184 replies to this topic

[Vex]

Thats a very good explanation amyjia. I for one don't exactly have or follow any religion. Nor am I atheist. I form my own beliefs and take what makes the most sense to me from the many religions out there. My logic is that there was a main religion out there that over time people picked apart what they liked and didn't like. This creatied the different relegions. In my theory about religion itself, everyone is correct in some points and some are incorect in others. I've also looked at both Scientific and Religious views on creation. Firstly I do belive in evolution but I also believe that god created the animals everything evolved from. He planned to let the Universe and it's creatures mold themselves. As for the big bang, such a force I would think would require a god to start. So in my opinion God did indeed create life and existance and let science guide over his work. As for a question I've heard before "then where did god come from?" It is impossible to know this and when it all will end so to avoid migrains I've accepted that the world is in a loop. It has no definate beginning nor a definate end.

[Hawk]

Alias, I believe he wanted the Micro Evolution or something along those lines. Basically survival of the fittest, and creatures/humans evolved over time to adapt to their changing environment.

Pfft, the Flying Spahgetti Monster is 1337. I dont believe in it (Like any idiot would... I probably just offended someone, didnt I?), I just find it quite humorous that they blame global warming on the amount of pirates there are, lol.

Edited by hawk117, 26 April 2006 - 05:54 PM.

[Hawk]

Micro Evolution - Dogs creating a different type of dog

You just said Organic Evolution judging by your definitions. Make up your mind on their names or you will confuse me more

[snickpop]

Well according to the "long day" explanation, each day would stand for 1000 years. Since the Bible says God created in six days and on the seventh day he rested, that would mean it took him 6000 of our years to create.

What I mean is that it doesn't matter. Did it take god six days to create the world? Or 600000000 days? It doesn't matter. It's still completely unrealistic. No matter how much time you say he took, it's still a faerytale. It doesn't suddenly become realistic just because you say it took longer time. That's my point. It's unrealistic wether it's 6 days or 6000 years. If you choose to believe that god made the world, then why not 6 days? 6 days, 4 hours, 19 days, 8 years, 5 months, a century or a heartbeat. Whatever.

Jesus is magic.

Edited by snickpop, 27 April 2006 - 07:15 AM.

[amyjia]

What I mean is that it doesn't matter. Did it take god six days to create the world? Or 600000000 days? It doesn't matter.

I didn't say it did matter. I was just correcting what you said about the long day explanation.

Anyway, I like that "long-day / short-day" thing. As if the bible suddenly becomes realistic if it took a 1000 years. I mean if there is a God, why wouldn't he be able to create the universe in 7 days? He's almighty, right? Taking a 1000 year to create the universe is still not credible.

According to "Long-Day" , it would have taken 6000 of our years not 1000 to create.

It's still completely unrealistic. No matter how much time you say he took, it's still a faerytale. It doesn't suddenly become realistic just because you say it took longer time. That's my point.

What is so unrealistic? Would it be realistic to think that elements swirling in nothingness just (over time) combined to form the universe? Where would you say elements came from anyway? hmm..

That's my point. It's unrealistic wether it's 6 days or 6000 years. If you choose to believe that god made the world, then why not 6 days? 6 days, 4 hours, 19 days, 8 years, 5 months, a century or a heartbeat. Whatever.

People believe it took God 6 days to create because in Genesis, the Bible actually says it took God six days and it also says what he created each day. Other people believe that it took God 6000 years to create because later on in the Bible it says 1000 years to use is only a day for God. Since it says it took God six days to create, they deduce that it actually took God 6000 of our years to create. "Christians" aren't just making up how long they think it took for God to create. They are using the Bible as their source.

According to Christianity,like I said before God is God. If God wants to create something, God can take as long as God wants to. However, when God does something a certain way, there is usually a purpose. Like I said before, the 6 days of "God's work" and then on the 7th day "God resting" is supposed to signify how a person's week should be spent. Six days of work and then on the seventh day (God's day) , you rest and give honor to God. In my opinon, this is why in Genesis the time increment of "days" is used instead of "1000 years" so it would be easier for people to understand the meaning.

Jesus is magic.

Magic in the Bible is associated with sooth-sayers(Fortune Tellers) and sooth-sayers in the Bible are associated with wickedness and sin.

So no Jesus is not magic.

God is(According to Christianity) omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscent, not magic.

btw, God created the universe not Jesus. Jesus was "there" , but God did all the creating..(once more I must say this is according to Christianity )

[snickpop]

I didn't say it did matter. I was just correcting what you said about the long day explanation.
According to "Long-Day" , it would have taken 6000 of our years not 1000 to create.

I wasn't trying to be accurate, so no need to correct. My point is that it doesn't matter if it's 1 day, 1000 years or 6000 years.

What is so unrealistic? Would it be realistic to think that elements swirling in nothingness just (over time) combined to form the universe? Where would you say elements came from anyway? hmm..

They came from the spagheti monster, of course. Haven't you been paying attention?

People believe it took God 6 days to create because in Genesis, the Bible actually says it took God six days and it also says what he created each day. Other people believe that it took God 6000 years to create because later on in the Bible it says 1000 years to use is only a day for God. Since it says it took God six days to create, they deduce that it actually took God 6000 of our years to create. "Christians" aren't just making up how long they think it took for God to create. They are using the Bible as their source.

And I'm saying that the bible is not a credible source, no matter how you interpret it.

(stuff about magic)

"Jesus is magic" is a quote from a Sarah Silverman show. Just a bit of fun. Anyway, how can magic be a sin? We all love David Copperfield.

[Ives]

Just to add to this topic, is that people have 99.9% surefire proof of wolfs evolving throughout the millions of years theyve been on earth. Humans are another story, of course.

[Ilya]

God didnt create Humans on the sisxth day and then created Adam and Eve on the 7th because Adam was created on the 6th day but its not known when did god create Eve because in the bible it said that after some time Adam was bored alone so he created a woaman.... and he couldnt have created on the 7th day because he was resting on the 7th day..

[snickpop]

God didnt create Humans on the sisxth day and then created Adam and Eve on the 7th because Adam was created on the 6th day but its not known when did god create Eve because in the bible it said that after some time Adam was bored alone so he created a woaman.... and he couldnt have created on the 7th day because he was resting on the 7th day..

Actually the spagethi monster created Adam on the 7th day and then traveled back in time and created Eve on the 4th. This confused everyone so much that they decided to rename Adam to Eve and Eve to Adam. It's a little known fact but males are actually females and females are males. That's the real reason why god (as some people call the spagheti monster) had to rest on the 7th day. He was exhausted from explaining this to everyone.

Edited by snickpop, 27 April 2006 - 11:42 AM.

[Ives]

Actually the spagethi monster created Adam on the 7th day and then traveled back in time and created Eve on the 4th. This confused everyone so much that they decided to rename Adam to Eve and Eve to Adam. It's a little known fact but males are actually females and females are males. That's the real reason why god (as some people call the spagheti monster) had to rest on the 7th day. He was exhausted from explaining this to everyone.

