A Question from a Christian

[swickstrum]

Seabee said:

I think I am most bewildered by the assertion that anything is not worth proving or disproving. The more I think about this, the more positive I am that this is the most basic and elemental function in our lives. What's real, and what's not? What's valid, and what's not?

We're talking about knowledge and wisdom, and the pursuit thereof. We're talking about critical thinking, and we're talking about "An unexamined life is not worth living." We're talking, "I think, therefore I am." We're talking about your own beliefs versus mine. We're talking about voting and democracy.

We're talking about AMERICA. (Yea, it is a concept so holy that I mustcanshould resort to the ALLCAPS. Yahooey.)

We're talking about the potential, and the obligation to grow and to challenge your old beliefs, and move on and become a different person. We're talking about the possibility for you to evolve and become smarter and better, faster and stronger. We're talking about organic and spontaneous versus stagnant and ... awful. Terrible? Yes, terrible.

We're talking about your right to change your mind. (While it is, indeed, your prerogative, I say to Shania Twain, to hell with thee. It is not just a woman's right; it is a human right.)

You should, must, question everything that comes your way in life. Think for yourself! Demand citations that be needed! Think for yourself! Think for yourself! Vote! Think for yourself! You have opposable thumbs, for crissakes! Think for for yourself! We are the stewards of the universe, and we have been blessed with self-awareness and neuroticism, intelligence and skepticism. Think for your effin self, goddammit!

Gentle reader, your life should be dedicated to proving and disproving everything and anything at all.

My response:
Seems to me that this need to prove and disprove everything in life is an attempt to fill your time, heart, and soul with a need to define existence that could be met by the very God you are attempting to disprove.

If I were in your shoes, I’d rather search for true wisdom than spend time disproving the existence of an Omnipotent being that – to be honest – does not even need to be disproven. The Bible is so illogical, the idea of a being that could create the earth in seven days so ridiculous, that to spend so much time trying to disprove His existence seems – to be completely honest – an illogical waste of time. Certainly there are things in the scientific world to focus your energy on - things that would not waste the intellect of someone such as yourself. And I say this only half sarcastically – how about researching something that could really make a difference?


You said:

I reject your premise, on one condition. I do not care whether or not your person worships Jesus. I do care, passionately, however, when Jesus worshippers become strong enough in number, and loud enough in voice, to affect public policy, politics, education, foreign relations. At that point, I think it is detrimental and deleterious to our society.

At that point, I believe it is my obligation as a US citizen to say that your religion is poisoning my country, and so, if it pleases you, to hell with your religion!

But, if I may be so bold as to speak on behalf of the FSM community, I would would then like to reiterate that we do not care who you whoreship, or who you revere as The One True God, and we will never, nay ever, drive anybody away from your god.

My response:
I’ve noted in a prior post that it’s obvious that Christians have almost no power anymore in the U.S. a country that was founded on Christian principles. I did affect policy, politics, education, and foreign relations. So at what point did this begin poisoning our country – about the point that the vocal minority decided it was offensive to them.

The very existence of the FSM is driving people from Christianity, especially the younger generations who do not have the same ideologies that you espouse – question everything. Unfortunately, because they see you as an intelligent person who laughs in the face of the“One True God” they accept as fact that God is an impossibility, when it is not a fact.

You said:

Assuming that by "Jesus," you mean modern Christians, then I submit for your approval, the Inquisition. Abstinence Only sex education. The Crusades. Discrimination against gays. The Salem Witch Hunt. The damnation of all non-believers to hell.

The targets of these figurative and literal slaughters are all people who "do not believe in him."

I am positive that you anticipated this response, too, because you don't seem, from your grammar and sentence structure, to be stupid. Why would you leave yourself open to such a refutation?

My response:

Okay, we can bring this up, that’s fine, although I don’t normally tend to think of anything prior to 1700 as the “Modern” era of Christianity – tomato, tomAto. I would respond that these things were mistakes, just as the scientific community is capable of admitting mistakes, so are most reasonable Christians. The Crusades, the inquisition, the Salem Witch trials were all horrendous mistakes made by Christians – feel better? Now, go ask a Muslim if they feel the Muslim Conquests that preceded the Crusades were mistakes, and I’ll hazard a guess at their response.

Abstinence Only sex education works sometimes, of course not in every case, yet I would be inclined to mention that since we have been supplying teens with condoms and educating them in the “proper ways to protect themselves” that teen pregnancies have gone up. It appears that isn’t working too well either.

Why didn’t you bring up Fred Phelps and the Baptist Church in Topeka, KS? That would be much better source of “modern” Christians acting ridiculous than the crusades – that ended in the 1200’s – come on now, you can do better than that…

If you are going to have an issue with the “damnation of non-believers” then I think Christians are not the audience you should take this problem up with, just a suggestion. Not sure we can really do anything about that one Seabee.

