The Faith & Religion mega Thread

It is rather interesting, that not just the linux area, that people like us that spend all day over computers have a majority of being athiest.. Rather interesting.. Not trying to promote it.. Though I am athiest.. Unless hailing the Tux penguin as if it is a god counts as something.

Would make a better gods than most.

Sorry to all if truth (currently) hurts* feelings* but* "thank yous"
and "you are welcomes" should just be implied not inflicted... (that maybe my allergies ranting, "gazuntite," oh shut up already. )

My mom and I "debate" on things. She will never except that there is not a crater and afterlife but I love her and "our" (if not biologically still) evolving predicaments. (Add: We weren't ever single cells once so how could we have evolved from them... derr. )

Originally Posted by enorbet @OregonJim - Once again it seems you have your own private definitions, this time of "Circular Logic". If I say "1 + 1 = 2" and then conclude "2 - 1 = 1" that is not circular logic by definition because the conclusions are different from the premise and a form of self-checking. just like The Rule of Nines in accounting. Here's a quote of the agreed definition This is the same as saying "God wrote the Bible through revelation to Men The Bible states God created the Universe Therefore, God exists as Creator" The latter has nothing to do with deduction or self-checking by any means since the concept of God as existing is present in the premise. Granted I can see why you'd think checking logic and reason with logic and reason is circular, but the fact is that the conclusion is NOT in the premise. Also because it's application is so wide there have been countless ways in which it could have failed but has not. To the contrary as time goes on the evidence that logic and reason is a valid and workable means of discovery and verification only grows.This has provided both consistency and cross-checking essential to testing any system in numerous fields from many different directions and in countless different minds. It is proven that it works whether in Arithmetic, Geometry, Calculus, Chemistry, Engineering, ... you name it. What other methodology has such a faultless record? Jumping to conclusions? I think not. Lookup Karl Popper for a better, more thorough examination of the concept of "falsification" and it's role on mediating logic and reason. How can anyone conclude that "finite implies infinite"? That's like saying Earth implies Alternate Earth. It is speculation at best. Have you ever experienced infinite? What evidence exists that can show infinite even CAN exist as anything more than an abstract concept? Our imaginations can conceive of werewolves but that doesn't mean they exist in reality. While it is true that one can apply logic to nonsense, it is recognized that the results are also nonsense - Garbage In. Garbage Out. This actually helps define the Rules of Logic to maintain it's consistency and ability to self-check.

I'm sorry, but your entire response is riddled with logical errors, circular referencing, poor analogies, pure speculation, unfounded conclusions, and an abundance of recursive assumptions. It seems that the fact that you were challenged has caused you to get extremely sloppy in your thinking. Or, far more likely (it seems to me), you are pulling the "professor ploy" where you try to sound authoritative through sheer terminology. Seriously, this is embarassing. Please re-read your own words carefully. I'm not trying to be unkind, but it leaves me between a rock and a hard place. I simply cannot respond to this any other way.

Originally Posted by enorbet I'm sorry you were insulted but were you not referring to the Bible? They were superstitious not only because they lived in vastly superstitious times (and such still existed and predominated over 1600 years later), but by the very fact of believing in things with zero evidence. I'm truly not certain of which is worse, believing then when they didn't know any better, or believing now after so much has been refuted and discovered as Myth passed down over millennia, like The Flood. The Earth is NOT the center of the Universe, no witches or demons to suffer, and non-believers are not worthy only of being converted, stoned to death or burned at the stake.

No evidence? Where have you been? Have you not heard of historical evidence? Archaeological evidence? Textual criticism? Corroborating literature? The Dead Sea Scrolls? Even your venerated Four Horsemen don't dispute the authenticity of the evidence anymore, as it has become overwhelming in the last 30 years. They simply choose not to believe it. The majority of atheist scholars in literature and archaeology agree that arguing with the evidence is of no use anymore. In fact, they are getting quite angry, especially with the recent discovery of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, two cities that are mentioned nowhere else in antiquity geographically EXCEPT for the Bible. It has been hailed as the archaeological discovery of the century. All details are EXACTLY as the Bible says, right down to the atom-bomb-like layer of destruction in the middle bronze age. Let's see how science can explain that kind of power thousands of years ago. Please, do at least a LITTLE research before you spout nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO8t-jDrF7E (jump to 55:35 for some chilling stuff)

Originally Posted by TheLinuxCake It is rather interesting, that not just the linux area, that people like us that spend all day over computers have a majority of being athiest.. Rather interesting.. Not trying to promote it.. Though I am athiest.. Unless hailing the Tux penguin as if it is a god counts as something.