You have it completely wrong. The emperor of galacticus primus had just finished fighting war with the spaghetti monster, and lost. Thus, when the spaghetti monster created Adam the emperor of galacticus primus then tried to make a clone of Adam named eve, but failed miserably to create eve properly. Spaghetti monster got pissed and they had a battle in a wormwhole betwen 11:59 of the 6th day and 12:00 of the 7th day. After sealing Galacticus Primus into a hole of eternity (until the prophet of primus makes his first coming), the spaghetti monster got tired and rested.

[amyjia]

I wasn't trying to be accurate, so no need to correct. My point is that it doesn't matter if it's 1 day, 1000 years or 6000 years.

If your not going to be accurate, how can anything you say be trusted?

Yes it did matter how long it took because it signified how Christians should live their weekly lives. Like I said before, (according to Christianity) God could have taken as much or as little time as God wanted to create, but God chose to work (create) 6 days(6000 years) and to rest on the 7th day(1000 years).

They came from the spagheti monster, of course. Haven't you been paying attention?

Yes, I have been paying attention.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the deity of a parody religion founded by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution. In an open letter on his website, Henderson professes belief in a supernatural Creator entity that resembles spaghetti and meatballs, called the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and calls for FSMism to be taught in science classrooms, essentially arguing a reductio ad absurdum against the teaching of Intelligent Design.

The followers of The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) call themselves Pastafarians, a play on Rastafarians.

http://en.wikipedia....aghetti_Monster

And I'm saying that the bible is not a credible source, no matter how you interpret it.

Why isn't it a credible source to you? What would be a credible source to you?
(btw, I personally haven't said it is or isn't a credible source. I'm just saying what Christians believe )

"Jesus is magic" is a quote from a Sarah Silverman show. Just a bit of fun. Anyway, how can magic be a sin? We all love David Copperfield.

David Copperfield is a magician who deals in illusions. Christians don't believe that Jesus did illusions or tricks. They believe he did Miracles. Anyways, that's a different type of "magic" than what the Bible is talking about. The Bible mentions soothe sayers (fortune tellers), Sorcerers, and witches as workers of wickedness and sin.

Actually the spagethi monster created Adam on the 7th day and then traveled back in time and created Eve on the 4th. This confused everyone so much that they decided to rename Adam to Eve and Eve to Adam. It's a little known fact but males are actually females and females are males. That's the real reason why god (as some people call the spagheti monster) had to rest on the 7th day. He was exhausted from explaining this to everyone.

You have it completely wrong. The emperor of galacticus primus had just finished fighting war with the spaghetti monster, and lost. Thus, when the spaghetti monster created Adam the emperor of galacticus primus then tried to make a clone of Adam named eve, but failed miserably to create eve properly. Spaghetti monster got pissed and they had a battle in a wormwhole betwen 11:59 of the 6th day and 12:00 of the 7th day. After sealing Galacticus Primus into a hole of eternity (until the prophet of primus makes his first coming), the spaghetti monster got tired and rested.

Umm.. If you guys are serious (which I believe you aren't), you can refer to my quote above explaining that "the flying spaghetti monster" is the deity of a parody(or mock) religion.

Edited by amyjia, 27 April 2006 - 02:23 PM.

[Ives]

We were joking. I'm agnostic, and snick is an atheist/agnostic I believe.

[snickpop]

If your not going to be accurate, how can anything you say be trusted?

Because I'm an unknown person on the internet. Of course you should trust me!

Yes it did matter how long it took because it signified how Christians should live their weekly lives. Like I said before, (according to Christianity) God could have taken as much or as little time as God wanted to create, but God chose to work (create) 6 days(6000 years) and to rest on the 7th day(1000 years)

No, no, no. It doesn't matter how long it took. Because it didn't take any time. Because god didn't create the universe. You can rationalize it all you want with 1 day being a 1000 years, it doesn't make it any more true.

Yes, I have been paying attention.

http://en.wikipedia....aghetti_Monster

Very good!

Why isn't it a credible source to you? What would be a credible source to you?

It's not a credible source because it was written by humans. Humans are liars. History is written by the winners. Why is the bible more reliable than the Quran? Or the buddha book (if they have one). Or any other religious book. The bible is a story.´

David Copperfield is a magician who deals in illusions. Christians don't believe that Jesus did illusions or tricks. They believe he did Miracles. Anyways, that's a different type of "magic" than what the Bible is talking about. The Bible mentions soothe sayers (fortune tellers), Sorcerers, and witches as workers of wickedness and sin.

Naw naw. I saw David Copperfield make a bus disappear. That's magic! Making water into wine, pffft. Probably just some dye or something.

Umm.. If you guys are serious (which I believe you aren't), you can refer to my quote above explaining that "the flying spaghetti monster" is the deity of a parody(or mock) religion.

And anyone who takes the bible serious can refer to my statement above about the bible being a story.

Isn't it interesting though? People are so quick to dismiss the spagheti monster as fiction. And (some) people are so quick to accept the bible as truth. Just shows you what indoctrination can accomplish.

Why is it easier to believe that Jesus turned water into wine than David Copperfield made a bus disappear? Because you're brought up to think that Jesus does miracles and Copperfield does tricks.

Edited by snickpop, 27 April 2006 - 03:02 PM.

[amyjia]

Because I'm an unknown person on the internet. Of course you should trust me!

I mean how can people trust what you say in this debate, not trust you as a person. If your going to debate something, you should be acurate, otherwise, it weakens your side of the argument.

No, no, no. It doesn't matter how long it took. Because it didn't take any time. Because god didn't create the universe. You can rationalize it all you want with 1 day being a 1000 years, it doesn't make it any more true.

ok..and like I asked you before when you answered facetiously, Is it anymore realistic to believe that elements swirling in nothingness just (over time) combined to form the universe?

Very good!

I know right

It's not a credible source because it was written by humans. Humans are liars. History is written by the winners.

Ok.. What isn't written by humans? History books are written by humans. The reason they are credible sources is that the people who write history books are authorities in the field in which they are writing. Most history books are secondary sources because the Historians weren't actually at the "historicial events" to see first hand what they are talking about. Like wise, Christians argue that the Bible is a credible source because the humans who wrote the Bible were lead by the Holy Spirit (God) who is the ultimate authority. So in a way (according to Christians) the Bible is a primary and secondary source. Primary because God is using the people to write his word and God was actually "there" through all of his word, and secondary because the people physically doing the writings weren't there. (In some books of the Bible however, the people who wrote the book was actually there. example: David wrote Psalms which is less about what was going on and more about Praising God)

Why is the bible more reliable than the Quran? Or the buddha book (if they have one). Or any other religious book. The bible is a story.´

I never said the Bible was or wasn't more reliable then the Quran or "the buddha book" . Anyways this topic is about discussing intelligent design vs evolution and the book of Genesis (which is in the Bible), not discussing why one holy book is more reliable then another.

Yes the Bible is a story. However, you may be thinking of a different definition of "story". This is the definition that describes the Bible (According to Christians)

Story- The telling of an event or events;account; narration.

History Books tell a story of what has happened in the past. Likewise, The Bible is a story (according to Christians) of what has happened in the past and what will happen in the future.

Naw naw. I saw David Copperfield make a bus disappear. That's magic! Making water into wine, pffft. Probably just some dye or something.

Your being facetious again.

