The Faith & Religion mega Thread

I'd like you to make an argument for why this would be relevant, please.

Wait a minute. This is a thread about religious views. What's more relevant? A book primarily of religious teaching or books on Science?

Yep - the assumption that agnostics and atheists haven't read the bible or even other religious texts is fairly prevalent among believers and is often dead wrong. As I often say to folks "I live in America in the Bible belt. What do you think the chances are that I have NOT already heard the message about Christianity a thousand times?" Repetition doesn't constitute "proof".

What I really like is how often religious types will protest some book or movie (e.g. The DaVinci Code). On being asked what they read or saw that was objectionable they almost always say "I haven't read it." or "I haven't seen it." but they read (or worse yet "heard") what somebody else had to say about it and generally don't understand that that person also did not read or see it. Forming opinions by burying your head in the sand is no way to have a reasonable discourse. My born again sister has often tried to tell me what "the Koran says" but on being challenged always has to admit she has never read a word of it and is taking what she believes from some "Christian" writer's musings. I always ask her why not read it herself and she never has a good answer. There'd be no reason at all for me to assume that a) She correctly quoted what that author said or b) That that author as "Christian" writer could possibly be an authority on Arabic and the Koran since it clearly isn't what he studies.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Wait a minute. This is a thread about religious views. What's more relevant? A book primarily of religious teaching or books on Science?

While you certainly have a point about the topic drift that has gone on, I would say both are relevant if someone feels that they don't agree with each other.

While you certainly have a point about the topic drift that has gone on, I would say both are relevant if someone feels that they don't agree with each other.

And if you accept what you just said as truth, how have I been cowardly?

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H God -> Big Bang -> Universe

That's based on assumption that big bang can be triggered only by a god.

If a very advanced civilization existed and triggered big bang, then you'll get a universe that has been created, but it was not created by god.

That reminds me...

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H I don't think humans came from apes.

The theory is that humans AND "apes" share common ancestor that existed long time ago. It doesn't mean humans evolved from monkeys. It means both humans and monkeys evolved from common ancestor.

Originally Posted by MensaWater Yep - the assumption that agnostics and atheists haven't read the bible or even other religious texts is fairly prevalent among believers and is often dead wrong.

I'd say that reading Old Testament can easily scare people from being|becoming a Christian.

The theory is that humans AND "apes" share common ancestor that existed long time ago. It doesn't mean humans evolved from monkeys. It means both humans and monkeys evolved from common ancestor.

Okay, I respect you too much to believe that you are related to any ape-like creature, other than having been created in the same week by the same God.

What do you think of the discovery that humans and chimps share 95% of the same DNA?

Originally Posted by bluegospel Okay, I respect you too much to believe that you are related to any ape-like creature, other than having been created in the same week by the same God.

Invalid argument. Respect cannot be used to disprove the theory.

I'm pretty sure that I don't really care who/what was my ancestor that lived few few millions of years ago.
IMO it is more important what a person is, not where did that person come from (evolved vs created).

Originally Posted by MensaWater View Post Yep - the assumption that agnostics and atheists haven't read the bible or even other religious texts is fairly prevalent among believers and is often dead wrong.

What's less wise, assuming that most unbelievers have not done their homework, or assuming most believers care nothing for your soul?

Trip cancelled.

What's less wise, assuming that most unbelievers have not done their homework, or assuming most believers care nothing for your soul?

Tell me if this is a good summary of your rebuttal: "If it's wrong to assume that most believers care nothing for your soul, then it's correct to to assume that most unbelievers have not done their homework. It is, indeed, wrong to assume that most believers care nothing for your soul. Therefore, most unbelievers have not done their homework."

Uhm, did I understand you right?

Originally Posted by bluegospel View Post Okay, I respect you too much to believe that you are related to any ape-like creature, other than having been created in the same week by the same God. Invalid argument. Respect cannot be used to disprove the theory.

I forgot. This is about arguing.

Originally Posted by bluegospel I forgot. This is about arguing.

For the technical definition of "arguing", of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

"Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength." A quote from the Apostle Paul (or is it circular because it's from the Bible).

For the technical definition of "arguing", of course.

Is there a difference, besides one being more structured and civil? Arguing is arguing. And it seems pointless to argue a view you don't necessarily believe anyway. What's the point in that?