The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Great links, Roky! Thank You!

Originally Posted by trien27 ... Christianity is in itself not an original religion: It took bits and pieces from other living religions ...

That's talking about the "Christianity" of the churches? OK that's fair, because such concepts as Trinity, The Mother of God, image worship etc. are ACTUALLY taken from other living religions by the apostate Christians who gradually deviated from the teaching of the apostles (2-5 Century CE).

Such thing was also predicted by the apostles and Jesus himself as one can clearly read in the Bible. So they gradually absorbed from other then living religions such customs as division between laymen and clergymen (rather early in 2-3 century), Trinitarian God (the end of 3d century), celebration of the "saints", image worship etc. None of these are found among things taught by Jesus or apostles as described in the Bible.

So it would be very kind of you to distinguish, which "Christianity" you're talking about. Thanks .

Originally Posted by reed9 Right. So my statement stands.

Your "statement" in its present form, my dear fellow, only "stands" as specimen of rude and insolent answer.
Which it will be only wise to ignore.

Originally Posted by TigerLinux View Post Read the bible and think carefully with a humble heart.

Originally Posted by SL00b You're using the wrong organ. Thinking happens up higher.

May be to your interest, now research says brain cells are available in heart too. This is very much inline with what holy books says and we carry in our normal life statements.

http://www.therealessentials.com/followyourheart.html

In detail:
http://www.heartmath.org/research/sc...roduction.html

They have hearts with which they do not understand, they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear. Quran (7:179)

Originally Posted by kostya Your "statement" in its present form, my dear fellow, only "stands" as specimen of rude and insolent answer. Which it will be only wise to ignore.

Take it as you will. At best your position boils down to an argument from ignorance, god of the gaps type thing. We don't know, therefore god. You're making vast assumptions about prior probability that we have no way to quantify and claiming it as proof that there must have been intelligence behind the origin of life. So when you say "...not everything that "doesn't make sense from the start" is necessarily wrong. But our lack of knowledge suggests that we at least don't jump to conclusions before doing a good research", it would be nice if you applied that same principle to your own position.

Originally Posted by reed9 Take it as you will. At best your position boils down to an argument from ignorance, god of the gaps type thing. We don't know, therefore god. You're making vast assumptions about prior probability that we have no way to quantify and claiming it as proof that there must have been intelligence behind the origin of life. So when you say "...not everything that "doesn't make sense from the start" is necessarily wrong. But our lack of knowledge suggests that we at least don't jump to conclusions before doing a good research", it would be nice if you applied that same principle to your own position.

OK, now that you EXPLAIN your meaning it doesn't seem as black as before.
Well firstly, not unlike evolutionists, I have my own "preferences" among the theories to choose. They prefer "we don't know, yet god we definitely don't want, therefore evolution". Fine! Then I prefer as you stated. We're even here.

Then the method of quantifying of probabilities in general is well enough explained and has been quite successfully applied ever since. Sure enough, one will always question it when dissatisfied with end result: it's only "probability" after all, so there will always be disagreements on how to apply the method correctly.
Here we're even once again: they're using their right to question the calculations, we -- to put our trust in them. Although understanding what these calculations are based upon, I feel pretty safe to not care much about this issue: whether the probability is 10 in the power of -100 or -50 it equally dismisses the thing as almost absolutely impossible. How much more so when speaking about a whole chain of such events! It is not SO difficult to understand.

Then finally about my "jumping to conclusions before doing a research". I could be in a good position to do so: as I have enough evidence of the existence of God, I could easily dismiss all the evolution science as pure waste of time right from the start.
Instead, although already having my own fully enough justified point of view, I continue studying and analyzing whatever evidence and theories they invent. What do I find after a study? That it is as vulnerable to criticism as before.
Very nice! Then they're defending their point of view, and I'm the mine. Even once again.

And lastly, let's not forget one more thing: scientists are men like you and me. They have power of reason and intelligence like you and me. Sometimes they apply them successfully, sometimes they miss important points -- again, much like you and me! The abundance of information can serve to their advantage as well as to a disadvantage. And when they get overly excited about some suggestions they can easily be misled -- like every other one on this planet earth.
All this helps to dismiss a bit of that shroud of mystery around science. All that remains is available to anyone equipped with reason and thinking abilities.

Originally Posted by kostya Yea I thought so, too... Well, anyway, if you find such Jewish people, perhaps in a local synagogue, you can ask them. Just if I go ask them and then report back here, it will not convince, right?

You offered an interpretation of geneology based on historical cultural information, and now you're acting as if that information is completely unverifiable. So since you can't back up your argument with independent sources, I'm going to go ahead and ignore your point.

Originally Posted by kostya I'm tending to doubt it now.

That's another thing you're wrong about, then.

Originally Posted by reed9 Wrong. We have multiple lines of converging evidence. Even if we had NO fossils, the evidence would be overwhelming. Wrong. There are fossils of transitional species. Given that lots of people have written or said things that I find reprehensible and downright evil, yet I do not advocate for violence against them, I will continue to say you are wrong.

I also can throw tons of websites links which states websites you mentioned are having fake claims. Evolution is fake. Since we all here are not expert of this subject, I doubt discussing on this will lead us to anywhere.

http://creation.com/ancient-mutant-jamaican-sea-cows

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter8.php

http://www.creationism.org/caesar/haeckel.htm

Great Animation of how heart works. Its impossible for me to believe this could be evolved by chance....

Originally Posted by bluegospel Because I have sensation. A robot is defined as an invented machine, not born of woman. Besides, I have understanding that if I told you, you could never understand, not being submitted, or unless yor were to submit to God.