And anyone who takes the bible serious can refer to my statement above about the bible being a story.

Please refer to the defintion above of a story.

Isn't it interesting though? People are so quick to dismiss the spagheti monster as fiction. And (some) people are so quick to accept the bible as truth. Just shows you what indoctrination can accomplish.

People are so quick to dismiss the spagheti monster because it was actually created to be a joke and to try to discredit the idea of intelligent design. The Bible was not created as a joke, but was created as (According to Christians) Biblical Instructions Before Leaving Earth.

Why is it easier to believe that Jesus turned water into wine than David Copperfield made a bus disappear? Because you're brought up to think that Jesus does miracles and Copperfield does tricks.

Umm.. David Copperfield actually says he uses "Illusions", while Christians believe (and the Bible documents) that Jesus did Miracles. so umm.. yeah.

Edited by amyjia, 27 April 2006 - 04:23 PM.

[snickpop]

I mean how can people trust what you say in this debate, not trust you as a person. If your going to debate something, you should be acurate, otherwise, it weakens your side of the argument.

Yes, but I wasn't debating how long it took god to make the world. I was debating wether it mattered.

ok..and like I asked you before when you answered facetiously, Is it anymore realistic to believe that elements swirling in nothingness just (over time) combined to form the universe?

It's a lot more credible than grandfather god creating the universe. We still don't know what the "big bang" exactly is, but at least science is trying to find out. While religion says "well god did it. End of story".

Ok.. What isn't written by humans? History books are written by humans. The reason they are credible sources is that the people who write history books are authorities in the field in which they are writing. Most history books are secondary sources because the Historians weren't actually at the "historicial events" to see first hand what they are talking about. Like wise, Christians argue that the Bible is a credible source because the humans who wrote the Bible were lead by the Holy Spirit (God) who is the ultimate authority.

You'll have to excuse me, but I just can't count the "holy spirit" as a credible source.

Anyways this topic is about discussing intelligent design vs evolution and the book of Genesis (which is in the Bible), not discussing why one holy book is more reliable then another.

Alrite then.

Yes the Bible is a story. However, you may be thinking of a different definition of "story". This is the definition that describes the Bible (According to Christians)

Story- The telling of an event or events;account; narration.

History Books tell a story of what has happened in the past. Likewise, The Bible is a story (according to Christians) of what has happened in the past and what will happen in the future.

Ooh, so they know the future too? Awesome. Can I have the lottery numbers, please?
My definition of "story" = it was made up. There is no proof. It's not even likely. I mean, I like Mickey Mouse and all but I'm never gonna believe a mouse can talk.

Your being facetious again.

What, me facetious? Never!

People are so quick to dismiss the spagheti monster because it was actually created to be a joke and to try to discredit the idea of intelligent design.

And yet there is exactly the same amount of evidence that the world was created by the spagheti monster as there is that it was created by god.

Umm.. David Copperfield actually says he uses "Illusions", while Christians believe (and the Bible documents) that Jesus did Miracles. so umm.. yeah.

I think you're taking what I say too literally. I'm not talking about David Copperfield specifically. I'm talking about the way people are ready to believe miracles, just cause the bible says so. It's the same as if we believe Copperfield did magic, just cause he says so.

God is perfect. In the Bible He Himself states several times that He inspired the Bible. How could something perfect inspire a lie?

http://politicalhumo...kebushbible.htm

Trust the bible, it shall guide thee well!

Edited by snickpop, 28 April 2006 - 01:21 AM.

[snickpop]

retarted ... dissamble ... setence ... preety... the stupidity on him

Just some friendly advice, don't call someone retarded if you can't spell the word.

A couple of honest questions, I don't actually know the answers: is the bit about creating the world in 6 days in the old or new testament? Is the bit about homosexuality in the new or old testament?

In any case, the bible condoned slavery, the bible condoned killing people who planted two crops in one field. And so on. But that was okay before Jesus was crossed?
And this is without going into the places where the bible contradicts itself. The point is that the bible is a story. An outdated story. Fiction. Period.


Oh yes, I forgot:

In the Bible He Himself states several times that He inspired the Bible

But the bible wasn't written by god. So how do you know "He Himself" stated it? You know it because people wrote that. But people are liars, people make mistakes. People write fiction. The bible isn't god's words. The bible is god's words according to human people.

Edited by snickpop, 28 April 2006 - 07:14 AM.

[amyjia]

Yes, but I wasn't debating how long it took god to make the world. I was debating wether it mattered.

Ok. But still when debating against something, you should know exactly what your debating against(the other person's side) and be accurate about what your debating against even if you disagree with the basis of the other person's argument. If you aren't acurate,like I said, it weakens your argument.

It's a lot more credible than grandfather god creating the universe. We still don't know what the "big bang" exactly is, but at least science is trying to find out. While religion says "well god did it. End of story".

Why is it more credible? Scientist don't know what the "big bang" was, or how elements could be formed from nothing and come together to form the universe. The Bible however explains that God made the universe. Could it be that the "big bang" was God bringing the universe into existence? hmm..

You'll have to excuse me, but I just can't count the "holy spirit" as a credible source.

Why not? "Holy Spirit" is a form of God who is the ultimate authority. Yes the "Holy Spirit" is credible.

Ooh, so they know the future too? Awesome. Can I have the lottery numbers, please?
My definition of "story" = it was made up. There is no proof. It's not even likely. I mean, I like Mickey Mouse and all but I'm never gonna believe a mouse can talk.

When I say the Bible tells you what will happen in the future, I mean it speaks about the AntiChrist and how the nations of the world will raise up against Israel. The Bible says God will not stand for people messing with his people(Jewish people) especially in Jerusalem (also known as Zion and the City of David).This is the political and religious center of the Jewish people and also the "choosen" holy city. The Bible says that the end will come when the armies of the world unite to try and Crush Israel. It says things will look really bad for Israel, but right before the armies take Jerusalem, God will with one swoop,(I am paraphrasing) "vaporize" the armies. This is a reason why people say the end is near because of the escaulating turmoil happening in Israel.

The Bible doesn't directly say "for this date the lottery numbers are "blah blah blah". I guess if you wanted to, you could find numbers in the Bible and make a lottery ticket.

Well your definition of "story" isn't the only definition of "story" as I stated in my last post. Why is it not likely?Is it more likely that the whole universe just came into existence out of nothing? Proof? Didn't you just say that scientists don't even know what the "big bang" was? Nor do they have any "proof" of what started it.

And yet there is exactly the same amount of evidence that the world was created by the spagheti monster as there is that it was created by god.

Once more, I will say that this is why this parody (mock) religion with the spagheti monster as a deity was created. It was to be a joke and to try to discredit the idea of intelligent design. Likewise if you want to talk about "Physical evidence", the "Big Bang" also has the same amount of evidence of creating the universe as the spagheti monster.

I think you're taking what I say too literally. I'm not talking about David Copperfield specifically. I'm talking about the way people are ready to believe miracles, just cause the bible says so. It's the same as if we believe Copperfield did magic, just cause he says so.

Umm yes people believe in miracles because the Bible says so just as people believe that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independance because History books say so or that people during the ice age, crossed the Bering land bridge, which connected North Asia and Alaska, enabling humans to migrate from Eurasia to the Americas by walking, just because History books say so.

