Support NeoGAF

[King of the Potato People]

God might be real so might the underpants Gnomes.

 

[NullPointer]

God is beyond categories. Normal truth and falsehood do not apply. God is not a "thing" and does not relate to other things in any manner we would normally use.

Although I can grasp this in principle, I still have no idea why most religions find God to be a positively beneficent force. One would figure that God would be the sum total of all potentials and possibilities, for good or ill as we would describe them. Christianity further muddies the works giving their god a personal, human incarnation, involved in the sphere of world events.

 

[Subtervotion]

The ads on here are great.

 

[Falcs]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk

Like I said...
"If anybody wants to google some Bible contradictions, while you're at it also google an explanation for the contradiction and you'll find that it in fact is not a contradiction at all when in the right context."
I have seen them all, and every single one of them is always a misunderstanding of what is written.

Except when the Bible outright contradicts fact? Like when it states the entire universe was created in 7 days around 6000 years ago? Or that every animal was crammed onto a boat and there was a huge global flood? Or that disease is caused by malevolent spirits?

Yeah, I suppose if you ignore all that the Bible is never wrong.

Not all of science is 100% fact. And non of what contradicts the bible is 100% fact. Big-bang, evolution, age of earth, all not 100% fact.
I'll bet most of you who says otherwise has never even studied (aside from high-school texts etc.) either the big-bang or evolution. These theories are based on assumptions, that are in turn based on observable facts.
For example.. micro evolution is observable and proven. Macro evolution is based on assumptions which are based on micro evolution. They are assumptions because they cannot be observed. You cannot observe what has happend in the past. Ergo Evolution is not 100% fact.
Also the bible actually supports many scientific studies on biology, geology, physics, astronomy, chemistry... It's true, look it up! Here's the interesting part though.. which came first, the Bible or the scientific studies??

 

[Atramental]

Great quote by Epicurus. Whenever I hear this thrown out there in a debate like this, the religious people never seem to know the answer to it, and that's understandable because it's quite a logical argument.

Isaiah 45:7 (King James Version)
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

 

[NullPointer]

Speaking of contradictions, is light a particle or a wave?

 

[CornBurrito]

Like I said...
I have seen them all, and every single one of them is always a misunderstanding of what is written.

"But wait, the Bible didn't say that. You aren't meant to take those passages literally!"

Really? So if I can interpret the Bible any way I want of course it will never contradict itself or be wrong. I could do the same for any other book, whether it be a religious text or Harry Potter. Hell, I could argue Harry Potter is a metaphor for the slave trade if I was able to interpret every line of text anyway I wanted to.

not all of science is 100% fact. And non of what contradicts the bible is 100% fact. Big-bang, evolution, age of earth, all not 100% fact.

They are not 100% fact, we have been over this.

However, all of the evidence we currently have points to them as being the truth. They are out "best guess."

The Big Bang has mountains of evidence supporting it. Multiple links have already been posted.

Evolution does as well. I suggest talkorigins.

As for the age of the earth:

The concept of the Earth being instantaneously formed only 6000 years ago obviously flies in the face of many fields of modern science. The branches of science you have to ignore to believe in young Earth creationism are numerous - containing practically all of known science - but most notably these sciences are biology (The theory of evolution and palaeontology), astronomy (starlight problem), geology (volcanic formation, sedimentation, plate tectonics), archaeology (historic development of ancient civilizations) and physics (radiometric dating).

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Young_earth

 

[The Technomancer]

Like I said...
"If anybody wants to google some Bible contradictions, while you're at it also google an explanation for the contradiction and you'll find that it in fact is not a contradiction at all when in the right context."
I have seen them all, and every single one of them is always a misunderstanding of what is written.

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

?

 

[Subtervotion]

Like I said...
"If anybody wants to google some Bible contradictions, while you're at it also google an explanation for the contradiction and you'll find that it in fact is not a contradiction at all when in the right context."
I have seen them all, and every single one of them is always a misunderstanding of what is written.


