religious debate

[Guest]

If I may paraphrase, what you seem to be suggesting is that the Christian creation myth is somehow more valid because:

1) It is less bizarre than the others (though still pretty bizarre, with stuff like God creating Eve out of a rib)

2) It's more congruent with scientific knowledge (given a lot of creative interpretation and papering over the cracks)

The other myths could also be explained away by saying they are metaphor or a means of explaining things to simple people. If you justify the biblical account by saying it is less bizarre and involves less magic, that same logic is also a very good justification for throwing out all religious myths, including the Bible, in favour of an opinion based on scientific knowledge. The biblical account may be the closest to being accurate, but as you know it falls short of actual accuracy. If it were the "word of God", I'm sure God could have got it 100% right.

Remember, my whole point was in response to the assertion that Christianity (and by extension, the Bible) is very similar to Greek Mythology. Those who do not accept the Bible as God's word like to make their position appear stronger by dumping Christianity and the Bible into the same bucket as all religious belief. On one hand, I understand this, because if there is no God, then how could the Bible possibly be any different? On the other hand, my point was that it's a great stroke of oversimplification to state that the Bible is similar to other mythology when even a cursory comparison reveals very little in common, either in the details, or in the general tone or spirit. (I'll get to ADParker's comment in a moment).

Hence, I'm not saying that the biblical account is "more valid" because it is less fantastic. I'm saying that the very different style of presentation, the simplistic monotheism, the highly historical basis (e.g., detailed lists of family lines, specific times and places, lots of archaeological evidence verifying details, etc.), the candor of authors who wrote of their own mistakes, the consistency of a message delivered by dozens of writers over hundreds of years, etc., etc., makes it so different from contemporary or preceding myths that it's not realistic to characterize it as "more of the same."

Modern religions are better adapted, but the fact that the Bible contains bizarre and magical occurrences, contradictions, impossible events, and obsolete moral values, shows that it is not fundamentally different.

True, it is not fundamentally different if you use the inclusion of anything supernatural as your sole criteria. However, if you are trying to argue that a similarity of the Bible to ancient mythology is a basis for rejecting it as similarly meaningless (because we know there's no rational basis for belief in Zeus, Ra, etc.), and use that as an argument in favor of atheism, then you've just used circular reasoning. Obviously, if there is a God that can perform supernatural feats, then the inclusion of such events in a literary work would not discredit it. After all, you don't reject belief in Zeus on the basis that it's impossible to have a child (Athena) spring fully-armed from your forehead without disastrous consequences. If there were other sufficient evidence that the Greek gods existed at all, such a thing might be believable, but you understand there's no basis for belief in the first place, and you rightly reject such wild stories as the products of human imagination.

I understand that it works in the opposite direction, too. I can't use supernatural events described in the Bible as support for God's existence, since that would also be circular. If anything, miracles described in the Bible raise the bar for evidence required to support the existence of a being who could perform those miracles. On the other hand, if a person establishes confidence in the trustworthiness of the Bible using other criteria, and comes to the conclusion that there must, in fact, be a powerful creator, then performing the types of miracles described in the Bible would obviously be within his ability.

I think the point here was that Zeus is no more or less plausible, or evidence-based, than God, and the same with Noah. Given the parallels in flood myths, it seems highly likely that in many cases one myth evolved from another. The later myth would then be no more accurate than the earlier one.

True. Look at it this way, though. If there were a significant flood event (global or not), then those who saw firsthand evidence of the effects would have a much more accurate story to tell than the extravagant tales that would later emerge. In that case, the earlier "myth" would be far more accurate than the later ones.

Personally, I find the God of the Bible (a single wise and powerful First Cause whose existence helps explain those things which science is unable to) is far more plausible than Zeus or any other mythological god. The atheists can jump up and call out "God of the Gaps! Argument from Ignorance!", but what belief that I hold has been shown by science to be unfounded? What unexplainable thing that I attributed to God was later shown to have natural causes? Even when natural causes may be identified for little-understood complex behavior that in ages past was attributed to God (e.g., lightning), how does that demonstrate that design is therefore not needed? With scientific understanding, the natural systems turn out to be more amazing and complex than originally thought. The deeper we look into the cell, genetics, reproduction, ecosystems, human language, quantum mechanics, etc., the more intricate and fantastic they become. To me, this is evidence of intelligent design. It's funny that anyone who invokes Paley's Watchmaker is belittled as ignorant, yet I've never seen a shred of evidence to demonstrate how the "miracles" of apparent design in nature actually developed on their own. For any objection raised regarding living things, evolutionists devise a fantastical, unproven progression to explain how something might have happened. To me, such explanations bear the same hallmark of imagination as Zeus throwing thunderbolts.

I don't think anybody would suggest that the Bible is a deliberate fraud. Myths and religions develop over time in the same way that superstitions do, by a process of selection. The only likely fraud is that committed by the early catholic church who compiled a bunch of myths and labelled it "the word of God", in order to avoid internecine bickering over the validity of "apocryphal" texts and to create a definitive canon for Christianity. What puzzles me is why protestants still accept that compilation as being divinely inspired while not accepting the divine inspiration behind other catholic nonsense, like selecting a pope.

Then I'm suggesting it, because if the Bible is not true, then it has to be a fraud, and a particularly conniving one at that. That's a significant difference between mythology and the Bible. The Bible writers very much show an interconnected story, and present the miraculous events as a basis for faith. For example, Moses wrote that when he struck a rock to bring forth water for the people, he failed to give credit to God, and as a result could not enter the promised land. What on earth could be the motive for writing that if he's just making up a story? It would have to be a blatant deception. There are hundreds of scriptures which are prophecies, and similar loads of scriptures which purport to record the fulfillment or make application of those prophecies. The writers of the gospel accounts and the apostle Paul frequently quote and apply scriptures in the Old Testament to the life of Jesus and their teaching of an expanded understanding of what worship to God would entail for Christ's disciples. If it is simply a contrived work of man, then this is a magnificent work of fraud, somehow orchestrated by many people over many lifespans. And to what purpose? How would those original writers have benefited from foisting this clever deception on the world? History clearly shows that early Christians were viciously persecuted, so it was certainly not for their personal gain.

Regarding your understanding of the canonicity of Bible books ... that is simply not correct. Please refer to the wikipedia article on the Biblical canon. Most, and likely all, of the 39 books of the OT were already canonized at least 100-200 years before Christ (and the Pentateuch, or first five books, long before that). The majority of the 27 NT books were widely agreed upon and accepted by early in the 2nd century C.E., with debate continuing about only a few books (James, Jude, Hebrews). If you've even read the New Testament at all, I find it hard to believe you could describe the letters of Paul as a "bunch of myths." For the most part, they are detailed instruction and exposition based on a study of Jesus' life and teaching in conjunction with OT writings.

Seems to me the whole experiment's gone wrong. Instead of following God or Satan increasing numbers of people are deciding there is no reason to believe either exists. Which you can hardly blame them for, given the lack of evidence. It's probably all for the best, since buying out the jury by offering them eternal life over damnation was never going to result in a fair trial anyway.