I think you might be confusing FSMism with a religion that competes with Christianity. FSMism is not a religion. I would go so far as to say it is a non-religion. The movement has its origins in denouncing giving Christian Origin mythology unfair and undue attention in science classes in public schools.


Don't get me wrong. Believing in God is idiocy. (But it is a strange, separate, and unique idiocy. There are may smart, intelligent, decent people who believe in God. It is an anomaly that I have yet to understand.) But you are entitled to your idiocy. It is your God given right!

You pray to your god in the evenings and worship him in the mornings. I will feed my dog in the evenings and walk him in the mornings. Blessings on everyone, and peace upon mankind. Amen. Woof woof.

I used to live a path inverse to yours. You said you were once an atheist. I was, in my youth, a devout, Bible-thumping Christian. And even as such I happily accepted evolution, because even at 15 years old I knew that there could be no such thing as a literal interpretation of the Bible, and so I did not believe that creation happened in seven days, but that evolution was the means through which God chose to develop, direct and create life.

What I mean to say is that I don't think your religion has to preclude science.

And, incidentally, your wording here seems to imply a misconception of the technical definitions of scientific law, and scientific theory. Not condescendingly, do you understand why the Law of Thermodynamics is a law, and the Theory of Gravity is a theory?

My response:
Your statements above, I must admit, confuse me a bit. I judge you to be an intelligent person, and I too, have seen many intelligent men that are Christians. I would think that the very word “many” would cause you not to use the word “anomaly” in the very next sentence. At least I wouldn't use that strange combination, but hey, whatever. I would invite you to your local church and so you can see who attends. You will (hopefully) find that most of the congregation is intelligent and coherent. Most of us can even keep our mouths closed so as not to drool while others are talking.

In my opinion, those who do believe in God, yet do not believe He could do the entirety of Creation in seven days are not thinking it through. How can anyone believe in a Supernatural Being, yet not believe He can do Supernatural things? This is just a comment regarding the obvious intelligence that was a 15 year old you. And this is not meant to be condescending at all (okay, a little bit), I once believed the same thing you did when you were 15, until I thought it through.

As far as the “Law vs. Theory” question, I believe I understand the basic concept of law vs. theory, but I could be wrong. As I understand it, a law is something that cannot be proven wrong, whereas a theory is a logical explanation for things that happen – but, at some point, may be proven to be wrong. Fact: Man exists – Theory: evolution is the reason man exists according to the evidence. Am I close?


You said:

I think you have hit on a major selling point of science, a major reason why it is a superior belief system: it is self-correcting. I challenge you to find as many theological issues that the Church has as readily and happily accepted as incorrect, and in need of reevaluation and redefinition.

But to give credit where it is due, modern science was born of the ancient Church. Obviously. The Church used to be the only authority on the universe, its workings, and its marvel. Science had to take what it understood as truth (ie, the sun revolves around the sun, the ocean is full of monsters, Earth is 6,000 years old, the universe was created in seven days, slaves and women are inferior to men, etc) and go from there.

But, moreover, how dare you try to dig up dark chapters in the annals of scientific progress? Sure there's Egas Moniz and his lobotomies, and there are the countless horrors committed by the nazis in old Germany, and there is electroshock therapy, and more. But this all pales in comparison to the horrors and terrors committed by the Christian church over the centuries.

Your church's closet is full of several many more skeletons than that belonging to science, ya chump.

Well, let’s see, I can name a few –
1. The Catholic Church changed its belief of a Geocentric Universe, and apologized to Galileo for persecuting him, after his death.
2. The reformation
3. Some Churches now allow their leadership to be openly gay.
4. Christians acknowledge the Crusades were wrong.
5. Most Christians (not I) accept evolution as God’s method of Creation.
6. Views on women have changed.
7. Christians established the Republics that allowed non-Christians, such as yourself to thrive.
And the very fact that there are so many denominations would suggest that Christians have different beliefs about the theologies that are in the Bible. And for the most part – again not always – the different denominations respect the beliefs of the others and do not condemn them for their beliefs.

I have discussed the “earth revolves around the sun” issue on a previous post. I would say, however, that the beliefs about slaves and women did not come from Christianity but from other cultures that surrounded the Israelites during much of the Old Testament.

By the way, these things are not really “in our closet” being that the entire world knows about them and they have been admitted to, and for the most part apologized for, by a majority of Christians – chump.

Swickstrum: The one thing older than 2000 years that science has never been able to prove, or DIS-prove is the existence of, creation by, and subsequent sacrifice of - God Himself, no matter how hard they try. And by the looks of this website, and others just like it…there have been those that have been trying VERY hard.

Logical error!

Science does not have to disprove anything. You have but to PROVE a thing. This is the basis of FSMism. In the spirit of not being able to disprove a thing, one's worship of a flying spaghetti monster is every bit as valid as your worship of a ... bearded white guy on a cloud.

