What if billions of people are wrong?

[mithrandir2001]

10,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong.

 

[classy]

<<

<< Hmmm Bill Gates never graduated from college, but yet he runs the computer world. >>



You don't have to go to school to be educated. You can educate yourself. Bill Gates clearly did.

Besides, he's an atheist. >>



Wrong again. He believes going to church is useless. As a matter of fact his wife is a devout Catholic and Bill donates mad money.

 

[Nemesis77]

<<

<<

<< Hmmm Bill Gates never graduated from college, but yet he runs the computer world. >>



You don't have to go to school to be educated. You can educate yourself. Bill Gates clearly did.

Besides, he's an atheist. >>



Wrong again. He believes going to church is useless. As a matter of fact his wife is a devout Catholic and Bill donates mad money. >>



He believes that going to church is useless? Doesn't sound very christian to me... And besides, his wife being a catholic doesn't make him in to a christian. And he can donate billions and still be non-christian. You make it sound like that all the people who donate money are christians.

 

[classy]

<<

<<

<<

<< Hmmm Bill Gates never graduated from college, but yet he runs the computer world. >>



You don't have to go to school to be educated. You can educate yourself. Bill Gates clearly did.

Besides, he's an atheist. >>



Wrong again. He believes going to church is useless. As a matter of fact his wife is a devout Catholic and Bill donates mad money. >>



He believes that going to church is useless? Doesn't sound very christian to me... And besides, his wife being a catholic doesn't make him in to a christian. And he can donate billions and still be non-christian. You make it sound like that all the people who donate money are christians. >>



Your twisting things. In his book they asked Gates about his faith. He said I guess I'm atheist or agnostic. But he then said I'm a protestant who hasn't been in awhile. In another interview he stated that he thought going to church was not very productive. But he stated his children will be raised as Roman Catholics. You can tell what a man really believes in how he raises his children. How many staunch atheists do you know who donates to a church? And why are you expending so much energy to try and prove we're wrong. Whats the deal? Why don't we just wait for all of us to die then we'll all know the truth. By the way I know someone who's selling fire insurance. You might want to pick up some. lol

 

[Mani]

<< In answer to you and others questioning the validity of the bible, thats why its called the walk of faith. I know when everything else has failed in people's lives, the belief in Christ made them succeed. I have seen many who were terminally ill be healed when doctors had given them up to die. I know of women who were diagnosed as barren, unable to have children, have babies after trusting in the God of the bible. I have seen business men have complete failures of their busineses only to turn to bibical principles to have them not only be successful again, but grow many times larger. I have seen familys that were completely destroyed for countless reasons turn to scripture and Christ to have their familys restored and be succcessful when all avenues of counseling failed. I have seen lifetime drug addicts come clean after hearing the word of Christ, the bible, preached to them when every known rehab failed. I have seen marriages brought back together again. Crazy people whose minds were restored better than mine or yours. All inspired from one book, the bible. This is what I've seen personally with my own eyes. What do you have to offer that is better? >>



And for every one of those cases there are 100 or perhaps far more that involve just as heartfelt a plea to God for help with no answer. There have also been cases where people have died, refusing accepted medicine in the hopes that God would cleanse them of their sicknesses. Religion has an enormous negative as well as positive impact on society and the debate is often over which is greater. If only its impact was somehow quantifiable...

 

[silveronsilver]

<< How many staunch atheists do you know who donates to a church? >>



It's called PR ya schmuck. When Bill Gates donates money, it is written off as an advertising expense. The point is to fool idiots like you and to make the corporation (or the corporare citizen) look good to the public, therefore increase product visibility and positively predispose the public to buying the products.

If a man really wanted to donate out of the goodness of his heart, he would donate anonymously, because humility is the sign of a good man. You will never see any corporate citizen donate anonymously, however, they will do so with great fanfare, because it is public relations & advertising.

 

[Nemesis77]

<< Your twisting things. In his book they asked Gates about his faith. He said I guess I'm atheist or agnostic. >>



Thank you. So he's not christian. Checked.



<< But he then said I'm a protestant who hasn't been in awhile. >>



Guess what? I'm a member of the finnish lutheran church, but I still consider myself to be agnostic.



<< In another interview he stated that he thought going to church was not very productive. But he stated his children will be raised as Roman Catholics. >>



He married a catholic woman, it's only natural that the children are raised as catholics.



<< How many staunch atheists do you know who donates to a church? >>



How many religious people you know who donate money to planned parenthood organisations? None? That's what I thought...



