• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

The Official Religion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pandaman said:
By stating that that's what the book says?
"he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them"

Mumei said:
You haven't heard an atheist say that they felt unable to believe?

I've never heard anyone say they really wanted to believe but couldn't. Have heard people say they didn't believe and that was that. I guess maybe a conversation never developed.

So, is this a common thing for atheists? Wanting to believe but being unable?
 
Drastic said:
I've never heard anyone say they really wanted to believe but couldn't. Have heard people say they didn't believe and that was that. I guess maybe a conversation never developed.

So, is this a common thing for atheists? Wanting to believe but being unable?

Well, I haven't done a census. :lol

I can only speak for myself. I got the impression that this was also true for a few other people at the freethinkers group I went to on campus, but I didn't ask, so I can't say for sure.

By the way, who is that in your avatar? I feel like he's judging me.
 
Drastic said:
Interesting story, but I think it could be argued that Elisha cursed these kids and caused this to happen.

Sounds like you're trying to downplay God's role in the death of those children. That's a very dishonest tactic.
 
Drastic said:
I've never heard anyone say they really wanted to believe but couldn't. Have heard people say they didn't believe and that was that. I guess maybe a conversation never developed.

So, is this a common thing for atheists? Wanting to believe but being unable?

I'd say it's a fairly common position. I'd love to believe that there's an all powerful being looking out for me, and that when I die I get to live in everlasting eternal bliss. But using the rational, logical mind I've been given I just can't come to that conclusion. I see too many fallacies to "take a leap of faith" and just brush aside all those doubts and suspicions. I'd go so far as to say that some believers don't truly believe, they hope. They hope that there's more to life, they fear the uncertainty of death, and it's a lot easier to accept a religion that "guarantees" all that great stuff than face the complexity of the unknown, aka Pascal's Wager.
 
Drastic said:
By stating that that's what the book says?
"he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them"
and how did 'cursing them' encourage two shebears to leave the woods and slaughter 42 children?

is this an innate human ability to summon shebears that has been lost in time?
 
Mumei said:
I believe the things that I believe with sincerity.

Does that mean you primarily believe the things you only have full proof of, or no doubt?


Mumei said:
By the way, who is that in your avatar? I feel like he's judging me.
That's the Knightrider from Mad Max, Vincent Gil. Not judging, just a bit crazay. ;-)


jaxword said:
Sounds like you're trying to downplay God's role in the death of those children. That's a very dishonest tactic.
Umm, not my intention. Just saying that it could be argued. In the passage I mentioned, God killed the guy outright himself. A bit more clear cut, IMO.
 
Drastic said:
Umm, not my intention. Just saying that it could be argued. In the passage I mentioned, God killed the guy outright himself. A bit more clear cut, IMO.

It certainly appears to be your intention, man, come on. I mean, this argument has been made every single day, and everyone who does these sorts of debates knows it.

Person quotes Bible passage that makes God/Christianity/etc look evil.

Defender says "well that interpretation is wrong, here's the right one that makes it politically/socially acceptable."

I mean, it's been done repeatedly in this thread. Take God killing all the homosexuals in Sodom and Gomorrah. This has been hailed by MILLIONS OF CHRISTIANS as proof that God Hates Them Faggots. And then the defender/apologist says "No, they were just evil people that happened to be gay."

And it'll keep happening long after we are long dead, because that's the nature of religion. We all do this for our own beliefs, we pick and choose the parts we hail as God's Words and just downplay the parts that make God look evil.

You know it's true. I used to do this too, growing up, and so does anyone confronted with uncomfortable truths.
 
Drastic said:
Does that mean you primarily believe the things you only have full proof of, or no doubt?

No, no.

I don't really have doubts about anything I believe (at least, nothing comes to mind), but I'm not going to pretend that everything I believe is something I believe because I have full proof. I don't. I know I've formed opinions well before there was sufficient evidence for me to hold those opinions, and I've held those opinions because they made me feel better.

I was having trouble coming up with an example, when one suddenly hit me (and it should have been obvious from the start):

I believed that I was heterosexual until I was 15, almost 16. I believed this despite now being able to remember having crushes on boys in elementary school, kissing another boy I thought was cute on the cheek in first grade, and pining after certain boys all throughout middle school. I believed that I was straight in spite of all the available evidence and deluded myself into believing otherwise. By the time I was 15, I had been going to therapists for about five years, for family issues and later for depression relating to what was happening at school. It was around this time (13) that other kids started identifying me as appearing to be gay, and informing me of this, and it was around this time that I started denying it. This belief was so integral to my self-identity that when the weight of the evidence finally hit me, I tried to commit suicide.

I did have no doubts about it, and I was completely sincere in my belief... but I was obviously quite deluded.

That's the Knightrider from Mad Max, Vincent Gil. Not judging, just a bit crazay. ;-)

Phew. I am safe.
 
jaxword said:
It certainly appears to be your intention, man, come on. I mean, this argument has been made every single day, and everyone who does these sorts of debates knows it.