Okay, then why is our theory that God created the universe and everything in it any less valid than evolution? There are plenty of Creationists that have very valid points regarding creation that are dismissed as ridiculous because of the “faith” in evolution that evolutionists have. What makes one theory less valid than another? Seriously, is it the “majority rules” idea, the theory with the most proof, or what?

Science cannot prove evolution, cannot disprove God – fine. Christianity cannot prove the existence of God nor disprove evolution – fine. Why are we not allowed to discuss alternative possibilities?

If you are requiring full blown proof of God’s existence in order to worship, even the Bible says you will not get that, sorry bud. That is where faith in God rather than faith in evolution becomes the answer of where we place our beliefs.

Swickstrum: If you would like to read philosophical accounts of God’s existence – read Pascal, Kant, C.S. Lewis, or even Einstein.

Einstein was an atheist. His references to God were actually in reference to a more abstract god, as in the way of the universe, or the way of nature.

You could be right on this, both camps claim him as their own – maybe we should have a draft.

Here's a personal anecdote, though. I grew up in southern Alabama, in the midst of the Bible belt. I knew at a very early age that I did not believe in the Christian god (for reasons I can go into in another post). So if you want to talk about being shouted at, cursed, shunned, or hated because of one's religious beliefs, then I encourage you to contact me for further discourse.

Sorry that some idiot Christians treated you badly for that – some people do not know how to handle dissenters.

swickstrum: How awesome is that? I can tell you all that I believe, and all you will do is laugh at me and pat me on my little retarded shoulder while you wink at your friends. “He’s a stupid one.” You will say…“He really thinks there is a God…ha, ha.” And just leave me alone, right? We will see. I’m afraid the truth is I will be hated, mocked, made fun of, and threatened with violence.
I will certainly mock you and make fun of you. I will NEVER threaten you with violence or hate you. Because this is America, Mr. Paranoid.

Yeah, people in America are never threatened with violence or hated because of their beliefs – oh wait. What happened in Alabama again?

Ballsy.

Once again, the intertubes is a wonderfully anonymous place. No need to get so personal. I hope you aren't actually going to post your family portrait after this.

They don’t deserve the disgrace of being seen by the likes of you non-believers…now that – is a joke. Post a picture? After I thought about it, I decided I’m not that ballsy, my wife would kill me – she scares me more than most large men.

swickstrum: Finally, I would like to say this: Make fun all you like, but the Bible still cannot be disproven, and there are no other documents as revered – yet more thoroughly tried to be proven false - as the Bible. And IF…by the small chance (according to science) IF…the Bible IS the true Word of God – then read and contemplate these words… Romans 1:18 – 25

No documents as revered? That is either terribly biased, or terribly ignorant, or both. There is also the Koran, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, the Tarvunti, the Tao, the Book of Marvin, and the Principia Discoria. Get over yourself.

The Bible has been bought more, given more, translated more, read more, taught more, and respected more than all of the above. Between 2.5 Billion and 6 Billion copies sold according to Business week. Get over those facts.

1. And these came to be known as the Laws of Marvin, which were as by Magic marked upon the walls of the bathrooms of the Priests of the Spirit Mallet, and they were seven in number:
2.Be thyself, for if thou dost not, thou art not.
3. Do that which makes thee glad, for sadness is the great oracle of the death of the soul.
4. Measure your progress in life by the rustiness of the gates through which you pass.
5. Remember the Pueblo.
6.Avoid he who has no mind, for if he has none himself, he shall surely demand thine of thee.
7. Learn that which others can teach, and teach that which others can learn.
8. Consider that the only entity who entirely occupies his world is Marvin, and He is lodged in an oak tree.
9. And such are the Laws of Marvin.

Oh, lookie! I can quote scripture too! Yippee! Yahooey! Yahweh![/quote]

No comment needed.

[thelastpirate]

There is no one law of thermodynamics; there are laws of thermodynamics, see my earlier post for what law means in a scientific context.

[OrigamiSquared]

Hi everyone. I would like to clear a few things up. Swickstrum has been conversing with me through e-mails, and so that is why we had the colors. Also, he did not bring up the eyeball. I did. I wasn't using an irreducible complexity argument; I am an atheist and believe in evolution. I was refuting the idea that we only became complex 2000 years ago by pointing out progress is in the evolutionary sense also. Sorry for any confusion!

[tris]

The discoverer of the Heliocentric Solar System was (most famously) Galileo....