<< And why are you expending so much energy to try and prove we're wrong. >>



Am I? Well, christians have spent awfully alot of their time and energy trying to convince me (and others) that "jesus is lord!". The door swings both ways I guess.



<< Whats the deal? Why don't we just wait for all of us to die then we'll all know the truth. By the way I know someone who's selling fire insurance. You might want to pick up some. lol >>



You say that I'm going to hell because I refuse to blindy accept some un-proven things as "The Truth"? Because I treasure my individuality and free thought? If I'm going to hell because of that, then so be it. I don't think that I would like a Orwellian God. It all sounds like thought-police to me. Luckily I wasn't born few hunderd years ago. The loving church would have been burned as a witch for my thoughts.

EDIT: quoting, typo

 

[JupiterJones]

Nemesis77

science finds evidence and forms a theory based on that evidence

That is not exactly how it works in the real world. Aside from a very few examples (such as Madame Curie), science has an idea (hypothesis) which is then investigated (gathering of evidence) and then a conclusion made (true or false). The conclusion can only be assumed true if no other conclusion matches the evidence. What you claim to be settled issues are actually outside the realm of the scientific method. Science has moved into areas where theoretical arguments are required. Inductive reasoning proves nothing.

 

[Nemesis77]

<< Nemesis77

science finds evidence and forms a theory based on that evidence

That is not exactly how it works in the real world. Aside from a very few examples (such as Madame Curie), science has an idea (hypothesis) which is then investigated (gathering of evidence) and then a conclusion made (true or false). The conclusion can only be assumed true if no other conclusion matches the evidence. What you claim to be settled issues are actually outside the realm of the scientific method. Science has moved into areas where theoretical arguments are required. Inductive reasoning proves nothing. >>



OK, I'll reword what I said: If available evidence conflicts with the theory, theory is either altered or discarded. In religious "science", if evidence contradicts with the theory (in this case creation), the evidence is either discarded or wild theories are developed to explain that evidence without having to alter the theory.

 

[JupiterJones]

OK, I'll reword what I said: If available evidence conflicts with the theory, theory is either altered or discarded. In religious "science", if evidence contradicts with the theory (in this case creation), the evidence is either discarded or wild theories are developed to explain that evidence without having to alter the theory

OK, I'll bite... Your answer indicates that evidence exists that contradicts Creation ex nihilio (as described in Genesis). I would be interested in finding out a bit more about that evidence. Could you share one example? Remember that contradiction has a very specific definition. Also, please share the evidence rather than someone's conclusion as to what the evidence means. Finally, be aware that there are three prominant interpretations of the Genesis accout that all follow a literal hermenutic; your example would need to contradict all three or else provide multiple examples of contradictory evidence.

Once you get outside the hack science the pervades much of the young earth crowd you will find that there is no contradiction between evidence unearthed by scientist and the Genesis account (when interpreted according to The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and Hermenutics by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy).

 

[silveronsilver]

The Bible says that the universe was created in seven days. This is false.

The Bible says that the Flood killed everyone except those on Noah's ship. This is a lie. Such a flood could not have occured, because there isn't enough water in the Earth's ecosystem to make it occur.

The Bible has no explanation for evolutionary phenomena such as pseudogenes.

In short, the Bible is hogwash.

 

[Elledan]

Moonbeam, now I remember why I dislike discussing things with you

Seriously, I did mix up you with someone else, I didn't even take the time to read back when I couldn't remember something and yes, I didn't even properly read some of your posts...

Now, I've no time to continue any discussions because I've got some more important matters to attend to

 

[bugsysiegel]

I don't believe in God, how can I? But I believe in the things religion teaches, don't kill, don't steal, don't lay pipe at your neighbors house less he's down with it, etc...

 

[Moonbeam]

My my my, we never seem to take off for taxiing around the runway. Since my religious belief isn't dependent on the existence of God or faith maybe I can get past one hurdle in protesting the attitude of Nemesis and silveron, here. It sounds like you think you know what you are talking about, that there is no God. silver, you even call people schmucks and Nemesis, you mention being called damned. Sounds to me like you not only don't believe, but that you are both a bit pissed that others do. That's kind of silly isn't it? We don't know if there is a God or not. We just don't believe in one as such. So what's the problem if others do. What do we know about faith and and religious experiences that many people have. What do we know about what it's like to surrender to God. What is at stake, personally for you, that others believe what you have rejected? Why aren't you schmucks for taking a position on a scientifically unknowable issue? I would have to answer that it is personal arrogance that propells you, the assumption that what you think is better than what somebody else thinks. The existance of religious beliefe in one form or another has hurt you and you want it to cease to exist. You have to get at the root of the pain so you can let go of the an identical rabidity you accuse people of faith of.

