Planetarion Forums - All christians please raise your hands...

Embroglio · 9 Feb 2004, 20:56

Intrepid00 · 9 Feb 2004, 21:03

Its all relative.

Aryn · 9 Feb 2004, 22:11

that's hilarious actually

Vaio · 10 Feb 2004, 00:58

Does it work with Islamic Terrorists as well ?

'Could all the people working towards the overthrow and destruction of the GREAT SATAN please raise your hands ?'

It would save the air marshalls a bit of time

Vaio

at0mic.c0w · 10 Feb 2004, 01:04

apart from the "the rest of you are crazy" bit this rather sounds like a few ppl on that plane got hysteric and the airline is trying to protect its image

Leshy · 10 Feb 2004, 01:09

I wish I'd been on that plane.

I'd have sued the airline for having one of their employees insult me on basis of my religion, thereby undoubtedly breaking some kind of law. I would've been rich

Intrepid00 · 10 Feb 2004, 03:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leshy

I wish I'd been on that plane.

I'd have sued the airline for having one of their employees insult me on basis of my religion, thereby undoubtedly breaking some kind of law. I would've been rich

You would have a very, very, very hard time proving anything.

Tactitus · 10 Feb 2004, 05:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

You would have a very, very, very hard time proving anything.

Still, he might have gotten his 15 minutes of fame before he, his lawyer and his case were tossed out of court.

meaple · 10 Feb 2004, 07:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

You would have a very, very, very hard time proving anything.

Not in America

Intrepid00 · 10 Feb 2004, 15:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by meaple

Not in America

Most of the favirous cases are lost in appeal. For example, the McDonald's coffee lady lost in the appeal and McD's never had to pay her a penny.

Dante Hicks · 10 Feb 2004, 16:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Are there any people who are remotely religious on this forum, or are they too scared?

I made a thread about this subject, you can find it here : http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=174669

It kind of came to nothing though.

Aryn · 10 Feb 2004, 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Are there any people who are remotely religious on this forum, or are they too scared?

being scared to be religious is hilarious.
i mean why hide it?

Supernova9 · 10 Feb 2004, 18:42

On my part, it's not being scared, more not wanting to indulge the vast majority of inane posters' desires to "bait a Christian" etc.

I'm willing to answer sensible, genuine questions, I just don't see the point in stupid arguements.

Oh, and as to the original post......

Deciduous · 10 Feb 2004, 19:00

Ok a couple of genuine questions.
How does the creation story account for population growth, given what we know about the very low rates of increase in population from historical records?

How does the creation story explain the amount of genetic diversity shown in modern humans given that the first two human beings were genetically identical (given Eve was made from Adam's rib)

Supernova9 · 10 Feb 2004, 19:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deciduous

Ok a couple of genuine questions.
How does the creation story account for population growth, given what we know about the very low rates of increase in population from historical records?

How does the creation story explain the amount of genetic diversity shown in modern humans given that the first two human beings were genetically identical (given Eve was made from Adam's rib)

Honestly, I don't know. I'm not a bible scholar, I wasn't around then, I can't be sure. Though if you're going on what other books say, why are you dismissing the bible's claims out of hand?

We're all supposed to have come from Africa to start with, that's where most people who have studied the bible place Adam and Eve as being from. Now, you can see that not everyone in the world is black (which we would be if we hadn't moved from Africa). This is because of the environment over thousands of years changing people's skin tones. Why can't other changes occur naturally over time, e.g. eye colour etc.?

To me, those issues are not "gospel issues". Yes, they're very valid questions, but at the end of the day, what matters to me is my relationship with Jesus and the fact he died for my sin on the cross. That's my "religion". While the bible is an aid to my faith, and a part of it, it is by no means the founding principle of my belief system.

Deciduous · 10 Feb 2004, 19:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supernova9

Honestly, I don't know. I'm not a bible scholar, I wasn't around then, I can't be sure. Though if you're going on what other books say, why are you dismissing the bible's claims out of hand?

Books based on credible research rather than handed-down stories.
If you were a bible scholar you could probably interpret the material however you wanted. Dissecting the story in more detail is all very well but you're still only reading the same material.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supernova9

This is because of the environment over thousands of years changing people's skin tones. Why can't other changes occur naturally over time, e.g. eye colour etc.?

A difference in DNA causes changes to occur leading to greater adaptability, not the other way round.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supernova9

To me, those issues are not "gospel issues". Yes, they're very valid questions, but at the end of the day, what matters to me is my relationship with Jesus and the fact he died for my sin on the cross.

Obviously you aren't bothered about these issues, because if you were to admit that there were inconsistencies with observations of the real world you might end up having to concede that there may be many more inconsistencies and that these stories were wrong.

