who will you worship God or Satan?

[thatone]

Is that a fact?

 

Here is another fact:

 

If you total up all the deaths caused by wars and genicides in the 20th century, LESS than 1% were caused by nations identified as predominantly religious or lead by religious leaders. Atheist leaders take the crown by a long, long shot. Take that fact home and chew on it. I DARE you to challenge that fact. I DARE you.

 

You think the world would be better of without religion? The world leaders who espouse your view have a great track record, eg? Such peace and brotherhood of man, eh?

 

wrong, but feel free to back up those claims. we'll rip them to shreds.

[writergal]

What about all the Catholic bishops who had to be publicly humiliated ten years ago into taking action against all the bishops accused of molesting children? Do you think your God will save them because they are bishops and ignore the fact that they molested children (and continue to for all we know)? Priests, bishops and all holy men are fallible and should not be held above common law when their actions are wrong. This is one of the reasons why I walked away from my Catholic upbringing. I can't fathom the idea of letting a priest who molests children judge me and tell me I should live a moral life when he himself isn't living a moral life.

 

And regarding the rapture (there's another thread about it); think about all those false alarm raptures that took place over the years - some ending with people losing their lives because they believed in something that wasn't real or true. Granted I"m not as educated in philosophy, theology or religion as others on this thread so my opinion holds no weight other than it's just my opinion.

 

Oh, and I think the world would be better off without religion. It's used as a political tool for elections here in the States all the time to influence voters and that sickens me.

[TaraMaiden]

It is one of the 2 most powerful tools ever used to control and subjugate people, and bend them to a particular will.

 

The other being War.

[TaraMaiden]

.... anything "Biblical" will fall on deaf ears.

Reason being, those 'deaf ears' have a logical brain between them.

See, we've either been there and done it, and through discernment, examination, scrutiny and research, found it all drastically wanting, or we've never been theistically religious ever, because through discernment, examination, scrutiny and research, we've found it all drastically wanting.

if it's all so true, how come the are so many holes we can pick?

If god is so perfect, why the Gruyère cheese loopholes?

 

I kind of suspected this thread would steer off in this direction when it first got posted. Hardcore atheists and evolutionists are always drawn to any "God subject", with the apparent goal of educating the uneducated and uninformed.

 

Amusingly, the same cannot be said in reverse.

 

Someone's got to try to save you from the madness....!

[Eclypse]

I am a scientist, and am currently doing my thesis at the largest research university in Australia. I can tell you right now that the vast majority of my fellow scientists (ranging from research assistants to professors) here are atheists. In fact when we do the daily newspaper quiz at morning tea and a religious based question comes up the comments people make are pretty funny.

 

The most important thing about science is that it seeks to find answers and update current theories. And it is worth mentioning that when going by official definitions, the scientific method can never prove anything completely 100%. It can however, find reasonable enough evidence that the theory is correct and work with that theory but there is never a 100% certainty. It can, however, disprove theories. And that is the crux of it really. Science updates its theories as new information comes out and it never pretends to be all knowing, because complete knowledge can never be attained by anyone. Evolution for example is a very good theory, but anyone who thinks we know the whole story is sadly mistaken. There is still so much to be uncovered and with every new discovery it's like a new piece of a (huge) jigsaw puzzle is added, only it's not always adjacent to the previous piece, but it might be 10 or 20 spaces away. It is up to science to piece it all together.

 

That is the key difference between science and religion. Science doesn't blindly follow one set of rules written 2,000 years ago. It adapts and evolves. It questions and seeks knowledge. As an example back in the olden days people thought disease was caused by "miasmas" or bad air. Then with the advent of powerful microscopes people began to see that micro-organisms existed. That turned medicine on it's head. I'm eagerly awaiting for the next great breakthrough that will blow us away (and hopefully be a part of it too from a research perspective), but one thing I am certainly not expecting is four horsemen from the apocalypse to charge through brimstone.

[black_shemer]

I am a scientist, and am currently doing my thesis at the largest research university in Australia. I can tell you right now that the vast majority of my fellow scientists (ranging from research assistants to professors) here are atheists. In fact when we do the daily newspaper quiz at morning tea and a religious based question comes up the comments people make are pretty funny.

