Quake3World

probably not one.

tnf wrote:
I don't believe in the Bible. I believe in a God. I have faith in the stories told of Jesus in the New Testament, but I have no way of proving that they are true, other than what was written - which is why I call it faith. I see the old testament books as being metaphorical in the creation stories (they parallel the babylonian creation tradition pretty closely), I see the old testament 'legal' books as people attempting to figure out, mistakenly, what they needed to do to 'appease' this God, I see the New testament as Jesus explaining to everyone how wrong they were in what it was God really wanted and how Christianity is not about running around telling everyone who wasn't perfect morally that they were scum and worthless. I see it as a redemptive story that proves that nobody is beyond salvation, and that the teachings of Christ offer a pretty good model by which people could live their life. But it is by faith and faith and faith alone.

Because I am not a literalist (and most Christians aren't...just like they don't believe 'IN THE BIBLE' - that is biblical idolatry...the stuff that these kasas whackjobs do) I have no problem with what humans find during their study of the universe. HUmans evolved. The universe probably came into existence (at least this time) by a massive explosion we call the big bang. Nothing I discover in my studies of science intereferes with my faith, because they are, as Gould has stated (IN BOOKS) 'non-overlapping magisteria.'

When I read your posts, it is like looking at a paper written by a kid. They throw words like "believe" and "theory" around in the wrong context because they don't have a complete understanding of the subject.

Sure, let's assume I do have a very good understanding for this one for just a minute alright?

So as a christian you follow the teachings of Jesus Christ as our savior, that's cool that's a christian by definition. Many people automaticaly use the bible metaphore idea but don't realize that if they don't beleive jesus actualy existed then they're technicly not chrisitians. However what you say has some rudementary problems.

During the time Jesus was in Jerusalem there actualy were historians there and no records of any of the miracles jesus did nor any of the events like the locusts and other biblical events are accounted for. This is a major problem but people choose to ignore this for some unknown reason. I suggest you go read a book, or rather historic reports from historians of the age. Because you claim you have no way to prove these things but the proof is right there.

Second you're absolutely right about the moral teachings of the bibile and I commented on that earlier. It's like the ten commandments. In fact, I bet the summarians first made these complicated stories each with it's own morals for that period in time so complicated that someone later just summed it all up in ten commandments. I'm speculating there though. But my point is that those moral ideas, stories of punishment for those that don't follow them and other stories to scare the shit out of people too uneducated to know any better into control. It's great, it's the prehistoric version of laws.

So perhaps you beleive in it's teachings well that's fine but the instant you beleive there's also a god, or higher being then that's where you lose me. Cause things like god make no sense when you think in terms of evolution. You can't have anything more intelligent than the universe will allow. It's impossible, which means there can't be a god.

I'm compelled to add to what tnf wrote on pg. 2., that faith can be excluded from reason by choice. Faith is it's own justification according to most educated theists who've contemplated this issue (from what I gather). It's partitioned exclusively to include unquestioned beliefs.

Faith is not reasonable, but it doesn't follow that all faith is therefore refuted.

Skeptics can be theists. Skeptics can be skeptical of theism, while accepting of theist skeptics.

Ultimately one cannot dictate how others will form beliefs. Even extreme religious fundamentalists who choose to believe things (without evidence) that seem to contradict reality as we percieve it, can't really be justifiably coerced to believe otherwise.

Perhaps in cases where certain people share the same values and attempt to decide on a method of forming beliefs consistent with those values, could true criticism be brought forth among them.

meh

Hey I can spell badly in two languages.

I'm not english retard, I think I do quite well.

you obviously knew what I meant and that's what counts. This is just an online discussion not a term paper.

Well I think I have some valid points on this subject people refuse to argue instead pointing me towards some books opinion like they have none of their own. It's frustrating and a total cop out. If you start insulting me and treating me with no respect you're going to see me treat you the same way. you for instance have provided less to this thread than anyone else riddla, you're fucking useless.

So what's you're opinion oh wise one?

Just want to point out one thing. The locust/frog/moses thing was supposedly way before jesus' time. Carry on.

Cool Blue wrote:
Philosophically speaking, nothing is fact. Nothing. It is only what we have seen or know so far.


While you say evolution happened as fact, I could just as easily suggest that the 'evolution' we have witnessed was actually done by direct and controlled manipulation of quantum particles by high energy beams outside of our perception (essentially martians with ray guns a jillion miles away intentionally 'causing' evolution for some sick and perverted form of reality TV). How do we contest this?

Cool Blue, I think the general theme of your comments is on the money...however, calling something a 'fact' is simply giving a 'state of affairs'/proposition an epistemological pat on the back. As such, there are facts everywhere...the real point is 'facts' can change...principally because the background theory/framework that helps us to pick them out change (i.e. they have been replaced with a better theory or shown to be horseshit on other grounds).