Qdeathstar · 10 Feb 2004, 20:00

Im an Atheist.... but i dont dislike religious ppl... people like that are SOO stupid. It puts a bad spin on athiesm... almost as bad as being catholic... :-(.

My g/f is really religious. A Johava's Witness....

queball · 10 Feb 2004, 20:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aryn

being scared to be religious is hilarious.
i mean why hide it?

If I had any kind of hope or faith, I would keep it as far away from this hell-hole as possible.

Supernova9 · 10 Feb 2004, 20:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deciduous

Books based on credible research rather than handed-down stories.

The existence of Jesus was confirmed by Tacitus and Josephus among others of the time, thus plenty of corroborating evidence, yet it's still not believed by the majority of population.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deciduous

Obviously you aren't bothered about these issues, because if you were to admit that there were inconsistencies with observations of the real world you might end up having to concede that there may be many more inconsistencies and that these stories were wrong.

Indeed I'm not that bothered, because the point you just raised is about faith. I have faith that what the Bible says is true, faith is an internal concept, which won't be changed by others around me. You can't argue me out of my faith, just as I couldn't argue you into it.

Dante Hicks · 10 Feb 2004, 20:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supernova9

The existence of Jesus was confirmed by Tacitus and Josephus among others of the time, thus plenty of corroborating evidence, yet it's still not believed by the majority of population.

The majority of which population?

I believe there is a guy about that period who went round being a religious figure. It's just the whole "being the son of god" thing I don't quite buy into.

Queball : You don't have hope? I do, but obviously not in this religious nonsense.

Supernova9 · 10 Feb 2004, 20:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

The majority of which population?
I believe there is a guy about that period who went round being a religious figure. It's just the whole "being the son of god" thing I don't quite buy into.

Queball : You don't have hope? I do, but obviously not in this religious nonsense.

Surely if he was a religious figure, calling himself the son of God would really have been big lie, thus negating any of his teachings to the contrary?

Dante Hicks · 10 Feb 2004, 20:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supernova9

Surely if he was a religious figure, calling himself the son of God would really have been big lie, thus negating any of his teachings to the contrary?

Yeah, that's kind of why I'm not a Christian dude.

I'm saying I believe in the existence of Jesus, I just don't think he was the son of god. Similarly I believe there is a guy called Gordon Ross alive today, I just don't think he's a divine messenger.

Qdeathstar · 10 Feb 2004, 20:17

As well

Quote:

How does the creation story explain the amount of genetic diversity shown in modern humans given that the first two human beings were genetically identical (given Eve was made from Adam's rib

Actually, human diversity is almost non-existant. Our Genetic Diversity is actually 2% of normal.

The reasons i dont belive are god, are based on fact.

1. Scientists have PROVEN that species develope through genetic mutation and evolution, not creation
2. Scientists have PROVEN that the earth is much older that the bible(and many other religions) testifies
3. Religion has always primarily been a means to resolve a political/social problem.
4. The earth is NOT the center of the universe.
5. God is like Saddam Hussian or any other poorly-governing leader.
A. "Free Will" but punishment if you do not obey him.
B. Openly Allows injustice and cruetly to befall his followers.
6. There have always been people who are good with rhetoric, they were just sane enough to realize they werent the son of God.
7. Scientists have shown and have basicly proven how the earth formed, through combination of planettessimals, NOT 7 days..
8. How many speices do you think exist. And Noah put all of those on a boat, a male and a female? What about the organisms that reproduce asexually/dont need a mate. Did he bring plant life to? or did God recreate that.
9. How come previous religions are now refered to as methology. To the romans, Mars was a god, why now is he simply nice story. Religion is a nice story. Religion is methology.

A lot of those deal with the christian religion primarily, but some hold true for all religions

Evergreen · 10 Feb 2004, 20:22

Aww come on, since when has anything ever bad came from having a religious Zealot at the yoke of a plane?

Qdeathstar · 10 Feb 2004, 20:23

And on a side note, not only do i believe that Jesus existed, but that histories have come close to finding information that would prove it, and with circumstantial evidence, it would prove Jesus existed. Just because a man died a martyr of his beliefs, doenst make him the son of god.. or devine in any way. Just a man of rehtoric

IF some one told you they were the Son of God, and said they could talk with god, and proceeeded to do it, would you say yessir, your a god. No, you would think they were crazy or a magician. but not a son of a god.

and one more reason i dont belive in god.

In the bible it clearly states that ghosts are incarnations of the devil. what about the "angels" who were like ghosts in there form? According to the bibles rules, they must be incarnations of the bible.