I have suggested many times that religion has as its source the fact that man is capable of an awakening for a dream or some other allegory of similar import. He is capable of that awakening regardless of his religion or lack thereof, because the possibility of that awakening is the one and only real, great truth, besides which nothing else matters. It makes no difference and is impossible to determine whether that awakening is to God or a hidden human potential. Since you don't believe in God perhaps you should focus on your human potential. Good luck.

 

[rogue1979]

I am a very analytical, scientific sort of person. I was agnostic at one point in my life. Without any proof, God would be hard for me to believe in, my faith wasn't that strong. But, I have had several very strong religious God experiences in my life as I grew older. Without going into details, they were so powerful they changed the course of my life. For me there is no doubts God exists. I was fortunate enough to get the proof I needed, I was foolish for not having enough faith in the first place.

 

[Optimus]

Really, I think it is obvious that the difference in mental prowness and intellect between smart atheists and the incredibly feeble-minded people who follow religion is so vast that it would easily justify making the "religious" sheep into some form of cheap or even slave labour to the enlightened ones.

Perhaps if they were told "God" wanted them to run on generators all day, or sew fantastic clothes for the Smart Ones... that would really benefit society. Perhaps we could contain them in some sort of camps and sterilize them so that the genetic flaw that cripples their intellect so badly is wiped out?

True, the Smart Ones would lose the free slave labour after that, but once religion was stamped out we would achieve a perfect, harmonious world anyway - free from strife, stupid people, and all discomfort. Nirvana!

After all, these people who have a "religion" are SO unbelievably flawed, mentally speaking, that the manipulation of this sub-species should be easy enough, no? So why not? Why not use, discard, and then rid the world of the flawed, stupid ones - to create a perfect society!

[/sarcasm]

I'm not even going to get into this again here. Same old strawmen, arguments that ignore being refuted, and worst of all a dripping, sickening condescension .
I'm not going to bother with it today.

Toodles!

P.S. - Certain members that I shall not bother naming may go ahead and declare some sort of debating victory at my unwillingness to take up the flag this round. Enjoy.
P.P.S. - GirlFriday summed my thoughts up very nicely earlier.

 

[Nefrodite]

<< And why are you expending so much energy to try and prove we're wrong. >>



Am I? Well, christians have spent awfully alot of their time and energy trying to convince me (and others) that "jesus is lord!". The door swings both ways I guess.

lol, i'm sure some of you have heard the "share your faith" radio commercials that play like crazy now i keep hearing em on cnn radio of all places

 

LOL! Moonbeam, I like you! Though, I don't tend to agree with you so often and your failure to proof-read your posts makes it much harder for me to comprehend what you're endeavouring to convey. Nevertheless, you have done a magnificent job in your last post. It is well put and summed.

It is pathetic to see people who live a double standard of critiquing another belief on the basis of dogmatism but sadly they are number one in such practise, I think Jesus had a name for them? Wasn't it Pharisees? Yeah, that's it. It's too easy to find Pharisees in one's everyday Life encounter.

I said if my spirit ever moved me I would refute the silly unfounded arguments Elledan and a bunch of others passed on as factual truths, but I realised how much of a waste of time that was. People who are bent on a mission in life to believe one and only one thing despite how inconclusive or false or true it proves will remain blind and be led by the blind. It is pointless restating facts they know to be truth but pretend not to or pretends to Have discovered another truth as though we live in a world of relativity.

NonTechGuy, I like your philosophy. That's my philosophy about religion too, but I'm agnostic.

 

[Moonbeam]

Not to worry about Elledan, luvly, he said he had something important to do. I'm sure he's out revising his theory to include the notion that the archaeological record substanciates heavy cultural exchange between human societies far back in time. I can't wait for the new tail leg addition.

You know that Socrates was judged the wisest man of the ancient world by the Oracle of Delphae because in one small way he was wiser than everybody else- he know that he didn't know anything whereas others thought they did. So if our condition is that we don't know, people that are irritating and people who get irritated by them are in the same boat. We don't know. In that case we are all sort of equal. If we are all the same it would be a good idea, I think, to have as much sympathy for the irritating as possible, because too find them irritating is a kind of knowing. To not know is a kind of humility that makes for kindness. To be kind is to love yourself.

