Some Truth Regarding Bibles

kirbstopperA lot of western civilization morality is fucked up. And I think that you are making an overstatement. There are a lot of people who were raised with no religious influence at all. To say they act the way they do due to Christianity is just not true. I wish we could move past religion as a society. At the same time I have no problem with people believing what they want to ease the mind. As long as they're not teaching this as fact to children.

If they are from a western civilization the bible has had a large part in the establishment of the morals they believe in. "They" being the people that were raised with no religious influence.

DlCKIf they are from a western civilization the bible has had a large part in the establishment of the morals they believe in. "They" being the people that were raised with no religious influence.

I disagree. Empathy and love come from within. I think a lot of religious people would like to think that people treat people nicely due to the bible, but these ideas were not created or first thought of by Christians.

For example if someone has never been to church, does not have religious parents, friends or relatives, does not believe in monogamy, and accepts the fact that the universe is too complex to describe in a man written book. How is a large part of their beliefs based on the bible?

kirbstopperI disagree. Empathy and love come from within. I think a lot of religious people would like to think that people treat people nicely due to the bible, but these ideas were not created or first thought of by Christians.

For example if someone has never been to church, does not have religious parents, friends or relatives, does not believe in monogamy, and accepts the fact that the universe is too complex to describe in a man written book. How is a large part of their beliefs based on the bible?

because western culture is built around it. The TV shows, the laws, the social interactions and stigmas- all built on the biblical teachings.

californiagrownbecause western culture is built around it. The TV shows, the laws, the social interactions and stigmas- all built on the biblical teachings.

Maybe the general population I can agree on that. But to say that everybody who was born in the western world has beliefs based on the bible is a stretch. There are people who grew up far away from all you are talking about.(Cabin in the woods style). Altleast up here in Canada these people exist. You may not agree with me that's fine. Well agree to disagree.

kirbstopperMaybe the general population I can agree on that. But to say that everybody who was born in the western world has beliefs based on the bible is a stretch. There are people who grew up far away from all you are talking about.(Cabin in the woods style). Altleast up here in Canada these people exist. You may not agree with me that's fine. Well agree to disagree.

I get what you mean but those people arent really part of western "civilization"

DlCKI get what you mean but those people arent really part of western "civilization"

So an individual who does not conform to societies norms is not considered a civilized Canadian or American. Good to know.

kirbstopperSo an individual who does not conform to societies norms is not considered a civilized Canadian or American. Good to know.

Civilization: an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.

If you live in the woods, dont bathe and eat squirrels you are not part of civilization.

DlCKCivilization: an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.

If you live in the woods, dont bathe and eat squirrels you are not part of civilization.

What ever you say man. Good chat.

DlCKIf they are from a western civilization the bible has had a large part in the establishment of the morals they believe in. "They" being the people that were raised with no religious influence.

kirbstopperI disagree. Empathy and love come from within. I think a lot of religious people would like to think that people treat people nicely due to the bible, but these ideas were not created or first thought of by Christians.

For example if someone has never been to church, does not have religious parents, friends or relatives, does not believe in monogamy, and accepts the fact that the universe is too complex to describe in a man written book. How is a large part of their beliefs based on the bible?

You guys are talking about 2 different things, I think.

DlCK is historically correct in that current modern day laws are the result of Christianity's influence over the political system and has been since the middle ages. Laws have largely been written in accordance with (not necessarily from) Christian moral principles/Biblical teachings.

kirbstopper is correct in that these ideas did not necessarily originate from Christianity alone. Ethical thought is easily traced back to the ancient Greeks, who still have some of the most logically sound moral theory that is completely separate from any religious influence. Other great moral thinkers, such as Kant and Mill, were also very secular in their approach to moral theory and are all totally applicable to modern day life.

However, even though moral/ethical philosophy has existed without the influence of Christianity, I think we would be mistaken if we said that modern western/American society is not at least influenced through Christianity due to the Church and lawmakers being so closely tied together.

onenerdykidYour first claim is an absolute statement that is simply not correct. By your claim then, there could not be a world religion class in which school kids learn about religion and that would be a huge mistake. They are better off learning what is going on than not being told anything at all and left to their own interpretations or complete ignorance.

Secondly, there are many good moral rules in the Bible. I would argue, however, that moral/ethical philosophy deals with them anyway and they could be 100% learned without the Bible, but you would be mistaken to say that the Bible is completely and assuredly out of date with the modern world. Many many points in the Bible are foolish and absurd, but there are some good points in there for sure. The problem is if kids are not taught which ones are absurd, then they could believe the whole damn thing and that is a real problem.

What we should not do is attempt to say the Bible should be 100% left out of a classroom discussion. If it becomes banned in schools, then that would only lead to people seeking it out on their own and up to their own potentially flawed interpretation of it. In order to be understood and understood properly, it should be taught in schools (along with other world religions).

Sorry my first senance was worded poorly, my english is a bit rusty and I messed that up. What I meant there was that bibles should not be allowed to be taught as fact in schools.I wrote that directly in response to the OPs claim that bibles in school would prevent crime, with I think is just silly. I do think religious studies (from a secular viewpoint) is not only a good idea but a necessity, the more religions included the better.

To your second point I would say that even if some parts of the bible are morally sound, the fact that so much is the exact opposite negates that. By this I of course do not mean that said "good" parts are no longer "good", but rather that the bible as a whole no longer holds up as a moral guide. The good philosophies found in the bible, and I would argue that most did not originate there, can stand on their own simply because they are moral. You said so yourself and therefore I can't see the point of invoking the bible when it comes to defining what is morally good. That's why I think the Bible is as you say out of date, and absurdly so. It is simply not necissary in this day and age. And just to be clear I would never be for the banning of any book in school or elsewhere.

DlCKChristianity is responsible for the morality of almost all of western civilization as we know it. The way you act in public and how you treat others is a result of christian morality whether you believe in the bible or not.

Crediting Christianity with that morality is kind of an insult to civilisations that were never influenced by Christianity. I credit humanity as a whole for moral philosophies. The fact that Christianity adapted these philosophies that are central to every human being and then claimed their God "invented them", does not make it so.

kirbstopperWhat ever you say man. Good chat.

I mean he's not wrong.

GrabsForFunCrediting Christianity with that morality is kind of an insult to civilisations that were never influenced by Christianity. I credit humanity as a whole for moral philosophies. The fact that Christianity adapted these philosophies that are central to every human being and then claimed their God "invented them", does not make it so.

This is well put, and goes along with my thoughts on the topic.

GrabsForFunCrediting Christianity with that morality is kind of an insult to civilisations that were never influenced by Christianity. I credit humanity as a whole for moral philosophies. The fact that Christianity adapted these philosophies that are central to every human being and then claimed their God "invented them", does not make it so.

After the fall of Rome, or anytime after the fourth century, Christianity was what established western civilization.
"With the rise of Christianity, much of Rome's tradition and culture were reshaped by that religion, and transformed into something new, which would serve as the basis for the development of Western civilization after the fall of Rome. Also, Roman culture mixed with the pre-existing Celtic, Germanic and Slavic cultures, which slowly became integrated into Western culture starting, mainly, with their acceptance of Christianity."

You cant just change history because you dont like it.

kirbstopperThis is well put, and goes along with my thoughts on the topic.

Ya because you both are just wrong. There is no opinion when it comes to what lead people out of paganism and the dark ages.

DlCKYa because you both are just wrong. There is no opinion when it comes to what lead people out of paganism and the dark ages.

The shogunate and samurai?

You obviously have a relatively narrow world-view.

rozboonThe shogunate and samurai?

You obviously have a relatively narrow world-view.

Those eastern cultures dipshit

DlCKI can assure you that there is a God. God exhists regardless of what you believe, and he still loves you.

Thank you for saying this

C.SmithThank you for saying this

God is not real though

C.SmithThank you for saying this

LonelyGod is not real though

Santa jesus god does not approve

DlCKSanta jesus god does not approve

Jesus was white with blonde hair and blue eyes

LonelyJesus was white with blonde hair and blue eyes

DlCKThere is no opinion when it comes to what lead people out of paganism and the dark ages.

However, after the decline of the Roman Empire, it was Christianity that led people out of paganism and into the "Dark" Ages, not what led them out of the Dark Ages.

The Middle Ages are referred to as "dark" because of their pale comparison to the "light" of classical antiquity and the resulting halt/extreme slowing down of scientific/philosophic thought, literary works, art, and culture.

The Renaissance ("rebirth") is what led Europe out of the Dark Ages, and this was due to a full rebirth of classical thought, literature, art, and culture from the ancient Greeks & Romans mixed into the current Christianity at the time.

Ancient Greek historical works, scientific works, philosophical works, literature, and myth were all brought back into the limelight and studied and copied extensively. This injection of classical knowledge & culture is what brought Europe out of the Dark Ages and into the Modern Age.

Whenever there has been a cultural shift into a religion, scientific & philosophical thought and the arts have suffered. It happened with Christianity in Europe during the Middle Ages, and it happened in the Middle East (specifically with the fall of Baghdad) with Islam. Baghdad was at one point the center of scientific & mathematical thought until it was invaded by the Mongols, following which there was a huge political shift to move to a strict, literal reading of the Qur'an and the rest is history. Many modern historians still think that the Muslim world is still stuck in its own version of the "Dark Ages" and has yet to experience its own Renaissance.

onenerdykidHowever, after the decline of the Roman Empire, it was Christianity that led people out of paganism and into the "Dark" Ages, not what led them out of the Dark Ages.

The Middle Ages are referred to as "dark" because of their pale comparison to the "light" of classical antiquity and the resulting halt/extreme slowing down of scientific/philosophic thought, literary works, art, and culture.

The Renaissance ("rebirth") is what led Europe out of the Dark Ages, and this was due to a full rebirth of classical thought, literature, art, and culture from the ancient Greeks & Romans mixed into the current Christianity at the time.

Ancient Greek historical works, scientific works, philosophical works, literature, and myth were all brought back into the limelight and studied and copied extensively. This injection of classical knowledge & culture is what brought Europe out of the Dark Ages and into the Modern Age.

Whenever there has been a cultural shift into a religion, scientific & philosophical thought and the arts have suffered. It happened with Christianity in Europe during the Middle Ages, and it happened in the Middle East (specifically with the fall of Baghdad) with Islam. Baghdad was at one point the center of scientific & mathematical thought until it was invaded by the Mongols, following which there was a huge political shift to move to a strict, literal reading of the Qur'an and the rest is history. Many modern historians still think that the Muslim world is still stuck in its own version of the "Dark Ages" and has yet to experience its own Renaissance.

That is a bit of a misconception.
"Classical Antiquity, so long considered the "dark" age for its lack of Christianity, was now seen by Petrarch as the age of "light" because of its cultural achievements, while Petrarch's time, allegedly lacking such cultural achievements, was seen as the age of darkness"

It was the Dark Ages for a lot of reasons, such as the lack of written history or the fall of the "Light" that was Rome but it wasn't solely because of christianity Although it did have a hand in it, even though many Romans were already quite religious before christianity.

The Renaissance defintely pulled Europe out of the dark ages but it wasnt there because of chritianity.

DlCKAfter the fall of Rome, or anytime after the fourth century, Christianity was what established western civilization.
"With the rise of Christianity, much of Rome's tradition and culture were reshaped by that religion, and transformed into something new, which would serve as the basis for the development of Western civilization after the fall of Rome. Also, Roman culture mixed with the pre-existing Celtic, Germanic and Slavic cultures, which slowly became integrated into Western culture starting, mainly, with their acceptance of Christianity."

You cant just change history because you dont like it.

I am not denying that Christianity has had a profound effect on the course of hisstory and mainly in western culture. It is true that larger parts of Europe could somewhat unite under Christianity after the decline of the Roman Empire (not counting the Byzantine Empire) but that has nothing to do with the moral side of things.
And if you are going to quote something you should probably also say what you are quoting.

DlCKYa because you both are just wrong. There is no opinion when it comes to what lead people out of paganism and the dark ages.

At the time of The Dark Ages Europe had been largely Christened for several hundred years. The Cathoic church did not as you say lead people out of the dark ages, but rather initiated them by opposing scientific advancement among other things.
You are however completely correct in that Christianity "lead people out of paganism". That is usually what happens when you forcibly convert people to your own religion, mainly through the use of violence. The fact that you see this as something positive kind of makes my original point: Christianity is not a consistent moral teacher and at times even outright immoral.

GrabsForFunChristianity is not a consistent moral teacher and at times even outright immoral.

Thats why Im Buddhist.

DlCKThat is a bit of a misconception.
"Classical Antiquity, so long considered the "dark" age for its lack of Christianity, was now seen by Petrarch as the age of "light" because of its cultural achievements, while Petrarch's time, allegedly lacking such cultural achievements, was seen as the age of darkness"

It was the Dark Ages for a lot of reasons, such as the lack of written history or the fall of the "Light" that was Rome but it wasn't solely because of christianity Although it did have a hand in it, even though many Romans were already quite religious before christianity.

The Renaissance defintely pulled Europe out of the dark ages but it wasnt there because of chritianity.

Which most of the "dark" is historically attributed to a strict stopping of the non-Christian/pagan thought due to the influence of Christianity now controlling everything. While I never said it was the sole cause of the Dark Ages, it definitely was the main contributing factor.

When people of power literally interpret the main religious text and make extreme laws based on that, you get the Dark Ages and the end of the Golden Age of Islam.

DlCKYa because you both are just wrong. There is no opinion when it comes to what lead people out of paganism and the dark ages.

DlCKThose eastern cultures dipshit

So essentially what you're trying to say here is that eastern cultures aren't people?

Damn, you're a winner. Perhaps consider broadening your horizons just after you finish banging your sister.

rozboonSo essentially what you're trying to say here is that eastern cultures aren't people?

Damn, you're a winner. Perhaps consider broadening your horizons just after you finish banging your sister.

To be fair, he did specify he was talking about the history of western civilization (Rome, Germanic, Celtic, Slavic) when he quoted that paragraph and really, most of the discussion over the past few pages have been about Christianity's influence on western culture.

There hasn't really been any discussion about eastern cultures until you accused him of saying they aren't people...

rozboonSo essentially what you're trying to say here is that eastern cultures aren't people?

Damn, you're a winner. Perhaps consider broadening your horizons just after you finish banging your sister.

Yep, thats definitely what I said....

saskskierTo be fair, he did specify he was talking about the history of western civilization (Rome, Germanic, Celtic, Slavic) when he quoted that paragraph and really, most of the discussion over the past few pages have been about Christianity's influence on western culture.

There hasn't really been any discussion about eastern cultures until you accused him of saying they aren't people...

What I'm trying to get across is that the discussion has revolved around Christianity being this universal constant in the development of civilization, and thus far this has in fact involved what has always been only a fraction of the world's total population, and completely forgetting that many eastern cultures developed equally in an almost complete absence of Christianity.
I'm also pointing out that you can't really just refer to "people" in the global sense all the time when, again, you are only talking about a relatively small subset of the human race.
Also, you can tell from DlCK's posts that he essentially considers that anything which doesn't comply with western societal norms to be "not civilization" although from a quick perusal of his past writing he's clearly a troll and mostly just deliberately inflammatory.

rozboonWhat I'm trying to get across is that the discussion has revolved around Christianity being this universal constant in the development of civilization, and thus far this has in fact involved what has always been only a fraction of the world's total population, and completely forgetting that many eastern cultures developed equally in an almost complete absence of Christianity.
I'm also pointing out that you can't really just refer to "people" in the global sense all the time when, again, you are only talking about a relatively small subset of the human race.
Also, you can tell from DlCK's posts that he essentially considers that anything which doesn't comply with western societal norms to be "not civilization" although from a quick perusal of his past writing he's clearly a troll and mostly just deliberately inflammatory.

You are assaigibg opinions to people who never held them.

You suck at debating. Like, are really terrible.

californiagrownYou are assaigibg opinions to people who never held them.

You suck at debating. Like, are really terrible.

And you suck at typing and/or spelling, but we digress.

And I'll "assaigb" all the opinions I want, you don't have to read much of this thread (or DlCK's other writings on this fine message board) to draw those conclusions.

rozboonAnd you suck at typing and/or spelling, but we digress.

And I'll "assaigb" all the opinions I want, you don't have to read much of this thread (or DlCK's other writings on this fine message board) to draw those conclusions.

And you said nazis are great people.


See how easy it is to make things up!

californiagrownAnd you said nazis are great people.


See how easy it is to make things up!

Hooray, Godwin's Law drags this one straight into the gutter, congratulations on your fine contribution.

You could at least have a shred of content to back up your postulation.

I could rephrase what I said as "based on your previous statements, I am led to form the opinion that you believe _______"

What you've done, as you said, is just make something up. At least mine's an honest belief.

This is the difference between free speech and libel, out in the real world.

Eastern civilization is superior imo.

Im so close minded that im dating an asian.

Fuck that dude.

rozboonHooray, Godwin's Law drags this one straight into the gutter, congratulations on your fine contribution.

You could at least have a shred of content to back up your postulation.

I could rephrase what I said as "based on your previous statements, I am led to form the opinion that you believe _______"

What you've done, as you said, is just make something up. At least mine's an honest belief.

This is the difference between free speech and libel, out in the real world.

Are you accusing me of libel? Because I'll Sue you for slander.

DlCKEastern civilization is superior imo.

Im so close minded that im dating an asian.

Fuck that dude.

The lack of consistency in your position throughout this thread leads me to believe that you're riding the line between playing "devil's advocate" and being inflammatory just to see what sort of response you provoke.

For clarity's sake, do you actually believe any of what you've said in this thread, or are you just trying to encourage people to think about it in different ways?

I admit to wondering the same about borty when this thread was first posted.

californiagrownAre you accusing me of libel? Because I'll Sue you for slander.

Go ahead, slander is spoken word ;/

Libel is written, for example writing that someone said something when you know very well that they didn't.

You're welcome, by the way.

rozboonThe lack of consistency in your position throughout this thread leads me to believe that you're riding the line between playing "devil's advocate" and being inflammatory just to see what sort of response you provoke.

For clarity's sake, do you actually believe any of what you've said in this thread, or are you just trying to encourage people to think about it in different ways?

I admit to wondering the same about borty when this thread was first posted.

I think you're misunderstanding his position (and he's not caring enough to actually elaborate). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if I understand correctly he's arguing about the influence of Christianity on western civilization, not for civilization in general. He's also not saying that Christianity nor western civilization is best. However, Christianity was certainly a powerful and expansive force in history. You can't really argue that it didn't play a role in the development of a lot of our ideals.

I would go so far as to generalize that for all civilizations, a religion of some sort has played a role in their development. I also think that in humanity's "more advanced" society today, religion is no longer required to instill ethics into the population.

mirozI think you're misunderstanding his position (and he's not caring enough to actually elaborate). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if I understand correctly he's arguing about the influence of Christianity on western civilization, not for civilization in general. He's also not saying that Christianity nor western civilization is best. However, Christianity was certainly a powerful and expansive force in history. You can't really argue that it didn't play a role in the development of a lot of our ideals.

I would go so far as to generalize that for all civilizations, a religion of some sort has played a role in their development. I also think that in humanity's "more advanced" society today, religion is no longer required to instill ethics into the population.

Most likely. I'm probably drawing inferences that don't exist from the choice of phrasing, although on review that phrasing was likely unintended.

Hence I retract my earlier suggestion about DlCK, but I think there's actually a lot more going on than appears on the surface, and I still believe he's just playing devil's advocate.

mirozI think you're misunderstanding his position (and he's not caring enough to actually elaborate). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if I understand correctly he's arguing about the influence of Christianity on western civilization, not for civilization in general. He's also not saying that Christianity nor western civilization is best. However, Christianity was certainly a powerful and expansive force in history. You can't really argue that it didn't play a role in the development of a lot of our ideals.

I would go so far as to generalize that for all civilizations, a religion of some sort has played a role in their development. I also think that in humanity's "more advanced" society today, religion is no longer required to instill ethics into the population.

Yeah I told a white kid American dude that his society as he knows it has been influenced largely by the bible. I never once compared cultures. I heavily favor the dharma wheel, 8 fold path, and the four noble truths, if you must know.

Real men love Jesus

Holyshit u people are dumb. Religions are just a one way of making money. And you guys proof that god exists is in the bible, u know theres fucking billions of different religions and u guys think that urs is the right. How about living ur life and not dreaming about what could happen after it? And yeah this is old thread but it doesnt change the fact that u guys are wrong

DlCKCivilization: an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.

If you live in the woods, dont bathe and eat squirrels you are not part of civilization.

Civilization and being advanced are two different things. Aboriginals living on a little island are still their own civilization.

DlCKYa because you both are just wrong. There is no opinion when it comes to what lead people out of paganism and the dark ages.

So first (5 pages ago) you say everything is relative and there is no absolute, and now you are saying he is absolutely wrong? Can you please not make hypocritical contradictions like that?



With regards to my own views, I think the idea of religion is not inherently bad- it encourages social gathering, moral and ethical behavior and gives people a reason to be kind. On the other hand, it is quite evident that a majority of religions on earth are ridiculously outdated. Living by the standards of society 2000 years ago (or even more if we look at Christianity as stemming from Judaism, which it did) we simply cannot compare our way of life with theirs. While some fundamental truths about life and kindness may still be applicable, a large amount of what the bible advocates is not.

People who use the complexity of the universe as a "proof" of god existing, need to confirm their assumptions. Learning some basic things about the way stars work reveals how every single element on earth and in the whole universe can be created from hydrogen. One of my preffered theories about the start of the universe lies with antimatter- "nothing" can spontaneously split into matter and antimatter.

With regards to your earlier argument about god being true because of humans having a soul, that is somewhat flawed. Saying god is true because we cannot at the moment artificially create humans is both incorrect and a wrong assumption. Look at cloning- dolly the sheep was "born" from IVF, and she was not made from a sex cell, the gamete was formed from a tissue cell from the parent sheep. This made an exact genetic and phenotypic replica of the parent sheep. So we did, in fact, create life from something that cannot on its own make life.

As I advance in my career of scientific study, more and more examples of this pop up in front of me. The final thing I would like to touch on, is evolution. Religious people will say that life is impossible without god, because we are too complex to create from nothing. This is true to an extent. We did not spontaneously evolve from matter- we evolved over 2 billion years, starting with LUCA, an incredibly simple, single celled metabolic organism, to eventually vast arrays of brilliant species all around the world. Last week I got back from a study in Indonesia, looking at local wildlife with respect to conservation. One of the scientists working there full time told me about something really interesting that happened that strongly supports the theory of evolution (aside from bacterial resistance to antibiotics, artificial selection with farmers like chickens being bred from jungle/ guinae fowl and dogs from wolves). A group of scientists on a nearby island, 40 or 50 years ago, brought 8 lizards with them and let them out. The island was very small, and no other species as large as that were present on the island. Upon returning years later, the scientists found that some physiological differences had manifested themselves in the lizards- they were forced to eat from a very different food source, and so over a number of generations adapted to be more efficient at that. They are now a completely separate species, both in terms of genetics and lacking the ability to interbreed with their sympatric species. A similar example of this is Darwin's finches in the Galapagos.

I remember a couple years ago, there was an incident where some parents in Florida were trying to get the school to teach creation as an equally scientifically sound theory as evolution in science class. That is absurd, as evolution at this stage of our knowledge is incredibly difficult to disprove. I think we need to either lose the pretext of religion for having morals completely and just define our own morals globally, or at least refine religions to be more applicable in modern times. One of the things that hurts me most in this debate, is when people ignore science because of their religious beliefs.

If anyone would like to discuss any of this further, please do respond, and I apologize for the really long reply haha.

MLJCivilization and being advanced are two different things. Aboriginals living on a little island are still their own civilization.



So first (5 pages ago) you say everything is relative and there is no absolute, and now you are saying he is absolutely wrong? Can you please not make hypocritical contradictions like that?



With regards to my own views, I think the idea of religion is not inherently bad- it encourages social gathering, moral and ethical behavior and gives people a reason to be kind. On the other hand, it is quite evident that a majority of religions on earth are ridiculously outdated. Living by the standards of society 2000 years ago (or even more if we look at Christianity as stemming from Judaism, which it did) we simply cannot compare our way of life with theirs. While some fundamental truths about life and kindness may still be applicable, a large amount of what the bible advocates is not.

People who use the complexity of the universe as a "proof" of god existing, need to confirm their assumptions. Learning some basic things about the way stars work reveals how every single element on earth and in the whole universe can be created from hydrogen. One of my preffered theories about the start of the universe lies with antimatter- "nothing" can spontaneously split into matter and antimatter.

With regards to your earlier argument about god being true because of humans having a soul, that is somewhat flawed. Saying god is true because we cannot at the moment artificially create humans is both incorrect and a wrong assumption. Look at cloning- dolly the sheep was "born" from IVF, and she was not made from a sex cell, the gamete was formed from a tissue cell from the parent sheep. This made an exact genetic and phenotypic replica of the parent sheep. So we did, in fact, create life from something that cannot on its own make life.

As I advance in my career of scientific study, more and more examples of this pop up in front of me. The final thing I would like to touch on, is evolution. Religious people will say that life is impossible without god, because we are too complex to create from nothing. This is true to an extent. We did not spontaneously evolve from matter- we evolved over 2 billion years, starting with LUCA, an incredibly simple, single celled metabolic organism, to eventually vast arrays of brilliant species all around the world. Last week I got back from a study in Indonesia, looking at local wildlife with respect to conservation. One of the scientists working there full time told me about something really interesting that happened that strongly supports the theory of evolution (aside from bacterial resistance to antibiotics, artificial selection with farmers like chickens being bred from jungle/ guinae fowl and dogs from wolves). A group of scientists on a nearby island, 40 or 50 years ago, brought 8 lizards with them and let them out. The island was very small, and no other species as large as that were present on the island. Upon returning years later, the scientists found that some physiological differences had manifested themselves in the lizards- they were forced to eat from a very different food source, and so over a number of generations adapted to be more efficient at that. They are now a completely separate species, both in terms of genetics and lacking the ability to interbreed with their sympatric species. A similar example of this is Darwin's finches in the Galapagos.

I remember a couple years ago, there was an incident where some parents in Florida were trying to get the school to teach creation as an equally scientifically sound theory as evolution in science class. That is absurd, as evolution at this stage of our knowledge is incredibly difficult to disprove. I think we need to either lose the pretext of religion for having morals completely and just define our own morals globally, or at least refine religions to be more applicable in modern times. One of the things that hurts me most in this debate, is when people ignore science because of their religious beliefs.

If anyone would like to discuss any of this further, please do respond, and I apologize for the really long reply haha.

I pulled the definition of civilization from the fucking dictionary....

How am I hypocritical? The discussion moved away from ideas and we began talking about events.

Whether god is real or not is a relative truth

How western civilition moved away from paganism is historical fact.

I forgive you though.


To address what you said, I agree that the existence of a soul doesnt prove there is a god.

To clear the air...

DISCLAIMER:I only read a couple of replies to this thread but noticed enough falsities (on both sides of the table) to chime in and offer my opinion on some of the common themes I am seeing and shed some light on what Christians (at least the majority) actually believe.


EVOLUTION: most Christians believe in evolution and believe it can go hand-hand-with the Bible. God utilizes parables throughout the Bible in order to better convey a message and everything should not be taken literally or it can lead to serious contradictions (at the same time many churches translate things as literal when they are meant to be figurative and vice-versa for their own benefit but that is a topic for another day). God creating the world in seven days is figurative to some and literal to others and I'll leave it there.

*A key thing to keep in mind is that science has been proven wrong time and time again and while great progress has been made, it is continually reformed and restructured as we as a human race progress. Don't put all of your faith in science (if you lived a before 330 bc you would have insisted the world was flat). On the other hand, do not discount theories immediately based on your faith. Think for yourself because 99% of what we know is second-hand knowledge (meaning it was told to us by another and we our trusting their research/opinion/etc.)

There are many places in scripture that are absurd and are not applicable today (in this thread I've seen a lot of "cherry-picking" from the old-testament law - not eating shellfish, etc.) but it was a different time back then and it is worth noting that when Jesus came he abolished the "old law" and voided many of those laws (there were 613 of them) because he is considered the "new covenant" that renders the Mitzvot (Mosaic Law) void.

MORALS: King Salomon is regarded by many scholars (atheist and Christian alike) to be one of, if not the wisest man to walk the planet. Regardless of whether or not you are a man or woman of faith I would suggest reading a few chapters in the book of Proverbs. There are so many brilliant nuggets of wisdom in there that are just as relevant today as they were 3,000 years ago when they were written. Kant and Aristotle also have extremely wise things to say regarding ethics; again, Christianity crosses over with human culture in more ways than meet the eye. It should not be a constant battle of all things secular vs. all things Biblical because there is so much more overlap than we realize. I would even argue that there are significant numbers of atheists or agnostics that are closer to Christ than many self-identified Christians simply because they are living a moral life that in more accord with the faith than they may know.

LOGIC VS. FAITH: Thomas Jefferson made a gospel (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) that cut out all of Jesus's miracles and just left in all of his moral teachings. While this serves as a great moral compass, it strips the supernatural away. The older we get, the more we find ourselves letting logic govern our thoughts and losing more and more wonder each day. Christianity is not (at least should not be) abandoning all reason and having blind faith. It should be about seeing things as they really are and understanding that we do not have all of the answers and never will. Science will never be able to either prove or falsify the existence of God. I could throw out a dozen theories (with varying degrees of strength) that either seek to deny the existence of God or help to prove it but in either case, they are still just theories. The problem of the existence of God argument is that it is not a question of tangible physical components (things that can be tested by science) but rather one of metaphysics (outside the capabilities of science). So to me at least, faith is not blind, it is the pursuit of (what I believe to be) truth in the midst of doubt. No I am not 100% sure that God exists but due to various things I have learned/seen/experienced/etc. I have made a choice to pursue this insane thing which is Christianity despite how much my logic tries to tell me otherwise.

Turning off logic would make you an insane person - which many would argue that is precisely what Christianity is, but letting it rule your entire world is equally insane (in my opinion). For when we lose our wonder/imagination/"what-if factor" and everything else that is concerned with the things beyond which we can see with our retinas, then we find ourselves living a very bland and - dare I say - desolate life.

This is not a conversion piece and there are many other issues in this thread, by Christian and non-Christian alike, that are misconceptions of the faith which I did not address. I do believe, however, that there is a hole in each and every one of us that calls out for something greater to satisfy us. Many of us (including myself) try to fill it with money/sex/drugs/power/knowledge, etc. and these things do and can provide happiness but ten times out of ten it is fleeting and we find ourselves looking for it in something else. From my own experience (and that is really all I can offer) I have found that the only thing that continually satisfies this "hole" and brings me a peace no matter what is a relationship with the creator of the universe.

You do you. Just don't discount the faith based on what everyone else is saying. There are a lot of wacky "christians" in our world that misconstrue the faith and give it a bad name. Do your own research and pave your own path in this life because the more you learn, the more you'll realize how many things that you were certain of are either being called into question or being falsified altogether.

MCNUGGETSMORALS: King Salomon is regarded by many scholars (atheist and Christian alike) to be one of, if not the wisest man to walk the planet.

That's a rather bold claim. Not saying it's not true, but I've never heard this before. Sources? I do find it hard to believe that he is wiser than Aristotle (who invented modern logic, one of the soundest ethical theories, biology, physics, metaphysics, zoology, a big bang-esque theory, etc) or Newton (who practically invented calculus on a dare) or one of the 10 other people I could easily list who have literally changed the way we think about the universe.

That doesn't discredit anything he has said, but I do cast doubt on the claim that he is the "wisest man to walk the planet".

onenerdykidThat's a rather bold claim. Not saying it's not true, but I've never heard this before. Sources? I do find it hard to believe that he is wiser than Aristotle (who invented modern logic, one of the soundest ethical theories, biology, physics, metaphysics, zoology, a big bang-esque theory, etc) or Newton (who practically invented calculus on a dare) or one of the 10 other people I could easily list who have literally changed the way we think about the universe.

That doesn't discredit anything he has said, but I do cast doubt on the claim that he is the "wisest man to walk the planet".

Wisdom=/=intelligence=/=smarts

Granite_StateWisdom=/=intelligence=/=smarts

Very true- reason, intelligence & smarts are necessary conditions for wisdom but they are not sufficient conditions for wisdom. Wisdom is thought to be linked not just with those traits, but as Aristotle would say with "right reason". Criminals may be super smart, intelligent, and clever but not wise, he would say. And in light of that, Solomon has some serious competition with Aristotle still.