Oh, sorry to be dogmatic, but it was Copernicus who first came up with a scientifically rigorous (note the "U") heliocentric theory in the book, "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) which was published during the year of his death, 1543... 21 years before Galileo was born in 1564. I guess it was quite lucky he died so soon after finishing the book, 'cos that way he avoided getting any nasty visits from the Inquisition who might well have forced him to recant and deny his important discoveries... as they did with Galileo whose later observation of the phases of Venus produced the first observational evidence for Copernicus' theory and whose observation of the moons of Jupiter proved that the solar system contained bodies that did not orbit Earth. I find it faintly ironic that you give Galileo credit for the heliocentric theory since, following his trial for heresy in 1633, the church (your friends!) forced him to abjure his opinion that the Earth is not at the centre of the universe. Galileo was imprisoned and spent the last years of his life (till 1642) under house arrest on orders of the Roman Inquisition. His offending book the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems was banned and publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.
Anyway, Galileo’s persecution aside, credit given where credit is due or, since you like Biblical quotations so much I'll paraphrase Jesus: "give unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto Copernicus the things that are Copernicus’s” (Matthew 22:21).
Actually early traces of a heliocentric model are also found in several anonymous Vedic Sanskrit texts.
Philolaus (4th century BC) was one of the first to hypothesize the movement of the Earth, probably inspired by Pythagoras' theories about a spherical globe (see below). Then, in the 3rd century BC, Aristarchus of Samos developed some theories of Heraclides Ponticus (regarding the revolution of the Earth on its axis) to propose what is probably the first serious model of a heliocentric solar system. The details have not survived, so one can only speculate about what led him to his conclusions. However, according to Plutarch, a contemporary of Aristarchus accused him of impiety for "putting the Earth in motion."
Several Muslim astronomers also had discussions on the possibility of heliocentrism, such as Ibn al-Haytham, Abu-Rayhan Biruni, Abu Said Sinjari, 'Umar al-Katibi al-Qazwini, and Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi.

1. Please show me which scripture tells us that the earth was flat. 2. Please show me which scripture tells us that the sun rotated the earth.

Christian biblical scriptures include a great number of texts and verses to this effect… for example:
1 "take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it (Job 38:12-13)
How could a spherical earth be held by its "edges"?!!
2 "The earth takes shape like clay under a seal." (Job 38:14)
Clay is not rounded into a ball when stamped with a seal, but flattened!
3 "The devil took him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them" (Matthew 4:1-12)
Certainly, if the earth were flat, standing atop "an exceedingly high mountain" would allow Jesus to see the whole earth, but there would be no mountain high enough to allow anyone (even Jesus!) to see to the other side of a spherical earth!
4 “The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.” (Daniel 4:10-11)
No matter how tall the tree was, it would not have been visible from the other side of the earth, unless it extended over 40,000 kilometers towards the sides!
5 “To whom then will ye liken God? .... It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 40:18-23)
The Hebrew word used in scripture for "circle" in the verse above is "chuwg" which refers to a flat geometrical shape… not a sphere!
I was, by the way, fascinated to see that you yourself seem to make the same mistake as Isaiah when you say:

By the way, the earth was discovered to be round… by Aristotle

No... I'm terribly sorry... in fact Aristotle didn’t say the earth was “round” or “circular”… he said it was a sphere... but maybe I'm just being dogmatic and by “round” you mean "spherical"!
OK, just 2 more examples of scripture which tells us that the earth is flat:
6 “It is he who sits above the circle of the earth… who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in” (Isaiah 40:22) Once again I assure you that a “circle” is not a sphere!
7 “And the Lord will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other…” (Deuteronomy 28:64)
As you probably know, spheres do non have "ends"!
As regards scripture which says that the sun rotates around an immobile earth:
8 Psalm 93:1: “the world also is established so that it cannot be moved.”
9 Psalm 96:10: “the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved…”
10 1 Chronicles 16:30: “Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.”
11 Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." (King James Bible version: “Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.”
12 Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place..." (King James Bible version: “The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.”)
All these texts clearly indicate that the writers of the Bible thought the earth was flat, and also suggest that it is “firmly established and cannot be moved” and therefore that the sun rotates around the earth. I think this is sufficient biblical scripture to show that the Biblical conception was plainly wrong (or at any rate that the writers of the Bible had an extremely "poetical" disregard for facts)!
Please see the sites http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Flat_Earth.htm and http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml for still more evidence of Biblical writers’ disregard for (or ignorance of) the facts and further lists of the verses which show that they believed the earth was flat, unmoving, and at the centre of the universe!
(Hmmm… you purport to be a Christian but it looks like you don’t really know your Bible all that well… I know, it is terribly boring to read all that nonsense: old Jewish legends, ravings, rantings, prophecies and genealogies, etc. but I suggest you have another read or two of the “good book”, without closing your eyes and mind to all the weird unscientific stuff… THEN you can maybe complain about being misunderstood and victimised… you might not sound quite so paranoid if you can justifiably claim that you know the facts about your religion and its outmoded conceptions!)

By the way, the earth was discovered to be round (maybe not first, but most notably) by Aristotle, although many believed that it was flat until Columbus sailed in the late 1490’s...

