Im atheist and never read the bible should I? Im 20 just incase someone asks me how fucking old I am. Honestly, I don't see a reason to.

[This message has been edited by jca2006 (edited 08-25-2006).]

You only have one life, don't waste it reading that shit.

I was forced to read it all at 14-15. It's enlightening in several ways: it can strengthen your atheism, as it's plainly, painfully obviously not divine; though a few books I found interesting and worth reading for their own sake.

Oh, don't worry I wasn't planning on it. Just thought I'd ask, but thanks.

quote:Originally posted by jca2006:

Im atheist and never read the bible should I? Im 20 just incase someone asks me how fucking old I am. Honestly, I don't see a reason to.



If you don't see a reason to, then don't.

But, I really enjoy the OT most of all. If you become interested, then I'd suggest you read some of the "Wisdom" books, I find them the most enjoyable.

it is interesting, and reading it lead me to be a buddhist. it is an interesting book though. but if you don't see a point to read it, then don't. (taken from above post)

quote:Originally posted by Jackketchs Muse:

If you don't see a reason to, then don't.

But, I really enjoy the OT most of all. If you become interested, then I'd suggest you read some of the "Wisdom" books, I find them the most enjoyable.



The OT is a literary cesspit of irrelevant and boring passages, evil and horrendous punishments/actions inflicted by a human "God", and sheer acid-trippery.

There is no "should" about it. Just remember that the deity portrayed in the Bible is mythical, and ponder the words of Mark Twain--"the Bible contains some noble poetry, a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of a thousand lies."

Since much of western culture is, perhaps unfortunately, based on the Bible, your education would be broadened by a study of it.

You should convince yourself that God is imaginary. If this requires you to read some of the Bible, then do it. However, reading it for the sake of reading it is stupid. There are literally hundreds of thousands of books that are more well-written than the Bible. Read those instead.

I don't recommend it. It's anything but a light read, and I personally didn't really enjoy any of the parts I did read. Quite simply, it's dull and tedious.

Personally, I would much rather spend my time reading novels or philosophy that actually addresses the discussions relevant to religions. They tend to be much more enlightening and much more interesting.

Having said all that, it was worth it to me to read certain passages and extracts to find exactly which Biblical quotes come from what context, but reading the whole thing is a might chore.

I don't speak Chinese. Should I learn Chinese? Why not? But, I probably wont. Really, you can't learn too much, and how can you even really call yourself Atheist if you haven't read the bible. That's like saying you don't know anything about being an astronaut but you're positive that aliens don't exist. It's silly.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by PerpetualBurn:

I don't recommend it. It's anything but a light read, and I personally didn't really enjoy any of the parts I did read. Quite simply, it's dull and tedious.

Personally, I would much rather spend my time reading novels or philosophy that actually addresses the discussions relevant to religions. They tend to be much more enlightening and much more interesting.

Having said all that, it was worth it to me to read certain passages and extracts to find exactly which Biblical quotes come from what context, but reading the whole thing is a might chore.



People do what they want. If something interests you, then you will certainly seek to understand it and find what you are looking for.

A wise man will seek to understand more than just what interests him. He will work for it. He will look further for what he seeks. If he truly wants to find truth, he will scale the tallest mountain to find it.

jca2006, every man needs two legs to stand. Man's greatest quality is curiousity. Don't take it for granted, but never forget what killed the cat.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

I don't speak Chinese. Should I learn Chinese? Why not? But, I probably wont. Really, you can't learn too much, and how can you even really call yourself Atheist if you haven't read the bible. That's like saying you don't know anything about being an astronaut but you're positive that aliens don't exist. It's silly.

Cheers,

Lost

I don't know where your heart is, Lost, but the OP would be wise to pay attention to your words.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause

how can you even really call yourself Atheist if you haven't read the bible.

There are plenty of so called holy books out there, and one doesn't have to read them all to come to the conclusion that he's an atheist. I'm an atheist and I have never read the Bible front to back.



quote:Originally posted by LostCause

That's like saying you don't know anything about being an astronaut but you're positive that aliens don't exist. It's silly.

I'm fairly certain that alien life forms exist and I'm also fairly certain that aliens have never visited us before, and I don't know a whole lot about being an astronaut.

quote:Originally posted by jca2006:

Im atheist and never read the bible should I? Im 20 just incase someone asks me how fucking old I am. Honestly, I don't see a reason to.



I do see this topic as a trap waiting to be sprung - but, silly me..I'll put my .02 in anyway -

Before I came to faith I attempted to read the bible. I tried several times to force myself to get through it. But, the more I dug in the more it remained hidden. It seemed like every page was repeating itself and it made no sense.

There is a "bible code" but don't think I'm referencing the Davinci deal...I'm not.

The codes in the bible are only revealed to us by the Holy SPirit of God. The parables of the bible will remain hidden from those who can not "hear".

It was until I came to faith did the bible begin revealing itself and speaking directly to my heart.

What is the point of what I'm saying - even with careful study and mentoring the unfaithful may not recieve "the message" as it is a revelation from God. He reveals it to us.

The bible is spiritual food for our spiritual bodies - you have to be born again in spirit to recieve the message. Without being "born again" you remain spiritualy dead.

How can a dead body be fed?

Anybody can listen but not everybody can hear.

I don't have an answer to your question- but even if you did begin to read the bible - If your intent is purely seeking God then the words will dance on your heart in a sweet symphony - but if all you are doing is looking to discredit then it is not possible for that joy to enter into your heart.



[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 08-25-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

[B]I and how can you even really call yourself Atheist if you haven't read the bible.

Because the logical and rational approach would be to attempt to appreciate the concept of God before one even begins to approach the Bible.

First make a conclusion about the existence of God, and THEN study his nature.

quote: That's like saying you don't know anything about being an astronaut but you're positive that aliens don't exist. It's silly.

I love patently absurd analogies.