 

The most important thing about science is that it seeks to find answers and update current theories. And it is worth mentioning that when going by official definitions, the scientific method can never prove anything completely 100%. It can however, find reasonable enough evidence that the theory is correct and work with that theory but there is never a 100% certainty. It can, however, disprove theories. And that is the crux of it really. Science updates its theories as new information comes out and it never pretends to be all knowing, because complete knowledge can never be attained by anyone. Evolution for example is a very good theory, but anyone who thinks we know the whole story is sadly mistaken. There is still so much to be uncovered and with every new discovery it's like a new piece of a (huge) jigsaw puzzle is added, only it's not always adjacent to the previous piece, but it might be 10 or 20 spaces away. It is up to science to piece it all together.

 

That is the key difference between science and religion. Science doesn't blindly follow one set of rules written 2,000 years ago. It adapts and evolves. It questions and seeks knowledge. As an example back in the olden days people thought disease was caused by "miasmas" or bad air. Then with the advent of powerful microscopes people began to see that micro-organisms existed. That turned medicine on it's head. I'm eagerly awaiting for the next great breakthrough that will blow us away (and hopefully be a part of it too from a research perspective), but one thing I am certainly not expecting is four horsemen from the apocalypse to charge through brimstone.

 

are you also an atheist?

[Eclypse]

are you also an atheist?

 

Yeah I am. I made that decision early on as a child.

[thatone]

 

 

Amusingly, the same cannot be said in reverse.

 

Someone's got to try to save you from the madness....!

 

and that alone is proof that we're more tolerant than they are!

 

all of you christians on the other hand seem to be obsessed with the concept of setting people you don't agree with on fire.

[aj22one]

Oh, and I think the world would be better off without religion. It's used as a political tool for elections here in the States all the time to influence voters and that sickens me.

 

I disagree. The primary problem in the world is way too many people can't get rid of their inclinations towards telling other people how to live. People give all kinds of excuses and cover stories for this: utilitarianism, public good, the will of the people, religious beliefs.

 

We need to stop looking at the veneer and see what's really going on. It's not religion, it's nosy, bossy people who can't keep to themselves that's the problem.

[aj22one]

It is one of the 2 most powerful tools ever used to control and subjugate people, and bend them to a particular will.

 

The other being War.

 

I think it's collectivism rather than religion itself. And as often enough, religion is used in service as some pre-existing collectivism. Like the Baathists in the Middle East. Islam is important to them, but only because it's an "Arab" achievement not because of the faith itself.

 

Even in America this happens. Christianity is important only so far as it serves the American cultural image (why so many people got up in arms about Reverend Wright). People don't care about your thoughts on Hebrews 11 or Romans 15. Just make sure we get off Sundays, Easter, and Christmas and keep God in the pledge and on the money.

[Nohbody]

Whether it's god, marx, der fuhrer... people seem to want someone to tell them what to do, and in exchange exalt them above the nonbelievers. It just seems to be something we do.

[KathyM]

What about all the Catholic bishops who had to be publicly humiliated ten years ago into taking action against all the bishops accused of molesting children? Do you think your God will save them because they are bishops and ignore the fact that they molested children (and continue to for all we know)? Priests, bishops and all holy men are fallible and should not be held above common law when their actions are wrong. This is one of the reasons why I walked away from my Catholic upbringing. I can't fathom the idea of letting a priest who molests children judge me and tell me I should live a moral life when he himself isn't living a moral life.

 

And regarding the rapture (there's another thread about it); think about all those false alarm raptures that took place over the years - some ending with people losing their lives because they believed in something that wasn't real or true. Granted I"m not as educated in philosophy, theology or religion as others on this thread so my opinion holds no weight other than it's just my opinion.

 

Oh, and I think the world would be better off without religion. It's used as a political tool for elections here in the States all the time to influence voters and that sickens me.

Unfortunately, among practicing Christians, there are the fakers--the hypocrites--the pretenders--those that portray a Christian image to the world, but live a double life that is against Christian beliefs and values. But that is only a small portion of Christians, but since those are the ones in the news, people try to label all Christians as hypocrites and fakes. To those that are only a facade, that facade will not save them. God knows their true heart, and by that they will be judged. But He also is a forgiving God, and will forgive those who are truly repentant.

[TaraMaiden]

and that alone is proof that we're more tolerant than they are!

 

all of you christians on the other hand seem to be obsessed with the concept of setting people you don't agree with on fire.

Oh no... they're loving, compassionate and forgiving.

Providing we sincerely repent, that is.

If not, we go to Hell.

 

Hell deals with the fire bit.

 

(Bring marshmallows. I predict it will be a large company.... )

[The Blue Knight]

and that alone is proof that we're more tolerant than they are!

