The Faith & Religion mega Thread

people born they grow up in environment where they are forced to learn laws of life and go to school where they should learn how to recognize truth from lies

Schools are packed full of lies. Just one in particular is global warming. It is not getting any warmer, it is getting cooler. Guess why? The sun has been quiescent and it looks like we could be heading to a real cooling spell. But still today in the schools, they are preaching global warming. I know there is a movement now to call it global climate change, but the fact is, science has been know to lie for money. So where does the truth lie?

I guess that is why psychology not weapons is most common used tool to control crowds..

No, the way crowds are controlled in the world is through the threat/use of force. History is packed fulled of rebellions that have been squashed.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Can one human being 1500 years before write a book in such a way that there will be 2 thousand millions followers (existing) and challenge all human beings to write even single similar surah(chapter) of that? I explained in my previous post how Quran was revealed. Have a look at that.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli According to Wikipedia (in millions): Christianity 2,000–2,200 Islam 1,570–1,650 Hinduism 828–1,000

So, before it was 1570-1650 million, now its 2000 million. Changing what you see as 'facts' is not any way to be fair or reasonable. The numbers are a bit of a joke anyway, how many 'believers' are paying lip service only to religion, let alone the people that just claim to be religion XXXX (for whatever reason) but do not follow any of the tenets.

No, you didnt explain how the 'koran was revealed'. Again, as far as I know it wasnt allah who 'revealed' the koran, it was the angel Gabriel.

Originally Posted by SigTerm To have a "possibly divine" origin a book should be written at least 10 thousands of years ago (few hundreds of thousands or a few millions of years would be a better idea), it should possess unusual properties, and should contain knowledge that will not be discovered for next 10 or 20 thousands of years. 1500 years is a joke - there were civilization long before that and they had math. If there were an indestructible book written 10000..10000000 years ago that would cover major areas of modern science (math, biology, chemistry, electricity, nuclear fusion and explanation of space/time), then you could say that it is possible that such books have a non-human origin (although even in this case it would be still easier to blame aliens for book's existence instead of god).

1- Ignores the way that at least some religons have some very silly ideas (see 'Ussher chronology', for the classic "23-10-4004 BC" date).

2- Ignores the whole 'fatih' thing that is also kind of silly. Best cut down, and put into amusing terms like in 'hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy' with the babel fish-

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Hit..._to_the_Galaxy

3- Archaeologists and anthropologists would have a bit of a laugh at that idea as well. 10,000,000 years? Hmm, well, according to them you wouldnt even have proto-humans then. They generally place the emergence of modern humans at about 200,000 years ago.

4- Material problems. 10,000,000 years is enough to dull almost anything. A huge set of engravings on some ultra-hard stone might last that long and be readable....not much else would.

5- Language problems. Its hard enough reading stuff thats just a few thousand years old.

6- Sanskrit writings, some of them claim huge timespans. Sure, there is little or no technical detail in there (though thats debateable in some ways).

7- How do you know that such a thing does not exist?

Originally Posted by cascade9 3- Archaeologists and anthropologists would have a bit of a laugh at that idea as well. 10,000,000 years? Hmm, well, according to them you wouldnt even have proto-humans then. They generally place the emergence of modern humans at about 200,000 years ago.

I guess he meant the likes of 10000 years or more to even 1000000.

Originally Posted by SigTerm View Post If there were an indestructible book written 10000..10000000 years ago

Originally Posted by tangle Schools are packed full of lies.{...}science has been know to lie for money. So where does the truth lie?{...}No, the way crowds are controlled in the world is through the threat/use of force. History is packed fulled of rebellions that have been squashed.

Another example why people should read all of posts and try understand what poster was meaning..so before rant on me again please go back in thread pages and read discussion all not just one text quote.
- I never said that schools don't lie but in general most stuff they teach is true and there are teachers who don't lie and i said people should learn there or from parents or friends or other source how to recognize truth from lies - like obtain "thinking algoritm" how to do it not just believe in everything teacher says
- already answered what i intended with term "science" in previous post and facts don't lie - here is your truth source - reality
- Yes true..again i never said nothing about history and brute force method not beeing used as tool to control but still psychology is very commonly used aswell

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Can one human being 1500 years before write a book in such a way that there will be 2 thousand millions followers (existing) and challenge all human beings to write even single similar surah(chapter) of that?

Breaking this statement down, it offers two pieces of evidence for the divine nature of the Koran:

1) It has 2 billion followers.
2) It has a unique style.

The first is ad populum fallacy, obviously, because truth is not revealed through democracy.

The second is a fallacy as well, because if we accept this as a valid proof, then there are tons of divine works around us... Shakespeare, Mark Twain, Douglas Adams, etc. People are unique.