It's like watching an elephant trying to knit.

quote:Originally posted by HampTheToker:

People do what they want. If something interests you, then you will certainly seek to understand it and find what you are looking for.

A wise man will seek to understand more than just what interests him. He will work for it. He will look further for what he seeks. If he truly wants to find truth, he will scale the tallest mountain to find it.



Lol @ Mr. Miyagi act.

Sorry...perhaps that was a bit immature. But of course that really was some inane ideological drivel. I can do it too:

'Tis the wise man who learns from his mistakes, but 'tis the wiser man who learns from the mistakes of others.

From experience, reading the Bible is a mistake.

You should definitely read it. In fact, read all the sacred texts. There are a ton on Erowid. They will open your eyes--not as in make you believe, but let you understand other cultures and the world around you.

When I was younger I was forced to go to church, and I have read the revalations, and some of the bible, but it got boring, and I just didn't have any interest in it.

I don't recommend it, unless you're debating with Christians, know what they believe or for scholary reasons.

Read myths. They teach you that you can turn inward, and you begin to get the message of the symbols. Read other people's myths, not those of your own religion, because you tend to interpret your own religion in terms of facts -- but if you read the other ones, you begin to get the message. Myth helps you to put your mind in touch with this experience of being alive. Myth tells you what the experience is.

-- Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth



[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 08-25-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hespeaks:

I don't recommend it, unless you're debating with Christians, know what they believe or for scholary reasons.



I always wondered what the purpose and intent of debating someone's faith?

Why would you?

quote:Originally posted by jca2006:

Im atheist and never read the bible should I? Im 20 just incase someone asks me how fucking old I am. Honestly, I don't see a reason to.



You should do it just to not self censor yourself. No point in being close minded.

Besides I occasionally go to church to maintain relations with my family, but I'm not religious. They really started wanting to send me to go to church when I told them I'm atheist, it surprisingly has made me more logical and more able to recognize lack of logic and reasoning. Also you hear bible stories you wouldn't hear otherwise and they have actually have made me laugh. Like the one where a 10 headed dragon with 7 horns on each head and 7 deities on each head sends 1/3 of the stars into earth. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

So I say go for it, how can you say your an atheist without knowing if your right?

quote:Originally posted by Interest

I always wondered what the purpose and intent of debating someone's faith?

Why would you?

For the same reason that you and I are debating in another thread. You're trying to get me and others to see your way of thinking is correct and I'm trying to show you and others that my way of thinking is correct.

We that are more scientific minded want to show others that accepting claims on faith or relying on unfalsifiable categories does not even come in a close second to accepting claims based on verifiability and falsifiability.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

I always wondered what the purpose and intent of debating someone's faith?

Why would you?

If the Christian is making the claim (that he believes as fact) and believes that therefore believes that the opponent's view is wrong, than the opponent has the right to debate the claim (Such as God created the Earth, not natural processes, etc) on the basis of Fact, not faith. Thats what debating is all about.

quote:Originally posted by Raw_Power:

You only have one life, don't waste it reading that shit.

You only have one life, use it to gain knowledge, including that shit! Read the Qur'an while you're at it.

quote:Originally posted by hespeaks:

If the Christian is making the claim (that he believes as fact) and believes that therefore believes that the opponent's view is wrong, than the opponent has the right to debate the claim (Such as God created the Earth, not natural processes, etc) on the basis of Fact, not faith. Thats what debating is all about.

I agree - however, you are comparing your knowledge of the secular to the Christians knowledge of the spiritual. They are seperate things - You can't use the same logic as the principles that govern each are not the same.

The debate is you can only see the principles the rule the secular and that is fine - I don't want to challenge that. But, the idea that because you can not put love in a test tube and measure it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We can't say it is foolishness to believe in it because it is not one of the principles of human discovery taught by equation or having to be true based on it needs to be able to be proven false.



[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 08-26-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Martini:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by [b]Interest



I always wondered what the purpose and intent of debating someone's faith?

Why would you?

[quote]quote:

For the same reason that you and I are debating in another thread.

Certainly, and that debate will go on forever. but that doesn't fit into the question at hand.

quote:

You're trying to get me and others to see your way of thinking is correct and I'm trying to show you and others that my way of thinking is correct.

without a doubt you are correct - the question was why debate faith though? Not why debate?

Science says faith can't be disproven so by that formula it is false - I'm saying that evolution isn't exactly proven either. The science changes with the next big discovery.

quote:

We that are more scientific minded want to show others that accepting claims on faith or relying on unfalsifiable categories does not even come in a close second to accepting claims based on verifiability and falsifiability.

I agree, if we are talking about apples we should apply the principles that surround apples though. If we are talking about oranges we shouldn't apply the princples of apples. If however, you think that it is possible to disprove God by understanding His creation is illogical. That is why I challenge. I don't believe everything I'm told without debate...and I don't believe the study and force feeding evolution to the masses is intellectually honest.



[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 08-26-2006).]

read both the bible and koran, and maybe the torah if you get around to it, they're actually interesting to read and youll be suprised at the similiarities.

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

...ponder the words of Mark Twain--"the Bible contains some noble poetry, a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of a thousand lies."

I did not have any interest in poetry until I read the old testament books.

quote:Originally posted by Interest

Science says faith can't be disproven so by that formula it is false

Science absolutely DOES NOT say that that which can not be disproven is false.



quote:Originally posted by Interest

I'm saying that evolution isn't exactly proven either.

Yes, it is. Evolution happens and that is a fact. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

quote:Originally posted by Interest

and I don't believe the study and force feeding evolution to the masses is intellectually honest.

You don't think we should be teaching science in science classrooms? Evolution is a real scientific theory, which means it is something that is and has been studied and observed by science. Not teaching what we know about evolution would be intellectually dishonest!



* Evolution underlies many improvements in agriculture (e.g., the artificial selection of crop strains and livestock breeds).