A single, anonymous poll on a Linux board is hardly an indicator of anything useful.

Consider the small subset of people who might be drawn to the subject of this thread, and you'll see why the first and last categories in the poll are represented as such. The Lions and the Lambs, as it were.

Replies Views
5,883 365,843

but all we really need to know is evolution is happening, like math to cell phone implants* and GPLs
(not a full time line ) and if you would like to call the monkey bits fairy tales or build gated communities no matter...

With a window open, sun beaming in... Adam is on one side of a dark red wood table Eve is on the other.
The light is reflecting off the table blinding Adam with a bright red! Eve is in the shade and must protests

...what do you mean bright red, it looks practically black!?

They argue for a minute until brilliance dawns and they switch sides to see.

You may think that's-that but let's take Adam and Eve and raise them "("inhumanly")"
in separate rooms, no windows or education whatsoever! Only food until they are twenty five years of age;

now, bring them to the table with the window.
Hypothetically what happens?!

Plus, like my mom http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/the-faith-and-religion-mega-thread-600689/page393.html#post5542057

sorry if you don't get it,,, today?

2\3rds are sorrier and I blame religionS!edu

By the way, I am not saying smart, can't be fooled:

Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.

paronomasia in 10 did!

Life is but a sea! (And. Maybe,,, you could justify that sh#1 by just being born in it; a guess. )

Originally Posted by OregonJim I'm sorry, but your entire response is riddled with logical errors, circular referencing, poor analogies, pure speculation, unfounded conclusions, and an abundance of recursive assumptions. It seems that the fact that you were challenged has caused you to get extremely sloppy in your thinking. Or, far more likely (it seems to me), you are pulling the "professor ploy" where you try to sound authoritative through sheer terminology. Seriously, this is embarassing. Please re-read your own words carefully. I'm not trying to be unkind, but it leaves me between a rock and a hard place. I simply cannot respond to this any other way.

Your response above contains not one specific and not the least of which is "terminology". What terminology? The names of fields of Science and Math that employ logic and reason? FYI I think you only see errors because you resist the concept. I doubted you could even consider it, and that seems accurate. I didn't and don't feel "challenged" and have no need to use any ploy or "try to sound authoritative" since I have studied Science and associated subjects all my life through four years of college. As part of that study I took 2 full courses on Logic. My education is not as heavy as a Masters of PhD but it is not inconsiderable. My training was at George Washington University, not exactly some backwoods course-by-mail. My logic is solid and it is obvious that you know nothing of Karl Popper even though I suggested you look him up regarding the fallacy of assuming logic and reason employs circular logic.

Originally Posted by OregonJim No evidence? Where have you been? Have you not heard of historical evidence? Archaeological evidence? Textual criticism? Corroborating literature? The Dead Sea Scrolls? Even your venerated Four Horsemen don't dispute the authenticity of the evidence anymore, as it has become overwhelming in the last 30 years. They simply choose not to believe it. The majority of atheist scholars in literature and archaeology agree that arguing with the evidence is of no use anymore. In fact, they are getting quite angry, especially with the recent discovery of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, two cities that are mentioned nowhere else in antiquity geographically EXCEPT for the Bible. It has been hailed as the archaeological discovery of the century. All details are EXACTLY as the Bible says, right down to the atom-bomb-like layer of destruction in the middle bronze age. Let's see how science can explain that kind of power thousands of years ago. Please, do at least a LITTLE research before you spout nonsense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO8t-jDrF7E (jump to 55:35 for some chilling stuff)