Originally Posted by cascade9 1- Ignores the way that at least some religons have some very silly ideas (see 'Ussher chronology', for the classic "23-10-4004 BC" date). 2- Ignores the whole 'fatih' thing that is also kind of silly. Best cut down, and put into amusing terms like in 'hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy' with the babel fish- http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Hit..._to_the_Galaxy 3- Archaeologists and anthropologists would have a bit of a laugh at that idea as well. 10,000,000 years? Hmm, well, according to them you wouldnt even have proto-humans then. They generally place the emergence of modern humans at about 200,000 years ago. 4- Material problems. 10,000,000 years is enough to dull almost anything. A huge set of engravings on some ultra-hard stone might last that long and be readable....not much else would. 5- Language problems. Its hard enough reading stuff thats just a few thousand years old. 6- Sanskrit writings, some of them claim huge timespans. Sure, there is little or no technical detail in there (though thats debateable in some ways). 7- How do you know that such a thing does not exist?

I'd say you veered off on a tangent and missed the important part of the post. How old the text was doesn't really matter (to me, anyway), except for historical context. If an allegedly divinely inspired work were to contain some kind of important scientific knowledge which should have been totally inaccessible to people at that time (for example, germ theory), then that would be evidence of divine inspiration. In fact, we would expect a god described as a caring father to do exactly that.

None of these alleged divinely-inspired books contain anything of the sort... they're all packed full of the kind of scientific errors typical to the societies and times in which they were written.

Originally Posted by cascade9 4- Material problems. 10,000,000 years is enough to dull almost anything. A huge set of engravings on some ultra-hard stone might last that long and be readable....not much else would.

You missed the point. If the book had been written/created by a "god" than for such "god" it shouldn't be a problem to make original text indestructible, and it easily could be as old as universe. Have you read "The Goblin Reservation"? The book described a "library planet" that contains knowledge about everything. Something like THAT could have divine origin and predate any sentient life. If "holy book" were inspired by a god, then it (as Sl00b already wrote) should contain knowledge that could not be accessible to humans at that time in any way.

Originally Posted by cascade9 5- Language problems.

Can be deciphered.

Originally Posted by cascade9 7- How do you know that such a thing does not exist?

I don't. However even if it exists, AFAIK, people haven't found it yet.

Originally Posted by SigTerm You missed the point. If the book had been written/created by a "god" than for such "god" it shouldn't be a problem to make original text indestructible, and it easily could be as old as universe. Have you read "The Goblin Reservation"? The book described a "library planet" that contains knowledge about everything. Something like THAT could have divine origin and predate any sentient life. If "holy book" were inspired by a god, then it (as Sl00b already wrote) should contain knowledge that could not be accessible to humans at that time in any way.

Well, that makes 2 of us then.

Making anything 'indestructible' is impossible AFAIK.

That list was a 60 second 'of the top of my head' set of varied basic reasons why there is no 'magic book'. Even you said it would be "easier to blame aliens for book's existence instead of god" so even given your magic book, there is still a 'way out'.....

Originally Posted by SigTerm Can be deciphered.

What, like Linear A? Thats not that old, and the linguists think they might know what a few (a very few) words mean.

Originally Posted by SigTerm I don't. However even if it exists, AFAIK, people haven't found it yet.

That is easy to explain, just with sea levels. LOL

Originally Posted by SL00b I'd say you veered off on a tangent and missed the important part of the post. How old the text was doesn't really matter (to me, anyway), except for historical context. If an allegedly divinely inspired work were to contain some kind of important scientific knowledge which should have been totally inaccessible to people at that time (for example, germ theory), then that would be evidence of divine inspiration. In fact, we would expect a god described as a caring father to do exactly that.

Humans haven't dealt with germ theory that well. Its been good for medicine, but pretty horrific for lots of normal people. Giving proto-humans, or even early humans germ theory would be like giving a child a gun.

Originally Posted by SL00b None of these alleged divinely-inspired books contain anything of the sort... they're all packed full of the kind of scientific errors typical to the societies and times in which they were written.

'All'? Thats a very broad statement to make. The 'religions of the book' dont have much like that (though that is debatable). But they are hardly all the 'divinely-inspired books'. Depending on which translation you read, some of the sanskrit epics read like science fiction.....

Originally Posted by cascade9 What, like Linear A? Thats not that old, and the linguists think they might know what a few (a very few) words mean

I wouldn't go as far as requiring it to be deciphered. If we found writing that is older than humans (10 million years ago?), and it's clear that it is indeed writing, and that there is something there to decipher, then that would certainly be worthy of further investigation.

Originally Posted by cascade9 Making anything 'indestructible' is impossible AFAIK.

Which was the whole point. An object whose existence violates laws of physics or is incompatible with recorded history could be used to prove existence of "higher power". A "god" is an omnipotent being by definition, so doing "impossible" should not be a problem.

Originally Posted by cascade9 That list was a 60 second 'of the top of my head' set of varied basic reasons why there is no 'magic book'.

You were trying to prove that "magic book doesn't exist" based on "skeptical/materialistic" position. Materialistic position assumes that anything you can't touch don't have evidence of "doesn't exist", which basically says "there's no magic book". I.e. "magic book doesn't exist because my belief says magic book doesn't exist". Circular logic/bad idea.