I herewith quote and collate some more texts in reply to this:
You are right to say that Aristotle was not the first since it was Pythagoras who first proposed that the Earth was spherical sometime around 500 B.C. He observed the shape of the terminator (the line between the part of the Moon in the light and the part of the Moon in the dark) as it moved through its orbital cycle and concluded that the Moon must be spherical... if the Moon was spherical, he thought the Earth must be spherical as well. (Not very scientific reasoning, it's true, but his conclusion was right anyway!)
After that, between 500 B.C. and 430 B.C., Anaxagoras determined the true cause of solar and lunar eclipses and the shape of the Earth's shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse was used as evidence that the Earth was spherical.
Around 350 BC, Aristotle declared that the Earth was a sphere (based on observations he made about which constellations you could see in the sky as you travelled further and further away from the equator) and during the next hundred years or so, Aristarchus and Eratosthenes actually came up with accurate measurements of the earth's size.

Columbus sailed in the late 1490’s.....

Also, alas, Columbus did not sail "in the late 1490s" but in the early 1490s (1492 to be precise!):
In 1492 on October 12th (October 21st according to the modern Gregorian calendar), Christopher Columbus sighted the Americas after a three month voyage....
I'm sorry you have to be put right also on this point by an ignorant beer-swilling atheist Brit who still persists in misspelling words like "colour" and "humour"... Nevertheless it seems some of us know more about American history and the Bible than you yanks and Christians yourselves! We are just boring sticklers for detail, aren’t we? I guess when you have faith you don’t really need to present the right facts and figures, do you? Your posts so far seem to suggest that to your mind “Justification by Faith” prevails over all else… although, thanks to their relative degree of literacy (weird U.S. spelling aside!), they provide a fascinating insight into the strange psychology of a true believer… thank you for giving us this valuable opportunity to study you!

[Edd]

The very existence of the FSM is driving people from Christianity

Elijah, is that you?

[edg326]

My response:

You are indeed misunderstanding me. What I said, and what I meant, was that there are no records of history that go beyond Biblical times. Meaning, there are no historical documents that go beyond the six or seven thousand years that the Creationists, myself included, believe that man has been in existence.

Now, there are stone and/or clay tablets that have been found in Ebla at Tel Mardikh in Syria that date back to 2250 – 2300 B.C. that parallel with the early chapters of Genesis in the Bible, even going as far as naming some of the Patriarchs of the Bible. There are even descriptions of the Great Flood (that most non-believers espouse as fiction) in those tablets. This is documentation outside of the Bible that corroborates its authenticity.

But there is more! In the ancient manuscript, Shu Jing (The Book of History) Chinese emperors recited texts of praise during worship ceremonies. The translated text reads:
Of old in the beginning, there was the great chaos, without form and dark. The five elements (planets) had not begun to revolve, nor the sun and the moon to shine. In the midst thereof existed neither forms nor sound. Thou, O spiritual Sovereign, camest forth in Thy presidency, and first didst divide the grosser parts from the purer. Though madest Heaven; Thou madest earth; Thou madest man. All things with their reproductive power got their being.
This was written near or around 2205 B.C. still in line Biblically with Creation, and more importantly, in line with the scattering of nations by God after the flood. (All of this information comes from Ava Ford, M.D. in the November issue of Acts & Facts Volume 37, No. 11 - ICR, Dallas, TX)

So there are two separate cultures that have independently corroborated the Bible, with no possible knowledge of one another other than the historical relation documented in Genesis.

Having never heard of Dr. Ford, I was eager to learn what this historian/archeologist/very important person had to say. Alas, I was disappointed. It turns out she's only read books written by archeologists. And, coincidentally, only archeologists who had books published by Concordia Publishing House who publish books for the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

And the Bible.

And other well-sourced and researched works from the Institute for Creation Research.

Sigh....

I was also surprised to learn that ancient people that settled near large bodies of water all seemed to experience some sort of flood phenomenon. Weird.

[spotlight]

I was also surprised to learn that ancient people that settled near large bodies of water all seemed to experience some sort of flood phenomenon. Weird.

The very existence of the FSM is driving people from Christianity, especially the younger generations who do not have the same ideologies that you espouse – question everything. Unfortunately, because they see you as an intelligent person who laughs in the face of the“One True God” they accept as fact that God is an impossibility, when it is not a fact.

But even if this is true, how do you know that's a bad thing? If people were being driven away from Scientology would you also think it's a bad thing? Or is Christianity just different, because it just *is*?

Well, let’s see, I can name a few –
[...]
3. Some Churches now allow their leadership to be openly gay.

Heh ... sorry, but that just sounds *so* much like "Yeah, I don't think homosexuality is right, but I'm not prejudiced, my best friend is gay!" *cough*Palin*cough*

Okay, then why is our theory that God created the universe and everything in it any less valid than evolution? There are plenty of Creationists that have very valid points regarding creation that are dismissed as ridiculous because of the “faith” in evolution that evolutionists have. What makes one theory less valid than another? Seriously, is it the “majority rules” idea, the theory with the most proof, or what?

Science cannot prove evolution, cannot disprove God – fine. Christianity cannot prove the existence of God nor disprove evolution – fine. Why are we not allowed to discuss alternative possibilities?