Actually, Satan's argument was that humans would be better off on their own, right? If they rejected the existence of both God and Satan, they would obviously be taking Satan's side in the issue.

As for the jury, I explained that it consisted primarily of angels who weren't presented with a choice of eternal life or damnation, and incidentally, it would be more accurate to call it a choice between life and death, a phrase the Bible uses many times.

Similar?!

How can you say a Religion about a Most Powerful entity (God) with numerous lesser such entities (angels) and a son (Jesus) born of a earthly woman (Mary); With two places for after one dies, one as a reward (Heaven), and the other as a punishment (Hell); The latter ruled over by another such entity (Satan) who has close ties to the Most Powerful entity (A high ranking Angel); not to mention a tree that gave everlasting life (Tree of life), and a Great flood (Genesis Flood) - is in any way similar to:

A Religion about a Most Powerful entity (Zeus) with numerous lesser such entities (lesser gods) and a son (Heracles) born of a earthly woman (Alcmene); With two places for after one dies, one as a reward (Elysium), and the other as a punishment (Hades); The latter ruled over by another such entity (Hades) who has close ties to the Most Powerful entity (his brother); not to mention a tree that gave everlasting life (Tree of the Golden Apples), and a Great flood (Deucalion)?!

Next you will be trying to tell us that it is in any way similar to another religion about a Most Powerful entity (Odin) with numerous lesser such entities (lesser gods) and a son (Thor) born of a giantess (Jörd, personification of the Earth); With two places for after one dies, one as a reward (Valhalla), and the other as a punishment (Hel); The latter ruled over by another such entity (Hel) who has close ties to the Most Powerful entity (Daughter of Loki, Odin's adopted son); not to mention a tree that gave everlasting life (Iðunn's tree with Golden Apples), and a Great flood (Bergelmir's Flood)

I don't see the connection, I really don't <_<

Well played, but in cherry-picking your comparisons and descriptions you've committed a couple of fallacies.

First, there's the fallacy of composition. Your argument appears to be: (1) There are some elements of biblical accounts that bear resemblance to other mythologies. (2) The entire Bible is an example of accumulated variations of preexisting religious stories, as we see is the case with other mythologies.

It doesn't take a degree in Bible study to know that the vast majority of biblical stories have no direct parallels with contemporary or preexisting mythology. The Bible repeatedly and forcefully makes clear that the pagan religion of the surrounding nations was false and displeasing to God. Why, then, would the Bible writers be compelled to draw upon these "false" mythologies? Because they're not creative enough to come up with their own? The fact that the great majority of Bible stories (and the Bible is a pretty big book, mind you) do not have parallels proves that can't be the case. If it's false, there was an awful lot of inventive creativity at work.

Second, there's hasty generalization. You say: (1) There are some elements of biblical accounts that bear resemblance to other mythologies. (2) Biblical stories share common origin with these mythologies.

Movie critics frequently make comparisons of similar plot elements in movies. Would it be correct to surmise that one movie draws upon the story of another because there are slight similarities? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends upon the degree of similarity. This same attempt at linking can be done with pretty much any two novels you pick up in the book store. To assert that one literary work served as the basis for another, however, there has to be pretty strong correlation. Greek and Roman mythology? Obviously connected. Babylonian and Egyptian mythology? Many connections. Any of these and the Bible? Very, very weak connections. Let's consider the examples you provided and break it down a bit, and you'll have to pardon me for describing the biblical account in terms I feel are more accurate ...

Story 1) The one and only God created less powerful spirit creatures, and the first of these he called his son. He implanted the life of this son into an earthly woman so that he could instruct men and die as a human for the purpose of balancing the scales of justice. (Matt 20:28) All men have the possibility of eternal life, most on earth, and a small number as rulers in heaven. There is no hellfire. God's opponent Satan was previously a high-ranking angel, but chose to rebel against God and challenge the rightfulness of his authority. There is also a tree that gave everlasting life in the Garden of Eden, and a Great flood.

Story 2) The king of the Gods, Zeus, was fathered by Cronos, who was eating his children. He grew up in Crete. He had sex with a human woman and the resultant son Heracles was a powerful hero who at times was also a selfish jerk. The soul is immortal, going to the underworld Hades upon death, either to Elysium if good, or to Tarturus if bad. The whole place was ruled over by the God Hades, brother of Zeus, who got assigned as Lord of the Underworld by drawing lots (Zeus got the sky). There is also a tree that gave everlasting life (Tree of the Golden Apples), and a Great flood.

As you no doubt noticed, many of the parallels you cited vanish when don't accept the mainstream "Christian" teaching. As I stated in the thread on Hell, many popular "Christian" beliefs and practices, including the immortal soul, hellfire, the Trinity, Christmas, Easter, and many others, are indeed the result of merging popular pagan beliefs with the teaching of the Bible. Hence, if you're going to insist on making parallels, you'll have to stick to arguing what the Bible actually says, not what the churches teach.

Incidentally, it's worth noting that, if the Bible is true, we would expect to find shared elements in other religious beliefs, just as the similarity of hundreds of flood legends reflects that there probably was some actual historical event that preceded them.

[Guest]

Personally, I find the God of the Bible (a single wise and powerful First Cause whose existence helps explain those things which science is unable to) is far more plausible than Zeus or any other mythological god. The atheists can jump up and call out "God of the Gaps! Argument from Ignorance!",

And it is just that. You spotting that we would recognise your commission of a Fundamental Error in Reasoning does not lesson the problem for you

It IS nothing but "Science (and thus rational man) can't explain this (yet) therefore GODDIDIT!"

but what belief that I hold has been shown by science to be unfounded?

Does that matter? If I say "The Flying Spaghetti Monster is real!" does that fact that science has not disproved it add any weight to my claim whatsoever?!

What unexplainable thing that I attributed to God was later shown to have natural causes?

What have you attributed to God anyway? (can't remember). Doesn't matter a whit anyway: If it's Unexplainable - attributing it to anything is pointless and irrational.

Attributing the unexplainable to "God" is the epitome of the God-of-the-Gaps Fallacy! It's textbook!

Even when natural causes may be identified for little-understood complex behavior that in ages past was attributed to God (e.g., lightning), how does that demonstrate that design is therefore not needed?

Back to front.

Demonstrate that it is needed. If you can't then there is no reason to believe it is.

What those examples do is demonstrate that a mistake was made in dismissing the unknown as Magic. "Magic" and "God" being nothing but cover words for "The Unknown" as far as I can tell.

With scientific understanding, the natural systems turn out to be more amazing and complex than originally thought. The deeper we look into the cell, genetics, reproduction, ecosystems, human language, quantum mechanics, etc., the more intricate and fantastic they become. To me, this is evidence of intelligent design.

Really, Why? All depth of discovery of the nature of natural systems has come about from a deeper and deeper understanding of how they operate and are formed - all of which has been entirely natural. All you are doing is looking at the ends, the as-yet-unknown bits of the science and declaring GODDIDIT is the best answer for them.

It's funny that anyone who invokes Paley's Watchmaker is belittled as ignorant, yet I've never seen a shred of evidence to demonstrate how the "miracles" of apparent design in nature actually developed on their own.