SYMM · 10 Feb 2004, 20:24

I believe in God. I don't believe that a lot of what the bible says is true. I know what I mean by God, but I can't explain it (I have tried before).
I don't generally feel the need to tell people (I've never denied being religious when asked).
I used to go to church, but I havn't done for a few years.
Oh, and I'd call myself Unitarian over any other christian denomination, but i don't really like the idea of categorising my belief.

Nodrog · 10 Feb 2004, 20:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

4. The earth is NOT the center of the universe.

proof plz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

9. How come previous religions are now refered to as methology. To the romans, Mars was a god, why now is he simply nice story. Religion is a nice story. Religion is methology.

Refinement of the religious method to take new evidence into account, inorder to narrow the hermeneutic cycle so that the the story gets closer and closer to how God actually 'is'. Do you really think that the current scientific theories regarding the universe will be taken to be anything more than primitive myths in 200 years time?

Qdeathstar · 10 Feb 2004, 20:27

nodrog, im not going to prove that.. go to nassa.com or something..

Additionally.. Agnostics, like symm here are really the only people im not impressed with. After all Dante said the hottest places in hell are for those who remain neutral in a time of moral crisis (or close that)...

Deciduous · 10 Feb 2004, 20:28

You mean like Newtonian mechanics?

[edit] Stick, wrong end of

Qdeathstar · 10 Feb 2004, 20:29

Quote:

Refinement of the religious method to take new evidence into account, inorder to narrow the hermeneutic cycle so that the the story gets closer and closer to how God actually 'is'. Do you really think that the current scientific theories regarding the universe will be taken to be anything more than primitive myths in 200 years time?

Sure, but in science we either mathemathematicly disPROVE something, or ADD on to it. New religions simply labled Methology as Methology right after they received any power...

Dante Hicks · 10 Feb 2004, 20:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Do you really think that the current scientific theories regarding the universe will be taken to be anything more than primitive myths in 200 years time?

To be fair, the more intelligent scientists do generally admit they could be talking bollocks.

Besides, anything formed via the scientific method is inherently superior to the insights of some mystic drivel.

SYMM · 10 Feb 2004, 20:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

nodrog, im not going to prove that.. go to nassa.com or something..

Additionally.. Agnostics, like symm here are really the only people im not impressed with. After all Dante said the hottest places in hell are for those who remain neutral in a time of moral crisis (or close that)...

You're not "impressed" with me? How ****ing terrible.

And an "agnostic"? I believe there is a God, and in my mind I know what "he" is (like). I just can never seem to (nor really want to) share this with people who've asked me.

You also think that religion in this time is a "moral crisis"?
And acronyms (SYMM ffs) should be capitalised.

JonnyBGood · 10 Feb 2004, 20:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Additionally.. Agnostics, like symm here are really the only people im not impressed with. After all Dante said the hottest places in hell are for those who remain neutral in a time of moral crisis (or close that)...

Agnosticism is not the lack of a moral system (you have no idea how much effort it took to prevent myself ending that sentence with the word ****wit).

Nodrog · 10 Feb 2004, 20:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Sure, but in science we either mathemathematicly disPROVE something, or ADD on to it. New religions simply labled Methology as Methology right after they received any power...

Huh?

Sumerian relgion was really wacky, and included many things that have been factually disproven now. Greek religion was less wacky and took into account their slightly more advanced knowledge of the world, but still had its fair share of bizarre claims. Hebrew religion (ie Old Testement) . Most of the Old Testement has been thoughly debunked now (noone really tajkes the Flood or the 7 day creation story literally now), so most people stand by the New Testement, as it is more in line with current knowledge about the universe than the Old. When large parts of the New Testement have been disproven, there will probably be a new religion formed that takes thee new evidence into account. In this way religious theories, just like scientific theories, are gradually refined to take new data into account.

Its silly to say that modern religion is 'false' because previous religions have been shown to be 'false' without saying the same about scientific models, because its pretty much the exact same process in both cases. Intelligent Design is a refinement of the Genesis story in the same sense that Special relativity is a refinement of Newtonian mechanics.

Nodrog · 10 Feb 2004, 20:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

To be fair, the more intelligent scientists do generally admit they could be talking bollocks.

So do a lot of religious people, whats your point?

Evergreen · 10 Feb 2004, 20:40

You are all a bunch of ****ing stiffs do you know that?

Dante Hicks · 10 Feb 2004, 20:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

So do a lot of religious people, whats your point?

That science is based on evidence (to a degree) whereas religion is based is pretty much all on faith. I don't see how faith can really be subject to the critical process of improvement.

If I died now and was before God, I wouldn't be sorry for being an atheist since I was following the evidence available.