 

[d1abolic]

<< I know for a fact there is a heaven and there soon will be a rapture. >>

If i had a dollar for every time i heard someone say that. Man now that i think about it i've heard this so many times. Especially in 1999. So many people went around saying that they know for a fact the world will end in 2000. And now that it's 2002 i know that all those people are just lunatics.

 

[JupiterJones]

Silveronsilver,

Some very general parroting of what others have concluded.

The Bible says that the universe was created in seven days. This is false.

Wrong. If you will read Genesis, the Bible says that the Universe was created in the beginning, it already existed during the first part of the first day of Genesis.

The Bible says that the Flood killed everyone except those on Noah's ship. This is a lie. Such a flood could not have occured, because there isn't enough water in the Earth's ecosystem to make it occur.

The prevalance of Flood legends makes the great Deluge almost a certainty. Noah, Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyption legend reported in Plato's Timaeus, Manetho, Deucalion and Pyrrha, Noah in Apamea (Asia Minor), Manu of the Hindus, Fah-he among the Chinese, Nu-u of the Hawaiinas, Tezpi of Mexican Indians, Manabozho among the Algonquins, aborigines of Andaman Islands, Battaks of Sumatra, Kurnai - Australian aborigines, Fiji Islanders, natives of Polynesia, Micronesia, New Guinea, New Zeland, New Hebrides, the Celts of Wales, tribesmen of Lake Caudie in the Sudan, Hottentots, Greenlanders, and on and on and on. Richard Andree's work Die Flutsagen Ethnographisch Betrachet, (1891) is the most complete collection of flood legends.

As to your point, how much water would be needed to cover Mt Ararat thousands of years ago, and how much water is in Earth's ecosystem?

The Bible has no explanation for evolutionary phenomena such as pseudogenes.

The Bible is silent on many, many things. What exactly does that prove?

Don

 

[linuxboy]

Wasn't it Pharisees? Yeah, that's it. It's too easy to find Pharisees in one's everyday Life encounter.

I really like this idea and agree with it. To the people who hold to a seemingly safe position while showing signs of psychological ego-ness and -ism and not even disclaiming positions by acknowledging epistemic circularity and drumming down "factual" lines, revelation of the blind spots seems to them to be full of holes. I made the same comment as MB here in a previous thread of this nature. Namely, that all of this knowledge is fine and great. But it still means we're humans; we weep, we laugh, we exist. It still means we're no better than the Pharisees who only have keys to the truth and don't allow commoners and layfolk to enter and learn what is love unless we recognize our own humanity (or alternately, Christ, or the Buddha nature). If one does take an -ic or -nity or -ism position, one should be perpetually mindful of that which allows us to become ourselves fully, or in theological terms, to receive salvation.

Cheers !

 

[reitz]

<< yes without religion there would be less wars. >>

Ignore Israel and it's neighbors for a minute...How many major conflicts of recent history (say the last 200 or so years) have had a solid base in religion? Now think about the major conflicts that don't have much to do with religion (American Revolution, the various wars in South America, WWI & II, Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Iran-Iraq, Stalin, Pol Pot,...etc.) You'll find that, at least in recent history, far more wars arose out of issues completely irrelevent to religion.

If you want to deride a belief system that differs from your own, go ahead, you're free to do as you choose. You might be taken a little more seriously, though, if you base your assertations on facts.

 

[Nefrodite]

The prevalance of Flood legends makes the great Deluge almost a certainty. Noah, Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyption legend reported in Plato's Timaeus, Manetho, Deucalion and Pyrrha, Noah in Apamea (Asia Minor), Manu of the Hindus, Fah-he among the Chinese, Nu-u of the Hawaiinas, Tezpi of Mexican Indians, Manabozho among the Algonquins, aborigines of Andaman Islands, Battaks of Sumatra, Kurnai - Australian aborigines, Fiji Islanders, natives of Polynesia, Micronesia, New Guinea, New Zeland, New Hebrides, the Celts of Wales, tribesmen of Lake Caudie in the Sudan, Hottentots, Greenlanders, and on and on and on. Richard Andree's work Die Flutsagen Ethnographisch Betrachet, (1891) is the most complete collection of flood legends.



eh not really, any large flood would be incredible to ancient ppl. plus they would certainly have no knowledge of how far a flood really went, let alone that the world is round. besides, any great worldwide flood would have killed off all said ppls preventing them from reporting or creating legends around it.

 

[Xenon14]

tcsenter and Luckster,

Both of you 'agree' that my post is irrational. Could either one of you grace me with your wisdom and refute the 3 points that I had conjectured.