10 Christ-like Figures Who Pre-Date Jesus

- Published April 13, 2009 by rushfan - 157101,361 Comments2009-04-14+05%3A37%3A22jfrater

I recently watched the documentary Zeitgeist (Part 1) as well as Bill Maher’s movie Religulous. Both made mention of claims often made that there are many stories that predate Jesus but have striking parallels. I decided to follow up on these claims and see what kind of information was out there to substantiate these assertions.

I found several websites run by Christians who obviously disputed all claims of any parallels to the life of Jesus. I also found several interesting books on the subject, such as The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors: Christianity Before Christ by Kersey Graves, and The Christ Conspiracy, and Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled by Acharya S.

As a non-christian, I am approaching this topic purely as an interested observer. I am assuming half of the people who read this will automatically say the claims are false and the other half will say they are true. The truth I found is that it is difficult to know for sure.

Here are ten of the figures often sited:

Buddha

Both went to their temples at the age of twelve, where they are said to have astonished all with their wisdom. Both supposedly fasted in solitude for a long time: Buddha for forty–seven days and Jesus for forty. Both wandered to a fig tree at the conclusion of their fasts. Both were about the same age when they began their public ministry:

“When he [Buddha] went again to the garden he saw a monk who was calm, tranquil, self–possessed, serene, and dignified. The prince, determined to become such a monk, was led to make the great renunciation. At the time he was twenty–nine years of age… “Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age.” (Luke 3:23). Both were tempted by the “devil” at the beginning of their ministry: To Buddha, he said: “Go not forth to adopt a religious life but return to your kingdom, and in seven days you shall become emperor of the world, riding over the four continents.” To Jesus, he said: “All these [kingdoms of the world] I will give you, if you fall down and worship me” (Matthew 4:9). Buddha answered the “devil”: “Get you away from me.”

Jesus responded: “…begone, Satan!” (Matthew 4:10). Both strove to establish a kingdom of heaven on earth. According to the Somadeva (a Buddhist holy book), a Buddhist ascetic’s eye once offended him, so he plucked it out and cast it away. Jesus said: “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, and throw it away;.” (Matthew 5:29).

Krishna

According to Bhagavata Purana some believe that Krishna was born without a sexual union, by “mental transmission” from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki, his mother. Christ and Krishna were called both God and the Son of God. Both were sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man. Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity. Krishna’s adoptive human father was also a carpenter. A spirit or ghost was their actual father. Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent. Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star. Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna’s parents stayed in Mathura. Both Christ and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted. Both were identified as “the seed of the woman bruising the serpent’s head.” Jesus was called “the lion of the tribe of Judah.” Krishna was called “the lion of the tribe of Saki.” Both claimed: “I am the Resurrection.” Both were “without sin.” Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine. Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured “all manner of diseases.” Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead. Both selected disciples to spread his teachings. Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners. Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies. Both were crucified and both were resurrected.

Odysseus

Homeric tales about Odysseus emphasize his suffering life, just as in Mark Jesus said that he, too, would suffer greatly. Odysseus is a carpenter like Jesus, and he wants to return his home just as Jesus wants to be welcomed in his native home and later to God’s home in Jerusalem. Odysseus is plagued with unfaithful and dim-witted companions who display tragic flaws. They stupidly open a magic bag of wind while Odysseus sleeps and release terrible tempests which prevent their return home. These sailors are comparable to Jesus’ disciples, who disbelieve Jesus, ask foolish questions, and show general ignorance about everything. It’s amazing that either Odysseus or Jesus ever manage to accomplish anything, given the companions they have, but this simply demonstrates the power and ability of the one true leader who has a divine mandate to lead the people out of darkness and into a brighter future.

Romulus

Romulus is born of a vestal virgin, which was a priestess of the hearth god Vesta sworn to celibacy. His mother claims that the divine impregnated her, yet this is not believed by the King. Romulus and his twin brother, Remus, are tossed in the river and left for dead. (A “slaughter of the innocents” tale which parallels that of Matthew 2:13-16). Romulus is hailed as the son of god. He is “snatched away to heaven” by a whirlwind (It is assumed that the gods took him), and he makes post mortem appearances. In his work Numa Pompilius, Plutarch records that there was a darkness covering the earth before his death (Just as there was during Jesus’ death according to Mark 15:33). He also states that Romulus is to be know afterwards as ‘Quirinus’; A god which belonged to the Archiac Triad (a “triple deity” similar to the concept of the Trinity).

Dionysus

Dionysus was born of a virgin on December 25 and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger. He was a traveling teacher who performed miracles. He “rode in a triumphal procession on an ass.” He was a sacred king killed and eaten in an eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification. Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25. He was the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine. He was called “King of Kings” and “God of Gods.” He was considered the “Only Begotten Son,” Savior,” “Redeemer,” “Sin Bearer,” Anointed One,” and the “Alpha and Omega.” He was identified with the Ram or Lamb. His sacrificial title of “Dendrites” or “Young Man of the Tree” intimates he was hung on a tree or crucified.

Heracles

Heracles is the Son of a god (Zeus). It is recorded that Zeus is both the father and great-great- great grandfather of Heracles, just as Jesus is essentially his own grandpa, being both “The root and offspring of David” (Revelation 22:16) as he is part of the triune God which is the father of Adam and eventually of Jesus. Both are doubly related to the Supreme God.

Diodorus writes that,”For as regards the magnitude of the deeds which he accomplished it is generally agreed that Heracles has been handed down as one who surpassed all men of whom memory from the beginning of time has brought down an account; consequently it is a difficult attainment to report each one of his deeds in a worthy manner and to present a record which shall be on a level with labours so great, the magnitude of which won for him the prize of immortality.”

Jesus is also said to have done a very large number of good works. John 21:25 says that: “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”

Hera tries to kill Heracles as an infant by sending two serpents after him, yet Heracles survives by strangling them. This parallels Herod’s slaughter of the innocents in an attempt to kill Jesus (Matthew 2:13-16).

Heracles makes a descent into Hades and returns from it with Theseus and Peirithoüs, just as Jesus descends into the “lower parts of the earth” or Hades (Ephesians 4:7-8); Though Jesus does not bring anyone up from it. Heracles’ body is not found and he is assumed to have been taken by the gods:”After this, when the companions of Iolaüs came to gather up the bones of Heracles and found not a single bone anywhere, they assumed that, in accordance with the words of the oracle, he had passed from among men into the company of the gods.”

Glycon

In the middle of the 100s AD, out along the south coast of the Black Sea, Glycon was the son of the God Apollo, who: came to Earth through a miraculous birth, was the Earthly manifestation of divinity, came to earth in fulfillment of divine prophecy, gave his chief believer the power of prophecy, gave believers the power to speak in tongues, performed miracles, healed the sick, and raised the dead.

Zoroaster/Zarathustra

Zoroaster was born of a virgin and “immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason.” He was baptized in a river. In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom. He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil. He began his ministry at age 30. Zoroaster baptized with water, fire and “holy wind.” He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man. He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse. He had a sacred cup or grail. He was slain. His religion had a eucharist. He was the “Word made flesh.” Zoroaster’s followers expected a “second coming” in the virgin-born Saoshynt or Savior, who is to come in 2341 AD and begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a golden age.

Attis of Phrygia

Attis was born on December 25 of the Virgin Nana. He was considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind. His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers. He was both the Divine Son and the Father. On “Black Friday,” he was crucified on a tree, from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth. He descended into the underworld. After three days, Attis was resurrected.

Horus

Born of a virgin, Isis. Only begotten son of the God Osiris. Birth heralded by the star Sirius, the morning star. Ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets at the time of the winter solstice (about DEC-21). In reality, he had no birth date; he was not a human. Death threat during infancy: Herut tried to have Horus murdered. Handling the threat: The God That tells Horus’ mother “Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child.” An angel tells Jesus’ father to: “Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt.” Break in life history: No data between ages of 12 & 30. Age at baptism: 30. Subsequent fate of the baptiser: Beheaded. Walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind. Was crucifed, descended into Hell; resurrected after three days.

More Top 10 Lists...

Top 10 Most Stunning Roman Catholic Basilicas	Top 10 Religious Scandals	Top 10 Misconceptions About Islam
Top 7 Chakras	Top 10 Self-Appointed Messiahs	Top 10 Evils of Scientology

Religion (Email to a friend or submit to your favorite sites)

This list has 1,361 comments [Add Comment]

1 Jessy
April 14th, 2009 at 1:32 am

Great list. I knew about most of these, but aside from Zoroaster, I never would have thought of them as “Jesus-like.”

Did you know another major figure in the Zoroastrian religion is Ahura “Mazda”?
2 Suresh
April 14th, 2009 at 1:43 am

There are more things different between Krishna and Jesus Christ than there are similarities. And Krishna was not crucified, nor resurrected, in the sense Jesus Christ was.
3 wolvesofodin
April 14th, 2009 at 1:51 am

Actually in the old Norse religion Odin was hung from Yggdrasil (the world tree)for nine days and nights in sacrifice to himself that parallels Jesus’ crucifixion. As he hung there he was also pierced in the side by a spear. I know it isn’t as total as the rest of these are, but it does resemble it some. Here is part of the speech of Odin that describes it from the Havamal.

I know I hung on that
Windswept tree, swung
There for nine long nights,
Wounded by my own blade,
Bloodied for Odin,
Myself and offering to
Myself, bound to the tree,
That no man knows wither
The roots of it run,
None gave me bread, none
Game me drink
4 Deziner
April 14th, 2009 at 1:54 am

Very good reading Rushfan. Thank you.
5 Arnaud
April 14th, 2009 at 1:54 am

#2 is Mithra, right ?
6 maikeru76
April 14th, 2009 at 2:16 am

Shakyamuni Buddha’s teachings run in great parallel to Jesus of Nazareth and there is growing evidence that Essenes (followers of a mystical branch of Judaism) are greatly influenced by Shakyamuni Buddha’s teachings (Hinayana)…

Rather than debating about dusty scrolls and archaic doctrines and dogmas, lets spend our energies in doing good with the time we are alloted here on earth =)

It’s what they ALL preached right?
7 joe mama
April 14th, 2009 at 2:21 am

I’m going to have a nice conversation with my Christian girlfriend tomorrow
8 bbr
April 14th, 2009 at 2:23 am

Sorry to say, krishna and jesus similarities are so vague.
9 archangel
April 14th, 2009 at 2:25 am

Nice list, very controversial. Most of the Greek figures i cannot see a resemblance. However, Zoroaster and all the other Eastern figures certainly do have similarities.

I saw a documentary saying that around the exact time when Jesus was past 7… which is when nothing was written about him apparently… there was a child Dalai Lama or something rather (Buddha’s reincarnation?) that came from Israel and was taken to Tibet and taught. It drew parallels between the 3 Magi from Jesus’s birth and Buddhists priests/lords who search for their Dalai Lama (something rather, or Buddha’s reincarnation… can’t remember).

It explains a lot why Jesus’ teachings about God, humanity and religion are more peaceful and Buddhist-like rather than the more-aggressive God of the Jews/Islam. But… it’s a claim that will possibly never be verified, just as most mysteries of history.
10 Matt
April 14th, 2009 at 2:39 am

Religion is boring.
11 Jd8coke
April 14th, 2009 at 2:45 am

Why am I not on this list?
12 joanne
April 14th, 2009 at 2:46 am

i lolled at the picture for #6!
13 joanne
April 14th, 2009 at 2:47 am

11. Jd8coke:
the title says “10 Christ-like Figures Who Pre-Date Jesus”
14 jfreezy
April 14th, 2009 at 2:49 am

There is nearly nothing similar between Jesus and Odysseus. Odysseus was King of Ithaka, not a carpenter. He was no son of God. He wanted to return home to his wife and son, and when he did, he killed several suitors trying to marry his wife. True Odysseus’ companions may have been dimwitted to some degree, they are really not comparable to the disciples. Odysseus’ men had been lost at sea for years, and had gotten a little stir crazy. I think that this comparison is a huge stretch and is counting on the hope that readers don’t know much about Odysseus. There is nothing “Christ-like” about Odysseus. Odysseus embodies man’s ability to use cleverness to survive. Plus Odysseus kills men, is unfaithful to his wife, blinds the cyclops, and even considers lopping off one of his companions’ heads when he back talks him. Tsk, tsk, a little research would have led you to a better example from the Greek tradition, perhaps Apollo, also called the savior of men?
15 rosie
April 14th, 2009 at 2:50 am

You forgot Quetzalcoatl of Toltec/Aztec lore. He was born of a virgin, died and rose again 3 days later.
16 jfrater
April 14th, 2009 at 2:55 am

joanne: me too – that is why I included it I wish I could pee and drink at the same time – it would save me a LOT of time at bars.
17 jhoyce07
April 14th, 2009 at 2:56 am

something to think about…hmmm…
18 Stizzy
April 14th, 2009 at 3:04 am

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html

interesting article on the topic
19 Leon
April 14th, 2009 at 3:05 am

Gods were just a cycle of mythology.
20 blufindr
April 14th, 2009 at 3:07 am

Romulus and Remus were raised by wolves, and later went on to build the city of Rome. While arguing over what to name the city, Romulus tricked Remus into jumping into the river and drowning himself, thus taking all the credit. This doesn’t sound all too Jesus-like to me.
21 joanne
April 14th, 2009 at 3:10 am

16. jfrater:
but if you could pee and drink simultaneously you’d have to be standing in front of the urinal in the men’s room all the time while all the women are having fun outside now that would suck
22 Just Thinking
April 14th, 2009 at 3:10 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attis
23 Stizzy
April 14th, 2009 at 3:27 am

Btw, how can Glycon pre-date Jesus if he was created in the mid 2nd century, around 150 years after Jesus’ birth?
24 suoehprom
April 14th, 2009 at 3:33 am

Jesus wasn’t beheaded, John the Baptist was. Again…spectacular research from another author who cares more about making a point than true accuracy. You need a salt-lick next to you while reading historical lists on this site.
25 Paro
April 14th, 2009 at 3:47 am

Not that this is a fascinating list…but you’ve got to take Zeitgeist with a pinch of salt, some of it consists of true crackpot theories
26 Phil E. Drifter
April 14th, 2009 at 3:49 am

Religitards are afraid to think for themselves. There is no god. Get over it.
27 pretzolio
April 14th, 2009 at 3:52 am

Where are these “facts” about Horus, Krishna and others coming from? The bible is sourced, but I would like to know where this other info is derived. They all seems to come from Zeitgeist, which was a horribly cheesy “documentary” without any evidence or experts backing up any of the bold statements that are again repeated here. I have read much on Egyptian and Persian mythology, yet I don’t recall many of the statements about Horus and Zoroaster above being mentioned at all in the ancient literature.
28 doodlefish
April 14th, 2009 at 3:53 am

A very interesting list which confirms the fact that Christianity was just pieced together from aspects of existing religions and cults.
Don’t forget the Roman god Mithras, mainly worshipped by soldiers and men of the lower orders. He was born on December 25th, began his ministry at age 30, was worshipped through an eucharist, died and came back to life after three days.
29 Metalwrath
April 14th, 2009 at 4:04 am

I was expecting to see the god Odin in Norse/germanic mythology who impaled himself on Yggdrasil (the world tree), giving himself to himself in a world of pain, to discover the runes for the good of humanity.
30 astraya
April 14th, 2009 at 4:05 am

In Old Testament times there was nothing unusual about being “a” messiah. Various people throughout the OT are called that, including a non-Jew, Cyrus the Persian. The word originally meant “chosen” or “anointed”. After the failure and/or death of all of them, expectation arose about the coming of “the” messiah, which Christians proclaim in Jesus of Nazareth.
31 Stizzy
April 14th, 2009 at 4:09 am

The fact that the 25th of December keeps cropping up is quite weird considering nowhere in the Bible is this date attested to be the birth date of Jesus.

Phil E. Drifter, why do you assume that those who have come to the conclusion that there is a God have not thought for themselves and are fearful retards?

Is it because you deem the idea to be foolish and because it is foolish it can’t be true, therefore those who believe it are also foolish?

I also agree with Pretzolio, where are the facts to back these claims and shouldn’t there be referenced sources? Not to say that it is the be-all and end-all of information, but a simple wikipedia search on the above individuals hardly seems to corrolate with what’s been said here, and the similarities that are there have been puffed up to make them sound more profound.

One cautionary measure I’d suggest is using christian terminology to substitute for events or acts that in essence aren’t the same. It’s a common ploy among Christ-Mythers.
32 Gina
April 14th, 2009 at 4:21 am

Do you not think that there may only be one supreme God and one son-of-God, but in different cultures are called different things and depicted different ways?

That’s what I like to think anyway
33 Iain
April 14th, 2009 at 4:22 am

This list also probably needs Tammuz (also Adonis – a later variant of Tammuz). He’s a near eastern fertility god with a death and resurrection mythos, often cited as a proto Christ figure.
34 Stizzy
April 14th, 2009 at 4:36 am

Gina: Or perhaps there is one God an one Son of God, and that knowledge of them both has existed since the dawn of time, as well as the hope that this God would come down and save humanity. Therefore, over time, as civilization developed, knowledge of the aforementioned became distorted resulting in a myriad of religions with similar themes and beliefs.

Would also makes sense that if this God eventually did come to earth, one way to reach out to all the peoples who had adopted these religions would be to do the very things they would be expecting an incarnated God to do.

Also the fact is that whilst there are similarites, religions tend to disagree on content and intent. They could all be wrong but only one of them can be right. One of Jesus’ claims was that He is the Way, the Truth and the Light, so in effect He claimed to void all other religions.

That’s not to say, however, that expression of belief in Him couldn’t be different according to different cultures. Kind of like if you took an indian fisherman and an inuit fisherman. They both have the same occupation and are both experts, but they do it differently in accordance with their culture and environment.
35 pretzolio
April 14th, 2009 at 4:56 am

My previous statement of these questionable “facts” about Horus, Krishna and others was not in defense of God or Religion, I am an Atheist; regardless of belief this article/list, like the Zeitgeist movie, simply contains much non-factual misinformation presented as fact and is very misleading. Do indeed as “Stizzy” says and look up these individuals on Wikipedia, you will find little in their bios that resembles those found on this list.

Also for a more intellectual arguement on the topic check out this Skeptic Magazine article about Zeitgeist (presumably where the author of this info derived their information from):

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-02-25.html#feature
36 Signe
April 14th, 2009 at 5:02 am

Wolvesofodin and Metalwrath: The problem with the Jesus/Odin comparisong is that Hávámál – the poem in which the story of Odin hanging in Yggdrasil was not written until around year 800. I know it is build on much older oral tradiotions, but perhaps the story have been influenced by Christanity…we will never know.
37 jhhwild
April 14th, 2009 at 5:06 am

What about Apollonius of Tyana? Apollonius was pretty similar to Jesus in that he healed people, was put to death for his religious beliefs, and came back to life. He was mentioned in The Bible episode of Penn & Teller’s BS. However, he probably didn’t really “predate” Jesus since he lived at around the same time.
38 thewalkindude
April 14th, 2009 at 5:59 am

What about Socrates? He was a great teacher that went against the establishment and was killed for it. Just a thought.
39 Cybogen
April 14th, 2009 at 6:08 am

The list shows alot of those who by myth or legend were trying to be the messiah. It wasn’t until Jesus Christ came along sent by His Father who is God into the world so at last a Savior was amongst us. Jesus proclaimed the truth and the way to everlastuing life. His sacrifice for us and his ressurection proclaims his victory and our victory as well to salvation. Glory and Honor to Him.
40 cherry
April 14th, 2009 at 6:09 am

Interesting list, i have to agree with pretzolio on this one, how much of this was made up, and how much did you get out of those books you mention? I also wonder how much in those books you mention was made up. which parts did you get from which books? can you reference any scientific/historically proven book?
seems to me to be more propaganda
41 Steelman
April 14th, 2009 at 6:12 am

I’d be interested to see where this information comes from. Not that that it is the end all of factual information, but I checked out Dionysus in Wikipedia and though it has a lot of information, it never mentions a December 25th birth, nor the the titles of “sin-bearer”, “king of kings”, etc. that are cited here.

In fact, when you read the citation in Wikipedia, Dionysus led a much different life than Jesus. The parallels are reduced tremednously.
42 rushfan
April 14th, 2009 at 6:13 am

I guess some of y’all didn’t understand the into. I’m not claiming to be a scholar on this topic. Others make that claim and make claims about these figures. I already said I don’t have a stake in whether it’s true or not. Take this list for what it’s worth. If that’s nothing to you, don’t bother with it. I think it’s a fascinating topic and wrote a list of the examples often used on this subject.
43 Thomas the Creator
April 14th, 2009 at 6:16 am

ah…you forgot about me…Thomas Edison…ya..I’ll smite you.
44 BFXer
April 14th, 2009 at 6:17 am

Both Christianity and Judiasm evolved from Zoroasterism, which was the first mainly montheistic religion. Both picked and chose many of Zoroasterism’s teachings to incorporate into their beliefs. It makes sense that Jesus was one of those teachings.
45 Atropos77
April 14th, 2009 at 6:18 am

Suoehprom, I’m assuming that you are referring to #1 while complaining that the list’s author said that Jesus was beheaded. Maybe you should read that again, as it was clearly stated that the baptisER was beheaded, not Jesus the baptisee.

If you’re just going to jump on here to make a pompous complaint, you should probably brush up on your reading skills so that you don’t make a fool of yourself in the future. If you don’t like Listverse’s lists, then by all means, go away and take your smug arrogance with you.
46 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 6:21 am

suoehprom
Boy,have you got it right.Most of this list is horseshit but that’s not the point of it. Make Siddhartha,who never existed, equal to Jesus Christ and “BINGO”–Jesus Christ never existed as well–This is nothing new.This ploy has been used by the Godless for years.Jesus Christ is my king and Savior. But I no longer try to convince others which is wrong in me but I know longer have the heart. Let everyone believe as they may and let the chips fall where they may.You would be surprised how many idiots on this board believe Oprah was raised on the 3rd day.
47 Jesus
April 14th, 2009 at 6:24 am

This list is crap. Have fun burning in hell, blasphemers.
48 Cybogen
April 14th, 2009 at 6:25 am

Rushfan- Its a great list to read. Thanks mate for the contribution. These type of lists always bring out alot of insught and debate.
49 callie_
April 14th, 2009 at 6:37 am

I’m confused by all the people saying to use wikipedia as a source….it’s not generally a source of 100% factual information because it’s written by random people who can say whatever they want. Maybe I’ll go edit the jesus entry. I hate wikipedia.
50 Travisthechimp
April 14th, 2009 at 6:38 am

Wow. It is not the position of the religious to judge the beliefs or opinions of non-believers. To do so is arrogant. When will your blind faith give way to the intellectual light of reality? Religion has been around for thousands of years, in one form or another, and yet you so easily cast away that with which you do not agree as either mythology or blasphemy.

What it comes down to is that no one, believer or not, has the right to judge another for his or her belief. Why is it so incredibly difficult for you to accept others. Right or wrong, you have to share this planet with them. If he or she is wrong, that’s one less person with whom you have to spend eternity. At the same rate, if you blind and arrogant few are the ones who are right… what makes you think we want to spend eternity with you?

Get over yourselves. No one is perfect and none of this can be proven. That’s what makes religion faith-based. That’s what makes faith so important. Lay off each other’s differing opinions. As far as I’m concerned, it’s all mythology until the that day comes.

Such cruelty and judgments are what create so many problems and so much hatred. You want to try to live a good life that your god would appreciate? Maybe you should try to accept all people and love all people as brothers and sisters and get over your petty differences. We are only human and are inherently faulted, we will never know or understand divinity.

Have a blessed day.
51 Randall
April 14th, 2009 at 6:39 am

rushfan often produces good lists, and this one’s no exception, though I do think she takes a couple liberties here and there, and misses including a couple figures who should have been on the list. (Mithras being one).

But since ancient Greece is one of my specialties–and because the story of Odysseus is key to the book I myself am writing–I have to point out the errors in the entry on Odysseus, firstly, and then I’ll address Dionysius.

So, Odysseus first: In all my years studying ancient Greek both in college and on my own initiative, I have run across very few scholarly works claiming a parallel between Odysseus and Jesus. Both fit the cyclic and mythic mode of the hero, it’s true, and in that sense they bear a relationship to one another, but it’s a tenuous one at best. I don’t even recall Joseph Campbell making any statements about Odysseus being a “Christ-like” figure per se, though again, there is a certain degree of shared heroism between the two.

At any rate, where Dionysius is a very appropriate choice here, Odysseus is quite *in*appropriate. Odysseus is not divine or even semi-divine. His parents were both mortals and his lineage is mortal. He suffers, yes, but his suffering is of the “purging” variety, not the suffering which Christ endures as a means to an end (i.e., the atonement for mankind’s sins). Christ’s suffering is therefore epic and symbolic in nature, whereas Odysseus’, while to some degree symbolic of the movement from barbarism to civlized behavior (as a figure, Odysseus leaves the end of the Trojan War as symbol of violence and destruction–in short, barbarism–and must suffer his travails in order to come home, finally, restored to his status as a civilized being) is more of a thematic element of his personal story–Odysseus suffers not so much for a purpose as for simply *being* Odysseus–he has exhibited hubris before Poseidon and Poseidon makes him suffer for it. And the story of Odysseus’ journeys is the story of his suffering.

In addition, of course, Odysseus was NOT a carpenter—this mistake comes from, probably, the fact that Odysseus builds the bed for himself and his wife, and is spoken of as working to build his home in ways that we don’t expect of a king–but in fact this is merely indicative of the true nature of Bronze Age kings in Greece, who were less the kingly figures we think of when we imagine, say, medieval royalty, and more like warlords. Some, surely (such as Agamemnon) were more “kingly” than others, but many (such as Odysseus) were simply warriors who had carved out a small kingdom but were otherwise farmers, shepherds, fishermen and the like. At any rate, Odysseus is simply a handy man who, yes, can build things with his hands–but in fact if anything he is basically a farmer. As is his father, Laertes.

The final point made, regarding Odysseus bringing his followers out of darkness–this is reaching a bit. It’s true Odysseus must find his way out of the darkness of barbarism in order to return home as a civilized man again–but we must remember that Odysseus’ companions DO NOT MAKE IT HOME with him. They all die. In a sense their lives are part of the price he pays for his transformation back into the Odysseus of Ithaka. In short, then, Odysseus’ men do not benefit from his transformation or his final triumph, and this is most definitely not a parallel with the Disciples of Jesus. Moreover, Odysseus must return to one final bloodletting (actually two, if one counts the final battle on his father’s farm with the fathers of the slain suitors–though only one of these dies, if memory serves me) and then he has re-established his kingdom. For Jesus the bloodletting is personal–he meets his ultimate suffering in his scourging and crucifixion, and this cannot be said to reasonably parallel Odysseus’ fate.

There IS an interesting end note to this though. It’s said in later tradition that Odysseus will not die until he carries a staff (I think that’s what it was) to a spot on Ithaka, and there he’ll finally pass from the world. This DOES recall Jesus carrying his own cross through the streets of Jerusalem—but again, it’s more interesting as a point regarding Jesus than it is Odysseus–in other words, it’s more interesting the way Jesus repeatedly fulfills all the mythic requirements of the life of the hero, including the solitary march to a final death which is often the postscript to heroic sagas (but is never part of the ACTUAL saga–Odysseus’ death does not occur in The Odyssey and is not mentioned except in separate tradition).
52 Atropos77
April 14th, 2009 at 6:42 am

Smithstar15, it pains me that I, an atheist, have to explain to you, a Christian, some facts about your Bible, but apparently that is the case.

For starters, Siddhartha Gautama Buddha obviously DID exist. The fact that you would deny a clear fact just shows your obvious historical ignorance to favor Jesus’ existence. As I mentioned, I am an atheist and even MY opinion is that Jesus probably did exist, just not as Christians portray him. But through typical Christian arrogance, you dispute the indisputable. But I’m not surprised. I’ve never met a Christian who knew much about history, because the more history one learns, the more Christianity is clearly shown to be a fictitious amalgam of other, older religions, and a weak amalgam at that.

Also, by taking the Gospels literally “as Gospel”, you seem to be unaware of the fact that the writers of the Gospels almost certainly never met Jesus himself. Matthew the disciple did not actually write the Gospel of Matthew. It was written by an unknown author a couple hundred years after Jesus’ death and attributed TO Matthew and his point of view. Same with the other 3 Gospels. Everything written in the Bible, especially the New Testament is written by men who not only never met Jesus Christ, but whose great-grandfathers hadn’t even been born when Jesus had already joined the choir invisible. Bet they didn’t teach you THAT in Sunday school.

I also found it amusing that your post is pretty much the only one here thus far that contains profanity, even though you profess to be Christian. Also not a surprise, as Christians tend to be far more inwardly ugly and more hypocritical than the average nonbeliever. After all, was it not Matthew who said “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” If the meek do indeed inherit the earth, as Jesus taught, you clearly will not be included. Lots of pent-up anger there, pal, for a supposed Christian. But I’m not surprised. Hardly any “Christians” these days follow the Christian teachings as they were given. They just proclaim themselves Christians because they think it makes them better than everyone else. Sorry, dude, but it doesn’t. Hate to break it to you.
53 Randall
April 14th, 2009 at 6:43 am

BTW… a certain a-hole who shall go nameless has once again made an absurd assertion—namely, that the Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) never existed.

The uninformed and ill-informed should never make statements that they wish to pass off as factual. IN FACT there is just as much evidence for the existence of Buddha (that is, Siddhartha) as there is for Jesus–in fact, there can be said to be MORE. I, of course, have repeatedly defended the factual REALITY of Jesus as an actual person who DID exist, on this site, against detractors who claim he did not. But equally there is certainly a good deal of evidence for the existence of the Buddha—at least as much as there is for any other figure of the time.
54 Bob
April 14th, 2009 at 6:48 am

Odin is definitely a glaring omission. Anyway, for those who think similarities between the few figures on this list who are actually dying/resurrecting gods and Christ do any damage to Christianity, you’ll want to see what C.S. Lewis says on that.
55 sam-sam zingaling
April 14th, 2009 at 6:49 am

Mithras?
56 Stizzy
April 14th, 2009 at 6:51 am

“Both Christianity and Judiasm evolved from Zoroasterism, which was the first mainly montheistic religion. Both picked and chose many of Zoroasterism’s teachings to incorporate into their beliefs. It makes sense that Jesus was one of those teachings.”

Doesn’t Judaism predate Zorosterism by at least several hundred years, if not more?
57 MisterSir
April 14th, 2009 at 6:53 am

Interesting list. I don’t believe a word of it, but it’s interesting.

And the picture for number 6, it looks more like he’s changing wine into water, rather than water into wine.
58 oouchan
April 14th, 2009 at 6:57 am

Great list, rushfan! I actually liked this one because I believe all of them are myths. Including jesus. I just love mythology!

Gina, It would make sense that other cultures might adapt christ-like figures of their own. I guess the last one on the scene wins. Like a battle or something.

Love the pic for #6.

This could get very interesting today.
59 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 6:57 am

Atropos77

Gee,thank you for clearing that up for me and showing me the light. Since I only went to the 4th grade and wasn’t required to read “Siddhartha” in philosophy 101,I’m just a dumb hick who’s never heard all this drivel before. And thank you for pointing out my shortcomings.

“They just proclaim themselves Christians because they think it makes them better than anyone else”. –You know,that may be the dumbest statement ever made in the history of man–I don’t think I’m better than anybody. I have more than my share of faults. And I may possibly be the meanest son-of-a-bitch on here but I will never deny my lord,Jesus Christ.I’m getting old now but I’ve fought,got drunk and chased whores with the best of them but I loved my lord thru it all.And I will never deny him.Never. I feel sorry for you. Well actually,I don’t.
60 Liam
April 14th, 2009 at 7:00 am

It’s a well known fact: Christianity is in fact bullshit.
61 Randall
April 14th, 2009 at 7:02 am

Stizzy:

Depends on how you precisely define “Judaism.” If you call the religion of the Hebrews going all the way back to Abraham “Judaism,” then yes, it predates Zoroaster by several thousand years. This is a tad stretchy, though.

If you define “Judaism” as the actual faith of the Hebrews that developed from the Law (i.e., of Moses) then it predates Zoroaster only by about a thousand years, at best.

Where it gets tricky is if one begins to recognize only the “modern” idea of Judaism, which is not just about religion but also about identity–that is, the identity of “being Jewish,” and in THAT sense Judaism is roughly contemporary with Zoroaster. And it MIGHT be said that Zoraster was influential on Judaic thought and theology–but I’m not an expert on that and can’t comment.

Frankly I think the text was incorrect. It’s pushing it quite a bit to say Judaism was predated by Zoroaster (though SOME do claim that Zoroasterism goes back some 5000 years or more). Let’s say that Judaism in a sense is far older—but Judaism in the modern sense isn’t THAT much older than Zoroaster.
62 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 7:03 am

And there’s a certain A-hole on here who’s trying to present himself as knowledgeable on Siddhartha because he just looked up the name on Wikipedia after I correctly spelled the ficticious name for him.I’m glad he got it in before they came to take him for his shock treatments.
63 oouchan
April 14th, 2009 at 7:05 am

I guess “turning the other cheek” doesn’t apply to some a-hole.
64 Stizzy
April 14th, 2009 at 7:08 am

“Also, by taking the Gospels literally “as Gospel”, you seem to be unaware of the fact that the writers of the Gospels almost certainly never met Jesus himself. Matthew the disciple did not actually write the Gospel of Matthew. It was written by an unknown author a couple hundred years after Jesus’ death and attributed TO Matthew and his point of view.”

Would like to see your source for this, as it’s generally agreed that Matthew wrote that gospel and that is wasn’t written several hundred years after the death of Jesus.

“Same with the other 3 Gospels. Everything written in the Bible, especially the New Testament is written by men who not only never met Jesus Christ, but whose great-grandfathers hadn’t even been born when Jesus had already joined the choir invisible. Bet they didn’t teach you THAT in Sunday school.”

The book of John was written by the John who was one of the twelve, and also most likely a relative of Jesus.

Mark wasn’t written by one of the apostles but is drawn from the testimony of Peter who was one of the Apostles.

Luke was contemporary of those who did know and meet Jesus even if he hadn’t himself. He makes this pretty clear in the opening to that gospel. He also wrote the book of Acts.

The epistles 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, James, Jude, and Revelation were written either by apostles or direct relatives of Jesus. James and Jude were two of Jesus’ half-brothers.

With the exception of Hebrews, the rest of the books were written by the Apostle Paul who didn’t know Jesus during His ministry but certainly did meet Him afterwards. After all, it was this event which marked his conversion. And again, he was a contemporary of those who did know Jesus and walked with him, such as Peter.

It’s also attested in the books of the NT that over 300 people who saw Jesus were still around when some of the books were written, hence their stories could be checked by those reading the gospels at the time.

Not to mention, Peter in one of his epistles refers to the letters of Paul as scripture, showing a great portion of the NT would have been written around that time and circulating the early church.
65 rushfan
April 14th, 2009 at 7:08 am

Thanks Randall! I was hoping you’d jump right into this and get it going. When you’re not abusing my political views, you’re a real smartypants and I think you bring a lot to the table!
66 Randall
April 14th, 2009 at 7:11 am

smithstar, everytime you open your mouth here you show yourself up as more and more ignorant and worse, less and less willing to educate yourself. Age is no excuse for either ignorance OR an unwillingness to learn.

A) “Siddhartha” is a novel written by Herman Hesse. It is the STORY of the Buddha, in essence, but is not historical in particular. What we know about the Buddha does NOT come from “Siddhartha.”

B) However, you bring up only that text, and I have little doubt that it’s the only text you’ve ever heard of regarding the Buddha. What’s reprehensible about this is not your ignorance of the texts and facts surrounding the Buddha, but rather that you chose to shoot off your mouth ABOUT the Buddha as a figure when clearly YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE about him, historically, whatsoever. Offering up opinions regarding topics about which you know ZILCH is pretty much the height of arrogant stupidity.

Lastly, you speak exactly like the sort of typical self-absorbed, self-satisfied and self-congratulatory Christian who has not a care or interest in understanding the world or the others in it–the sort of “Christian” which gives the religion such a terrible name.

I DO feel sorry for you, in fact. Wisdom has eluded you, despite the years you claim to have under your belt.
67 Stizzy
April 14th, 2009 at 7:11 am

Thanks for clearing that up Randall, I mean yeah it does kinda boil down to how you define Judaism. As a religion and culture, it took some time to develop. But if you look at it in terms of faith in and worship of the Deity who made Himself known as Yahweh than most definately it predates Zoroasterism.
68 Stizzy
April 14th, 2009 at 7:16 am

smithstar15: I also have to kinda agree with some other people on the way you speak here, as one professes Jesus as his Lord an Saviour, you sure don’t act like it.

Afterall, even the devil himself can say that Jesus is Lord and Saviour but that hardly makes him a follower of Jesus lol.

Sure you may not deny Jesus yourself, but you have to ask yourself that baring in mind how you’re carrying yourself here, would Jesus deny YOU?
69 Randall
April 14th, 2009 at 7:17 am

The other amusing thing, smithstar, is that you are utterly clearless about whom you’re addressing here. The other day you were making raving accusations that I and about a half dozen other “regulars” on this site were the same person.

I’m quite proud to state for the record that I don’t require Wikipedia and in fact rarely if ever visit the thing, because I consider it unreliable and uneven in the extreme. Furthermore, I have no need to defend my record or my credentials as I’m QUITE confident in both and I find pathetic attempts to bait me *about* them to be only laughable.

It clearly comes as a surprise to you, but there are ACTUAL scholars (with advanced degrees and everything!) on this site (I’m not the only one) who come here for fun, to educate, to blow off some steam, and banter with other interesting people.

Sadly you are not one of them.
70 Randall
April 14th, 2009 at 7:18 am

excuse me… “utterly CLUELESS.” I need my morning coffee.
71 Randall
April 14th, 2009 at 7:21 am

Stizzy:

I agree about Judaism–unless someone wants to buy an extremely ancient origin for Zoroasterism, (which I frankly don’t) then Judaism is older by far.

It’s just hard to say WHAT Judaism actually is once we get past about, say, 1000 BC or so. Particularly if we go back to the time BEFORE Moses. The further back you go, in a sense there comes to be more than ONE “Judaism,” and the further forward you come, the more it becomes tied to a particular sense of identity about BEING Jewish.

But I’d never say Zoroaster predates it, and would doubt much inflence that Zoroaster had over it.
72 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 7:22 am

To a certain a-hole– Since I’m unwise and you’re not, I offer a simple solution–You worship buddha and I’ll stupidly worship Jesus Christ and we’ll both be happy–How about that? See,even a dummy like me can come up with sensible solutions at times.
73 Randall
April 14th, 2009 at 7:23 am

rushfan:

You’re welcome. I’m happy to abuse your political views as I am to congratulate you on all your great lists. And always happy to mouth off too—you know what a show-off I am.
74 tobbytoy
April 14th, 2009 at 7:23 am

The existence of Christ-like symbols before His actual birth does NOT discredit Christianity by ANY means. In fact, the existence of such symbols show that all people have hope for a Savior, a Christ, a pure and perfect leader. Indeed, the existence of such symbols further prove that the coming of Christ was prophesied before his birth and that his mission – atoning for the sins of all humanity and redeeming man from the dead – was heralded long before his coming.