Paley's watch is a poor argument, always has been really. Philosophers said so at the time. Darwin's theory just put a major nail in that coffin.

as for those "miracles" it's called Evolution through Natural Selection - look it up.

Better yet read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.

For any objection raised regarding living things, evolutionists devise a fantastical, unproven progression to explain how something might have happened. To me, such explanations bear the same hallmark of imagination as Zeus throwing thunderbolts.

"Evolutionists" are people who believe in some set doctrine of evolution - If any actually exist, they are idiots! <_<

If those explanations do strike you as such, then you haven't been paying attention. And my impression of you is slipping. There is a very good reason why, when approached with a novel or unknown adaption of what-have-you (like the evolution from X to Y, or of the Z,) scientists and acceptors of Evolutionary biology attempt a hypothesis based on Evolution: Evolution is a scientifically verified fact, it is simply beyond all reasonable doubt. As such it is the obvious place to begin the search. Like looking to Gravity to explain why something falls to the floor.

[Guest]

Well played, but in cherry-picking your comparisons and descriptions you've committed a couple of fallacies.

First, there's the fallacy of composition. Your argument appears to be: (1) There are some elements of biblical accounts that bear resemblance to other mythologies. (2) The entire Bible is an example of accumulated variations of preexisting religious stories, as we see is the case with other mythologies.

Nope, merely that there are similarities. Never even hinted that therefore the whole is the same as the whole of the other religions. That is what the Fallacy of Composition is. As I made no such claim, no such fallacy was committed. For the record I have never claimed that the entire bible is comprised of older religious stories (I know that some have done so). Just that some of the similarities are highly suggestive of some connection - one story being the cause of the nature other in some regard, or both being inspired by a third. Who knows?

It doesn't take a degree in Bible study to know that the vast majority of biblical stories have no direct parallels with contemporary or preexisting mythology. The Bible repeatedly and forcefully makes clear that the pagan religion of the surrounding nations was false and displeasing to God. Why, then, would the Bible writers be compelled to draw upon these "false" mythologies? Because they're not creative enough to come up with their own? The fact that the great majority of Bible stories (and the Bible is a pretty big book, mind you) do not have parallels proves that can't be the case. If it's false, there was an awful lot of inventive creativity at work.

<sigh> There are a bunch of similarities, they don't have to be direct parallels to be so; stories can be inspired by earlier ones (and very often are - just look of the Lord of the Rings and much later fantasy.) They don't have to match exactly to be so, in fact that is usually the exception rather than the rule.

Second, there's hasty generalization. You say: (1) There are some elements of biblical accounts that bear resemblance to other mythologies. (2) Biblical stories share common origin with these mythologies.

And once again your mistake is in assuming (2) which I never said or implied. The problem is that you are reading far more into it. As it happens I only gave my little list of similarities because it is something I have long noticed. And thought it might be amusing to put the ideas down "on paper" for once - and I was right; it was

A Hasty Generalisation is to derive a general rules from a single (or very limited set) of case(s). I did give some cases, but I didn't even imply anything like a general rule to it - that was all you my friend

So again no such Fallacy comitted - that 0 for 2 I'm afraid Nice try though.

By the way this "sharing common origin" method is a well known,tried and true, method of deriving the history and accuracy of things, like books. There are experts who look at books (such as your bible's texts) and going through all the various versions they can find, they try to determine what the original text would most likely have been. They have gotten pretty darn good at it, and devised a large array of 'tricks' and methodologies for doing it. Which have been passed on to people studying all kinds of things of a somewhat similar nature. As such this is not a logical fallacy at all, but a well tested method of discovery and assessment. The fallacy is to make a far more simplistic approach, as in the example in the link.

In this case I only offered a few similarities to ponder. The next step would have been to; search for any more (the more the better). Then and only then would any endeavour be made to determine their true links (if any.)

Movie critics frequently make comparisons of similar plot elements in movies. Would it be correct to surmise that one movie draws upon the story of another because there are slight similarities? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends upon the degree of similarity. This same attempt at linking can be done with pretty much any two novels you pick up in the book store. To assert that one literary work served as the basis for another, however, there has to be pretty strong correlation. Greek and Roman mythology? Obviously connected. Babylonian and Egyptian mythology? Many connections. Any of these and the Bible? Very, very weak connections.

My examples suggested otherwise. But in all honesty I don't really care. And I think it rather clear by now to anyone that the real difference you see is that your book of myths is true and the rest aren't. And that is taken as one of your premises, not as a conclusion based on examination of them all.

You Movie critic and book examples are only valid to a point. Similarity does (always) suggest a connection - But not that one is derived directly from the other (and I never suggested any such thing). Instead, that they share some commonality of source. Perhaps one from the other, as you seemed to assume was the only connection imaginable, or both from a third source. Then there is the question of what the nature of the influence was; was it a direct copy, a rough copy, or merely inspired? Was it direct or indirect? If indirect, a long line might well show marked differences, but still some hints of similarity. In short; there are vastly more ways in which two things (religions, books, songs, movies...) can be related to one another than you allude to here. "To assert that one literary work served as the basis for another" is not something that I did.

Let's consider the examples you provided and break it down a bit, and you'll have to pardon me for describing the biblical account in terms I feel are more accurate ...

Story 1) The one and only God created less powerful spirit creatures, and the first of these he called his son. He implanted the life of this son into an earthly woman so that he could instruct men and die as a human for the purpose of balancing the scales of justice. (Matt 20:28) All men have the possibility of eternal life, most on earth, and a small number as rulers in heaven. There is no hellfire. God's opponent Satan was previously a high-ranking angel, but chose to rebel against God and challenge the rightfulness of his authority. There is also a tree that gave everlasting life in the Garden of Eden, and a Great flood.

Story 2) The king of the Gods, Zeus, was fathered by Cronos, who was eating his children. He grew up in Crete. He had sex with a human woman and the resultant son Heracles was a powerful hero who at times was also a selfish jerk. The soul is immortal, going to the underworld Hades upon death, either to Elysium if good, or to Tarturus if bad. The whole place was ruled over by the God Hades, brother of Zeus, who got assigned as Lord of the Underworld by drawing lots (Zeus got the sky). There is also a tree that gave everlasting life (Tree of the Golden Apples), and a Great flood.

As you no doubt noticed, many of the parallels you cited vanish when don't accept the mainstream "Christian" teaching.

Nope, still there, as much as you tried to hide them. I never said the stories were exactly the same! Even with my feeling that they are related in some way (common origins of ideas) and that they are all three, myths, I would have been very much surprised if they had been much closer at all in these regards. Even considering that, I was surprised (a long time ago when I first looked at them) at the degree of similarity!

You are suggesting that I am making them out to me far more similar than they really are - although as we have seen, a hel of a lot of that is your reading into it, not what I actually wrote - when on the contrary, I realise that they are three rather different mythologies, from largely very different people (even when considering that the early Christians were Greek as well) and find the amount of similarities I found (on a quick glance really, not an in depth study) to be quite surprising.

Three entirly different stories, with no correlation at all, would not make any of them any the more plausible. And no, neither would one be more plausible simply because the other two were very similar and it was not.