Copperfield says he does "illusions" not magic.

http://politicalhumo...kebushbible.htm
Trust the bible, it shall guide thee well!

As AliasXNeo said, these are very old laws that were in the old testament. Every single one of the scriptures used on that website came from either Exodus or Leviticus. Both Exodus and Leviticus were written by Moses around 1445 B.C. and 1446 B.C. These were supposed to be the "laws of the land" for the Israelites after they left Eygpt. God gave Moses the ten commandments which were seperate from the "laws of the land". The Bible says God wants you to follow the "laws of the land" and also his word. Example. Back then, it was ok (by law of Moses for Israelites) to own slaves. Today, it is not(By law of the United States).

A couple of honest questions, I don't actually know the answers: is the bit about creating the world in 6 days in the old or new testament? Is the bit about homosexuality in the new or old testament?

Hmm.. We have been talking about Genesis which says God created the world in 6 days. Genesis is the first book of the Bible. This is the old testament.

Homosexuality is mentioned in both the old and new testament. Homosexuality was bad because God wanted people to be "fruitful and multiply" and with homosexuality, they couldn't do that. Also back then, the family depended on you having children to help sustain the culture and to keep the "race" alive. Many people don't understand this. When you read the Bible you must put it into context and not just pick out certain verses and draw conclusions from it. Today, races of people aren't dependant on everyone procreating. Actually, in many cases, it would help if people didn't procreate so much.

In any case, the bible condoned slavery, the bible condoned killing people who planted two crops in one field. And so on. But that was okay before Jesus was crossed?
And this is without going into the places where the bible contradicts itself. The point is that the bible is a story. An outdated story. Fiction. Period.

refer to my comments about Moses and the "law of the land". God's word isn't outdated. It is the laws that are outdated.

But the bible wasn't written by god. So how do you know "He Himself" stated it? You know it because people wrote that. But people are liars, people make mistakes. People write fiction. The bible isn't god's words. The bible is god's words according to human people.

Ok.. What isn't written by humans? History books are written by humans. The reason they are credible sources is that the people who write history books are authorities in the field in which they are writing. Most history books are secondary sources because the Historians weren't actually at the "historicial events" to see first hand what they are talking about. Like wise, Christians argue that the Bible is a credible source because the humans who wrote the Bible were lead by the Holy Spirit (God) who is the ultimate authority. So in a way (according to Christians) the Bible is a primary and secondary source. Primary because God is using the people to write his word and God was actually "there" through all of his word, and secondary because the people physically doing the writings weren't there. (In some books of the Bible however, the people who wrote the book was actually there. example: David wrote Psalms which is less about what was going on and more about Praising God)

Edited by amyjia, 28 April 2006 - 09:42 AM.

[snickpop]

Ok. But still when debating against something, you should know exactly what your debating against(the other person's side) and be accurate about what your debating against even if you disagree with the basis of the other person's argument. If you aren't acurate,like I said, it weakens your argument.

No it doesn't. If I want to argue that oranges are red, then I don't have to be accurate about how many oranges are on the tree in my back yard. I can argue that oranges are red wether there are 6 oranges on a tree or 1000 oranges in a tree. I'm debating the colour, not the number of them in the tree.

Why is it more credible? Scientist don't know what the "big bang" was, or how elements could be formed from nothing and come together to form the universe. The Bible however explains that God made the universe. Could it be that the "big bang" was God bringing the universe into existence? hmm..

Or... could it be a giant spagheti monster? Hmm..
Anyway, the bible doesn't explain anything. It just says "god did" it. It doesn't explain. It doesn't even begin to try to prove anything. The bible says god did it. I say the spagheti monster did it. There's no reason why the bible should be more right than I.

Why not? "Holy Spirit" is a form of God who is the ultimate authority. Yes the "Holy Spirit" is credible.

Err, no. The ultimate authority is the spagethi monster. And the Holy Handgrenade is a form of the spagethi monster. So yes, the Holy Handgrenade is credible.

...
The Bible doesn't directly say "for this date the lottery numbers are "blah blah blah". I guess if you wanted to, you could find numbers in the Bible and make a lottery ticket.

Okay, so it doesn't tell me the lottery numbers. But it does predict the future? You know, I really would have rather had the lottery number.

Well your definition of "story" isn't the only definition of "story" as I stated in my last post.

No, but I was the one who said "story". So my definition is the one that goes, in this case.

Why is it not likely?Is it more likely that the whole universe just came into existence out of nothing? Proof? Didn't you just say that scientists don't even know what the "big bang" was? Nor do they have any "proof" of what started it.

Because it's a story fabricated by people. Just as the spagheti monster. God and the spagheti monster are two sides of the same coin.

Once more, I will say that this is why this parody (mock) religion with the spagheti monster as a deity was created. It was to be a joke and to try to discredit the idea of intelligent design. Likewise if you want to talk about "Physical evidence", the "Big Bang" also has the same amount of evidence of creating the universe as the spagheti monster.

Yes, but the difference is that science is working on finding the truth. And it is working on explaining the things that happened after the big bang. While the bible just says "and then on the 7th day god rested". You see the difference? Science is credible. The bible and the spagheti monster are not. Although the spagheti monster is a lot more fun.

Umm yes people believe in miracles because the Bible says so just as people believe that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independance because History books say so or that people during the ice age, crossed the Bering land bridge, which connected North Asia and Alaska, enabling humans to migrate from Eurasia to the Americas by walking, just because History books say so.

Please. Please tell me you are not saying it's the same thing. Thomas Jefferson writing the Declaration of Independance is something that is believable. God creating the world in 6 days (or 1000) days is not believable.

Copperfield says he does "illusions" not magic.

And as you may recall I said that this isn't about David Copperfield specifically.

As AliasXNeo said, these are very old laws that were in the old testament. Every single one of the scriptures used on that website came from either Exodus or Leviticus.

Let's get this straight. The old testament said it's ok to have slaves and to kill farmers who plant two crops in one field? Right? Ok. Now just because it's a very old thing, does that mean that it's not insane and wrong? Women were once upon a time not allowed to vote. Just because that's an old thing does it mean it's not wrong and insane? Fact of the matter is that the bible have some laws (old that they might be) that are insane and wrong. Parts of the bible were written by (or for, or about) people who thought it was okay to have slaves. To sell their daughters as slaves.

Both Exodus and Leviticus were written by Moses around 1445 B.C. and 1446 B.C. These were supposed to be the "laws of the land" for the Israelites after they left Eygpt. God gave Moses the ten commandments which were seperate from the "laws of the land". The Bible says God wants you to follow the "laws of the land" and also his word. Example. Back then, it was ok (by law of Moses for Israelites) to own slaves. Today, it is not(By law of the United States).

And that's why you should respect the law of the United States today. And not respect the laws of ye olde bible.

Hmm.. We have been talking about Genesis which says God created the world in 6 days. Genesis is the first book of the Bible. This is the old testament.

Alrite then. But we are still supposed to believe that God created the world in 6 days right? That hasn't been changed by new laws or anything??

Homosexuality is mentioned in both the old and new testament. Homosexuality was bad because God wanted people to be "fruitful and multiply" and with homosexuality, they couldn't do that.