I know that Christ lives and that he atoned for my sins personally. I know that He rose again, breaking the bonds of death. The symbols presented above further confirm my sentiments.
75 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 7:25 am

tobbyboy–Thank You
76 Randall
April 14th, 2009 at 7:26 am

smithstar:

Again, your ignorance knows no bounds.

Buddhists do NOT “worship” the Buddha. Doing so would, in fact, be a violation of the essential precepts of the philosophy of Buddhism. Again, stop trying to comment on things about which you have NO knowledge.

As for your solution–fine with me–I could care less who or what you worship. But one hopes you WOULD sincerely recognize that you ARE, in fact, “unwise.” I don’t CLAIM wisdom, myself. What YOU claim is unclear, but I would suggest that recognizing one’s own LACK of wisdom is the first step on the road TO wisdom.
77 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 7:31 am

O-Wise-Randall–If you’ve ever seen the inside of a university it’s because you were there to clean the urinals.Oh wait–I forgot–You have a degree from Wikepidia college–Sorry–
78 Travisthechimp
April 14th, 2009 at 7:35 am

smithstar15: Your hostility serves to only lessen your already diminished credibility and you are a misrepresentation of Christian beliefs.

I don’t know if Jesus ever taught to ostrasize those who do not follow him. I didn’t think he did…
79 Russ Urquhart
April 14th, 2009 at 7:37 am

Check out Joseph Campbell. You can start with his Power of Myth, but a lot of his lectures are available free online. He gives a very good presentation not only about these figures, and their similarities, but why they are there and why they affect us, and what that means.

fyi,

Russ
80 BenB06
April 14th, 2009 at 7:37 am

Judaism was most likely influenced more by your early Mesopotamian religions such as the Babylonians than Zoroastrianism. The Hebrew Bible bears a striking similarity to the Enuma Elish, because the The Author(s) most likely were influenced by the religion and were constantly trying to refute it by saying that their god was more powerful.
as someone mentioned earlier December 25 is never stated as the date of Jesus’ birth in the bible. This was later attributed to Jesus’ story and in turn was a tactic used by early Christians to try and win over pagans by making the Christ Deity into an analog to their own. (thus keeping their festivals etc.) Similarities are often less about stealing religious ideas and more about marketing.
81 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 7:42 am

Randall–You may be the most boring person that ever lived. If I’m so dumb why do you make any replies to my remarks?–If I was as wise as you I would overlook a dummy like me and consider the source.But I’m sure you once fell asleep by a babbling brook and the brook revealed all wisdom of the sges to you so I guess you’re just trying to lead an idiot like me to the light–Hey,thanks buddy–
82 Randall
April 14th, 2009 at 7:43 am

It would be a saving grace, smithstar, if you were at least funny. Sadly for you even this isn’t so.
83 Shane
April 14th, 2009 at 7:43 am

Where is Anakin Skywalker???? LOL
84 dot
April 14th, 2009 at 7:47 am

It’s pretty clear that Jesus was an invention just like most of the others on the list. This is Paul’s doing, there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus whatsoever. I could go on and on. One more thing: I wish to thank smithstar15 for showing me how to be a true paragon of Christian virtue.
85 Cybogen
April 14th, 2009 at 7:47 am

What made Jesus different is that he claimed not merely to HAVE the true interpretation of the Bible, but to BE it. Everything in what we call the Old Testament somehow pointed to him,
Some important points are involved here:
1. Jesus came to fulfil the Old Testament prophecies made to the people of Israel. It is therefore necessary for the Christian to understand what those prophecies were and why they were made, if we are to have any real understanding of what Jesus did.
2. The message of redemption cannot be separated from the doctrine of creation. The New Testament teaches us that all things were made in and through Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God. We are therefore not being saved FROM the created order, as if that were somehow ungodly, but FOR it – the Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 8 that the whole creation is groaning, waiting for the revelation of the sons of God. The climax of the present age will not be a disembodied spiritual existence in some kind of airy-fairy heaven. On the contrary, there will be a new heaven and a new earth, and we (who are a new creation in Christ) will then take up our rightful place in it. A gospel which does not affect the material order is no gospel at all, and Evangelical Christians have historically been in the forefront of those who insist that God changes things – not just in the sky when we die, but here and now, on this earth. In a world which wants instant gratification, this is an important perspective to bear in mind – and it comes mainly from the Old, not from the New Testament.
Jesus was able to claim and fulfil different titles given him because unlike Abraham’s other descendants, he was more than just a human being. Born of a virgin mother, his father was God himself, making him both God and man. Jesus’ life and work were qualitatively superior to those of his predecessors because Jesus himself was qualitatively superior to them, just as he is qualitatively superior to us. In him, the covenant and its different dispensations find their true fulfilment, making us who are united to him participants in his rule over both creation and redemption.
86 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 8:02 am

Hey,I owe everyone an apology–I just went to my trusty O.E.D. and it seems that buddha did exist–And so did Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill–Who woulda thunk it!
87 Eric
April 14th, 2009 at 8:07 am

And where is Bono…
88 shaymm
April 14th, 2009 at 8:15 am

I can tell this might stir up some controversies…and more comments. I won’t add my two cents unless I somehow get offended (hard thing to do). lol
89 Cybogen
April 14th, 2009 at 8:19 am

87. shaymm – Hello mate! Please do express yourself if you want. We’re all open-minded here.We’re expected to be.
90 derekouyang
April 14th, 2009 at 8:24 am

24. suoehprom:

“Subsequent fate of the baptiser: Beheaded.”

This sentence is referring to the baptiser, not Jesus.
91 ThuyR
April 14th, 2009 at 8:29 am

Just thought it would be handy to clear up some stuff before we see people at each other’s throats again. Jesus DID exist. There’s no doubt about it. St. Peter brought Christianity to Rome, and Christianity was widespread among slaves by AD 70. This would have been impossible had Jesus not been real; the disciples would have NEVER developed a large enough base of followers if they ran around preaching about a great man who only THEY had seen. Thousands must have seen Jesus himself if Christianity was to have gotten off the ground.

And Buddha did exist. He was the Crown Prince of a Kingdom, his name appears as a Royalin various annals as well. He is listed as heir until his brother took the throne (Buddha choosing to seek enligtenment). And also Buddha never plucked anyone’s eye out as the list claims. Somadeva was a storyteller (not a book) who lived in the 10th century AD who wrote a “backstory” to his religion. I know this sounds strange as he was a beliver in Buddha, but in Asia, its not out of place to see their religion being used as a base for purely fictional stories for entertainment. I’ve read a translation of a 15th century Chinese novel where Heaven is somehow besieged by hell.
92 copperdragon
April 14th, 2009 at 8:32 am

Odysseus was not virgin-born, was not a messiah, was not a carpenter, did not preach and was not resurrected.

He was a king, a warrior, a farmer, very clever, and unfaithful only because a goddess seduced him. Yes he built a boat and a bed, but these would be relatively common abilities for his time-period.

Scholars that see this as a comparison for JC are truly stretching.
93 magsc
April 14th, 2009 at 8:32 am

I will now be worshipping the drunk, peeing, fat little baby Savior.
94 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 8:45 am

Hey what about Huitzilopitchli? How easily we forget this great god–And I know for certain he exists because I saw a polaroid snapshot of him in the Blue Fox bar in Tijuana in 1963.And the tequila had nothing to do with it.
95 dave4248
April 14th, 2009 at 8:47 am

Hey, #74. tobbytoy… When it comes to linguistic gymnastics, you are truly Nadia Comaneci and Kerry Strug rolled into one. Allow me to be the first to give you a perfect 10. That was one of the most brilliant rationlizations I’ve ever read for belief in Jesus. If YOU can take the stories of Horus and Zarathustra as reasons for believing in Jesus, then can’t I do the same thing in reverse? I’ll take the stories of Jesus as reason for believeing in H & Z. Works both ways.
96 shaymm
April 14th, 2009 at 8:49 am

88–I appreciate it, I’m finding that not a lot of these people are open minded.
First, I will say that I respect a person’s desire to learn about religion, which ever way you interpret is your own dealing. For me, I have found the bible to be a great gospel, but fail to see it as God’s Word–I try and try, but it’s just not there for me. For me, I like to think that the Bible (Christian)is a mere variable, and that believing in (a)God is the main goal. There are over time, like this list has pointed out, many gospels of truth and to think that either one is correct or wrong goes against our own given by God ability of choice and reasoning. Also, and I think the Dalia Lama said, people are conscious of their religion because of their culture and vice versa. He even told two Germans that they shouldn’t convert because it would put them in an awkward position. I’m not sure exactly what it was that he said, but I remember it being told to me by a well respected man–a person that knows a great deal more than I do. People shouldn’t worship something that makes no sense to them–what sense is there in that?? I think if there is a desire for an understanding for a higher power than the battle is half over…
Notice I put “I think” a lot. Just with everything else, there is no definite answer.
97 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 8:52 am

I didn’t know Bill Maher actually existed until now because I thought it was impossible for anybody to be that butt-ugly–I thought it was somebody wearing a horror mask to scare kids.But I guess he does actually exist–Hey,he may be a god too.
98 oouchan
April 14th, 2009 at 8:54 am

smithstar15: “Hey,I owe everyone an apology–I just went to my trusty O.E.D. and it seems that buddha did exist–And so did Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill–Who woulda thunk it!”

I feel the same about jesus…wow…who woulda thunk it!

You are proving with each word you write, why I can’t stand christianity or other such hocus pocus. You don’t accept that there are other views nor do you follow your lord’s laws. You are quick to judge but are afraid to turn that insight towards yourself. You’re failing at being a christian…did you know that?
At least Cybogen, who I have talked with on another list, sees that others have their own views and is very understanding. He’s a good soul.
99 shaymm
April 14th, 2009 at 8:55 am

88–I like what you have to say. Oh, and I enjoyed everyone’s interpretations (just about everyone…lol). Great and very interesting.
100 carl
April 14th, 2009 at 8:55 am

no Ra?
101 Greg
April 14th, 2009 at 8:58 am

Mithra?
102 Cybogen
April 14th, 2009 at 8:59 am

97. oouchan – Warm regards to you for your words of kindness. I hope life is as good to you as you are to others!
103 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 9:02 am

oouchan–Thanks for judging me–Now the Lord won’t have to since you’ve taken his place. But I believe he’ll be surprised when you tell him I’ve failed as a Christian.Is there anyway I can talk you into keeping this quiet?
104 jake ryder
April 14th, 2009 at 9:02 am

Oh my. Are you suggesting that Christianity borrowed ideas from other faiths. I’m speechless. Next you’ll tell me Easter traditions are based on an old Pagan festival called Beltaine.
105 oouchan
April 14th, 2009 at 9:05 am

101. Cybogen: No problem! You are one of the nice ones to talk to.

102. smithstar15: I can judge because I don’t believe in any of this stuff….but if when I die I am wrong (ha!) and I go to hell…I will see you there. Good luck!

103. jake ryder: Love it!
106 BenB06
April 14th, 2009 at 9:08 am

#100, the similarities between Mithras and Christ come down to the fact that they were competing religions in roughly the same time and area, so there was an exchange of followers between the two. Different people have different tastes so once a follower of mithras find out about christ, and christ happens to be a better fit, he converts, and thus theres an exchange of ideas there. Eventually converts may become an elder in the church and spreads his own dogma integrating ideas of the Mithraic Mysteries into Christianity.
107 ABrutalKind
April 14th, 2009 at 9:09 am

@Smithstar15: As a Christian I am offended that you would so malign the name of Christ. Remember that Christ taught us to love others just as much as ourselves. That means loving those you disagree with.

I sum up my beliefs in one saying,
Love God, Love People, Nothing Else Matters.

As a Christian I am sick of what Christianity has become. I am sorry to all of those on this site who have ever been hurt or slandered by a Christian. I am glad that some of you know that what these Christians act out is not what Jesus taught and I am saddened that you know more about Jesus and the Bible then these so called Christians, I constantly feel misrepresented. It pains me to see the name of Christ being misrepresented so much. I hope that you can see past all of the hypocrisy and self righteousness in Christianity today and know that there are still Christians who try to follow what Christ taught. To love others no matter what.
I heard a quote from author Shane Claiborne, (who is doing wonders for turning Christianity back to Christ, all those who have hated Christians or been hated by Christians should read his book The Irresistible Revolution)
any way the quote was:
America did not invent Christianity, it merely domesticated it.

Peace and Love to all!
108 oouchan
April 14th, 2009 at 9:11 am

106. ABrutalKind: Another great one! Thank you for living true to your lord’s laws. There is hope yet.
Still doesn’t make me a believer, but at least there are those who stay true.
109 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 9:17 am

Hey,what about Agloolik?—His mother,ooklook, gave him virgin birth in an igloo way,way before Jesus.Now he lives under the polar icecap and tangles up fishing nets for fun. But that won’t last much longer because Al Gore says the icecaps are melting and he should know because he’s a god too.He didn’t actually invent the internet-Al said,”let there be email” and it came about on the 3rd day.I think this list,as great as it is,has left out to many worthy gods.
110 sashley
April 14th, 2009 at 9:25 am

Very intelligent and informative introduction, but cited begins with a ‘c’ !
111 Willy Brown Balls
April 14th, 2009 at 9:25 am

Jesus and everyone of these man made gods never existed. The stories of the bible are an adaptation and personification of the zodiac, which is myth stories based on constellations and solstices. There will only be proper peace on earth when everyone comes to realise this, and at the rate things are going it looks like this wont happen for a very long time. When i see a religious person who thinks they know it all it really makes me want to box them in the mouth and I do be ashamed to be the same breed as these fools who haven’t got a clue
112 ABrutalKind
April 14th, 2009 at 9:27 am

@oochan
Thank you and guess what, I don’t have an ulterior motive of trying to convert you. I believe that everyone has the right to hold their own faith. And I shouldn’t force my faith on someone else; I don’t want them to do that to me.
113 Cybogen
April 14th, 2009 at 9:31 am

110. Willy Brown Balls – I was curious in all respect to your statement that “Jesus and everyone of these man made gods never existed. stories of the bible are an adaptation and personification of the zodiac, which is myth stories based on constellations and solstices”
Is this from a text you might have read or perhaps your own original belief? Just curious and asking mate. Thanks
114 oouchan
April 14th, 2009 at 9:33 am

ABrutalKind: That is great to know. I wish there were more like you.
My family crammed christianity down my throat to the point I choked. I can’t do it anymore. For some of the regulars, they know that my child is now Baptist. She follows that and I follow the Shinto religion. We both have agreed not to convert each other and we keep it very high level. I support her and her decision as I support others in theirs. She also supports me!
So needless to say, thank you for being so accommodating!
115 Atropos77
April 14th, 2009 at 9:33 am

Oh, smithstar15, I don’t know whether to laugh at you or pity you. On one hand, I am tempted to pity you since your foolish clinging to an invisible cosmic ‘god’ will lead you by the leash to your last moments, when you ready yourself on your deathbed to be received into the Kingdom of Heaven only to ultimately find that your last use on Earth will be to feed the worms six feet under until your last physical vestiges are gone forever.

On the other hand, I am tempted to laugh at you due to even other Christians on this page having to lecture you on your most un-Christian-like behavior. Here you sit, insulting everyone who dares besmirch your angelic piousness and yet if Heaven somehow DOES exist, you will be denied entry for your arrogance and smug superiority. So either way, I have a feeling that the Pearly Gates will not be opening for you, no matter how much of an expert on the subject you THINK you are.

The irony.
116 Kashin
April 14th, 2009 at 9:35 am

The thing is, if a christian were to see the resemblance and he would believe that there might be a possibility that jesus christ was just derived from one of these stories, that would be a ”moment of weakness” right?
There’s lots of things in all sorts of religion that keep you from even being allowed to doubt anything. It’s perfect.
117 the_cloaked_schemer
April 14th, 2009 at 9:36 am

Remember children, don’t feed the trollz
118 Reader
April 14th, 2009 at 9:37 am

This whole topic is just plain silly. There is absolutly no proof of any of this nonsense. All the books were written well after the alleged incidents took place by people that were born hundreds, or even thousands of years later. I’m sure that most, if not all of these people were real and they had a lot of followers.

Anyone remember Mussolini, Mao, Hitler, Jim Jones? They all also had and still have devoted followers. What would people think of them a thousand years from now if we didn’t have accurate records of their exploits?

The only thing that I truly believe is that none of us really know what to believe.
119 Simons
April 14th, 2009 at 9:41 am

Isn’t is Hercules? Not Heracles? Maybe I’m thinking of a different one?
120 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 9:42 am

ABrutalKind–You’re full of shit and you know it.I’ll just say this–I had rather be me than you on judgement day. I know my standing with the Lord. And I’m very comfortable with it.You tell me I offend you and others and then you turn around and offend me and make fun of my relationship with my lord.You can’t get anymore unChristian than that. And as for your buddy oouchan or whatever he’s calling himself at the moment,I’m glad he’s a nonbeliever–I know that’s not very Christian-like without you telling me and judging me again but the Lord knows what’s in my heart. I believe the end is near–It could be another 500 years-but near.Everyone on the planet has heard of Jesus’ teachings thanks to heroic Christian Missionaries who have braved jungles and wilderness to get his word out. I firmly believe it’s far too late to try to convert nonbelievers. I know I cut up a lot-Mostly just to agitate people like Randall(who I actually like whether he believes it or not and who I believe actually likes me) I think we actually consider each other worthy opponents-Of course I can’t speak for him but it’s the way I feel.And I’m sure we’ll be going at each other again.But after all my nonsense what I’ve said here about my love for the Lord Jesus Christ and my belief that the time grows nigh is genuinely how I feel.
121 Travisthechimp
April 14th, 2009 at 9:46 am

Reader: Are you suggesting that Jesus or other religious icons could be Hitlers or Mussolinis that have had their brutal acts washed out over the course of a couple thousand (if that) years? If so, wow. I’d like to see where that goes…
122 mim
April 14th, 2009 at 9:47 am

this list is dumb.
123 YogiBarrister
April 14th, 2009 at 9:47 am

Positively brilliant! Thanks Rushfan
124 cymraegbachgen87
April 14th, 2009 at 9:49 am

You think you are a worthy adversary for Randall. That is the most lol-worthy thing I have read today.

You know your standing with the lord? Really? Has he told you?

Do you know what I think is funny? If you speak to God, you are pious and religious, if god talks to you, you’re insane

With all the religions on earth, each saying if you don’t believe in their religion you go to hell, the chances of you being right are slim. As far as I’m concerned, everyone is going to hell, if such a place exists.

Judging on your previous actions and your actions on this list (turn the other cheek was a teaching of jesus remember) you are one of the worst christians I have met.
125 Cybogen
April 14th, 2009 at 9:50 am

119. smithstar15- “And as for your buddy oouchan or whatever he’s calling himself at the moment,I’m glad he’s a nonbeliever”– Hey mate its cool, calm down. First off Oouchan is a lady, i am sure cuz I know her and I know that can be rough to feel the way you do but this is a public forum. We4 all defend our beliefs. It cool to be defensive but we are all just debating. Its not judgement day yet and I know that I believe in my Lord too but we should just spread peace to make it easier to get through this life. We all know it to be hard as it is anyhow!
126 gabi319
April 14th, 2009 at 9:51 am

49. callie_ – “I’m confused by all the people saying to use wikipedia as a source….it’s not generally a source of 100% factual information because it’s written by random people who can say whatever they want. Maybe I’ll go edit the jesus entry. I hate wikipedia.”

THANK YOU CALLIE! That’s exactly what I was thinking while reading through the comments. Wiki is a community-based, open encyclopedia, meaning anyone can write or revise articles regardless of it is factual, so never take anything there as complete truth. Does no one remember what happened to the comedian Sinbad? A few years ago, someone went to his wiki entry and edited it to say he had died. It made such a mess that Sinbad had to make a press statement just to say “nope…still here….”

Great list, Rushfan. I know a lot of jerks are spending precious comment space complaining, but I personally think it’s an interesting topic and a great conversation starter.
127 msulli22
April 14th, 2009 at 9:54 am

Hey, I’m a new commenter and someone who just loves to throw out their opinion.

ABrutalKind: Thanks for that. Unfortunately, your kind of Christianity is underrepresented, but it is nice to see it sprout up every once in a while. While I personally am an atheist and no longer feel the need for a the presence of some sort of higher power, I respect the fact that other people do. The sad fact is, that in today’s world (or maybe in general; I don’t know), it is hard to be a positive atheist. Most atheists I know have a fairly negative and nihilist view on life. So, I do believe that religion CAN ultimately be a good thing. Which brings me to my next point:

Smithstar: I really just want to ask “Seriously?!”, but unfortunately I know enough people who are just as narrow-minded as you are to believe that you really do mean what you say. I’m not going to go into the “If you are a good Christian, how can you say such things?” line, because it has been done to death and most malicious Christians ignore that line anyway. The only ones who ever take notice of that argument are the ones who do not really need to. So, have your Jesus and judge away- humans all judge each other anyway; we just get touchy about it when it comes to our cosmic views. I really don’t care how narrow-minded you are, because there is nothing I can say or do to change that, and frankly, it is your loss, just as you think me not being Christian is my loss.

However, what I object to is you denying the outright FACT of the historical existence of Buddha despite all of the evidence that exists. It is one thing to believe in your religion and believe that everyone else is going to hell and what-not (since I don’t believe in hell, I don’t care), but it is another to deny a historical fact out of spite. You seem to be willfully denying the existence of Buddha just because it suits your argument. And, that is what bothers me about your comments. There isn’t even any good motivation to deny his existence: the existence of Buddha does not preclude the existence of Jesus. I just don’t understand how anyone could just flat-out willfully ignore what is objectively true because it does not fit with their particular cosmology.
128 oouchan
April 14th, 2009 at 9:55 am

smithstar15: Let’s all applaud you in being a neighsayer and predicting the end of the world. “I’ll just say this–I had rather be me than you on judgement day.” Yeah…same with me. I would love to be there to see what happens, but I don’t really care.

Oh …and to set the record straight…I’m female and not Randall. Although I am happy that you think I am. I would love to have just half of his intelligence, so you saying that, doesn’t bother me at all. On the other hand, I would still choose to be a female (sorry Randall!).
129 Cedestra
April 14th, 2009 at 9:56 am

Sorry to see the comments section marred by retards, but, hey, we all know they show up again and again for the abuse. Troll = masochist?
Hercules and Heracles are pretty much the same guy, one is Greek, one is Roman. But since those dasterdly Romans stole everything from the Greeks, it boils down to being the same guy.

It’s too bad those of you of the Christian persuation can’t take this opportunity to come up with your own arguments, civily discourse, and strengthen your faith. This is a challenge, not an attack! see: Stizzy. He/she is doing pretty well on this list.
130 6twistedbiscuits
April 14th, 2009 at 10:00 am

you know something very weird? i cant stand people who will single out a person and mock their beliefs rather then take on the crowd and mock the beliefs of the crowd. them people are bullies. if that makes sense. but smithstar has taken a whole bunch of people, in his head has made them into one person and is now singling them out. that would make him a bully, he thinks he is picking on just one person. i’m not sure where his head is!
131 ABrutalKind
April 14th, 2009 at 10:02 am

@Smithstar15

I never meant to offend you. I was just letting you know how I felt about your statements as a “fellow” Christian. In no way did I mean to hurt your feelings or offend you I don’t even believe that I did. I just called you out on not following what your beliefs tell to do. I would want you to do the same for me if I espoused a teaching that I did not follow.
132 Reader
April 14th, 2009 at 10:03 am

124. gabi319 ” “I’m confused by all the people saying to use wikipedia as a source….it’s not generally a source of 100% factual information because it’s written by random people who can say whatever they want. ”

That is an exact description of the bible!!!!! (and every other religious text)
133 msulli22
April 14th, 2009 at 10:04 am

By the way, good and interesting list. The literary/mythological examples like Odysseus are fascinating. I think it is possible to find parallels between Jesus and most (primarily) literary figures, in particular. Not all, just most. It really adds a whole new layer to the character, even if it is not what the author meant. It at least makes you look at the story in a different way for a little bit. The connection between Jesus and Odysseus is tenuous, but the parallels can be identified and studied just as an intellectual exercise.
134 ABrutalKind
April 14th, 2009 at 10:07 am

@Cedestra
It is not that I don’t want to debate, it is just that I find the argument, sorry debate, over the existence of god to be futile and pointless only leading to hatred and anger. There will never be any proof one way or another and so I would rather just hold my faith in my heart and respect others beliefs and faith. If you want to know why I believe what I believe you can just ask. I am more then willing to share my beliefs, but only if you want to hear them. I don’t like to force them on others.
135 oouchan
April 14th, 2009 at 10:08 am

128. 6twistedbiscuits: “I’m not sure where his head is!” What a loaded question, dear. (it seems, I am in a feisty mood today)
136 caStroY
April 14th, 2009 at 10:08 am

Interesting list… I didn’t read through every comment so I don’t know if this has been said before.

First, all these similarities across the world, at different times suggest that there is possibly some truth in them. Maybe different religions are telling the same stories different ways.

On the other hand, perhaps, all religions come from a single ancient religion and have just been changed over time as they have developed in different parts of the world.

Just on a sidenote, Christian holidays (such as Dec. 25) were often chosen to coincide with Pagan holidays so that the people would accept them and they would replace the old ways. In fact Christianity borrows a lot from Pagan themes\motifs in order to make it more palatable by the people of the times.

Well those are a few of my thoughts… Personally I believe in God, but not religion. Religion is a man-made concept conceived in order to understand God.
137 Cybogen
April 14th, 2009 at 10:08 am

Oouchan – Heya. Just wanted to let you know I knew you were a lady as well as I pointed out to smithstar15 on my comment 123. Glad to back you up anytime senorita~
138 msulli22
April 14th, 2009 at 10:09 am

Okay, I take back what I said before : “I think it is possible to find parallels between Jesus and most (primarily) literary figures, in particular”.

I’m researching a paper on Macbeth at the moment and just realized that what I said is not really true of any of the protagonists in that play… can’t really make a Christ figure out of Macbeth or Lady Macbeth. Not at all. So, I’m amending what I said: It is possible to find religious parallels between religious figures and most literary figures. You never know, I might take that back too.
139 sami
April 14th, 2009 at 10:11 am

These christian people are the scariest… has anyone seen Jesus Camp? They freak me out. They’re not any better than Muslim fundamentalists/extremists; actually, they’re nearly the same. Seriously, they’re a cult. Actually, most religions are cults but they’ve just gotten a big enough following that people accept them as religion.
140 6twistedbiscuits
April 14th, 2009 at 10:13 am

oouchan – i can guess where his head is lol. i wasnt sure at first if this guy was joking or not.
141 oouchan
April 14th, 2009 at 10:13 am

Cybogen: Thank you, sweetie!
142 gabi319
April 14th, 2009 at 10:20 am

84. Cybogen – “1. Jesus came to fulfil the Old Testament prophecies made to the people of Israel.”
Someone brought this up in another list and I have yet to get an answer. What prophecies? Please give chapter and verse so I can do some reading/research.

106. ABrutalKind – “As a Christian I am sick of what Christianity has become. I am sorry to all of those on this site who have ever been hurt or slandered by a Christian.”
Thank you for restoring some of my faith of goodness in some Christians. A friend of mine (who is a pretty embittered agnostic) had quite the argument with two rather zealot Christian friends a week or two ago regarding Christianity and it was pretty rough to watch. I’m pretty sure he lost two friends because it’s hard to come back to good terms when one girl screams something along the lines of “When you burn in hell, I will look down and say ‘I told you so!’” Thank goodness there are still kind Christians out there like you, ABrutalKind.

125. msulli22 – “Hey, I’m a new commenter and someone who just loves to throw out their opinion.”
Welcome to the crazyhouse. I’m sure you’ll fit right in.
143 Rasha
April 14th, 2009 at 10:20 am

I haven’t read all the responses on here but–

Is it not possible that the Bible is just not 100% accurate, and that Jesus may have existed, done great things and may or may have not been the son of God, and the story of his life has just been edited and corrupted over centuries of other influences–and leading him to share many similarities with other saviour figures? Chistianity, like every other religion that’s stood solid against the test of time, has evolved to suit the culture of the believers. Things get lost and picked up along the way.

Our image of the Devil is not the same as what people thought of in 800.

Science has proven today that disease is not caused by evil spirits or God hating you, it’s caused by tiny lifeforms, so pieces of the Bible (and other holy books) that try to explain why people get sick are invalid. That’s not to say “God was wrong,” or “God was lying to us,” but that maybe something has been lost in translation, or that the HUMANS who were writing the book simply could not understand the ideas at the time. They didn’t have the knowledge.

God used layman’s terms.
144 GTT
April 14th, 2009 at 10:23 am

Atropos77 (52):

“through typical Christian arrogance”

“Also not a surprise, as Christians tend to be far more inwardly ugly and more hypocritical than the average nonbeliever”

“They just proclaim themselves Christians because they think it makes them better than everyone else.”

Yes, obvisouly… Because calling Christians arrogant, inwardly ugly and hypocritical is such a redeeming quality in you! If you want to call someone out on their behavior and comments, be my guest but insulting people who happen to be Christians in your rant is actually pretty hypocritical of YOU.

*****

smithstar15:

I´m almost sorry to post the above as I cannot defend your comments on this thread.
145 msulli22
April 14th, 2009 at 10:23 am

Rasha: I like that. “God used layman’s terms”. It is a nice way to put it.
146 cymraegbachgen87
April 14th, 2009 at 10:28 am

Of course the bible is not 100% accurate, just like it is nowhere near inerrant.

People don’t realise that the bible was compiled by the romans at the first council of nicaea, and any gospels that made jesus look mortal were left out.

For god sake, the Bible claims that rabbits chew the cud, that the pattern of goats’ coats can be changed by what their parents look at while copulating, that only dead seeds can germinate and that ostriches are careless parents.

The book is a fairy tale. A popular one with a decent message, but no more factually true than Harry Potter. This is not to say it (the NT at least) doesnt provide you with a good set of rules to live your life
147 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 10:34 am

I think everyone is missing my point–I am in no way trying to change anyone’s belief–You can believe in Rumplestiltskin if that turns you on.Jesus Christ is not debatable to me.And I’m not going on here and list the reasons for my love of and belief in the Lord in an academic fashion.It’s much,much deeper than that as I’m sure any Christian will tell you. And those of you saying I’m not a Christian–Knock yourself out–oouhan seems to think I care whatever he or she believes and I just don’t. If anyone thinks I’m going to try to convert anyone to Christianity,stick your thumb up your butt and wait for it to happen.I imagine you’ll get highly constipated waiting for that.And I believe that’s exactly what has some on here like oouhan so upset–I’m supposed to be arguing with her about Jesus’ existence so she can come back with wise remarks like “well,where did God come from”? She doesn’t get it that I absolutely don’t care what she thinks of me or The Lord or anything else.She can worship anything she wants to or nothing if she wants to.

ABrutalKind: Thank you for your second post
148 erin
April 14th, 2009 at 10:35 am

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com

Yeah…
149 oouchan
April 14th, 2009 at 10:36 am

cym…do not pick on Harry Potter! I am a devoted fan. jk
150 Matt42
April 14th, 2009 at 10:36 am

118. Simons: Heracles is the Greek name. Hercules is the Roman, I think.

122. cymraegbachgen87: I believe Sikhism teaches that you can go to Heaven throughal religions, but it is easier if you follow theirs.
151 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 10:37 am

GTT: My comments are my comments and I don’t need you or anyone else defending them–For some reason I just can’t seem to be able to get this point across–
152 Cybogen
April 14th, 2009 at 10:38 am

140. gabi319- Cybogen – “1. Jesus came to fulfil the Old Testament prophecies made to the people of Israel.”
Someone brought this up in another list and I have yet to get an answer. What prophecies? Please give chapter and verse so I can do some reading/research.

OK gabi319- Fair question mate! I hope this helps. If you want more support for what you asked please let me know my friend. I have more to offer you. Good Day. Read below.

Old Testament Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Old Testament Micah 5:2
This passage is said to prophesize the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem:
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”
153 cymraegbachgen87
April 14th, 2009 at 10:43 am

I thought Isaiah was mistranslated from Hebrew into Greek. The original Hebrew reads ‘maiden’ not ‘virgin’ I will try and hunt down a source for that but its hard to eat, research and play piano all at the same time

For all those HP fans…big secret – ITS NOT REAL jk
154 GTT
April 14th, 2009 at 10:43 am

oouchan (97):

“…why I can’t stand christianity or other such hocus pocus”…

Dont take this specimin as a reference point on what it means to be a Christian… We´re not all wackos!

*****

smithstar15:

Please, please, for the sake of the reputation of Christians everywhere STOP. Just stop. Thank you.

*****

Now, I´m thiking I´m probably saying this in vain, but can we please have a civilized discussion on the topic? No more preachy “God is right, Jesus is the way to God and everyone else can go to hell” and no more “Religious freaks are all blind to reality and stupid”. We all have different opinions. Get over it.

Now, can we get back to the fascinating topic of THE LIST?
155 GTT
April 14th, 2009 at 10:48 am

cymraegbachgen87 (150):

HARRY POTTER NOT REAL? Shocking, truly shocking!

*****

smithstar15 (148):

In that case, why do you go around all the lists trying to piss people off?
156 samfishers
April 14th, 2009 at 10:48 am

I knew of the #1.. and am I the only one thinking that Christianity is kind of a scam?

I don’t want to offend too much with these words, juste my humble opinion
157 MisterSir
April 14th, 2009 at 10:49 am

Any of you who have read my comments on the 10 saints list know that I am a Christian. As a Christian, I believe that the only thing we Christians are not allowed to judge about another human being is the fact or lack of their salvation. I could expound on that, but I believe I did that on that particular list.

That being said, I can not judge if Smithstar is a Christian or not. I certainly have to say that his actions point to the idea that he isn’t (at least not in the manner I choose to be a Christian), and that he’s merely taking on this persona in order to take an extreme position to elicit response from anyone who will bite. I believe this defines the word “troll”.

Randall, I don’t agree with everything you say. From my world view and religious standpoint, you’ve got quite a lot wrong. I personally don’t think that there are multiple ways to God, and that presenting such a case is a cop-out, a way to avoid making a decision that might offend friends, collegues (sp?) or family (keep in mind, I’m not trying to attack you, I’m working toward a point ). But you know what? That’s alright by me. You are certainly as entitled to your opinions and your religious beliefs as I am mine, even if I don’t agree with them (and I know you don’t agree with mine, judging by what I’ve read), I appreciate that you’ve taken the time to put them to paper for all of us to read. When it comes to actual, provable fact, you sir, are a veritable fountain of knowledge.

Randall, I know for a fact that there two points of irrefutable fact that we can agree on:

1.) Smithstar is a dick.

2.) You are far too intelligent to take the bait.

Please note that I only used Randall as an example, because I honestly view him as a knidred spirit. This doesn’t mean that I don’t enjoy any of the other “regulars” here that I have come to look forward to reading. All of you know better that to feed a troll!

Now, I know I shouldn’t have said this, as a Christian, I believe that God loved everyone in the world while we were all still his enemies, and that we are to love the sinner and hate the sin, turn the other cheek and what-not, but come on, there’s only so much troll baiting I can take. Remember, even Jesus had had enough when he got mad at the money changers in the temples, flipped over all their tables and ran them out.
158 oouchan
April 14th, 2009 at 10:51 am

smithstar15: “oouhan seems to think I care whatever he or she believes and I just don’t.” When did I say I cared? If it didn’t bother you, you wouldn’t post. Also, I never said “well,where did God come from”. Are we having the same conversation here?
However, in your posts you attack everyone who says anything negative about jesus. I only said I don’t believe and I consider him and his powers a myth. I pointed out to you how nasty you are to people. If that is a christian attitude…no wonder others are embarrassed about you.
Turn the other cheek. Do not judge. Aren’t these values of the christian faith?

GTT: Cybogen and ABrutalKind, along with you are helping me see that not all christians are like that. Just most that I have evern encountered in my life are like him. It’s just so sad.

As for the list: I would have added Odin myself. Love the vikings…they were hot!
159 Cybogen
April 14th, 2009 at 10:51 am

cymraegbachgen87 I will try and hunt down a source for that but its hard to eat, research and play piano all at the same time- I know how you feel, try typing, eatting spaghetti and downing a pint o’ beer, while doing my job here at work. The boss may not know but if so, he can hold my beer while I type.
160 Yondofan12
April 14th, 2009 at 10:53 am

Zeitgeist is a tight film.
161 Maggot
April 14th, 2009 at 10:53 am

(119) And as for your buddy oouchan or whatever he’s calling himself at the moment

Oh lol…
162 ConstantStudent
April 14th, 2009 at 10:59 am

I’m surprised that no one has mentioned the fist Council of Nicaea…There’s loads of info on it. About how the different sects of Christianity got together to unify the religion, put together a “comprehensive” book while throwing out hundreds of texts deemed “heretical” or unusable for their purposes. Or how Jesus was voted into divinity, or oh! how about the first Christians who didn’t believe in heaven or hell but instead of transmigration of the soul?

Or about the fact that the organization of the Christian religions was founded on the idea of population control? The first christian cults were fighting with each other for superiority and there was massive civil unrest as the slave population converted and fell away from their master’s gods. Constantine himself hated most christians and this council was his way of getting them under control.

There’s a plethora of information out there. I prefer old fashioned books, but the ‘net will have to suffice for now. Except Wikipedia, which is crap.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/legitimization.html

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

http://www.amazon.com/Christ-Conspiracy-Greatest-Story-Ever/dp/0932813747/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239731776&sr=1-6

http://www.amazon.com/History-First-Council-Nice-D/dp/1881316033/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239731872&sr=1-4

http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Christian-History/dp/0964487349/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239731923&sr=1-9

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
163 msulli22
April 14th, 2009 at 10:59 am

cymraegbachgen87: Thanks a lot. I don’t know what to live for anymore, now that you’ve made it very clear that my letter from Hogwarts is never going to come. There goes my dream of curing cancer with a magic wand. Damn. I guess I’ll just have to study science now.
164 BenB06
April 14th, 2009 at 11:00 am

#

157. Yondofan12 – April 14th, 2009 at 10:53 am

Zeitgeist is a tight film.

Why may I ask?? It’s main purpose is to refute a system of beliefs that will not be refuted, mainly because the followers refuse to let it. It’s full of uninformed answers and BS propaganda. If you want to fall for it, go ahead, but I think you’re more naive believing in that crap than in Christianity.