Person quotes Bible passage that makes God/Christianity/etc look evil.

Defender says "well that interpretation is wrong, here's the right one that makes it politically/socially acceptable."

Sorry I don't "do these sorts of debates" so not sure if I crossed some line or what. Heh, maybe I should just stick to the gaming side.

Anyway, just to clarify, I mentioned a passage that makes me more uncomfortable than the one you brought up. What's the politically/socially acceptable interpretation of the passage I mentioned?
 
Drastic said:
Interesting. I've not heard someone say this before, though I've not often been in this type of discussion.

You had trouble believing in a creator, or a specific doctrine or? (if you don't mind my asking)

I had trouble believing in Christianity in general. I've tried for years, but it has never filled the void in my life as advertised. From this, I tried to figure out why, and from that, I have been able to articulate just why things don't sit right with me.

So, yeah, at first it never worked emotionally, despite my best efforts, so I tried to make it work logically.

That didn't work out so hot, either.

I'm going to post my background, so it's easily skippable if you don't give a toss (understandable).

Wall of text arriving in 3...2...

Ahem.

I was born into a religious family. Christian. Went to church every Sunday, big family get-togethers on Christmas and Easter, vacation Bible school every summer (sometimes more than once, to different churches), the whole shebang. I'd say it's the average amount of religious upbringing, if not a bit more...not fundamentalists, thank the Lord who I don't think actually exists, but religious. God made the universe, but he didn't necessarily do it in six days. Jesus was definitely divine. No questions were asked, we went and that was that.

The first blow to my beliefs was when my parents divorced. [Also, I was five.] How could this be with a God who loved me? I was in a small town, (about a hundred people at the time, if I recall correctly), and there wasn't much in the way of playmates. My older siblings usually had nothing to do with me, so my parents were essentially the cornerstone of my existence. Then they split up. To this day, I don't know why. But I was baffled. Usual questions you'd expect from a kid whose parents divorced, but with the added conflict that I actually paid attention in Sunday school. I had questions. How did this, this unfathomable event fit into God's plan for me? I doubt I phrased it exactly that way, but... the only answers I ever got amounted to "God works in mysterious ways." I didn't give up religion, though. I trusted all of the people who told me to put my faith in Jesus, because, well, I was still a child, and authority figures were right. They were authority figures, after all. I kept going to church.

[I remember one incident vividly...it was VBS, and they were doing some thing where they talked about what it took to be a Christian. We were to pray to God, and tell him we loved him and accepted him as our Savior, and then we would KNOW he was in our hearts. Something like that. After we did that, the pastor said "shut your eyes, and if anyone has any questions, raise your hand." I did so. "Okay, if you raised your hand, stay behind, but everyone else can go." They went to go play outside. I was the only one left with the preacher. I think they were playing freeze tag. "What's your question?" says he. I said something like, "How do I become a Christian?" Since I was still in elementary school, I was unable to articulate what I actually wanted to say, which was "Why don't I feel anything at all?"]

This pattern of talking about stuff I had no right to question continued. My mom switched churches, this time to a Church of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons, although the pedant in me would like to point out that they prefer "LDS"). I went for a few years. I was baptized when I was eight. About this time, I was told I should "bear my testimony", which is where any member of the church can come up and tell about how they know the church is true. I did so, but I sorta mumbled the last bit. They chalked it up to stage fright, but I didn't know the church was true at all. I was talking with the Elders at this point, asking why I couldn't have tea, little stuff like that, mostly because I lacked the courage to say "I don't believe."

So, all throughout junior high and high school, (after I moved to a bustling metropolis of 264,418 people) I tried. I read the Bible. I went to many different churches, trying to find one that felt right. I talked to preachers, pastors, and padres. When I was asked to join the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in high school, I said, "I'm not an athlete, sorry", and changed the subject. I don't think they caught on, since they kept asking. I started calling myself a Pastafarian so that they would think I was joking around about not being Christian.

When we studied Paradise Lost in high school, it was taught by a woman who believes every word of the Bible is literally true. Good person, and usually a good teacher, but we had to read Genesis in class. In my public school. (I hear she's teaching a Bible class soon, but that's another thread altogether.) Anyway, she was real big on debate in the classroom. That was an interesting experience, I guess you could say. Usually, it was not so much about Milton and mostly about the tenets of Christianity. There were some gems there, let me tell you. That's where I learned that religion doesn't have to do with the supernatural, for one. I had my first big fight with the girl I was dating at the time (the girl who made me happy to be alive for the first time that I could remember, love of my life and everything that was right in the world, but that's another thread etc.) over that class. If I recall correctly, I took the position that God was responsible for evil, and she said evil is the absence of God, and I said God is everywhere, and also he made the world as it is, and also...but that's beside the point.