 

all of you christians on the other hand seem to be obsessed with the concept of setting people you don't agree with on fire.

 

That's odd. I don't believe that I had anything to do with the creation of Hell and yet, I'm "obsessed with sending you there"? . . . Hardly. I could counter that with the atheist argument that when I die, I'll become worm food, which I've heard a number of times from atheists over the years. Does that mean you're obsessed with me becoming worm food?

 

I find the fact that this thread went from believers commenting in the affirmative to the OP to then slowly deteriorating into the same old "we're smarter than you because we believe man and monkey had a common ancestor" argument to be really stale. I can't speak for every Christian but how you believe is how you believe and I'm absolutely fine with it. I don't loose a lot of sleep over it. Trust me.

[The Blue Knight]

Unfortunately, among practicing Christians, there are the fakers--the hypocrites--the pretenders--those that portray a Christian image to the world, but live a double life that is against Christian beliefs and values. But that is only a small portion of Christians, but since those are the ones in the news, people try to label all Christians as hypocrites and fakes. To those that are only a facade, that facade will not save them. God knows their true heart, and by that they will be judged. But He also is a forgiving God, and will forgive those who are truly repentant.

It's like I used to hear about the Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggert scandals of the 80s as if I was somehow lumped in with those charlatans. I never watched either. They struck me as phonies from day one. But that never stops non-believers from assuming we are all cut from the same mold.

[The Blue Knight]

Oh no... they're loving, compassionate and forgiving.

Providing we sincerely repent, that is.

If not, we go to Hell.

 

Hell deals with the fire bit.

 

(Bring marshmallows. I predict it will be a large company.... )

Well you'd be in good company then because Jesus predicted the same thing. Broad is the path to destruction, but narrow is the path to eternal life.

[TaraMaiden]

Yes, but at least I know where I'm going, whereas you'll always be wondering where you'll end up....

[The Blue Knight]

Because you've said many things already that betray a fundamental lack of understanding. And here comes another one:

 

Because there are many ways to deduce global temperatures that do not require a modern monitoring station, such as ice core samples or studying tree rings, just to name two. This is the second time you've stumbled over the idea that it's possible to reliably infer things without somebody actually being there to record results from direct observation. I gave you the example of forensics last time. Are you saying that we should release everybody from prison who was convicted based on forensic evidence, such as fingerprints or DNA? If not, you must grant the validity of indirect inference based on sufficient understanding of, for want of a better phrase, how things work.

 

The scientific consensus was a complete myth.

 

Oh, I understand all too well. I understand that there are far too many assumptions made using your model of science.

 

Ice core samples are not reliable and again, you have to count on a hypothesis in order for it to work. It's not a provable scientific fact. It is and remains a theory.

 

Ice Core Layers

 

Do Greenland Ice Cores Show over One Hundred Thousand Years of Annual Layers? - Answers in Genesis

 

Tree rings assume some of the same problems. They are loose theories that often don't stand up to scrutiny.

 

Tree Rings and Biblical Chronology

 

Are tree-ring chronologies reliable?

 

I might have a bit of knowledge about forensics since I kind of dabble in that field now and then. DNA and latent fingerprint technology under present-day science in which those technologies have been entirely developed in the here and now aren't quite the same thing as building a universe from nothing using a couple of hypotheses and then coming up with theories as to how all life on planet earth originated from the single cell.

[TaraMaiden]

I might have a bit of knowledge about forensics since I kind of dabble in that field now and then.

And therein lies your problem; 'A bit of knowledge' because you 'dabble now and then'.

 

"A little learning is a dangerous thing."

 

Meaning

 

A small amount of knowledge can mislead people into thinking that they are more expert than they really are.

[thatone]

 

That's odd. I don't believe that I had anything to do with the creation of Hell and yet, I'm "obsessed with sending you there"? . . . Hardly. I could counter that with the atheist argument that when I die, I'll become worm food, which I've heard a number of times from atheists over the years. Does that mean you're obsessed with me becoming worm food?

 

I find the fact that this thread went from believers commenting in the affirmative to the OP to then slowly deteriorating into the same old "we're smarter than you because we believe man and monkey had a common ancestor" argument to be really stale. I can't speak for every Christian but how you believe is how you believe and I'm absolutely fine with it. I don't loose a lot of sleep over it. Trust me.

 

disregarding the fact that hell does not exist, you're wrong again.