Oh and I figured it would be important to note that my only religion is evolution.
165 Cybogen
April 14th, 2009 at 11:11 am

Is it possible that we just need to “believe” that we are here …just because and we don’t need to know the how and why we got here… but just the matter as to ‘just be alive’ and be happy for the day we have. Carpe Diem “Sieze the Day”
166 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 11:13 am

GTT–smithstar15:

Please, please, for the sake of the reputation of Christians everywhere STOP. Just stop. Thank you.

What an idiot–Can you read at all?–That’s the whole point–I haven’t preached to anybody-Actually I’ve went out of my way not to-I have not said once:”God is right-Jesus is the way”–I said Jesus is MY lord–Everyone else can believe whatever they want to believe–What part of that do you not understand? And I don’t care what you think of me as a specimen or as a Christian–Your or anyone else’s opinion of me and my Christianity means less than a dead goat to me.What is so hard about that to understand?

As far as judging me on my words and telling me I’m not a Christian,a passage comes to mind-”Judge not lest ye be judged”-I have judged no one–In every post I reiterate that everyone should believe whatever they want to believe.And this is what has evryone hacked off-Because I’m not belittling anyone’s beliefs.

Jesus also said.”If You Deny Me Before Men I will Deny You Before The Father”–And I fully believe that but certainly no one else has to–

So please stop GTT–You’re giving idiots everywhere a bad name–
167 FTW
April 14th, 2009 at 11:15 am

Christianity is to man what sand is to an ostrich.
168 Randall
April 14th, 2009 at 11:21 am

K… Let’s address Dionysus now.

“Dionysus was born of a virgin”

Only one version of the myth of Dionysus talks about a “virgin” birth by his mother, Semele. But this is really beside the point. As Zeus is divine and his love interests were often mortal (but not always) then ALL of his children by mortal mothers can be said to be “virgin” births–assuming those mothers were, at the time, actual virgins. That would, for instance, make Helen, Clytemnestra, and their brothers Castor and Poledeuces (Pollux) the products of “virgin birth” as well. (Heracles also).

“on December 25″

I cannot recall any tradition in Greek mythology or folk belief (that we know of) which states a specific birthdate of December 25 for Dionysus. This is spurious.

Remember–the date for CHRIST’S birth (as Dec. 25) is almost certainly not correct—it wasn’t arrived at until a much later date. In ancient tradition, little attention was paid to the BIRTH date of important personages–it was the date of their DEATH that mattered.

“and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger.”

This is reaching. Dionysus, like Hermes, was suckled by his mother, yes, in pastoral surroundings whose description varies—but I know of no tradition which places Dionysus PRECISELY in a “manger.”

“He was a traveling teacher who performed miracles. He “rode in a triumphal procession on an ass.” He was a sacred king killed and eaten in an eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification. Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25. He was the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine.”

K… much of this is accurate, give or take some liberty.

The interesting thing about Dionysus (and Demeter–the other great pastoral deity of the Greeks–in tandem with her daughter Persephone) is that he is the latest addition to the Greek pantheon of Olympian gods, (his tradition seems to have been established sometime between the late Bronze Age and the Archaic period–roughly 1200-700 BC) but he and Demeter both hearken back to an EARLIER pastoral form of tradition—of a god dying and coming back to life, ala Horus and many other “agricultural gods” throughout mythology. The ancient Cretans, for instance, held many of these traditions, and they seem to have been prevalent in the Minoan period of the island–the Cretans later claimed that Zeus had not only been born on Crete–which was tradition–Zeus was supposed to have been secreted, after birth, in the Dictaeyean Cave, suckled by the goat Amalthea and a bee whose name escapes me now… YES, I AM just pulling his sh*t out of my head, I am NOT getting it from any source, let alone the hated Wikipedia—believe it or not I have loved this nonsense since I was a child and when you’ve passionately studied something for almost 40 years, it sticks with you… but anyway, the ancient Cretans also claimed that Zeus was BURIED on the island–and there’s a mountain in Crete (whose name also escapes me) which they held sacred–which looks a GREAT deal like a reclining figure… we must remember that at some point Zeus was taken to be the “personification” if you will of ALL the gods–in short, he becamse a sort of monotheistic figure in a pagan system–and the Cretans claimed that this was Zeus in repose. To THEM, with their VERY ancient pastoral traditions, a god who is born, dies, and rises again made total sense.

ANYWAY… Dionysus and Demeter fit very much into these very ancient pastoral traditions, even though they were “latter gods” in terms of the Olympian pantheon. And around each “mystery” religions were founded which to a GREAT extent mirror the mystery-tinged nature of early Christianity–also surrounding an essentially pastoral god who is born, dies, and rises again.

Indeed, mention is made here of Dionysus being “hung” on a tree–and interestingly, during the Bacchic celebrations (Bacchus is another name for Dionysus–incorrectly held to be Roman–actually the Greeks knew him by both names) the “effigy” of Dionysus was constructed of a wooden staff mounted by a representation of the head of the god. He was also symbolized by an artichoke stalk—which is vaguely reminiscent of a head, and of course, is also suggestive of the pastoral, agricultural connotations of the god.

If anyone’s really interested in this, I could go on at length–I’ve had to write papers on this crap, and I never tire of it–I find this stuff fascinating.

BUT… the truly interesting thing is NOT so much how these gods and goddesses and stories PREFIGURE Jesus… but rather how Jesus himself fulfills them, as a figure of reality.

Now… there are a lot of people on here who keep denying Jesus ever existed. This is patently absurd. For a literate ancient people to invent a human being out of whole cloth is quite simply ABSURD. It would not have gone done at ALL, let alone would it have been possible to found a religion around such a figure. Moreover there ARE contemporary accounts of Jesus–not during his actual life, but in such a short time AFTER he lived as to be unquestionable. Disinterested, even hostile parties AREN’T going to speak of a man like Jesus AS an actual person if he HADN’T in fact existed. It would have far more served many of their purposes to DENY his existence–yet none of them did so. MOREOVER, it is in fact NOT true that the Gospels were not written during Jesus’ lifetime. It IS true that the Gospels, as we have them today, were not constructed in their final form until a century or more after Jesus’ death–but it has been proven by intense forensic archeo-graphic study that the Gospels in their present form originated with TWO original texts which are now lost–which were written NO LATER than 40 years after Jesus’ death, if memory serves me. FURTHER examination has indicated that these almost certainly have origins in writings which were made as little as TWENTY years after he died, though the further back you go, the less certain any of this becomes.

But the key here is that these texts were NOT simply “made up” out of whole cloth a century after a “fictional” man was supposed to have lived. They have their origin in a period only a few decades–perhaps as little as two, after that man was supposed to have died—and again–no ancient people any more than any modern people were going to accept a “fictional” character as real under those circumstances. There would have been far too many people still alive who have balked and said, “wait a minute–this guy you’re talking about never existed!” But we have not ONE WORD from anyone from that period who denied his existence. His DIETY is one thing.. but his EXISTENCE is NEVER questioned, even for a moment.

FURTHERMORE, the gnostic Gospel of Thomas, only recently uncovered, has CONFIRMED EXACTLY the hypothesized nature of the early, now-lost texts of the other Gospels. Thomas has Jesus saying exactly the same things he says in the other Gospels, while there are interesting and subtle differences and omissions which suggest a changed nature of the overall “philosophy” of Jesus as a figure. Nevertheless, he IS there, and the gospel confirms the nature of the OTHER gospels.

And what I’m getting at then, is the interesting thing about Jesus—he most certainly was born, and most certainly did and said many of the things he was reported to have done and said. AND he most certainly was put to death by the Romans (recent findings have even established that Pontius Pilate was indeed the governor of Judea at this time). Now… here we have a guy who, in some ways is closer to us than the more ancient, paleolithic and Bronze Age deity figures who “prefigure” him—whose life MIRRORS these ancient figures.

*I* don’t know who or what Jesus was anymore than I know “what” the Buddha was, other than an actual man. (which he was as well). But those of you who blithely dismiss Jesus, pretending he didn’t exist, or just tossing away the stories about him… are missing a big and weird piece of the picture here.

There is a mystery to this guy that never ceases to interest me and even awe me. And it’s narrow-minded to ignore that or discard it. There is more to this existence of ours than the world we see around us, it seems. I don’t know what it is or how much of it we can actually sense–but I do know that there’s mysteries in a figure like Jesus that can’t be dismissed out of hand.
169 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 11:23 am

Hey,That’s good FTW–
I have a saying too,”The only ones who believe in Christ are Christians and dead atheists” Of course I’m not asking anyone else to believe that.
170 AwesomeMan
April 14th, 2009 at 11:26 am

This list is absolute crap, why is it called the Christ Like list, to me this is the Horus like list. Where is jesus on the list he is missing. When Horus returns you bastards will all pay for your sins.
171 AwesomeMan
April 14th, 2009 at 11:30 am

Are dead jews or dead muslims considered dead atheists? They worship the same god. Otherwise I don’t think you understand what the word atheist means.
172 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 11:30 am

Randall said: “There is a mystery to this guy that never ceases to interest me and even awe me. And it’s narrow-minded to ignore that or discard it. There is more to this existence of ours than the world we see around us, it seems. I don’t know what it is or how much of it we can actually sense–but I do know that there’s mysteries in a figure like Jesus that can’t be dismissed out of hand”.

Randall,this hurts to admit but I always knew down deep that you were above most in intelligence (God,I’m having chest pains-lol)And this last post of yours confirms it–You really are a noncomformist thinking man who marches to the beat of his own drummer much like another a-hole we all know they call smithstar–haha–
173 Cybogen
April 14th, 2009 at 11:33 am

Oh Wow, I could go for a beer right about now.
So anyway I say they list will hit 300 comments or better before the days up.
174 Kevin
April 14th, 2009 at 11:36 am

HAHAHAHA you’re kidding me right? Zeitgeist is full of so many inaccuracies it’s hilarious. That’s what you get for watching a movie with a “Bush did 9/11″ part in it. Here are all the various pieces of information from PART 1 (the religious part – where this list is derived) DEBUNKED:
http://www.zeitgeistresponse.info/
175 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 11:38 am

AwesomeMan
Actually Jews and Muslims don’t have to be dead for me to consider them atheists.Political correctness be damned when it comes to Christ. Of couse that’s strictly my opinion and certainly no one else has to feel that way.
Geez–It seems I have to put a disclaimer with every post to keep GTT from being upset
176 Randall
April 14th, 2009 at 11:39 am

MisterSir:

Thanks for what you said, and no doubt we are kindred. Just to address one thing:

“From my world view and religious standpoint, you’ve got quite a lot wrong. I personally don’t think that there are multiple ways to God, and that presenting such a case is a cop-out, a way to avoid making a decision that might offend friends, collegues (sp?) or family”

MisterSir, I don’t feel the way I feel or believe what I believe out of some desire to not offend friends or family (indeed, neither my friends nor my family would care) nor to avoid making a “decision.” I believe that making a DECISION about the mystical, profound and spiritual is ITSELF an absurdity–and this is where I believe Christianity has gone wrong ever since the faith was codified by a monolithic Church into a hierarchical, dogmatic system. YOU think today that you MUST follow a certain path laid out like a map to salvation–as do most Christians–but you fail to see that you have been LED to believe that by a system that was put in place LONG AFTER Christ died, as a bureacratic means of controlling the faithful and ensuring the power and the continuance of the Church. Now, in some ways this was necessary—we don’t know if Christianity would have survived had it not been so. But it doesn’t make it right.

Unfortunately, however, it became the WAY of things due to the power of the Church, which was self-fulfilling.

I choose not to belong to bureacratic system in order to codify my spirituality. YOU, or if not you, others–may believe that this condemns me. That if I do not accept Jesus as you or they believe I should, then I am lost. But *I* say that is yours or their READING of the nature of belief and spirituality, which comes FROM that early, bureacratizing of the faith… and that you or they are simply following a hierarchical system PLACED upon you some 1500 years ago by people long dead who wanted to build an EDIFICE out of the church for the purpose of ensuring its continuation. A laudable goal at the time. But not serving, in full measure, the spiritual needs of MODERN people. This is in part why Christianity is losing numbers and HAS been losing for over two centuries now.
177 callie_
April 14th, 2009 at 11:40 am

Randall (164)

I just read a book about the gnostic bibles. It was really interesting- painted Jesus as just a normal dude. It kind of reminded me of the quote book my best friend and I kept in college (only ours was for drunk quotes…) Anyway, any other recommendations on gnostic lit?
178 samsung
April 14th, 2009 at 11:43 am

minor spelling error: sited is spelt wrong in the introduction. it should have a c
179 msulli22
April 14th, 2009 at 11:45 am

Randall:*I* don’t know who or what Jesus was anymore than I know “what” the Buddha was, other than an actual man. (which he was as well). But those of you who blithely dismiss Jesus, pretending he didn’t exist, or just tossing away the stories about him… are missing a big and weird piece of the picture here.

Wonderfully worded. And if my memories of freshman year Theology101 serve me correctly, the Gospel of Mark is generally considered one of the original sources for the the gospels of Matthew and Luke, or as close to an original source as we can determine. Biblical scholars also speculate that the other gospels (Matthew and Luke) drew on an as-yet hypothetical “Document Q”, the other original (or near enough original) source that the other gospels drew on. Essentially, the theory is: the gospels of Matthew and Luke were written from the Gospel of Mark and Document Q. It is speculated that the Gospel of John, which is quite different from the other three gospels, was written as some sort of spiritual interpretation of the other gospels, since it includes much more moral dictates and interpretation of Jesus’ words than the other gospels do. That is just what I recall from theology class.
180 FTW
April 14th, 2009 at 11:45 am

When we are born we are all atheists. You have to be indoctrinated in religious beliefs.
Some choose to rise above the indoctrination and see it for the hypocrisy that it is and do good for the sake of doing good and not out of fear of eternal damnation.
181 Randall
April 14th, 2009 at 11:46 am

callie:

YES. “Yeshua Buddha” is a great book which skirts the gnostic ideas about Jesus without actually BEING gnostics (let’s face it, the HARDCORE gnostics could be kinda nutty too).

http://www.amazon.com/Yeshua-Buddha-Quest-Books-Williams/dp/0835605159

I HIGHLY recommend this book, as it portrays the Buddhist/gnostic nature of Jesus without denying his divinity–so it has something for everyone.
182 AwesomeMan
April 14th, 2009 at 11:49 am

nah seriously the word atheist has a meaning that is real you should try looking it up. Muslims and Jews may be doing it wrong (or you are one of the two) but they do believe in god and as luck would have it they believe in the same god you do. By the way you can’t have an opinion on a fact no matter how politically correct you want to be. You ARE a complete MORON though which does entitle you the ability to do lots of things we mortals simply can not understand much less do ourselves. You are one hell of a troll but I’m pretty sure that just comes naturally cause I can’t imagine you having the intelligence to do it on purpose. Lucky for you I LOVE trolls.
183 bigbenton
April 14th, 2009 at 11:50 am

an interesting list. just wanted to point out though that “glycon” wouldn’t have been pre-christ if he was created around the “100s ad” cuz christ had already died around 30-33 ad. just throwin it out there
184 Randall
April 14th, 2009 at 11:52 am

msulli22:

Essentially correct, with the caveat that Mark itself, in the form we know it, is not the ORIGINAL form of Mark… and that “document or text Q” and Mark are older but still not the absolute ORIGINAL forms of the gospels.

If memory serves, Luke is the “Greek” interpretation of the gospel, and John the latest. And then John is presumed to be the same John, I believe, who writes Revelations–which has been BADLY misinterpreted as being about a FUTURE apocalyptic vision–when in fact it almost certainly was written in coded form to refer exclusively to Rome—John being supposed to be a Jewish scholar who was akin to the Zealots.

And so, here we are thousands of years later, mistaking the rabid anti-Roman noodlings of a Jewish Zealot for divine prophecy of the future of OUR world. How silly.
185 Cybogen
April 14th, 2009 at 11:54 am

What no man woman or child were indoctrinated with a religious influence at all? Inside the home outside the home in public, schools, classrooms, ect….and of course to be fair no chuch of any kind. I mean just no mention of a creator or a redeemer. What do you think it would be like? Would there be peace or war, more love or more hate? I wonder if they just let Jesus be and did noting to him and let him on his way wondering, but not recording his life or any of the ones coming before him or after him. What would we all be living for? Would we believe we just die and thats it? Would we belive in anything after death. It makes you wonder what kind of people we would all be if there was no religion. Just Curious Mates!
186 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 11:56 am

FTW: Some choose to rise above the indoctrination and see it for the hypocrisy that it is and do good for the sake of doing good and not out of fear of eternal damnation”.

Hey,FTW–I’m happy for you pal,I really am. Way to go in rising above all that Christian foolishness.

By the way–Jesus said,”Your good works are as filthy rags before the Father”–But of course you and I know that’s just foolish pratter…right?
187 bigbenton
April 14th, 2009 at 11:57 am

just also wanted to point out to ftw, that we may be born “without religion” but one is also born without any sort of knowledge or ability to do pretty anything but cry and suck. the fact that we learn things largely through our culture, parents, etc. is true but it doesn’t make them wrong.
188 AwesomeMan
April 14th, 2009 at 11:58 am

I’m reading a book on the topic of religious (or at least spiritual) beliefs being biological. From what I’ve taken from this book so far I would have to say the the proposed situation above is not possible we REQUIRE god in some for to survive. I personally don’t think which form it is matters. I kind of enjoy the bickering about it.

btw if anyone cares book is Born to Believe by Andrew Newberg
189 littleboots
April 14th, 2009 at 12:01 pm

Hiya all! This was a very interesting list, but perhaps not as interesting as the debates that followed…lol Personally I believe there was a creator, however whether the creator was a god or an event I do not know, I was not there.
“And I think God is like broccoli. If you love broccoli, you should eat it. But don’t hate everyone at the table who doesn’t have it on their plate. Maybe they’re allergic. Maybe they tried it and didn’t like the taste. Maybe they found a worm in it. Don’t stand on your chair and shout about why broccoli is healthy for you, why it grows, why it’s better than corn, what it should be called. It ruins the meal for everyone, including you. There are as many different experiences with broccoli as there are people at the table. Just eat your broccoli and enjoy it. Or not”. Not sure who wrote that but loved its profoundness.
But I would like to leave you with this thought “to one with faith no explanation is necessary, to one without faith, no explanation is possible”.
190 msulli22
April 14th, 2009 at 12:09 pm

Randall: Funny how people are, isn’t it? The End of Days has been predicted at least once a decade since the Book of Revelations was written… maybe one time it all did end and now we’re living in hell? Well, there’s a Matrix-y mind warp for you (oh, yes, I did just make “Matrix” into an adjective).

Personally, I’m holding out for December 21, 2012 to see if it all really does end like everyone says it will. If not… well, I’ll have one hell of a hangover on December 22, 2012.
191 g
April 14th, 2009 at 12:11 pm

All these people that are asking for sources should go find those sources on their own if they are so interested. It is a list you just read, not an argument. These are facts (suposedly) from information that is available to anyone. Just because they don’t fit into your neat little fantasy religion box doesn’t mean that they are wrong (or true for that matter)
192 YogiBarrister
April 14th, 2009 at 12:15 pm

Cybogen #181, interesting question. And would John Lennon even exist?
“Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today…

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace…”
193 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 12:16 pm

BTW–JFrater–Can you sing “Aida” in b-flat the way Elton wrote it?–Just wondered.Great site you have here–Good posts today on rushfan’s list. You may have already had it before I came onto this site but I wish someone would do a list on the greatest heavyweight boxing champs.I know it’s a dying sport but it used to be the #1 draw in this country.And England has had some great fighters also. Sorry to get off the subject–I just wanted to make that comment–
194 Rising Falls
April 14th, 2009 at 12:18 pm

If there is a god, may he strike me down!

I’ll come back tomorrow for the next list, by the way. People who discount other religions so easily are insecure about their own religion.
I like to ask: If there is a god, then why the hell do I not have super powers?
195 rushfan
April 14th, 2009 at 12:21 pm

189. smithstar15 ~ “I wish someone would do a list on the greatest heavyweight boxing champs.”

I would encourage you to write one yourself. Writing lists is tons of fun, and if it’s something you’re interested in, why not write one?
196 AwesomeMan
April 14th, 2009 at 12:21 pm

Rising Falls — I like to ask: If there is a god, then why the hell do I not have super powers?

Why would I give you my super powers?
197 FTW
April 14th, 2009 at 12:24 pm

I’d rather be clothed in the rags of my good works than wear the coat of many colors of religious intolerance.
198 Steelman
April 14th, 2009 at 12:25 pm

Randall Said: “and this is where I believe Christianity has gone wrong ever since the faith was codified by a monolithic Church into a hierarchical, dogmatic system. YOU think today that you MUST follow a certain path laid out like a map to salvation–as do most Christians–but you fail to see that you have been LED to believe that by a system that was put in place LONG AFTER Christ died, as a bureacratic means of controlling the faithful and ensuring the power and the continuance of the Church. Now, in some ways this was necessary—we don’t know if Christianity would have survived had it not been so. But it doesn’t make it right.”

It doesn’t make it wrong either. Scripturally, there are statements that give an authoritative structure and power to the Church. Acts 20:17,28, – Paul refers to both the elders or priests (“presbyteroi”) and the bishops (“episkopoi”) of the Church. Both are ordained leaders within the hierarchical structure of the Church (Also see 1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14). Also, Hebrews taught to “obey” Church authority:

Hebrews 13:17
“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.”

The Church was also the final authority:

Matthew 18:17-18
“And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Now, of course anyone is free to disagree with these statements, but there is quite a bit of Scriptural evidence for an organized, authoritative Church.
199 oouchan
April 14th, 2009 at 12:28 pm

Wait…what about free will? If I am to obey and have someone rule over me, where did my free will go? Just asking.
200 runtothewell
April 14th, 2009 at 12:34 pm

I just want to say something about ALL of these top 10 “myth buster” post that I’ve been reading through.

So far I have not seen any links going to supporting facts about these ideas and I am speaking for every one of these top 10 list. To me they are nothing more than open minded, suggestive, premature deductions.

No offense to the writer, but word of advice to the reader. Don’t take these seriously.
201 Randall
April 14th, 2009 at 12:43 pm

Steelman:

AGAIN, it is the VERY IDEA of slavishly following scripture word-for-word, clause by clause, that I am talking about. THAT notion hearkens back to this idea of a dogmatic system being forced ON the faithful by the bureacracy of the church.

We have–and I think anyone who is a modern and a believer in the essence of democracy would agree with this–grown out of the idea presented in Hebrews.

And the statement made in Matthew is questionable. As I pointed out earlier–original versions of Christ’s actual words, as hypothesized from textual study of the gospels and from the evidence we have from Thomas–do not support some of the statements of this nature.

YOU might say that we should not “cherry pick” what we want and don’t want from scripture–but I would answer that the ESSENCE of the message of Jesus is the only thing that matters–and that slavishly following scripture which isn’t even in its original form is no more valid a philosophy.
202 MtnGirl
April 14th, 2009 at 12:44 pm

My belief is that religions are no different than cults. The only ‘rule’ we all need to live by is love for all of creation.
203 Randall
April 14th, 2009 at 12:45 pm

runtothewell:

How about being more specific, champ? Your statement makes close to zero sense, without any context or particular examples to indicate what it is you’re talking about.
204 kring_kring
April 14th, 2009 at 12:47 pm

let me quote C.S. Lewis from his book Mere Christianity:

I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.

Amen to that!
205 jfrater
April 14th, 2009 at 12:49 pm

smithstar15: generally trained singers don’t sing transposed versions of songs – it is “not done” so to speak If you can’t sing it as the composer wrote it – you don’t sing it at all.
206 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 12:58 pm

JFrater: I gotcha–Do you have any videos on youtube or elsewhere?–I would love to hear you sing.
207 jfrater
April 14th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

smithstar15: actually I don’t – but I might put something up at some point; I have plenty of recordings I could put there.
208 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

Thanks rushfan–I may try it–You certainly hit a homerun with your list today–There will still be postings going up on this one for weeks to come–Well done and thought provoking–
209 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 1:04 pm

jfrater: That would be great.
210 Marv in DC
April 14th, 2009 at 1:08 pm

Steelman
I see what your saying but I wonder how much the “Church” they are talking about in the scriptures relates to the Modern Churches of today. I don’t think things like indulgences would have been looked upon very kindly to those authors. Not trying to offend anyone but the role and structure of the “church” has changed considerably from the time that those works were written.
211 thes0wer
April 14th, 2009 at 1:24 pm

Unlike smithstar15, I do believe that it is important what others think of me as a Christian. However, this is a list of 10 misrepresentations.

The author of this list, much like Bill Maher who is a very troubled man, has gingerly stepped around as well as on some of the facts and blatantly manufactured others.

Jesus Christ is real and from the signs of the times, He will return soon. God bless you all and may He have mercy on your soul.
212 jfrater
April 14th, 2009 at 1:26 pm

thes0wer: I can’t speak for rushfan who wrote the list, but I definitely believe that Jesus Christ was a historically real person
213 ReVeNg3
April 14th, 2009 at 1:27 pm

Great list, it really made me think, but some of the figures, especially Dionysis and Romulus were a stretch. Jesus is seen (by Christians) as a wise, merciful savior. Dionysis wouldn’t really qualify because he was the god of wine and partying, which hardly constitutes him as an admirable figure. Romulus eventually killed his brother Remus, commiting fratricide, something that is frowned upon in the Bible. Both of these cannot be labeled as a “Christlike figure” even if their origins have parallels to Jesus. Interestingly enough, it’s funny how people are arguing more about the religious aspect of it all. However, this article is very intriguing, and introduced many facts I was unaware of before.
214 AwesomeMan
April 14th, 2009 at 1:31 pm

Wait…what about free will? If I am to obey and have someone rule over me, where did my free will go? Just asking.

Who says you have to have free will? Prove you do. You can’t prove you do anymore than I could prove you don’t. I will say that every interaction you have with anything is filtered through your brain which makes all decisions and it makes those decisions by taking genetic information and combining it with environmental experience. So I would say that even though logic only is valid if a person knows everything which I certainly do not but if I had to guess I’d say there is more to support that you do not have free will than that you do. I certainly like the idea of free will though so lets all just pretend we have it …. btw as logical as it may seem I can’t live my life without believing I have free will no matter what I think.
215 Adrian
April 14th, 2009 at 1:36 pm

i remember watching a photo of an atheist rally denoucing religion as a “hate creating machine” and in that same photo you can see a 2 year old with a FUCK JESUS shirt…. irony…gotta love it.

And randall my views are you views, i feel the same exact way, there is a mistety towards Jesus that is just fascinating, there’s something about him, he was not a king (or at least a material one) nor he was a great warrior, nor he was rich, but he shaped and form most of the world, than any king, president, queen, warrior, philosopher than any other historial figure, and like Randall said the thing about most of the figures here are methaphorical,the thing about Jesus is that…he did exist.

Best regards.
216 lightningclash
April 14th, 2009 at 1:38 pm

What really gets me about the whole legitimacy of christianity is how the bible has been edited countless times. For an example look no further than the books of the apocryphal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha.

Books entirely omitted from the bible because the sources were not “credible”. Nobody who removed these books from the bible had ever met any of the people responsible for writing these books. My question is, how have they come to the conclusion that these authors lack credibility?

There’s really only one answer, folks. I was a Christian until I went to college and dove head first into researching the topic. It wasn’t long before my faith was shattered and I’ve never felt more happy or free. Truth is some of the world’s greatest men and women were not religious, it’s possible to be good without god.

I won’t ramble on much further, I just encourage everyone to sit and think deep about their faith. I respect people who can still believe and keep their faith. It’s just that in a world where we’re told to not believe anything you hear and only half of what you see, why do we put blind faith into what buried scrolls tell us?
217 thes0wer
April 14th, 2009 at 1:43 pm

jFrater: Well, it is kind of hard not to acknowledge He is a real person who lived, when almost daily there is something new from the Bible proven to be true. It is an accurate book.

But! The Bible says that even Satan believes in Jesus and trembles.

I enjoy List most of the time just as I enjoy my life most of the time. This one List, which deeply troubles me will not chase me away. How can one fight the ignorance of the world if they do not even know about it?

Somehow these words seem a bit smart-alecky but they are not meant to.
218 bigbenton
April 14th, 2009 at 1:45 pm

lol people are so funny. its really kind of ridiculous that everyone gets so mad at eachother. everybody brings so my assumptions and presuppositions to the table and no one really knows what eachother actually believe lol. i dont know if this is considered an advertisement but if u guys enjoy discussing this kind of thing you should checkout theallogy.blogspot.com (spelling is incorrect on purpose. its a blog open to ALL different beliefs atheist/christian/buddist w/e thats just trying to get people discussing and not fighting. so if ur interested u should check it out!
219 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 1:47 pm

ThesOwer
Unlike smithstar15, I do believe that it is important what others think of me as a Christian. However, this is a list of 10 misrepresentations.

And that’s good–Nothing wrong with that–Christians are not ran off an assembly line–We’re all different just like any other group-You care and I couldn’t care less–I think that’s great–
220 jfrater
April 14th, 2009 at 1:47 pm

Marv in DC (210): interestingly, if you read the early church documents you will find they are very much in accord with the modern Church. For example, the Council of Elvira in 324 (before the Council of Nicaea) deals with marriage, baptism, idolatry, fasting, excommunication, vigils, frequentation of Mass, the relations of Christians with pagans, Jews, and heretics; and it even deals with the concept of Nuns and many other customs that still exist today. You can read the canons here.

Particularly interesting is the Council of Ancyra which occured in 314 AD – note this canon:

Whoso is to be ordained deacon, if he has before announced to the bishop that he cannot persevere unmarried, let him marry and let him be a deacon; but if he shall have kept silence, should he take a wife afterwards let him be east out.

This is exactly the same rule as is used now: preference is celibacy but marriage is allowed BEFORE the person becomes a priest (deacon above refers to priest as we know it). If a person marries after becoming a priest he is excommunicated (as was obviously also the case in 314). Also remember, these councils didn’t “create” new rules – they were confirming the universal rules already in practice. In the case of these extremely early councils, we can safely assume that these were put in practice at the behest of the apostles. Oh – and there were about a dozen Bishops present at Ancyra – so it was quite a significant council which predates Nicaea.
221 oouchan
April 14th, 2009 at 1:48 pm

AwesomeMan: Not sure what you were getting at there. If thoughts travel through the brain and then “spit” out a decision, it’s still mine and my free will because it’s my brain. At least I am fairly sure that it’s my brain.
222 Blacknimbus
April 14th, 2009 at 1:58 pm

Not that I’m any great defender of Christianity or anything, but people have found ‘remarkable’ similarities between the JFK assassination and the Lincoln assassination. It doesn’t mean that they are connected or didn’t happen.

Faith in a supernatural deity isn’t something that’s based on facts. It just is. Both sides should acknowledge this before rolling up their sleeves and getting into a pitched battle…it’s pointless.

Bill Maher’s movie is something of a joke, IMO. Human nature is really the issue…not a specific set of beliefs. It’s simple-minded to conclude that eliminating supernatural belief systems will solve all of our problems. Communist governments are rather godless and they’ve been quite efficient in murdering millions of their own citizens.
223 smithstar15
April 14th, 2009 at 2:05 pm

Well,this has been a great list with some great posts(including Randall’s-God there’s those chest pains again-lol)–But the posts are now becoming pretty much repetitive(including mine) and I have to finish some graphite sketches I have to take to the little local community college in the morning so I’ll say goodnight. We’ll see what Jfrater has for us tomorrow.
224 Dre
April 14th, 2009 at 2:05 pm

Please do correct me if i’m wrong, but apart from #4 none of these came to fullfil ancient prophecies like Jesus does the prophecies of Isaiah and so forth, do they?
225 Adrian
April 14th, 2009 at 2:07 pm

very well put black, blaming religion for human nature is like blaming burgers for me being fat.
226 AwesomeMan
April 14th, 2009 at 2:09 pm

not sure I would exactly put it as thought travel through brain and spits out decisions. What I am saying bluntly is that in all probability you are a machine (not like made of metal or anything) that can only respond to situations based on past experience and genetics therefore there is only one possible “choice” you can make to any situation.
227 Marv in DC
April 14th, 2009 at 2:13 pm

jfrater- I stand corrected, I didn’t have the info that you presented and I agree with what you are saying. I think the idea that I was trying to push was the way(?) people viewed the church. When I look at the idea of the church today it seems very outmoded and out of touch with the world around it. This may simply be because of my particular beliefs (I’m Christian and believe in God, but I’ve never had a problem with my relationship between science and religon.) but it seems to me that the church is still operating in a world where they think that their word is unimpeachable. I think that worked for a long time especially when the church was one of the main sources for information. Nowadays the church has to deal with people who have almost unlimited access to knowledge that was previously contained and controlled by the church. This access has allowed people to question the church in ways that it seems the church is not used to. I guess I just have a healthy skepticism of organized religon and have seen how the church has used their position to perpetrate a lot of nasty things. I’m not saying that organized religon is bad in any way (in fact I think organized religon has done a lot of great things.) but I do believe that high up members of all churches have used their supposed “knowledge” about the bible and god to, not honor god or the religon, but instead used it for their own selfish reasons. (hence my mention of indulgences) Sorry to be confused about it, I really have not had a strong religous upbringing.
228 oouchan
April 14th, 2009 at 2:13 pm

AwesomeMan: That makes sense. I like it! Welcome to the Machine.
229 bigbenton
April 14th, 2009 at 2:18 pm

awesome man,

that is indeed a possiblity. however, if we are indeed “machines,” only capable of making once choice based on past experiences leading to each moment etc., then theres no point in really arguing about free will at all. it would seem that you indeed we are only discussing free will because we are determined to, which, if that is the case, is simply what it is and theres no point in trying to convince anyone of anything. after all one is simply determined to believe what they believe. however, if one does indeed have free-will (which is the opinion i share) then there is purpose in just about everything one does.
230 Steelman
April 14th, 2009 at 2:34 pm

Randall:

“We have–and I think anyone who is a modern and a believer in the essence of democracy would agree with this–grown out of the idea presented in Hebrews.”

Aren’t you in essence just adding your own dogma here? You are free to accept the concepts presented by the Church or not, but now you are adding that one should be “modern” and a “believer in democracy” to see correctly. That seems like personal dogma.

“YOU might say that we should not “cherry pick” what we want and don’t want from scripture–but I would answer that the ESSENCE of the message of Jesus is the only thing that matters–and that slavishly following scripture which isn’t even in its original form is no more valid a philosophy.”

And what might be the “ESSENCE” of the message? My intent was to show that from a Scriptural perspective, Jesus, both himself and through the Apostles, set up a Church, that is visible via a hierarchy and has authority when it comes to faith and morals. That is a part of the “essence” of Jesus’ teaching. No picking and choosing. Given human nature, it does indeed make sense to have a continual teaching authority given our short attention spans. The human society is based on authoritative structures.

Now, if you are going to get into what books are valid, what verses are valid, etc., well then you start to back yourself into a highly debatable shitstorm.
231 Mark
April 14th, 2009 at 2:34 pm

Zeitgeit is a bunch of crap and so is this list.
232 GTT
April 14th, 2009 at 2:40 pm

smithstar15

I was never into judging you. All I´m saying is that this is supposed to be a fun, intelligent blog and you just seem to be attacking everyone in sight. You are entitled to your opinion. Just tone it down so this can go back to being something we all enjoy.

(Oh, I´ve been reading through the rest of your comments and they seem much nicer… )

*****

Randall (168):

Greek mythology has always been my sort of guilty pleasure too… Everyone I know just thinks I´m weird because of it!

*****

littleboots (189):

I hate brocoli but I loved your comment!
233 bigbenton
April 14th, 2009 at 2:45 pm

gtt,
nah man i love greek mythology as well! i used to read so much about it when i was younger
234 oouchan
April 14th, 2009 at 2:52 pm

GTT: count me into that as well! I love mythology and ancient eygptian lore. Fun stuff!
235 jfrater
April 14th, 2009 at 2:56 pm

Marv in DC: I appreciate what you are saying but one must be careful about generalizations – for example, fundamentalist sects (such as the (mostly) American Bible Christian religions) do exclude science when it doesn’t agree with the Bible, but that is not true of other religions. The oldest Christian Churches (the Catholic and Orthodox Churches) certainly embrace Science and even Thomas Aquinas said that faith and reason co-exist – they are not exclusive of one another. Some of the greatest scientific minds have come from the Catholic Church – even in modern times. For example, Monsignor Lemaître, a Belgian Priest, proposed the Big Bang Theory.

Even when evolution first came up, the Church did not speak against it at all. And in the 1950′s, when the Church first mentioned it specifically, Pope Pius XII said this:

“The Church does not forbid that…research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.”

He also said:

The question of the origin of man’s body from pre-existing and living matter is a legitimate matter of inquiry for natural science. Catholics are free to form their own opinions, but they should do so cautiously; they should not confuse fact with conjecture
236 TEX
April 14th, 2009 at 2:58 pm

congrats rushfan!!!
you really know how to stir it up
237 Davo
April 14th, 2009 at 3:02 pm

The main similarity Jesus’ life has with these other characters is that it too is fictional.
238 BooRadley
April 14th, 2009 at 3:05 pm

Thanks, Rushfan, for another interesting and thought-provoking list. And thank you, Randall for your time and effort in bringing reason and knowledge to the discussion. As always, I learned a lot from you today. And Oouchan, I loved your arguments as well. I love LV!
239 playyahplay
April 14th, 2009 at 3:05 pm

after 10 and 9 i got bored with correcting your mistakes so i will just say that my religions of the world textbooks have different facts than you do on every single entry
240 Lifeschool
April 14th, 2009 at 3:09 pm

Hey – You – Guys!! I thought I’d wait until all the fuss died down before noting my little bit. First of all, good idea rushfan – although I have to say that I was waiting for Mithras to be no.1. Then, no Mithras at all! I believe Randall pointed it out first.

A lot of the evidence, as I understand is, is millenia old and has clearly been lost in translation after all this time. Stories merge into each other. Tails intertwine until knowbody knows for sure. I love fables, parables and folk-tales, but to me it is the wisdom that matters – rather than (as the Monty Pythons may say) – who killed who.

Is it up to us? No. – we don’t know, just as authors of books don’t know, and all those manuscripts talking of slaying dragons and defeating the grave – do they know? No. ..Too much time has gone by… The only people who know: know it in their hearts – and that is enough.
241 GTT
April 14th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

Davo (237):

you might want to check out some of the comments posted above regarding the existance of a historical Jesus (ie. Randall in 168). You may or may not believe in the DIVINITY of JC but the fact remains that he did exist.
242 msulli22
April 14th, 2009 at 3:18 pm

For those of you discussing free will, here’s a fun theory (really simplified). I myself am not entirely sure what to make of it.