As I stated in the thread on Hell, many popular "Christian" beliefs and practices, including the immortal soul, hellfire, the Trinity, Christmas, Easter, and many others, are indeed the result of merging popular pagan beliefs with the teaching of the Bible. Hence, if you're going to insist on making parallels, you'll have to stick to arguing what the Bible actually says, not what the churches teach.

Well I did really, and am aware of these other similarities and to some degree their apparent origins. And find it amusing how Christians and non Christians interpret some of them quite differently from the same info. But that is not my area of interest really. I don't care who made the stories up first or who passed them on to whom, or how. Well not beyond a general interest in the twists and turns of history.

Incidentally, it's worth noting that, if the Bible is true, we would expect to find shared elements in other religious beliefs, just as the similarity of hundreds of flood legends reflects that there probably was some actual historical event that preceded them.

I knew sooner or later you couldn't resist that one And find it amusing that you go to such lengths to deny their similarities, and then to defend your religion in light of those apparently non-existent similarities!

And the flood myths (the "hundreds" I have seen, include many that hardly constitute anything remotely Global flood like) might also reflect the rather obvious fact that humans have long dwelt near rivers and flood plains (good growing soil, ready access of water.) Not at all surprising that water and flooding arise in their stories is it?

[Guest]

I'll try to be brief...

True, it is not fundamentally different if you use the inclusion of anything supernatural as your sole criteria. However, if you are trying to argue that a similarity of the Bible to ancient mythology is a basis for rejecting it as similarly meaningless (because we know there's no rational basis for belief in Zeus, Ra, etc.), and use that as an argument in favor of atheism, then you've just used circular reasoning.

I'm not saying you should reject the Bible because it is similar to anything else, but the observation was made that there were similarities, and you pointed out that other religious myths were more outlandish. The Bible differs in style, there is a lot of history and other stuff there too, but if you just look at the more supernatural bits, that's where a lot of the similarities lie. What I'm saying is that if you consider belief in Zeus, Ra, etc to be irrational, because of all the wild and crazy supernatural stories that go along with it, then the same applies to Christianity insofar as Christianity invokes the supernatural. On the other hand, if supernatural events are perfectly plausible then there is no reason to doubt the stories about other gods either.

Obviously, if there is a God that can perform supernatural feats, then the inclusion of such events in a literary work would not discredit it. After all, you don't reject belief in Zeus on the basis that it's impossible to have a child (Athena) spring fully-armed from your forehead without disastrous consequences.

Quite right. Belief in Zeus is as valid as belief in any other supernatural entity. Present me with suitably extraordinary proof and I'm a believer! (well, accepter anyway)

If there were other sufficient evidence that the Greek gods existed at all, such a thing might be believable, but you understand there's no basis for belief in the first place, and you rightly reject such wild stories as the products of human imagination.

Same goes for Christianity of course. Where's the basis for belief? Surely not the fact that it has its own book of stories?

I must stress that my basis for non-belief in Christianity has nothing to do with any commonality to other religions. But the reasoning for not believing in, say, Zeus, works just as well for Jehovah or any god you care to mention.

I understand that it works in the opposite direction, too. I can't use supernatural events described in the Bible as support for God's existence, since that would also be circular. If anything, miracles described in the Bible raise the bar for evidence required to support the existence of a being who could perform those miracles. On the other hand, if a person establishes confidence in the trustworthiness of the Bible using other criteria, and comes to the conclusion that there must, in fact, be a powerful creator, then performing the types of miracles described in the Bible would obviously be within his ability.

You made a very good point there and this seems to be the main basis of your belief (correct me if I'm wrong); your confidence in the trustworthiness of the Bible. There may be many parts of the Bible which are true. But for a book which contains clear contradictions, not to mention giants, talking donkeys, armies of the living dead, and even God in a wrestling match, you'd (hopefully) need a lot of convincing before considering it "trustworthy". So is there any reason to consider it so?

Then I'm suggesting it, because if the Bible is not true, then it has to be a fraud, and a particularly conniving one at that. That's a significant difference between mythology and the Bible. The Bible writers very much show an interconnected story, and present the miraculous events as a basis for faith. For example, Moses wrote that when he struck a rock to bring forth water for the people, he failed to give credit to God, and as a result could not enter the promised land. What on earth could be the motive for writing that if he's just making up a story? It would have to be a blatant deception. There are hundreds of scriptures which are prophecies, and similar loads of scriptures which purport to record the fulfillment or make application of those prophecies. The writers of the gospel accounts and the apostle Paul frequently quote and apply scriptures in the Old Testament to the life of Jesus and their teaching of an expanded understanding of what worship to God would entail for Christ's disciples. If it is simply a contrived work of man, then this is a magnificent work of fraud, somehow orchestrated by many people over many lifespans. And to what purpose? How would those original writers have benefited from foisting this clever deception on the world? History clearly shows that early Christians were viciously persecuted, so it was certainly not for their personal gain.

The Bible goes back much further than Christianity. Much of the Old Testament is all about providing heroes and mythology for the people of Israel. That fulfils an important political role in encouraging patriotism and obedience. It sets a precedent for rulers to be the representatives of God, and it creates a bond between religion and law. What on earth could be the motive for that? How about pragmatism? But I'm not suggesting that even these stories were actually made up for that purpose, only that they were documented and encouraged for that reason. Myths tend to develop to fulfil whatever role the people need from them. Take the stories of Robin Hood, for example. Who invented those? Nobody in particular. They are popular stories which have developed to give people what they wanted from them. Perhaps they are based on some truth, but in a short time they evolved into a detailed, consistent, popular canon which almost certainly bears little or no relation to the truth. In the early days of Christianity there was a political thrust to cast Jesus as the messiah, so the stories about Jesus became adapted to that purpose. Bear in mind that none of this is ever done for the personal gain of the believer. Religion serves the needs of religion, not the needs of the religious. Clearly the stories of Christianity are effective for Christianity itself. They are myths which have the power to spread and replicate very effectively. The stories serve their own needs very well.

Regarding your understanding of the canonicity of Bible books ... that is simply not correct. Please refer to the wikipedia article on the Biblical canon. Most, and likely all, of the 39 books of the OT were already canonized at least 100-200 years before Christ (and the Pentateuch, or first five books, long before that). The majority of the 27 NT books were widely agreed upon and accepted by early in the 2nd century C.E., with debate continuing about only a few books (James, Jude, Hebrews). If you've even read the New Testament at all, I find it hard to believe you could describe the letters of Paul as a "bunch of myths." For the most part, they are detailed instruction and exposition based on a study of Jesus' life and teaching in conjunction with OT writings.

I appreciate that I've oversimplified things a bit there. Yes, the canonicity of the Bible is complicated and ongoing. But it is the early catholic canon which is now accepted as "The Bible" and widely regarded as divinely inspired where other texts have been rejected. Why??? Note how the word "apocryphal" is used to discredit non-canonical texts. The catholic church is an organisation which claims divine inspiration by virtue of political status. The origin of the current Bible as a holy book is based on that kind of "divine inspiration". Of course, that says nothing about the individual texts within the Bible, just the status of the Bible as a complete entity. I just find it interesting that Protestants so often accept the Bible as is, without questioning that.