OTOH I did watch the video and also google "scholarly evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah" as well as "Dr. Steven Collins" and not only is there currently absolutely ZERO Professional Corroboration, even such lowly tomes as Wikipedia and Huffington Post barely mention it and the Post is very cautious, probably because Dr. Collins is known to have a religious agenda. He graduated from Trinity Southwest Ubiversity and here's some simple facts about that place

Originally Posted by Wikipedia,Trinity_Southwest_University Trinity Southwest University (TSU) is a Christian institution of higher education with a campus in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Principally a theological school that encompasses both the Bible college and theological seminary concepts of Christian education, it offers on-campus and distance education programs leading to bachelor's, master's and doctoral degrees in Biblical Studies, Theological Studies, Archaeology & Biblical History, Biblical Counseling, Biblical Representational Research, and University Studies. It also fields several institutes to provide students with curricula of additional emphases. TSU does not have educational accreditation.

Please note that there is no course on Archaeology but rather "Archaeology & Biblical History". To say that Collins is agenda ridden is an understatement and his degree is a joke he should be ashamed to wear since the "school" is not even accredited. In this case he specifically went looking not for ancient digs but specifically for Sodom and Gomorrah and it is easy to see he was damned well going to find them. His claims regarding high temperatures are among the most questionable and remain totally uncorroborated which in itself is highly suspicious for what would be such an important find.

It absolutely reeks of the major push of religions, and especially fundamentalist Christianity, to somehow gain the respect of "scientific proof". At least now I see why you alter the definition of Faith, since you seem to have that prerequisite Love-Hate relationship with Science and cannot abide with Blind Faith. You, Sir, seem to be a doubting Thomas who must see the wounds or at least jump at the chance to agree with someone who says they saw them.

Of course I am aware of and moderately interested in The Dead Sea Scrolls as they are a window to an ancient culture. As of yet, and likely ever, they don't prove anything beyond a sketchy view of how the Old Testament evolved, entirely superstitious opinion since not one of the writers even claims to be an eyewitness, and it would be difficult to determine if they had because scholars have great difficulty interpreting what was primarily a spoken language, lacking in many components essential to objectivity let alone translation. Context, being a member of that culture, is a prerequisite of understanding what was meant.

So we once again reach impasse since I require real, peer reviewed evidence for such extreme claims and your definition of evidence desperately wants to believe and does not at all hold with stringent, professional standards.

Buh Bye

@Enorbet,

Your response was exactly as I expected. I have provided all kinds of evidence to simply persuade you to admit that evidence actually exists, not to persuade you to believe it. And you call me a doubting Thomas? How ironic.

You can voice your beliefs all you want, but you cannot claim "no evidence" for the Bible. Claiming "no evidence" is absolute proof positive to the world that you have done not even a half-hearted investigation. Period.

There is no such thing as an atheist. Cute title, but no more real than the tooth fairy. An atheist is simply someone who has manipulated his own conscience.

ALL humans on the planet have a knowledge of God. You may trick your own conscience into supressing it (by the way, conscience means "with knowledge"). However, God put that knowledge there deliberately so that no one would have an excuse when it comes time to account for themselves. By the way, when you escape the limits of this world and meet God face-to-face, you'll see yourself as you really are, and won't even be able to make excuses. Your conscience will be gone, as it is only needed in this world. It won't be able to provide a shield any longer.

ALL humans have only two options: Love God or hate God. There is no third option. Indifference is the highest form of hate.

Any amount of honest soul-searching will prove this to be true. Only God can open your eyes to the correct path, but He has already given every person the knowledge that He exists. We are all immortal - the only question is where we'll spend it. You'll never know the truth until you admit that.

One other point that seems to trip people up because they don't think.

You look at all the bad behavior in history that is attributed to Christians, and conclude that their behavior betrays their religion.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You are confusing MORALITY with availability of FACTS. An example from C. S. Lewis:

One man said to me, "Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?" But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did—if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did. There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there.

It is one thing to do wrong out of right reasons. All humans do that, regardless of religion (or lack of it). It is a very different thing to do wrong deliberately. The first says nothing about the person morally - the second does.

You, like my mom, can not comprehend more than one god!? Sad but evolving!