* A less well-known fact is that evolutionary principles were used to produce many of our best vaccines and that evolution also causes problems with the use of some of those vaccines.

* Some of the most promising areas for the future use of evolutionary biology lie in drug development and the biotechnology industry; patents worth vast amounts of money are based on ways of creating evolution (or avoiding evolution) in test tubes.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/bull.html

quote:Originally posted by Martini:



Originally posted by Interest

Science says faith can't be disproven so by that formula it is false

Science absolutely DOES NOT say that that which can not be disproven is false.



Sorry, I should have said "accepted"



quote:Originally posted by Interest

I'm saying that evolution isn't exactly proven either.

Yes, it is. Evolution happens and that is a fact.

[/b][/quote]

Then what's next for the human being? My keyboard has 102 keys or whatever - does that mean I'm going to evolve to meet my new environment. Are we going to grow more fingers or something?

I'm assuming since evolution is happening there would be some kind of evidence available right now?

..I'm just trying to use logic here and think it through -

htt p://www.ta lkorigins. org/faqs/evolution-fact.html (http: //www.talk origins.or g/faqs/evo lution-fac t.html)

quote:Originally posted by Interest

and I don't believe the study and force feeding evolution to the masses is intellectually honest.

You don't think we should be teaching science in science classrooms? [/b][/quote]

is that what I said? No..that is not what I said - evolution is not the definition of science.

quote:

Evolution is a real scientific theory, which means it is something that is and has been studied and observed by science.

HOw can that be true when so much is dependent on millions of years of adaption, selective adoption and so on - who observed this again?

quote:

Not teaching what we know about evolution would be intellectually dishonest!

I would teach about the unknowns and potential fallability before demanding everyone agree it is all true with no variance or error.

quote:

* Evolution underlies many improvements in agriculture (e.g., the artificial selection of crop strains and livestock breeds).



I think that is called bio engineering - not evolution - it is DNA manipulation

quote:

* A less well-known fact is that evolutionary principles were used to produce many of our best vaccines and that evolution also causes problems with the use of some of those vaccines.



Is it really evolution or just the deeper study of the human genome?

quote:

* Some of the most promising areas for the future use of evolutionary biology lie in drug development and the biotechnology industry; patents worth vast amounts of money are based on ways of creating evolution (or avoiding evolution) in test tubes.

Again this can't possibly be an example of naturally occuring events - All of these examples do not show any kind of proof that we came out of the slug pool and eventually turned into bipedal intellectuals...

quote:

http://www .actionbio science.org/newfrontiers/bull.html (http: //www.acti onbioscien ce.org/new frontiers/ bull.html)

my mom read the children's bible to me (when i was a youngin), well, the old testament and pretty much it was tight. i didn't get all religious and i thought they were cool stories about plage, pestilence and murder. anyway, you can "waste your time" or you can just read kurt vonnegut jr cause he's tight like swatch. sweeet

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

HOw can that be true when so much is dependent on millions of years of adaption, selective adoption and so on - who observed this again?

When a murder happens, there can be no witnesses but there is always evidence left behind. The dead body, fingerprints etc. When all evidence points to a murder, why do you refuse to accept it? Is it because you would wish the dead body alive at all costs? Wishful thinking is one thing, but against overwhelming evidence it's simply insanity.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

When a murder happens, there can be no witnesses but there is always evidence left behind. The dead body, fingerprints etc. When all evidence points to a murder, why do you refuse to accept it? Is it because you would wish the dead body alive at all costs? Wishful thinking is one thing, but against overwhelming evidence it's simply insanity.





What you are saying is not illogical. It makes perfect sense. IF all the evidence is in - the forensics are done and all concludes that the body was killed by a certain way then yes, I agree.

But, I don't see it is that simple - OJ Simpson walked away from His murder trial despite all the evidence that pointed to him - did he do it? We'll never know because anything else beyond that is speculation and personal opinion.

That is how I see evolution - there is so much that points to a "evolution" but the contradicitons still exist.

Scientists are still haggling over it. People much more educated then me are still skeptical about it.. It is still being challenged. That means it is not true without a shadow of doubt.

You may fully believe evolution is true but science is not perfect.

I mean back in the 70's and 80's there was a cry for "global cooling" the scientists believed we were entering into another ice age - well today it's global warming...

so if we wait another 20 years of weather patterns will we see something else?

I don't trust science with my intellect nor my faith. They have been wrong in the past and will continue to be wrong in the future. I accept what is proven true - like light bulbs - the cure for hemoroids or the combustion engine.

Evolution has no useful purpose other then social engineering and reconstruction of a culture. It falls in line with the "politically correct" world view of secularism which is much more sinister then we realize.

I can't convince you that it is a mind trap - as I'm told countless times - I'm ignorant to the facts - because I don't have a PHD in evolution I can't discount it or reject it.

Think about it for a second...

So I'm certain each and everyone of you here do not have a PHD in "evolution". Therefor it is suspect your backgrounds are not learned enough to claim it's validity.

You accept evolution for the same reasons people accept Christianity - science is being used as the modern day God slayer in our culture.

[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 08-26-2006).]

Im an Atheist, ever since i learned to think on my own. Christianity is just a very old cult used to justify a lot of the problems going on (wars etc.) and it has so many flaws loopholes and contradictions it cant be correct. I cant say the same for the other religions because i dont know them as well but im sure the same goes for the rest. Religion is just a bad idea, its designed to make a large group of people think act and feel the same (cult???). If there really is a god he really must be incompitant or just doesnt give a shit. An example of a loophole would be the catholic dogma of cristening, aparently everybody is born with sin so they must be subjected to this ritual, but they say jesus was flawless, he was born a human so wouldnt he be born with sin? Making him imperfect.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

I agree - however, you are comparing your knowledge of the secular to the Christians knowledge of the spiritual. They are seperate things - You can't use the same logic as the principles that govern each are not the same.