The point, I think, was explaining the claim that I tried, but I still don't believe. This is sappy, and probably will be dismissed as the hormone-driven claim of a teenager, but to put it simply, if I couldn't believe for her, I was unable to believe.

I've looked around since then, continued my spiritual journey, so to speak, and it's only once I realized that it was okay to be an atheist did I start feeling better about the whole thing. At any time in high school, I could have just said, "Nah, man, I'm not a Christian." The atmosphere, though, and the fact that everyone else I knew (again, except for three people) was Christian made me afraid to, though. That's one of the things that led to me giving up altogether. That, and the treatment of homosexuality by people who were supposed to be loving their neighbor. That was a big one. Um. There's more, and I could go on, but I've already typed up a pretty sizable exposition.

[/wall of text]

Yeah. I tried to believe. It didn't work.
 
soul creator said:

Huh. P.Z. Meyers.

1. I'm pretty sure "Jesus the hero" is not even the 10th or the 20th most prevalent reaction among American Christians, whom I know somewhat well and of whom I have a low opinion. That's not the dominant view seen in Pew surveys, which reveal a general ignorance among the Christian population. He's lying. Jesus is more like Oprah to people.

2. Catholics (I'm a Lutheran) don't piggyback on Jesus the bruised as a rule, and it's CERTAINLY not in their approved theology. It's supposed to encourage self-reflection. Obviously, blah blah sects weirdos independence whatever. My favorite hymn isn't by a Catholic or a Lutheran, but it sums up the relationship rather well. http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/s/t/stricken.htm

3. It's only a fairytale if a Christian doesn't believe in Adam and Eve, at least, as literal truth. That much is true. Kierkegaard beat down the other idiocy in The Concept Of Anxiety, and he wasn't the 1st to do so. Because I'm lazy, Wikipedia instead of a better summary site: "Haufniensis focuses on the first anxiety experienced by man: Adam's choice to eat from God's forbidden tree of knowledge or not. Since the concepts of good and evil did not come into existence before Adam ate the fruit, which is now dubbed original sin, Adam had no concept of good and evil, and did not know that eating from the tree was "evil". What he did know was that God told him not to eat from the tree. The anxiety comes from the fact that God's prohibition itself implies that Adam is free and that he could choose to obey God or not. After Adam ate from the tree, sin was born. So, according to Kierkegaard, anxiety precedes sin, and it is anxiety that leads Adam to sin. Haufniensis mentions that anxiety is the presupposition for hereditary sin."

4. The question of absolution is a huge question for which I don't have time. He's right, in that various explanations (none of which can be complete, since it's metaphysics) aren't taught in confirmation courses. The average person wouldn't think about this past the sacrifice tie to the Old Covenant and Old Testament. He's talking about the average person, so I suppose he's right.

5. Again, Jesus isn't a hero. I don't know where he came up with this. Did he invent it for his narrative? Like, that's not even a thing Christians say in their literature, hymnody, or liturgies.

6. A long answer to the last bit is complex, but there's a short circuit answer that "most Christians" would take. The godhead is 1 and 3, 3 and 1. Jehovah, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit act, existentially, together. Now, one can talk about the coherence of the Trinity, but the "story" is coherent to Christians. Also, "sacrifice is barbaric" is an assertion which requires a ton of backing logic that he doesn't provide.

That's the quick refutation.
 
jdogmoney said:
If I recall correctly, I took the position that God was responsible for evil, and she said evil is the absence of God, and I said God is everywhere, and also he made the world as it is, and also...but that's beside the point.

...

Yeah. I tried to believe. It didn't work.
You say it's beside the point but it's something I've always struggled with, and I've had arguments with 'believing' mates about it. If this loving God created everyone/everything, what about stuff like cancer and horrible diseases that leave people disfigured or in agony or...

I'd always been told that God gave us free will etc too, giving us the choice to engage in sinful acts, etc etc.. but the disease/disaster thing never flew with me. Why would an all-loving God make such horrible things? Even as a kid I questioned this, and would treat church/chapel as a joke, really.

Mumei's story really struck home with me - cos all the while when I was thinking 'this is ridiculous, how can anyone believe this stuff?' i was deluding myself that I was straight, despite the complete lack of evidence :lol The mind is a powerful thing...
 
GhaleonQ said:
Also, "sacrifice is barbaric" is an assertion which requires a ton of backing logic that he doesn't provide.

That's the quick refutation.

Haha. Yeah, okay. Sure. I'll logically define why sacrifice is barbaric. Since, you know, it's not self-evident or anything that killing to win the grace of something that doesn't exist is a bad thing...

If you sacrifice to a deity that doesn't exist, then the sacrifice was in vain and a waste of a life.
It is impossible to know what deity you should sacrifice to.
Therefore, with every sacrifice, you run the risk of wasting a life.