So, basically, from the studies done on quantum particles that make up everything in the universe, they seem to have no pattern. Their movement cannot be predicted and appears to be completely random on the quantum level. When you take this to a larger scale, the movement of the small particles determines the movement of the objects and organisms they make up. Therefore, people want to say: “tada! We have free will! Since the particles that make up our universe are not determined, neither are we.” However, since the movement of the particles is random, is it any better that complete randomness has taken the place of determinism? Essentially, in theory, all the particles that make up YOU could just randomly jump to the moon. In theory.

Just throwing this out there to show that not all arguments for or against free will are necessarily theologically driven.
243 AwesomeMan
April 14th, 2009 at 3:23 pm

bigbenton

Quite the contrary if that were the case and lets be honest who could possible live their lives if they actually believed that but if it were true then human contact and conversation would truly be the only thing that did matter bot necessarily the content but the actual activity itself. I do kind of like that idea but even if there are no choices but the ones we make the allusion of self determination is crucial.
244 Prototype
April 14th, 2009 at 3:26 pm

There are several non-Biblical historical pieces on Jesus.

Does the “Jesus-myth” have any scholarly support? In this case, to simply say “no” would be an exaggeration! Support for the “Jesus-myth” comes not from historians, but usually from writers operating far out of their field. The greatest support for the “Jesus-myth” comes not from people who know the subject, but from popularizers and those who accept their work uncritically. In spite of the fact that relevant scholarly consensus is unanimous that the “Jesus-myth” is incorrect, it continues to be propagated on a popular level as though it were absolutely proven.

Jesus was not considered to be historically significant by historians of his time. He did not address the Roman Senate, or write extensive Greek philosophical treatises; He never traveled outside of the regions of Palestine, and was not a member of any known political party. It is only because Christians later made Jesus a “celebrity” that he became known. Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss?

Jesus was executed as a criminal, providing him with the ultimate marginality. This was one reason why historians would have ignored Jesus. He suffered the ultimate humiliation, both in the eyes of Jews and the Romans. To the Romans, the primary gatekeepers of written history at the time, Jesus during his own life would have been no different than thousands of other everyday criminals that were crucified.

Jesus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well in the first century also!

It is also important to recognize that in 70 A.D., the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground! We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus’ existence was destroyed. Many of the eye-witnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.
245 bistrobrat
April 14th, 2009 at 3:28 pm

I think what is interesting about this list is that none of this is fact. Just popular opinion because most records don’t accurately date to that time. However, some people look at the “christian” side as fact and Odin, and Heracles,and othersuch figures as mythology….
246 henri
April 14th, 2009 at 3:28 pm

im so bored the world of warcraft servers have been down for 10 hours now.
247 SlashBeast
April 14th, 2009 at 3:30 pm

I was interested in seeing how Bil Maher would showcase the negative aspects of religion on society. What a disappointment it was! Religulous was more of a snide joke rather than a critical examination. Maher seemed to be more interested in gaining laughs than actually analyzing how religion negatively influences society.

It’s also amazing how Zeitgeist has gained so much acceptance when it’s so filled with glaring innacuracies which I fear have been transfered onto this list. The whole “Jesus was a myth” belief has been discredited by historians. It’s amazing that people will believe some tripe video made in a geek’s basement than actual experts in the subject.
248 bigski
April 14th, 2009 at 3:52 pm

Interesting discussion.
249 Rising Falls
April 14th, 2009 at 3:52 pm

I was at school when I made my earlier post, so i can continue now: Given all that is going on these days, terrorist attacks, genocide, etc., does it not seem rather cold that god does not give me super powers? It’s not like he/she couldn’t take them back if I abused them. Unless he/she is a selfish god that just likes to watch the world burn.
250 AwesomeMan
April 14th, 2009 at 3:57 pm

I am a selfish god and no you can’t have any super powers. If you can get the world of warcraft servers back up immediately I’ll consider it.
251 bigbenton
April 14th, 2009 at 4:10 pm

awesomeman,

sorry. im a little confused. where u supporting determinism or free will in the first post i responded to? because i originally thought it was determinism but then ur second post made me feel like ur in support of free will. so which was it? or were u just stating points?
252 Klingon
April 14th, 2009 at 4:13 pm

World of Warcraft sucks.
Interesting list.
#249
Rising Falls why would you get super powers? What makes you so much more deserving of super powers then me?
253 AwesomeMan
April 14th, 2009 at 4:13 pm

I’m in favor of free will but alas intellectually I don’t believe in it but practically I don’t think a person can live their life without at least living as if they had free will. So the answer is I have no frickin idea. I don’t see how free will is possible yet I don’t understand a world without it. I’m confused too.
254 Paolo
April 14th, 2009 at 4:16 pm

Do the math….

(Animist – x) + (polytheist – 1000) + (monotheist – 1) = atheist.
255 Rising Falls
April 14th, 2009 at 4:17 pm

I’m just saying, it doesn’t have to be me. And would super powers not add more entertainment for god? Or if he/she got really bored why not come down and walk on some water for us?
256 bigbenton
April 14th, 2009 at 4:21 pm

yeah i guess i can see that. i am personally a believer in free will. i get my explanation of free will from my belief in god, but i can understand if you don’t believe in God and everything is therfore a complete series of cause and effect, then indeed believing in “true” free will would become quite difficult to believe.
257 AwesomeMan
April 14th, 2009 at 4:29 pm

Thats strange I also believe in God which is where I get my explanation for lack of free will. Its not determination that confuses me its my self awareness or my “ego” as some have called it that confuses me.
258 bigbenton
April 14th, 2009 at 4:54 pm

could u explain what u mean by this?
259 Looser
April 14th, 2009 at 5:04 pm

a distinction needs to be made here. These are messianic figures not CHRIST figures. not the christ figure described in the old testament. good list though
260 Baxter
April 14th, 2009 at 5:10 pm

Can that issue be avoided, however, if we make a distinction between Christ-figures and Christ-like figures?
261 WSID1986
April 14th, 2009 at 5:13 pm

I’ve never heard of most of these people on the list.
262 shaymm
April 14th, 2009 at 5:14 pm

you believe in God and therefore lack a free will??? I don’t understand this…could you please clarify
263 Baxter
April 14th, 2009 at 5:17 pm

If God has created everything then he has invented your every thought process. Therefore he has already created your future. Free will relative to God does not exist. Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing – the same could be said about one’s environment.
264 AwesomeMan
April 14th, 2009 at 5:19 pm

sure god is the machine I am part of the machine. I have a role that is dependent on the reset of the machine. What I don’t understand is the part where I feel like an individual.
265 Looser
April 14th, 2009 at 5:19 pm

Baxter: yes we can avoid that issue.
266 Rising Falls
April 14th, 2009 at 5:28 pm

If your name isn’t written in the good book by no fault of your own you’re going to hell.:)
267 Baxter
April 14th, 2009 at 5:51 pm

Rising Falls: really? Next time I’m staying in a hotel I’ll make sure to scribble “BAXTER” in the Bible.
268 bigbenton
April 14th, 2009 at 6:33 pm

im kind of confused how it is you think god is a machine but ill just share what i think and see what you think about it or how you relate to it. i personally think god is a loving and relational being. i believe you feel like your an individual because you are an individual and god created you that way. god, or atleast my understanding of him, is that he and his will are divine, so what he wills to happen will happen; however, i also believe god granted humans his ultimate display of power–free will, aka the ability for man to go against the will of god. this allows humans to both be capable of the highest evil and highest love that have both been demonstrated here on earth. make sense?
269 Elperdedor
April 14th, 2009 at 6:34 pm

The Odysseus one is a bit of a stretch…
270 bigbenton
April 14th, 2009 at 6:40 pm

baxter,

why is it that if god creates all things he must have created our thought proccess? i think we may have a difference in our definition of creation. because he has created all does mean he decides what all does. isnt it possible that he created something with the ability to think on its own? or for it to seek out its purpose?
271 Anonymous
April 14th, 2009 at 6:46 pm

y’all niggas be postin in a troll list
272 will
April 14th, 2009 at 6:51 pm

Clearly, Glycon does NOT predate Jesus Christ since you say he appeared in the mid 100s. I guess that means you only have nine that predate Jesus.
273 moheb
April 14th, 2009 at 7:00 pm

You forgot on the krishna one that they both resurrected 3 day after death.
274 ringtailroxy
April 14th, 2009 at 7:02 pm

why, oh why, did i have 8 a.m. rotations & classes all day? i missed this?

rushfan~ a great list…love it! nice to see you writing lists again… missed ya for awhile!

randall~ you mean that we aren’t the same person? so i guess when i touch myself pleasurably you don’t experience it at the same time? what a shame…

and for the rest of ya’ll…

Zeitgeist is a great ‘film’. it’s only purpose to get people to THINK & QUESTION EVERYTHING. it does not claim to be the authority on anything…just presents ideas, facts, and speculation, and leaves the rest for the viewer to decipher for themselves.

as for those who say ‘historians’ have ‘proof’ Jesus was a ‘real person’…i say i agree. there are several students at my campus in downtown Miami who are named Jesus and they are very much real. (2 are paramedic students that are graduating this May! i guess some lucky souls will really be ‘saved by Jesus’ in the near future…)

here’s my short short version on all of this… (because i have projects to finish, finals to study for, and have to figure out how i am going to manage to buy books for next semester with the $1.73 currently in my bank account…)

religion and science actually satisfy the most basic of human desires. they both answer such consuming questions as “Why am I here?” “Where am I going?” “What decisions should I make?” “Is this the right thing to do?” and the all important one…”What will become of me when I die?”

they just have different answers to these questions. i respect (and am honestly jealous) of ‘believers’. i’m too much of a skeptic, too analytical, too much of an atheist to even have an iota of belief in anything.

i KNOW i will be here tomorrow and what i do today influences some aspects of tomorrow. i KNOW that who i am today is the direct result of my decisions during the past 2, 4, 10, 20 years of my life. not because of ‘divine intervention’ or ‘blessings’, but of my own insight, by the nature of cause & effect, and fortuitous circumstances. (also, with age i have learned how to recognize opportunity and use it to my advantage; a trait i lacked during my wild, self-destructive youth)

believe what you want-you cannot prove a negative. i know that science does not have ALL the answers-but it never claims to. religion does. that alone makes me doubt it’s validity. but that is me, and not all of you.

we are a big population, with big ideas, big values, and big aspirations.(what? some 6.8 billion humans? that’s a lot of zeroes…)

just because i choose not to lie prostate before an imaginary being(who just happens to look human, have human emotions, & throws temper tantrums at will), to participate in ancient, pompous traditions (many of which where integrated or blatantly stolen by preexisting paganistic rituals), or to take advice from antiquated texts written by desert nomads who could hardly understand the concept of 1,000 goats (much less 6,800,000,000 goats),does not make my opinions and views any less valid than yours, if you so choose to believe in such things.

nuff’ said. i have to go make a parasite chart now. (FYI-if you need any ‘proof’ of evolution or God’s divine hand in creation, just take a course in Veterinary Parasitology. seriously. take it.)

ringtailroxy
275 Dieles
April 14th, 2009 at 7:14 pm

OSIRIS! Osiris is the original resource to the Jesus legend/history!

He should be the number one! Without him this list is inutile!
276 lostin
April 14th, 2009 at 7:29 pm

Perhaps all religions come from the same lost source, so perhaps there is a God.
277 mick
April 14th, 2009 at 7:52 pm

this is really what Jesus was about
278 ringtailroxy
April 14th, 2009 at 7:56 pm

lostin~

yes. that source was primitive man’s attempts to explain the natural world around him. to give meaning to the unexplained. amazingly, the first known religions we have archeological proof of where animistic. at least primitive man connected with what he saw surrounding him…he saw more perfection in the animals & trees than in his own species.

where/when did the shift occur to thinking humans where the epitome of all existence and the natural kingdom was bestowed upon man by God to do with as he wished?

ringtailroxy
279 genaroian_13
April 14th, 2009 at 8:14 pm

omg

many comments ^^
280 Thomas the Creator
April 14th, 2009 at 8:28 pm

To Liam, its a well known fact that you sir, will burn in a lake of fire for eternity….have fun…
281 ants1
April 14th, 2009 at 8:40 pm

one way to make sure there will be comments, post a list religion. Lets face it, there are so many different versions of the bible these days everyone is pretty much just interpreting it there own way.

If some of the comparisions seems vague its because they are. I thought dionysus and krishna stories were pretty much a combination of jesus story.

In the beggining god didnt make a freakin chisel and stone tablet so who they hell knew he did all that?
282 Kevin
April 14th, 2009 at 9:33 pm

This whole list debunked:
http://www.zeitgeistresponse.info/
283 Nicosia
April 14th, 2009 at 9:33 pm

Warning- Not safe for work!
284 ringtailroxy
April 14th, 2009 at 9:47 pm

biased, Kevin. just another biased, Christian Propaganda site…

poorly articulated, as well, I might add.

interesting, though. to be a well-rounded, well-versed atheist, i appreciate the link and am now able to use said website in arguments. so, thank you!

embrace your belief system and don’t let anyone convince you or thwart your faith-for that is something only you can choose to alter or remain the same. don’t let others, including parents, church leaders,Flash animators, or politicians, TELL you their interpretations of what is ‘right or wrong’. humans already intrinsically possess such knowledge. it would have been lost to antiquity if such thinking did not help humans evolve from nomadic tribes to bustling metropolis mega-communities and i am certain there is some sticky glue of religion/skepticism that holds the entirety on humanity together…

ringtailroxy
285 Ed
April 14th, 2009 at 9:57 pm

Crazy number of comments on this…

They’re all good stories, but not stories you’d base your life and morals on. Religion served a purpose in its day, explaining the unexplainable. It got us to where we are today – through subjugation, holy war and random skull duggery. Will the men not work harder once a priest threatens them will hell, or more so a hanging. So many things have been done in the name of God which otherwise COULDN’T be justified – massacres, invasions, raping and pillaging – all in the name of ‘the good Lord’. I can’t name examples other than the horrendous Crusades and similar Jihads but I’m sure someone will Wiki it.

A lot of Europe has grown out of religion, the dark ages are over. The middle east has slipped back into its religious dark age, India, China and Japan all have inoffensive religions which don’t encroach upon their mental freedom and are as liberated as any.

The Americans however are a different kettle of fish… Essentially children, the bastard offspring (speaking of bastard, was Jesus technically one or can you marry ghosts?) English sailors and the world’s supply of criminals. They’ve only been around (discounting natives)
a few hundred years and they seem to be suffering for it, a fearful nation unsure of itself and thusly armed to the teeth to overcompensate. Oh how the South leans upon religion like a leper to his crutch, Creationism in schools – schools for god sake. America needs to sort itself out, or in a few generations it won’t just be the President (Bush, not Obama) who’s a puppet, people. If you indoctrinate everyone in their youth and blast them full of fairy tales about zombies, talking snakes, rib women, and (from Genesis or Epoch, can’t remember which and Bibles out of reach) a world in which the Earth is flat and the sky is a dome with 6 windows for the sun and moon to pass through – if you teach them all that in a SCIENCE lesson, as well as at whatever Bible Bantarian events you people ascribe to then by God their poor brains will be ruined and they’ll have a very much poorer understanding of the marvellous, random, bloody lucky (or not so lucky, if Meteorites really can slap down the blocks of life willy-nilly about the universe) world in which we live.

Jolly fine post by the way, some intriguing similarities from diverse cultures, though some shaky linkage at times.

Oh also, is eating the Eucharist no cannibalism as a result of transubstantiation – eating the Lord for Christ’s sake!
286 Ed
April 14th, 2009 at 10:02 pm

From Kevin’s website, “Horus was not the “sun” or the “light” but rather a sun god”

And the Sun God has no affinity with sun or light? He might no ‘be’ the sun or the light – but he’s a ruddy Sun God! He OWNS the sun, and the light – every photon whizzing into your eyeballs.
287 Ed
April 14th, 2009 at 10:03 pm

That’s better than Jesus.

(sorry for triple post)
288 Ed
April 14th, 2009 at 10:07 pm

AAAHHHHHHHH Sorry, Kevin’s website – this’ll scare you silly:

“Zeitgeist is leading millions of our children away from God. The film is nationally and internationally acclaimed. It is one of the most popular draws in the history of Internet. It is fodder for the impressionable, unsuspecting mass gathered at the trough of poisoned feed lots for academic ignorance….” Anne P., Chicago, IL.

Oh ‘God’, make it stop! That whole statement is so horribly twisted against logic and decensy it hurts. Are there really people like Anne P in the world? Could there be worse?
289 KRIZIA
April 14th, 2009 at 10:15 pm

yeah whatever Jesus is still better
290 bearglove
April 14th, 2009 at 11:13 pm

23. Stizzy – April 14th, 2009 at 3:27 am
“Btw, how can Glycon pre-date Jesus if he was created in the mid 2nd century, around 150 years after Jesus’ birth?”

It wasn’t until the second century(or later) that Jesus was given flesh with the writings of the first Gospel. With this, of course, is where Jesus starts picking up a lot of his mythos, and without any other reference material-what makes a god-man? Well, you’ve got all the factors here, and someone else decided to incorporate these into a snake-god-man in a well-known hoax of the ancient world performed by a “prophet” merely seeking to extort money from as many people as possible.
Proof that all of theses claims were in ancient literature without just going based off of Zeitgeist(which is very well researched, btw, and only appears crackpot conspiracy to a fundamentalist christian) can be found at http://www.pocm.info
In addition, notice that christians have the weakest resolve when it comes to religious faith-you don’t see the hindus on here complaining, or even the muslims for that matter. christians, if you could just learn to have some real faith, you wouldn’t be such fun/easy targets of ridicule.
291 Interesting
April 14th, 2009 at 11:25 pm

You might want to be a bit more specific about dates before you make a list of Christ figures “pre-dating” Jesus of Nazareth. Buddha, and Buddhism, came after Christ, as did #4.
292 Stizzy
April 14th, 2009 at 11:46 pm

“It wasn’t until the second century(or later) that Jesus was given flesh with the writings of the first Gospel.”

People throw out information about this when there’s enough scholarly evidence to show that the first gospels were written within the 1st century. The Bible has been scrutinized for the entire history of belief in Jesus and still stands the test of time today. These kinds of critiques on it’s origins are nothing new.

I don’t see how someone wishing to give a defence for holding theif belief is having a weak resolve. You don’t see the hindus on here complaining because their belief isn’t as rigoruously ridiculed. And most people hold back from ridiculing Islam because they won’t hear the end of it.

Followers of Jesus who do have real faith and hold onto it, I find, are ridiculed even further so I don’t see how what you’re saying bears weight.

The only followers people don’t seem to bother with are the indifferent, fringe ones.
293 harrington
April 15th, 2009 at 12:47 am

Dear everyone arguing with smithstar15,
I am a christian and i simply cannot imagine any christian being this ignorant. My apologies. At the same point, please do not use him to argue your cases against Christianity. Being sucked into a conversation with this gentleman (whom i suspect is only on her to get a reaction) is simply making your arguments against Christianity come off as arrogant because your arguing with what appears to either be a trickster or a simpleton, or possibly a combination of the two. Just to vent, i have read a few times on here that people arguing against Christianity seem to enjoy citing verses about not being judgmental. I will be the first to say that some things in the bible are easier said than done, but it becomes difficult to not want to argue and name call when constantly being called ignorant. Although i would have never posted on here before, i have been a long time reader and respect most people on this board. I understand that some of you may have been hurt by christians that seemed to be attacking you maliciously. I totally get that you want to strike back, but most of us are genuinely decent people. Saying that all christians are judgmental hypocrites is similar to saying all white people are kkk (I love that they misinterpret the bible to advance their beliefs…really helps the cause.) Thank you for reading, sorry if you feel as though i have wasted you time, and if anyone has any non attacking questions i would be happy to do my best to answer, it probably wont convince you either way, but at least ill give it a shot.
294 hanuman88
April 15th, 2009 at 12:55 am

Interesting:”Buddha and buddhism came after Christ.”An amazing deduction.Can you name your source??
Stizzy:I am an Atheist Hindu.I am going to complain about something when I get a reason to.Besides I mock most Hindus all the time.My mom hates it when I do that.
I don’t think the story of Krishna is completely true. One reason for that is that it could be a total myth because no proof of his existence exists(though they did find the ruins of Ancient Dwaraka, it is not substantial enough). Krishna was not executed/crucified.
Personally, I don’t think we need the idea of God to ensure that the world does not go crazy.
295 bearglove
April 15th, 2009 at 1:38 am

If Jesus’ physical existence is called into question, Muslims should be just as upset, because Islam finds it’s roots in Christianity. Logically, if christianity is bullshit, Mohammed must have been full of shit as well. The difference is that Muslims, Jews, Hindis, and Buddhists are confident enough in their faith that they don’t feel the need to defend it to anybody and everybody.
Also, there is no proof the gospels were written in the first century-I don’t know where you’re pulling this information from. Peter’s letter(Acts, mainly) was written in the first century, but here’s the thing.
Peter is a verifiable historical figure, if only based on the fact that we have writings of his that survive to this day.
Peter’s letters describe Jesus always in the light of being “the Holy Spirit”, and “the Christ”, but never refers to him as being a physical being, never refers to the virgin birth, never refers to his earthly miracles.
Peter was a Gnostic.
The four gospels were written at different times, and were commissioned works, and not necessarily written by a person named Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. They were in charge of writing a book about Jesus to sway new followers based on what would be acceptable in their regions and time frames(most likely). Only later on(during the third or fourth century) were they all compiled into the same book and called “Gospels”.
I’ve known many christians who don’t rabidly defend themselves against attacks on their religion, and it’s because they have TRUE, UNWAVERING faith-something that fundies and bible literalists seem to be severely lacking.
296 oouchan
April 15th, 2009 at 2:03 am

266. Rising Falls wrote: “If your name isn’t written in the good book by no fault of your own you’re going to hell.:)”

followed by -

267. Baxter writing: “Rising Falls: really? Next time I’m staying in a hotel I’ll make sure to scribble “BAXTER” in the Bible.”

That was hilarious! Thanks for the early morning funny (from where I am!)
297 Stizzy
April 15th, 2009 at 2:50 am

295. bearglove: “The difference is that Muslims, Jews, Hindis, and Buddhists are confident enough in their faith that they don’t feel the need to defend it to anybody and everybody.”

Experience would seem to suggest otherwise. You’re singling out christians as an example of the “worst” of these yet you will find examples of people like this in every faith. More over, the Bible itself teaches to be ready at all times to give a defence for the hope of your faith. So christians who do defend their faith don’t necessarily do so due to a lack of it, but also because it’s part of their calling.

Afterall, how can someone sufficiently defend something they don’t even have faith in or understand?

Jesus is also a veriafiable historical figure. I’ve even heard it said that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Julius Ceaser, and no one denies he existed or that he was a man.

Peter’s letters weren’t gospels and they weren’t written with the same purpose. They were written to people who already knew about Jesus, about His humanity, about his birth and about His miracles. It’s written for an audience that had already accepted Him, so why would Peter need to go through all of these details with people who already knew them? There was no debate that Jesus was a man at the time, there would have been debate about His divinity however and His fulfillment of prophecy, and so it makes sense that Peter would focus on those elements.

I already explained to someone else who the gospels were written by and where their information came from. The writers weren’t commissioned to to write a book to sway people.

The book of Luke was written as part of a two-part witness (including Acts, which is NOT Peter’s letter btw) that was to be used in a trial for the defence of the apostle Paul, and was written to someone who wasn’t a follower of Jesus.

The book of Mark also was catered for those who either had no faith or faith in Jesus, and draws on the testimony of Peter. Before he died, he wanted to leave an account of Jesus’ life.

The book of Matthew was written primarily to new Jewish converts, hence the prominance of Hebrew themes.

The book of John was written later than the others when John was an old man and was written for mature followers of Jesus, as an assurance and as encouragement to continue in their faith.

The word “Gospel” means Good News, and Jesus’ message was called the good news long before the Bible as compiled. As the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were about Jesus’ ministry and His message, it goes without saying that they would be called the Good News.

Matthew 9:35, 11:5, Luke 4:43, 7:22, 8:1, 9:6, are just some of the verses that speak of Jesus proclaiming the “good news”, and the idea can be traced back even further to the book of Isaiah.

You say that Peters letters never refered to Jesus as a physical being and yet there are references to His death and His shed blood. Qualities of a physical being wouldn’t you say? 1 Peter 4:1 says:

“So, since Christ sufffered in the flesh, you also arm yourselves with the same attitude, because the one who has suffered in the flesh has finished with sin.”

You proclaim this letter was written in the 1st century, so can I assume you believe it to be historically accurate? Do these sound like the words of a Gnostic? Furthermore it attests His ressurection from the dead. Is that not one of if not THE earthly miracles?

In 2 Peter 1:15, he says:

“Indeeed, I will also make every effort that after my departure, you have a testimony of these things.”

He was speaking of his witness of the life of Jesus, a witness that became the book of Mark.

You call Peter a Gnostic and yet he condemns Gnosticism in 2 Peter 2.

I do not write this because I lack faith and need to reassure myself, but because I see a missrepresentation and I seek to correct it.
298 Paolo
April 15th, 2009 at 3:07 am

Go back to the Bible, replace “Jesus” with “Steve.” Then go preach about Steve the Savior and see how crazy that sounds. The difference between a cult and a religion is numbers and time.
299 Stizzy
April 15th, 2009 at 3:50 am

It would indeed sound crazy if one replaced “Jesus” with “Steve” because everyone is aware that the Savior was named Jesus. If, however, His original name was “Steve” and that was what had always been written in Bibles, it would hardly sound crazy would it?
300 scarlet_tears
April 15th, 2009 at 4:24 am

very interesting list. i know most of this especially the Hindu gods and Zoroaster. I’m very interested in Zoroastrianism and their god Ahura Mazda and by the way, Zoroaster is their prophet.

very brave list too, i mean, most people wouldn’t post a “religion-base” list since it will create another controversial list here. but i must say, this is a very interesting list.

i can’t believe i posted a comment here after so long coz i don’t usually comments on uninteresting lists..

good job!
301 dnana
April 15th, 2009 at 4:46 am

Everything is crap. Why everybody is born by virgin. Is not that hypocrisy and is not that idiotic for us to believe in the shit.
302 Flaming Juice
April 15th, 2009 at 5:21 am

quote Stizzy: “I’ve even heard it said that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Julius Ceaser, and no one denies he existed or that he was a man.”

How dare you say that?

That’s like saying there’s more scientific proof for creationism than for evolution?
303 lrigD
April 15th, 2009 at 5:25 am

Oh boy, this is brilliant.

Loved the list. I’m not going to debate about its accuracy because 1)many have done that for me and 2)I don’t know everything there is to know about Christ, nor any of the other people/gods mentioned.

I’ve read through some of the comments and while I won’t go against someone specifically, I do have some things to say.

First of all: I thought it was an accepted fact of history that Jesus Christ actually did exist. Apparently, some people still debate this, which is a bit strange to me. I don’t see any use in denying something that is a known and accepted fact (and as such, I suspect it’s been researched thoroughly enough to back it up).

Secondly: I love Greek mythology and I was pretty happy to see all these Greek figures mentioned in the list =D While not all of them are equally interesting to me, I happen to love Odysseus and his story.

It’s amazing how lists such as this one can turn anything into a religious debate. Well, I suppose it’s better to attack each other with words than with bombs.
304 Cybogen
April 15th, 2009 at 5:36 am

301. dnana – Everything is crap. Why everybody is born by virgin. Is not that hypocrisy and is not that idiotic for us to believe in the shit.
I just want to say respectfully that Whats so hard about a virgin birth? Scientists can do that now with females.
You think it would have been harder for god to bring this about with his almighty power?
305 Baxter
April 15th, 2009 at 5:44 am

304. Cybogen: “I just want to say respectfully that Whats so hard about a virgin birth? Scientists can do that now with females.
You think it would have been harder for god to bring this about with his almighty power?”

No, but I do think it would have been harder for him to bring it about with his lack of existence.

BOOSH!
306 Stizzy
April 15th, 2009 at 5:52 am

“How dare you say that?

That’s like saying there’s more scientific proof for creationism than for evolution?”

The words of certain scholars, not mine, jus something I read once :p. And whether there’s more scientific proof for evolution than creationism is debatable.

Nevertheless, some interesting sources on Bible manuscripts:

http://www.equip.org/articles/bible-reliability
http://www.ronrhodes.org/Manuscript.html
307 Stizzy
April 15th, 2009 at 5:56 am

Isn’t the “It couldn’t happen because God doesn’t exist.” argument a bit weak?

Whether you believe He exists or not does not invalidate or dismiss the argument. First show why He most definately does not exist, then you can make such a statement. Otherwise, you’re trying to get someone to leave their presuppositions and debate you based upon your own when you’re not willing to make the same concession.
308 Cybogen
April 15th, 2009 at 6:08 am

306. Stizzy- Well said my friend! An opinion such as Baxter made is empty to it context if its own statement cant be sucessfully brought about. You said it well!
309 Notachristianmissionaryfan
April 15th, 2009 at 6:41 am

Smithstar15 – I want you to acknowledge one fact.

People have a right to believe & practice a faith of their choice.

Would you agree? If so, that means one has no reason to diss the various religious figures of other religions. Can we not have that minimum civility?
310 gabi319
April 15th, 2009 at 7:01 am

01. dnana – “Why everybody is born by virgin. Is not that hypocrisy and is not that idiotic for us to believe in the shit.”
It was to create a sense of the mystical by using a situation that is biologically impossible. By that I mean ‘everybody is born by virgin.’ As far as ‘believe in that shit’, I won’t venture into that….

304. Cybogen: “I just want to say respectfully that Whats so hard about a virgin birth? Scientists can do that now with females.
Not scientists but rather nature. And this only comes about in extreme situations in which mating with a male is not an option and only with specific animals like the White Spotted Bamboo Shark. Humans aren’t capable of scientifically-created virgin births. I’d broaden that even further but… come on you guys, this is a list discussing mythical and historical figures. There’s no need to bash a religion nor is there need to preach about a religion. Leave that on the back burner because both really dumb down the conversation.

306. Stizzy – “The words of certain scholars, not mine, jus something I read once :p. And whether there’s more scientific proof for evolution than creationism is debatable.”
Debatable yes, but still very weak. We’ve yet to see any true reason for including creationism in the science classroom. Told you before. Your View: Should Creationism be taught in School? Unfortunately, I won’t be there most of the day but hopefully someone will.
311 Perx
April 15th, 2009 at 7:10 am

Its so sad that over such a long time.. so many *prominent8 persons have tried to teach the exact same things and we still don’t get them. We make a religion out of them and then priests and temples rule our thinking rather than the actual teachings…
312 bearglove
April 15th, 2009 at 7:20 am

Stizzy-as pointed out in a previous argument with ignorance in the posts-JESUS HAS NO HISTORICAL RECORD. THERE IS A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING JULIUS CESAR’S EXISTENCE, INCLUDING HIS OWN WRITTEN WORKS AND MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS BY CONTEMPORARY HISTORIANS.
Peter’s references to Jesus’ ressurection are clearly references to the journey that Jesus’ spirit took through heaven and hell.
Peter wasn’t a gnostic? Ok, maybe he’s not specifically the Gnostics you are thinking of, but the modern day interpretation by the Catholic church of the Gnostics is “one who follows Christ but does not believe in his physical existence, death, and subsequent ressurection from the dead”. The original Gnostics were a separate sect of Christianity, and Peter’s dogma eventually led to the founding of the Catholic church, but only after being modified to reflect the norms of the time-holidays centered around solstices and harvests.

The general consensus among the respected Scientific community is that Evolutionary theory is around 98% complete and accurate, whereas there is not one modicum of evidence supporting creationism as a viable alternative. to further cement the point that Creationism should not be allowed anywhere near a school curriculum, take to example my situation. I went to a catholic grade school. In second grade science we were taught about evolution, the dinosaurs(not that they were tests of god), and that the earth was BILLIONS of years old. We also had religion class that taught the creation, but it was viewed as our ancestral interpretation of the creation of all, when god really only created humans and modern animals(in their view), and the heavens. Dinosaurs and other ancient life forms had no need for good because they weren’t capable of seeing his light, so he didn’t reveal himself to them or speak of their existence to us, which is why they weren’t mentioned in the bible.
313 bober
April 15th, 2009 at 7:20 am

we’re all going to burn in hell forever for reading this list… see you there!
314 Stizzy
April 15th, 2009 at 7:22 am

I don’t see why creationism has to be taught in schools anyway, that doesn’t really have to be a natural offshoot of whether there is more evidence for one than the other. And I don’t believe the evidence is weak seeing as they both use the same evidence, just different presuppositions and ways of interpreting the evidence. If the evidence for creationism is weak, it stands to reason that the evidence for evolution is also weak.

If the interpretation or the presuppositions are seen as weak, that’s another matter.

I believe that evolution should be debated in the classroom for what it is, a theory. And therefore it’s strengths and weaknesses should be evaluated so that students can objectively think about it for themselves. If this means presenting alternative theories then by all means but it shouldn’t be dogmatic.

“Humans aren’t capable of scientifically-created virgin births. I’d broaden that even further but… come on you guys, this is a list discussing mythical and historical figures. There’s no need to bash a religion nor is there need to preach about a religion. Leave that on the back burner because both really dumb down the conversation.”

What about IVF?

And I don’t see a need to leave religion out of the discussion, especially when the list is about religious figures and I don’t see why people can’t present their cases for why they believe or disbelieve in a faith. If it goes overboard, by all means people should hold back.
315 bober
April 15th, 2009 at 7:25 am

Evolution is only a theory because no one can live long enough to actually watch it happen…

I love when Christians play the “prove it” game…how delightfully crazy!
316 Stizzy
April 15th, 2009 at 7:30 am

Bearglove – I honestly don’t know where you get your information from. Scholars agree that Jesus was a historial figure, and therefore a man. There are historical reports by contemporary historians, not to mention the books of the new testament themselves, written by contemporaries. Read the links I posted earlier.

Gnostics were a heretical sect who didn’t teach the same message as Jesus or the apostles.

“Peter’s references to Jesus’ ressurection are clearly references to the journey that Jesus’ spirit took through heaven and hell.”

They are clearly not because He doesn’t say so and the rest of scripture backs this. Peter refers to the letters of Paul in 2 Peter as scripture, and furthermore says that all scripture comes from inspiration by God. Paul repeatedly speaks to the humanity of Jesus. If Peter was a Gnostic and didn’t believe Jesus was a man, He wouldn’t have called the writing of Paul scripture.

“Peter’s dogma eventually led to the founding of the Catholic church, but only after being modified to reflect the norms of the time-holidays centered around solstices and harvests.”

Jesus’ teaching put forth that there is no need for festivals and holidays, and such festivals revolving around soltices and harvests didn’t come until much later.

“The general consensus among the respected Scientific community is that Evolutionary theory is around 98% complete and accurate, whereas there is not one modicum of evidence supporting creationism as a viable alternative.”

I have to ask how you arrived at that figure, what is your source? Evolutionary theory is far from 98% complete or accurate.

” I went to a catholic grade school. In second grade science we were taught about evolution, the dinosaurs(not that they were tests of god), and that the earth was BILLIONS of years old. We also had religion class that taught the creation, but it was viewed as our ancestral interpretation of the creation of all, when god really only created humans and modern animals(in their view), and the heavens. Dinosaurs and other ancient life forms had no need for good because they weren’t capable of seeing his light, so he didn’t reveal himself to them or speak of their existence to us, which is why they weren’t mentioned in the bible.”

The word Dinosaur is a recent creation, so of course you wouldn’t find mention of dinosaurs in the Bible. Are there references to creatures that sound remarkably like Dinosaurs? Indeed there are several.

The Genesis account places the creation of all land creatures on the same day, so by the time man appeared, all kinds of creatures would have been present. God wouldn’t have to reveal their existence to humans as their existence would be pretty plain to see for themselves.
317 Stizzy
April 15th, 2009 at 7:37 am

“315. bober – April 15th, 2009 at 7:25 am

Evolution is only a theory because no one can live long enough to actually watch it happen…

I love when Christians play the “prove it” game…how delightfully crazy!”

I didn’t see anyone playing the “prove it” card for evolution. Does natural selection happen? Absolutely, we can see it happen. Molecules to man evolution, however, as you’ve said is unobservable. But that’s not the only reason it doesn’t seem viable to me. Whilst it is indeed a compelling explanation for what we observe in the world, for me it falls short of a lot and is illogical in other ways.

I don’t say “prove it!”, on the contrary, I say the emperor has no clothes.
318 Mr.Graves
April 15th, 2009 at 7:47 am

To be fair… give credit where credit is due… it’s fundamentalism in any belief structure or ideology that leads to the stupidity of creationism and such. It’s not just christians, and it’s not just one version of god.

It’s when sad and insecure little minded people of any belief, need to force everyone to be just like them so they don’t have to turn the judging eye inwards, and face what they are really hating and loathsome of: themselves.

Finally, I hate to break it to you, but the ‘evolution is just a theory’ stuff doesn’t work, and when you use stuff like that, you only show you have no real understanding of how the concept works.

If you want to understand how the people who actually understand and study science view the people who are trying their hardest (not knowing why, only knowing their church told them to) to debunk evolution, just go and replace the word ‘evolution’ with ‘gravity’ in any creationist’s reasoning.

We cannot prove that gravity beyond a shadow of a doubt, exists in the same way throughout every part of time and the universe; what we do have is so much evidence that it becomes mathematically illogical to think that it doesn’t.

This is the same thing as evolution- the problem is you can’t teach people who refuse to even learn the most basic understandings needed in the language to converse with them, like how a theory works, how science works, etc.

But in the end, you will never convince a true believer, because in their heads, they already know everything.

Teach the controversy!!!! (Because if we stop screeching and throwing feces, we might need to provide some logic about why we aren’t primates!!!)
319 bearglove
April 15th, 2009 at 7:47 am

http://www.pocm.info/scholarship_getting_started.html

more truth in this link than you can find if you search for years. Unless of course you look for historical record not biased by their presuppositions.
Just because Jesus doesn’t exist means you’re an idiot Stizzy, accept this and it’s a lot easier to see the truth.