Hmm, you have sensation or are programmed to believe you have sensation? How could you know the difference?

Originally Posted by bluegospel Let me rephrase that: Does it make sense to drain the whole ocean to find one of the most endangered species if that's what you have to do to find it? And why haven't we made mining attempts as well, to validate what we think about the earth's layers--drilled to the core of the earth? What's in question here is less reasonable because you know in the first case there's an endangered species, and it's much less demanding to drill than to explore space.

The thing that doesn't make sense is this argument. Just admit we have barely begun to search for life and stop pretending we know it isn't there.

Originally Posted by bluegospel only to yourself Your nerves only tell me about electric signals that set off mechanical motion. There's no evidence you have sensation--that you're aware of anything.

Wrong. If there's an object in front of me, I can share visual sensory data through a photo. I can share visual and audio data through video. And I can convey certain touch sensory information through a variety of methods... put it on a scale to demonstrate mass, share temperature readings, etc. We don't have a method of sharing smell or taste, so you're out of luck there. You'll have to come by and do those things for yourself.

Originally Posted by bluegospel The soul is what you are in the context of eternity. Your nerves are part of your physical composition. Your soul has a degree of control over many of your nerves--if you will to stand to your feet or to sit down you can do it through your nerves, similar to flipping an electrical switch. But your nerves don't explain what's inside of you that allows you to will to do many of the things you like.

Argument by assertion. You have zero evidence for any of this.

Also, false statement in italics. My brain has full control of my nerves, as has been verified by numerous studies. There's no need to make up a "soul" to explain it.

It sounds like you're confusing self-awareness with "soul."

Originally Posted by bluegospel You can't verify that "others" have any sensation at all. Just because their language agrees with what you observe doesn't prove anything. They're just another "thing in front of you." Scientifically, this is fact. You can't prove anything to anybody except this one thing to yourself--you're a living, seeing, moving, breathing soul.

We can do an experiment, if you like. We can select one of your nerves, and sever it. Then you can observe the outcome, and you don't have to depend on me. The objective truth of the nature of nerves will become apparent to you.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Again, this makes little sense. As a newborn you immediately begin a lifelong learning process, which begins, not scientifically, but purely by natural inclination--curiosity, observation, exploration. Science requires methodology, which is taught--it's an invented methodology for discovering natural principles. Yet, as a newborn, as an infant and toddler we know nothing of scientific method, and yet even at this level of development we're discovering things about the universe. And yet you're saying you "can't have meaningful knowledge of the universe outside the limitations of science?"

A newborn begins exploring the nature of the world around it through trial and error. Gradually, the child figures out which methods they have tried which deliver reliable information, and which ones do not.

If you codify the most reliable methods of discovery ever tried by humans, you get science.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Because I have sensation. A robot is defined as an invented machine, not born of woman. Besides, I have understanding that if I told you, you could never understand, not being submitted, or unless yor were to submit to God.

And yet, you say that humans are an invented machine, designed by God. Contradiction.

Originally Posted by trien27 In other forums, such trolling unrelatedness isn't tolerated. I wish someone did something to put this out. It promotes hate. None of the real religions are stated: Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc... Christianity is in itself not an original religion: It took bits and pieces from other living religions

What makes you think these other religions are not the same way?

I'm no expert in any of the others, but I can promise you that Judaism is an amalgamation of different beliefs, then broken into separate sects, just like Christianity is. Judaism didn't exist in written form until Cyrus the Great of Persia freed the Jews from the Babylonian Captivity. It was a collection of oral traditions before then, and at that time, Cyrus financed the reconstruction of the temple, and the work of collecting the oral traditions into written form was begun.

This is why there are so many contradictions in the Old Testament. The Jews had more than one story of Creation, so both got told. There were conflicting stories about the Noah legend, and the pieces all got mixed together into one story.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Great Animation of how heart works. Its impossible for me to believe this could be evolved by chance....

Ah yes, because a god is sooo much more probable. But you misunderstand a fundamental feature of evolution. It is not by chance. Natural selection, sexual selection, these are non-random processes. That is why there things appear designed, they are. They're just not intelligently designed. And they don't appear to be. Life is terribly inefficient. If God designed life, he's a piss poor engineer.

Originally Posted by kostya That's talking about the "Christianity" of the churches? OK that's fair, because such concepts as Trinity, The Mother of God, image worship etc. are ACTUALLY taken from other living religions by the apostate Christians who gradually deviated from the teaching of the apostles (2-5 Century CE). Such thing was also predicted by the apostles and Jesus himself as one can clearly read in the Bible. So they gradually absorbed from other then living religions such customs as division between laymen and clergymen (rather early in 2-3 century), Trinitarian God (the end of 3d century), celebration of the "saints", image worship etc. None of these are found among things taught by Jesus or apostles as described in the Bible. So it would be very kind of you to distinguish, which "Christianity" you're talking about. Thanks .

The story of Jesus itself borrows very heavily from other religions. Just some examples:

- When Mary Magdalene washes the feet of Jesus with her hair, this is borrowed straight from the Egyptians, with Mary as Isis and Jesus playing the role of Osiris.
- Speaking of Osiris, he was dead for three days and was resurrected. Sound familiar?
- One of the central themes of the Gospels is an apocalypse. Apocalyptic traditions were rampant in the Near East at that time, and as it sat astride the major trading routes, all the ideas came through Israel.
- On the subject of common themes... virgin birth. Mithras is a primary example. Mithras is also a great example of the concept of substitutive sacrifice, the central pillar of Christian belief.

There are many, many more.