Not all of science is 100% fact. And non of what contradicts the bible is 100% fact. Big-bang, evolution, age of earth, all not 100% fact.
I'll bet most of you who says otherwise has never even studied (aside from high-school texts etc.) either the big-bang or evolution. These theories are based on assumptions, that are in turn based on observable facts.
For example.. micro evolution is observable and proven. Macro evolution is based on assumptions which are based on micro evolution. They are assumptions because they cannot be observed. You cannot observe what has happend in the past. Ergo Evolution is not 100% fact.
Also the bible actually supports many scientific studies on biology, geology, physics, astronomy, chemistry... It's true, look it up! Here's the interesting part though.. which came first, the Bible or the scientific studies??

So how did Judas die?

 

[Pixel Pete]

For example.. micro evolution is observable and proven. Macro evolution is based on assumptions which are based on micro evolution. They are assumptions because they cannot be observed. You cannot observe what has happend in the past. Ergo Evolution is not 100% fact.
Also the bible actually supports many scientific studies on biology, geology, physics, astronomy, chemistry... It's true, look it up! Here's the interesting part though.. which came first, the Bible or the scientific studies??

uh-oh, can-a-worms right there.
I'll be blunt. There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution. They are not legitimate scientific terms. Evolution is not distributed between 2 scale models of evolutionary mechanics.
Using the words micro and macro evolution immediately displays a lack of knowledge on the processes of evolution. Which isn't a bad thing, evolution is tricky to fully grasp without making assumptions.

We can observe what has happened in the past, just not directly with our own eyes.

And finally, humans are evolved animals. This, for all intent and purposes, isn't contestable.

100% certain? Definately not, just like almost everything in existence outside mathematics, you can't prove anything in absolutes. But, near as makes no difference, evolution has happened and is still happening. It is as certain as it is the moon controls the tides and the earth is round.

 

[CornBurrito]

Falcs00: Please describe the difference between macro and micro evolution, and give examples for what would constitute macro evolution.

 

[Pixel Pete]

Here's the interesting part though.. which came first, the Bible or the scientific studies??

Scientific studies came first. The Classical Greeks pioneered scientific processes as early as 800 years before the birth of Christ.

 

[CornBurrito]

Scientific studies came first. The Classical Greeks pioneered scientific processes as early as 800 years before the birth of Christ.

People really underrate how advanced past civilizations were.

 

[NullPointer]

People really underrate how advanced past civilizations were.

Whats hilarious is that this is a lesson for both sides to take to heart.

 

[The Technomancer]

Scientific studies came first. The Classical Greeks pioneered scientific processes as early as 800 years before the birth of Christ.

Yup. The ancient Greeks did everything from estimate the diameter of the Earth to work out a variety of explanations for the apparent motion of the heavens.

 

[teh_pwn]

Anyone that throws out the kind of science used in space or in Evolution (macro is just a bunch of micros, it's the same), should not be using computers or modern medicine. No one observes the theory and engineering of computers parts with naked eyes and yet it's working. Because evidence acquired using tools is still evidence.

Science isn't a series of facts. It's a method used to get the best possible approximation until it's virtually fact.

 

[Zoibie]

Not all of science is 100% fact. And non of what contradicts the bible is 100% fact. Big-bang, evolution, age of earth, all not 100% fact.
I'll bet most of you who says otherwise has never even studied (aside from high-school texts etc.) either the big-bang or evolution. These theories are based on assumptions, that are in turn based on observable facts.
For example.. micro evolution is observable and proven. Macro evolution is based on assumptions which are based on micro evolution. They are assumptions because they cannot be observed. You cannot observe what has happend in the past. Ergo Evolution is not 100% fact.

The logic that if things can't be proven unequivocally, totally correct, they are fundamentally wrong is terribly flawed.

 

[Vanillalite]

Scientific studies came first. The Classical Greeks pioneered scientific processes as early as 800 years before the birth of Christ.

Depends... do we consider the old testament stuff and what was passed down?