We CAN observe evolution, in simple organisms. Fruit flies have been noted to evolve over the last 40 years under laboratory conditions. Natural Selection and Evolution are mutually inclusive-there isn’t one without the other. Natural selection=the favoring of certain genes over others, so that those genes are carried on into the next generation. Evolution is the eventual result of only favorable genes being passed down throughout so many successive generations that a new species comes into being as a result. Eventually those species diverge and adapt to the point that they can sometimes grow beyond the scope of their original ancestral link. Molecules to humanity doesn’t seem that unobtainable in the light of 4.5 billion years to do it in.
Also, i think that their justification was just as ridiculous as you do(the existence of dinosaurs and why they aren’t mentioned), but only because even in fourth grade even I realized there something wrong with this religion thing.
320 bearglove
April 15th, 2009 at 7:55 am

*- doesn’t mean you’re an idiot, is what i meant to say.
321 Cybogen
April 15th, 2009 at 8:10 am

295. bearglove – Your concepts and facts of evoulution are both interesting and thought provoking with due respect. If we go back to the earliest part of history where something began the whole life portion of what we know as diferent biological life forms including us humans staring then my question to you is how did that very first bit of life matter origin start? Lets say maybe a small organism…anything you want to call it as the beginning of life. The spark if you want to call it. Just tell me this….Whatever you trace it back to that brought that single begining to appear? Where are now at your origin of evolution idea…. the first beginning if you will envision it.
Now..the first absolute beignning. What brought it into its state of existence?? I have an answer for you. Creation-GOD
322 Christy
April 15th, 2009 at 8:19 am

Rushfan – Thank you for a great list…I understand and appreciate your intro and think, as you do, that these are very interesting observations…. and that the truth, is indeed difficult to know for sure. Great list!
323 tard
April 15th, 2009 at 9:02 am

i love all the zeitgeist copypasta without any sourcing

zeitgeist debunked by some students:
324 Patrick
April 15th, 2009 at 9:05 am

Wow!!! I’m Catholic, but I still think this list is really cool! It is really interesting, and you can see that there are patterns in every religion that are evident and really interesting.
325 Sof
April 15th, 2009 at 9:23 am

What I find entertaining is that I think Smithstar15 is just playing around with everyone, trying to get as much reaction as he can. The worst is that the most like smartest commenter on this list has totally fallen for it *Randall* LOL it’s funny.
326 damien_karras
April 15th, 2009 at 9:24 am

If evolution can be defined as a process, every process starts somewhere. The questions I have are: when did it start, what started this process and why was this process started in the first place.
327 smithstar15
April 15th, 2009 at 9:34 am

Notachristianmissionaryfan: You’re either very stupid or you have not read my posts. I have said over and over ad nauseum that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want to believe–What part of that do you not understand? You can worship your toilet for all I care–I don’t know any clearer way to put it.Boy–I tell ya.There’s some smart people on here and there are really some dumb ones–Words do mean something–Read them-
328 Cybogen
April 15th, 2009 at 9:43 am

326. damien_karras – Good Point made!
329 NotBrainwashed
April 15th, 2009 at 10:01 am

I’m not a christian exactly, non-demoninational theist, but…

I’m sorry, anyone who believes the zeitgeist to be true is absolutely stupid.

Read up on the history of just ONE of the characters and you’ll find how many fake comparisons they make.

My favorite retarded similarity in zeitgeist was:

God’s Sun = God’s Son

So if it’s so easy to do in English, it MUST be like that in every language right??!?!?

Well, in spanish sun is sol, and son is hijo.

God’s sol = God’s hijo RIGHT!?!?!? Because there’s only one letter mis- Oh wait, you mean that DOESN’T work in every language!?!?
330 NotBrainwashed
April 15th, 2009 at 10:02 am

Whether Christianity is correct or not, Zietgeist is NOT where you want to get your answer from.

I could sh*t more accuracy than that movie.
331 Lillitt
April 15th, 2009 at 10:05 am

Well I think this is my second post. I don’t post as regularly as would like to. I am a pagan, bordering more on the Norse end of the scale. But alas, it doesn’t matter.

My point is this, to the people with certain religious beliefs, you read this list. I’m pretty sure you didn’t do it because you wanted to see what these heathens wrote about your specific deity, but you did for the reason we all do; to entertain yourself and expand your knowledge.

I’m not smart nor do I claim to be but this seems to have turned into a religious battle, and I think its pointless. No one’s going to change their mind if they don’t want to. As much as most say that they don’t care about what differing opinions say on them and their religions and/or beliefs, they still respond. It doesn’t matter with what intent, a response is a response.

It doesn’t matter what anyone calls you, but what you answer to. So let us all sit and share our opinions.

My two cents.
332 NotBrainwashed
April 15th, 2009 at 10:06 am

Agreeing with 331 also

Get rid of that stupid creationism vs evolution stuff from here, because this list has nothing to do with it.
333 smithstar15
April 15th, 2009 at 10:58 am

Lillitt:This seems to have turned into a religious battle, and I think its pointless. No one’s going to change their mind if they don’t want to.

Actually you’re pretty smart because you are correct. No one who believes in Buddha is going to become a Christian and no Christian is going to become an atheist and no atheist is going to start believing in God because of anything said in these posts.That’s why I say,let everyone go with what they’re comfortable with and let the chips fall where they may.
334 Cybogen
April 15th, 2009 at 12:31 pm

As somebody said somewhere. Lets just believe what we want to each our own and let the chips fall where the may. Who knows the outcome of the game until the game is over.
335 knight_forked
April 15th, 2009 at 3:05 pm

@307 Stizzy: “Whether you believe He exists or not does not invalidate or dismiss the argument. First show why He most definately does not exist, then you can make such a statement.”

I agree that the question of existence is perennial at best. But I really don’t understand when people start addressing that unknown force as ‘He’. Why cannot it be a ‘She’? And that is where it dawns upon me that the religions (with He God as supreme being) were brainchild of sexist men, only thing that distinguished them from the rest of the populace was that they were way smarter than the rest of them…or should I dare say that the rest of them were way dumber?

To me, if God exists then it has a completely different definition and form. It is all the forces of nature, laws of physics – explained and unexplained, discovered and yet to be discovered, chemical reactions known to us and not yet known to us. Science is still a baby in the cradle as compared to religion, but it’s tentacles of knowledge span far beyond.
336 Lillitt
April 15th, 2009 at 3:14 pm

Cybogen: I’m perfectly content with that. I would imagine that we all are strong and secure in our faiths(whatever it may be), and can’t be pushed over by a couple of posts. Not in arrogance, but confidence as were are very individual people who have differing views.

To get on the subject of the posts though. I love Anthropology, and I think that it’s fascinating that people from different lands have similar stories. Every pantheon has a different God or Goddess that serves the same purpose.
337 knight_forked
April 15th, 2009 at 3:17 pm

By the way Rushfan, great stimulating list!

I also heard some crazy guy in favor of the debate about #9 that word Christianity is a deformation of ‘Krishna’ + ‘niti’ where ‘niti’ in Sanskrit means teachings making Krishna-niti as teachings of Krishna.
338 Looser
April 15th, 2009 at 4:59 pm

SHUTTUP ALL OF YOU!!! jeeze. None of us (to the extent of my knowledge which is admittedly small, but based on the comments thus far) is an expert on the subject. So why make guesses? i think we need to agree to disagree on the subject and move on to arguing about metallica!
339 Looser
April 15th, 2009 at 5:00 pm

(or most of you at any rate)
340 sarah_r
April 15th, 2009 at 5:39 pm

wow that’s a lot of comments. i haven’t read through them, but it was quite an interesting list.

religious lists always cause quite the spark
341 deepthinker
April 15th, 2009 at 5:54 pm

Neat list, and I’m a Christian! Oh, rushfan… you know how to get the comments! *wink*
342 Baxter
April 15th, 2009 at 6:53 pm

To Stizzy and Cybogogen -

The impetus is not on me to prove that God doesn’t exist. There isn’t a scrap of evidence to suggest that he does. Therefore it is retarded to use the argument that God could impregnate a virgin because it presupposes an impossibility. I stick by my statement because it is YOU who has made the illogical assertion, not me.
343 rushfan
April 15th, 2009 at 7:01 pm

Thanks, y’all! This list was fun to compile, and I assumed there would be tons of fun comments. To address some comments, I’m not a fan of Bill Maher. I just happen to have the same view on religion as he does. I loved Religulous. The scene in the truck stop chapel is priceless. And as far as Zeitgeist goes, I watched Part 1. Then I watched Part 2. Then I watched the addendum. I just love documentaries. I was actually trying to find a documentary called Bridge to Iran: The other side of the Burka, so I found every website I could that had documentaries you could watch online and when I couldn’t find the one I wanted, I just watched some random ones and found Zeitgeist.
344 RoloTomasi
April 15th, 2009 at 7:01 pm

Good list you infidel. (lol im just kidding) Unfortunately it is accurate. Coming across this and similar information (the lack of any mention of Jesus in any other source) in high school is what finally put doubt in my mind.

All religious followers live inside bubbles. How can you belief any of it?

Catholics believe in a god born in a barn.

Muslim believe that Mohammed ascended to heaven in a horse.

Mormons believe that the Isrealites came to the America’s

Jews believe they are the chosen ones and no one else.

and on and on….. I personally believe that organized religion was invented. God is not invented.

What ever you want to call him. Yahweh, Allah, Buddha, Elohim, Jehovah, it doesn’t matter. As long as you believe in something you are on the right track.

All religions are right in their message. No one religion has a monopoly on truth.
345 rushfan
April 15th, 2009 at 7:06 pm

Rolo, you had me going there for a second! I definitely agree with your view of organized religion.
346 Patrick
April 15th, 2009 at 9:07 pm

This list just shows how cool it is to study the similarities with religions.

The Flood Story is prevalant in almost every creation story in one way or fashion.
Son of God being present and then resurecting is clearly a pattern.
Virgin Birth being Very Very holy.
You can see in art how the Buddha’s calm hand motion in Asian art is prevelant in Jesus in Byzantine and Early Christian art.
and how uncooked foods and germs had a big influence.

I’m not saying religion is bad by any means, and I feel that religion can remind someone of ethics and morals, but if religion is taken too seriously (KKK, Neo-Nazi, Muslim Terrorists, Spanish Inquisition (no one saw it coming:p) it can be bad.

GREAT LIST and it is heating some arguemnents and making people mad.
347 patricia
April 15th, 2009 at 9:21 pm

Maybe this is only proof that the story of god and jesus is true but has last for many generations, cultures, names, and place.
348 Patrick
April 15th, 2009 at 9:30 pm

Patricia: Interesting. if one guy was born a virgin birth, babtized at 30 then resurected after 3 days, maybe his story has lived on through generations of religions and cultures.
349 Stizzy
April 15th, 2009 at 9:31 pm

“I agree that the question of existence is perennial at best. But I really don’t understand when people start addressing that unknown force as ‘He’. Why cannot it be a ‘She’? And that is where it dawns upon me that the religions (with He God as supreme being) were brainchild of sexist men, only thing that distinguished them from the rest of the populace was that they were way smarter than the rest of them…or should I dare say that the rest of them were way dumber?”

I believe the Bible and that is how God Himself chose to reveal Himself. He has no sex and indeed He has qualities that are inherent in both sexes, because He created sexes. If all men and women are equal in the sight of God, one has to ask themselves, why does it matter if He is referred to as a HE?
350 Patrick
April 15th, 2009 at 9:41 pm

Stizzy: Could not say it better. If they had reffered to ‘HE’ as ‘SHE’, well then people now would say the people back then were sexist women. if ‘HE’ was reffered to as ‘IT’ well then people would claim the old religion worshiped a Pagan God or an Animal. ‘HE’ (at least i believe) isn’t even human or is just a force, I don’t know and probably don’t want to know. whatever
351 Templar
April 15th, 2009 at 10:02 pm

1) I’m an atheist. Jesus was a mythologized cult leader.

2) Many of the comparisons are seriously weak to the point of laughable. Practically “Zeus breathed air, so did Jesus.” I’ve seen much better work done by a Christian conspiracy theorist who managed to make every mythological figure sound like a version of Babylon’s Nimrod.

3) Many of the comparisons are incorrect, just lies that have been perpetuated by people who lazily refuse to simply corroborate assertions: Isis was NOT a virgin, there was no star, Horus was born in a swamp – not a manger, Horus was never baptized… it’s just crap that was made up by conmen who know that some atheists are too lazy to do any fact checking.

Great article: http://stupidevilbastard.com/index/seb/comments/ending_the_myth_of_horus/
352 Mark
April 15th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

But then again, most of these fellas have similarities between themselves… Comparing most of these to Christ seems rather pointless and – I know I’m pushing it here – insane. Christ is NOT a god – to the best of my non-Christian knowledge – so I don’t see how he relates all that much to Horus or Dionysus. On that note, wasn’t Dionysus the god of wine or something along those lines? Doesn’t seem much like Jebus to me…
353 Stizzy
April 15th, 2009 at 11:02 pm

That’s a good point Mark, it’s just as easy to compare many of these figures between each other than Jesus, maybe even more so. Most of the comparisons are a stretch and in some cases just evidence of bait and switch.

Baxter:”The impetus is not on me to prove that God doesn’t exist. There isn’t a scrap of evidence to suggest that he does. Therefore it is retarded to use the argument that God could impregnate a virgin because it presupposes an impossibility. I stick by my statement because it is YOU who has made the illogical assertion, not me.”

But see, it is on you. You say there isn’t a scrap of evidence only because you don’t believe that what is there is evidence. You don’t believe it is evidence because it doesn’t fit your presuppositions. You say it’s retarded to use the argument that God could impregnante a virgin because it presupposes an impossibiity….well if you presuppose God’s existence and power, it’s hardly an impossibility is it? In your world view, it is an impossibility because you refuse to acknowledge anything beyond the natural.

Even on the quantum level, things get a little funky and electrons are said to be able to pop into existence (dunno bout that one, but that’s what some scientists are saying), yet according to the “laws of nature” this shouldn’t be possible. I’m no expert on Quantum Physics and Mechanics so I’m just extrapolating to the best of my ability here.

Even the issue of origins and beginnings, some scientists propose other dimensions colliding, igniting our universe. Dimensions and universes that could have completely different laws and physics, beyond what we would refer to as natural. In a sense, perhaps subconsiously, some scientists are indeed thinking outside of the natural box and delving into the realm of “impossibility”.
354 Stizzy
April 15th, 2009 at 11:05 pm

I also dunno about the whole “It’s right to follow what you believe as long as you’re sincere” thing. The different religious concepts are so diverse that it’s hard to simply marry them all if you follow me. I believe all faiths have an element of truth because I believe that if you start with the Creator God, it seems natural that over time, the original concept of Him would become distored.

Kind of like chinese whispers, anyone ever play that? :p As you go along, the original sentence may end up completely different at the end.

Also, someone may sincerely believe in a God who tells them to sacrifice their children through burning, yet even the idea of such a thing is horrific to us. Makes you wonder why? We naturally know some things just aren’t right, yet why do we propose to have a monopoly on right and wrong?

I don’t believe all beliefs can be right, but I do believe they could all be wrong.
355 Mark
April 15th, 2009 at 11:16 pm

354. Stizzy : If they can’t all be right – which I also believe – they can’t all be wrong. Christianity might say killing another human is wrong, but if I come along tomorrow and start a religion that says “Killing people is your salvation” (sound like any fundamentalists you know?) then one of those is wrong and one is right. Because if the opposite of a wrong isn’t a right – or even just anything else that doesn’t fall into the set of the “wrong” – then what is right?
356 Studizzle4mob
April 15th, 2009 at 11:30 pm

Yea I’d have to say that some of your picks for the list don’t really “cut the mustard”, but it is obvious that Christianity picked up on previous religious beliefs. BTW I think your inclusion of people in this list who were born on Dec, 25th is a bit unnecessary, mainly because Jesus wasn’t born on the 25th as most scholars agree on. Jesus was born in the late spring/ summer time if I remember correctly, but the church switched this to Dec, 25th which at the time was a popular “pagan” festival, so that more people would convert to the church. Christianity = Most corrupt religion ever
357 Stizzy
April 15th, 2009 at 11:31 pm

Very good points again Mark and I believe you’ve hit on something that most people disregard. Namely, how do we arrive at what is right and what is wrong? Which is kind of what I was getting at. In effect, I should probably take back the statement “I do beileve they could all be wrong.” Because I don’t actually believe that. It would be more accurate to say it is simply a possibility. Obviously, I belief one faith is right, and the question becomes why? What is it that gives me the sense that this is right?

I believe a belief should make sense of the world the way we see it and account for what we can’t see as well as what we can. I believe it should make sense of purpose, of intelligence, of conscious and of our senses. This should also corrolate with what we see within the world.

For example, I look at the world and I see so much corruption and so much wrong and I may be inclined to ask myself “Why is the world like this, why are people like this?”. One may say we are all really good deep down, but does this reflect what we see in the world?

As morbid as it may sound, when you observe people you have to wonder if anyone does hardly anything for truly transparent reasons, or is there an element of selfishness? I love the subcontext in The Dark Knight where the Joker brings about the creation of Two-Face, in essence saying that even the best of us can become the worst of us given the right reason and motivation. And what is it within man that makes this possible?

Are we simply animals and going by our instincts as animals in a dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest world? In which case, everything is relative and there is no ultimate purpose. Or, were we once in a state far better and became corrupted to the deepest root of our being so that our hearts are naturally inclined to evil? The second makes more sense to me because we definately have some kind of moral and ethical scale.

If mans heart is naturally bad, it makes sense that he can take anything good and corrupt it or abuse it. It makes sense that people will look for justification to do what may be festering in their heart. Hence why someone may join a belief that says “killing is your salvation” because at some root level, there are people they know they would kill if they could.

And then I ask myself, how does one deal with this inherently bad nature? Indeed, can man do anything about it? And what form of belief provides a way to counter this inherently bad nature? Can simply doing good deeds account for it?

If a man commits a crime and then afterwards goes into charity work, it doesn’t change the fact that he’s committed a crime and is thus deserving of punishment and jail, no matter how many good things he’s done.

Similarly, if someone is inherently bad, it makes no difference how many good acts they perform, their inward nature will most likely remain the same. Polish a turd and it’s still a turd loool
358 Mark
April 15th, 2009 at 11:33 pm

356. Studizzle4mob : *cough* Scientology *cough*
359 Stizzy
April 15th, 2009 at 11:35 pm

Studizzle4mob: haha! There are parts of that sentiment I do agree with. As an insitutional religion, Christianity (or Churchianity as i sometimes like to call it) has become incredibly corrupt.

What do you think of Jesus Himself Studizzle?
360 Mark
April 15th, 2009 at 11:42 pm

357. Stizzy : You wouldn’t happen to be on the wrong side of 70, British and living in Chile would you? That comment just wreaks of Anon, not in a good way either. Very long-winded, true eloquence is saying what is necessary and nothing more.

People do what they do because it’s best for them. You might say “What about those people giving up any chance of being rich or even comfortable doing work in Africa or Asia?”, well they’re doing what IS best for them. Helping people makes them feel like fame or riches might to us. People aren’t inherently “bad”, because what is bad, as you and I are both saying.

Which brings me to my cynicism on human nature, is what is best for you best for me? If not, will it hurt me? If so, how much? So in the end, was what you did bad, good or indifferent? People aren’t inherently bad, just not in complete agreement and taking the most natural and obvious course of action, what is best for them.
361 Stizzy
April 15th, 2009 at 11:54 pm

Nope, I am not frankly I dunno what all that is meant to mean anyway. Wasn’t trying to be eloquent or anything, just saying what I think on the matter hehe.

People may do what they believe is best for them, but what we think is best for us isn’t always what’s good or best for us. Incidentaly, we live in a society where we think more of what’s best for us than for others. We think less of how our actions can affect the lives of other people and the people around those other people.

Indeed what is bad? On our own, I think we are hard pressed to define what is bad and what is right and so often we’ll relegate to what feels good and what doesn’t, what’s possible and what’s impossible. Often what feels right and doesn’t do us harm, we assume is good.

I believe there is a reference for good and bad, and by that definition, no one is truly good through and through. Definately we have good aspects and we can genuinely do things from the heart that are good, but overall we still remain far from it.

What it boils down to to me, is that we need guidance, and I’ve found no better source or authority for that guidance than Jesus Himself.
362 Mark
April 16th, 2009 at 12:04 am

361. Stizzy : No, what we think is best for us isn’t always so. But you must take into account the placebo effect, I mean, you and your buddies have been living off it for over 2000 years already

Not everyone needs guidance, and I myself prefer to just use music as a tool. It doesn’t “guide” me, it doesn’t affect the way that I act when I’m not playing my guitar or listening to some ‘knot of Zeppelin. But it does get me through the day and make me feel good.

I’m sure for that matter that there are plenty of better role models that could be used for guidance than Jesus. Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela, bust out all of the cliches. At least they’re modern examples, unlike your buddy.
363 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 12:15 am

Not everyone needs it or not everyone wants it? Afterall, if someone doesn’t believe they need it they certainly aren’t going to want it. And if something gets you through the day and makes you feel good, fair enough and I think it’s good in particular not to be influenced by just anything. But I wonder what the connotations are for humanity as a whole and the fate of the individual.

And I don’t see why Mother Theresa or Nelson Mandela being “modern” makes any difference. People always assume that modern equals better :-p When you do find a better role model, do let me know though I’d be eager to meet them. Whatever other role model there may be, however, whatever they may speak of in terms of guidance in life, they won’t be able to account for life beyond death. This life is but a blink in the face of eternity.
364 Mark
April 16th, 2009 at 12:25 am

363. Stizzy : Not needing belief is an alien concept to you, that’s obvious. But to some (ME!) needing belief is just as strange. There aren’t any sinister connotations attached to that, it’s the way it’s always been. It’s not a modern phenomenon attached to the alleged “degradation” of the human races conscious. The world isn’t nearly as “bad” and “evil” as a lot of people seem to think, there are just as many nice people around as ever. Ever heard of the Romans? Were they particularly nice to Jebus? What about Hitler? Shouldn’t we have 5 of him running around by now if the world is THAT fucked up?

Modern does equal better in a role model, a modern role model is more relevant. Which is obviously a plus, right?
365 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 12:32 am

Maybe we do have 5 of him running around, they just aren’t in a position of power :p or maybe one of them was until January loool.

How do you define whether a modern role model is more relevant, relevant in what sense?
366 Mark
April 16th, 2009 at 12:39 am

365. Stizzy : Aww, trying to get the Republicans to come out and play? Haven’t there always been 5 there then by that logic?

Ok, well, let’s say that there was a guy just like Jesus but he was your age, lived where you live, same job, same everything. But he acted like a perfect being, wouldn’t he be a better role model than Jesus because his actions can be better compared to yours?
367 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 12:48 am

Hitler may have been the mind behind the atrocities, but it wasn’t him getting his hands dirty at the end of the day, it was the people on ground level, the people who not long before that would have been ordinary joes. He gave them a reason to unleash something that came from within themselves.

As for Jesus, if it’s his nature that makes the person who he is and drives them to act that way in the context of their surroundings, it wouldn’t matter what time period or society they lived in. Jesus’ message primarily dealt with the internal condition of people by addressing the pitfalls of human nature, and human nature is as relevant now as it was 2000 years ago because human nature has remained consistant.

It would be easier to see how that nature would manifest in a modern context if there was a guy just like Jesus who lived today and all that, but that wouldn’t make him a better role model would it? The actions come as a result of that nature.
368 Seanithanegan
April 16th, 2009 at 12:51 am

Man, Jesus is such a copycat. Get a life, man.
369 Mark
April 16th, 2009 at 1:10 am

367. Stizzy : You say people “need” belief essentially, well what do you think those people obeying Hitler’s orders were doing? They adored him, they worshipped him as a God almost. There’s your belief, it’s not just human nature that does that. If those people had gone “Hey, wait a second, why am I doing this?” rather then “Ok, I’ll do it for you Adolf” the world would’ve been a lot better off.

A role model is used as a guide, if the guide is set 2000 years in the past it’s going to be harder to follow.
370 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 1:24 am

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true. Peoples beliefs are based on their pressupositions and what they presuppose influences how they interpret what they observe or hear.

If the right presuppositions were in place, people when stopping to ask why they were doing something may have found themselves justifying why they’re doing it because of what they presuppose. Indeed, if they had stopped to consider whether their presuppositions were well grounded, the world may have been better off.

I don’t recall actually saying people need belief, although I did say they need guidance because what one believes may not necessarily be true, or how they act on their belief may not be in line with that they base that belief on.

If the guide is indeed an eternal being, their place in human history would hardly affect the relevance of their message. If the message is essentially how we treat others, loving and caring for those around us even if they don’t deserve it, I don’t see how that will be harder to follow whatever point in history the idea entered society. In and of itself, it’s timeless.

It may be harder to enact depending on the society surrounding you, but it still remains inspirational and something worthy to aspire to. Furthermore, if this eternal being also offers to literally dwell within you in order to help facilitate that aspiration, you have on heck of an assurance.

Of course, how much they will do is dependant on the choices we make.
371 Mark
April 16th, 2009 at 1:36 am

370. Stizzy : You’re being thick, I don’t know if it’s intentional of not but you are. Here it goes, if Jesus lived today and acted the way he did RIGHT NOW, it would be easier for you to take guidance from him and his actions and messages. This is quite simply because the context is one that you are used to and will be using the guidance in. 100% of the time this will be true, it’s simple logic. If all you take from Jesus is “loving and caring for those around us even if they don’t deserve it” then you don’t take “guidance” from him, you’re sticking to a creed that he also did. It’s not guidance, it’s a coincidence.
372 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 2:01 am

I didn’t say that that’s all I’ve taken from his teaching, that was just one example and a very compacted one. Shame on me for trying to present a watered down message.

“…if Jesus lived today and acted the way he did RIGHT NOW, it would be easier for you to take guidance from him and his actions and messages.”

The fact remains that Jesus was born 2000 years ago and He indeed does live today and acts the way He did RIGHT NOW, and it is because of this that there are millions of people across the planet who consider Him the Lord of their lives and trust Him with their entire being. They are uncritically and unquestioningly devoted to Him despite their context. Every person on this Earth is untrustworthy in comparison and Bible itself affirms “Let God be true and every man a liar.”.

Whether I would receive and understand His message quicker if He lived today does not change the fact that He Himself is a perfect example of living and that I believe, trust in and aspire to be like Him and so do many, many others.

What you’re saying is akin to saying that someone who speaks a language other than yours can’t be as good a role model compared to someone who does speak your language. I don’t understand the logic in that.
373 Mark
April 16th, 2009 at 2:09 am

372. Stizzy : No, now you’re paraphrasing me. What I would be saying is, someone who speaks the same language as you is generally going to be a better role model. If you had a choice between a Spanish speaking Jesus and an English speaking one you’re going to take the English one 10 times out of 10. So don’t try and paint me as the one who’s discriminating.

The people who do trust and believe him completely – note I don’t capitalize “him” – are morons. You can’t love the person who’s about to rape your wife, you can’t afford to “do unto others…” to the guy who’s just about to kill you children and you sure as Hell can’t care about that man sticking an AK-47 in your face. Because if you do, just think about what happens.
374 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 2:26 am

It’s not paraphrasing if I said it’s akin to something else. If it’s someone’s character and action that is the measure of their weight as a role model, this is hardly dependant on their language is it? You individually may not be able to understand them until they learn your language or they learn yours, but this in no way diminishes how great or not so great a person they are.

You may pick the english speaker over the spanish, but is that because they’re a better role model or because it’s simply easier for you to go to the english speaker than learn spanish, even if the spanish speaker IS better?

Depends what you mean by “love”. In english, we use this one word to account for a multitude of meanings whereas in the language Jesus was speaking, He would have used several different words to describe different kinds of love. Indeed, I wouldn’t expect you to develop a friendship or relationship with that person, how hard would that be?

But perhaps, to care about their wellbeing and ultimate fate might be another matter, should they be killed, stripped of their humans right or tortured? Despite the pain they may have caused, you may not personally wish pain on them or others. Incredibly hard, but not impossible.

You say you can’t afford to “do unto others…”. If I were about to kill a man’s children, I would expect him to do whatever in his power to make sure I don’t. So if a man were about to kill my children, he shouldn’t expect me to just sit back and do nothing. And because I wouldn’t want someone to kill my children, I wouldn’t go and try to kill someone elses child.

And why can’t you care about the person sticking an AK-47 in your face? Can you not think about why he is pointing that gun in your face, what could have led him to this course of action? Can you not hope that whatever he does to you, he will eventually find peace, he will have enough to eat and his family will be well provided for? and if in the end, he kills me, I have nothing to fear because I know I’m entering into eternal peace.

Consider that moronic if you will. Maybe you can’t do any of these things and indeed what man, of his own strength and will, can? With man it’s impossible, with God all these things are possible.
375 Mark
April 16th, 2009 at 3:00 am

374. Stizzy : Are you serious? Of course you have to understand them and what they are saying and doing for them to be a good role model. I’m sorry mate but it seems insane that you could believe anything else

Thanks for the detailed replies to my hypotheticals, but they weren’t really necessary. Rhetorical questions don’t go down so well on LV, too many smart people around

So, you’d be fine with that guy raping your wife over killing him because the ultimate consequence of you killing him is worse than him raping your wife? Seems a bit harsh to me…

If I was about to kill someone’s children I’d have a damn good reason – refer to your next answer, bit of a slip up there – and I wouldn’t be trying to kill them as a form of indirect suicide. I actually find it hard to believe that anyone would…

LOL, I tell you what, I do think that answer is moronic. Sure, you could “care” about him to an extent, but even a Christian wants to live…

Eternal peace, now that’s touchy, that’s where you lose me. The difference between cherry-picking the “good” teachings of Christ and believing what the Church tells you is a fine one I guess, and you’re on the wrong side. If there is an afterlife, then why is suicide bad? Sure, it’s a good teaching, “don’t kill yourself”, but doesn’t God want you to be with him?
376 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 3:33 am

I don’t believe it’s understanding them that makes THEM a good role model, it’s understanding them that determines how well YOU are able to imitate them. You get what I mean?

“So, you’d be fine with that guy raping your wife over killing him because the ultimate consequence of you killing him is worse than him raping your wife? Seems a bit harsh to me…”

On the contrary, what kind of person would be ok with that kind of thing? Undoubtedly I would be deeply grieved, hurt and would probably want to lash out in some way. What I do with my feelings is very important. I’d have to ask myself if killing him would be the only choice in order to stop him. If the act was committed without my being able to stop it, it would be down to me to deal with my grief. I would obviously want to seek justice, but vengeance is another matter.

“If I was about to kill someone’s children I’d have a damn good reason – refer to your next answer, bit of a slip up there – and I wouldn’t be trying to kill them as a form of indirect suicide. I actually find it hard to believe that anyone would…”

What do you think would be a good enough reason to kill someone’s children? And I dunno what slip up you’re referring to, I’ll have to re-read hehe. Also dunno where the indirect suicide bit comes from so I can’t really answer that.

“LOL, I tell you what, I do think that answer is moronic. Sure, you could “care” about him to an extent, but even a Christian wants to live…”

I believe it was the apostle Paul who said something along the lines of that if he has to stay on earth, he’s happy to do so, but to be with God would be far better.

“Eternal peace, now that’s touchy, that’s where you lose me. The difference between cherry-picking the “good” teachings of Christ and believing what the Church tells you is a fine one I guess, and you’re on the wrong side. If there is an afterlife, then why is suicide bad? Sure, it’s a good teaching, “don’t kill yourself”, but doesn’t God want you to be with him?”

I don’t understand the reference to cherry picking good teaching and believing what the church tells people. To what exactly are you referring to?

I believe that at the culmination of history, Jesus will create a new universe and a new Earth to dwell on with His people. This is what I refer to when I say eternal peace.

What happens to another individual upon death isn’t for me to know or for me to judge because I don’t know the status of their heart or their mind. God knows, and God is just & merciful, therefore I know He will do and judge rightly in such matters as suicide. That said, our lives are not our own and life is a gift from God, and with our lives and our bodies we are meant to honour Him. So it could be said that suicide is a dishonour to Him. With this in mind, no matter how much God wants us to be with Him, I don’t see Him condoning suicide, especially if the circumstances don’t lead that person to being with Him.
377 Mark
April 16th, 2009 at 3:59 am

376. Stizzy : I do get the first point, but without someone to imitate them, they aren’t a role model, just a good person. For example, I’m a far from perfect sportsperson, I play futsal and cricket with limited skill (OK I’m good at club level, but when I play rep I struggle), but I’m a role model to my brother much more than the other, more skilled players he’s seen playing with me. See how being “good” and being a good role model can be two completely different things?

Let’s just forget about my stupid hypotheticals – I’m not conceding a “verbal” outmanouvering, but it’s tiring me and I’m going to be getting off soon anyway.

Taking guidance from Jesus and believing in an omnipotent being called “God” CAN be seperated. That’s all I was saying. I think that’s how we have “CHRISTian” scientists, of course they know that God as he appears in the bible is full of crap, but Jesus could’ve just been a really great guy.

And I’m really not in the mood to argue with a “jesus-freak” – gotta love Pi – right now, WAY too distracted.
378 Cybogen
April 16th, 2009 at 4:19 am

376. Stizzy- Excellent points you brought up and I enjoyed your comments! Its good to be your Christian brother mate!
379 Mark
April 16th, 2009 at 4:22 am

378. Cybogen : Oh no, no no no no, where’s one of the A-Patrol when you need them? I don’t want to walk out here – which I do fully intend on doing – because then you two will start talking Christian and then I’ll have SO much to reply to in the morning :’(
380 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 4:56 am

If a role model is defined as someone worthy of imitation, they don’t need to have imitators to be a role model. The fact they are worthy of it is seen as enough. Obviously your brother deems you as worthy of imitation rather than more skilled players. I have younger brothers so I know what you’re talking about, you often wonder why on earth they look to imitate you and often I’d rather they didn’t looool. Obviously they see something in us we don’t and that they don’t believe they can find anywhere else

I know where you’re going with the seperation of Jesus and God thing, although what you say about Christian Scientists I think is a bit presumptuous. That said, if Jesus wasn’t God, and is just reduced to a man or “really great guy”, He can’t really be called a really great guy because of the things He claimed. Either He really believed He was something He wasn’t in which case He was at the least, misguied and at worst insane and therefore unreliable. Or He knew that He was speaking falsehood in which case He was hardly a great guy. This leaves just one other option, that He was and is God.

Any scientist who calls themselves Christian is just using a title.

If you wish to depart please feel free to do so you don’t have to reply to anything else if you don’t want to.

Cybogen, much appreciated
381 Cybogen
April 16th, 2009 at 4:57 am

342. Baxter – April 15th, 2009 at 6:53 pm

To Stizzy and Cybogogen -

The impetus is not on me to prove that God doesn’t exist. There isn’t a scrap of evidence to suggest that he does. Therefore it is retarded to use the argument that God could impregnate a virgin because it presupposes an impossibility. I stick by my statement because it is YOU who has made the illogical assertion, not me.
Yes I made this assertion coming from Bible scripture which was ASKED OF to me to provide as support to gabi319.
Even if I didn’t believe it to be true its not my original assertion to say either way. It comes from the Bible. So I hope that clears up how that came about.
382 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 5:04 am

whoops, need to clear up suttin

*Any scientist who calls themselve Christian yet denies Jesus is God is just using a title.

hehe, my bad.

Also to add, if without imitators a person is not a role model, do you think that would mean that without worshippers, God wouldn’t be God? By His nature alone He’s more than deserving of worship and He doesn’t need people to be who and what He is.
383 Mark
April 16th, 2009 at 5:09 am

380. Stizzy : We’ve just miscommunicated on the role model thing, I agree with you in what you’re saying. My definition of role model however is a practical one in which they actually ARE imitated.

Are you saying that there is no room for science and Christianity to overlap? Because if not, then I’m afraid your “type” are ultimately doomed.

I’ma gonna go watch telly, if I don’t reply to anything else c’yall tomoz

BTW, Jesus could’ve just been a guy who wanted people to act well during life and not be afraid of death. If he knew the “God” crap he was spewing up was crap then obviously he was lying, but if it was concocted by him and it’s now helping people like you, was that wrong?
384 Cybogen
April 16th, 2009 at 5:12 am

353. Stizzy – By the way…That comment on #353 was very good. I like your reasoning and I think you have it all understood. I… just like you have no doubts about what we say. Yet I think we have all ( well most of us) shown some good debate here. I am glad to eread your psts and everyone elses on here. Its all about us communicating our feelings. We say what we feel and thats our freedom here.
385 Mark
April 16th, 2009 at 5:13 am

382. Stizzy : Well, I guess I can reply to one more before I leave

If God had no worshippers would it even matter? On this Earth it wouldn’t – unless God is the jealous type, then some people could die – but after this… Well is he really going to send everyone to Hell? Sure God would still be God, as a true role model without “followers” would still be a “role model”, just not actually being emulated.
386 Cybogen
April 16th, 2009 at 5:33 am

385. Mark- Hello Mate. I read your comment and its a good question. If you don’t mind I give you my thoughts as to why GOD made us. As i’ve been taught (its only my opinion ) is that GOD created us (as long as you believe about creation that is ) to glorify HIm and to share the Love that HE is infinitely indwelled with. HE also wanted for us to share the Love and Creation that HE brought about togive purpose to HIS ability to Love but ALSO to be Loved. He is infinitely merciful and loving!
He is not necessarily jealous but HE is angered by some humans belief in other GODs.
Its like if you had children born unto you then they came home but went to live with your neighbors (example here) and your children recognized them as their parents and loved them in the same way as you. It would make a parent sad and yet jealous when that parent did everything to show their child love but only to be betrayed by going to live with your neighbor instead. (i hope you see what I mean cuz its the best example I can say to portray GODs view of us not believing in HIM or loving hIM as HE Loves us.) I liked your question and thanks for reading my comment mate!
387 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 5:38 am

“Are you saying that there is no room for science and Christianity to overlap? Because if not, then I’m afraid your “type” are ultimately doomed.”

That was a typo hehe, I corrected it afterwards. I do definately believe there can be overlap

“BTW, Jesus could’ve just been a guy who wanted people to act well during life and not be afraid of death. If he knew the “God” crap he was spewing up was crap then obviously he was lying, but if it was concocted by him and it’s now helping people like you, was that wrong?”

For a man who claimed to keep all the commandments of God, one of which being not to life, for Him to lie would definately be wrong and to knowingly lead billions of people to believe a falsehood would also be wrong. I believe it was Paul again who said something along the lines that if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, we would be pitied above all men. But the quality of His message I believe negates the possibility, and I don’t believe it would be helping me if indeed the power of God didn’t exist.

Afterall, we’ve all seen what religion can do right? I like to define religion as man trying to build a stairway to heaven. It’s an impossible task because it’ll never reach there!

“If God had no worshippers would it even matter? On this Earth it wouldn’t – unless God is the jealous type, then some people could die – but after this… Well is he really going to send everyone to Hell?”

When I posed the question I meant it more in the sense that if God had never created the earth and people to worship Him :p but what you say is also very interesting. It wouldn’t matter in the sense that God doesn’t NEED us, but it would matter in the sense that He WANTS us. It would matter to Him because it would be heartbreaking to Him knowing what would be everyone’s fate. I mean, imagine how many people could already have been sent to hell throughout the entirety of human history? The thought alone is shocking and tragic!

And the Bible does say the God is a jealous God :p not jealous in the sense of envious, but jealous in the sense that we belong to Him and therefore He is jealous for us. Same way you would expect a husband to be jealous for his wife as opposed to being envious of another’s wife.

Until next time dude great talking with you as always.

Definately Cybogen, there has been some excellent debate here and carefully crafted arguments from both sides. I love these kind of debates although they don’t half take a lot out of you haha.
388 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 5:48 am

Should probably clarify some definitions of jealousy and envy here actually.

Jealousy referring to the thoughts, feelings and actions that occur when one believes a valued relationship is threatened. So God being jealous for His people is basically saying He doesn’t want anything to threaten His relationship with them.

Envy on the other hand is to do with spiteful, resentful and grudging admiration of another or the desire to have something that belongs to another. Since we are God’s creation and belong to Him, He can’t have that envious kind of jealousy.
389 Cybogen
April 16th, 2009 at 5:58 am

OOUCHAN- Good Morning to you Senorita~
390 Mark
April 16th, 2009 at 6:21 am

386. Cybogen : The more I talk to you people the crazier you sound God is all powerful but he can’t keep his children’s attentions? Seems a bit dodgy to me…

387. Stizzy : You might not believe it, but if God isn’t real, then it is helping you regardless so don’t stress. I was just throwing the idea out there. What I really meant about the Jebus thing was just a really manipulative sort of guy, sure what he was doing was “wrong” by “his” standards but in the end, they would help make a bettere world – or so he thought. Either that or he was just completely insane

The fact that an omnipotent being would screw up that badly – as I said above – is hard for me to fathom personally though, but I guess if you can believe it…

Oooooh, next episode of Law and Order starting, bye again.
391 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 6:31 am

If He were a guy who did think that, then He definately would be insane Even at His trial, Jesus wasn’t found by Pilate to be guilty of wrong or evil, and Herod dismissed Him as insane. No one considered Him just some guy.

And it isn’t the Omnipotent being that does the screwing up is it? :-p it’s His children who are given the ability to choose. He could have created robots who just obeyed, but you want children to WANT to love, trust and obey you and to do so, they have to choose to.

It’s not the fault or failure of God that we choose not to pay attention to Him. Could He force us to pay attention to Him? Probably, but then it wouldn’t be our choice and it wouldn’t be true, and God wouldn’t cheat or lie to Himself in such a way. Just not in His nature Such is His faithful nature that He will allow people to follow the paths they choose, even if they lead to their destruction. He won’t force Himself on anyone, but He will try and disuade one.
392 Cybogen
April 16th, 2009 at 6:39 am

391. Stizzy – Yes, as you said it is not that HE cannot make us obey or pay attention. That would be so easy and would not allow us free will to show real Love.
Its a force you to say you love me or obey by either some way of brainwashing you or manipulating you or putting a gun to your head. Would I expect then that you really love me or obey me cause you want when you say it as you tremble in fear? Nah. but if you say it or act out your love for another through your desire to do so then thats TRUE love and obedience and thats what GOD wants from us!
393 oouchan
April 16th, 2009 at 6:50 am

Cybogen…morning, dear! I missed alot while I was sleeping. Give me a few to catch up on this interesting conversation!
394 Mark
April 16th, 2009 at 6:51 am

391. Stizzy and 392. Cybogen : Ok, now you two have completely lost me and my interest. I don’t really want to argue about the way God works seeing as it’s evident that no matter what I say you’ll be able to twist it to fit your beliefs. It was good fun though, I dare say I’ll catch up with both of you some time in the not too distant future.
395 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 7:02 am

No worries Mark indeed it’s been fun. Until next time
396 Cybogen
April 16th, 2009 at 7:11 am

Yes Mark! See you around these parts soon. Good day Mate!
397 oouchan
April 16th, 2009 at 8:03 am

Wow…I missed some good stuff here. I hate when I miss out. I am not going to try to catch up, but think that everyone made some good points…cybogen, mark and stizzy. You kept it civil and nice. Unlike others.
I did want to answer this question….the one about “turning the other cheek” in regards to rape vs vengence vs murder subject. If it were my daughter, they wouldn’t find any trace of his body. Period. Hell would be too good for him.
398 Mark
April 16th, 2009 at 8:15 am

397. oouchan : Yeah, that’s what we’ve come to expect from you though, good to see you didn’t disappoint
399 mousey
April 16th, 2009 at 8:19 am

As I have pondered and studied searching for “Truth” with all my heart, (after all, if there is a God I want to know Him), I have come across these and many others not on this list. It is most mysterious that cultures separated by, at the time, incrossable divides, all come up with similiar stories, I.e. the “Flood Myth and the Creation Stories). Deucalion of Greek mythololgy, Uthapishtim of Gilgamesh’s epic, and Noah all build arks anticipating a world wide flood. Now as I study Plato I am reminded to keep a child like attitude so that I may learn. I am also reminded that everything is not always as it appears. (The Myth of the Cave). I advocate asking questions and being teachable. Throw a prayer up to an unknown God and wait. You may be surprised.
400 oouchan
April 16th, 2009 at 8:22 am

Mark….well poo. Didn’t realize I was so predictable. (hehe)
401 Mark
April 16th, 2009 at 8:29 am

400. oouchan : About most things you’re not (TRUST ME!), but your daughter, well, let’s settle with ultra-protective?
402 oouchan
April 16th, 2009 at 8:32 am

hahaha! I agree.
403 Rolo Tomasi
April 16th, 2009 at 8:36 am

Wow some good debate. To be honest the one source that made me completely accept the existence of a higher being is “Summa Theologica” by Thomas Aquinas.

Especially the section on the Proof of the existence of God.

I was raised Catholic however in my teenage years I began to have my doubts. I read the “proofs of god” when I was 19 or 20 and I have never doubted since.

God’s existence is so fundamentally necessary that there can not be any scenario where there is not an infinite entity from which everything originated.

And this entity is infinitely intelligent.

Its one of the greatest works of philosophy ever written and if you haven’t read it yet, I STRONGLY recommend it!!
404 Rolo Tomasi
April 16th, 2009 at 8:42 am

By the way I no longer consider myself catholic. The catholic church is a sham (with all due respect to any catholics). I do not recognize the authority of the pope. Im sorry but in my heart I feel that NOBODY is any closer to god then I am. Besides where does he get off telling people about what they should or shouldn’t do with their bodies? Thats between you and your savior. Not some guy with an expensive hat.
405 Mark
April 16th, 2009 at 8:45 am

404. Rolo Tomasi : Oooh, don’t forget the pretty robes
406 oouchan
April 16th, 2009 at 8:51 am

404. Rolo Tomasi: or the Pope-mo-bile!
407 Mark
April 16th, 2009 at 8:54 am

406. oouchan : Yeah, he actually drove around Sydney in that! The Pope, in Australia, lols.
408 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 9:39 am

I never could understand this whole business with the Pope, I believe it does go against what scripture implies. No other man is any closer to God in this respect than anyone else, and the idea of the Pops infalibility is just like, eh? There’s a lot that confuses and astounds me about the Catholic church.

Mousey, I’ve read some excellent articles around the flood legends throughout the world, that almost every culture has a similar story and many of them agree on several points.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=341
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v20/n3/china
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=414
To name a few.

Rolo, I will definately have to check that out. Read a brief bit about the five proofs and they’re fascinating! And idea of a good source to get a hold of the whole thing?
409 Cybogen
April 16th, 2009 at 10:04 am

371. Mark -
The people who do trust and believe him completely – note I don’t capitalize “him” – are morons. You can’t love the person who’s about to rape your wife, you can’t afford to “do unto others…” to the guy who’s just about to kill you children and you sure as Hell can’t care about that man sticking an AK-47 in your face. Because if you do, just think about what happens.
You use extreme examples here. I am sure nobody thinking logically would let their loved ones die when a moment of defense to a criminal arises. When endangered by threat of yourself or another. An act of protecting a victim from a criminal is an act of kindness. If a criminal happens to die because he was to take the life or cause severe trauma to an innocent victim then swift and violent action in response is necessary. Its very much common sense to anybody!
410 Mark
April 16th, 2009 at 10:11 am

408. Cybogen : It is against what you claim your beliefs to be, either you would be going against your beliefs OR you don’t truly hold them, simple as that.

Now then, 3:10am in the morn, I think I need a little sleep before dawn. Catch you all later
411 Cybogen
April 16th, 2009 at 10:23 am

Stizzy- Do you know what the heck Mark is talking about in his comment below? If you read mine on 408 and some you have written I think we can to some logical answers to his confusion Where is he coming from ?!?!?
Perhaps he does need his rest. It must be cause of his lack of sleep and he’s confused moreso…POOR CHAP

409. Mark
Cybogen : It is against what you claim your beliefs to be, either you would be going against your beliefs OR you don’t truly hold them, simple as that
Now then, 3:10am in the morn, I think I need a little sleep before dawn. Catch you all later
412 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 10:42 am

I assume he means that if you chose to defend another by killing the attacker, you would be going against the command now to murder. Although this does depend on how you define murder, as murder would involve intention and premeditation. If, in trying to defend another, the attacker is killed without intent or premeditation, you might question whether it’s murder or manslaughter.

I don’t believe this excuses such actions that would lead to manslaughter, afterall even governmental law considers manslaughter a punishable crime, however I do seem to recall in the old testament that there was a specific kind of punishment for manslaughter that wasn’t the same as murder. Murder was punishable by death whereas I believe for manslaughter the person was to be banished to a specific city or something.

When Jesus came, many things changed and He spoke of even hating another in your heart as committing murder. So even by wishing to do so, you’re guilty in God’s eyes. As for manslaughter, I guess we could only appeal to the mercy of God Himself, however I believe it would be wrong of us to determine within ourselves before hand that should someone try to do something we may kill them. That’s murderous intent right there.

So I believe this is what Mark is getting at, that to say you would probably kill someone who did attack your loved ones is to go against what you believe, so to say you would do so is to premeditate killing someone and if you believe that’s ok, you don’t truly belive in “You shall not murder” He makes a good point.
413 lostatsea
April 16th, 2009 at 10:47 am

Randall, I bow to your superior wisdom and knowledge and to ContinuousStudent and hope others will emulate you in the search for enlightenment. I personally find that, the more I learn the more ignorant I become!
Just a thought to stir debate; since God is an alien (not human) and since we can now, not only clone humans but also grow a foetus outside the womb, would that not costitute virgin birth?
Perhaps we have been visited many times in the past by aliens, who with advanced knowledge were able to perform so called miracles! If we were able to time travel to distant pasts with our technology, we would be regarded as GODS!!
Another thought, if Roman soldiers were mostly illiterate, they were lead by men of learning who were sought out to be converted and by assimilating the pagan beliefs were able to subvert the men under their command.
The Roman senate took advantage of this to exert contol over this ‘new religion’ by adopting it and created the new Church with its headquarters in Rome.
We are all atheists since we disbelieve in all prior religions! I prefer gnostic, as I believe we must search for truth and not follow dogmas with blind obedience, be they Jew, Muslim, Christian or other. IMAGINE, truly a song of wisdom. I lean towards Buddhism as the most benign to our planet and fellow humans. All life should be respected and honoured, as your bible states; ‘Do unto others as you would unto thyself’. Strive for peace and love will surely follow.
IF one wishes to believe in alien gods, okay by me, I am not preaching only asking you to seek knowledge with an unbiased mind.
Peace and love to all (we need all we can get!!)
414 oouchan
April 16th, 2009 at 10:59 am

hey lostatsea….don’t forget your towel!
415 lostatsea
April 16th, 2009 at 11:11 am

That might be considered an insult to those of the Sikh faith!!
416 mousey
April 16th, 2009 at 11:18 am

Have you ever heard the logic question? Either Jesus Christ is who he said he was, or he was a lunatic, or he was a liar. He left no other option open for us. So give him up as mad or evil but you can’t write him off as just a moral teacher. He claimed deity ,”I am the Light of the World…Before Abraham was I am….. I and the Father are One…… Those who believe in Me will have eternal Life. “. Only a madman would make these claims or the most evil kind of imposter. Or………….. He is God.
417 oouchan
April 16th, 2009 at 11:20 am

lostatsea: it would, but since it has to do with hitchhikers, then it’s all good!
418 bigski
April 16th, 2009 at 11:20 am

Or was she quoting Towlie on Southpark ?
419 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 11:26 am

Yeah Mousey, I used that very same logic question when debating with Mark, although I’ve noticed most people say “Or there’s a 4th option, He was just a guy/prophet/good man.”
420 lostatsea
April 16th, 2009 at 11:44 am

mousey: or he was an alien, who was created from DNA (cloned!) from ‘The Father’!!
Since we discovered Quantum Physics we begin to question Reality and as we are constructed from atoms, does that make each of us Gods to the multiverses within us?
oochan: lucky me, I have a lifeboat of love to see me through the perilous waters of life and the belief that love will win over this darkness that overshadows us all.
One has only to look at Africa, Middle East and Gaza to see the evil perpertrated by forces in world governments and religions that seek to control and divide us from the true purpose of love and respect for all life on our biological entity we call Earth (which should really be called WATER as it covers most of this planet!).
421 sallie
April 16th, 2009 at 11:49 am

I saw both films too. Unlike any cult members, I always research information myself, so I can formulate my own opinion, not what a cult leader tells me I should think. I hope other people will view this with an open mind. Excellent post!
422 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 11:53 am

“or he was an alien, who was created from DNA (cloned!) from ‘The Father’!!”

He didn’t leave that option open either, as He was fully man. BUT, He was the full embodiment of God.
423 lostatsea
April 16th, 2009 at 11:57 am

Worlds in Collision has an interesting theory of our planets colliding with another galaxy thus propagating the floods and reports of the sun staying in the sky for two days while legends from the dark side mention also a night of lasting darkness. This would account for the reversals in the magnetic field as our core would still spin on its axis as the crust stopped due to gravitational forces exerted. This may have separated the continents to where they are now, check geological evidence of African geology on east coast of Americas.
424 lostatsea
April 16th, 2009 at 12:03 pm

Stizzy: Who’s to say aliens couln’t replicate human form?
I believe the bible says that ‘angels’ slept with human females and that their offspring were Giants and GOD was displeased!
425 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 12:15 pm

Yeah, that’s angels not aliens. Jesus wasn’t an angel and Jesus did’t replicate human form, He actually had human form. Alien beings from other worlds don’t make sense in the Biblical world view. The entire universe was subjected to the same diminishing curse as mankind. Therefore, were there intelligent beings on other worlds, they would be subject to corruption and in need of salvation. And because they wouldn’t be human, Jesus would have to be incarnated and die for each of them. The Bible explicitely says that He died ONCE and for all.
426 lostatsea
April 16th, 2009 at 12:17 pm

Were ‘angels not aliens?
427 Cybogen
April 16th, 2009 at 12:23 pm

RUSHFAN- Quite the list you made. We will probably hit 500 comments before days up and maybe 700 before the end of the week.Whenever religion is the flavor of the day you see this happen and to tell you truthfully…its very interesting and cool to see peoples thoughts.
428 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 12:25 pm

No, angels were angels. They were spiritual beings who serve God, deliver messages and sometimes are agents of healing and judgement. The word “angel” means messenger.
429 sallie
April 16th, 2009 at 12:28 pm

Obviously everyone does not view the Bible as the authority on mankind. I find it hard to believe that anyone with some semblance of intelligence could actually interpret the Bible literally, and not question anything in it. That frightens me. In Christianity and every other cult one of the major themes is “our way is the only way”. That’s sheer insanity!
430 lostatsea
April 16th, 2009 at 12:31 pm

Amazing how cocksure some people are and unwilling to even try to formulate a different point of view for the sake of discussion,only the bible tells me so! BTW Angels are not human ergo aliens.
431 Maggot
April 16th, 2009 at 12:40 pm

403 Rolo Tomasi: God’s existence is so fundamentally necessary that there can not be any scenario where there is not an infinite entity from which everything originated.

From your book? Sounds like a load of tripe to me. From whence did this infinite entity originate? Oh, it’s infinite. Gotcha. Might as well just say: “when we don’t know or can’t comprehend the answer, it’s ok to make something up”.
432 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 12:49 pm

Are you trying to formulate a different point of view for the sake of what I’m saying? I’m entertaining what you say, I simply don’t agree with it and I’m speaking to you from my world view. I’m not going to put that aside to discuss the matter because it is based on the Bible that I interpret what I see. And I’m telling you how it is according to the Bible. From the Biblical stand point, there are no aliens in the sense of beings from other planets. I understand what your getting at with the notion of Alien in the sense that extraterrestrial can mean one not from Earth, but it confuses the issue and it seems more like trying to make a way to insert aliens from other planets into the Bible.

“Obviously everyone does not view the Bible as the authority on mankind. I find it hard to believe that anyone with some semblance of intelligence could actually interpret the Bible literally, and not question anything in it. That frightens me. In Christianity and every other cult one of the major themes is “our way is the only way”. That’s sheer insanity!”

Obviously not everyone does view the Bible as authority, but I do. And the entire Bible isn’t literal. It is a library of literature of several different genres. Some are songs, some parts use figurative language, and you interpret based on the context and in light of other scriptures. This isn’t taking everything without question, indeed Paul when preaching encouraged people not just to take what He said at face value but to actually search the old testament scriptures to see if what he said lined up with them. God many times answered the questions of people who had them, and we are told to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, as in with respect and reverance but not to walk in blind acceptance.

To blindly accept something is to not understand it, and if you don’t understand it you can hardly live, talk about and practice it correctly.

I don’t believe it’s fair of you to question anothers intelligence because they don’t hold they same presuppositional beliefs that you do. Say what you will about the institution of “Christianity” but I’m speaking from the Bible here. Jesus Himself said “I am the Way the Truth and the Life” And as was pointed out before, either He was telling the truth, He was lying, or He sincerely believed it but was wrong in which case He was insane and it would all be insanity.

All beliefs can’t be right, and all beliefs cant be wrong. There has to be A right in there somewhere because nothing else makes sense of the universe. And indeed, does every belief say “our way is the only way”? Because what is “the way” in other beliefs? Do they all have the same intent and destination. Hardly. Do they all have a concept or the same concept of God? No. Do they all have an afterlife? No. So not every belief would even claim to be “the way”.

I will say this though, in no other belief does God promise to come and dwell with His people and live within them.
433 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 12:56 pm

“From your book? Sounds like a load of tripe to me. From whence did this infinite entity originate? Oh, it’s infinite. Gotcha. Might as well just say: “when we don’t know or can’t comprehend the answer, it’s ok to make something up”.”

The “entity” Himself is the one who proclaims Himself to be eternal, so it wouldn’t be making it up.

If the Creator made the universe, He made space, time and matter. If He made time, it means there was no concept of time before He made it. There was no beginning, no middle, no end until He made it so. Therefore, there were no origins or beginnings until He created time, hence He doesn’t “originate” from anywhere. “Anywhere” originates from Him. One who exists outside of time has no beginning because a beginning would be within time. One who exists outside of space can’t come from anywhere per se, because that would be to have a location within space.

In saying “where did this entity originate” you are trying to define the entity according to the bounds of our universe and according to our human perspective.
434 lostatsea
April 16th, 2009 at 1:07 pm

I also believe we exist in hell and to seek heaven must work to educate and inspire hope and love in others so we might create heaven out of this hell on earth in which we live. Mankind has since the dawn of history warred and enslaved their neighbors, many times under the banner of Christianity, it seems evil has won. Jew, Muslim or Christian seem to not follow the teachings of their faiths and instead embrace evil to denigrate any who do not follow their respective tenets. Love thy neighbor, do not kill, etc. etc.
435 sallie
April 16th, 2009 at 1:07 pm

Why can there be only one right way? I believe you are brainwashed, thereby rendering you incapable of considering that you may indeed be very wrong in your beliefs. This should be a stimulating, thought provoking discussion, not an attempt to proselytize.
436 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 1:14 pm

Indeed Jesus did promise that heaven will one day exist on Earth after He remakes it. And I also believe that His mission that was handed down to His followers is to inspire hope and love in others in spite of the hell we are making on Earth.

You’re absolutely right that since the dawn of history mankind has sought only evil. I believe the Bible says something akin to “Every intent of the heart of man is evil from his birth”, as in we are predisposed to rather choose darkness over light, for indeed we hate the light lest our evil deeds be exposed.

And you’re right again that under the banner of Christianity as well as other belifs, evil has prevailed across the Earth. I believe it is inherent within human nature for people to seek a means to justify the darkness they know is within them. They may want to hate one different from them and so they will grasp any authorative means that allows them to do so. So yes, the embrace evil to denigrate any who is different from them.

It’s such a tragedy that people have fallen so short of the example Jesus left for us to follow and have heaped their own wrappings upon what was Good News. The Good News has become the Bad News that nobody wants to hear and people are now throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Very intuitive response lostatsea.
437 GTT
April 16th, 2009 at 1:17 pm

sallie (435):

It´s not brainwashing, it´s called FAITH.

And derogatory comments do not lead to “stimulating, thought provoking discussions.” Lead by example.
438 Maggot
April 16th, 2009 at 1:17 pm

433 Stizzy: The “entity” Himself is the one who proclaims Himself to be eternal, so it wouldn’t be making it up.

He did? Or did someone just make that up?
439 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 1:19 pm

“Why can there be only one right way? I believe you are brainwashed, thereby rendering you incapable of considering that you may indeed be very wrong in your beliefs. This should be a stimulating, thought provoking discussion, not an attempt to proselytize.”

There is too much disagreement between these beliefs and contradictary elements for them all to be right. I say either write them all off, or accept that only one of them is truly viable.

Just because I don’t believe my belief is wrong it doesn’t make me brainwashed or incapable of considering the possibility. Even the apostle Paul said that if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, we would be pitied above all men. The implications of it are indeed staggering. If my belief is wrong, indeed I would be a pitiful man.

I’m not attempting to proselytize, I’m simply explaining what I believe and why and how the issues relate to the Bible. I don’t see why every time someone tries to explain their faith view, they’re accused of trying to proselytize. I have not asked anyone to believe in Jesus or accept Jesus or to accept that the Bible is the authorit and that is that. I’ve simply stated that for me, it is so and that I have accepted Jesus. You are free to take it or leave it.

When someone speaks from their atheistic point of view, they are not told to stop proselytising or preaching.
440 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 1:20 pm

Also, rather than accusing me of trying to convert people, why not at least just discuss the issues that I’ve raised or try and refute them if you will?
441 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 1:23 pm

“He did? Or did someone just make that up?”

For the sake of what I said afterwards, consider that He did. What do you believe that would say for the rest of my argument? Rather than just insisting that it makes no difference because He is made up and doesn’t exist etc etc, give me reasons for why He was made up and doesn’t exist, and see if you have an answer to what I proposed
442 lostatsea
April 16th, 2009 at 1:31 pm

I did not intend to insult your intelligence and apologize if I did, but your dogmatic approach using your book to back your arguments is counter productive to a discussion.
In my 61 yrs baptised a Presbyterian(Scottish, the strict type!) I have tavelled to many countries who did not share my religion and have seen the same slavish devotion to their books. Who is right? Have all these followers of God been banished to Hell?, if so must be pretty crowded!
All those poor souls that existed before Jesus, because they didn’t know Christianity were they also condemned? Does’nt make GOD very compassionate does it?
443 sallie
April 16th, 2009 at 1:31 pm

It’s impossible to discuss a topic like this with someone who continually resorts to the Bible as the final word on whatever point they’re trying to convey, or whatever another attempts to refute. I apologize for accusing you of attempting to convert people. Would you even consider viewing Zeitgeist & researching the subject matter presented? I know what the Bible says..I want to know what other people think, not what they’ve been programmed to think.
444 oouchan
April 16th, 2009 at 1:35 pm

Stizzy: At least you are being level headed about this.

I don’t believe in all this (many here know that already!) but I say “to each their own”. Each person is allowed to believe what they will and shouldn’t suffer for it. (should see the fiasco on the atheist page!)

I personally believe in spirits and the like. I follow Inari and the Shinto religion. It’s very laid back…perfect for me.
445 raj
April 16th, 2009 at 1:40 pm

Stizzy: I agree with your point that you should be able to share your beliefs with open and intelligent discourse. However, I think the issue with your stance is that you are transferring the burden of proof. Since that belief system is built on conjecture and speculation, the burden of proof then falls on the believer. The only reasonable response to why an individual disregards that belief system is the lack of empirical evidence to substantiate some pretty wild claims. Ultimately, I think that faith can be virtuous, but only to the extent that it yields to reason and scientific fact. Reason must supersede faith lest we give way to the slippery slope of theocracy.
446 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 1:43 pm

Sallie: Apology accepted, no worries, although in light of that, you then assume I’ve been programmed to think what I think. I think what I do because I have carefully and tirelessly researched the subject. Obviously we won’t both come to the same conclusions.

I don’t find it impossible to discuss a topic when people continually resort to scientific journals as their final word on whatever point they’re trying to convey. The point is, I trust the Bible far more than I do the words of people. Sorry if that makes it difficult for you to discuss the matter, but other people seem able to manage.

lostatsea: It’s cool And I guess what I said above also applies here. I’m sorry if the fact that the Bible is my foundation makes it difficult to discuss the issue, but I do believe that the universe and creation itself speaks to the truth of the Bible and so I believe there are principles and ideas that can be taken away and tested to see if they fit what we observe in the world. I believe the Bible fits what I observe in the world, and what we observe is the closest we can come to facts without a definite and dependable source of authority.

I believe there is also a scripture that refers to Jesus going to speak to the souls of those who perished in the flood, perhaps to give them the opportunity to accept Him. Also, there is such a thing as the righteous dead who looked forward to the fulfillment of God’s promises that were realised in the life of Jesus. Though they didn’t see Jesus, their faith in God was credited to them as righteousness, a right standing with God. They slept until after the ressurrection of Jesus where the Bible says that the tombs were opened and many people of old came out and appeared to people within Jerusalem.
447 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 1:50 pm

Raj: I believe that reason and faith can go hand in hand. Indeed, you have to reason about matters of faith before you can even begin to understand.

I also believe that indeed observations or “facts” must be taken into account. However, for one who believes in Jesus and believes in God to in effect, yield between how people interpret facts and what the Bible says, it would be a dishonour to God to do so and we would be placing out trust in man above our trust in God. I don’t think it’s a matter of yielding to reason or fact, but reasoning whether the facts can be explained through the Biblical world view. I’ve been trying, to my ability, to explain how I find that the Bible explains what I interpret in the world.
448 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 1:55 pm

oouchan: I try hehe hate to think that I’m being too overbearing or boardering on arrogant, because I see others of my brethren do as such and it really does irk me, especially when I see the effect it has on others.

So if I have offended any, I am deeply remourseful, as I do not wish to do so.

We’ve all been given free will and that includes free choice. To be tolerant is to accept anothers right to choose whilst acknowledging that you don’t necessarily agree So definately no one should have to suffer for their view.
449 lostatsea
April 16th, 2009 at 2:00 pm

In my travels I have seen much which defies logic, including UFOs while at sea in the Med also an encounter with a Moray-eel who showed me an ancient causeway off the coast of Bimini whilst Scuba diving. So I base my thinking by the premise ‘the more I learn, the more ignorant I become’. I admire your faith but hope I have provided a pleasant banter.
BTW the bible was created by men for men and relegated women to possesions. Women are still not allowed freedom in many parts of the world, so the bible was not the first to use this tactic to subdugate women or the only one.
Man also worshipped the Sun in one form as Horus who fought Set the embodiment of darkness. The Sun (son!) in heaven fighting darkness on Earth(devil?).
So many questions!! and Christianity DID adopt many Pagan festivals and beliefs contrary to Christian ones!
450 patrick2
April 16th, 2009 at 2:08 pm

christianity wasnt real, there was a man named christ but he wasnt a christian nor did he start christianity.
here is the proof http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/rr.html
451 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 2:09 pm

I have to disagree with that sentiment on the Bible in no means did it relegate women to possessions. Husbands are told to love their wives as Christ loved the church, as in be willing to die and live their lives for them. And women are told to honour their husbands as they would God. God created Eve from Adams rib. He could’ve picked his head for woman to be above him or his feet for women to be his footstool, but he chose the rib. By his side, close to his heart.

Men and women compliment each other, they are two that become one flesh. And the Bible has many powerful examples of women. Indeed women are given a prominant place in the book of Luke. For every parable about men, there is one about women and often they come across better!

A female prophetess was one of the first to announce Jesus was the saviour when He was circumcised.

The first Samaritan convert and evangelist was a woman. Jesus broke through social norms to speak to this woman who had two strikes against her. She was female and a samaritan.

When Jesus was hanging upon the cross, it was the women who didnt abandon him and stuck with Him til the end. And it was the women who were the first to see Him raised again. He told them to go and tell the disciples He had risen.

Also, many women were His disciples. Mary, sister of Martha sat at Jesus’ feet to be taught. This was a term at the time to describe a disciple, and many women who travelled with Jesus and His followers actually funded them!

And these are just a few of the examples of empowered women within the Bible.

Indeed women are still not allowed freedom in many parts of the world, but I don’t think you can blame this on the Bible, but on the hearts of men.

What do you think?

And indeed Christians adopted many pagan festivals, although it’s interesting now to see that Jesus is being taken out of such festivals I believe it’s God’s way of saying He was never meant to be there in the first place. To one person, one day is blessed above others, to another every day is blessed. Both give their praises to God for such a day and both are right in what they do.
452 lostatsea
April 16th, 2009 at 2:20 pm

Are you aquainted with Quatum theory?, it postulates a Multiverse,of which we are only one of many, or Black Holes, Anti Matter or the thought that our universe was created from a Black Hole or Worm Hole from a parallel universe? The universe is a vast and unknown quantity and we live in a obscure and irrevelant galaxy, it would be arrogant of us to presume God exists or that he was human in form, while I have no wish to shake your faith even you must admit that in life only death and taxes are reality.
BTW even ancient cultures believed in life after death as do many other religions today.
453 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 2:22 pm

“christianity wasnt real”
Indeed there was no religion called Christianity before Jesus or indeed directly after.

“there was a man named christ but he wasnt a christian”
He wasn’t actually named Christ. Christ is a title coming from Messiahm which means Anointed One. He was a Jew and followed Judaism.

“nor did he start christianity.”
Indeed, He did not come to start a religion.
454 Maggot
April 16th, 2009 at 2:23 pm

433 Stizzy: For the sake of what I said afterwards, consider that He did.

Why should I consider that? I’m not trying to be disrespectfully argumentative to you, but really, why should I consider that to be a true statement? The rest of what you said after there was circular reasoning and based on the assumption of your first statement being true. I’m not saying it’s not true. Just, why assume it to be true?

If the Creator made the universe, He made space, time and matter.

Where was he and what was he doing before that?

If He made time, it means there was no concept of time before He made it.

No concept of time? Ok, but “time” itself can’t *not* exist. If that were the case, what was it then “before he made it (time)”. Something we can’t conceive of? You’re right, I can’t conceive of “no time”, because it is fundamentally impossible. Oh, but I say that because I’m thinking “according to the bounds of our universe and according to our human perspective”? Hmm, how convenient.

One who exists outside of time has no beginning because a beginning would be within time. One who exists outside of space can’t come from anywhere per se, because that would be to have a location within space.

Brilliantly circular.

give me reasons for why He was made up and doesn’t exist

I can’t say he doesn’t exist because of course no one knows. No one can know. My reasoning for “why he was made up” is basically: for lack of a better answer, but that for some reason we feel the need to have an answer. That particular answer though IMO is no better than FSMism or IPUism or any other made up thing.

These exact same debates have raged on in other LV threads and folks are likely tired of it by now, so my apologies if that is the case.
455 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 2:26 pm

“Are you aquainted with Quatum theory?, it postulates a Multiverse,of which we are only one of many, or Black Holes, Anti Matter or the thought that our universe was created from a Black Hole or Worm Hole from a parallel universe?”
I’m aware of it, however isn’t this all speculation and just things people have calculated but haven’t actually been proven, such as a multiverse, worm holes an parallel universes? The question would have to arise as to the origins of said multiverse. Are there other dimensions or realities? Well God refers to three Heavens, the first being the universe, the second being the domain of Spirits and the third being the place of His throne. So a “multiverse” in that respect is possible

“The universe is a vast and unknown quantity and we live in a obscure and irrevelant galaxy, it would be arrogant of us to presume God exists or that he was human in form, while I have no wish to shake your faith even you must admit that in life only death and taxes are reality.
BTW even ancient cultures believed in life after death as do many other religions today.”

Would it not be arrogant of us to presume to know enough to say that God doesn’t exist and that He didn’t come in human form? Or that we know enough about the universe to know we are in an obscure and irrelevant galaxy? This too is speculation and from what you can observe in the universe, we seem to be in a very very privaleged position and we seem far from being obscure.
456 lostatsea
April 16th, 2009 at 2:27 pm

Then why are Women excluded from the priesthood in the Catholic church? Men separated at both Muslim and Jewish worship? Obviously not following the teaching of Christ!
Was Christianity not formed from the Old Testament?
457 GTT
April 16th, 2009 at 2:28 pm

449. lostatsea

OK, now this irks me a little bit… “The Sun (son!) in heaven fighting darkness on Earth”

Really? So we use the similarity in the words in English? So it would hold true in Spanish: SOL (sun) and HIJO (son)? Or in French: SOLEIL (sun) and FILS (son)?
458 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 2:35 pm

“Where was he and what was he doing before that?”

I already addressed the question of “where” and technically without time, there would be no “before that” anyway.

“No concept of time? Ok, but “time” itself can’t *not* exist. If that were the case, what was it then “before he made it (time)”. Something we can’t conceive of? You’re right, I can’t conceive of “no time”, because it is fundamentally impossible. Oh, but I say that because I’m thinking “according to the bounds of our universe and according to our human perspective”? Hmm, how convenient.”

No time may be impossible in the bounds of our universe that is defined by time, but it’s hardly impossible outside of or without the universe. Just because you can’t conceive it, doesn’t make it impossible. Indeed, it’s something beyond or comprehension, as God indeed is. And I don’t know why people always say “how convenient” when there’s an answer to something they may have been thinking. It doesn’t dismiss the argument in anyway, it just sounds like you simply don’t want to entertain the thought for the sake of it.

“Brilliantly circular.”

Would make sense that for an eternal being who has need of nothing, any attempt to explain his transcendance and eternal nature would seem circular. Does this in any means refute my conclusion though?

“I can’t say he doesn’t exist because of course no one knows. No one can know. My reasoning for “why he was made up” is basically: for lack of a better answer, but that for some reason we feel the need to have an answer. That particular answer though IMO is no better than FSMism or IPUism or any other made up thing.”

God Himself has said that we can know because His invisible attributes are clearly seen being made clear to creation, because God has made it clear. So your reason for why He was made up is that you think people need to have an answer? Because there’s a desire to know whether there is a creator, He must have been made up? Maybe it’s because of what I just said above, maybe because we are ALL instilled with an awareness of God from birth and that we by choice suppress this knowledge throughout our lives. But at least you acknowledge that it’s not a particularly good answer and so I can only ask that you think about the issue

As for me, tis time for me to depart tis bin awesome peeps! I’m off to me bed.
459 GTT
April 16th, 2009 at 2:35 pm

454. Maggot:

“No concept of time? Ok, but “time” itself can’t *not* exist. If that were the case, what was it then “before he made it (time)”. Something we can’t conceive of? You’re right, I can’t conceive of “no time”, because it is fundamentally impossible.”

OK, so what´s the alternative? Science has so far come up with the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe so what was happening before then? You dont want to believe in Faith and that´s fine but then what is the alternative?
460 sallie
April 16th, 2009 at 2:39 pm

Thank you for reminding me that I need to be more tolerant of other people. Believe it or not, I am very cognizant of it, and am working on it. I, too apologize if I have offended anyone. Unfortunately, I live in the most intolerant, bigoted part of the country and it is definitely wearing on me. I must get back to homework. I’ve enjoyed the discourse. Peace, love and light to all of you.
461 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 2:40 pm

“Then why are Women excluded from the priesthood in the Catholic church? Men separated at both Muslim and Jewish worship? Obviously not following the teaching of Christ!
Was Christianity not formed from the Old Testament?”

The practices of seperation within the Mosque and the Synagogue isn’t reflective of the church or Jesus’ message. And the Catholic church does a lot of things that aren’t in line with scripture but it doesn’t change the spirit of it. You’re right that they’re obviously not following the teaching of Christ. And what Jesus taught has its roots in the Old Testament, but Jesus came to fulfill it and so not everything has passed on into the new covenant, written in His blood. He has broken down the walls of seperation between sex, class and ethnicity. Any who put those walls back up are going against the principle that all are equal in the sight of God.
462 Maggot
April 16th, 2009 at 3:02 pm

459 GTT: Science has so far come up with the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe so what was happening before then?

I don’t know.

You dont want to believe in Faith and that´s fine but then what is the alternative?

The alternative *for me* is to accept not knowing, rather than making something up (or accepting something on blind faith) just so I can say that I know.

And by “accept”, I don’t mean to say that I am happy to accept that, and nothing matters. I’m curious as hell. But it’s just that I have no other logical choice but to accept not knowing until I/we learn differently. In this context, having “faith” isn’t learning.
463 lostatsea
April 16th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

Posit this; if the universe came from a finite point with infinite energy(sounds like a black hole to me), then it must have originated in another universe so time in our universe did not exist until that moment(Big Bang) and an advanced civilization in that universe found a way to connect with ours THEY would be GODS to people at those times these Christ like figures appeared. Hard to deny the many references to Gods riding in fiery chariots or the strange figures in ancient rock paintings. Too many reports from obscure peoples ie. the Dogan tribes of Africa who knew Sirius had a companion star from aeons ago and which with the Hubble have only recently been discovered. Piri Riis an ancient navigator copying an even more ancient map showing Antartica ice free and with detail only a ariel survey could produce or the Nazca lines of Peru only visible from the air or machines made before the advent of metalworking. Can the bible explain those? Since you admit God is an alien, is it too farfetched to say he came from another universe before our time existed? How about aliens creating humans from Neanderthal stock by adding the extra chromasone that separates us from apes?
Too many imponderables to query a rigid belief in only the one source, at least for me! All others are welcome to their own views and hope I have played the devils advocate in at least considering the options!!!
464 Maggot
April 16th, 2009 at 3:20 pm

458 Stizzy: I already addressed the question of “where” and technically without time, there would be no “before that” anyway.

And I already addressed why I think that is fundamentally impossible.

Just because you can’t conceive it, doesn’t make it impossible.

Doesn’t make it possible either.

it just sounds like you simply don’t want to entertain the thought for the sake of it.

Well the point of my argument is that “entertaining the thought of something for the sake of it” is akin to “making it up”. I can entertain the thought of any ol’ silly deity or explaination (FSM, IPU, etc.), and just as easily write those off as being silly, and you’d probably not disagree. So why can’t I do that with this particular one?