The debate is you can only see the principles the rule the secular and that is fine - I don't want to challenge that. But, the idea that because you can not put love in a test tube and measure it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We can't say it is foolishness to believe in it because it is not one of the principles of human discovery taught by equation or having to be true based on it needs to be able to be proven false.





If the idea of the "spiritual" cannot be debated by logic or discovery, than what is the point of arguing for it anyway? Since it is based on perspective, than it follows that if people believe that hydras created the world, we, can't prove it false because we can only believe it in a "spiritual level", not by logic and facts. It creates unintelligibilty.

A logically impossible thing cannot happen. Applying the word "spiritual" to it does nothing to aid the cause.

dude u should totally read it, at the end luke skywalker fights voldemort with herminone's dildo.

[Hamps semi-rant on science]

I am a Christian. Science has always fascinated me and kept me curious about the world we walk through during the course of our lives.

Men wrote the bible.

Men theorize about their environment.

Men are fallible.

I don't have much time, so I'll get to my point.

If God created Heaven and Earth, then he also created the laws that govern them. I see science as God's blueprint for life and it's processes. The laws that govern our world are so specific, so precise, and so completely dependent on one another, that if you take away one brick the whole tower will crumble.

[/Hamps semi-rant on science]

quote:Originally posted by hespeaks:

If the idea of the "spiritual" cannot be debated by logic or discovery, than what is the point of arguing for it anyway? Since it is based on perspective, than it follows that if people believe that hydras created the world, we, can't prove it false because we can only believe it in a "spiritual level", not by logic and facts. It creates unintelligibilty.



You make a very good point and I agree. If the religious claim dominion on the creation of the universe and the scientists claim it was all by chance we are here then their lies the conflict and the debate will continue on forever.



There are many learned people who live by faith - they are in all places and status of our communities. These are level headed and sound minded professionals who have experienced something otherworldly.

Not many people have the ability to explain that expierience or even debate over what it was they experienced. Once you know - you know and then you see that all things carnal are not much more then a giant veil that hides God from us.

Sure somebody can be debated to the point they discount their experience - it is possible because what lies behind that veil makes no worldly logical sense. You can not measure God with a ruler or a beaker. God is "LOVE"...how do you measure love?



God's voice trumpets like a whisper on our hearts - and resounds like a small ripple on a pond through our person. It is too gentle for those who live by pride and ego to hear. When someone believes and stills their person and softens their heart to what God says then the voice booms like a raging flood of love, peace and joy as it pours out onto the heart of man.

One of the great challenges we all face is being that conduit for God's love in this world. As we, who He claims are His, are ingrafted into His family. By our "re-birth" we are given His spirit and blood. A changed mind and a new heart with a new perspective in life.

This is the profound experience most true believers know. How are you supposed to logically explain it or debate it?

Because the bible said Jesus walked on water, you say it isn't possible. It makes no logical sense for someone to walk on water - it defies earthly logic - but what was the lesson that we all miss when we think that way? What was being taught is rely on God through faith in troubled times. He will bring us through it but we must remain faithful else we fail.

The scientists can not hear that message becaus they can not get past the stumbling block of Jesus walking on water. It defies reason so everything beyond it is unreasonable. God tests us in His perfect ways.







[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 08-27-2006).]

quote:Originally Posted By Interest

...

You implicitly prove my point, that these "experiences" are purely personal. Yes, learned individuals have these experiences but it doesn't follow that it is true, that God is really talking to them. Just like people who claim to see UFOs and that Elvis is still alive. It is only when it can be proven veridical, that no other explanation could be made, then it could be seriously considered. By your mentioning of the walking of the water, you suggest that we can't take the Bible literally. If we can't, then how can it be a basis of truth, if its interpretations vary? One says that God created the Earth in 6 days, One says it signifies 6 levels, One says that the 6 days coud signify millions of years, etc...

quote:Originally posted by Interest:



That is how I see evolution - there is so much that points to a "evolution" but the contradicitons still exist.

Scientists are still haggling over it. People much more educated then me are still skeptical about it.. It is still being challenged. That means it is not true without a shadow of doubt.

I'm afraid it is. The only doubts left are about the details and specifics of the theory. No respectable scientist is skeptical about the validity of evolution. If you've been told otherwise, you've been lied to.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:



I don't trust science with my intellect nor my faith. They have been wrong in the past and will continue to be wrong in the future. I accept what is proven true - like light bulbs - the cure for hemoroids or the combustion engine.

Evolution has no useful purpose other then social engineering and reconstruction of a culture.

You said you are ignorant of the facts, yet you are hasty to make such confident, but oh so wrong conclusions. The principles of evolution have been applied in modern fields like medicine and agriculture and have yielded results. http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/bull.html

quote:Originally posted by Interest:



It falls in line with the "politically correct" world view of secularism which is much more sinister then we realize.

You had made such bold statements without backing them in a much older debate between us. I trust you will do the same again.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:



I can't convince you that it is a mind trap - as I'm told countless times - I'm ignorant to the facts - because I don't have a PHD in evolution I can't discount it or reject it.

It seems to me you already rejected it. A "mind trap"...how paranoid can you get?

quote:Originally posted by Interest:



Think about it for a second...

So I'm certain each and everyone of you here do not have a PHD in "evolution". Therefor it is suspect your backgrounds are not learned enough to claim it's validity.

You accept evolution for the same reasons people accept Christianity - science is being used as the modern day God slayer in our culture.

It's hard to argue against the paranoid feelings that emanate from your post.

You say you are ignorant of the facts, yet not only are you convinced against evolution, but you would easily try to convince others. Yes, I did not study biology, I studied computer science. But I like to read about interesting things and have come to an understanding of evolution. You don't need to become an expert in order to understand something. Do you even bother to understand something before you reject it? Are you afraid that understanding may compromise the beliefs you have on faith?

Pompous statements like "science is a God-slayer" are hardly impressing. Science has nothing to say about God. In fact, you will find that most atheists owe their beliefs in the absurdity of the bible more than anything else.