[Guest]

It looks like this thread started as a discussion on GOD or no GOD and has turned into a debate about christianity and the bible. That being said how many involved have actually read the bible? Judging by individual comments it appears that not many have. Whether your Atheist or Godist shouldn't you atleast read the book your so adamantly for or against?

Nothing in the Bible is implausible or overly fantastic.

Start from the beginning with creation. Is creation anymore fantastic than the scientific theory of evolution? Not at all. If you follow the logical progression backwards at some point things HAD to start with one male one female. Before that did God say" whomp there it is "and mankind began or did we crawl out of the ocean billion of years ago. Either way you have to make a leap of faith. There is no evidence outside the bible for creation as their is no evidence proving mans evolution from a one cell omeba floating in the ocean.

Granted there are many inconsistancies in the Bible but most if not all can be explained. Do we discard everything we know about science because of the inconsistancies in it? No, that would be ridiculous. The Bible is thousands of years old. Its been written and translated and then translated again numerous times, of course theres going to be issues. Look back at your high school science books and see how much of that is still correct.

The problem with the bible shouldn't be about percieved inadequacies but more about how literal you take it. If your a Christian the old testament should only be viewed as a history of the Jews and hold no signifigance beyond that. If your a Jew the new testament should hold no relevance. The Bible is not all things to all people.

If everyone that claims to be christian practiced the teachings of Christ the world would be a much better place. The problem is too many people use christianity as a weapon. Much like the religion of psuedo-science.

As far as a belief in God I don't see where it matters either way. Too many of the atheist I've met are cynical and self centered. I'm not saying they all are but the majority I've met are. In fact I wouldn't know theyr'e atheist if they weren't so militant about it.

Is it wrong to think that theres someone or something out there bigger than me?

I can't prove to you there is a God but you can't prove to me that you exist either. The only conclusive proof would be for you to stand in front of me and poke me with a stick but thats never going to happen. Even if you did it could be explained away as a mental disorder on my part.

[Guest]

ok im not gona read all of this so someone may have already posted but the way i see it based on the fact that there is solid evidence that evolution happened and none (as far as solid tangible evidence) leading to a god i must say i believe in heaven and hell and god but also evolution so i believe god started the evolutionary process with the big bang and sat back and enjoyed the show, so to say

[Guest]

I would pick apart the last two responses, but it's too easy and I don't really have the time. I'll save it for someone else to do.

Edit: While it's true that I haven't read the Bible, and I never really plan to, I'm sure others on here have and they would know more than me.

Edited June 18, 2008 by Frost

[Guest]

In reading all the arguments back and forth I can't help but feel a deep sadness. Many of you are trying so desperately to justify why you've spent your life ignoring God that what you are really ignoring is the voice deep inside that you supress due to your anger at the world. I am thankful that I was wise enough to be still and listen to the voice...that I was brave enough to respond to the tugging at my heart. I am sad for those of you who are denying yourself an inner peace that surpasses understanding because you are too stubborn to want to know the real truth.

So argue all you want. Make point after point for your atheistic view, but my heart will sink at each word you type because I don't think, I don't guess, I don't feel, I don't believe that God is real; I KNOW He is. And if you want me to prove it I will tell you to take an indepth look at my life. I could write volumes about how a wretch like me has somehow had an impact on the lives of others due to nothing more than my countenance. How a depraved human like myself has been used by God, in spite of myself at times, to be a miracle in the lives of others. And I am not bragging about myself, because in me there is little good on my own, but because Christ lives in me He also lives through me and can chose to do His good work or show his love through me.

I double-dog dare you to accept this challenge: Each day for 3 weeks, read one chapter of the book of John (1-21) and before you read say this prayer (no matter how sarcastic your tone) "God, if you exist, reveal yourself to me."

Use a translation that is written the way real people speak: I suggest The Message, NIV (New International Version) or NASB (New American Standard Bible.) After 3 weeks, come back and post how God failed to "show up" and use this experiment as an argument to convince others that he doesn't exist.

[Guest]

In reading all the arguments back and forth I can't help but feel a deep sadness. Many of you are trying so desperately to justify why you've spent your life ignoring God that what you are really ignoring is the voice deep inside that you supress due to your anger at the world. I am thankful that I was wise enough to be still and listen to the voice...that I was brave enough to respond to the tugging at my heart. I am sad for those of you who are denying yourself an inner peace that surpasses understanding because you are too stubborn to want to know the real truth.

So you don't want to know the real truth? You'd rather believe in something with no proof? I can understand your sadness, but I'm not angry at the world. I'm not angry at anyone, if anything I love the world. I have a great life, nothing against it.

It's not that atheists believe there is no God, we just don't believe you saying there is one. Who knows? Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? We want just what you said, the truth, though we may never get it.

Have you actually read all of the arguments back and forth? So far there has been absolutely none for the existence of a god.

Sorry if I sound harsh, I'm usually quite nice.

Please don't let your heart sink.

[Guest]

It looks like this thread started as a discussion on GOD or no GOD and has turned into a debate about christianity and the bible. That being said how many involved have actually read the bible? Judging by individual comments it appears that not many have. Whether your Atheist or Godist shouldn't you atleast read the book your so adamantly for or against?

What has anyone said that gives you the impression those talking about the Bible haven't read it?

Nothing in the Bible is implausible or overly fantastic.

Really? The Bible says there's a being that can turn people into piles of salt, says a man could walk on water, could come back from the dead...I can go one all day. I wonder what sort of occurrences you think are fantastic.

Start from the beginning with creation. Is creation anymore fantastic than the scientific theory of evolution?

Absolutely! There is so much evidence for evolution in multiple branches of science, it is considered a fact! There is zero evidence for creationism and all evidence for living beings coming about by small changes occurring over time does away with creationism being a valid explanation.

If you follow the logical progression backwards at some point things HAD to start with one male one female.

You don't know much about evolution. Go back far enough, and your ancestors did not reproduce sexually.

Before that did God say" whomp there it is "and mankind began or did we crawl out of the ocean billion of years ago.

Neither. Our ancestors lived in the ocean. But of course "whomp there it is" for some reason is more plausible to you.

Either way you have to make a leap of faith.

No, you don't. Again, there are tons of facts for evolution. Faith is not needed.

There is no evidence outside the bible for creation as their is no evidence proving mans evolution from a one cell omeba floating in the ocean.

The Bible is not evidence for creation. There is plenty of evidence for common decent.

Granted there are many inconsistancies in the Bible but most if not all can be explained.

Yers, apologists are very good at making excuses.

Do we discard everything we know about science because of the inconsistancies in it? No, that would be ridiculous.

Can you name some of these inconsistencies?

[Guest]

The Bible is thousands of years old. Its been written and translated and then translated again numerous times, of course theres going to be issues. Look back at your high school science books and see how much of that is still correct.

When something that has been accepted in science has been shown to be incorrect, it is thrown out. When the Bible has been shown to be incorrect, apologists make excuses and claim it's infallible.

If everyone that claims to be christian practiced the teachings of Christ the world would be a much better place.

Ya think? What about the teachings in the OT?