Well you can try and rationalize it, but there is no way that I will ever believe that a kind and compassionate god would want us to discriminate against people because of their sexuality. Not then, not now.

Also back then, the family depended on you having children to help sustain the culture and to keep the "race" alive. Many people don't understand this. When you read the Bible you must put it into context and not just pick out certain verses and draw conclusions from it. Today, races of people aren't dependant on everyone procreating. Actually, in many cases, it would help if people didn't procreate so much.

Picking certain verses and drawing conclusions.. isn't that what a lot of religious people do, against homosexuality for example. I wonder how many christians have read the entire bible. I haven't. But I'm not a christian. I haven't read the buddha book either.

refer to my comments about Moses and the "law of the land". God's word isn't outdated. It is the laws that are outdated.

I thought the laws were god's words? The laws are in the bible. The bible is god's word.

Ok.. What isn't written by humans? History books are written by humans. The reason they are credible sources is that the people who write history books are authorities in the field in which they are writing.

Events that have happened the last couple of hundreds of years are well documented. Multiple sources.

Most history books are secondary sources because the Historians weren't actually at the "historicial events" to see first hand what they are talking about. Like wise, Christians argue that the Bible is a credible source because the humans who wrote the Bible were lead by the Holy Spirit (God) who is the ultimate authority.

Okay, so it was the holy spirit that lead them to say that slavery and murder was fine?

So in a way (according to Christians) the Bible is a primary and secondary source.
Primary because God is using the people to write his word and God was actually "there" through all of his word, and secondary because the people physically doing the writings weren't there. (In some books of the Bible however, the people who wrote the book was actually there. example: David wrote Psalms which is less about what was going on and more about Praising God)

Except you don't know that god was there, you don't know that god exists. It's a matter of faith. A matter of believing or not. That does not lend itself well to credible history.

That's the problem with this discussion. At the end of the day you can't argue against the god and the bible because people have decided to believe in it, no matter how credible or not it might be.

(I can't seem to get the quoting thing fixed, I'm not sure if it's just because there are too many quotes in the post or if I'm overlooking something. But nevermind)

Edited by snickpop, 28 April 2006 - 10:12 AM.

[amyjia]

No it doesn't. If I want to argue that oranges are red, then I don't have to be accurate about how many oranges are on the tree in my back yard. I can argue that oranges are red wether there are 6 oranges on a tree or 1000 oranges in a tree. I'm debating the colour, not the number of them in the tree.

Your example doesn't apply. In your example, you aren't arguing against another person. When you argue against another person, you should now their side acurately and your side acurately. Just because you are trying to disprove the basis of their argument doesn't mean it is unnecessary to state their argument acurately. Like if I say "I believe the sky is blue" and another person says "the sky is orange" and we start debating that. Then you say "Well I don't believe there is even a sky. What would even make you think that the sky is purple?" I then would say "Excuse me, but we are debating whether the sky is blue or orange, not purple" You would reply " Well it doesn't matter because I'm saying their isn't a sky to begin with." This is a problem because it would seem like you aren't paying attention to what is being said. A debate is all about questioning acurately, understanding others (expressing their ideas) acurately, and getting your point across acurately. If you don't do that, then it weakens your argument.

Or... could it be a giant spagheti monster? Hmm..
Anyway, the bible doesn't explain anything. It just says "god did" it. It doesn't explain. It doesn't even begin to try to prove anything. The bible says god did it. I say the spagheti monster did it. There's no reason why the bible should be more right than I.

It has already been established that the giant spagheti monster is the deity of a parody (mock religion.

What do you mean by explain? Do you mean like a recipe explains how you cook something? If so, yes, the Bible does explain. It doesn't just say "God created everything and it took him 6 days and on the 7th day he rested." The Bible goes through each day and explains what was created that day, just as a recipe would have steps to making say for instance a cake. (The days God took to create would stand for the steps, What God did each day would stand for the instructions and the universe would stand for..umm a finished Cake . If you are looking for how God created, no you will not find that. The Bible says that there are some things that only God can tell you, so you can ask once you got to heaven:)

I never said the Bible was more right than you are.

Err, no. The ultimate authority is the spagethi monster. And the Holy Handgrenade is a form of the spagethi monster. So yes, the Holy Handgrenade is credible.
Okay, so it doesn't tell me the lottery numbers. But it does predict the future? You know, I really would have rather had the lottery number.

Once more, spagethi monster is the deity of a parody (mock) religion created to discredit intelligent design.

Once again.. your being facetious.

No, but I was the one who said "story". So my definition is the one that goes, in this case. Because it's a story fabricated by people. Just as the spagheti monster. God and the spagheti monster are two sides of the same coin.

Why does your definition "story" go in this case? Because you said "story" first? I was just saying that from the definition I posted, yes the Bible is a story and so are History Books. Autobiographies are the stories of peoples' lives, etc.

You are the one who speaks of "proof". What proof do you have that the Bible is fabricated?
There is proof that the spagheti monster is fabricated(posted earlier). For someone to infer a conclusion based on lack of evidence is called the Fallacy of ignorance. Here's a example.

Let me say one thing about this Karl Rove business. Let me tell you how I know. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Rove is not the leaker. If Karl Rove were the leaker to matthew Cooper of TIME Magazine, do you think they'd have kept that news private during the 2004 presidential campaign? This leak occurred in 2003. If Karl Rove engaged in criminal activity, do you not think that the media-- who claimed to know it all now-- would have not released that information during the campaign, given John Kerry or something and made it a huge campaign issue that the president's chief political advisor is a criminal?

Christians use the Bible as their evidence.

Yes, but the difference is that science is working on finding the truth. And it is working on explaining the things that happened after the big bang. While the bible just says "and then on the 7th day god rested". You see the difference? Science is credible. The bible and the spagheti monster are not. Although the spagheti monster is a lot more fun.

Explaining things that happened after the "big bang"? What about explaining the "big bang" itself. The Bible gives an explanation for the universe. God created it.

Why is Science anymore credible than the Bible? Science is based on inductive reasoning which is only base on probable support. In inductive reasoning, there is no guarantee that the conclusion(if their is a conclusion) is true. There is always a leap from evidence to conclusion. When you use induction, you only have past experiences to predict what will happen, but the problem with induction is you can never really "know" what will happen. example:
A chickenis raised on a farm. Every morning she hears the farmhouse door open then slam. After about two minutes later she is feed by the farmer, so after awhile, everytime she hears the door open and slam, she starts salivating. Time passes and this becomes the normal routine. One day, the chicken hears the farmhouse door open and slam, so she begins to salivate. About two mintues later, the farmer grabs the chicken by the neck and chops her head off.

That's inductive reasoning, and that's what Science uses. To believe in Inductive reasoning (Science) you have to accept things as true like gravity and the laws of motion, yet it has been "proven" that these rules don't always apply. Example: (On other planets(and moons) the laws of motion and gravity wouldn't apply) And since this is inductive, you can never say that you even "Know" that these rules apply even on Earth.
Science is no more credible then The Bible.

Please. Please tell me you are not saying it's the same thing. Thomas Jefferson writing the Declaration of Independance is something that is believable. God creating the world in 6 days (or 1000) days is not believable.