Even given that any deity exists, the odds of you sacrificing something or someone to the right one are next to zero, and it's not worth the risk of wasting a life.

Given that no deity exists, of course, you're wasting a life in all cases.
 
julls said:
You say it's beside the point but it's something I've always struggled with, and I've had arguments with 'believing' mates about it. If this loving God created everyone/everything, what about stuff like cancer and horrible diseases that leave people disfigured or in agony or...

I'd always been told that God gave us free will etc too, giving us the choice to engage in sinful acts, etc etc.. but the disease/disaster thing never flew with me. Why would an all-loving God make such horrible things? Even as a kid I questioned this, and would treat church/chapel as a joke, really.

The answer given for diseases/natural disasters is that they came about as a product of Adam's sin.

No, really.
 
Has god been defined yet? What is god to you? is he a man in the sky? is he like the greek god zeus? is he a supernatural force with a human personality? the answering of the question may say something about what god is to different people, I think.
 
jdog, broadly speaking, I meant to include animals, grain, et cetera. Perhaps "primitive" would have shaded my meaning correctly. Even if we're referring to humans WITHIN THE EASTER STORY, as Meyers was, and not using the Christian lens to analyze its goodness (that is, the Christian Jehovah exists, but we needn't derive our morality from Him), it's not apparent that Jehovah's existential sacrifice is barbaric. That may be the case, but it needs more than broad assertion. To spin that record 1 more time, Kierkegaard's Fear And Trembling is a good summary of the philosophical case for God's goodness once the truth of a Christian god's existence is accepted.
 
GhaleonQ said:
To spin that record 1 more time, Kierkegaard's Fear And Trembling is a good summary of the philosophical case for God's goodness once the truth of a Christian god's existence is accepted.

Could you summarize it?

Because even if God did exist, I'd agree with the analysis in the piece that was linked to.
 
Yeah, I'm a hippie, so I get just as riled up about the waste of an animal as I would a human. And I'm pretty sure grain isn't a good enough sacrifice for God. Wasn't that the deal with Cain and Abel? Cain grew stuff and Abel had animals, so when they both sacrificed what they had, Cain gave fruits and Abel killed one of his animals. God liked Abel's sacrifice better, which led to jealousy, which led to fratricide, which is all, I realize, very beside the point.

I haven't read Kierkegaard yet, I'm afraid.

I say it's pretty barbaric to require the death of anything to make a deity happy, no matter the circumstances. Would you say it's not barbaric to slaughter a calf to make sure Apollo gives you a lot of sunny days?
 
DeusTrinitas said:
As for why I can ignore evidence that human beings evolved from primates: it isn't proven and anyone who claims that all of the links in that chain are available for all to see is intellectually dishonest. You may think that there are so few holes in the evolutionary line that it makes human descent from primates likely and that's fine. But don't go throwing around words like "fact" and so forth, claiming that it has conclusively been proven. It hasn't.

Such blatant carelessness like that makes it very hard for me to take Darwinism seriously:

*clap clap clap*

I want to ask something about what some Christians might think.

I always hear a crusade against extremely violent movies/media by my church and others about how it's not "glorifying to God" and stuff and how the Bible tells us to keep away from sin and keep our hearts and minds cleansed.

That's nice and all, but since when is watching a violent movie considered something one should feel guilty of? The very book we read, the Bible, is fully of very violent events that tell stories and teach lessons.

I think there is a very distinct difference between hateful violence that you commit or wish to commit, in the aims of hurting someone, and watching a violent movie that tells a story that doesn't affect my will to hurt or not hurt someone.

I've quieted a lot of my fellow Christians who say "dude you shouldn't be watching Ninja Assassin" or whatever (even though I hated the movie) when I tell them "Really? There's worse stuff in the Bible".

I totally understand the need to keep your hearts and minds cleansed of sin and evil, but since when is witnessing the circumstances of FAKE violence in a MOVIE or a VIDEO GAME tarnishing my purity? That's not nearly as bad as when families in the Middle Ages used to take their children to public executions and burnings/beheadings. When a young man learned the art of the sword often before he became an adult. The threat of "violence" "tarnishing" our "purity" is not nearly as bad as it used to be.

Same goes for "cursing". I know the Bible tells us not to curse, but as far as I know, half the "curse" words we use today were common words years ago (like bitch and bastard), and the other majority were just made up out of nowhere (like fucktard or dick).

The problem is, from what I know, none of those are actual "curses" that I believe the Bible was originally referring to. Isn't the Bible talking about words such as "damn", where when you "damn" someone you are literally condemning them with your mouth for the devil, so to speak?

I think that the legalism goes too far sometimes. I think that there is a very, VERY distinct difference between me muttering "shit" when I cut my finger, over someone "damning" someone to hell or saying "fuck you" to someone in hopes of hurting their feelings. The motive is completely different. The intentions are completely different. I find it odd when some Christians feel like they should get down on their knees and repent after they said a "naughty" word because someone cut them off in traffic or something. Is there really a bad intention there to merit it as a sin?
 