Are the following wise teachings from the NT we should tell our children to follow?:

* If you do something wrong with your eye or hand, cut/pluck it off (Matthew 5:29-30, in a sexual context).

* Marrying a divorced woman is adultery. (Matthew 5:32)

* Don't plan for the future. (Matthew 6:34)

* Don't save money. (Matthew 6:19-20)

* Don't become wealthy. (Mark 10:21-25)

* Sell everything and give it to the poor. (Luke 12:33)

* Don't work to obtain food. (John 6:27)

* Don't have sexual urges. (Matthew 5:28)

* Make people want to persecute you. (Matthew 5:11)

* Let everyone know you are better than the rest. (Matthew 5:13-16)

* Take money from those who have no savings and give it to rich investors. (Luke 19:23-26)

* If someone steals from you, don't try to get it back. (Luke 6:30)

* If someone hits you, invite them to do it again. (Matthew 5:39)

* If you lose a lawsuit, give more than the judgment. (Matthew 5:40)

* If someone forces you to walk a mile, walk two miles. (Matthew 5:41)

* If anyone asks you for anything, give it to them without question. (Matthew 5:42)

I can't prove to you there is a God but you can't prove to me that you exist either.

This has been tackled in this thread already. Have you read all of it?

I double-dog dare you to accept this challenge: Each day for 3 weeks, read one chapter of the book of John (1-21) and before you read say this prayer (no matter how sarcastic your tone) "God, if you exist, reveal yourself to me."

Use a translation that is written the way real people speak: I suggest The Message, NIV (New International Version) or NASB (New American Standard Bible.)

Where did you get this challenge from? Why three weeks and not two or four? Did you just make that number of weeks up randomly along with the challenge? Why do you believe God will reveal Himself to those that follow your challenge?

After 3 weeks, come back and post how God failed to "show up" and use this experiment as an argument to convince others that he doesn't exist.

You believe theists will be convinced God doesn't exist if I attempt your challenge and it doesn't work? Does that mean you will be convinced God doesn't exist if after three weeks I report the challenge didn't work? If your answer to both those questions is no, why are you suggesting atheists report of a failure of your challenge to work?

Edited June 18, 2008 by Flogger

[Guest]

It looks like this thread started as a discussion on GOD or no GOD and has turned into a debate about christianity and the bible. That being said how many involved have actually read the bible? Judging by individual comments it appears that not many have. Whether your Atheist or Godist shouldn't you atleast read the book your so adamantly for or against?

That tends to happen, people decide to defend God by defending their version of it, in this case by claiming their holy text is correct.

Yes I have read the Bible; a number of times as a Christian, and once or twice since. Not for a long time now however. But so what? Does one have to know all the details of the stories therein to realise the complete lack of evidence and poor reasoning used to defend it as truth?

Reminds me of The Courtier's Reply

Who's "adamantly against" the bible? I'm just against irrational belief, and any abuse of reason.

Nothing in the Bible is implausible or overly fantastic.

You're kidding right?! A Global Flood, A 40 year mass exodus, A supernatural Universe creating entity, angels, devils, talking serpents, resurrections, walking on water, turning people, into pillars of salt, parting seas...

Start from the beginning with creation. Is creation anymore fantastic than the scientific theory of evolution? Not at all.

Oh yes it most certainly is. For a start it requires a magical universe creating intelligence from beyond space and time!

If you follow the logical progression backwards at some point things HAD to start with one male one female.

Not really.

Before that did God say" whomp there it is "and mankind began or did we crawl out of the ocean billion of years ago.

Nice caricature, but the latter (as the science really says, not this cartoon version) is far more plausible and supported by the evidence from observable reality, not to mention Derived from said evidence in the first place! And you don't even have to postulate an evidence free magical man for it to work

Either way you have to make a leap of faith.There is no evidence outside the bible for creation as their is no evidence proving mans evolution from a one cell omeba floating in the ocean.

Again, nice caricature But you are correct; there is ZERO evidence for creation - "It says so in the bible" does not even count as evidence anymore than "My mum says its true!" does. There is however mountains of evidence for evolution, enough for those who actually understand that evidence to call it both a Fact and a Theory (A scientific theory.)

(continued...)

[Guest]

(...continued)

Granted there are many inconsistancies in the Bible but most if not all can be explained. Do we discard everything we know about science because of the inconsistancies in it? No, that would be ridiculous.

No we do not dismiss everything in science; yes we dismiss the inconsistencies as much as we can (which of the inconsistencies is in error, is always the question), but not that based on solid evidence and reason. We can dismiss the bible if (as is the actual case) inconsistencies or not, it has nothing supported by any evidence whatsoever.

Those explanations, those that I have heard, have been truly pathetic by the way.

The Bible is thousands of years old. Its been written and translated and then translated again numerous times, of course theres going to be issues. Look back at your high school science books and see how much of that is still correct.

The difference being that we endeavour to replace and minimise the outdated in the text books. Not reinterpret them so as to appear plausible

The "issues" are that it looks like nothing more than a collection of fairy tales.

The problem with the bible shouldn't be about percieved inadequacies but more about how literal you take it.

Ah yes; as real science and human reason pushes God further and further into the remaining gaps, more and more passages are conveniently interpreted as metaphor and analogy, "never intended as literal". The big question is; why is the most implausible, "miraculous", "overly fantastic" aspect of the bible not interpreted as such as well?! That aspect, of course, being the Magical Super Genie himself: God/Allah/YHWH

If your a Christian the old testament should only be viewed as a history of the Jews and hold no signifigance beyond that. If your a Jew the new testament should hold no relevance. The Bible is not all things to all people.

Uh huh, whatever. To the Jew the New Testament holds the relevance of being a work of fiction that takes and twists the tenets of their religion. To the Christian the Old Testament (an insult by the early Christians to belittle the Jews who kicked them out) should be the foundation of their religion. To any man of reason both should be viewed as a work of myth and fiction, only valuable as a window into the way our ancestors thought.

If everyone that claims to be christian practiced the teachings of Christ the world would be a much better place.

True to a large extent One would hope that they also look beyond that one man in that one time and place for their sense of morality.

The problem is too many people use christianity as a weapon. Much like the religion of psuedo-science.

To what are you referring with "religion of pseudo-science"?

As far as a belief in God I don't see where it matters either way. Too many of the atheist I've met are cynical and self centered. I'm not saying they all are but the majority I've met are. In fact I wouldn't know theyr'e atheist if they weren't so militant about it.

You should get out more then. Ive met a number of quite lovely Atheists; intelligent, engaging, remarkably actively ethically inclined and thoughtful (by which I mean not simply moral, but actively seeking to improve their understanding of what it really means to be moral). And quite a few Theists who are downright nasty, egotistical, closed-minded and irrational. Of course their opposites also exist.

It matters as long as certain groups of theists and theistic movements make it an issue.

Is it wrong to think that theres someone or something out there bigger than me?

It is irrational if there is no reason to do so, and as far as I have seen there is none.

I can't prove to you there is a God but you can't prove to me that you exist either. The only conclusive proof would be for you to stand in front of me and poke me with a stick but thats never going to happen. Even if you did it could be explained away as a mental disorder on my part.