My suggestion is, if you really care about being honest and knowledgable about your beliefs, to pick up a book or two about evolution from a REAL scientist just so you know what the fuss is about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popular_science_books_on_evolution

Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is is a good introductory book. It covers most of the essentials and is an easy read.

http://tinyurl.com/oty3z

quote:Originally posted by hespeaks:

Originally Posted By Interest

...

You implicitly prove my point, that these "experiences" are purely personal. Yes, learned individuals have these experiences but it doesn't follow that it is true, that God is really talking to them. Just like people who claim to see UFOs and that Elvis is still alive. It is only when it can be proven veridical, that no other explanation could be made, then it could be seriously considered. By your mentioning of the walking of the water, you suggest that we can't take the Bible literally. If we can't, then how can it be a basis of truth, if its interpretations vary? One says that God created the Earth in 6 days, One says it signifies 6 levels, One says that the 6 days coud signify millions of years, etc...



It's not all that simple - you have to be careful of the template you apply to the bible to get an understanding.

There are literal accounts of people whitnessing events and testifying to it. There are symbolic references to more complex ideas. Jesus walking on water was one of those events that more then one person claim as true. As for the 6 days of creation - nobody was around for that so it of course is the source of much debate. As for the symbology of dragons, lamp stands etc. of course that is not literal - the real message is hidden inside the immagery.

So the bible on some accounts can be taken literaly - but there is no literal message in the bible that doesn't have a teaching without purpose.

Take for example - Jesus healing a blind begger -

Litereally we hear that Jesus did a cool thing - the deeper message is a part of the reason why Jesus came -

To give sight to the spiritually blind so that we may see - To give hearing to the spiritually deaf so that we may hear.. etc.

Notice he never picked up a mountain and hurled around the world or anything?

Most of the miracles revolved around -

feeding the masses - curing the lame, deaf, blind, raising the dead..etc. why?

It is symbolic to being born again - that when we become born again we will experience all of those things.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

I'm afraid it is. The only doubts left are about the details and specifics of the theory. No respectable scientist is skeptical about the validity of evolution. If you've been told otherwise, you've been lied to.

I'm happy that you have fully accepted it as truth. What else can I say - I don't care to change your view - I am only saying I don't agree...



quote:

You said you are ignorant of the facts, yet you are hasty to make such confident, but oh so wrong conclusions. The principles of evolution have been applied in modern fields like medicine and agriculture and have yielded results. http://www .actionbio science.org/newfrontiers/bull.html (http: //www.acti onbioscien ce.org/new frontiers/ bull.html)

Are you certain that the princples being used in modern fields like medicine and agriculture are not much more then manipulation of the natural ways and not exactly the concept of evolution?

I mean an engine from a factory built truck can be modified to create more power- but that of course puts stress on other areas of the vehicle which need to be reengineered.

It's not difficult to reverse engineer the tangible...but to say because we came out of a slug pool as ameoba is the reason why can manipulate DNA. Doesn't make sense and I don't see the fit. To say bio-modified food is the result of the study of millions of years of a theorectical concept doesn't fly.

It is the result of understanding what is already here - not what existed a million years ago.

quote:

You had made such bold statements without backing them in a much older debate between us. I trust you will do the same again.

I most likely did - but I suppose we'll go rounds again..

quote:

It seems to me you already rejected it. A "mind trap"...how paranoid can you get?

I think the real word is skeptical..

quote:

It's hard to argue against the paranoid feelings that emanate from your post.

You say you are ignorant of the facts, yet not only are you convinced against evolution, but you would easily try to convince others. Yes, I did not study biology, I studied computer science. But I like to read about interesting things and have come to an understanding of evolution. You don't need to become an expert in order to understand something. Do you even bother to understand something before you reject it?

I'll try to explain - if someone says they have a perpetual motion machine - they have all the drawings and diagrams that prove it will work - ok so a theory exists - then all we have to do is follow the theory and recreate it to prove it's possible.

There are many little subsystems that make up the machine - timers, mechanical parts and gears, electronics, circuit boards, etc..

So he knows the timers work as planned - the gears and mechanical parts are flawless - the electronics are spot on - but none of them work together in his creation. For some reason the theory is incomplete because there missing details or the idea is flawed to begin with.

So I see evolution is one big system made up of many smaller subsystems.. the fossil record, geneology, chromsome mapping, speciation, macro evolution, etc etc...

By themeselves they may stand up to scientific scrutiny but when combined..I don't believe that they arrive at the intended target. That is what makes sense to my logical thinking mind.

[quote]

Are you afraid that understanding may compromise the beliefs you have on faith?



Not really - I mean it is a reason for my motivation but my faith isn't going to be proven or disproven by scientists studying the world and universe we live in. You will have to admit they do get it wrong fairly often.

[quote]quote:

Pompous statements like "science is a God-slayer" are hardly impressing. Science has nothing to say about God. In fact, you will find that most atheists owe their beliefs in the absurdity of the bible more than anything else.

Ok..we can stop the personal attacks about now...paranoid, pompous..what next? I don't go around saying you're stupid and going to hell. Why do you treat me the same and feel it is ok? All I see is another "hellfire" preacher for science when you write like that.



Anyway, we are talking about beliefs anyway - if you don't see or even hear what other athiests say about science then your not seeing the big picture. Just the other day someone wrote..don't worry - the more science proves evolution the more faith will go away and prove God doesn't exist or something like that. I'm not convinced you are telling the truth.

quote:

My suggestion is, if you really care about being honest and knowledgable about your beliefs, to pick up a book or two about evolution from a REAL scientist just so you know what the fuss is about. htt p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popular_science_books_on_evolution (http: //en.wikip edia.org/w iki/List_o f_popular_ science_bo oks_on_evo lution)



OK..I'll do that - but, only if you read the bible and get educated on it before claiming it's false hood.

http://bibleresources.bible.com/bible_read.php

fair?