I guess I'm on a roll tonight. I'm posting quite a bit...

Dogenzaka said:
*clap clap clap*

Why this?

Do you have a better explanation for the mountains of evidence?

Evolution, as a process, is a fact. Speciation has occurred again and again, verified in the lab and out of it. There's no reason to dispute this.

There's evidence that this is how we got to where we are today. You talk about holes in the chain, which implies there's a chain at all. We don't have all the "links" because, A, the boundaries between species aren't cut and dry, and so to have "all the links", we would literally have to have a fossil from every single generation, which leads us to B, fossils are very rare. We have, what, one complete fossil for various stages of humanity? If we're lucky?

It's silly to take a principle that we know is a basic part of biology and not apply it to our own history. Especially on the rare occasion that we do actually find a new fossil, it invariably fits into the theory.

So you ignore the evidence because it isn't proven?

Would you toss out the DNA evidence, fingerprints, signed testimony of a killer, as well as the eyewitness accounts, if there wasn't a videotape?

Actually, scratch that, tape can be doctored.
 
jdogmoney said:
I guess I'm on a roll tonight. I'm posting quite a bit...



Why this?

Do you have a better explanation for the mountains of evidence?

Evolution, as a process, is a fact. Speciation has occurred again and again, verified in the lab and out of it. There's no reason to dispute this.

There's evidence that this is how we got to where we are today. You talk about holes in the chain, which implies there's a chain at all. We don't have all the "links" because, A, the boundaries between species aren't cut and dry, and so to have "all the links", we would literally have to have a fossil from every single generation, which leads us to B, fossils are very rare. We have, what, one complete fossil for various stages of humanity? If we're lucky?

It's silly to take a principle that we know is a basic part of biology and not apply it to our own history. Especially on the rare occasion that we do actually find a new fossil, it invariably fits into the theory.

So you ignore the evidence because it isn't proven?

Would you toss out the DNA evidence, fingerprints, signed testimony of a killer, as well as the eyewitness accounts, if there wasn't a videotape?

Actually, scratch that, tape can be doctored.


Uh, I don't doubt that the process of how evolution works, in theory, is very possible.

I personally doubt that from some fossil records of different species from the homo genus, and applying this theory, that it proves that humans descended through evolution from those relatives.

I find that inductive reasoning to be unconvincing.
 
jdogmoney said:


Because if I have a bunch of fossils of creatures that seem similar to each other, and a theory, I can't just assume that they all evolved from a common ancestor. That's an assumption, and not very scientific.

I'm a Christian, so I have no reason to see why it's not possible that these other homo-genus species were just animals created by God and then died out like any other species that goes extinct on this planet.
 
Dogenzaka said:
Because if I have a bunch of fossils of creatures that seem similar to each other, and a theory, I can't just assume that they all evolved from a common ancestor. That's an assumption, and not very scientific.
So you know nothing about the subject then. I know you won't watch this, but you should really watch this:

http://video.pbs.org/video/1312522241/

I also wonder why God would craft all animals and plants out of evolution, but then decide with humans 'beh, I'll make them out of clay,' even though humans share so much in common with all animal life on this planet.
 
Aaron said:
So you know nothing about the subject then. I know you won't watch this, but you should really watch this:

http://video.pbs.org/video/1312522241/

I also wonder why God would craft all animals and plants out of evolution, but then decide with humans 'beh, I'll make them out of clay,' even though humans share so much in common with all animal life on this planet.


Uhhh, because the Bible says God created us specially and in His image. Reason enough. Do you see animals talking about the origin of the universe? No. You see humans doing so. We may be biologically similar, but there is a distinct difference between a human and an animal.

And it's late so I'm not going to watch any videos, but like I said, no video has ever told me that there is anything more on the "HUMANS MOST DEFINITELY, POSITIVELY, ABSOLUTELY EVOLVED FROM PRIMITIVE APES. FACT. WE HAVE THE VIDEO DOCUMENTS AND EVERYTHING" rant other than some fossil records, ancient skeletons, the theory of evolution, and then filling in the holes with assumptions.
 
Dogenzaka said:
Because if I have a bunch of fossils of creatures that seem similar to each other, and a theory, I can't just assume that they all evolved from a common ancestor. That's an assumption, and not very scientific.

I'm a Christian, so I have no reason to see why it's not possible that these other homo-genus species were just animals created by God and then died out like any other species that goes extinct on this planet.
man you need to pull your head out of your ass, this is embarrassing--but expected.
 
threenote said:
man you need to pull your head out of your ass, this is embarrassing--but expected.


Or you could let me know if there is anything that absolutely solidifies a fact that humans "evolved" from an ancestral primate other than looking at information from theories, fossils and DNA and assuming so.