If you are requiring full blown proof of God’s existence in order to worship, even the Bible says you will not get that, sorry bud. That is where faith in God rather than faith in evolution becomes the answer of where we place our beliefs.

Your argument actually makes sense to me. Yes, evolution is just an idea that someone proposed one day after looking around and trying to find a way to explain stuff. God is also an idea that someone proposed one day after looking around and trying to find a way to explain stuff. Both have been seriously amended over the course of time (the God idea has, of course, branched out into different denominations, and has been formulated independently among different cultures).

In my opinion, the Bible (specifically, Genesis and any other explanatory passages there are) is just expanding on the God theory that someone thought of a long time ago. Scientific theories regarding evolution are more based on evidence, and use explanations that seem in line with what else we know concerning biology and such. It continually tries to find more in-depth explanations, and it does: genetics, to name one. Creationism, on the other hand, relies solely on one theory (out of many) concerning the God idea and seems to reject any new knowledge that risks discrediting it. What's more, the theories proposed concerning creationism sound quite far-fetched, about as far-fetched as the idea that an alien (Xenu) came to Earth and did whatever Scientology claims he did. So while this does not rule out creationism, it makes it the worse choice when it comes to finding a possible explanation. To use an analogy: Sherlock Holmes and a man generally regarded as crazy and not very intelligent who relies solely on the theories of his own (not very intelligent) father are both investigating a mystery. The crazy man doesn't even need to look around. He just tells you who's guilty and why, based on some bit of wisdom his father told him. It sounds very far-fetched to you. Sherlock, on the other hand, does a lot of investigating and eventually comes up with his own theory, which also sounds strange but makes sense according to his (thorough) investigation. However, the knowledge he acquired during his investigation seems to rule out the possibility of crazy man being right.

Now, it's possible that crazy man is simply very enlightened and brilliant and Sherlock Holmes is either wrong, lying, or being misled. But then again, what would be the most likely choice? Assuming the applicability of the analogy, can you see why creationism is dismissed as ridiculous? It's not impossible, it's just not the choice that makes sense.

Yeah, people in America are never threatened with violence or hated because of their beliefs – oh wait. What happened in Alabama again?

What happened? And, um, disregarding Seabee's post for the moment (sorry Seabee) why does it matter? Why should this discussion include what people have done in the past in the name of their faith, or due to faith? I thought was a discussion on truth and logic and how it pertains to believing in the Bible.

swickstrum: Finally, I would like to say this: Make fun all you like, but the Bible still cannot be disproven, and there are no other documents as revered – yet more thoroughly tried to be proven false - as the Bible. And IF…by the small chance (according to science) IF…the Bible IS the true Word of God – then read and contemplate these words… Romans 1:18 – 25

No documents as revered? That is either terribly biased, or terribly ignorant, or both. There is also the Koran, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, the Tarvunti, the Tao, the Book of Marvin, and the Principia Discoria. Get over yourself.

The Bible has been bought more, given more, translated more, read more, taught more, and respected more than all of the above. Between 2.5 Billion and 6 Billion copies sold according to Business week. Get over those facts.

So because more copies have been sold of it it's automatically more revered? And if it's more "revered" it follows that it's more likely to be true? Sounds like an argumentum ad populum fallacy to me. Please understand that the belief of the general public in no way determines truth, unless that truth is concerning what the general public is believing at the moment.
And as for the "tried to be proven false" comment: well, depends on what you believe to be proof. As you seem not to trust all the things that have proven the literal reading of the Bible false because they have proven it false then I suppose that for you it hasn't been proven false yet.

I don't really see the point in replying to your comments on science. I'm sure others who are more able to refute your arguments will do that, and anyway, this discussion is on (or so I thought) belief in the Bible. Pointing out how faulty you think science is does not make creationism any more likely.

Thanks for your replies. Let's hope that you continue to try and discuss in a reasonable way, without using too many logical fallacies in your arguments!

[Andrey Kurtenkov]

...Creation in seven days...

????
We know the scripture states that the world was created by Flying Spaghetti Monster in four days.

[elijah]

UN Bans “Defamation of Religion”

Geneva, November 24, 2008 — By a vote of 85 to 50, with 42 abstaining, the UN General Assembly today adopted a draft resolution calling on all countries to alter their legal and constitutional systems to prevent “defamation of religions,”

Sleep tight!

[fueledbycoffee]

UN Bans “Defamation of Religion”

Geneva, November 24, 2008 — By a vote of 85 to 50, with 42 abstaining, the UN General Assembly today adopted a draft resolution calling on all countries to alter their legal and constitutional systems to prevent “defamation of religions,”

Sleep tight!

So? Freedom of speech. I can say whatever I want, and all they can do is piss, moan, and pass stupid "resolutions" that make them seem important, while having no actual effect on the wider world.

[Elvalia]

Sleep tight!

Thanks, I will!