Then we can have an educated discussion.







[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 08-28-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Interest:



It's not all that simple - you have to be careful of the template you apply to the bible to get an understanding.

There are literal accounts of people whitnessing events and testifying to it. There are symbolic references to more complex ideas. Jesus walking on water was one of those events that more then one person claim as true. As for the 6 days of creation - nobody was around for that so it of course is the source of much debate. As for the symbology of dragons, lamp stands etc. of course that is not literal - the real message is hidden inside the immagery.

So the bible on some accounts can be taken literaly - but there is no literal message in the bible that doesn't have a teaching without purpose.

Take for example - Jesus healing a blind begger -

Litereally we hear that Jesus did a cool thing - the deeper message is a part of the reason why Jesus came -

To give sight to the spiritually blind so that we may see - To give hearing to the spiritually deaf so that we may hear.. etc.

Notice he never picked up a mountain and hurled around the world or anything?

Most of the miracles revolved around -

feeding the masses - curing the lame, deaf, blind, raising the dead..etc. why?

It is symbolic to being born again - that when we become born again we will experience all of those things.



First of all, Prove that the "testimonies" of the Gospels are veridical, since you assume that these are true. Anyone can have their interpretations, however the question presented is that can the Bible can be used as a modicum of truth, that one can use it to dispute scientific truths. Since by your admission, its meaning varies, its based on perspective "when we become born again...Bible on some accounts can be taken literally" and its accounts are higly disputed (Genesis account) then it cannot.

N.B For your assumption about evolutionary theory, here's a quote from Judge John E. Jones' ruling "For example, it is incorrect to assume that a complex structure or biochemical process can function

only if all its components are present and functioning as we see them today. Complex biochemical systems can be built up from simpler systems through natural selection."And the mechanisms of evolution, which are not theoretical, which have been observed (mutations, adaptations) is used to guide the development of medicine and other aids, such as the effort to contain the bird flu virus.

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309095042/html/123.html#p2000c2099960123001 http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol11no10/05-0644G1.htm http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol11no10/05-0644.htm



[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 08-28-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hespeaks:

First of all, Prove that the "testimonies" of the Gospels are veridical, since you assume that these are true.

How could I go about to prove the testimonies of the Gospels? Even if I could prove that Jesus existed and found the whitnesses that testified you still would be just as skeptical about them as I am about evolution.

I mean even one testimony about Thomas who doubted it all until he put his hands in the actual wounds of Jesus. What would it take for you?

quote:

Anyone can have their interpretations,

There are correct and incorrect interpretation of the script..the lack of understanding the bible as a whole is the reason for most "bad religious ideas"

quote:

however the question presented is that can the Bible can be used as a modicum of truth, that one can use it to dispute scientific truths.

No, it can't be because it's intent is not to dispute scientific truths. I see the laws of physics and chemistry belong to God and it is only man's discovery. I see it that science is validating the bible. (I can hear the groans already) only time will tell.

quote:

Since by your admission, its meaning varies, its based on perspective "when we become born again...Bible on some accounts can be taken literally" and its accounts are higly disputed (Genesis account) then it cannot.



I dont' believe I admitted that the meaning of the bible text varies. I believe I said the opposite. It doesn't. It has several dimmensions to it. One passage can have many messages contained in it. It is the reader and that readers perspective, intent and experience that varries. The truth remains the same.

quote:

N.B For your assumption about evolutionary theory, here's a quote from Judge John E. Jones' ruling "For example, it is incorrect to assume that a complex structure or biochemical process can function

only if all its components are present and functioning as we see them today.

Complex biochemical systems can be built up from simpler systems through natural selection."

I appreciate the Judges work but, it doesn't make logical sense. The judge didn't put into account the natural redundancy in some biochemical processes.

For example the human kidneys - we only need one to function but the body doesn't disregard or shed the other.

If natural selection did occur in the human body through it's millions of years of "evolution" then wouldn't it of rejected all unnecessary parts?

Why would the human body continue to have redundant parts if the theories surrouding natural selection are true?

I only ask that you show proof and evidence and not pointing me to a webpage or quoting from a school book.

If I'm not allowed to use the bible as proof of God's existence then you can't use yours. Sounds fair to me.



[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 08-28-2006).]

quote:How could I go about to prove the testimonies of the Gospels? Even if I could prove that Jesus existed and found the whitnesses that testified you still would be just as skeptical about them as I am about evolution.

I mean even one testimony about Thomas who doubted it all until he put his hands in the actual wounds of Jesus. What would it take for you?

Since you base your assumptions on the “testimonies” of the Bible, it is necessary for you to state to us why we should treat them as true.

quote: There are correct and incorrect interpretation of the script..the lack of understanding the bible as a whole is the reason for most "bad religious ideas"

Again, you calling interpretations, “correct” and “incorrect” is your opinion, since the interpretations themselves are opinions on what the Bible is supposed to stay. A history of the numerous denominations of Christianity will prove this point.

quote: No, it can't be because it's intent is not to dispute scientific truths. I see the laws of physics and chemistry belong to God and it is only man's discovery. I see it that science is validating the bible. (I can hear the groans already) only time will tell.

The laws of Physics and Chemistry are characteristics of the present universe, whether it “belongs to God” is irrelevant. Science has already repudiated the supernatural claims of the Bible (in a literal fashion). Since it has, one can’t take these claims as a priori truths and therefore bash established science because of it.

quote:dont' believe I admitted that the meaning of the bible text varies. I believe I said the opposite. It doesn't. It has several dimmensions to it. One passage can have many messages contained in it. It is the reader and that readers perspective, intent and experience that varries. The truth remains the same.

And as I mentioned, what is your basis that the writings are true. The “truth” itself varies from denomination to denomination, believer to believer. The truth should be prima facie statement in which should be constant regardless of perspective, not something that is variable.

quote:If natural selection did occur in the human body through it's millions of years of "evolution" then wouldn't it of rejected all unnecessary parts? For example the human kidneys - we only need one to function but the body doesn't disregard or shed the other.