As far as I know...there is nothing but that. Bones, rocks, DNA tests and the idea "hey, they're so similar they must come from a similar ancestor".
 
Dogenzaka said:
Uhhh, because the Bible says God created us specially and in His image. Reason enough. Do you see animals talking about the origin of the universe? No. You see humans doing so. We may be biologically similar, but there is a distinct difference between a human and an animal.

And it's late so I'm not going to watch any videos, but like I said, no video has ever told me that there is anything more on the "HUMANS MOST DEFINITELY, POSITIVELY, ABSOLUTELY EVOLVED FROM PRIMITIVE APES. FACT. WE HAVE THE VIDEO DOCUMENTS AND EVERYTHING" rant other than some fossil records, ancient skeletons, the theory of evolution, and then filling in the holes with assumptions.

1. You're an idiot.
2. Humans did not evolve from apes.

at least read the wikipedia article for Evolution before trying to refute it.
 
Dogenzaka said:
Because if I have a bunch of fossils of creatures that seem similar to each other, and a theory, I can't just assume that they all evolved from a common ancestor. That's an assumption, and not very scientific.

You're leaving out the approximate ages and gradually shifting features. Again, unless you have a better explanation for the evidence, then--

Dogenzaka said:
I'm a Christian, so I have no reason to see why it's not possible that these other homo-genus species were just animals created by God and then died out like any other species that goes extinct on this planet.

--oh.

I'm going to be diplomatic, and merely suggest that you apply Occam's razor.
 
Dogenzaka said:
Uhhh, because the Bible says God created us specially and in His image. Reason enough.
i....

O_o

jdogmoney said:
The answer given for diseases/natural disasters is that they came about as a product of Adam's sin.

No, really.
Oh. Well that clears it up then. *believes*
 
1. You're an idiot.
2. Humans did not evolve from apes.

at least read the wikipedia article for Evolution before trying to refute it.

Well no shit they didn't come from modern apes. We're just one of the numerous homo-genus species that happened to evolve the farthest, survive to modern times, and come from older homo-genus species, yes?


Something...wrong?

"Why would God let plants and animals evolve but create humans specially as they are?"

"Because God says humans are created specially in His image"

"D:"
 
Big Ass Ramp said:
This is a joke, right? ...and I'm a Christian.

No. There have been times where annoying classmates of mine would not let me go home from school until I accepted the "fact" that humans undoubtedly evolved from a more primitive species. I'm obviously talking about those kinds of people.

This thread is fucking depressing.

It's a thread about religion; it comes with the title.
 
Dogenzaka said:
Uhhh, because the Bible says God created us specially and in His image. Reason enough. Do you see animals talking about the origin of the universe? No. You see humans doing so. We may be biologically similar, but there is a distinct difference between a human and an animal.

And it's late so I'm not going to watch any videos, but like I said, no video has ever told me that there is anything more on the "HUMANS MOST DEFINITELY, POSITIVELY, ABSOLUTELY EVOLVED FROM PRIMITIVE APES. FACT. WE HAVE THE VIDEO DOCUMENTS AND EVERYTHING" rant other than some fossil records, ancient skeletons, the theory of evolution, and then filling in the holes with assumptions.
please don't be american please don't be american please don't be american
 
Dogenzaka said:
Uhhh, because the Bible says God created us specially and in His image. Reason enough. Do you see animals talking about the origin of the universe? No. You see humans doing so. We may be biologically similar, but there is a distinct difference between a human and an animal.

Not really.

Dogenzaka said:
And it's late so I'm not going to watch any videos, but like I said, no video has ever told me that there is anything more on the "HUMANS MOST DEFINITELY, POSITIVELY, ABSOLUTELY EVOLVED FROM PRIMITIVE APES. FACT. WE HAVE THE VIDEO DOCUMENTS AND EVERYTHING" rant other than some fossil records, ancient skeletons, the theory of evolution, and then filling in the holes with assumptions.

"I've never heard a good reason to think the guy was murdered, other than the corpse, the DNA evidence, the surveillance tape, the gun shot residue on the alleged killer's hands, the several eyewitness, and the signed confession."

Seriously. One book is good enough for you to accept Christianity, but the reams of scientific evidence isn't good enough for you to accept humans evolving from an ape-like ancestor?

[Putting aside the fact that we humans are apes...]

Dresden said:
please don't be american please don't be american please don't be american

:lol
 
Dogenzaka said:
Uhhh, because the Bible says God created us specially and in His image. Reason enough. Do you see animals talking about the origin of the universe? No. You see humans doing so. We may be biologically similar, but there is a distinct difference between a human and an animal.
Huh? I don't have a problem with His image. I have a problem with Him developing all these other animals through the process of evolution, but with humans he decided on a short-cut. That doesn't sound like good planning for a supreme being. I don't see what humans couldn't have also evolved into a form that results in His image. Evolution as a process doesn't rule out the existence of God because scientists can't say what started this process, or rule out a guiding hand helping it along. Railing against it though, especially in the modern era, just seems ill informed.
 