 

in the original hebrew text the word sheol was translated to mean 'hell' but sheol is equivalent to the term 'grave' or 'death' in hebrew terms. there was nothing about fire or punishment at all. as with so many other things, the whole fire and punishment bit was added centuries after the supposed death of supposed jesus from roman philosophers trying to make greek philosophy fit with concocted christian philosophy, augustine in particular.

 

in short, it was made up centuries after jesus' death, if there even was a jesus.

 

if you need further instruction just keep replying.

Edited June 10, 2012 by thatone

[TaraMaiden]

 

in the original hebrew text the word sheol was translated to mean 'hell' but sheol is equivalent to the term 'grave' or 'death' in hebrew terms. there was nothing about fire or punishment at all. as with so many other things, the whole fire and punishment bit was added centuries after the supposed death of supposed jesus from roman philosophers trying to make greek philosophy fit with concocted christian philosophy, augustine in particular.

 

in short, it was made up centuries after jesus' death, if there even was a jesus.

 

if you need further instruction just keep replying.

further etymological research also points to a Germanic input:

 

Origin:

Old English hel, hell, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch hel and German Hölle, from an Indo-European root meaning 'to cover or hide'

But again, no mention of fire, brimstone or eternally painful damnation there.

Dante has a lot to answer for....

 

The same dictionary has this definition for 'Sheol':

 

Sheol

 

Pronunciation: /ˈʃiːəʊl, ˈʃiːɒl/

the Hebrew underworld, abode of the dead.

 

Origin:

Hebrew

Edited June 10, 2012 by TaraMaiden

[TaraMaiden]

 

...I really doubt it. You've betrayed an astonishing ignorance of even basic scientific concepts.

This is what really worries me more than anything else.

Christians of this ilk have the gall to call us 'non-believers' disillusioned and blinkered - yet they limit their research to a narrow field of "if it's written by a Christian it's more credible".

 

We believe what we believe, because we research thoroughly, we don't 'dabble now and then'.

What you conveniently forget is that many of us have had a focused, religious and theological upbringing.

And we know why we have turned away from it.

We have seen both sides of the argument which is why we no longer have dealings with Christianity.

 

You on the other hand, seem frighteningly fixated.

And that's worrying.

[The Blue Knight]

This is what really worries me more than anything else.

Christians of this ilk have the gall to call us 'non-believers' disillusioned and blinkered - yet they limit their research to a narrow field of "if it's written by a Christian it's more credible".

 

We believe what we believe, because we research thoroughly, we don't 'dabble now and then'.

What you conveniently forget is that many of us have had a focused, religious and theological upbringing.

And we know why we have turned away from it.

We have seen both sides of the argument which is why we no longer have dealings with Christianity.

 

You on the other hand, seem frighteningly fixated.

And that's worrying.

Tara, there is a reason why so many Catholics make up a considerable number of non-believers today. Likewise, there's also a reason that Bible-centered churches like mine are filled with ex-Catholics as well. I wouldn't call being brought up in Catholicism having had dealings with Christianity because the RCC has inserted so much absolute man-created nonsense into the mix, that it's no mystery as to why so many adult Catholics simply walk away when they're older either continuing to search for God, or just dumping the entire idea right there and deciding that the whole "God-thing" is just a fabricated story to comfort us throughout our lives.

 

What you may not realize is that when I was that disillusioned Catholic in my mid teens I was searching and looked and read about Taoism, Buddhism, Shintoism, and a lot of other possibilities because Catholicism just didn't stack up for me. I also at that time in my life considered and read about evolution trying to wrap my brain around it to decide if it may indeed be true. The thing is, I ended up rejecting it even before I decided that there was a God, because even after reading about evolutionary theory . . . to me, the idea or notion that all of this was the result of pure chance (look at the math on that sometime) was really not even remotely realistic. Forget the Bible or anything about God for a moment. My position is this and was back then as well. There had to be an intelligent designer involved in some way or all of this couldn't have occurred.

 

And there's really no reason to be worried that I'm "frighteningly fixated" because in the end who cares if all of this is pure chance anyway?

 

[wuggle]

There had to be an intelligent designer involved in some way or all of this couldn't have occurred.

 

And who 'created' the intelligent designer, someone more intelligent ??

Edited June 10, 2012 by wuggle
rubbish at spelling

[black_shemer]

And who 'created' the intelligent designer, someone more intelligent ??

 

for christians,we call HIM almighty father,God.i thnk im ryt blue knight?is it not that obvious?