Why is one believable and the other isn't? Both are (in a way) secondary sources. Both are said by Authorities in the field. Once more, I will ask is it more believable that the universe just created itself from nothing?

I see you didn't mention anything about people crossing the Bering land bridge, which connected North Asia and Alaska, enabling humans to migrate from Eurasia to the Americas by walking.. Do you think that is believable?

And as you may recall I said that this isn't about David Copperfield specifically.

Yes I recall you saying that. I also recall you referring to David Copperfield again .. (After you said "this isn't about David Copperfield specifically.)

snickpop said on Apr 28 2006, 01:17 AM
"I think you're taking what I say too literally. I'm not talking about David Copperfield specifically. I'm talking about the way people are ready to believe miracles, just cause the bible says so. It's the same as if we believe Copperfield did magic, just cause he says so."

This goes back to being acurate when you debate. I was just correcting you when you say Copperfield says he does magic because he doesn't. He says he does "Illusions".

Let's get this straight. The old testament said it's ok to have slaves and to kill farmers who plant two crops in one field? Right? Ok. Now just because it's a very old thing, does that mean that it's not insane and wrong? Women were once upon a time not allowed to vote. Just because that's an old thing does it mean it's not wrong and insane? Fact of the matter is that the bible have some laws (old that they might be) that are insane and wrong. Parts of the bible were written by (or for, or about) people who thought it was okay to have slaves. To sell their daughters as slaves.
And that's why you should respect the law of the United States today. And not respect the laws of ye olde bible.

Umm.. yes.. Let's get this straight. First off, you quoted what I said inacurately. You broke in half what I was saying(the whole idea) and drew conclusions from it. That is exactly what a lot of people do with the Bible. I have put your two responses of what I said together and I will address them.

Like I said in my previous post the laws in EXodus and Leviticus were written by Moses around 1445 B.C. and 1446 B.C. These were supposed to be the "laws of the land" for the Israelites after they left Eygpt. Think of it like this. Those were laws put forth by the government(Moses) for his people (the Israelites). Those laws and God's commandments are two different things. According to the Bible, God wants people to follow the laws of the land and also his commandments. The laws Moses gave to the Israelites were only for the Israelites back then, just as the laws of the United States applies to Americans right now.

As for what is insane and wrong, people back then would think it was insane and wrong to have sex outside of marriage or to have piercings and tatoos which today a lot of people have no problem with. It is all about perspective. Even today, some people find other peoples' beliefs insane and wrong(*cough* ) ,but everything has a context and a reason (whether *everyone thinks it's good or bad*).

Alrite then. But we are still supposed to believe that God created the world in 6 days right? That hasn't been changed by new laws or anything??

Umm.. why would this be changed by a new law? God creating in 6 days (6000 years) wasn't a law to begin with. It is just what happened.(According to the Bible)

Well you can try and rationalize it, but there is no way that I will ever believe that a kind and compassionate god would want us to discriminate against people because of their sexuality. Not then, not now.

Like I said before, God's commandments and the "Laws of the land" are different. None of the ten commandments mention homosexuality. Homosexuality was againist the "law of the land" because like I said the family depended on you having children to help sustain the culture and to keep the "race" alive. Today, races of people aren't dependant on everyone procreating.

snickpop said on Apr 28 2006, 10:06 AM
"Picking certain verses and drawing conclusions.. isn't that what a lot of religious people do, against homosexuality for example. I wonder how many christians have read the entire bible. I haven't. But I'm not a christian. I haven't read the buddha book either."

Yes that is what a lot of religious people do, but they aren't supposed to. Christians are supposed to read the Bible chapter by chapter, verse by verse, to get a firm understanding of what the Bible is saying, otherwise, people confuse the meanings. (ex: KKK)

snickpop said on Apr 28 2006, 10:06 AM
"I thought the laws were god's words? The laws are in the bible. The bible is god's word."

No. The Bible contains God's word. The Bible itself like you said is a story. It tells the history of the Israelites and how everything will come back to Israel. Once more I will say "the laws of the land" and God's commandments are two different things.

snickpop said on Apr 28 2006, 10:06 AM
"Events that have happened the last couple of hundreds of years are well documented. Multiple sources."

"Last couple of hundreds of years"? What about before that? What about writings about Caesar and the Rome Empire or Sparta? They didn't have a lot of sources. Does that mean they aren't believable or credible?

snickpop said on Apr 28 2006, 10:06 AM
"Okay, so it was the holy spirit that lead them to say that slavery and murder was fine?"

Umm.. no. According to the Bible, God (through the ten commandments said) "Thou shall not Kill". Kill meaning in cold blood. You have a right to protect yourself and your property however. Once more, the slavery thing was a "law of the land" by Moses for the Israelites at the time.

snickpop said on Apr 28 2006, 10:06 AM
"Except you don't know that god was there, you don't know that god exists. It's a matter of faith. A matter of believing or not. That does not lend itself well to credible history."

Science is also based on a kind of faith. Inductive reasoning. Science can only give probable support, so you can never truly "know" anything. Some people have faith that the universe came into existence from a big bang that came from nothing, and other people have faith that God created the universe. Using physical evidence, neither one is more credible then the other.

snickpop said on Apr 28 2006, 10:06 AM
"That's the problem with this discussion. At the end of the day you can't argue against the god and the bible because people have decided to believe in it, no matter how credible or not it might be."

Likewise, people have decided to believe in the "big bang" no matter how credible or not it may be.

I have no problem with agreeing to disagree in this debate.

Edited by amyjia, 28 April 2006 - 02:10 PM.

[Ives]

God is perfect. In the Bible He Himself states several times that He inspired the Bible. How could something perfect inspire a lie? And take a look at this chart too:

http://www.carm.org/.../trustbible.htm

The accuracy of the book throughout the years has no relevance to if its truely the "word of God" or not. However, spiritual claims, such as prayers being answered, would be a more credible source that the Bible is the most practical thing on the planet...or so a third of the world says. As well, regarding the site.

While it may be correct in a few ways, such as history, certain happenings have not been proven 100%. From what I understand, the Qur'an has more accuracy with the events in history. Doesn't suggest that is the right book, but it does have a higher accuracy by a small amount.

As for homosexuality - I understand the meaning of it in the old testament, but it does say in the book of Romans regarding acting upon homosexual tendencies. Don't get me wrong, there have been accuracy problems with the specific text due to very hard translations, but what would your stance on that be?

[Ives]

He's saying that it was written by liars, and obviously would be innacurate by now from all the "liars", that's why I shared that.

Ah, that makes sense. However, from what I understanding, he was putting the argument in form of faiths, which is a basis of the argument that Jesus was either a liar, lunatic, or lord.

Sorry I type fast, if you care that much about grammer then please remind me to go back and edit my posts, because I really don't care. And that's not advice, that's being what we call in california a "bitch".

It's called spelling, and the proper term is grammar.

</anal>

[snickpop]

I'ma go ahead and ignore some of the things you say, because this thread and the quoting is getting out of hand and I'm in danger of losing interest, which would be a shame. If I drop anything important feel free to bring it up. Again.