Why do we even need a religion thread? Nothing good ever comes from these. There aren't any religious breakthroughs, it's just intellectual quicksand.
 
Dresden said:
please don't be american please don't be american please don't be american

Too bad.

Not really.

Really? You expect to have a deep conversation with a chimpanzee or a parrot about religion?

You know, you're not religious, so it's likely that you don't think there is anything about living things beyond their biological make-up, but the Bible says humans have a spirit that was created by God himself, so naturally Christians believe that beyond simple differences like I just stated, there is an entire spiritual make-up that humans have that animals simply don't. It's what separates humans from animals beyond the amount of brain cells and the biological similarities, theologically.

"I've never heard a good reason to think the guy was murdered, other than the corpse, the DNA evidence, the surveillance tape, the gun shot residue on the alleged killer's hands, the several eyewitness, and the signed confession."

This is more like looking at my friend who looks and dresses like Anne Hathaway and saying that she's her sister. Lmao.

Why do we even need a religion thread? Nothing good ever comes from these. There aren't any religious breakthroughs, it's just intellectual quicksand.

I'd agree. The entire point of discussing this is pointless because we all know very well that an online atheist isn't going to "convert" me, and an online Christian likely won't convert an atheist.
 
Why can't Christians comprehend the simple fact that the Bible is not a science book?

"God created man in his image"

Well big fucking deal. Cool story, bro, etc..how does that have anything to do with Evolution?

This one get's me everytime:
Prior to the story of Noah, it had never rained before.

Does that make any fucking sense...to anyone?
 
Dogenzaka said:
Or you could let me know if there is anything that absolutely solidifies a fact that humans "evolved" from an ancestral primate other than looking at information from theories, fossils and DNA and assuming so.

As far as I know...there is nothing but that. Bones, rocks, DNA tests and the idea "hey, they're so similar they must come from a similar ancestor".

...

I think the issue is that you don't seem to understand how science works. What you are calling an "assumption" is a conclusion that has been reached based upon the available evidence. When something contradicting the current paradigm is discovered, the paradigm is altered to fit the new evidence. Evolution has been the paradigm for explaining speciation - the formation of new species - for about 150 years. While there have been discoveries which have proven parts of Darwin's original theory to be wrong, the central idea of gradual change over time being the catalyst for new species is at this point accepted scientific fact. This is because evolution makes testable predictions: For instance, in this video of a lecture by Ken Miller, a professor of biology at Brown, he notes one of the problems that evolution came up against when we measured the number of chromosomes in the great apes: Humans have 46 (23 pairs), while the other great apes, such as chimpanzees, have 48. So, the prediction was made that the chromosomes must have fused at the point of two of the teleomeres, so that there would be one chromosome with teleomeres where they shouldn't be (in the center of the chromosome, rather than the ends). And lo and behold, we find that it is the second chromosome that has the fused chromosome.

I would strongly recommend watching the rest of the video - it was enlightening for me, and I'm decently well-read on the subject, and also recommend searching for the PBS program "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial."

Edit:

jdogmoney said:
Seriously. One book is good enough for you to accept Christianity, but the reams of scientific evidence isn't good enough for you to accept humans evolving from an ape-like ancestor?

This is what gets me. 150 years of evidence that is supported by many different scientific disciplines, including some areas of biology that Darwin couldn't even have guessed how they might support or refute his theory - and it survives today with only minor changes to the original form of the theory. It has amazing explanatory power and is as well-supported as any scientific theory, and yet he claims that it is based off of a few "bones, rocks, DNA tests" and assumption pulled out of someone's ass because one book bereft of evidence and based entirely on faith (i.e. assumptions) suggests differently.

Try as I might, I cannot wrap my head around the thought process.
 
threenote said:
Why can't Christians comprehend the simple fact that the Bible is not a science book?

"God created man in his image"

Well big fucking deal. Cool story, bro, etc..how does that have anything to do with Evolution?

Has to do with the fact that, if were assuming the information of the Bible, since the Bible says God created only man in His image, breathed the "breath of life" into man, and did NOT do so with the animals, there would be a distinct difference between man and animal beyond biological differences/similarities, and would be supportive of the idea that animals have changed over time, but humans were created as the species they are.

This one get's me everytime:
Prior to the story of Noah, it had never rained before.

Does that make any fucking sense...to anyone?

Um....why do you think that it never rained before the time of Noah?

...