JonnyBGood · 10 Feb 2004, 20:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Its silly to say that modern religion is 'false' because previous religions have been shown to be 'false' without saying the same about scientific models, because its pretty much the exact same process in both cases. Intelligent Design is a refinement of the Genesis story in the same sense that Quantum mechanics is a refinement of Newtonian.

Except without science religions would not "advance" whereas the converse isn't true. Well I suppose on a christians saved knowledge in the dark ages and shit level it is but I mean the abstract sense and not the historical.

Leshy · 10 Feb 2004, 20:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Sumerian relgion was really wacky

Empirical evidence, please.

Quote:

(noone really tajkes the Flood or the 7 day creation story literally now)

Actually, most, if not all ancient cultures seem to have a Flood myth. The fact that it is such a recurring theme may very well indicate some kind of flood-related disaster happening at some point. Although of course the whole two people building a boat and floating about thing seems less founded in reality.

Deciduous · 10 Feb 2004, 20:54

You'd think the Egyptians would have recorded something like that

Nodrog · 10 Feb 2004, 20:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

That science is based on evidence (to a degree) whereas religion is based is pretty much all on faith. I don't see how faith can really be subject to the critical process of improvement.

Wouldnt you say that Intelligent Design was more evidence-based than Genesis? Or that Deism is more "scientific" than the religion of the Pharaohs? Modern religions are generally more 'sophisticated' than those in eras gone by, because of the increased amount of evidence available to those who believe in them. Both religion and science are based on empirical evidence, just different interpretations thereof.

Nodrog · 10 Feb 2004, 21:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Except without science religions would not "advance" whereas the converse isn't true.

I'm not sure why that's relevant.

Deciduous · 10 Feb 2004, 21:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Wouldnt you say that Intelligent Design was more evidence-based than Genesis? Or that Deism is more "scientific" than the religion of the Pharaohs? Modern religions are generally more 'sophisticated' than those in eras gone by, because of the increased amount of evidence available to those who believe in them. Both religion and science are based on empirical evidence, just different interpretations thereof.

So why don't all Christians admit the big bang as a possibility?

Nodrog · 10 Feb 2004, 21:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deciduous

So why don't all Christians admit the big bang as a possibility?

What does it matter what 'all' Christians are or arent doing? Western culture, taken as a whole, has continually refined its relgious hypotheses. What an individual person does or doesnt do is irrelevant here.

JonnyBGood · 10 Feb 2004, 21:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I'm not sure why that's relevant.

One is self-improving and the other is stagnant. Which is more useful and worthwhile then?

Nodrog · 10 Feb 2004, 21:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

One is self-improving and the other is stagnant. Which is more useful and worthwhile then?

Neither is stagnant, both have continually evolved; the beliefs expressed by a moderate Catholic today would probably have got him burned alive 300 years ago. Religion perhaps evolves at a slower speed than science, but that could be because peoples religious beliefs are often more important to them than their scientific ones, resulting in a greater reluctance to let them go which causes an increase in the amount of time required for significant paradigm changes.

JonnyBGood · 10 Feb 2004, 21:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Neither is stagnant, both have continually evolved; the beliefs expressed by a moderate Catholic today would probably have got him burned alive 300 years ago. Religion perhaps evolves at a slower speed than science, but that could be because someone's religious beliefs are more important to them than their scientific ones, and are hence more reluctant to let go of them, causing an increase in the amount of time required for significant paradigm changes.

Yes but one evolves within it's own context. The stated goal of science is to build a working model of the universe (innit) whereas specific religions declare this is the right way and the only way. New facts in science are always welcome, historically in religion this has not been so. Now this can change certainly but at that point it's not really a religion anymore and there's not that much point to it.

Nodrog · 10 Feb 2004, 21:20

Again, it makes no difference what people do at an invidiual level. Culturally, religious models are refined to take new evidence into account in the exact same way which scientific theories are. Both scientific and religious models are metaphysical interpretations of sensory evidence; the only real difference between them is the speed at which changes to the model occur. Science certainly evolves at a faster rate than religion, but its utterly fallacious to suggest that religion is static.

Deciduous · 10 Feb 2004, 21:23

Could you clarify your point for me Nod? I seem to have got lost.

Dante Hicks · 10 Feb 2004, 21:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Again, it makes no difference what people do at an invidiual level.

This particular subsection of the debate came about because an individual was discussing his or her reasons for believing in God. I'd say what individuals do/don't do is pretty relevent.

p.s. I'd say one of the defining characteristics of a religious body of ideas is the notion of faith. If it's following a scientific-type method then I'd say it's more of a science, albeit an odd one.