[tris]

UN Bans “Defamation of Religion”
Geneva, November 24, 2008 — By a vote of 85 to 50, with 42 abstaining, the UN General Assembly today adopted a draft resolution calling on all countries to alter their legal and constitutional systems to prevent “defamation of religions,”

"draft resolution" sounds a wee bit vague to me.... sounds like the politicians are just jerking off again.... If I say nasty things about Allah or Mohammed in countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Iran I still stand a very good chance of getting publicly decapitated or stoned to death or at the very least incarcerated in very unpleasant conditions for a very long time.... Anyway, let's hope the draft resolution to prevent of “defamation of religion” from being considered a crime becomes a worldwide law some day... maybe in 2 or 3 hundred years our species will have evolved that much... if we havent blown each other to fuck before then and ended up like the Thals and Kaleds!

PS check out http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=27038&d=5&m=6&y=2003 for a nice account of a Saudi Arabian's executioner and how proud he is of his job: “It doesn’t matter to me: Two, four, 10 — As long as I’m doing God’s will, it doesn’t matter how many people I execute,” he told Okaz newspaper in an interview....

PPS swickstrum is certainly tenacious ain't he? If pig-headedly sticking to your guns was enough to get to heaven he'd have been taken up in a flaming chariot by now! (maybe that's why he hasn't written for 4 or 5 days now...?) or has he attained the virtual martyrdom he sought: "death by discussion forum overdose"??? I'm getting a bit worried here! He wouldn't be having doubts about his beliefs? has his world of certainties crashed down upon him like poor old Samson in the house of the Philistines? Is he plunged into the dark night of the soul? Surely not! We eagerly await more articles of faith to get our pasta-chomping teeth into!

[spotlight]

UN Bans “Defamation of Religion”

Geneva, November 24, 2008 — By a vote of 85 to 50, with 42 abstaining, the UN General Assembly today adopted a draft resolution calling on all countries to alter their legal and constitutional systems to prevent “defamation of religions,”

Sleep tight!

What a stupid resolution. And anyways, countries like Singapore already have anti-free-speech policies when it comes to religion.

Has anyone else noticed that the UN's resolutions have been getting worse recently? Palestine in particular has been getting a barrage of resolutions written about it, and a significant majority is absolute crap. As in, a high school student could have written a better, more effective one. Which is really too bad. Any credibility that the UN once had is almost gone now. Let's just hope that this resolution is ignored just as all the others in the past have been.

PPS swickstrum is certainly tenacious ain't he? If pig-headedly sticking to your guns was enough to get to heaven he'd have been taken up in a flaming chariot by now! (maybe that's why he hasn't written for 4 or 5 days now...?) or has he attained the virtual martyrdom he sought: "death by discussion forum overdose"??? I'm getting a bit worried here! He wouldn't be having doubts about his beliefs? has his world of certainties crashed down upon him like poor old Samson in the house of the Philistines? Is he plunged into the dark night of the soul? Surely not! We eagerly await more articles of faith to get our pasta-chomping teeth into!

Well, I hope he hasn't become a martyr just yet. I'm really curious to see if he's able to refute any of the points brought up in this topic. (I think I'll create a checklist next time he posts ...)

[Spector567]

I am sadly not a fountain of data and statistics however,

Okay, I’ll start here. The burden of proof is on me to prove to atheists and or agnostics that God exists, that that God is the God of Christianity, and that Jesus existed and was the Son of said God – I agree. The problem I have with the FSM experience is that I believe it has the potential (and the intention) to lead those who were Christians astray, keep Christianity (or any form of religion for that matter) out of schools, and to systematically secularize the world. To that I say, “The burden of proof shifts to you.”

/nod and Scientists, observers, and craftsmen have been doing this successfully for a thousand years. The problem is that the proof is never accepted and far to many people refuse to accept it because there told it's wrong. Heck The Church even agrees that it mis-understood Darwinism. Took them 200 years to do it. I personally don't want to wait 200 years for the next scientific advancement at that rate we'd still be in the dark ages.... And in truth that is why there were dark ages because people didn't question what some religion told you not to question.
http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp09032008.shtml

Thanks for the Greek lesson…lol, although I must tell you that if it deals with Christianity, I most likely have heard about it. If not, I promise to ask. My point is that by not teaching anything but the evolutionary theories leads to schools not leaving any other possibility open. As you said, any group having too much power is scary indeed, and the secular scientific community has removed any possibility but their possibility. And to think, 80% of the U.S. is religious…you’d think it the other way around considering saying the name Jesus could almost get one kicked out of school these days. It seems the powerful ones are not the majority in this case.

You may have a small point. However, you presume an awful lot about one thing.... That everyone is Christian, and that there even part of the same sect. Considering that most religions can't even agree on creation, even the different sects of Christianity how would you fairly teach that in school. You couldn't it would be racist and intolerant. Decades ago they did this and they found this out. Also if you want to be fair than you'd have to teach Muslim, Hindu, Wicka, and our Favorite FSM, This would probally do even more harm to your kids religious beliefs, even if they were only taught Christianity they could decide to believe the small and particular sect that believes in polygamy something most sects disagree with. What teenager given the opportunity wouldn't latch on to some way to rebel against there parents, why provide and popularize another.