<sigh>

"If an entity X is postulated to exist, and no substantive evidence capable of withstanding intense critical scrutiny is present to support the postulated existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity X as not existing until said substantive supporting evidence becomes present." -

Calilasseia (RichardDawkins.net forum)

[Guest]

ok im not gona read all of this so someone may have already posted but the way i see it based on the fact that there is solid evidence that evolution happened and none (as far as solid tangible evidence) leading to a god i must say i believe in heaven and hell and god but also evolution so i believe god started the evolutionary process with the big bang and sat back and enjoyed the show, so to say

So you say, based on all that evidence - You believe in evolution; good for you, but one should "accept" scientific theories, not "believe" them

But also that based on there being no evidence for God - you believe in that as well?!

Hey; there is no evidence leading to The Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, The Celestial Teapot or There being a Dragon in my garage either! - You believe in them as well?

Okay, that sounded harsh, but think about it.

[Guest]

In reading all the arguments back and forth I can't help but feel a deep sadness.

Ah; the pity card <_<

Many of you are trying so desperately to justify why you've spent your life ignoring God that what you are really ignoring is the voice deep inside that you supress due to your anger at the world.

Oh I have not spent my life ignoring your imaginary friend, I was brought up believing in it. But then I grew up.

And that "Voice deep inside of me"? I realised that that voice was mine. My conscience if you will. You see I grew up on that issue as well. I didn't need to feel there was some outside guiding "big daddy" guiding me along, I could, and always was, doing it myself.

And "the world", angry, nah - I love the world (and the rest of the universe) it's freakin' fantastic. It ain't all about me or for my benefit, which makes it all the more wondrous and beautiful to be perfectly honest.

I once had a small little homo-centric parochial view of the universe, world and my place in it - But then I broke free of those stifling chains of my religion (Christianity) and learned to embrace it all as it really is. And, through the immense help from the sciences and philosophy, I began to get an inkling of just how immensely wondrous it truly is. That sense has been steadily growing ever since!

I am thankful that I was wise enough to be still and listen to the voice...that I was brave enough to respond to the tugging at my heart. I am sad for those of you who are denying yourself an inner peace that surpasses understanding because you are too stubborn to want to know the real truth.

Funny, it was the desire for real truth, and to seek it out, that lead me to dismiss religious faith and dogma!

And I can quite happily listen to my "inner voice" and "the tugging of my heart", and find inner peace, without resorting to the irrational belief in a Magical Super Genie who loves me.

And wanting to know the truth is what I am all about

So argue all you want. Make point after point for your atheistic view, but my heart will sink at each word you type because I don't think, I don't guess, I don't feel, I don't believe that God is real; I KNOW He is.

Ah the cries of the truly closed mind. That is the kind of thing that makes me sad

And by the way "the atheist view" is nothing but "not accepting the Theistic view (any of them)". It is not a view in and of itself, simply a lack of one particular view.

But what do you know you're probably one of those Afairyists anyway!

And if you want me to prove it I will tell you to take an indepth look at my life. I could write volumes about how a wretch like me has somehow had an impact on the lives of others due to nothing more than my countenance. How a depraved human like myself has been used by God, in spite of myself at times, to be a miracle in the lives of others. And I am not bragging about myself, because in me there is little good on my own, but because Christ lives in me He also lives through me and can chose to do His good work or show his love through me.

None of which gives any evidence whatsoever. Just because you happen to believe your imaginary friend has something do do with it, that proves nothing.

I double-dog dare you to accept this challenge: Each day for 3 weeks, read one chapter of the book of John (1-21) and before you read say this prayer (no matter how sarcastic your tone) "God, if you exist, reveal yourself to me."

Use a translation that is written the way real people speak: I suggest The Message, NIV (New International Version) or NASB (New American Standard Bible.) After 3 weeks, come back and post how God failed to "show up" and use this experiment as an argument to convince others that he doesn't exist.

I've done that before. Even back when I actually wanted it to be true. Nope; nada, nothin' zip.

Doesn't "prove"squat though.

[Guest]

Wooha! Looks like a busy 24 hrs.

It's all good but it's probably worth adding a little comment to keep my previous post in context.

Apologies to those of other faiths who might find my focus on Christianity and the Bible discriminatory. You have my assurance that I consider your own religions to be equally absurd. The reason we're getting into these specifics is that I'd like to explore Duh Puck's suggestion that the Bible is not just an artefact of religion, but is in some way a valid reason to believe in God. Is it a sufficiently reliable historical document that we can take the Bible's word for it that God exists, what God is, etc? Considering the inconsistent and often bizarre nature of its contents, that would be a bold claim to make and would require substantial support...

Edited June 18, 2008 by octopuppy

[Guest]

Many times i have typed on this topic and discarded, maybe because it boils down to nothing in the end

God theory - no proof (so far) read the bible and some of the Koran

Big Bang - just theory (so far) read some theories too, with Simon Singh's version to drag off the shelf

Leaves me with do I need to take anything in regarding one way or the other, and I come up with the same answer each time - I have nothing to add, I am happy where I am and with the experiences of life that I continue to enjoy. It's not important for me to take comfort in a supernatural existence or a scientific theory - both are beyond my comprehension.

So theist or theorist is your motivation for a 'good' life and you have comfort in knowing you belong or evolved that's not the worse crime in the world. I'll continue to be a humanitarian and look forward to the rest of my life no matter how i got here. Evolved or created ... Descartes was right - I think, therefore I am!

Moot point on religion if you accept it as moot - With regard to it's beginning. Reasoning to explain the unexplained, a way of formulating a group with like minded needs of leadership. Obviously the leaders of these belief systems can take advantage of the situation to their own ends or beliefs which may be well intentioned or just crazy too.

That' my little input from my comfort zone - will unleash personal philosophy another day!

[Guest]

Three weeks because there are 21 chapters in the book of John. If there were 18 chapters I would challenge you to 18 days of reading it a chapter at a time. Just so happens that mathematically 21/7 =3.

And, of course I wouldn't be convinced otherwise. I was just trying to entice you to the challenge, because of course I believe that if you earnestly seek to understand God that He will reveal himself to you. But you all seem so eager to disprove God that I thought you might accept the challenge if for no other reason than to have more ammo for your position.

So do you accept the challenge? One chapter of John each day until it's completed, beginning each day with a simple prayer asking God to reveal himself to you. Use this link to read from one of the translations I suggested (or all of them for that matter) http://www.biblegateway.com/

Edited June 18, 2008 by puzzlegirl

[Guest]

And, of course I wouldn't be convinced otherwise. I was just trying to entice you to the challenge, because of course I believe that if you earnestly seek to understand God that He will reveal himself to you.

You didn't answer my question. If you wouldn't be convinced that God doesn't exist after I complete the challenge and I report back that He didn't reveal Himself to me, why did you tell me to use it as evidence here for theists that there's no God? What good is evidence unless it's persuasive?

ADParker reported that he's tried your challenge before, and it was at a time that he wanted it to be true. Why do you believe the results will be any different for me?

But you all seem so eager to disprove God that I thought you might accept the challenge if for no other reason than to have more ammo for your position.