@OregonJim - Of course my response was exactly as you should have expected. I am hardly the first or only person to demand strict adherence to reason, logic and the rules of evidence. You say you have "provided all kinds of evidence" yet in every case they fail the test. Name one that holds up under actual scientific scrutiny. Phony doctorates from unaccredited "schools" don't make the cut with people who respect actual objectivity.

I see now that you have knowledge or read the minds of ALL humans on Earth for ALL time since CERTAINLY everybody knows deep down what you believe to be true is a given and for some ungodly reason is in denial <sarc> OTOH, in all seriousness, thank you for finally dropping your pretense at being a reasonable man, knowledgeable in Science, and finally reveal yourself for the religious zealot you truly are. That's OK. You have the right. It'd just be good if you were honest from the start with your public face.

Like you said, we may know when we die but it is my position that it is highly unlikely we will be capable of "I told ya so". To be clear, that isn't a belief. It is mere speculation exactly because there is no credible evidence either way.

Originally Posted by enorbet thank you for finally dropping your pretense at being a reasonable man, knowledgeable in Science, and finally reveal yourself for the religious zealot you truly are.

There has been no pretense. You are well aware of that. The record is set in stone in this thread. In any case, zealousness is a virtue, not a vice. Thank you for the compliment. I only wish there were more who were zealous in pursuing knowledge and truth.

P.S. - you scoff at the credentials of anyone I mention. PhD's are simply not up to YOUR standards. By the way, what kind of PhD do you hold? How about this: here's a list of over 3,000 creation scientists, ALL with PhDs and multiple MAs, many with double and triple PhDs from accredited universities. And these 3,000 are only a SUBSET who are willing to go public with EVIDENCE for creationism over evolution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owDOD7WZvEw

Of course, the book "Persuaded by the Evidence" featured in this short video may be a little over your head, but there's also the documentary "Evolution's Achilles Heels". You can find it on Netflix. Many more scientific evidences are presented here for laymen like you. Another book titled "Origins" compiles a similar set of evidences with over 2,000 accredited scientists in the bibliography. Yet another scientific compilation is presented in "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist". I doubt you will bother to read any of these books, as objectivity is a standard you hold others to, but not yourself. Just like evolutionists.

Yes, I am a zealot indeed. Zealots actually do their research homework.

Originally Posted by OregonJim There has been no pretense. You are well aware of that. The record is set in stone in this thread. In any case, zealousness is a virtue, not a vice. Thank you for the compliment. I only wish there were more who were zealous in pursuing knowledge and truth.

I spent over an hour seeking out and reading every post you've made in this thread, and I discovered I was wrong in accusing you of pretense. Please accept my sincere apology. I did indeed confuse you with someone else.

The only statement you made that is even close to any manner of pretense is that you have a clear understanding of the scientific method. It was well over 100 years ago that Logic, reason and the resulting scientific method were thought to be either deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning. Karl Popper somewhat less than 100 years ago pointed out the nature and importance of "falsifiability". It has been recognized since then to be the key element that governs the validity of logic and reason because it is so powerful, testable and then obvious to anyone who cares to explore it's depths. ( See the link below on How We Know Stuff)

Classic Example - Over a period of a man's professional lifetime, say 50 years, he travels the world and catalogues say 100,000 swans, all of whom are white. He then postulates "All swans are white". One day a young boy stumbles across and photographs a black swan. A single item of evidence in a single moment can obliterate a hypothesis based on a 50 year study. This is overly simplified because the "black swan" photo evidence must be verified but the point is clear. Logic and reason are proven valid by embracing the concept of falsification. It is NOT circular logic and Science is provably objective and superior to any other means of arriving at a true conclusion.

You, OregonJim, attempt to discredit and deny the scientific method apparently to put it on an "even keel" by denying Objective Facts exist, with what you accept as evidence without the mediator of falsifiabilty, without the Rules of Evidence, all to serve your pre-judice that the Christian Bible is handed down by God and is Absolute Truth.

