[Guest]

Any person can comment on this post, but it's geared towards Christians (Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, etc.) Anyone can post the first subject of conversation. Just discuss issues about the religion (Heaven, evangelism,etc.)

[Guest]

hmm... If the members of the cult Uberfaith were Christian, that would be funny. Such blasphemous pigs. Their joke is an insult to all religions, especially mine.

I dunno, maybe it's just me being sensitive, but I detect a hint of animosity towards our faith. Sure we're new on the scene, but so was Christianity once, you know. Anyway, I must take issue with you on a couple of points:

1) "blasphemous pigs": As insults go, it lacks zing, because it reveals more about you than about who you are insulting. Good trollery requires more imagination.

2) Uberfaith is neither a joke nor an insult to religion. Rather it is a sincere attempt to explore the possibility that there may potentially be some value in religion, to assemble the best that religion can offer and see if it's better than nothing. Honestly, we're trying to give it the best shot we can.

[plasmid]

hmm... If the members of the cult Uberfaith were Christian, that would be funny. Such blasphemous pigs. Their joke is an insult to all religions, especially mine.

If you don't like humans setting religious doctrines, how do you feel about the Council of Rome in 382 where the Damasine List was established (Wikipedia link) or the Council of Carthage in 397 (Wikipedia link)? This Wikipedia link gives a bit more background on the whole process. I admit, I had been under the impression that it was actually done at the Council of Nicaea in 325 until I looked it up, but I guess you learn something new every day.

What ARE you talking about?!

He's referring to this thread. Apparently it's sacrilicious.

[Guest]

Well, uberfaith is a mini-cult right now it seems, and is more like a philosophy similar to Daoism, except a farce of Christianity. We'll reserve this for the other thread. Anyways, most accusations against Christians by people here should not be against the religion, but certain dead individuals (Pope Leo X, Pope Innocent II), so they're not valid.

[Guest]

phew.. Everything has cleared up. Okay, I think that Uberfaith is a direct insult to all beliefs, and demand it be suppressed. And anyways, it as no real dogma, so it's not even a religion. Arrgh. I am at school, so can't talk long.

[plasmid]

phew.. Everything has cleared up. Okay, I think that Uberfaith is a direct insult to all beliefs, and demand it be suppressed. And anyways, it as no real dogma, so it's not even a religion. Arrgh. I am at school, so can't talk long.

Does that mean we can't take part in today's festivities?

For those of you living in the United States - the home of separation of church & state - I'd like to wish you all a happy "National Day of Prayer". CNN story.

[unreality]

phew.. Everything has cleared up. Okay, I think that Uberfaith is a direct insult to all beliefs, and demand it be suppressed. And anyways, it as no real dogma, so it's not even a religion. Arrgh. I am at school, so can't talk long.

I'm afraid the Great Spatula has already flipped the Most Holy Omelet, and you're far too late... you've overslept, and Uberfaith is now the largest religion in the world, claiming 70% of the Earth's human population (only 4% of the otter population but we're working on it). We see Christianity and other paganesque religions as an ultimate insult to all beliefs, and we not only demanded that it be supppressed, we suppressed it. I encourage you to enter the Golden Age of Reason and convert to our spectular theosophically benign Uberfaith (which does have a dogma btw, see the parables ;D)

And while we're on that note, why are you attacking the Most Splendid Uberfaith in the christianity topic rather than the uberfaith topic?

[Guest]

phew.. Everything has cleared up. Okay, I think that Uberfaith is a direct insult to all beliefs,

I admit that the very label makes my skin crawl. But if by "beliefs" you are refering solely to those such as your cherished little religion, and you are correct in your assessment, then I guess it can't be all bad.

and demand it be suppressed.

Cheek!

I think that your (and everybody else's) religion is a direct insult (and all too often; Assault) to human reason and progress. And would very much like for us all to be rid of it. But I would NEVER demand (or even suggest) that it be suppressed!

And anyways, it as no real dogma, so it's not even a religion.

So another point in it's favour then.

Excellent video:

A Darwinian Perspective on Religions: Past, Present and Future

[Guest]

Oh, there are too many things to quote so I will just hit the fun ones.

First off, if you would like to be an ichthyologist (which is a rather random career) your entire job will depend on the concept of evolution as a basis for how life is connected within fish and beyond. You will most likely take a comparative vertebrate anatomy course in which you will discuss the ancestral traits that connect ostyichthys with condrichthys (fish and sharks) and those that separate the two groups and how their phylogeny is related. You will then learn about lung fish and how they still share almost every characteristic as bony fish, except their air sac has evolved an opening to the esophagus and the ability to absorb ogygen through that as well as the gills. These will be very important concepts for you to know as they explain all of the basic similarities and differences between their sturctures and anatomy.