1. No one has tried to disprove God as most of us realize we can't disprove the existence of invisible beings that others claim are outside of time and space.

2. Again, how would the challenge be ammo for any position? You already stated "of course I wouldn't be convinced otherwise". If it's so obvious that a failure of the challenge to work wouldn't convince you of anything, then there isn't any ammo at all, is there?

So do you accept the challenge? One chapter of John each day until it's completed, beginning each day with a simple prayer asking God to reveal himself to you. Use this link to read from one of the translations I suggested (or all of them for that matter) http://www.biblegateway.com/

No, I don't accept. I, like ADParker, have also tried such things in my youth and confusion due to being indoctrinated into religious belief, and the results were the same. Nada.

[Guest]

God theory - no proof (so far) read the bible and some of the Koran

Big Bang - just theory (so far) read some theories too, with Simon Singh's version to drag off the shelf

Where to start? First of all, the Big Bang Theory is not the opposite of the God theory. It is a cosmological model of the universe used by scientists to explain its present and past features.

Second, it is not just a theory. When you say something is just a theory, it implies that a theory in science is just an educated guess or something similar. More than one post in this thread explains how scientific theories differ from the way we use the word theory in casual use.

When you say the Big Bang is a theory (so far), it seems you further misunderstand what a theory in science is. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always be a theory, a law will always be a law. There is of course mountains of evidence that germs cause disease, but the Germ Theory will always be just a theory.

Unless I missed something in the news lately, the Big Bang is much more than just a theory. Is Hubble's Law BS? Did something happen to red shift? Did some noble man disprove the microwave background radiation? Were all those satellites infected with demons?

We are receiving the radiation from the last scattering -- that's what the microwave background radiation is, after all. The microwave background radiation is everywhere and has been mapped extensively and fulfills the predictions made by the current big bang model. It is uniform throughout all of space and just by itself is a huge neon sign pointing towards the big bang. There are lots of other neat things about the big bang model too, like its prediction and mathematical bookkeeping of the ratios and amounts of various light elements, like helium-4 and deuterium. Or the distribution and ages of galaxies and their formations. I already mentioned the red shifting. There are any number of other things; entire libraries and all that.

[Guest]

Three weeks because there are 21 chapters in the book of John. If there were 18 chapters I would challenge you to 18 days of reading it a chapter at a time. Just so happens that mathematically 21/7 =3.

And, of course I wouldn't be convinced otherwise. I was just trying to entice you to the challenge, because of course I believe that if you earnestly seek to understand God that He will reveal himself to you. But you all seem so eager to disprove God that I thought you might accept the challenge if for no other reason than to have more ammo for your position.

So do you accept the challenge? One chapter of John each day until it's completed, beginning each day with a simple prayer asking God to reveal himself to you. Use this link to read from one of the translations I suggested (or all of them for that matter) http://www.biblegateway.com/

Count me out. I'm all for reading the Bible but the praying thing would be just undignified. Like if you asked me to cluck like a chicken for 5 minutes every day. Like ADParker I did enough of that sort of thing (in all sincerity) back in my god-bothering days to really want to waste a minute more of my time on it now. Didn't work then, I'm sure it wouldn't work now. And it's a lot of effort to prove a foregone conclusion (like one of those tech support things where they tell you to reinstall windows for no particular reason, except to waste time). I see where you're coming from, even been there myself. That's why I have not enough respect for that position to spend time on it. Edited June 18, 2008 by octopuppy

[Guest]

I see where you're coming from, even been there myself. That's why I have not enough respect for that position to spend time on it.

Ditto. I was raised in a family that practiced no religion and did not consider the existance of a god. Growing up I created my own theology something along the lines of: if there is a higher power out there somewhere, he doesn't give a flip about me." And so I understand that point of view...and have enough respect for it to spend time on it. But now, having experienced God in a very intimate way, even if I decided I did not want to follow him any longer I could never doubt his existance.

On a different note, I just wanted to let all of you out ther know that logical thinking and scientific-minded people can also have an intimate relationship with God. Take just a few of my family and friends for an example: an architect, a PhD in Physics, a Mechanical Engineer, an Accountant, and my brother-in-law (who was raised to be an outspoken athiest by his father who lobbied at Congress for Creationism to be banned from being taught in schools)...became a professor of Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University was one of the world's foremost Population Geneticist (until his death earlier this year.) Even this brilliant scientist came to a point where he could no longer deny his Creator and became a fervant follower of Christ. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/March0...amson.obit.html

Edited June 18, 2008 by puzzlegirl

[Guest]

Ditto. I was raised in a family that practiced no religion and did not consider the existance of a god. Growing up I created my own theology something along the lines of: if there is a higher power out there somewhere, he doesn't give a flip about me." And so I understand that point of view...and have enough respect for it to spend time on it. But now, having experienced God in a very intimate way, even if I decided I did not want to follow him any longer I could never doubt his existance.

On a different note, I just wanted to let all of you out ther know that logical thinking and scientific-minded people can also have an intimate relationship with God. Take just a few of my family and friends for an example: an architect, a PhD in Physics, a Mechanical Engineer, an Accountant, and my brother-in-law (who was raised to be an outspoken athiest by his father who lobbied at Congress for Creationism to be banned from being taught in schools)...became a professor of Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University was one of the world's foremost Population Geneticist (until his death earlier this year.) Even this brilliant scientist came to a point where he could no longer deny his Creator and became a fervant follower of Christ. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/March0...amson.obit.html

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying your point of view makes you an idiot or anything. You can be very intelligent and still be wrong about something. It's only the point of view I don't respect.

Consider this: If I said to you that clucking like a chicken for one minute a day will bring you good luck (but you need to try it for a month for the luck to kick in), would you try it?

An irrational point of view would be to say "I respect your opinion, you seem convinced of what you're talking about, so it makes sense to give it a go. After all, what's one minute a day compared to a lifetime of good luck?"

So you try it for a month (thus giving it credence in your own mind), and who knows? Maybe you have a lot of luck that month. In which case you'll probably spend a minute a day clucking like a chicken for the rest of your life.

A more rational approach would be to say "While I can't prove that clucking doesn't bring you luck, I'm pretty sure there's no reason to believe that it does. I am therefore sufficiently convinced that it doesn't that I wouldn't waste a single minute of my time trying it."

That probably puts where I'm coming from a bit clearer. When we respect irrationality we invite it into our own thought processes. That's how superstition works, and religion too.

And on the subject of intelligent religious people, while I don't doubt that they exist, there does tend to be an inverse correlation between education level and religiosity. I wouldn't use that as an argument in favour of atheism, as it would just be an appeal to authority, but it's worth pointing out.

[unreality]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists! Someone give me one piece of proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist... seriously. I challenge everyone

[unreality]

You know, I get a deep sadness in my Noodly Soul when I see people that do not believe in the FSM. Atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists... anyone that does not recognize Him, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is a fool who is missing out on the Pasta Joys of Life. Every day, kneel down and eat 7 bowls of pasta while reading from the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, available here. I guarantee that after 12 weeks of this, every single day, the Flying Spaghetti Monster will show His Awesomeness to you in all His Noodly Glory in your pasta bowl