Originally Posted by OregonJim P.S. - you scoff at the credentials of anyone I mention. PhD's are simply not up to YOUR standards. By the way, what kind of PhD do you hold? How about this: here's a list of over 3,000 creation scientists, ALL with PhDs and multiple MAs, many with double and triple PhDs from accredited universities. And these 3,000 are only a SUBSET who are willing to go public with EVIDENCE for creationism over evolution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owDOD7WZvEw

I don't scoff as policy anyone you mention, but you have yet to provide anyone with actually credible credentials. Case in point - The man introduced as the headline guest on the video you linked, Jerry Bergman, while he did actually receive some minor degrees from real colleges, not only received most from non-accredited religious schools, but .... and here I will quote a reputable public source so you know it is not just me spouting off

Originally Posted by RationalWiki-Jerry_Bergman He considers himself one of the victims of persecution by "Darwinists", after he was denied tenure and dismissed from Bowling Green State University in 1978 “solely because of my beliefs and publications in the area of creationism”. He attempted, unsuccessfully, to take the university to court over religious discrimination. (It should be added that, in a signed letter published in David Duke's National Association of White People newsletter, he stated that “reverse racial discrimination was clearly part of the decision,” so even according to himself it cannot have been solely because of his religious beliefs.[12]) According to the courts, however, Bergman was terminated because of ethics, namely that he claimed to have credentials in psychology when, in fact, he “had no psychological credentials

This man, while certainly educated, began as a dyed-in-the-wool Creationist and Darwin Hater and all his education was bent to fit that agenda. He is a proven liar and a fraud and the worst part is that even though he knows the strict guidelines of the scientific method, he chooses to discard them in favor of his preconceived beliefs.

Please, do link someone who is respected by the scientific community as one who is diligent and forthright, and then we can talk. It is in your interest to also be diligent in researching your "experts" so you don't continue to make unsubstantiated claims for liars and charlatans. Granted, you have a "tough row to hoe" since The Theory of Evolution is accepted as basic fact by every credible scientist the world over because it has yet to be falsified in ~200 years of the greatest advancement in Science and Technology in human history, including the discovery of DNA which is so fundamental (and so far beyond Darwin's means or even imagination) it could have just as easily obliterated it. Instead it supported and expanded on it.

Originally Posted by OregonJim Of course, the book "Persuaded by the Evidence" featured in this short video may be a little over your head, but there's also the documentary "Evolution's Achilles Heels". You can find it on Netflix. Many more scientific evidences are presented here for laymen like you. Another book titled "Origins" compiles a similar set of evidences with over 2,000 accredited scientists in the bibliography. Yet another scientific compilation is presented in "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist". I doubt you will bother to read any of these books, as objectivity is a standard you hold others to, but not yourself. Just like evolutionists. Yes, I am a zealot indeed. Zealots actually do their research homework.

LOL. You seriously underestimate me if you actually imagine that book is "over my head". If you'd really like to know what I read for enjoyment try any book by Lee Smolin on Quantum Gravity. Better yet, since the math requirements are lesser, try this How We Know Stuff - A scholarly Approach Incidentally that is hosted by The Physics Forum, to which I subscribe under this same nickname, and was given some recognition for my posts there. I doubt you want to post there as you wouldn't last past a handful of posts before being warned and then banned as utterly unable to stick to the rules of evidence let alone Forum rules, but you might like to see how real scientists define evidence.

More on "Persuaded by Evidence" - On top of that the co-author is the liar and fraud, Jerry Bergman! I downloaded the preview pdf and got as far as the first few "scientists" listed. As soon as I saw Duane Gish, who is proven to have fabricated stories during debates and used a rapid-fire canned debate to avoid actual debate and just shove his agenda down people's throats, my suspicions grew. Then when I saw Dr. Morris another so-called scientist who, like Gish, actually asserts the Earth is under 10,000 years old, I stopped. This is just more of your brand of discredited, agenda-ridden, crap "evidence". It is pseudo-science.

In your zealous quest to have Creation Myth be redefined as Creation Science you reveal you have not a clue as to what Science really is. You just desire it's respect without having to accept the discipline.

Good luck with that.

Apeople! (You know like amen only PC. )