I think the issue is that you don't seem to understand how science works. What you are calling an "assumption" is a conclusion that has been reached based upon the available evidence. When something contradicting the current paradigm is discovered, the paradigm is altered to fit the new evidence. Evolution has been the paradigm for explaining speciation - the formation of new species - for about 150 years. While there have been discoveries which have proven parts of Darwin's original theory to be wrong, the central idea of gradual change over time being the catalyst for new species is at this point accepted scientific fact. This is because evolution makes testable predictions: For instance, in this video of a lecture by Ken Miller, a professor of biology at Brown, he notes one of the problems that evolution came up against when we measured the number of chromosomes in the great apes: Humans have 46 (23 pairs), while the other great apes, such as chimpanzees, have 48. So, the prediction was made that the chromosomes must have fused at the point of two of the teleomeres, so that there would be one chromosome with teleomeres where they shouldn't be (in the center of the chromosome, rather than the ends). And lo and behold, we find that it is the second chromosome that has the fused chromosome.

I would strongly recommend watching the rest of the video - it was enlightening for me, and I'm decently well-read on the subject, and also recommend searching for the PBS program "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial."

Fair enough. I'll look into it :)

Aww guys see what happens when you're not rude.
 
Dogenzaka said:
Has to do with the fact that, if were assuming the information of the Bible, since the Bible says God created only man in His image, breathed the "breath of life" into man, and did NOT do so with the animals, there would be a distinct difference between man and animal beyond biological differences/similarities, and would be supportive of the idea that animals have changed over time, but humans were created as the species they are.



Um....why do you think that it never rained before the time of Noah?
This is funny, so now we've established that you don't know a lick of science--but you don't know your own religion, either?

There was no rain. A mist came up instead (Genesis 2:5-6)

By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. (Hebrews 11:7)

Let's not forget this gem:
I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. (Gen. 9:13)
 
Dogenzaka said:
Really? You expect to have a deep conversation with a chimpanzee or a parrot about religion?

You know, you're not religious, so it's likely that you don't think there is anything about living things beyond their biological make-up, but the Bible says humans have a spirit that was created by God himself, so naturally Christians believe that beyond simple differences like I just stated, there is an entire spiritual make-up that humans have that animals simply don't. It's what separates humans from animals beyond the amount of brain cells and the biological similarities, theologically.

And can you define just what this difference is?

A soul, perhaps? If you can look me in the eye and say that animals don't have souls just as much as humans do, I will tell you that you haven't spent enough time around animals. At least, you haven't been paying attention.

[I use the term soul to mean the sum total of a consciousness, all the personality traits and everything that makes someone who they are. It's a convenient label, and probably not the traditional definition, which I'd like to hear.]

It's arrogant to think that just because we seem to be more intelligent than every other species, we have some sort of monopoly on the higher functions.

I suppose you don't think there's any intelligent life that's out in the universe?

This is more like looking at my friend who looks and dresses like Anne Hathaway and saying that she's her sister. Lmao.

Or, you know, saying she's related biologically. Which she is, assuming your sister is a human.

I'd agree. The entire point of discussing this is pointless because we all know very well that an online atheist isn't going to "convert" me, and an online Christian likely won't convert an atheist.

The point isn't conversion, the point is to learn about other people's views. I think you're wrong, just as you think I'm wrong, but figuring out why you would think the way you do is invaluable, at least to me.
 
Big Ass Ramp said:
Why do we even need a religion thread? Nothing good ever comes from these. There aren't any religious breakthroughs, it's just intellectual quicksand.

I do hate to be a "that guy", but you've not really contributed much to any of the discussions at hand.

We've covered free will, determinism, objective/subjective morality, Kierkegaard, evolution, the tragic tale of jdogmoney, the origin of the universe...all within a couple of pages. How is this not worth talking about?
 
Oh, yes:

Speaking of the subject of the chimpanzee genome, we've actually finished sequencing it at this point. There is a video on Richard Dawkins' (horrors!) Youtube page where he shows a visual comparison at the University of Nebraska Museum of just how similar the genome is.

jdogmoney said:
I do hate to be a "that guy", but you've not really contributed much to any of the discussions at hand.

We've covered free will, determinism, objective/subjective morality, Kierkegaard, evolution, the tragic tale of jdogmoney, the origin of the universe...all within a couple of pages. How is this not worth talking about?

Eh.

Some people feel that these religious discussions are about nothing more than changing opinions, and if no one is going to change their opinion, the discussions serve no purpose.

I like the discussion itself. Even if I don't change any opinions, I enjoy the give-and-take.
 
Dogenzaka said:
Has to do with the fact that, if were assuming the information of the Bible, since the Bible says God created only man in His image, breathed the "breath of life" into man, and did NOT do so with the animals, there would be a distinct difference between man and animal beyond biological differences/similarities, and would be supportive of the idea that animals have changed over time, but humans were created as the species they are.
So because it says this in ONE place, a book written thousands of years ago, it's true? Despite all the evidence that suggests otherwise? :lol
Why would you accept various other advancements in scientific knowledge but still hold onto this stuff?

And you have to be being deliberately obtuse with that Anne Hathaway stuff. Or... do you actually believe that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom