2248 replies to this topic

[Iacto/Sophos]

Just when I read the bible as research for Vial Of Janus, there were a lot of passages at the beginning stating that the individuals of the story lived for near 900 years or even more

I have two theories going through my mind when I look at this;

1. Similarly to what Skree said, lifespan may be a curve. There are not very many places in the world where life expectancy is between 40 and 60, as it tends to be extremes. In the past, pollution was non-existent, also, many of the diseases and illnesses we experience today simply did not exist back then.

2. The calendar has been changed. The way we work out a year now is most certainly different from how they measured it then. This doesn't totally explain the 800 years that Noah lived, but it does help. It could be measured in seasons (unlikely, but plausible. Some people in genesis would have to have been fathers at around 10-12) or 12 moon cycles could also be a year.

[piggyspizza]

Hmm... and about your last point, how many of that percentage actually believe what they're being shown? I know a ton of "religious" people who don't really believe at all what they're being told, and merely practice the religion because that's how their family brought them up. If religion is to be effective, it can't really be treated as a tradition...

Well thats why there are many different types of Catholosism, and Lutherism (protestants). I mean some churches mend the bible to open up to different crowds. Yes, sadly some people do get brain washed into there relgion, me TBH even though I wasn't a "true christian" untill about 14, because I wanted to discover what I thought was right, and I'd rather believe in something that I thought was right.

[BlightedArt]

Yeah... But I don't feel I should have to go on a diet or something to avoid gluttony... I mean... Lol... I eat pizza and stuff but I constantly exercise and only have junk food once in a full moon now... Basically I'm still gluttonous by my own standards, but I'm not greedy for food... oddly.

I can get angered and such yes, but I don't go around hitting people. It might sound a bit obnoxious but overall I think I'm a pretty good person (notice how when I say that, "pride" might come to mind). No I don't steal, alright that's a good commandment to have, I don't kill, and I don't cheat on people (lust). But... If I were to see a girl and eventually make-out with her, no love involved, just a bit of fun which in turn doesn't actually show consiquences to either of us, would that be committing lust if nothing bad comes from it afterwards?

I think if there is a god, they would want us to enjoy the life he has given us without hurting others... That's pretty much what I've been doing and I love life. People who are religious? I accept them, heck I'm friends with a lot of them too and they're good people. But so are many that I know are not religous, if I put two of my friends next to each other, and erased memory of knowing which one was religious, I wouldn't be able to tell which one was and which wasn't.

There's a couple people I know who believe in god and follow the rules (or guidelines as someone mentioned), but also have safe sex at parties (she is catholic) and get drunk, still a good person though. I just think that I'm more contempt with loving life as is, personally. Because even though this could be a test, it seems pointless that any being [God] would grant something as great as life without people being able to get something worthwhile from it during the test (after the test, there is ofcourse going to heaven).

Science just fits what I believe, and I'm very contempt with it.

[Kiron]

Depends what sort of evidence we're talking about. Actually studying, for example, the life of Jesus, gives ample evidence that he was more than just a man. If you look for evidence of anything in science, you won't actually find it. I can't really back these up here (wouldn't want to take up the whole page ), I'd be happy to, however, if you want me to PM them to you or something. For the first, Hume, although he was an athiest, came up with a theory that nobody has been able to disprove, that we cannot rationally believe anything science teaches us... for the second point, for example, an athiest looking to disprove Christianity started to write a book, studying the life of Jesus in depth. In writing this book, he found overwhelming evidence for Christianity, and converted. He still published the book though The book is Who Moved The Stone?, by Frank Morrison.

This is stupid, most scholars agree that the story of Jesus is mostly made up, what we do know about Jesus is that he was a man named Yeshua that pretty much started to incite a riot against the Romans, yet we still do not even know if this is true as no Roman records actually mention this, and Roman records mention EVERYTHING, also all jewish Records were destroied duirng the Riot.

Science doesn't solve that mystery any better than religion. In my opinion, religion actually solves it better. It makes more sense to me for God to have existed forever, not dependant on the universe, than to say the big bang sprung out from nowhere.

Yes because a giant man with swords flying out of his mouth and has 7 feet and fire hair making the universe makes more sense than the universe being created after the energy resulting after 2 membraines crashed into eachover

Why? Many of the top scientists are either religious or support religious orientation. There is no evidence to show that religion opposes scientific advances. Some religions do not believe in medicine, but these are restricted to very few.

Actually most are athiest, Only mathamaticians are kinda religious because with Math you can prove ANYTHING, 40% of mathamaticians belive in a god.

Again, no evidence to support this. Also science will never be able to prove the creation of the world because there is only circumstantial evidence to support the theories. As no one was alive then, we shall never know for sure.

Science can find overwhelming proof how the world was created though, which Religion cannot.

It's not exactly normal, but it's not impossible. People's average life span could have followed a curve, going from very high, to lower, to a minimum, and now it's increasing, with advances in medicine. Changes in the human genome could have potentially meant humans live much shorter lives now than they used to. I can't back it up, but as far as I know, you can't disprove it either

yes you can, Genetics would show that people 5000 years ago lived to 900 years old, hell skeletons would as well, these days humans live longer than they ever have, 10,000-2000 years ago you would be lucky to hit 30.

Anyway Stop compairing Science to Religion, its stupid, they are completley different, Science finds proof to answers and accepts change, Religon is like "How was my hamburger made" "God did it" "Ohh... how does my car work?" "God does it", Relgion offers an excuse as an answer, Really Religion is just filler material till science proves what really happened.

[BlightedArt]

Kiron, might want to be careful there. You're validating points yes, but it's starting to tilt to flaming. XD

Anyway, with that motive out of the way: It's going to be a bit difficult to debate religion without science popping up, infact I see it as being almost impossible.

[Iacto/Sophos]

You must have misread what I said. I said that killer bees were created by scientific hands. We don't know what using foreign man-made organic material can do to the human body.

Yes, it does kind of 'settle the argument' which was my whole point. I don't really care how the world was created, I don't think it matters. I have my opinions and these are solely backed up by the bible. Science cannot prove how the world was made, only theorise.

The bible is not the only place that the events are described. Other texts dating from the same time back up the the bible actually happened, whether it was god or not is a question of choice and beliefs.

The percentage is taken from the whole world from census data. No one forces you to write things in the census, so it is the most reliable way of measuring it. Although it is hard to believe that that amount of people are religious from our perspective in our rapidly paganistic world. Source

About the dinosaurs, a dinosaur-like creature is described in Job.

13 Who can strip off his outer coat?
Who would approach him with a bridle?

14 Who dares open the doors of his mouth,
ringed about with his fearsome teeth?

15 His back has [b] rows of shields
tightly sealed together;

16 each is so close to the next
that no air can pass between.

17 They are joined fast to one another;
they cling together and cannot be parted.

[Vengeance]

This is stupid, most scholars agree that the story of Jesus is mostly made up

Ok, we just plain disagree on the facts here. I don't know what else to say PErhaps you should give me some evidence as to why we 'know' Jesus was a rebellion leader or whatever you're saying

Yes because a giant man with swords flying out of his mouth and has 7 feet and fire hair making the universe makes more sense than the universe being created after the energy resulting after 2 membraines crashed into eachover icon_rolleyes.gif

...I want a bible reference to that... lol. If at all, something like that exists in Revalation, but again, we have another metaphor book on our hands imo.

Anyway, as it has been said before, in what way could two anything's interact if there was no universe or space for them to interact in?

Science can find overwhelming proof how the world was created though, which Religion cannot.

World, mabye. Universe, not any more so than religion.

yes you can, Genetics would show that people 5000 years ago lived to 900 years old, hell skeletons would as well, these days humans live longer than they ever have, 10,000-2000 years ago you would be lucky to hit 30.

Cite something?

Anyway Stop compairing Science to Religion, its stupid, they are completley different, Science finds proof to answers and accepts change, Religon is like "How was my hamburger made" "God did it" "Ohh... how does my car work?" "God does it", Relgion offers an excuse as an answer, Really Religion is just filler material till science proves what really happened.

Religion never said God makes cars work. Religion is not a study of the world and how it works, so yes, religion and science do differ fundamentally. However, the cross over on certain topics, and it's those topics that we are arguing.

[VulgaritySocks]

Anyway Stop compairing Science to Religion, its stupid, they are completley different, Science finds proof to answers and accepts change, Religon is like "How was my hamburger made" "God did it" "Ohh... how does my car work?" "God does it", Relgion offers an excuse as an answer, Really Religion is just filler material till science proves what really happened.

Hmm... easy there Kiron man. Ignorance exists on both sides of the spectrum... try not to ignore that fact. Science and religion have to be discussed, because they're both opposite sides of the same coin. I think science could even be called a religion if you wanted it to be. If we were just arguing about "religion" then what would we argue about? What's spiting religion, other than science?

And Iacto, you bring up really good points, but censusses (censi?) have never really been that accurate... like, if my family were to take that, my parents would both say they were part of a religion, so would my brother (I'm not baptised... can you tell?) but honestly I don't think my family really cares either way. We never go to church, never really "pray" or do anything remotely religious. It's safe to say we're a family who really doesn't set much time aside for religion. But three out of four would mark themselves down as belonging to a religion. Even though none of four believe in it...

[Vengeance]

I'm not baptised... can you tell?

Semi off-topic, but in my opinion, baptism and being a Christian do not go side by side always. I know a lot of people who have been christened/baptised as a baby, and aren't Christians.

[VulgaritySocks]

Semi off-topic, but in my opinion, baptism and being a Christian do not go side by side always. I know a lot of people who have been christened/baptised as a baby, and aren't Christians.

Very true, reading over my post I suppose I highlighted that excact point without knowing it...the irony didn't hit me until you pointed it out haha...
Man I'm already loving this section... two hours just disappeared from my final studying time... the final being in three hours... oh dear...

But to keep things on track, for the religious "believers", where do you think the line is drawn beetween faith and foolishness? That's actually a question for anyone... when is depth of belief brought into question?

[Iacto/Sophos]

I understand that they are not that accurate, however, in a debate such as this, they are as accurate as we can get without varying on the data collection method.

"the universe being created after the energy resulting after 2 membraines crashed into eachover[sic]"

Who created the membranes?

"Actually most are athiest, Only mathamaticians are kinda religious because with Math you can prove ANYTHING, 40% of mathamaticians belive in a god.[sic]"

Well. To take a science, you have to have a high A-Level in maths (in this country). So you are disproving yourself by saying that 40% of mathematicians are religious.

"Yes because a giant man with swords flying out of his mouth and has 7 feet and fire hair making the universe"

Your vague reference to Revelation is incorrect. The person who you have misquoted about is actually called 'The Great Prophet' who is actually a human. There is also a reference earlier in Revelation about Jesus, although this is entirely symbolic.

Nowhere does it say that Jesus started a riot. The Jews may have wanted him too, but he didn't. The Romans would probably not have recorded such an act as they only recorded great acts. A small religious squabble would have been of no importance to them. Also Roman soldiers were bribed to spread lies about the tomb of Jesus (according to the bible)

[PwnDaddy123]

I have to agree with VulgaritySocks, I might be a Catholic, but science will be taking over, in my history classes I learned about last year, you can not believe how many times religion has been kicked off by science.

Do you people still think that greek mythology still exists? Do you believe that Zeus is up there in the clouds shooting lightning down making thunder? No. Why? Because science proved it wrong. Wasn't the earth flat? What happened to the guy who invented the telescope and proved the religion beliefs wrong? What happened to Charles Darwin? Charles Darwin is one of the favorite person to have a research on, he s very fascinating, I actually started to believe in the evolution theory, but I still believe in my god.... But what happen to Charles Darwin... Didn't he "vanish" I wonder who did that?

Science will be taking over religion, give it a couple of more decades and something else will be also proven wrong by a religion.

[Vengeance]

But what happen to Charles Darwin... Didn't he "vanish" I wonder who did that?

He had expected to be buried in St Mary's churchyard at Downe, but at the request of Darwin's colleagues, William Spottiswoode (President of the Royal Society) arranged for Darwin to be given a state funeral and buried in Westminster Abbey, close to John Herschel and Isaac Newton.

Errrm, I don't think so Charles Darwin was an agnostic, and in the final chapter of The Origin of Species, he states that the entire theory of evolution supports the existence of God. I haven't read it myself, so I could be wrong, but I'm 90% sure that's the gist of the last chapter.

[VulgaritySocks]

Do you people still think that greek mythology still exists? Do you believe that Zeus is up there in the clouds shooting lightning down making thunder? No. Why? Because science proved it wrong. Wasn't the earth flat? What happened to the guy who invented the telescope and proved the religion beliefs wrong? What happened to Charles Darwin? Charles Darwin is one of the favorite person to have a research on, he s very fascinating, I actually started to believe in the evolution theory, but I still believe in my god.... But what happen to Charles Darwin... Didn't he "vanish" I wonder who did that?

Hmm.. .that's a fair point, all the "old religions" we know look upon smugly as "out of date" were just as legitimate in their times as ours is today. So perhaps that will put something in perspective? The human race is always going to be changing their collective minds, so it's really impossible to come to a conclusion... and as Skree (I think it was Skree..) said, science used to just be medicine...

Hmm... and off topic, but there's a guy who lives next-door to me who claims I look excactly like Charles Darwin. He actually calls me Darwin. I find it kinda funny...

[MCClammer]

World, mabye. Universe, not any more so than religion.

Well, just because it hasn't been proven doesn't mean it won't. There were probably people who said you can't prove why an apple falls to the ground.

"the universe being created after the energy resulting after 2 membraines crashed into eachover[sic]"

Who created the membranes?

Who created God?

Nowhere does it say that Jesus started a riot. The Jews may have wanted him too, but he didn't. The Romans would probably not have recorded such an act as they only recorded great acts. A small religious squabble would have been of no importance to them. Also Roman soldiers were bribed to spread lies about the tomb of Jesus (according to the bible)

Yeah, we haven't established that the bible is a factual source..

[Vengeance]

Who created God?

Imo, that question doesn't make sense. It's "Who created the Creator of all things" - a paradox. If something had to exist before anything else and therefore cause it, I believe it is more cogent to assume it's God than to assume it's two membranes/any particles/or any matter for that... errr... matter?

[Contra_tehpwner]

I am currently on the edge of losing my religion. I am... or was, a christian. but i have ceased to believe in hell, support homosexuality, and many other "abominations". Well I am also very concerned by the whole "Science vs. Religion" thing. I have decided that there is no difference between science and religion. See in my "radical" philosophy, there is no such thing as fact. And that is the reason for religion, and explanation for life. Just as Science. Science is nothing but a big mix of theories. Just that THEORIES. So basically science is just a religion. There is no supreme being, just an explanation. Which is what I believe every relgion is.

[BlightedArt]

We're trying to answer the unanswerable here, no matter how long we talk about the creation of the universe, we'll never get an answer.

Edit: Contra has somewhat of a point. Scientology is starting to arise... maybe this will become the next major religion?

Think about it... Roman paganism -> suddenly Emperor Constantine adopted the beliefs of Christianity into his life... then within two generations pagan worship was abolished... All Christianity and its stories started from one person (I'm not saying christianity isn't true or false here, but it did either start with Jesus, or one person that just wrote the bible... regardless on how you believe christianity or science for that matter, every theory and belief is sparked by one person), and now Scientology is pulling the same role that Christianity did against Roman paganism...

De ja vu?

Edited by BlightedArt, 05 December 2006 - 06:45 PM.

[MCClammer]

Imo, that question doesn't make sense. It's "Who created the Creator of all things" - a paradox. If something had to exist before anything else and therefore cause it, I believe it is more cogent to assume it's God than to assume it's two membranes/any particles/or any matter for that... errr... matter?

The thing is, the people on these forums(myself included very much so) are uneducated largely on the subject of the big bang. Non-scientists always get the water downed as little science as possible to explain the event version. String theory doesn't make sense to the people that don't specialize in it, because they lack the knowledge to make sense of it(not saying string theory is for real, just an example). We don't know the full beginning but we are getting there.

But if you are going to pose the question of who made the membranes then it is completely valid to make the question-"who created god?"

@contra-these theories are not the theories that you are most likely thinking of. Scientists test and test and retest in order to attempt to prove a hypothesis. Really, people say that the theory of evolution is still theory, well no fucking shit, it doesn't go past there. In science, there are only a very few amount of laws, really they shouldn't be considered laws.

[Vengeance]

But if you are going to pose the question of who made the membranes then it is completely valid to make the question-"who created god?"

All I'm saying is that God having no creator makes more sense to me than random pieces of matter having no creator. But, as BA said, no evidence at hand, so we're not going to be able to prove anything.