God Himself has said that we can know because…

You’re just going back to the original assumption of something being “true” in order to support the statements that follows. If the first assumption is incorrect or “not true”, then what follows is nonsense.
465 lostatsea
April 16th, 2009 at 3:34 pm

Stizzy: BTW Black holes are a proven fact, we have one at the center of the Milky Way. Query if God made man in his image is God then an amoeba as evolution posits? The earth is 6.5 billion years old, why did God wait so long? The universe is over 16 billion yrs not 6 days as told.
466 Martin
April 16th, 2009 at 4:35 pm

Jessy, the car company is named after Ahura Mazda – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda#Name
467 peter.peanutbutter
April 16th, 2009 at 5:29 pm

There may be similarities but for sure, most of the figures mentioned are mythical and Jesus, on the other hand is real.
468 Tig
April 16th, 2009 at 6:46 pm

cool list
469 dbrownl
April 16th, 2009 at 8:46 pm

good list except for the fact that heracles and odysses are far reaching comparissons, isn’t zoraster after christ???
470 dbrownl
April 16th, 2009 at 9:04 pm

nevermind i as thinking of someone else, don’t ask who though cause i don’t know, i do that sometimes, relate someone something and then completly realize i was completly off base, oh wait that is exactly like this list, huh someone else out there like me
471 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 9:26 pm

lostatsea: IF the universe came from one point, it must have originated in another universe, why? Scientists are clear they DO NOT KNOW what could have happened before that.

“Can the bible explain those? Since you admit God is an alien, is it too farfetched to say he came from another universe before our time existed? How about aliens creating humans from Neanderthal stock by adding the extra chromasone that separates us from apes?”

Many ancient civilizations also have an account of creation, an account of the fall of man and the account of a global flood. And yes the Bible can account for beings riding on “chariots from the stars”, it was brought up earlier by yourself I believe Angels once disobeyed God, leaving their habitation to cohabit with humans. They didn’t just do this BEFORE the flood, it’s quite likely they did it again afterwards as well, as the Bible says there were giants in those days and AFTER.

When God created man, He said that it was very good. When He formed man, He formed Him complete. He didn’t take another animal and create man. The process of evolution involves death and destruction and would hardly be “very good”. Furthermore, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that neanderthal man isn’t even a seperate species, but is in fact just another strain of human. Did anyone see the recent image scientit composed of neanderthal man? He looked like a cross between an native american, a middle easterner and someone of oriental descent, which I thought was fascinating.

And I also never said black holes don’t exist, I specified which ones are theorised.

Maggot:
“And by “accept”, I don’t mean to say that I am happy to accept that, and nothing matters. I’m curious as hell. But it’s just that I have no other logical choice but to accept not knowing until I/we learn differently. In this context, having “faith” isn’t learning.”

You only have a logical choice to accept not knowing because you have chosen what explanations you will and won’t accept. You assume that those who believe in the existence of God believe so blindly. Of course, even we don’t have all of the answers and so there is an element of accepting that what we don’t know and having faith that one day we will.

Similarly there are gaps in many scientific theories, and people accept that we don’t know everything and have faith that one day science will explain these things. So faith isn’t limited to those who believe in God Indeed, I think believing in molecules to man evolution requires immense faith.

“And I already addressed why I think that is fundamentally impossible.”

Actually you didn’t, you spoke about time and then ignored the rest.

“Just because you can’t conceive it, doesn’t make it impossible.

Doesn’t make it possible either.”

If it’s not impossible, surely that makes it possible. If it’s probable that something isn’t impossible it opens the door to possibility rather than just completely shutting it as you do.

“Well the point of my argument is that “entertaining the thought of something for the sake of it” is akin to “making it up”.”

Well entertain this thought. How do you account for the apparent design in the universe? How do you account for the origin of information, intelligence and meaning?

Information requires a sender of that information. That sender must be either an intelligent, creative mind or something created by an intelligent, creative mind that sends a copy of the information but can’t create it. Information requires a receiver. That receiver must be either an intelligent, creative mind, or something created by an intelligent, creative mind.
472 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 9:31 pm

Also, what does the image of God have to do with an amoeba? Why would God be an amoeba?

We are created in the image of God not physically but in terms of nature. We are triune beings, body, mind and spirit working in union. We are endowed with attributes of creativity, intelligence and emotion. We are a likeness of the nature of God. WE are three dimensional beings living in a three dimensional universe.

It only makes sense that God could be an amoeba if you ascribe to evolutionary theory. Yet moelecules to man evolutionary theory doesn’t jibe with God.
473 schwiz
April 16th, 2009 at 9:45 pm

Hercules on there is really pushing it, I don’t think he really had any of the characteristics of Jesus. Just because he went to the underworld, meh so did alot of other greek heroes. But the rest of the list is good.
474 Mark
April 16th, 2009 at 9:56 pm

471. Stizzy : “…The process of evolution involves death and destruction and would hardly be “very good”…” I think we both know why that is a flawed statement

You might say that for the universe to come out of a single point then where did that come from? That in itself is a great point, but once you say that the Bible and Christianity can explain this better, that’s when you lose me. Where did God come from? ’nuff said…
475 Mark
April 16th, 2009 at 9:59 pm

Oh yeah, if you say “He’s always been there”, then I’ll shove it straight back in your face (obviously, just wanted to point it out). And then if you say something about “Why did the point of infinite density etc choose to explode then”, then of course I can say the same thing about God. Neither of us have the answers as to where it all began and you know it.
476 Maggot
April 16th, 2009 at 10:35 pm

471 Stizzy: You only have a logical choice to accept not knowing because you have chosen what explanations you will and won’t accept.

No, I have concluded that faith-only based explanations have no valid reason to be accepted. I’m not choosing to not accept them. I’m saying give me a reason to accept them. Because god says so? Not good enough.

people accept that we don’t know everything and have faith that one day science will explain these things. So faith isn’t limited to those who believe in God

You’re using the word “faith” there in two different contexts. Clever, but transparent. It’s not “having faith that science will explain”, but rather, it’s the understanding that if science finds an answer (to anything), it’ll be based on evidence, not faith.

Actually you didn’t, you spoke about time and then ignored the rest.

Sorry, didn’t mean to. I just assumed you’d understand that I would use the same argument for “space” vs “no space”. If there is “no space”, then what is *there*?

If it’s not impossible, surely that makes it possible.

Sure. Falls into the realm of “anything is possible”. Even made up stuff. It’s a nice little catch-all phrase that way. FSM is possible, isn’t it? The gods Jupiter or Zeus are possible, aren’t they? After all, anything is possible. That’s what you’re basing your faith on? Ok then.

Information requires a sender of that information.

No it doesn’t. Why would you say that? Well I guess I should ask – what do you mean by “information”? If the information is a sound wave for example, then yes something sent it. If the information is the color or texture of an object for example, then no. That information is just there for the taking. Not sure what you’re getting at here.
477 Mark
April 16th, 2009 at 10:46 pm

476. Maggot : “…You’re using the word “faith” there in two different contexts. Clever, but transparent. It’s not “having faith that science will explain”, but rather, it’s the understanding that if science finds an answer (to anything), it’ll be based on evidence, not faith….” I think you misinterpreted that, if science couldn’t explain everything, then we’ve been sitting here saying “It’ll be all sweet, just give it time and they’ll know we were right”. So essentially people like you and I who do “believe” that science will explain everythin eventually are putting our faith in science aren’t we?

“…No it doesn’t. Why would you say that? Well I guess I should ask – what do you mean by “information”? If the information is a sound wave for example, then yes something sent it. If the information is the color or texture of an object for example, then no. That information is just there for the taking. Not sure what you’re getting at here.” Actually a sound wave could be made by something that doesn’t fall into the subset of “intelligent” as Stizzy was trying to say. Just being a bit picky
478 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 11:19 pm

“Sure. Falls into the realm of “anything is possible”. Even made up stuff. It’s a nice little catch-all phrase that way. FSM is possible, isn’t it? The gods Jupiter or Zeus are possible, aren’t they? After all, anything is possible. That’s what you’re basing your faith on? Ok then.”

Many things are possible but not all things are probable and not everything that’s possible is certain. I believe the existence of one, super intelligent being beyond the bounds of time and space is more probable than Jupiter or Zeus. I believe that this same intelligence being responsible for life and creation is more probable than it all spontaneously coming into existence from nothing.

“Information requires a sender of that information.

No it doesn’t. Why would you say that? Well I guess I should ask – what do you mean by “information”? If the information is a sound wave for example, then yes something sent it. If the information is the color or texture of an object for example, then no. That information is just there for the taking. Not sure what you’re getting at here.”

By information I’m referring to the following (to quote from Dr. Werner Gitt):

“Distinction according to aspect: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics

Distinction according to purpose: constructional/creative information, operational, and communication information

Distinction according to direction of flow: transmitted or received information. ”

Also Copied Information (identical propagation of existing information), Reproduced Information (Such as the distinction between a composer and a performer of music.), and Creative Information (Something new is produced)

He also puts forth two theorum:

“Every piece of creative information represents some mental effort and can be traced to a personal idea-giver who exercised his own free will, and who is endowed with an intelligent mind.”

“New information can only originate in a creative thought process.”

Colour is what it is, but our intelligent minds are able to perceive, interpret and give meaning to colour, defining it by it’s relation to other contrasting colours.

Let’s say colour is information, that would mean it has a function which would imply purpose. Purpose would imply intention and determination, characteristics of intelligence. Can that function arise out of nothing do you think?

Colour can be defined as a visual attribute of things that results from the light they emit or transmit or reflect. So light could be called the carrier of that information and the object is the sender. So light carries a copy of the information inherent to the object, and that fits with what I was saying before. The object may not be intelligent, but as a transmitter of information, it would need an intelligent source.

Hope I didn’t muddle that too much haha.

You say the information is just there for the taking…well that’s my point, how did the information get there in the first place?
479 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 11:22 pm

Looking back, it probably would have been simpler to define information as a message received and understood hehe or data.
480 Stizzy
April 16th, 2009 at 11:36 pm

475. Mark

“Oh yeah, if you say “He’s always been there”, then I’ll shove it straight back in your face (obviously, just wanted to point it out). And then if you say something about “Why did the point of infinite density etc choose to explode then”, then of course I can say the same thing about God. Neither of us have the answers as to where it all began and you know it.”

Perhaps we could say that either the universe and time and matter is eternal and has no beginning or end, or there is an outside entity that is eternal and has no beginning or end. Either one would require some infinite or eternal source. So then it becomes a question of which source is better at accounting for what we see?
481 Mark
April 16th, 2009 at 11:44 pm

480. Stizzy : Well if time and matter – to an extent, the universe probably isn’t – is eternal then that’s all good. But for God to ALSO be eternal there has to be something else doesn’t there? I mean, we know that matter and time exists – or at least we think we do, not up for debating solipsism at the moment though.

God is mutually exclusive, my theory works without him, yours doesn’t. It’s as simple as that in that regard.
482 Maggot
April 16th, 2009 at 11:59 pm

478 Stizzy: I believe that this same intelligence being responsible for life and creation is more probable than it all spontaneously coming into existence from nothing.

Only because, to you, having an answer is better than not having an answer. But your answer is a figment of imagination.
483 Marvin
April 17th, 2009 at 12:09 am

This list shows two things.

First, that the churches have taken many old legends and applied them to Jesus, just to make it easier for people of other religions to convert to so called ‘christianity’. For example, Jesus wasn’t born on the 25th of December, he’s not part of a trinity (simply because the trinity is not biblical), he was purely human, not a god-human, oh, and of course, Jesus wasn’t crucified, he was hanged from a pole, not a cross. All these elements that were falsely tied to Jesus have roots in other religions.

Second, all of these lack the one thing that Jesus came to the earth for, the thing that really matters: to give his life as a ransom sacrifice, to create an opportunity for mankind to have a good relationship with God.

Also worth mentioning might be that a lot of the elements that are proposed as similarities here were foretold in the old testament up to 1500 years before Jesus was even born, and any person or cult from less than 1500 years before Jesus was born could’ve just applied these prophecies to themselves or any character (fictional or not) that they chose to.

Besides, a some of the similarities are just too vague or general to be considered as striking. Fasting? Millions of people do that up to today. Wonderous healings? Many thousands of figures from the past have claimed to be able to do that. Wanting to be welcomed home? My estimate would be that this applies to close to all of the 7 billion people living on earth now.

All in all, this list doesn’t prove much about Jesus, but more so does about the origin of the 10 discussed figures and about the churches who applied anything they deemed useful to their cause to Jesus.
484 Stizzy
April 17th, 2009 at 12:11 am

Well I don’t believe that time and matter is eternal, I believe they have an eternal source and as near as we can tell through our observations of the universe, time and matter have a beginning. Therefore, could it not be argued that in fact your theory doesn’t work without a source for time and matter? Both time and matter have boundaries and confinements and in fact relative time is affected by the presence of matter. Near as I know, there isn’t an infinite abundance of matter in the universe is there? Do you think something that isn’t infinite can be eternal?

If time and matter exist within God, they come from eternity but they in themselves are not eternal without His say so.

To say there is no God is to say you have enough knowledge to know there is no God. You would have to know everything because anything outside of your knowledge could include God. You would have to be everywhere, inside and outside the universe at the same time because if there’s anywhere you can’t be, God can be there.

To be everywhere and know everything is to be like God and no one who denies He exists can claim total knowledge. Since no once can prove He doesn’t exist, the question becomes irrelevant whether you can have everything, all of creation without God. Therefore, Creation can’t be ruled out as a potential alternative.

What’s more logical – that matter eternally existed or came into existence by itself for no reason, then arranged itself into systems of information against everything we observe? Or that an intelligence created information systems for life to exist, agreeing with what we do observe?
485 Stizzy
April 17th, 2009 at 12:19 am

482. Maggot

“Only because, to you, having an answer is better than not having an answer. But your answer is a figment of imagination.”

How can you say my answer is a figment of imagination? Do you know all things and possess all knowledge to know that it is a figment of imagination?

And how can you say that it’s ONLY because to me having an answer is better than having no answer? If you don’t even have an answer or something you turn to for an answer, and you subscribe to simply not knowing everything or enough, how can you then turn around and proclaim to know that it is a figment of imagination? Your argument is self refuting in that you claim not to know everything but claim to know enough to know something outside your understanding is a figment of the imagination.
486 dbrownl
April 17th, 2009 at 2:00 am

wow! for stizzy mark and whoever else, you guys are arguing yourselves in circles here, how about we each accept that we believe different things, obviously arguing about points in which no one can prove is getting all of us no where…
487 Stizzy
April 17th, 2009 at 2:08 am

Well when you think about it, the whole point of a debate is to propose and discuss opposing propositions. So from the outset it’s clear that each party believes different things, so these things don’t necessarily have a conclusion to reach. The conclusion would probably be the same as the start, namely “We disagree on this…”, a debate is about looking at why, and then from that people can decide for themselves which side of the debate they favour

Often, as is clear, this can lead to things seeming to go round in circles hehe but it can still be stimulating and very interesting but not everyone’s cup of tea…or coffee.
488 dbrownl
April 17th, 2009 at 2:14 am

wow a debate on topics of debates… i am not dissing the idea of a debate and learning from each side of a particular topic, what i am saying is that you have each reitterated a certain points numerous times, debates are topic, present your side, rebuttal and a rebuttal for that rebuttal, conclusion (wherein there may be allowed one more rebuttal), thats it, not rehashing singular poitns over and over again
489 dbrownl
April 17th, 2009 at 2:19 am

not 400 comments…
490 knight_forked
April 17th, 2009 at 2:20 am

349. Stizzy: As Buddha would have said that I cannot enlighten someone who is so dogged about a book that was compiled eons ago, enlightenment comes from within through self realization. Similarly I would say that I wouldn’t try to force my opinion on you.

If you look at history the cultures that these books were composed (revealed in your terminology) in waere highly patriarchal, men dominated the society, women were looked down upon, pillage, plundering, looting and rapes were commonplace. To quote “Some sages even argued that women were a distraction from godliness, that they promoted witchcraft or that they were such untrustworthy creatures that it would be absolutely foolish to have any more around than absolutely necessary” [Judaism Before Jesus By Anthony J Tomasino]. I am siting this text assuming that it should atleast be historically correct and just not written in this book to tarnish Judaism. Islam originated from within the same culture why is it then Quran (“His” revelation) requires women to be in ‘hijab’(well, may be not best example for Islam as some would argue that even men are required ‘hijab’) and not men as well when according to your logic men and women are created equal in “His” eyes? Also, why have there not been any church leadership for women in Christianity itself then? Was it because God thought that they were some lesser beings?

Where did this implication about God being neither ‘He’ nor ‘She’ nor ‘It’ came about? It’s, in my opinion, one of those things where Christianity had to save face as it started to find itself in a dig just like the fact that they were unrelenting at believing that heliocentrism was even a possibility. By the way I am no scholar on Christianity but isn’t traditionally God referred to as ‘God the Father’? Doesn’t your book somewhere says that God created man as His own image and woman was created from man’s rib?

In retrospect, I believe, this whole post of mine is a waste as I don’t want you to change your stream of thinking, cause if that were to happen I would definitely loose one more color from my present and only life – enjoying an argument with someone like you!
491 Stizzy
April 17th, 2009 at 2:44 am

Talking about what the Quran says about the place of women doesn’t really have any bearing on Jesus’ message, as from the Biblical standpoint, it wouldn’t be a book from God even though it has lifted elements from the Bible. They are different, complimentary and equally worthy roles, if not equal in substance.

As for not wishing to tarnish Judaism, one of the things that has always astounded me about the Bible and helped towards it’s authenticity in my mind is that it is brutally honest and doesn’t try to gloss over details to make people look better. If anything, it paints a terrible picture of Judaism, Jews and humanity as a whole. I do not believe though that religion was God’s intent, but relationship. As Abraham was not a Jew and didn’t follow Judaism, yet God called him His friend and a righteous man, and Jesus said to the Samaritan woman that the time was coming when true worshippers of God wouldn’t worship on mountains or in temples but would worship in spirit and truth, as God is spirit and seeks people like this to be His worshippers. One can’t please God without faith in Him.

That said, the whole thing about patriarchy has always seemed to me more to be a reflection of the nature of humanity rather than a reflection of what the Bible message is.

As for issues of leadership, people assume that to have equality of worth equals equality of roles. If a man is appointed as say, the head of the family, he can’t even hope to do his job effectively without the love and support of his wife. And a wife, as a nurturer, can’t do her job effectively without the love and protection of her husband.

God is spirit and therefore He has no sex, but He has attributes that we associate with masculinity and femininity. He refers to Himself as the Father, yet He gives birth to creation like a mother. He gives discipline like a father, but wants to gather his children like a goose gathers her chicks. He has maternal as well as paternal attributes, yet when applied to Him, these attributes go far beyond our human perspective.

For God to be a father is to be far more than a human father could ever be. God indeed created MANKIND as in humans in His image. That includes men and women. If God has both maternal and paternal attributes, to make man and woman would be to make them in His image. And it’s these attributes which are the image He has imparted onto mankind.

One reason I believe there has always been this attitude towards women is that many look at the account of the Fall and assume that Eve and therefore woman was to blame for sin entering the world. However, what’s interesting is that the Bible says that through the sin of one MAN, sin entered into the world. The universe didn’t become corrupt when Eve ate the fruit, but when ADAM ate the fruit. Eve ate the fruit out of ignorance and it was Adam’s job not only to protect her but to educate her. He failed to do so. When he picked the fruit, he didn’t do so out of ignorant but out of intent.

After this fall, it was through the woman that God promised salvation would come. For He said “Her Seed”, when seed usually would be referring to the male.

It’s just a shame that throughout history people have put women in a place of subjugation and have tried to force submission upon her. Yet if a woman is truthfully and devotingly loved, she would wish to serve her husband not out of obligation but simply because it pleased her to do so out of love.
492 Stizzy
April 17th, 2009 at 2:47 am

* As for issues of leadership, people assume that to have equality of worth equals equality of roles. If a man is appointed as say, the head of the family, he can’t even hope to do his job effectively without the love and support of his wife. And a wife, as a nurturer, can’t do her job effectively without the love and protection of her husband. They are different, complimentary and equally worthy roles, if not equal in substance.

Don’t know how but that last sentence ended up at the end of the first paragraph, should have been there hehe
493 Stizzy
April 17th, 2009 at 3:10 am

“It’s, in my opinion, one of those things where Christianity had to save face as it started to find itself in a dig just like the fact that they were unrelenting at believing that heliocentrism was even a possibility.”

Also should address this point, from the Old Testament, the concept of God being sexless was made clear and didn’t begin with Christianity. Whether “christians” were unrelenting about belief in heliocentrism doesn’t change the fact that the Bible described the earth as a sphere and the heavens expanding long before people insisted the earth was flat. It used poetic language when describing “four coeners” of the Earth, something that is still used today. We still use the words “sunrise” and “sunset” even though the sun doesn’t really rise but just appears to do so from our perspective. The Bible never disagreed with heliocentrism, so those who did were most likely speaking out of ignorance.
494 dbrownl
April 17th, 2009 at 3:11 am

your copy and paste technique not working too hot for ya
495 Stizzy
April 17th, 2009 at 3:21 am

Not sure what you’re referring to there dbrownl
496 dbrownl
April 17th, 2009 at 4:15 am

quite obvious,
“Don’t know how but that last sentence ended up at the end of the first paragraph, should have been there hehe”
497 Stizzy
April 17th, 2009 at 4:16 am

That would be because I kept going back and forth over my paragraphs to add to what I was saying. Mistakes happen

Either case, it’s irrelevant to the argument.
498 Cybogen
April 17th, 2009 at 4:37 am

When it comes to the possibility of God’s existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God. On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, “You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you.” Before you look at the facts surrounding God’s existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to consider…

1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Many examples showing God’s design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:

The Earth…its size is perfect. The Earth’s size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth’s surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth’s position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.
2. Does God exist? The universe had a start – what caused it?
Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, “The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion…The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen.”
Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, “the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade…and the universe was filled with light.”
The universe has not always existed. It had a start…what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.
Does God exist? The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?
Much of life may seem uncertain, but look at what we can count on day after day: gravity remains consistent, a hot cup of coffee left on a counter will get cold, the earth rotates in the same 24 hours, and the speed of light doesn’t change — on earth or in galaxies far from us.
How is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable?
“The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn’t have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence.”
Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.
Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you’ll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you’re looking at him. Though he talked about his Father in heaven, it was not from the position of separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who believed in him, believed in the Father. He said, “I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” He claimed attributes belonging only to God: to be able to forgive people of their sin, free them from habits of sin, give people a more abundant life and give them eternal life in heaven. Unlike other teachers who focused people on their words, Jesus pointed people to himself. He did not say, “follow my words and you will find truth.” He said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me.” What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can’t do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people…blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects…created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature…walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I’m telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you’re seeing.
Jesus Christ showed God to be gentle, loving, aware of our self-centeredness and shortcomings, yet deeply wanting a relationship with us. Jesus revealed that although God views us as sinners, worthy of his punishment, his love for us ruled and God came up with a different plan. God himself took on the form of man and accepted the punishment for our sin on our behalf. Sounds ludicrous? Perhaps, but many loving fathers would gladly trade places with their child in a cancer ward if they could. The Bible says that the reason we would love God is because he first loved us.
Jesus died in our place so we could be forgiven. Of all the religions known to humanity, only through Jesus will you see God reaching toward humanity, providing a way for us to have a relationship with him. Jesus proves a divine heart of love, meeting our needs, drawing us to himself. Because of Jesus’ death and resurrection, he offers us a new life today. We can be forgiven, fully accepted by God and genuinely loved by God. He says, “I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you.”18 This is God, in action.
GOD does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth’s perfect distance from the sun, the unique chemical properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known through Jesus Christ.
499 Mark
April 17th, 2009 at 4:45 am

486. dbrownl : Yay for the fool that steps in and tries to destroy a polite and interesting debate. It wasn’t an argument and we definitely do respect each others’ views, we’re just trying to keep ourselves entertained.

I didn’t see either of us trying to push our POVs’ onto anyone else by the way, but if anyone did it was the Jesus freak
500 Stizzy
April 17th, 2009 at 4:54 am

Haha! Charming Mark if I was at all heavy handed, please accept my humble apologies. It has been highly entertaining though hasn’t it? I just checked the dates and we’ve been talking over this since monday staggering loool
501 Mark
April 17th, 2009 at 5:12 am

500. Stizzy : Charming? Well then I hope your genitals don’t dangle, or else I’m in trouble one of two ways *shudders*

You haven’t been all that bad, for a Jesus freak – I’ve only been going at this since the 15th, I don’t know who that other Mark fella is, but we don’t share the same views thankfully. He keeps popping up everywhere

It sure is entertaining, and that’s all I’m here for really.
502 lostatsea
April 17th, 2009 at 6:11 am

Stizzy; I see you did not respond to my reference to Piri Riis or the Dogon’s knowledge of Sirius’s companion star.
Also the discovery of 3.5 million yr. old footprints in Africa or Leakey’s Lucy an early hominid also from Africa, Paleotologists have proved we came out of Africa millions of yrs. ago, or that earth is 6.5 billion yrs old, so were adam and eve negro? Creationists seem to believe dinosaurs existed along with modern man when fossil remains clearly show otherwise. How can you believe God created all this in 6 days? when science has shown that the universe is over 16 billion yrs?
503 Stizzy
April 17th, 2009 at 6:36 am

Forgive me for not addressing it I hope you extend the same courteousy to things I’ve said.

“Too many reports from obscure peoples ie. the Dogan tribes of Africa who knew Sirius had a companion star from aeons ago and which with the Hubble have only recently been discovered. Piri Riis an ancient navigator copying an even more ancient map showing Antartica ice free and with detail only a ariel survey could produce or the Nazca lines of Peru only visible from the air or machines made before the advent of metalworking. Can the bible explain those?”

What does this show? It shows that man was incredibly intelligent. Can the Bible explain this? Indeed it can. When mankind were created, they were perfect.

Adam and Eve would have contained, within themselves, the genetic information for every person on the planet. They would have been geniuses! They could have been capable of things we can’t even imagine, and it stands to reason that over time, this knowledge steadily decreased. You ask me if the Bible can explain this, but can evolution explain this? It can’t, because the further back you go according to the theory, the more primitive people should be.

The Bible reports the Cain’s descendents (before the global flood) built cities, and were the first to use metals in construction and weapons, build tents and keep livestock.The knowledge of metal working was lost during the flood for a very long time. After the flood came the incident at Babel. With the seperating of languages, people spread out across the earth according to families and different groups of people would have taken different knowledge with them. The more knowledgeable would’ve established the amazing ancient civilizations we see, such as the egyptian, incan and mayan civilizations.

You could see the familiar traits that were carried between them with them all building pyramid like structures, and it’s theorised that the tower of Bable was a Ziggurat.

Those without such knowledge weren’t as lucky. Due to limited resources after the flood, they may have had to forage a way for themselves using stone tools and living in caves.

The Bible gives the only viable explanation for the incredible ingenuity of ancient man, and doesn’t have to rely on aliens to be the ones to do it.

As for Lucy, Lucy was clearly an ape that scientists have tried to pass off as human.

As for the “cradle of civilization”, if you consider that the Ark landed on the mounts of Ararat and that Babel was built in what is now Iraq, it makes sense that the “early” traces of life would be found in places such as Africa as mankind began to spread out.

The timing that scientists use to date the universe, the earth and fossils are based on flawed methods. Radiometric dating was performed on material that erupted from Mt St Helens in the 1980′s. The material, which should have dated within 25 or so years ended up giving several varying dates ranging from a few to a few hundred million years! Radiometric dating is based on an assumption. Scientists assume to know that the rate of radioactive decay has always been at a constant rate, yet experiments have shown this isn’t necessarily so.

Fossils show millions of dead creatures buried in layers and layers of sediments. They don’t come with labels saying how old they are. There are examples of creatures being found in layers they shouldn’t be in, of marine creatures on the top of mt everest, of fossilised trees going vertically through several layers of strata, of rock layers bent and curved at angles that would be impossible without fractures accuring.

Fossilisation requires the rapid covering of creatures with sediments and water. Creatures have been fossilised giving birth, eating and even fighting. Had they simply died and slowly been covered, the likelyhood is they would have decayed before they could be fossilised or their remains would have been eaten.

There are examples of soft tissue such as from Jelly fish being preserved, which is highly unlikely. And of course, there’s the recent find of soft dinosaur tissue within a fossil.

Can the Bible account for this? Yes it can. A cataclysmic global flood that would have annihilated all life and sorted it in layers of sediments before sea levels dropped and mountains rose. Creatures appear ordered because they were buried according to habitat! “simple” marine creatures at the bottom, going higher and higher up until you reach the more “complex” land creatures.

You’re unlikely to find human fossils because for starters, 95% of all fossils are of invertibrate and marine creatures. Many fossilised creatures are identified and “reconstructed” often from a single bone fragment or tooth! And also, humans would likely have survived the longest in the global flood, fleeing to higher ground and escaping being caught in the intial throws of the flood, being buried in the sediments. Furthermore, human bodies float, and upon death they would become bloated and float even more so, quickly decaying.
504 Stizzy
April 17th, 2009 at 6:38 am

*CORRECTION, Lucy was clearly an ape that scientists have tried to pass off as a human-like ancestor.
505 Matt Howard
April 17th, 2009 at 7:01 am

Stizzy:

…Are you serious? Honestly, do you really believe this crap, or are you trying to simultaneously convince yourself and others of less-than-adequate brain function that it’s true? Flood Geology is an absolute disgrace; in no way, shape or form is it, or will it ever, be considered science. The same goes for Intelligent Design. The same goes for Creation Science.

You and your creationist ilk have an extremely devious and convincing way of twisting and manipulating half-truths and ambiguous statements in order to convince others that you know what you’re talking about. You quote-mine, which is basically scanning books for snippets of sentences that you then take out of context and publish in order to fool people that scientists of a caliber you will never attain agree with you. Creationists, flood geologists, intelligent design advocates and creation scientists are a very small but extremely loud minority who hold absolutely no academic sway or influence and never will. It is not because there is some conspiracy amongst the scientific establishment to keep you down. It’s simply because you are conniving, devious and selfish people who don’t want to adhere to the scientific method but instead want to bully and shout their way into public schools.

You can twist it however you like. You can throw in misquoted, taken out of context sentences and try to fool people into believing them, but it won’t work. You can throw in as much scientific-sounding language as you want, but it still won’t convince any well-educated scientist OR critically thinking citizen that you know what you’re talking about. What it boils down to is this; you believe in the Bible, which is contradicted be MASSIVE amounts of evidence. Instead of changing your beliefs, you instead try to change evidence. That is abhorrent, devious, selfish and mean-spirited. The sooner the tiny minority of extremely loud morons like yourself just shut the hell up and go away, the better.
506 Stizzy
April 17th, 2009 at 7:08 am

So rather than attacking me, and others, do you actually have any evidence to refute anything I’ve said?

And it seems a bit offkey to me for you to simultaneously say anyone else who may be reading this has less-than-adequate brain function.

Simply calling it “crap” and calling people “devious” and “selfish” isn’t addressing the issue.

I have no desire to bully anyone and not all advocate for creationism to be taught in schools. On the contrary, they simply call for a true, objective search for truth and that the problems with evolutionary theory should be examined alongside it’s compelling analyses. In other words, they’re simply calling for a non-bias approach.

Might also say, if creation science won’t ever be science, you might want to start by not referring to it as such

Hows about you let people go and look into the issues raised themselves?
507 Stizzy
April 17th, 2009 at 7:09 am

“Instead of changing your beliefs, you instead try to change evidence.”

No one is changing the evidnce, they are using the same evidence. What changes is interpretation of that evidence. People interpret what they see based on their presuppositions and those with certain presuppositions will only pay attention to what fits their world view.

The Bible is not contradicted by “MASSIVE amounts of evidence” but by peoples interpretation of that evidence.
508 Stizzy
April 17th, 2009 at 7:16 am

Definition of a Scientist:
a person with advanced knowledge of one or more sciences

Definition of scientific method:
A method of discovering knowledge about the natural world based in making falsifiable predictions (hypotheses), testing them empirically, and developing peer-reviewed theories that best explain the known data.

Can you show how any of the ID advocates or creation scientists you know don’t fit or adhere to these definitions?
509 Mark
April 17th, 2009 at 7:17 am

505. Matt Howard : Take a chill pill bro. I hate fundies as much as the rest of the general population, but going off at one of the more open-to-reason among them isn’t going to change their minds. Well, not their minds on God anyway, but maybe how the look at the rest of us. So consider everyone else before you let your head asplode into LV, it’s really annoying to a lot of people.

506. Stizzy : Have you looked at the “Your View” topic? Boy did I get cut down to size for trying to stand up for your side of the argument.

507. Stizzy : That’s ever so slightly fallacious and ambiguous, but I’ll let some other pissed off LVing atheist explain why… Too lazy to do it myself
510 lostatsea
April 17th, 2009 at 7:20 am

Actually the birth of the universe was calculated using the speed of light as a constant which I believe you agreed with! Gilgamesh predates Noah and as I said earlier could have been caused by a near collision ala Velikofskey sp? in ‘Worlds in Collision’ also ‘Chariots of the Gods’ VonDanecken’s book about signs of extra-terrestial visits.
Been fun albeit a rather one sided one!! Its so easy to dismiss all with an all powerful God and use the bible to interpret all these imponderables with such certainty. I do not know the answers for the more I learn I realize how ignorant I am and try to keep an open mind. Perhaps there is a cosmic consiousness relating to all life forces that may be construed as GOD and by respecting all life forms as divine in origin is akin to your beliefs! Love and peace to all.
511 Matt Howard
April 17th, 2009 at 7:25 am

Stizzy:

Radiometric dating – an extremely useful and reliable collection of methods (yes, methods, not just one) for determining age. You dismiss it because a handful of improperly performed tests showed anomalies. I heard a bus broke down the other week in my area, guess I’m never going to be using a motor vehicle again, hey?

Flood Geology – I don’t have to provide any evidence to refute this. It is beyond belief that people still believe it happened 6,000 – 10,000 years ago. Again, refer to said examples of Radiometric dating of rock and meteorite material, geological processes, plate tectonics and, for want of a much better phrase, common sense. Please explain to me how stalagmites and stalactites formed in such a short period? The Earth has had the same amount of water for around 2 billion years. Where did all this extra water come from and then go? It is up to YOU to provide this evidence, not me.

“As for Lucy, Lucy was clearly an ape that scientists have tried to pass off as human.” – As I suspected, a sly jab at Evolution here. Refer yourself to the masses of DNA evidence linking humans to the great apes (and all other life on Earth). Again, too much to list here, a very basic high school biology textbook should suffice.

The Tower of Babel? …you’ve got to be kidding, right? While I don’t doubt people have tried to built big towers, I highly doubt they constructed one that threatened to reach heaven, resulting in God destroying it, turning people into different races, then changing their language so they couldn’t coordinate building The Tower of Babel II: Return of the Killer Tower of Babel.

I realize my phrasing was wrong. You don’t change evidence. Ignore it, yes. Dismiss it without proper reason, yes. Try to sabotage it be labeling it ineffective or useless (radiometric dating, evolutionary theory), yes.

You have come back at me demanding I provide evidence. Unfortunately, I do not have a spare 5 years to send you a list of all the scientific texts I could reference. Reliable, peer-reviewed, criticized and accepted texts. It is YOU who has to provide evidence for a worldwide flood. It is YOU who has to falsify evolution. It is YOU who has to prove the friggin’ Tower of Bable is responsible for the spread of language. It is YOU who has to find Noah’s Ark then prove that it carried two of every single specie known to man, including ones we haven’t found yet, ones that dwell in the deepest jungles of Africa to the coldest peaks of Siberia. YOU have to provide evidence for YOUR radical statements, not me.
512 Stizzy
April 17th, 2009 at 7:27 am

I don’t believe I said anything about the speed of light but I’m not gonna argue that point. Interestingly though, the big bang model for the universe does have a problem with how light has managed to reach us. Can’t remember the details but tis worth looking into.

There have also been comparative studies on the epic of Gilgamesh and Noah, which hold up Noah as the more reliable account.

Mark: Can’t say I have hehe can’t even find the Your View :S
513 Mark
April 17th, 2009 at 7:31 am

510. lostatsea : There most likely is a “GOD” – as you put it – but I doubt it’s om the image the churches or even Jesus was selling.

511. Matt Howard : Fair enough you can sit there and lay the burden of proof squarely at his feet, but in case you didn’t notice it the Catholic Church are cruising at the moment. Most fundies and just Christians in general aren’t in a rush to prove God because they have faith, to them that means trusting without knowing. So you can sit there all you want saying “You have to do it ‘cos you said it!”, OR you could do something useful and constructive and try to disprove him instead?
514 Stizzy
April 17th, 2009 at 7:31 am

There are far better people than me who have dealt with these issues Matt so I shall refer you to them. You don’t have 5 years to send me lists of scientifics texts, neither do I.

http://creation.com/
http://www.icr.org/
hhtp://www.answersingenesis.org/

Are a few of the insitutes that are experts in this field. I refer you to them.
515 Matt Howard
April 17th, 2009 at 7:32 am

“Definition of scientific method:
A method of discovering knowledge about the natural world based in making falsifiable predictions (hypotheses), testing them empirically, and developing peer-reviewed theories that best explain the known data.

Can you show how any of the ID advocates or creation scientists you know don’t fit or adhere to these definitions?”

ID advocates can’t falsify their predictions. Michael Behe recently admitted defeat when it came to the Evolution of the Eye, only to push it back and say that Light-Sensitive cells are too complex to Evolve. If that isn’t an example to un-falsifiability, simply claiming that ‘God dun it’ when proven totally wrong, I don’t know what is. He was proven wrong, and instead of accepting it, he simply said “well God did it anyway”. Un-falsifiable.

Name a peer-reviewed scientific journal such as Nature or New Scientist that has corroborated one aspect of ID. Even a smaller, less well known journal. Don’t point me to a publication by ID Advocates; that is the equivalent of getting a reference from your mother for a job interview.

Name an experiment that can be devised in order to test their theory. Apart from standing in a field shouting “Oh, Intelligent designer! Design me a tree!”, there isn’t really any text you can devise.

Oh, and for before, me calling creation scientists ‘scientists’, I was sticking to their label that they concocted in the 1960′s. Trust me, I don’t consider them anywhere near scientists.
516 Matt Howard
April 17th, 2009 at 7:35 am

Mark: Stizzy’s views on flood geology, Evolution and Tower of Babel type explanation have been disproven more times than I can count. People like Stizzy simply dismiss it. I’m not trying to disprove God. I don’t care about that, I made my mind up about his (lack of) existence years ago. What I care about is this Fundamentalist bullcrap about worldwide floods being taught as fact! It simply isn’t.
517 Stizzy
April 17th, 2009 at 7:41 am

Your hostility isn’t really doing your point any favours Matt.

Not aware of what you say about Behe although I’d be interested in reading about it if you can refer me And as far as I know, Behe doesn’t even believe in God, he isn’t a creationist. And you didn’t really answer my question, you just picked out one person who made a mistake and held that up as proof.

You ask me to name a peer reviewed journal and then you set the standard for what this peer reviewed journal should look like and be called. You’re trying for force it all into a box of your own construction.