For the first statement, “vestigial organs” (I presume that’s what you’re talking about) are one of the proofs of natural selection, since they are homologous to structures that are functioning normally in other species. As the function of the structure is no longer beneficial for survival, the likelihood of the offspring will inherit the “normal” form of the structure decreases. And as for kidneys “We've got two lungs, two kidneys, and females and males have paired gonads. Even our brain has two hemispheres…Evolution has predominantly favored bilateral symmetry in animals thanks in part to the drive for forward motion.”

N.B The reason why you can't use the Bible to prove the existance of God is because the Bible itself presupposes the existance of God, it creates circular reasoning, not because of any arbitrary motive of mine. The proofs are in these objective web sites so don't use it as an excuse to ignore the statements presented.



[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 08-28-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hespeaks:

[QUOTE]

Since you base your assumptions on the “testimonies” of the Bible, it is necessary for you to state to us why we should treat them as true.

That is not completly true - I also base my assumptions on personal experience, experience of others, outcome driven results and repeatability. I've measured my soul with the bible - and that is the only tool we have to figure what any of the "spiritual" stuff means.

I've read many texts on the subject and all fall flat very quickly. But the bible has been substantial in all aspects.

Unless I can bring some biblical examples to bare I'm kind of dead in the water.



quote:Again, you calling interpretations, “correct” and “incorrect” is your opinion, since the interpretations themselves are opinions on what the Bible is supposed to stay. A history of the numerous denominations of Christianity will prove this point.

Certainly you are correct - factions is one of the things we were warned about and for that reason. The bible also warns about following any other "teacher" then Jesus.

There are passages in the bible that are very clear in their message and intent. There is no room for quesswork. As for the confusing parts - the bible speaks for itself - it is the highly dedicated who will find answers to the supposed "inaccuracies" and a "contradictions"

quote:The laws of Physics and Chemistry are characteristics of the present universe, whether it “belongs to God” is irrelevant. Science has already repudiated the supernatural claims of the Bible (in a literal fashion). Since it has, one can’t take these claims as a priori truths and therefore bash established science because of it.



Ah, so it is true - science is the God slayer of our times - again, I'm afraid you will miss this opportunity because you have measured and calculated incorrectly. Science will only prove or disprove what is of this world and universe. I will say it again- the spiritual and the secular are seperate things and are governed by seperate things.



quote:And as I mentioned, what is your basis that the writings are true. The “truth” itself varies from denomination to denomination, believer to believer. The truth should be prima facie statement in which should be constant regardless of perspective, not something that is variable.

I believe that is what I said - the truth is the constant and never changes despite who handles it - our failure or success at understanding and applying it is another thing.

quote:For the first statement, “vestigial organs” (I presume that’s what you’re talking about) are one of the proofs of natural selection, since they are homologous to structures that are functioning normally in other species. As the function of the structure is no longer beneficial for survival, the likelihood of the offspring will inherit the “normal” form of the structure decreases.[/b]

I understand - thanks -

So natural selection is smart enough - if that is the right words - meaning selection requires some kind of pattern or template or direction to decide what is and what is not beneficial to survival? - I mean it sounds kind of strange that a natural occuring phenomena occurs in the wild but still exiibits a form of intelligence. How does the natural selection know what is and what is not beneficial to survival?

But, no your response didn't answer the question - the question was how does redundancy in our organs make it through natural selection if natural selection is dictating what is and what is not "beneficial" or necessary (if I may) to survivial?

quote:

And as for kidneys “We've got two lungs, two kidneys, and females and males have paired gonads. Even our brain has two hemispheres…Evolution has predominantly favored bilateral symmetry in animals thanks in part to the drive for forward motion.”[b]

Well, since we are here and it's true - we have bilateral symmetry - but, where is the evidence that supports your claim that it was through an evolutionary process of chance or natural selection? Is there evidnece that goes beyond the ape family that shows this happening to the homosapien? or is it speculation?

[b] quote:

N.B The reason why you can't use the Bible to prove the existance of God is because the Bible itself presupposes the existance of God, it creates circular reasoning, not because of any arbitrary motive of mine.

Doesn't a school book do the same thing?

quote:

The proofs are in these objective web sites so don't use it as an excuse to ignore the statements presented.



The point was there comes a time where the the theories surrounding evolution fail to produce evidence. We don't have a two headed doe doe bird that eventually lost one of his heads and then became human. There is the missing gap of information - as it stands the homosapian it it's ancestors just appeared on earth - there is no other evidence that supports we came by natural selection or evolution. There is nothing in the fossil record that shows the transitions or conditions that lead to the "natural selection" of the species of homosapien. If so - please point me to it.

I've brought this up before and all I get is the run around.

man..we are so far off from the main topic..

sorry all -

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

* Again your personal experiences are irrelevant because its not in debate, the Bible is. And you can’t use Biblical examples without circumventing circular logic.

* So I guess those who can’t resolve the contradictions in the Bible aren’t “highly dedicated”. Spare the ad hominems, those who interpret the Bible will have different viewpoints, which they take as truth.

* Logic and Reason determines what can and cannot “Be”. If the spiritual cannot be deduced by these modicums, then it cannot be known unless it is some kind of psychological illusion.. And they are some scientists who are theistic Christians, even the Roman Catholic Church grant the compatibility of Science and Religion. So your God-slayer is invalid.

* You ignored what I stated, “What is your basis that the writings are true?” and these proofs should be prima facie evidence irrelevant of perspective. All of the perspectives (which vary) are based that the Bible is in some dimension, true. Prove it, then we could discuss further in this discussion.

