies impossible.

There are a lot more issues than that. Inconsistencies are probably more troubling than wondering if miracles are real. There is also the matter that very important theologians like Eusebius wrote that falsehoods occurred throughout the church's history and were deemed a necessary "medicine" to advance the church down it's true path.

You said 5th century was too late but the First Council of Ephesus in 431 BC marks the point at which the current biblical view was 'closed for discussion'. Nothing further could be brought forward and debated including biblical interpretation. Up until that point there was lots of debate. So that's 5th century.

John was an original apostle, a head of the church, & a friend/family member of Jesus. The statements you've made have no more weight than the last time you said it was fiction. Other Gospels mirror Paul much more than John's does. If anything, John's is the hippie version.

There is substantial doubt (going back 1900 years) that this is the case. Who wrote the Johannine works is not a cut and dried case. Biologically speaking it's highly unlikely the original John was even alive when the book was probably written (90-110 AD). Or since he only calls himself the "beloved disciple", that it was even John at all. It's Ignatius who first calls it John's account. We have to take his word for it.

Going further, we're actually not absolutely sure that any of the gospels come from eye-witness accounts. Mark may have been. Luke 1:1-4 seems pretty clear to me... he states this is info handed down to us by eyewitnesses, and does not claim to be one of them.

It was extremely common to entitle a story "The gospel of:" and insert an important name into it. Was the Gospel of Judas actually written by Judas? Of course not. Yet you accept Matthew for instance without a second thought. I'm sure you will adamantly disagree but let's be perfectly clear here: You have nothing at all with which to disprove this. Someone saying "yes this was certainly the work of the apostle Matthew" is about as valuable as someone saying "Yes Joseph Smith absolutely dictated the Book of Mormon while being spoken to by an angel through a hat". This is something Christians who want to believe must take on faith alone, a gap they have to fill with an assumption.

It's kinda ridiculous for me to think that in order to make Pauline theology relevant, it suddenly becomes necessary to say Jesus DIDN'T give us enough information to be saved. That seems to be what you are saying here. I'm not willing to accept that on any level so let's not waste time on it.

To be blunt, there's no contradictions between Paul and Jesus even if John were a phony...which he's not.

"Which he's not". A simple declaration with zero evidence for. Not even the author of the book gives you anything to support that declaration. Why do you not accept the Gospel of Thomas or Mary, or the Hebrews as being scriptural truth. Ultimately because someone in the church decided they didn't agree with them and you accept what they say.

This is just another attempt to explain my belief without asking me. What makes your view any better?

I don't think it's 'better' and I never said that.

Skipping your discourse on public prayer. Jesus makes it clear we aren't to flaunt our righteousness in vanity. He gives the specific example of praying in public. Prayer circles are one thing, but i'm talking about the old practice of making kids pray before the class begins. That's what a lot of private school and homeschool advocates want to bring back in full force. If you look up what people have written in papers, websites, etc on "School Prayer" this is what many religious people want to bring back. I seriously don't think many people out there have issues with prayer circles. I certainly don't.

 

[JGS]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/...is-human-nature-huge-new-study-claims/?hpt=C1

Pretty good article and pretty neutral considering the controversial title. This is something I've been saying since the beginning of this thread and probably said in one form or another on this page.

Religious belief is human nature, huge new study claims
By Richard Allen Greene, CNN

London (CNN) – Religion comes naturally, even instinctively, to human beings, a massive new study of cultures all around the world suggests.

"We tend to see purpose in the world," Oxford University professor Roger Trigg said Thursday. "We see agency. We think that something is there even if you can't see it. ... All this tends to build up to a religious way of thinking."

Trigg is co-director of the three-year Oxford-based project, which incorporated more than 40 different studies by dozens of researchers looking at countries from China to Poland and the United States to Micronesia.

Studies around the world came up with similar findings, including widespread belief in some kind of afterlife and an instinctive tendency to suggest that natural phenomena happen for a purpose.

I don't know if I believe that there is an instinct for afterlife as much as I believe there is an instinct for not dying and turning to spirituality to address that rather than accept it.

 

[soul creator]

general Q: what is a "non-materialist" view of the world?

 

[Orayn]

general Q: what is a "non-materialist" view of the world?

An escape clause amounting to "Oh, well, I know that VAGUELY DESCRIBED ENTITY did it by IMPLAUSIBLE MECHANISM. It says so in HOLY BOOK, which I know is true because ANECDOTE." that can be used absolutely anywhere