As for not leaving it open, I believe any teacher that told there students that there was no god at all ever would find themselves on there ass very fast. So there is now a balance, region gets, the house with the parents, the church, religions classes for the willing or the Told, the private religious schools and they can say what they want about science. Science gets the science class room and the advance, biology and chemistry for the willing and they have to keep there mouth shut about religion. Now it's up to your children to consider there beliefs, the parent who said there is or the school who said nothing. If you want to be able to say something in public school than the hardline science teacher is allowed to say something too as well as the Wicka student and the Satanist. fair is fair.

I do understand what a theory is, but you seem to forget the word “regarded” in your definition. By the way, I find that in a quick search there are seven definitions of “Theory” that are currently “regarded as fact”:

Religion is also a theory by definitions you put forth, however you regard it as fact as well.
Scientific theories state in there very name that they could be wrong and invite disproof and revision. This none of us question. What we question is when when any disproof is considered a disproof of the whole because some holes. My English teacher didn't give me zero for my spelling or grammer when my ideas had merit she let me consider my errors and look for solutions. (I didn't always find them).

Imagine the same type of error, this time in the theory of evolution, having the effect of destroying an eternal soul, no, millions of eternal souls – unlikely to you, yet more than probable to me.

Who decided this?? did god? the bible? your preacher? or was it you? This I do not understand. If I understand you correctly. Even though I do unto others as I'd have them do unto me, help my neighbor, Fallow all ten of the commandments. I under your definition will go to hell because I believe god Is possibly smarter than the Genie from Aldin. I just don't' believe in religion and I deserve to go to hell. However, the evangelical priest on TV that tells me to hate Jews and kill gays leading others to commit deadly sins gets to pass through the pearly gates?

My point is simple, God did not decide that not believing in his religion made you evil, I don't even think the bible does or if it does I'm sure there is a later passage that says you should try to help me and forgive my unbelief. It was you that decided what god wanted. It was you that decided to accept this particular interpretation of religions belief over the hundreds of others within your own faith. It wasn't god that decided to hate the unbeliever it was the preacher, another preacher decided that that god would love. I believe they called him Jesus.

Like many here I have not found god in religion, some rebel against the very thought because they were told to stop there search.

I believe this simple thing, all beings are searching for the meaning of god. I search for meaning the world around me, the faces of my family and friends, in the vast stars above and the small atoms below. I seek there mystery and meaning in the hope that I may one day understand and I hope that one day my children will understand it even more. You may have found your meaning and decided to halt your journey and that is fine, I am both happy and sad for you. I am sad because the journey itself is fulfilling, it would make me sad to see it stop too soon. It would be truely saddening if it had been halted without finding the true end. For this I will continue to seek.

[tris]

What a stupid resolution....... Has anyone else noticed that the UN's resolutions have been getting worse recently? Let's just hope that this resolution is ignored just as all the others in the past have been.

You're right..... I optimistically assumed (at 3 in the morning... I guess I needed to feel good before crashing out!) that the resolution was in order to prevent “defamation of religion” from being considered a crime(!!!!!!!!!!) I should have known better! (I did understand that it was the usual political jerking off though!)
I found the full news story:
Geneva, November 24, 2008 - By a vote of 85 to 50, with 42 abstaining, the UN General Assembly today adopted a draft resolution calling on all countries to alter their legal and constitutional systems to prevent "defamation of religions," asserting that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism." The decision, sponsored by Islamic states with the support of Venezuela and Belarus, drew immediate protests from human rights activists and legal experts.
"This is just the latest shot in an intensifying campaign of UN resolutions that dangerously seek to import Islamic anti-blasphemy prohibitions into the discourse of international human rights law," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, an independent human rights monitoring group in Geneva.
"Human rights were designed to protect individuals -- to guarantee every person free speech and free exercise of religion -- but most certainly not to shield any set of beliefs, religion included."
"These resolutions legitimize the criminalization of free speech in countries like Sudan, Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia," said Neuer. "Muslim moderates, bloggers, women seeking basic freedoms -- all of these will be the first to suffer from the worsening climate of state repression in the name of state-supported Islamic orthodoxy."
"No less is today's enactment aimed at the Western world, to intimidate anyone from criticizing radical Islam and those who commit violence in its name," said Neuer.

"sponsored by Islamic states" says it all! They really want to gag us and blind us "like poor old Samson in the house of the Philistines" don't they?!

PS I think Swistrum doesnt have the energy to refute any of the points brought up in this topic. We have bombarded him with too many criticisms.... and he's all alone in the Lion's den with only his God to protect him from the wicked non-believers! I guess he also has better things to do with his time!