As far as evolution and atheism goes, I do think they are very closely linked, but just because you are an atheist doesn't mean you accept evolution or understand it, you might just reject religion and come up with your own alternative creation idea, but I think this would still make you a deist.

As far as your claim that there is more evidence for Christianity than evolution, I have to ask you to support your claim. I have no idea what evidence there is that supports the superstitious or supernatural concepts in the bible, but if you are referring to the historical context I still believe you are quite mistaken. Evolution is the basis on which Biology depends and it is one of the best understood and researched concepts in all of science.

[Guest]

Oh, there are too many things to quote so I will just hit the fun ones.

First off, if you would like to be an ichthyologist (which is a rather random career) your entire job will depend on the concept of evolution as a basis for how life is connected within fish and beyond. You will most likely take a comparative vertebrate anatomy course in which you will discuss the ancestral traits that connect ostyichthys with condrichthys (fish and sharks) and those that separate the two groups and how their phylogeny is related. You will then learn about lung fish and how they still share almost every characteristic as bony fish, except their air sac has evolved an opening to the esophagus and the ability to absorb ogygen through that as well as the gills. These will be very important concepts for you to know as they explain all of the basic similarities and differences between their sturctures and anatomy.

As far as evolution and atheism goes, I do think they are very closely linked, but just because you are an atheist doesn't mean you accept evolution or understand it, you might just reject religion and come up with your own alternative creation idea, but I think this would still make you a deist.

As far as your claim that there is more evidence for Christianity than evolution, I have to ask you to support your claim. I have no idea what evidence there is that supports the superstitious or supernatural concepts in the bible, but if you are referring to the historical context I still believe you are quite mistaken. Evolution is the basis on which Biology depends and it is one of the best understood and researched concepts in all of science.

Heres some support to the claim although it might be irrelevent,the Bible says God spoke and things were made. Did you know theres frequency in matter?(that might not mean anything but i think it does).

Edited May 13, 2009 by dath244

[Izzy]

Did you know there are waves besides sound waves?

[andromeda]

Heres some support to the claim although it might be irrelevent,the Bible says God spoke and things were made. Did you know theres frequency in matter?(that might not mean anything but i think it does).

Well of course there is, but that's physics not God

[Guest]

Well of course there is, but that's physics not God

God created physics...

[Guest]

Heres some support to the claim although it might be irrelevent,the Bible says God spoke and things were made. Did you know theres frequency in matter?(that might not mean anything but i think it does).

Of course it doesn't mean anything. In the Bible God makes light by saying "Let there be light." So? You're going to claim that this isn't magic but has something to do with matter having frequency? Well? What does it have to do with it? You resurrected this thread after no one posted in it for several days to make a claim that you don't even back up with an explanation? Lots of books have magical figures poof things into existing by merely saying "Make it so." This isn't evidence for fictional acts not being fictitious.

God created physics...

Yeah, we know you think that. Now prove it. But do it in another thread.

[Izzy]

God created physics...

Yeah? He make starvation, murder, atomic bombs, suicide, drugs, and other stuff too?

[Guest]

Yeah? He make starvation, murder, atomic bombs, suicide, drugs, and other stuff too?

Izzy you already know that i believe Satan did that stuff

[Izzy]

Izzy you already know that i believe Satan did that stuff

Dude, aren't you the one who said there is no Hell?

[Guest]

Heres some support to the claim although it might be irrelevent,the Bible says God spoke and things were made. Did you know theres frequency in matter?(that might not mean anything but i think it does).

And that there, dath244, is about the level of pretty much all "evidence" apologetics. Pretty darn weak eh?

Equivocating the "frequency" of this magic man's words (with it's magical creation power) with the frequencies bound up in matter, between particles and perhaps the very nature of those particle at the most fundamental level (see String theory,) is so weak it just hurts.

No; as much as religious apologists try on such silly naive little attempts at making their cherished doctrine fit in with some area of Reality in any possible way, this in no way supports the childish little "Magic man said the magic words and 'poof' there it all was" fairy tale. And it is quite frankly rather offensive to the robust science (and the dedicated scientists who put in the thousands of man hours to make those discoveries and formulate those theories) to pretend that they are at all connected, let alone on anything close to equal footing!

Rant over. Please realise dath244, that this was direct less at you and your post directly, but more toward this method of apologetics in general.

It has the stink of "The Creationist Method" all it:

[Guest]

Izzy you already know that i believe Satan did that stuff

Ahh, all nice things made by God, all nasty things made by Satan. What about dog turds? Not nice if you step in them, but without them, dogs would explode. God or Satan?

[Guest]

I love the cartoon ADParker

[Guest]

Yeah, we know you think that. Now prove it. But do it in another thread.