[quote name='amyjia' date='Apr 28 2006, 09:36 PM' post='624990']
...If you don't do that, then it weakens your argument.
[/quote]
It doesn't weaken my argument, so there.
I argued that it didn't matter how long people say it took god to create the world. That argument is not weakened by the number of days or years I stated. My whole point was that it didn't matter. Being inaccurate only supports my argument.

[quote]
What do you mean by explain? Do you mean like a recipe explains how you cook something? If so, yes, the Bible does explain. It doesn't just say "God created everything and it took him 6 days and on the 7th day he rested." The Bible goes through each day and explains what was created that day
[/quote]
Yes, I oversimplified. The bible doesn't say "he created everything", it also tells what days he created what! Marvelous!
But you know, I can say "on the first day SM (spagheti monster from now on) created blueberries and fish. On the second day SM created lightbulbs and manure. On the third day SM created Microsoft and Eddie Izard)."
That doesn't explain anything, that's just me making stuff up. The same as the bible, it doesn't explain anything, it just says what days he did what.
But I guess I can ask god when I go to heaven. Er, well in theory.

[quote]
Why does your definition "story" go in this case? Because you said "story" first? I was just saying that from the definition I posted, yes the Bible is a story and so are History Books. Autobiographies are the stories of peoples' lives, etc.
[/quote]
I said "the bible is a story". Then you come and say "a story can be...". What's the point? I said the bible is a story. I know what I meant. Saying that what I said can mean something else, well so what? It didn't mean something else. It meant what I meant. I was the one who called the bible a story, so what does it matter what your definitions of stories are? It was my statement, therefore my definition is the one that matters. Maybe we should make a new thread where we can discuss the definition of "story"....

[quote]
You are the one who speaks of "proof". What proof do you have that the Bible is fabricated?
There is proof that the spagheti monster is fabricated(posted earlier). For someone to infer a conclusion based on lack of evidence is called the Fallacy of ignorance. Here's a example.
[/quote]
You have a theory, you prove it. You don't ask people to disprove it. That was why I brought up in the first place. You can't disprove SM so it must be true? Nope. I can't disprove the bible so it must be true? Nope.
And yes, the SM is a joke. But I can cope up with something else then. The world was created by Stinky the Bunny (STB). Now, let's see. The world was created by STP. Can you disprove it? No, then it must be true.
Nope. You set out a theory, you prove it. You don't ask people to disprove it.

[quote]
...Karl Rove business... (Sorry, I'm not American. And I'm from the MTV generation. My attention wanders)

Christians use the Bible as their evidence.
[/quote]
And the bible is incredibly weak evidence. In fact it proves nothing.

[quote]
Explaining things that happened after the "big bang"? What about explaining the "big bang" itself. The Bible gives an explanation for the universe. God created it.
[/quote]
I can't explain the big bang. Neither can the bible. Difference is that I'm not claiming I can.

[quote]
Example: (On other planets(and moons) the laws of motion and gravity wouldn't apply) And since this is inductive, you can never say that you even "Know" that these rules apply even on Earth.
[/quote]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't science also explain why those rules don't apply on the moon for example? But this is all very boring, science doesn't explain everything.

[quote]
Science is no more credible then The Bible.
[/quote]
Now who's being facetious?

[quote]
I see you didn't mention anything about people crossing the Bering land bridge, which connected North Asia and Alaska, enabling humans to migrate from Eurasia to the Americas by walking.. Do you think that is believable?
[/quote]
Sorry, I found that bit very boring and academic and I really don't know much about humans migrating habits. But yes, I find it more believable than making water into wine.

[quote]
Yes I recall you saying that. I also recall you referring to David Copperfield again .. (After you said "this isn't about David Copperfield specifically.)
[/quote]
I was using Copperfield as an example of "magic". And I will keep doing so. It doesn't mean it's about Copperfield in specific.

[quote]
As for what is insane and wrong, people back then would think it was insane and wrong to have sex outside of marriage or to have piercings and tatoos which today a lot of people have no problem with.
[/quote]
Yes, they would think so. And so what? Are you saying that piercings and tattoos are on the level of slavery and minder? Who knows, maybe in another thousand years piercings will be the vilest thing in the world. But I'm fairly sure that murder and slavery will still be worse.

[quote]
Homosexuality was againist the "law of the land" because like I said the family depended on you having children to help sustain the culture and to keep the "race" alive. Today, races of people aren't dependant on everyone procreating.
[/quote]
Okay. So God never said anything about homosexuality? That was human law and god never said that homosexuality was an abomination? Again, honest question. I'm not strong on the bible.


[quote]
snickpop said on Apr 28 2006, 10:06 AM
"I thought the laws were god's words? The laws are in the bible. The bible is god's word."

No. The Bible contains God's word. The Bible itself like you said is a story. It tells the history of the Israelites and how everything will come back to Israel. Once more I will say "the laws of the land" and God's commandments are two different things.
[/quote]
So, "god's words" are the ten commandments? And nothing else? Or are there just some parts of the bible there are his words and some not? And what about hearsay? If the bible said that Jesus said that god hated oranges... Then it would be "biblewriter--jesus--god"'s word. Or ?

[quote]
snickpop said on Apr 28 2006, 10:06 AM
"Events that have happened the last couple of hundreds of years are well documented. Multiple sources."

"Last couple of hundreds of years"? What about before that? What about writings about Caesar and the Rome Empire or Sparta? They didn't have a lot of sources. Does that mean they aren't believable or credible?
[/quote]
Yes! Indeed. Stories from a thousand years ago are a lot less credible than stories from a hundred years ago. That's exactly what I'm saying. We know more about what happened in 1950 than in 1050. And a heck of a lot more than in 0050. That's why we know more about the 1950s than we know about the Roman empire. I wouldn't take Spartacus the movie as seriously as I would a movie about something that happened in 1950.
(assuming they were both trying to accurately portrait their time, which they may not, but that's not the point. It's the same as with Copperfield, not to be taken too literally).

[quote]
snickpop said on Apr 28 2006, 10:06 AM
"Okay, so it was the holy spirit that lead them to say that slavery and murder was fine?"

Umm.. no. According to the Bible, God (through the ten commandments said) "Thou shall not Kill". Kill meaning in cold blood. You have a right to protect yourself and your property however. Once more, the slavery thing was a "law of the land" by Moses for the Israelites at the time.
[/quote]
Yes, well that's arguing about words and definitions again. The old testament said to kill a farmer if he planted two crops etc. But that wasn't god word in any way, right? Not the holy spirit or god or jesus. That was the law of the land and not in any way sanctioned by god?
I wonder what god thinks of capital punishment. That's not in cold blood. Hmm. Is it okay to kill if it's justice?

[quote]
snickpop said on Apr 28 2006, 10:06 AM
"Except you don't know that god was there, you don't know that god exists. It's a matter of faith. A matter of believing or not. That does not lend itself well to credible history."

Science is also based on a kind of faith.
[/quote]
Yes, but science doesn't claim to know everything. We have scientific theories that can be recreated. And we try to explain more things in that way. We know that there are things we don't know. The bible just says "on the first day god created this, and on the second day he created that". And then you have "intelligent creation" where they try to mix it, even though you can't.