* “Natural Selection is the process by which individual organisms which favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. If those traits are heritable, they are passed to succeeding generations, with the result that beneficial heritable traits become more common in the next generation.” Natural Selection does not dictate what is or not beneficial, the environment does. If by redundancy you are talking about “vestigial organs”, It may be difficult for natural selection to edit out the production of these without causing excessive disruption. Therefore it is used to indicate common ancestry with the organisms that have a functional version of the structure. As for bilateral symmetry “The big evolutionary step was bilateral symmetry, which creatures from nematodes and worms to starfish and humans have during some stage of their life cycle. Analysis of genetic divergence indicated the split came about 600 million years ago, but fossil evidence had been sorely lacking. The oldest macroscopic fossils that are clearly bilateral are of a mollusc-like creature called Kimberella that lived about 555 million years ago. “.

* No, a schoolbook reports the modern scientific advances, theories, and laws. Where is the circular reasoning?

*

First of all, some of the missing links have been formed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

* You’re ignoring that the majority of evolutionary theory is based on Comparative Anatomy/Biochemistry and Geographical Distribution. For example, neutral human DNA sequences are approximately 1.2% divergent (based on substitutions) from those of their nearest genetic relative, the chimpanzee, 1.6% from gorillas, and 6.6% from baboons.

</UL>



[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 08-29-2006).]

Natural selection does not exhibit any sort of intelligence. It is a process, not a being. If all things of type A produce more As and all things of type B produce more Bs, but Bs are destroyed at twice the rate As are, there will be more As than Bs. No intelligence is needed to attain this result; that's just how it happens due to various circumstances.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

I'm happy that you have fully accepted it as truth. What else can I say - I don't care to change your view - I am only saying I don't agree...

You can disagree on whether the earth is round, but it won't make it flat...

quote:Originally posted by Interest:



Are you certain that the princples being used in modern fields like medicine and agriculture are not much more then manipulation of the natural ways and not exactly the concept of evolution?

Evolution = natural ways. There's no way around it. Please, educate yourself before you doubt stuff you don't understand.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:



I mean an engine from a factory built truck can be modified to create more power- but that of course puts stress on other areas of the vehicle which need to be reengineered.

It's not difficult to reverse engineer the tangible...but to say because we came out of a slug pool as ameoba is the reason why can manipulate DNA. Doesn't make sense and I don't see the fit. To say bio-modified food is the result of the study of millions of years of a theorectical concept doesn't fly.

It is the result of understanding what is already here - not what existed a million years ago.

What existed a million years ago obeys the exact same physical laws. Evolution IS tangible, and it is happening as we speak. Again, read about it before you have the courage to say what flies and what doesn't.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:



I think the real word is skeptical..

A skeptical person has actual reasons to be skeptical. Besides, simply doubting is skeptical. Assuming all kinds of terrible consequences from an irrelevant scientific theory is paranoid.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:



I'll try to explain - if someone says they have a perpetual motion machine - they have all the drawings and diagrams that prove it will work - ok so a theory exists - then all we have to do is follow the theory and recreate it to prove it's possible.

There are many little subsystems that make up the machine - timers, mechanical parts and gears, electronics, circuit boards, etc..

So he knows the timers work as planned - the gears and mechanical parts are flawless - the electronics are spot on - but none of them work together in his creation. For some reason the theory is incomplete because there missing details or the idea is flawed to begin with.

So I see evolution is one big system made up of many smaller subsystems.. the fossil record, geneology, chromsome mapping, speciation, macro evolution, etc etc...

By themeselves they may stand up to scientific scrutiny but when combined..I don't believe that they arrive at the intended target. That is what makes sense to my logical thinking mind.

You are using an analogy that shows your misunderstanding of science. You can't prove a perpetual motion machine because it's simply against conservation of energy law. Science is not as reductive as you describe. It does not ignore the interaction between subsystems. When it comes to evolution, all the "subsystems" depend on each other and they all verify what you fear : humans share a common ancestor with every life form on earth.

I think that your "logical thinking" mind is not trying to make sense of this, but avoid a conclusion which should actually be irrelevant to your faith. I call paranoia again.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:



Not really - I mean it is a reason for my motivation but my faith isn't going to be proven or disproven by scientists studying the world and universe we live in. You will have to admit they do get it wrong fairly often.

And they are the same ones that do the correcting. Gravitation theory is incomplete as well, but I don't see you have a problem with it. Why is evolution a problem for your faith? It's like you are telling God what to do when he has clearly used evolution to make you.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:



Ok..we can stop the personal attacks about now...paranoid, pompous..what next? I don't go around saying you're stupid and going to hell. Why do you treat me the same and feel it is ok? All I see is another "hellfire" preacher for science when you write like that.

Playing the victim is a common christian tactic. It is you who called science a "God-slayer" which is both pompous and paranoid. I was stating the obvious, not making a personal attack.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:



Anyway, we are talking about beliefs anyway - if you don't see or even hear what other athiests say about science then your not seeing the big picture. Just the other day someone wrote..don't worry - the more science proves evolution the more faith will go away and prove God doesn't exist or something like that. I'm not convinced you are telling the truth.

Theists have a lot more absurdities to defend than the ones threatened by evolution. It is naive to think that evolution is the atheist's main tool.

You are not convinced I'm telling the truth... I think that when you value faith, you are basically disregarding truth. Faith is believing in something without evidence, truth is all about evidence. So, why do you care about truth? If you valued truth, you would appreciate evidence.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:



OK..I'll do that - but, only if you read the bible and get educated on it before claiming it's false hood. http://bibleresources.bible.com/bible_read.php

fair?

Then we can have an educated discussion.



First, you assume that I have not read it. I actually have a copy here, I don't need a site. For me, the bible is a mythology book that owes a lot to egyptian, babylonian and even greek myths. What exactly in it is supposed to be useful in this discussion? I'm already ready for an educated discussion, so I'll just wait for you to read on evolution.

I read it just because it's referenced so often. I'm not a believer but I figured if I'm going to argue with anyone I might aswell have my bases covered.