In every day terms, a theory is simply an interconnected network of concepts, statements and laws/generalization that offer up descriptions and/or explanation for a given phenomenon. In that sense, evolution is of course a theory. Unfortunately, ID theorists and Joe Sixpack fail to realize that theories can be differentiated and ranked according to various criteria....this is why you hear the bullshit refrain "it's just a theory", which means fuckall in this context.

A fact, in the context of evolutionary theory, need only be a 'something' that we have little reason to doubt, based on the experimental evidence developed so far. And while it is true that an almost infinite number of other theories could be developed to explain the same evolutionary 'facts', we need only pay attention to the ones that we have some good reason to accept as plausible competitors. At this stage, we can let the Martians go a glimmering.

Theories change, are refuted, etc....but that doesn't make talk of 'facts' nonsensical within a given historical period.

I'm oversimplifying on all this, but hopefully you get me.

scourge34 wrote:Just want to point out one thing. The locust/frog/moses thing was supposedly way before jesus' time. Carry on.

Yeah I'm just saying in general historians that were in those locations for those times don't report these things that are mentioned in the bible which for all intents and purposes were written by Jesus deciples. So if you beleive in Jesus and his deciples then the bible is definitely a part of that beleif.

This goes for basicly almost any religion and any religion like ID that actualy BASES it's religion on an intelligence AND beleives in evolution is completely wrong on so many levels.

Coreiel wrote:in my opinion its like this. jesus is real, its recorded. so that means evolution is out.

Tell him I said, "OOWHAZZAAPPPP!!!???" When an insurgent blows your balls off on September 10th.

Edit: That was harsh. NOT.

Kracus wrote:You can't have anything more intelligent than the universe will allow. It's impossible, which means there can't be a god.

If there is a God, then he/she/it/whatever, is not constrained by the universe - it is not limited by its constraints. So although I cannot prove there is one, that logic certainly does not prove there isn't...not by any stretch of the imagination.

saturn wrote:

tnf wrote:Nah, I'm a shitty teacher. I even went so far as to give my kids a summer reading list:
"A Brief History of Time"
"The Universe in a Nutshell"
"In Search of Schroedinger's Cat"
"The Fabric of the Cosmos"
"Before the Beginning"
"DNA"
"The Coming Plague"
"Guns, Germs, and Steel"
"Freedom Evolves"
"The Beak of the Finch"
"The Day the Universe Changed"

BOOKS!

like they're gonna read all that. :lol:

No no...I was saying they should read ONE.

Sounds a lot like one of my theories.

Kracus wrote:Sounds a lot like one of my theories.

No, because most of yours fall under the realm of the behavior of the physical world that we can observe, test, and apply the laws of physics, etc. to.

tnf wrote:

Kracus wrote:Sounds a lot like one of my theories.

No, because most of yours fall under the realm of the behavior of the physical world that we can observe, test, and apply the laws of physics, etc. to.

Alright, well let's say that's true then what are you? Really you're just a part of this universe made from the same fabric of reality as the rest of the universe. What are you to this god who's so intelligent it's beyond our scope to even comprehend? Comparing the human race to something like that is like comparing a human to an single cell organism. Why the hell would it care we exist when it's in the buisness of making universes for whatever whacky reasons it has.

Sorry, again we're nothing but tiny little specs on a very small rock circling a very small sun in a very large universe. We're like microscopic fleas on the back of an elephant the size of a galaxy it's rediculous to even think a god would be paying us anymore attention than he would a passing commet. IF one even existed, which I'm assuming is not. If one happens to say maybe I'll change and ask about evolution.

Till then I'm going to assume the only thing I'll ever see in life is what the universe offers and nothing more. I will forever be contained in this universe in body, even after I die I will still be here even if my body doesn't fire off the right chemicals and impulses that make me into a biological being that is intelligent enough to ask the question why am I here?

tnf is so smart it fucking scares me.

Kracus wrote:

Massive Quasars wrote:Kracus, just leave.

Why? Fuck man this is why you guys hate me so much, I challenge an idea, you refer me to a fucking book. Like WTF? You can't discuss anything here it's all fucking either you're with us or you need some books opinion. I already have one thanks!

Having an opinion and having an informed opinion are two vastly different things. You've done a pretty impressive job of proving that in this thread alone.

Re-reading this entire thread has caused my IQ to drop by 15 points.

Luckily I have the summer to decompose/decompress.

Nightshade wrote:tnf is so smart it fucking scares me.

You should have met me before my 5 year stint as an alcoholic.

I like Kracus - he gives it a go.

It's still sort of shocking sometimes to realize that people are still debating evolution. "Intelligent design" seems about as old an invalid of an idea to me sa the idea of the world being flat.

eepberries wrote:It's still sort of shocking sometimes to realize that people are still debating evolution. "Intelligent design" seems about as old an invalid of an idea to me sa the idea of the world being flat.

indeed
to quote Dr Graffin; what's so intelligent about an appendix that will swell up and - if you dont have access to a doctor - will kill you?