[quote]
Likewise, people have decided to believe in the "big bang" no matter how credible or not it may be.
[/quote]
I don't think that people "believe in the big bang". Different people have different ideas about what happened in the big bang. And they try to find out. Hey, scientists have probably tried to prove that the big bang was god, I wouldn't be surprised. Science doesn't state what the big bang is because science doesn't know. But science tries to find out.


[quote]
I have no problem with agreeing to disagree in this debate.
[/quote]

Well, me neither. It just sort of fascinates me. You're obviously smart. Maybe smarter than me. And yet you say that faery tales are as credible as scientific theories (in my opinion, obviously that's not the way you see it). I find it interesting.


---
Sometimes it would be handy to be able to doublepost...
[quote "AliasXNeo"]
Sorry I type fast, if you care that much about grammer then please remind me to go back and edit my posts, because I really don't care. And that's not advice, that's being what we call in california a "bitch".
[quote]
Yeah well that was my point. Don't call people stupid if you come off as stupid. If you're going to belittle someone's intelligence then take the time to type it out properly. Friendly advice, people take you more serious that way.

[quote]
Anyways, look at it this way. In Japan it was an honour to die by the sword, or lose in battle and have your head cut off. Alot of civilizations had some preety wicked ways of punishing people, and that was basically just the normal back then.
[/quote]
Is there a Japanese god that says "thou shall cut off the head of they neighbour if he plants two crops in the same field"? If there is then I will happily say that it's another insane god.

[quote]
So now, back to the Bible, it's the exact same thing. The old testament was basically a set of rules for the people of that time to follow, and yes the sign of the great temple clothes being torn apart was a sign that those laws were not to be used these days. Now, we have a very well formed goverment that handles everything, so if you think logically here, what's the point? And trying to say the Bible is evil because of that reason is not a smart idea, you can ask anybody (including non-christians) about that one if you want
[/quote]
My point is that if god EVER said that you should kill the farmer-etc then it's insane. Doesn't matter if he changed his mind later. But it seems that those laws were not god's words if that's the case then obviously I have no point anymore.
But let's go out and ask people if the bible is evil and has caused harm.. I bet you'll get lots of different opinions, some that I want, some that I don't want.

[quote]
Hey guess what, did you know that scientists made the Big Bang theory =0 Oh shoot, and what are scientists? Human! Are we getting somewhere now? YOU CANNOT USE THAT ARGUMENT. So stop saying it. You can use it in any case. What do you believe in? Evolution? Well guess what, that was made up by a bunch of liars too And what about the entire democracy, well that was written by liars too! Come back to me when you have a better argument
[/quote]
Scientific theories can be repeated and reproduced. Made by liars, but able to be tested by others. The bible can't be tested.
There isn't a "big bang" theory by the way. There are theories about what happened after the big bang. There aren't any (serious) scientists who will tell you that they know, for certain, what happened in the big bang. Unlike religion, which will be happy to tell you.
How was democracy written? do you mean the declaration of independence? Anyway, humanity is a hellhole of liars, thieves, murderers and scumbags. That's why religion is so popular, we all have sins that we need to be forgiven for.

Edited by snickpop, 28 April 2006 - 03:07 PM.

[amyjia]

As for homosexuality - I understand the meaning of it in the old testament, but it does say in the book of Romans regarding acting upon homosexual tendencies. Don't get me wrong, there have been accuracy problems with the specific text due to very hard translations, but what would your stance on that be?

Ok. Romans. Yes it does speak of homosexuality in Romans, however, once more we must look at the context.

Romans was written by Paul to the Christians in Rome about A.D. 57. Christianity was growing in Rome,but was still small percentage. So Paul wrote a letter (Romans) to the Christians in Rome saying these things:

Everyone sins---------------------------------Romans 3:9-20
God saves people who believe--------------Romans 4:1-25
Jesus died (57 years ago) for them--------Romans 5:1-11
God's Spirit helps them do right------------Romans 8:1-11
God's Loves them forever------------------Romans 8:28-39
God shows people how to love------------Romans 12:9-21

Now yes, Romans does speak against homosexuality, but there is a reason. Once more, there weren't a lot of Christians in Rome then so to "keep their culture alive" they needed to have children who they could teach. Likewise, they needed "young people" who could help convert other "young people". This worked for Christians in Rome. By umm.. about the sixth century A.D., homosexuality was outlawed in Rome. This was partly due to the influence of other cultures upon the Capitol City, but mostly due to the spread and influence of Christianity. Since there is no danger for surivial of "Christians culture" (or also any established religion's culture), I would say homosexuality is ok .

Edited by amyjia, 28 April 2006 - 03:10 PM.

[snickpop]

Moses wrote the laws that God gave to him, so yes the source would be from God. It's not wrong to punish a man for doing a wrong.

Actually I'm against capital punishment. So yes, I think it is wrong. I wouldn't like to believe in a god who thinks it's okay to kill people.

You can't judge God's decision, because your not perfect, nor in anyway like him. That's what you really need to look at, what gives you the right to judge God's decisions. It's not an excuse, but just think about it. But like I said, there laws were strange back then, so it's nothing new.

I don't judge God's decisions, because I don't believe he exists. I judge the decisions of those who made him up.

What's wrong with saying that God created? Do you wish for it to be more complicated? Like the Bible says, "The clay has no right to question the potter". It's not to us how God created the world, all we know is it's here, so obviously He most likely created it as He says in the Bible.

If there is one thing more dangerous than faith then it is blind faith. Let's not question the bible. Okay then. End of discussion, I guess.

Actually, science does state what the Big Bang is. It's called the "Big Bang Theory", and yes it does exist. Science is as much as a lie as the Bible is in your view. Although there may be different "Big Bang Theory"'s, it still exists and people take it as fact.

We don't know what happened in the big bag. That sounds like a good theory to me.

[snickpop]

Once again, what gives you ANY right WHAT SO EVER to judge God? A perfect being, besides your just a liar, according to your own words.

Once again, there is no god. So I'll judge him all I want.
And yes, I'm a liar. You betcha. Let he who is withouth sin...

Your missing the point. Your idea is circular reasoning. You say it can be reproduced, but since ALL humans are liars, thieves and all the other stuff you called them, how can you trust that when one corrects another, that they really corrected them and were not just wanting their view to be accepted instead of the other. If we are all liers, there can never be truth, because the standards we used to determine truth would be lies as well. Are you understanding now?

You know, I don't really care about evolution and science and all that. Maybe science is a cult made up by insane clowns. But then it wouldn't really be that different from religion.

We're all liars, so we can't trust anyone, so what do we do next? I think the bible is a bigger liar than science.

That's personal issues, take it out of the debate.

Why?! My personal issues are as relevant as your faith.

Okay, goodbye then. You have no reason to be in this debate arguing about something you don't believe in.

Bye bye then! Funny, I thought I could debate about things I believe and things I don't. I guess not!

Really, then how come your doing it right now?

Sarcasm`? Irony? I forget which one.

We don't know what happened when God created the world, sounds like a great belief to me.

Yes, great belief indeed. Parts of the bible are indeed a beautiful belief, a wonderful fantasy. No argument there.

Edited by snickpop, 28 April 2006 - 03:17 PM.