That being said the ancient civilizations before even the Greeks were doing scientific stuff albeit primitive of course.

 

[Pixel Pete]

People really underrate how advanced past civilizations were.

Indeed. Classical Greek scientists were already thinking about evolution, particle theory, disease theory and the structure of the cosmos hundreds of years before Christ. Similar acts of intelligence were happening in Alexandria.
Unfortunately, superstitious culture more or less vanquished the body of knowledge and killed nearly a thousand years of progress in the process. =[

That being said the ancient civilizations before even the Greeks were doing scientific stuff albeit primitive of course.

Well yes, it depends on the definition of scientific. It's arguable that we've been doing scientific things for thousands of years.

 

[CornBurrito]

Does the Bible anywhere mention germs? I know it mentions certain things being caused by evil spirits/demons.

If it doesn't mention germs why do fundamentalists not reject germ theory?

 

[GhaleonEB]

I tried for many years to be religious, but it didn't work. I kept describing to my wife that I felt like a square peg being pounded into a round hole. It just didn't work.

I broke free from the artifice of pretending gradually, and have been a much happier person since. I don't believe in any sort of god, but it's not an aggressive thing. It's just...not something I think or worry about at all. To me it's like worrying about Santa Clause or the boogey man.

Religious folk don't bother me at all - I'm married to one - so long as they do not try to force their beliefs on me or onto society (the main reason I finally snapped and left the church was due to their aggressive opposition to gay marriage).

I have no passion for religious argument, since I don't like to argue about things that don't exist (that would be god), but I get a kick out the discussions, so I'll bookmark and read the thread, having just now found it.

 

[Falcs]

"But wait, the Bible didn't say that. You aren't meant to take those passages literally!"

Really? So if I can interpret the Bible any way I want of course it will never contradict itself or be wrong. I could do the same for any other book, whether it be a religious text or Harry Potter. Hell, I could argue Harry Potter is a metaphor for the slave trade if I was able to interpret every line of text anyway I wanted to.

That's not the way it works. You can't interpret the Bible any way you want. If you find a passage that you don't understand you can usually find a meaning or clarification for it somewhere else in the Bible. You can't pick out things from the Bible and neglect the rest of it, which is what all "Contradictions" are.
And as for things that aren't meant to be taken literally, it's usually pretty obvious when something is not meant to be taken literally. I believe that most of the Bible is actually meant to be taken literally.

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Again.. perfect example of another misunderstanding.
One line of genealogy goes backwards from Jesus, the other goes fowards to Jesus. One line of genealogy speaks of bloodlines, the other speaks of legal-right lines.
I can't be bothered explaining all the differences in any contradictions people may find on Google, I've already studied them all and there are explanations for all of them.
Here.. I just did a quick google search to answer this contradiction.

uh-oh, can-a-worms right there.
I'll be blunt. There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution. They are not legitimate scientific terms. Evolution is not distributed between 2 scale models of evolutionary mechanics.
Using the words micro and macro evolution immediately displays a lack of knowledge on the processes of evolution.[/B]

Yes, which is why ALL of Evolution is so easily accepted as fact, when it is clearly not 100% fact, only some of it.

Falcs00: Please describe the difference between macro and micro evolution, and give examples for what would constitute macro evolution.

The simplest way I can think of is simply what is observable and what is not.
Observable evolution today - micro evolution.
Unobservable evolution which is based on assumptions that are based on what IS observed. - macro evolution.
There's a lot more to it than that obviously.
An example of Macro I guess would be the theory that we all evolved from a common ansestor. This in unobservable (therefore not fact), and is based on assumptions, which are based on what is observable (fact).

 

[Pixel Pete]

Does the Bible anywhere mention germs? I know it mentions certain things being caused by evil spirits/demons.

If it doesn't mention germs why do fundamentalists not reject germ theory?

my understand, lacking though it is, is that disease was spread by evil spirits.
But then again it took humanity in general a good while to figure out germ theory. The Plague was spread by smell, remember?

 

[TacticalFox88]

I tried for many years to be religious, but it didn't work. I kept describing to my wife that I felt like a square peg being pounded into a round hole. It just didn't work.

I broke free from the artifice of pretending gradually, and have been a much happier person since. I don't believe in any sort of god, but it's not an aggressive thing. It's just...not something I think or worry about at all. To me it's like worrying about Santa Clause or the boogey man.

Religious folk don't bother me at all - I'm married to one - so long as they do not try to force their beliefs on me or onto society (the main reason I finally snapped and left the church was due to their aggressive opposition to gay marriage).

I have no passion for religious argument, since I don't like to argue about things that don't exist (that would be god), but I get a kick out the discussions, so I'll bookmark and read the thread, having just now found it.

I'm interested in how this works. From what you've described in the past, you seem to be in a happy marriage. So what do you teach your daughters? No God? What your wife believes? Think freely?

 

[Pixel Pete]

Evolution seriously needs to be taught in schools. There is no controversy here, it's simply a matter of being educated in how evolution works. As much as I want to personally take the time and go into detail about the processes (no sarcasm here) I'm at work.

Falcs00, I thoroughly recommend you read, at the very least, the OP in Neogaf's own impressive Evolution thread:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=400404

It doesn't hurt your faith to understand evolution. If it's good enough for the pope...

 

[Falcs]

All of evolution that is actually 100% fact (that is actually observable) does not contradict any of the Bible. The things about Evolution which do contradict the Bible are all unobservable assumptions.
If you were to break down the entire theory of evolution into dot points, and then go from what we have today, to what was around say 1,000,000 years ago, by the time you got to a point that contradicts with the Bible it would be something which is unobservable and based on the previous points which are observable but have not contradicted the Bible...
That probably makes no sense...lol

 

[Pixel Pete]

I'm interested in how this works. From what you've described in the past, you seem to be in a happy marriage. So what do you teach your daughters? No God? What your wife believes? Think freely?

It's interesting. My partner knows how I feel about god and religion. But I won't be teaching my children that god very likely doesn't exist, or what I think of the bible. I won't ban scripture from my home.
I'll be teaching them how to think for themselves, how to learn for themselves. How to reason. If that's how they get to their conclusion, it doesn't matter what it is.

All of evolution that is actually 100% fact (that is actually observable) does not contradict any of the Bible. The things about Evolution which do contradict the Bible are all unobservable assumptions.
If you were to break down the entire theory of evolution into dot points, and then go from what we have today, to what was around say 1,000,000 years ago, by the time you got to a point that contradicts with the Bible it would be something which is unobservable and based on the previous points which are observable but have not contradicted the Bible...
That probably makes no sense...lol

The thing is, its not invisible data we are making up. We have the expertise, knowledge and technology to successfully interpret data from ages past. Research evolution, in detail, please.

 

[Falcs]

Pixel Pete, I do know how it works. It's just that I can see the difference in what is 100% undeniable fact, and what is not. What is observable and what is not. Just because we can see something happening now does not mean we know what happened in the past when there was no one around to observe it. Dispite the strong evidence that suggests what happened in the past, it is STILL unobservable and STILL an assumption.

 

[Subtervotion]

Falcs00, you never answered me. :-(

 

[DarthWoo]

Why do we let people keep running around in the fact vs. theory vs. law circle here? 100% FACT DOES NOT EXIST IN SCIENCE. Everything in science is falsifiable, and the good theories are ones that as yet have stood up to years and years of study, research and experimentation. Gravity? Theory. Light? Theory. All of physics, biology, astronomy and everything else is hypotheses which are either tested and found to be reliable as theory, or disproved and discarded or reassessed until reliable corrections are made (someone post that scientific method vs. religious reasoning flowchart, yeah?) and anyone who says differently is either a poor scientist or a theist trying to butcher the scientific method to make his own views make more sense. Want to try and disprove evolution? Find evidence of organisms existing in times when that type of organism should not have yet existed according to currently understood fossil records. It's not hard, except that no such organisms have ever been found. Like every other theory in science, it is still disprovable.

 

[Fusebox]

Dispite the strong evidence that suggests what happened in the past, it is STILL unobservable and STILL an assumption.

Sounds like a good argument against religion, apart from the STRONG evidence part...

 

[CornBurrito]

Pixel Pete, I do know how it works. It's just that I can see the difference in what is 100% undeniable fact, and what is not. What is observable and what is not. Just because we can see something happening now does not mean we know what happened in the past when there was no one around to observe it. Dispite the strong evidence that suggests what happened in the past, it is STILL unobservable and STILL an assumption.

You don't understand the concept of evidence in this case. It is an assumption, but is an assumption backed by mountains of evidence from multiple scientific fields.

We understand science isn't 100% fact, but it is our best guess based on the evidence. It is the rational approach.

 

[Subtervotion]

'If I didn't see it, it didn't happen! Unless it was in the bible, then it did happen.'

 

[Fusebox]

'If I didn't see it, it didn't happen! Unless it was in the bible, then it did happen.'

Lol, beautifully summarised.

 

[Kurdel]

A scientific fact that has 1% probability of being true still beats the odds of any religion being right...

And clinging to the "uncertainty" of macro-evolution being impossible in ridiculous. There are mountains of evidence, and claiming otherwise is only creationist playing with semantics.

Or

What are the odds? If the second image is right, then why would god even bother with making retractable genetic and physical ancestry of every living creature on the planet providing we find the remains?

 

[partime]

you've got to remember that being a Christian is more spiritual than physical. None of that matters, and it's a simple question we can ask him up in heaven.

Written scientific fact goes back how many years?
Its one pebble on the beach of eternity in Gods eyes.

 

[ZZMitch]

'If I didn't see it, it didn't happen! Unless it was in the bible, then it did happen.'

It is funny because it is true. It is also sad.

 

[DarthWoo]

you've got to remember that being a Christian is more spiritual than physical. None of that matters, and it's a simple question we can ask him up in heaven.

Written scientific fact goes back how many years?
Its one pebble on the beach of eternity in Gods eyes.

God (as in the Judeo-Christian envisioning thereof) is a blip in the history of sapient humanity.

 

[Sharp]

For all the people saying God sounds kinda sadistic in the Old Testament, well, yeah. OT God is an egotistical, vengeful motherfucker who's quick to anger and slow to forgive and burns entire cities to the ground to teach individuals a lesson. The praise of him is done essentially out of fear. Then Christianity had to come along and fuck it all up

 

[Orayn]

For all the people saying God sounds kinda sadistic in the Old Testament, well, yeah. OT God is an egotistical, vengeful motherfucker who's quick to anger and slow to forgive and burns entire cities to the ground to teach individuals a lesson. The praise of him is done essentially out of fear. Then Christianity had to come along and fuck it all up

Gnosticism reconciles this by saying that the god of the Old Testament and the god Jesus served were two different entities. The former being a heartless, conceited megalomaniac who believes himself to be the one true god, and the latter being the actual source of goodness and wisdom, which really isn't much of a god at all by most peoples' reckoning. I've got to hand it to them - The Gnostics had some pretty badass mythology, and they were ahead of their time in realizing that "Yahweh" was a pretty fucked up character.

 

[Sharp]

Another fun fact about the Old Testament: it doesn't actually deny the existence of other gods. Indeed, the Egyptians are able to perform magic and other feats by appealing to their gods. However, the god of the Old Testament is very clear about being the only one the Jews are supposed to worship (hence "thou shalt put no other gods before me") and gets extremely pissed off when people do otherwise, having them drink molten gold, having them stoned, etc. Again, I think as a document the Old Testament is a pretty fascinating piece of literature / legislation that, when properly contextualized, can tell us a lot about how people lived in the Middle East a few thousand years ago. But basing your life on its teachings and ignoring scientific advances is just setting yourself up for disaster.

 

[DarthWoo]

I forgot, wasn't there a series of experiments done recently that show that animals (birds I think) would actually demonstrate primitive religious behavior under certain conditions? I can't remember the exact details, but it was something similar to positive reinforcement, but based on completely nonsensical behavior by the birds. After a while, they took away the rewards, but the birds continued the behavior, usually more vigorously.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Theism is looking more and more like a joke as time goes on. Staffs turning into snakes? Worldwide floods? 6 billion people from 2 people? A man being swallowed by a whale and NOT being digested?!

WTF is this shit?

 

[Sharp]

Theism is looking more and more like a joke as time goes on. Staffs turning into snakes? Worldwide floods? 6 billion people from 2 people? A man being swallowed by a whale and NOT being digested?!

WTF is this shit?

To be fair this sort of happened.

 

[CornBurrito]

I forgot, wasn't there a series of experiments done recently that show that animals (birds I think) would actually demonstrate primitive religious behavior under certain conditions? I can't remember the exact details, but it was something similar to positive reinforcement, but based on completely nonsensical behavior by the birds. After a while, they took away the rewards, but the birds continued the behavior, usually more vigorously.

Yes.

Not sure if this is the one you were talking about but pigeons were given food from a machine at random intervals. The researchers noticed the pigeons repeating certain abnormal behaviors. The pigeons were associating random actions with the arrival of food.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner#Superstition_in_the_pigeon

 

[DarthWoo]

Yes.

Not sure if this is the one you were talking about but pigeons were given food from a machine at random intervals. The researchers noticed the pigeons repeating certain abnormal behaviors. The pigeons were associating random actions with the arrival of food.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner#Superstition_in_the_pigeon

Hmm, I thought there was a more recent study, particularly one that looked at the effects of ceasing food delivery despite the behavior.

 

[Sharp]

That's not really religion, but superstition of all kinds. It's the principle of intermittent reinforcement, and it's one of the most powerful and most effective variants. It stems from the human desire to see patterns in something. The trick is that if a certain cause leads to a certain effect every time, the moment it doesn't work the perpetrator stops believing. And if a cause never leads to a certain effect, the perpetrator never starts believing. But if a cause totally randomly, occasionally leads to a certain effect, we latch onto it and won't let go even if we don't receive reinforcement for a very, very long time.

 

[CornBurrito]

Hmm, I thought there was a more recent study, particularly one that looked at the effects of ceasing food delivery despite the behavior.

There might be. I just did a 5 second Google search.

That's not really religion, but superstition of all kinds. It's the principle of intermittent reinforcement, and it's one of the most powerful and most effective variants. It stems from the human desire to see patterns in something. The trick is that if a certain cause leads to a certain effect every time, the moment it doesn't work the perpetrator stops believing. And if a cause never leads to a certain effect, the perpetrator never starts believing. But if a cause totally randomly, occasionally leads to a certain effect, we latch onto it and won't let go even if we don't receive reinforcement for a very, very long time.

Yeah it isn't exactly religion, but it certainly explains why we are so prone to religious thinking (especially regarding the efficiency of prayer).

 

[DarthWoo]

That's not really religion, but superstition of all kinds. It's the principle of intermittent reinforcement, and it's one of the most powerful and most effective variants. It stems from the human desire to see patterns in something. The trick is that if a certain cause leads to a certain effect every time, the moment it doesn't work the perpetrator stops believing. And if a cause never leads to a certain effect, the perpetrator never starts believing. But if a cause totally randomly, occasionally leads to a certain effect, we latch onto it and won't let go even if we don't receive reinforcement for a very, very long time.

That sounds pretty much like the Cargo Cults. I wonder how long they kept building pretend airbases after Allied forces had left.

 

[Pixel Pete]

Yes.

Not sure if this is the one you were talking about but pigeons were given food from a machine at random intervals. The researchers noticed the pigeons repeating certain abnormal behaviors. The pigeons were associating random actions with the arrival of food.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner#Superstition_in_the_pigeon

yes, demonstrating superstition