Originally Posted by cascade9 Even you said it would be "easier to blame aliens for book's existence instead of god" so even given your magic book, there is still a 'way out'.....

Yes, there's always a way out. However if a deity existed and physically manifested itself, it could easily prove its existence. Artefacts/unexplainable knowledge (if they were present) would be a "less reliable" proof. Keep in mind that there are possible scenarios when a deity exists but cannot be discovered.

Originally Posted by cascade9 What, like Linear A? Thats not that old, and the linguists think they might know what a few (a very few) words mean.

If an "unknown power" were willing to pass knowledge to an unknown sentient race via book, it could include language tutorial at a start of the book. Egyptian hieroglyphs/Mayan writings were deciphered, by the way.

Originally Posted by cascade9 That is easy to explain, just with sea levels. LOL

There's no reason to think that a "god" (if it existed) would place such object (if it existed) on planet Earth.

Originally Posted by cascade9 Humans haven't dealt with germ theory that well. Its been good for medicine, but pretty horrific for lots of normal people. Giving proto-humans, or even early humans germ theory would be like giving a child a gun.

It is unclear what the hell are you trying to prove anymore.
I simply gave a few examples in which you would have a reason to think that a religious text has a divine origin and "there's probably a god". Trying to prove that "it is impossible for something like that to exist" is meaningless in this context. So, what is your point?

Originally Posted by tangle Schools are packed full of lies. Just one in particular is global warming. It is not getting any warmer, it is getting cooler. Guess why? The sun has been quiescent and it looks like we could be heading to a real cooling spell. But still today in the schools, they are preaching global warming. I know there is a movement now to call it global climate change, but the fact is, science has been know to lie for money. So where does the truth lie?

So science lies, there is no such thing as global warming. The proof? Aha! the sun is getting cooler, so there! And this was discovered by whom? Ah that'll be the scientists.........

That my friend is double-think of the highest quality.

The fact that the sun is becoming more passive is one part in a hugely complex equation. This huge complexity is the reason why science has yet to come to any unanimous conclusions, but only the very obtuse would deny that our climate is changing. You however have pounced on one of the complicating factors, isolated it out from the equation because it agrees with your existing opinion that way and then said "aha I was right" all the while ignoring the entire body of data to the contrary.

You are demonstrating something called confirmation bias. Look it up.

Three monkeys sat in a coconut tree
Discussing things as they’re said to be.

Said one to the others, “Now listen, you two,
There’s a certain rumor that can’t be true.

“That man descended from our noble race.
The very idea! It’s a dire disgrace.

“No monkey ever deserted his wife,
Starved his baby and ruined her life.

“And you’ve never known a mother monk,
To leave her baby with others to bunk,

“Or pass them on from one to the other
Till they hardly know who is their mother.

“And another thing you’ll never see:
A monk build a fence around a coconut tree,
And let the coconuts go to waste,
Forbidding all other monks a taste.
Why, if I put a fence around this tree,
Starvation would force you to steal from me.

“Here's another thing a monk won’t do:
Go out at night and get on a stew
Or use a gun or club or knife
To take some other Monkey’s life.

“Yes! Man descended, the ornery cuss,
But he certainly didn't descend from us!!!”

Originally Posted by littlejoe5 Three monkeys sat in a coconut tree Discussing things as they’re said to be. Said one to the others, “Now listen, you two, There’s a certain rumor that can’t be true. “That man descended from our noble race. The very idea! It’s a dire disgrace. “No monkey ever deserted his wife, Starved his baby and ruined her life. “And you’ve never known a mother monk, To leave her baby with others to bunk, “Or pass them on from one to the other Till they hardly know who is their mother. “And another thing you’ll never see: A monk build a fence around a coconut tree, And let the coconuts go to waste, Forbidding all other monks a taste. Why, if I put a fence around this tree, Starvation would force you to steal from me. “Here's another thing a monk won’t do: Go out at night and get on a stew Or use a gun or club or knife To take some other Monkey’s life. “Yes! Man descended, the ornery cuss, But he certainly didn't descend from us!!!”

hmmmm....

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

If that's the case, god must be a nasty piece of work.

Originally Posted by littlejoe5 Three monkeys sat in a coconut tree Discussing things as they’re said to be. ... ... “Yes! Man descended, the ornery cuss, But he certainly didn't descend from us!!!”

The man who wrote this should really need to learn more about apes. For example, chimpanzees know exactly where there territory is and they defend it from other hordes of chimpanzees. And they use clubs and stones to kill members of other hordes if they break into their territory. They even kill the children of of other chimpanzees if their is a change in their hierarchy and their is a new alpha-male.

Besides that, know one claims that we are descendants from monkeys, we are relatives to them.

We share a common ancestor with apes. There is less than 2% difference in human and chimpanzee DNA. A few years back a wildlife program on TV showed a group of chimps stalking, tearing to pieces, then eating, a monkey. So that more or less refutes your cute little nursery rhyme, littlejoe5.