I don't know why it would be necessary to prove it in another thread. This thread has slowed considerably so it would not be sidetracking a discussion but more importantly claims like this are the reason science and Christianity battle in schools. This is the ideology of neo-Christianity; it is the thought process that even though science seems to be in direct opposition to the written word, it must be just a way that God allows us to learn new nuances of his beautiful world. In a way, this is the only way that anything positive about Christianity can be said in his discussion: it can be said that Christianity is choosing to see science as God's new word that he allows us to learn more about him. A new revelation even. It could show us that for once Christians are choosing to accept science instead of being willfully ignorant of the facts, even if they are still interpreting it with stained glass spectacles.

I say let him defend his interpretation, if for no other reason than it is the direction Christianity must go if it is to survive the modern enlightenment period.

[Guest]

My father, who is 86 and still has a remarkably sharp mind, has been a devout Christian all his life (long prayers before every meal, church every Sunday, etc.). In fact it is his "forcing" me to go to church every Sunday when I was a rebelling teenager that drove me to 40 years of atheism. Now I've moved beyond that into a study of religion and have formed my own spiritual beliefs; and he and I have some lively discussions.

He is a PhD scientist and a member of one of the more liberal and progressive churches, Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA; the rival second largest Presbyterian sub-denomination, Presbyterian Church in America [PCA] is much more fundamentalist). If you tell him that chaos and indifferent randomness is the only thing at the basis of reality, he responds "Chaos is God's tool." His answer to the presence of God is that "Nothing created God". I recently came back with "What created that 'nothing'?" and he just had to laugh. It's the old unresolvable argument of the uncaused cause vs. infinite regression. I didn't pursue it further, but the next step is asking "Why is that particular cause, among all others, a special exception to the need for causality?" Personally I am happy with the idea of infinite regression--there is always another "why" that you can ask. The underlying basis of the universe is paradox (contradiction), and that's only a problem when you try to observe something rather than just nod your head and laugh, as my father and I did.

[Guest]

Dude, aren't you the one who said there is no Hell?

Ya so? heres what i believe about Satan he was an angel in heaven a very beautiful, majestic angel. then he bacame jealous of God and made accusations of him being unfair.He was able to convince one third of heaven that .So there was a huge war in heaven and Satan lost , he was banished to the earth. and became Satan and his angels became deamons. and then man was created he rempted eve and sin came. Technicly you could say i do believe in hell accept that its not a place YET . you see i believe after the mallenium in heaven, heaven will come down to earth, and God will raise the wicked, then satan will tell them that he rose them and the wicked will attack heaven the fire will consume the earth and destroy the wicked that time peroid where they burn is helll. and i dont believe its eternal.

Ahh, all nice things made by God, all nasty things made by Satan. What about dog turds? Not nice if you step in them, but without them, dogs would explode. God or Satan?

okay first of all satan cannot create only corrupt and dog doo isnt nice but its not evil.

[Izzy]

So is Satan capable of creating people too, then? Specifically politicians? ;P

[Guest]

So is Satan capable of creating people too, then? Specifically politicians? ;P

Almost exclusively, by my count.

[Guest]

Ya so? heres what i believe about Satan he was an angel in heaven a very beautiful, majestic angel. then he bacame jealous of God and made accusations of him being unfair.He was able to convince one third of heaven that .So there was a huge war in heaven and Satan lost , he was banished to the earth. and became Satan and his angels became deamons. and then man was created he rempted eve and sin came. Technicly you could say i do believe in hell accept that its not a place YET . you see i believe after the mallenium in heaven, heaven will come down to earth, and God will raise the wicked, then satan will tell them that he rose them and the wicked will attack heaven the fire will consume the earth and destroy the wicked that time peroid where they burn is helll. and i dont believe its eternal.

okay first of all satan cannot create only corrupt and dog doo isnt nice but its not evil.

So, the next logical question in this sequence is "why do you believe that?"

Unfortunately, the obvious answer is "because that is what it says in the bible" or something equally unproductive, so I will go right for the jugular.

Why do you believe that whichever interpretation of whatever holy text you do believe in, out of the thousands that have existed or do exist currently, is the correct one?

Derived from that question than, what do you believe happens to those who believe equally as devoutly that they are right and you are the one in the wrong?

Lastly, why would something created by God (Satan), in full first hand knowledge of God's power, ever think that he would be capable of winning a war against an omniscient and all-powerful being? Is it not imprudent to think that God is all-powerful if something that new him more intimately than you or I could in life was willing to take him on in direct battle?

One would think that this implies the possibility of winning said war, therefore implying God is mortal, corruptible or has limits to his powers. This would be made more evident by the idea that even after this mutiny from a beloved creation, even after knowing the future and knowing that this creation will purposefully corrupt many more of God's creations, wouldn't a truly kind and caring God simply blink this defiler, this mutineer out of existence?

Curious your take.