And simply saying something has been disproven doesn’t really say anything. From what I’ve seen, when people claim to have refuted or disproven something, they’ve done nothing of the sort.
518 Stizzy
April 17th, 2009 at 7:46 am

“Don’t point me to a publication by ID Advocates; that is the equivalent of getting a reference from your mother for a job interview.”

Also, isn’t asking me this akin to getting a reference from the person who wants to keep you unemployed for a job interview?
519 Mark
April 17th, 2009 at 7:49 am

512. Stizzy : Useless fundies… Makes me wonder why I bother – http://listverse.com/your-view/your-view-should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/

515. Matt Howard : I do agree with your POV on this subject – tacitly – but I wonder why sometimes. Stizzy’s right, take a chill pill – didn’t I just tell you to do that somewhere else? I can’t remember, it might have been another fundie knocker – because you hostility and aggressiveness aren’t doing you justice (because your points are solid) let alone any favours.

516. Stizzy : Good points, I’m sure some atheistic scientists have screwed up to, but that doesn’t make them all useless does it? And you shouldn’t have to give something that’s been published in a journal per se, religion has a dogma attached to it that would make that practically umpossible. AND Matt’s “These things have been disproven.” thing was rather lazy, not wrong per se, but lazy.
520 Stizzy
April 17th, 2009 at 7:53 am

Damn, won’t be able to read it now, bout time for me to scoot off hehe. But will try and get around to it.

Been fun as always I posted some links but think they’re taking awhile to show through.

Toodles!
521 Mark
April 17th, 2009 at 7:54 am

517. Stizzy : Crash and burn! Crash and burn! If Matt doesn’t point it out I will… Hurry up Matt
522 Mark
April 17th, 2009 at 7:57 am

519. Stizzy : There’s over 2.5k posts, you won’t have time to read it *period* (I hope, or else maybe you need a life)

Catch ya!
523 Matt Howard
April 17th, 2009 at 7:58 am

Seeing as Behe is a leading, if not THE leading advocate of ID, I will refer to his opinion as one of the leading authorities. I’m not questions his belief in God or creationism, I questioning his method of establishing criteria for advocating ID.

I made my point about falsification quite clear. You can’t falsify it. No way. Tell me exactly how you could falsify it? Any type of evidence that is provided by Evolutionary theory is dismissed, as Behe did. I could easily falsify Evolution. Easy! Show me a rabbit fossil from the pre-Cambrian era. I guess you have to accept the ages of era’s for this to make any sense….

Reference: http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/vidgraphics.htm

It’s isn’t biased. That is and ID Advocating website. Read the page carefully until you see Behe ask “where did light sensitive cells come from?” It’s a massive argument from ignorance; if I can’t comprehend how it happened, it MUST have been a big, spooky sky man who dun it!

Yes I set that standard in regards to peer-reviewed journals. That’s what peer-reviewed journals are; the best STANDARD for assessing scientific validity. Any nutcase with a bit of cash and a printing press can publish their own ‘journal’. It is the reputation and process of the journal that counts. I will defend my decision to set the standard of journals you need to reference.

It comes down to this. You are advocating things that are radically different to what established mainstream science advocates. Not trivial things, but MASSIVE things like the invalidity of evolution, or the age of the Earth. Extraordinary claims require massive amounts of extraordinary evidence, and if you’re going advocate that the Earth had a giant global flood 6-10,000 years ago, you need to demonstrate with SOLID evidence how, where and when the water came from and how, where and when the water went away. If you can’t do that, which I strongly suspect you can’t, then you have no right to tell ME to disprove it.
524 Matt Howard
April 17th, 2009 at 8:01 am

Mark: I know I was being lazy…1am in the morning and I already feel like I have no life being on this site;) I’m not going to look up the thousands of texts that disprove a global flood, I can’t be bothered at the moment. I know that’s inexcusably lazy, so I ask for your forgiveness:)
525 EcoPhD
April 17th, 2009 at 8:29 am

To my fellow Christians, it’s just a list of similarities. Don’t get so worked up about it. If a list threatens your faith, then you need some serious re-assessment of your beliefs. To the non-believers (my wife is among you, so I’m not judging), be fair and try not to blame Jesus for the bad behavior of his followers. Wasn’t it Gandhi that said, “I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”? My point is, whether you like Christians or not, don’t blame Christ, and don’t lump us all in the same pile. We’re not all loons. All this being said, I now must defend my fellow evolutionists. Stizzy, you said, “Adam and Eve would have contained, within themselves, the genetic information for every person on the planet. They would have been geniuses! They could have been capable of things we can’t even imagine, and it stands to reason that over time, this knowledge steadily decreased. You ask me if the Bible can explain this, but can evolution explain this? It can’t, because the further back you go according to the theory, the more primitive people should be.” First, I don’t see how containing a lot of “genetic information for every person on the planet” makes you a genius. Second (and most importantly) no single person can contain all the “genetic information for every person on the planet.” Humans are diploid. So we can have just 2 copies of every gene (2 alleles). Thus, if Adam and Eve were human, they could not have had any more than that. Maybe each had two different alleles for each gene (but this also isn’t possible, but let’s play pretend and say it is), that’s still only 4 different alleles, not enough for every human on the planet… UNLESS EVOLUTION + MUTATION LENDS A HAND. But the more appropriate conclusion is this: instead of saying, “Evolution can’t explain this, so evolution false.” maybe you should stop begging the question and say, “Maybe there wasn’t just two humans to begin with. Maybe there was no Adam and Eve.” Seriously, though, geniuses? If so, then why was Eve tricked by a snake? And evolution can also reduce the need for some traits, intelligence included, so saying that people should continually be smarter every generation is bunk. Oh so many things wrong with what you said. Gandhi would not like you.
526 Maggot
April 17th, 2009 at 10:50 am

Mark: stop being such a pussy about Matt’s so-called hostility. If anything, it’s “hostility” borne of frustration. The frustration of dealing with ID and YEC nitwits over and over again. Don’t let Stizzy’s apparent open-minded and pleasant demeanor fool you. It’s simply a passive form of his own aggression. I’m sure he’s a nice guy and all and I have nothing personal against him, but strip the personalities away and it’s still the same load of easily refutable crap being trotted out. We’re being again pointed to the propagandist AiG website, which has been debunked several times already on LV alone. Shall we post up the opposing scientific-based information sites yet again?

Are “we” changing anything by shouting down these singular nutjobs one by one? In the big picture maybe not, but that doesn’t mean the nonsense they spew should just be ignored, or their voices will grow and threaten to (as Randall likes to say, and I’m paraphrasing) send us back to the dark ages.
527 lostatsea
April 17th, 2009 at 11:29 am

Stizzy; actually ancient humans seem to have had knowledge of a great many things which were destroyed by the Christian church as blasphemy, thus heralding the dark ages of man. Many an educated person was burned at the stake for so called heretical sins, such as saying the earth was round or it orbited the sun! So much knowledge and human history destroyed by the Christian faith, shame!!
Rushfan; has been fun reading all comments and coming to grips with intransigence.
528 GTT
April 17th, 2009 at 1:12 pm

@ Stizzy:

“Yet moelecules to man evolutionary theory doesn’t jibe with God.”

And this is where you lost me. I have a firm belief in God and yet I also think evolution is as factual as you can get. It´s likfe denying gravity. Why do we have to take Genesis literally? Why does Man have to have been formed IN HIS CURRENT STATE? Personally, I see God in evolution. So what if it´s taken him 4.5 billion years? Who knows if He´s even done? What´s a few billion years compared to infinity? And who are you to say that he should hurry up?

*****

“Can the Bible account for this? Yes it can. A cataclysmic global flood that would have annihilated all life and sorted it in layers of sediments before sea levels dropped and mountains rose. Creatures appear ordered because they were buried according to habitat! “simple” marine creatures at the bottom, going higher and higher up until you reach the more “complex” land creatures.”

How does this make sense? In a great cataclismic flood wouldnt you expect everything so be all jumbled up? Massive amounts of water washing away almost all life and yet orderly enough to lay down clear layers? You´re kidding, right?
529 GTT
April 17th, 2009 at 1:16 pm

Oh, and one more point regarding my post 528:

Even IF the layers had all settled in an orderly fashion, wouldnt you expect the really heavy animals to sink to the bottom? So you would essentially have from heaviest to lightest which is not the case. It just doesnt make any sense….
530 kathy
April 17th, 2009 at 1:20 pm

The Bible has never been proven wrong. When archeologists begin a dig in the Middle East, they consult the Bible. It is very clear about geneology and where cities were located. When archeologists follow a Biblical “map” they find their sites. Archeologists believe the Bible.

Also, science has proven that the universe had a definite beginning. No big bang theory. They figured that out in the ’80s. Scientists agree that the universe came to be because of a well defined plan by a well defined planner. Scientists believe the Bible.

The Old Testament gives many prophesies about the Messiah. Jesus is the ONLY person in HISTORY to foot the bill on each and every one of these prophesies. Some of the other people mentioned above may have some similarities to Jesus, but none of the others come from God’s chosen people, from the lineage of David. Prophesies lead to Jesus.

Also, the gospels were all written in the 1st century. According to theologians and historians alike, the accounts were taken from those who were actually there. They are like interviews, with the authors being the interviewers. Theologians and historians believe the Bible.

For those who keep trying to rationalize or deny the Bible and its truths, faith is defined as (paraphrased) believing in what you cannot see and knowing that it is real. I’ve SEEN what Jesus can do in one’s life. I believe the Bible. I’ve seen faith work.

The mythologies of ancient dieties from past cultures which no longer exist never helped anyone do anything. They are liars.
531 gabi319
April 17th, 2009 at 2:29 pm

530. kathy
Ha ha ha … Normally I let the religious ranters continue on but now that you’re trying to fit science into your rant…

The Bible has never been proven wrong. When archeologists begin a dig in the Middle East, they consult the Bible. It is very clear about geneology and where cities were located. When archeologists follow a Biblical “map” they find their sites. Archeologists believe the Bible.
Never, huh? Considering it contradicts itself on numerous occasions without outside help. Clear about genealogies when the Matthew traces 41 generations between Jesus and David while Luke counts 77? So much for clear genealogy. ‘Where cities were located…’ is not remarkable. Scientists have been able to do that with the Lasceaux Cave Paintings as well.

Also, science has proven that the universe had a definite beginning. No big bang theory. They figured that out in the ’80s. Scientists agree that the universe came to be because of a well defined plan by a well defined planner. Scientists believe the Bible.
I’d like peer-reviewed sources on this. Creating a generalization such as “Scientists believe in the Bible” implying that all scientists believe in the Bible is simply asking for trouble. The 80’s you are vaguely hinting at is nothing more than a religious right movement to try to reintroduce creationist ideas into the science classroom by giving it a fancy new name like “Intelligent Design.” I say subterfuge because it is technically illegal since the 1987 Supreme court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard denying religious ideas to be taught in the science classroom. ID has yet to create any real scientific background which is the reason why it is still not an acceptable topic for science classrooms.

The Old Testament gives many prophesies about the Messiah. Jesus is the ONLY person in HISTORY to foot the bill on each and every one of these prophesies. Some of the other people mentioned above may have some similarities to Jesus, but none of the others come from God’s chosen people, from the lineage of David. Prophesies lead to Jesus.
Third time I’ve seen this. Most notable prophecy touted is the Book of Micah but this prophecy is heralding the coming of a military leader who defeats the Assyrians. Neither applies to the life of historical Jesus. Need I continue on? But why? Here I was reading another almost interesting debate and there you go trying to segue the conversation into religious belief and open the door for bible bashers to come in and dumb things down as well. Nice going.

Also, the gospels were all written in the 1st century. According to theologians and historians alike, the accounts were taken from those who were actually there. They are like interviews, with the authors being the interviewers. Theologians and historians believe the Bible.
No. Not all gospels were written from first hand accounts. Average lifespans of individuals prior to recent past (I’m saying around the late 18th/early 19th century) were roughly 30-40 years. The Gospel of Luke alone is thought to have been written somewhere between 70-100 AD – meaning well PAST the death of historical Jesus. While I can’t factually prove it wasn’t written of first hand accounts of those alive during Jesus’s teachings, you also cannot factually prove they were.

For those who keep trying to rationalize or deny the Bible and its truths, faith is defined as (paraphrased) believing in what you cannot see and knowing that it is real. I’ve SEEN what Jesus can do in one’s life. I believe the Bible. I’ve seen faith work.
Oh, so because YOU’VE seen Jesus, I’m supposed to willingly believe? Sorry, I don’t work that way, especially given what information I have to go on about you. I see you’ve been spending this entire comment trying to rationalize the ‘truths’ of the Bible as you see it and then end the comment by demeaning those who tried to do the same. Spiritual truths… you can have them all to yourself but these ‘scientific truths’…I bust them as I see them – regardless of topic.

The mythologies of ancient dieties from past cultures which no longer exist never helped anyone do anything. They are liars.
‘They are liars.’ Try looking into the mirror when you say that. I don’t mean all Christians. I mean you.

Alright, what I’m trying to get at here is this: believe in your faith if you want but don’t go asking for trouble by filling in the gaps with facts that are completely erroneous. I try to leave religion alone for the most part as it should be a personal, individually introspective adventure but I do have issues with those who believe in a strict adherence of the Bible as it was written by men and I believe a spirit-based faith needs a stronger foundation than that. Trying to pass off specific ideas as factual when your only source is a single book written centuries ago and unwilling to be contested throughout those centuries is a very dangerous path to tread. It’s not just because of my spiritual belief or lack of it that has come to this conclusion. A.J. Jacobs, author of “The Year of Living Biblically” as well as a Jewish Rabbi who’s name escapes me but was so inspired by the book that he attempted a biblical year as well BOTH say follow the faith rather than strictly follow the word.
532 Maggot
April 17th, 2009 at 2:42 pm

530 kathy: The Bible has never been proven wrong.

So then:

Homosexuality is an abomination?
Slavery is ok?
Incest is ok?
Oppression of women is ok?
Multiple wives are ok?
Corporal punishment for disobedient children is ok?

Tell me when to stop…
533 GTT
April 17th, 2009 at 4:08 pm

Oh dear… This is when I think I should just get out. I´m Catholic, I have faith, I believe in God. I try to come to these debates and argue in favor of my faith. However, people like kathy sometimes just want to make me throw in the towel.

kathy (530): This is an interesting, intelligent debate not a chance for you to proselytize. Thanks.

*****

Maggot (532):

Just out of curiousity, where does it say that the oppresion of women or multiple wives are OK? I want to look that up.

(I´m thinking that may come off as sarcasm but it honestly wasnt… )
534 Matt Howard
April 17th, 2009 at 4:44 pm

Maggot: Thanks for the defense. I don’t really want to continue debating Stizzy. It should be painfully obviously that he lacks any kind of scientific credibility by now, but referring me to AnswersinGenesis as an actual source is the final nail in the coffin. I just take solace in the fact that while real science is continuing to expand and grow, solving old mysteries and uncovering brand new ones, people are finally starting to get sick and tired of religion dressing in a cheap tuxedo and trying to masquerade as legitimate academia. The clock is ticking for places like Answers In Genesis, and the sooner that this educational disgrace bites the dust the sooner the world will be a more intellectually honest place.

Kathy: Absolutely ridiculous. Just totally asinine. Kathy is the kind of person who doesn’t tread the fine line between science and religion, but bulldozers over it, and considers using intelligible language and bold assertions as justification. Archeologists believe in the Bible? I think Stephen Jay Gould might have disagreed with you there. Gabi319, well done for taking the time to dispel all the conniving assertions Kathy tried to con people with.
535 Mark
April 17th, 2009 at 5:09 pm

526. Maggot : I’m not being a pussy, are you jumping on the bandwagon too? Everyone seems to be going off their faces in the comments at the moment

All I was saying is that arguing is always going to be better with two people discussing the relative merits of their hypothesis with cool heads, that’s a fact. If you can’t convince the fundie nut by doing that, then don’t bother. It’s as simple as that, because being aggressive and hostile towards them might seem like something that needs to be done to a person like you, but just step back and think about it a bit harder for a second. At the end of the day, you haven’t changed anything, all you’ve done is decrease the chances of you convincing some – maybe even only one – of the fundie nuts that, well, maybe they’re wrong.

Also take note, that there is no *proof* that you’re right. Sure all the evidence points towards it – I don’t want to go there, please – but if you are wrong about the grand scheme of things, boy you’re screwed.

532. Maggot : Just needed to clarify something :

“Multiple wives are ok?”

Is there anything inherently wrong with that one? I mean, I agree with the others, but the only reason you say that is because of – funnily enough actually – the Christian, and most other religion’s – way of union. If you cast of what just “is” and think about it for a second – or just think about why what is, is – then I don’t think that that statement in itself helps to prove your point.

534. Matt Howard : All I can say is that if you were here just to “Prove the nutcase wrong” you were wasting your time. I think Maggot also misses the point in that regard. Stizzy and I weren’t trying to push our POVs onto each other or anybody else here, we were just having an interesting debate – which I learned a lot from. It’s not the end of the world and maybe you should stop bothering if you’re trying to achieve the aforementioned results.
536 Zoombafoo
April 17th, 2009 at 5:18 pm

you know what i have to say? *sticks tounge out* THHTHHHHHHHHHHPPPPPPPPP
537 Matt Howard
April 17th, 2009 at 5:20 pm

Mark: I will stop. Trying to change a Fundies useless mind is about as fruitful as trying to find scientific evidence in the Creation Museum in Kentucky. It just feels good once in a while to unleash a few tidbits of hostility towards Fundamentalist/ID advocates. They deserve it, after all. Anyone who tries to subvert the scientific method due to their own personal religious beliefs is bad enough. Anyone who tries to get this crap taught in public schools or even viewed on the same level as Evolution on Geology deserves all the scorn they get.
538 Green Eyes
April 17th, 2009 at 5:22 pm

Littleboots (189) your comment was far and away the best thing written on here.

Some people here really like the sound of their own voice!
539 cymraegbachgen87
April 17th, 2009 at 5:23 pm

530 – by saying the bible has never been proven wrong you are saying it is inerrant?

I believe I dealt with that WAAAAY up the list, but for your benefit, and the benefit of other deluded individuals such as yourself I shall repeat myself.

“ 146. cymraegbachgen87 – April 14th, 2009 at 10:28 am

Of course the bible is not 100% accurate, just like it is nowhere near inerrant.

People don’t realise that the bible was compiled by the romans at the first council of nicaea, and any gospels that made jesus look mortal were left out.

For god sake, the Bible claims that rabbits chew the cud, that the pattern of goats’ coats can be changed by what their parents look at while copulating, that only dead seeds can germinate and that ostriches are careless parents.”

Right. On to the rest of your idiotic post.

“Also, science has proven that the universe had a definite beginning. No big bang theory. They figured that out in the ’80s. Scientists agree that the universe came to be because of a well defined plan by a well defined planner. Scientists believe the Bible.”

The Big Bang Theory is curent. It has not been disproved. As a scientist myself I am disgusted and insulted by this sweeping statement. I would dearly LOVE to see your evidence for this statement. BTW, the BBT IS a theory of how the universe STARTED. What did you THINK it was? You clearly have zero knowledge of Science.

“The mythologies of ancient dieties from past cultures which no longer exist never helped anyone do anything. They are liars.”

Past cultures? You mean like Roman Judea right? Buddhism and Hinduism are still going very strong thank you.

“Also, the gospels were all written in the 1st century”

Really? When do you think the Bible was compiled? Seeing as it was compiled in about 325 by Constantine I at the first council of Nicaea, anything up to that date could be included. It was also here where any gospel that portrayed jesus as mortal was removed from the bible. You have zero knowledge of history either.
540 cymraegbachgen87
April 17th, 2009 at 5:30 pm

well done, btw, gabi.

Just wanted to throw my two cents in (as the americans say)

GTT (529) “So you would essentially have from heaviest to lightest which is not the case. It just doesnt make any sense….”

Even if it were smallest to largest, you would also expect small mammals in with small fish, crustaceans, reptiles etc and we don’t see it. We should also see metal arrowheads in there too and we dont. The flood has been very well handled on the creationism your view.
541 Mark
April 17th, 2009 at 5:31 pm

537. Matt Howard : While that may be all well and good, don’t forget that Stizzy never advocated anything like that – I think
542 cymraegbachgen87
April 17th, 2009 at 5:39 pm

MARK! Nice to see you again! I thought you had vanished into the annals of LV history!

(I shall have to pay that assassin more next time…)
543 Mark
April 17th, 2009 at 5:44 pm

542. cymraegbachgen87 : Thank you? But I’m not ready to be the next Anon-LV-folk-hero yet, so I’m back. I just had a really busy week doing some sports. But don’t worry, I’m back to regain my No.1 posters spot.
544 cymraegbachgen87
April 17th, 2009 at 5:49 pm

Yeah what happened to Anon? I didn’t want to ask…LV has been different without his sagely advice and comments…

I do hope you are not here to regain no1 spot. I was going to take a crack at it next week.

May the best welsh man win
545 gabi319
April 17th, 2009 at 5:55 pm

Thank you guys! and an additional two cents worth of thanks to Matt Howard and cym for the extra angles. Honestly, I sit amazed at just how many wrong ‘facts’ kathy could manage to squeeze into each individual short paragraph that it was hard picking and choosing what to refute without making myself sound as crazy as she!
546 Mark
April 17th, 2009 at 5:56 pm

544. cymraegbachgen87 : Yes, I will thank you
547 gabi319
April 17th, 2009 at 5:58 pm

Re: Anon
I’ve been asking about him too and even trying to tease him out of hiding should he be doing that but no response yet? A couple weeks ago, he did mention trying to organize work-related field trips, so if that’s what’s what then hopefully he’ll be back soon with stories to share.
548 cymraegbachgen87
April 17th, 2009 at 5:59 pm

Next list should be top 10 erroneous posters.

Ideas on submissions?
549 Mark
April 17th, 2009 at 6:12 pm

547. gabi319 : But… But he didn’t say good-bye :’(
550 cymraegbachgen87
April 17th, 2009 at 6:28 pm

LOL.

Just read stizzys posts. Ignorant in the extreme. But at 2.30am I am not going to take each individual point that I have already, with the help of many others, destroyed and shown to be false on the creationism ‘your view’

I hope he reads it and is enlightened. His knowledge of science is dreadful. He would certainly benefit from reading even a tenth of those posts

A hint – once it gets to cookery, there is no more debate; but that isnt til about comment #2000 or so
551 Mark
April 17th, 2009 at 6:38 pm

550. cymraegbachgen87 : Yeah, but I think the best part was that 2000-2500 conversation…
552 knight_forked
April 17th, 2009 at 7:16 pm

@505. Matt Howard: Matt, you wrote exactly what I had in mind but didn’t want to write…call me lazy

Here’s the thing with Stizzy, he/she writes that heliocentrism was there in Christianity well before but was rejected/misinterpreted before being proven by Copernicus and Keplar et. al. in the 15th and 17th century. Well one thing is for sure is historically true that the concept of a possibility of heliocentrism existed during the time of ancient Greeks and Vedic India. Now, given that, Stizzy, your statement does not relly translate that theory being adapted by Christianity. Well you cared to state so that this was done merely on a poetic level but you fail to provide any relevant references to support your statement. I would be glad to see those psalms or verses where your view is supported. If not I can defnitely provide you with verses where it is clearly written that Earth does not move and Sun and Moon are standstill. That verse, was fucking brilliantly non-poetic!

Well Christianity always, (and I really mean it) always believed in a theory that was correctly proven so by science. It is preposterous that it uses the same tools (science) to prove itself right against attacks from philosophies that are inherently scientific, and in doing so it has enshrouded itself with such a strong sheath (science) that not even scientific reasoning can touch it now. In that sense, Christianity has definitely eveolved as a desert chameleon, changing colors to stay alive. Islam, in that perspective, has been more or less stubborn, and stayed medieval.

NOTE: I would like to mention that neither heliocentrism nor geocentrism is correct however former is lesser so as Sun is not center of this universe yet Earth and other planets revolve around it. I am sure creationists would have tried to argue based on Michelson-Morley experiment’s result involving fringes that Earth indeed is stationary. On a lighter note I assert creationists would also have tried to expliot relativity theory when they “reinterpreted” their verses about geocentrism
553 Matt Howard
April 17th, 2009 at 10:03 pm

knight_forked, Gabi: thanks for the compliments. Unfortunately I just checked back on my previous posts and can see the effects that trying to argue and sound reasonably intelligent simply doesn’t work at 1.30am (here is Australia:)) Some of my sentences don’t even make sense! That’ll teach me for trying to be smart whilst my eyes are failing to stay open:P

I think I have a problem. I always swear once I’ve debated with a Creationist and gone through point after point of refutations, clearing up terminology, pointing out why it isn’t science, that is that. I won’t do it again. But I always do! Whenever I see a YEC or ID advocate try and worm their way into a legitimate discussion I always end up sitting at my keyboard furiously typing away, getting myself wound up and annoyed until they shut up. It’s an addiction, methinks. Can anyone give me a cure?:)
554 kumari.
April 18th, 2009 at 12:55 am

totally wrong descriptions about the buddha….
555 heavybison
April 18th, 2009 at 1:12 am

Wow…seems the recession is nearing it’s end. Folks seem to have a lot to say….
556 Maggot
April 18th, 2009 at 1:36 am

533 GTT: Just out of curiousity, where does it say that the oppresion of women or multiple wives are OK? I want to look that up.

Multiple wives:
http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/polygamists/

A few examples of female oppression:
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
1 Timothy 2:11-12
Colossians 3:18
Ephesians 5:22-24
557 cybogen
April 18th, 2009 at 3:28 am

Predecessors before Christ- Many will try butnot one will succeed. The whole world shall see Him coming on the clouds of heaven in glory soon.
558 Mark
April 18th, 2009 at 3:42 am

556. cybogen : Oh for crying out loud, add something or don’t say anything at all
559 gabi319
April 18th, 2009 at 3:44 am

553. Matt Howard – “that is that. But I always do!…It’s an addiction, methinks. Can anyone give me a cure?”

No. There is no cure. I believe, I’ve tried to give it up. I’ve tried to at least keep it contained in the Your View: Should Creationism be Taught in Schools? but I am extremely unsuccessful. Whenever I see the “I didn’t come from no monkey” argument, I see red. Can’t help myself.

Even if you don’t think what you wrote made sense, you did a vastly better job than many of us! Stizzy simply has this crazy circular logic and excessive need to use questions that honestly makes me dizzy.
560 Mark
April 18th, 2009 at 3:49 am

558. gabi319 : Am I the only non-Christian here who enjoys conversing with ol’ Stizz?
561 gabi319
April 18th, 2009 at 3:51 am

Correction
*Believe me, not I believe

554. kumari. – “totally wrong descriptions about the buddha….”
Would you like to write an addendum rather than vaguely and needlessly criticize?

555. heavybison – “Wow…seems the recession is nearing it’s end. Folks seem to have a lot to say….”
Perhaps that depends on where you are, heavybison. At least where I’m at, they believe the worst is past but we’ve still got a ways to go.
562 Mark
April 18th, 2009 at 3:55 am

560. gabi319 : I think we’ve still got a bit to go before we hit rock bottom here in Aus, because if we don’t then this “crisis” was more of a “joke”.
563 gabi319
April 18th, 2009 at 3:55 am

Matt:

Nope, not the only one. Cymraegbachen87 had a rather good conversation with Stizzy a week or two ago. I will read and enjoy the conversation but prefer not to get in discussion with Stizzy. I’m so focused on making sense of Stizzy’s comments that I concentrate more on that than on the actual topic. It’s quite a fascinating and aggravating distraction technique he/she’s got.
564 Matt Howard
April 18th, 2009 at 4:05 am

Gabi: Glad to hear someone else is in the same boat as me. My particular pet peeve is when a YEC trots out the old “well, Evolution is ONLY a theory” chestnut. Gets me every time.
565 Mark
April 18th, 2009 at 4:11 am

562. gabi319 : I don’t know about that. I find him relatively easy to understand… Oh noes…. Maybe I’m turning into… A FUNDIE!!!
566 gabi319
April 18th, 2009 at 4:18 am

Matt:
re econ crisis:
It’s a global issue, but I don’t think absolute destitution is the end result for every nations’ economy. That is merely grossly overdramatized situation presented by the media. Even where I am (in the US), there was panic and whispers about it a good six to nine months before the general public were personally affected when their banks when some banks failed. Aside from the bank issues in California, most the banks in most other places saw a mere transition in ownership and nothing more. I’m not downplaying the situation; I’ve seen plenty of people lose their jobs and as of last night when I was stumbling through some more news articles, America has 5.1 million recently unemployed citizens. However, part of me wonders how much of that was truly necessary and how much was a result of the hype brought on by the words “economic crisis”.

re YEC pet peeves:
The thing that drives me crazy is “If it weren’t for my bible and my god, I would freely embrace evolution.” …why place such limitations on knowledge? Cymraeg was looking into that AiG site when it was first given to us and he noted that anyone publishing on the site had to sign a form stating their unwavering belief in the inerrancy of the bible. That alone should be enough to warn people that there’s a strong bias shown in that website.
567 gabi319
April 18th, 2009 at 4:20 am

haha Mark, yes Stizzy’s easy to understand. He’s well-spoken and presents a great argument for his side. It’s just my personal weakness that cannot stand the excessive question talking and nothing more.
568 Mark
April 18th, 2009 at 4:31 am

565. gabi319 : It’s all a plus for me, both of my parents have secure jobs and we have *enough* money – just – to get us by. And it all makes for very interesting discussions in Economics

566. gabi319 : Meh, everyone does it don’t they? I know I do. Wouldn’t you do it if it helped win you an argument? It tires people out so well don’t you think?
569 gabi319
April 18th, 2009 at 4:43 am

Mark, you’re a jerk.

haha…I mean that with the utmost LOVE and AFFECTION.
570 Mark
April 18th, 2009 at 4:50 am

568. gabi319 : BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! You’re stuck with me Gabi, for as long as I wanna be here, this is going to be fun.

By the way, very important announcement. I am back in the No.2 spot, yay! Gonna take over oouchan within a coupla days and then everything will be back to the way it should be
571 gabi319
April 18th, 2009 at 4:56 am

Remember, that list determines quantity and NOT quality of comments

Sometimes I despise LV… Yet again I’m going to be almost late to the gym. Breast cancer fundraiser today so I really can’t be late… Have fun, all. And please keep the crazies from writing anything stupid. I can stop by before work but won’t be able to rant
572 Mark
April 18th, 2009 at 4:59 am

571. gabi319 : Ooooh, burn… Did you just call oouchan’s comments poor-quality? Now that was uncalled for

Don’t worry, I’ll be on guard. Although, I don’t think I’ll be doing your ranting so well. Yet again, where’s Pi when you need him?
573 oouchan
April 18th, 2009 at 6:12 am

Funny how your mind leaped to me, Mark. I will admit at least that not all of my comments are “on topic” or of “relevent” value, but I like the conversations here.

Since I don’t know much about the bible (having locked that part away from my early childhood) I can’t get involved in the debates as much here. So having said that, thank you Matt for the enlightning read.
574 Mark
April 18th, 2009 at 6:17 am

573. oouchan : Hey, if we’re talking about off-topic comments I’m the last to be pointing the finger – except Anon

I know jack-all about the Bible too, I’m only 16 remember
575 Askelon
April 18th, 2009 at 4:10 pm

@Travisthechimp
By what absolute truth do you assume that one’s day can be blessed?
576 gabi319
April 18th, 2009 at 5:10 pm

572. Mark – “Ooooh, burn… Did you just call oouchan’s comments poor-quality? Now that was uncalled for ”

Touché, Mark.
577 Maggot
April 18th, 2009 at 5:14 pm

Mark, you directed some comments towards me earlier in this thread but my attention got misdirected (both here and offline) so I didn’t have a chance to respond yet. Sorry, I wasn’t ignoring you or your points.

477: I think you misinterpreted that, if science couldn’t explain everything, then we’ve been sitting here saying “It’ll be all sweet, just give it time and they’ll know we were right”.

Nah, I don’t think evolutionists or the science community in general have that kind of revenge-oriented agenda. Maybe some small minority do, I don’t mean to imply that as an absolute. On the contrary though, I think the other side definitely does think this way towards non-believers.

535: but if you are wrong about the grand scheme of things, boy you’re screwed.

Meh. See above.

(re multiple wives) Is there anything inherently wrong with that one? I mean, I agree with the others, but the only reason you say that is because of – funnily enough actually – the Christian, and most other religion’s – way of union.

No, that’s not the reason I included it. It’s a model based on male chauvinism, which IMO is wrong, and the Bible is wrong in condoning it.

All I can say is that if you were here just to “Prove the nutcase wrong” you were wasting your time. I think Maggot also misses the point in that regard….It’s not the end of the world and maybe you should stop bothering if you’re trying to achieve the aforementioned results.

I can’t speak for Matt or cym or gabi or anyone else that shares my POV, but I just don’t think that kind of crap should be allowed to spew unabated in this type of public forum. So what if all it does is drive a particular nutcase further into their own stubbornness. May another reader or participant who might be on the fence will see the fallacies for what they are. If you think it’s a waste of time, so be it. I don’t think it is.
578 gabi319
April 18th, 2009 at 6:06 pm

Mark c/o Maggot 577: I can’t speak for Matt or cym or gabi or anyone else…

Maggot: Speak on my behalf freely because that is what I think as well on pretty much any topic where I feel lies are being told as truth. On another list, someone had an issue with the fact that I corrected his comment. If he wants to believe crap that isn’t true, then fine, but if he wants to tell people to believe that crap then I feel obligated to step in.

Mark: Express opinions without coming to a mutual conclusion. Fine. See another person’s point of view. I do that all the time, Mark. But to sit complacently to the side while someone tells lies that someone else may believe as truth? Well, that, I just won’t do.

As far as you being put off by the tone of Maggot and Matt Howard…It’s like I told you elsewhere: “I call it as I see it.” and I’m sure that’s what these two are doing. Given that they’ve presented these same points ad nauseum, the frustration’s bound to get the best of us at times, particularly with those who are stubbornly believing fallacies and twisting words and evidence to fit conclusions (No one DARE mention ‘presuppositions’. I think I get angrier about that now than the ‘man from monkey’ nonsense). You can’t tell me you haven’t felt frustration like that before, Mark. Perhaps not on LV but elsewhere? You see, there are always certain issues that get people riled up and Creationist Fallacies appears to be a hot button issue for a number of us.
579 Zoombafoo
April 19th, 2009 at 7:31 am

with god, there is no such thing as “Christ like figures who predate jesus” no one was like Jesus, no matter how “good” they were or how many simalarities they shared.
580 lostatsea
April 19th, 2009 at 9:03 am

Stizzy; you make me dizzy!!
Max Plank in 1900 found that light was composed of photons and was the father of quantum mechanics. There is a good documetary on CBC on Velikofsky ‘Bonds of the past’ which deals with the catastrophies in not only the bible but also in Egyptian scrolls. Our universe is not a stable entity but one of instability where collisions between galaxies is the norm. God seems to have done a poor job at creation where so much instability happens!! There have been many collisions with comets and asteroids in Earths history and the major ones actually changed the shape and tilt of our planet. That is fact and not fiction. Adam and Eve, really, that is fiction.
I realise that your dogmatic literal reading of the bible and use, to counter any attack will only entrench your intransigence. As we have seen in recent times earthquakes create tsunamis and asteroids or comets able to change the surface crust would displace enormous volumes of water, so heavenly bodies did cause floods but it was not God which did it!
581 Stizzy
April 19th, 2009 at 12:41 pm

hehe I love you guys you guys are awesome.
582 Stizzy
April 19th, 2009 at 1:28 pm

A note on the Bible btw, there are things that are descriptive, not prescriptive. It’s clear from Genesis what the prognosis was on marriage. One man and one woman shall become one flesh. Anything beyond that was outside of God’s will, so to say that the Bible was male chauvanistic is to be ignorant of the Bible.

If you don’t mind me saying, there seems to be a lot of mudslinging going on here and a lot of posturing but nothing much beyond that.

Lostatsea: Yes the universe is disordered and in bad shape. I believe I mentioned elsewhere that with the fall of man came the fall of the universe. God didn’t create it so out of wack, it became that way due to the actions of man. What we see now, even in it’s beauty, is a shadow of what once was.

And people always take the actions of God and reduce them to “God waving a magic wand”. There may be natural causes for catastrophies, and whos to say God that in this particular instance, it happened by God’s leave? Does it always have to be a purely supernatural event to warrant God’s hand? Saying Adam & Eve is fiction doesn’t make it fiction, show me why.
583 lostatsea
April 19th, 2009 at 5:02 pm

Stizzy; the universe fell because of man!!! Just how old do you think the earth is?, or the universe for that matter?
Calling you intransigent is not mudslinging just frustration with someone who disavows anthropological evidence.
584 Maggot
April 19th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

(582) Ya might want to think twice about calling others ignorant, Stizzy.
585 Looser
April 19th, 2009 at 5:51 pm

I would like to congratulate everyone who has commented on this list it takes up 174 pages on microsoft word. size nine font. if you want a [edited for spelling and some punctuation] manuscript of it email me at mblechdog@gmail.com (if you are wierd about this kinda stuff like me)
586 Looser
April 19th, 2009 at 5:58 pm

never mind editing takes too much time.
587 Rising Falls
April 19th, 2009 at 6:07 pm

Stizzy, explain how eating fruit from a tree by Adam and Eve messes up the universe. I truly want to know the answer to this.
588 Mark
April 19th, 2009 at 8:10 pm

577. Maggot : “…Nah, I don’t think evolutionists or the science community in general have that kind of revenge-oriented agenda….”

I didn’t mean it in a revenge orientated manner, just in general. If you are wrong and science doesn’t explain everything, then you are screwed – to an extent – or at the very least you were very mistaken.

“…No, that’s not the reason I included it. It’s a model based on male chauvinism, which IMO is wrong, and the Bible is wrong in condoning it…”

Yes, chauvinism may be a bad quality in a man – unless your name happens to be James Bond – but why is having more than one wife chauvinistic, in itself?

“…I can’t speak for Matt or cym or gabi or anyone else that shares my POV, but I just don’t think that kind of crap should be allowed to spew unabated in this type of public forum. So what if all it does is drive a particular nutcase further into their own stubbornness. May another reader or participant who might be on the fence will see the fallacies for what they are. If you think it’s a waste of time, so be it. I don’t think it is.”

It’s not a *complete* waste of time, just just using as much time and energy as some of you here do is. I can understand that you don’t want others to come here and be “corrupted” by what Stizzy is saying, but you only need to work so hard to prevent it. I think I was doing enough by myself to present the other side of the argument, then you all barge in here and start insulting the guy… Hardly seems fair…
589 Mark
April 19th, 2009 at 8:13 pm

578. gabi319 : “…You can’t tell me you haven’t felt frustration like that before, Mark. Perhaps not on LV but elsewhere?…”

No, I’ve definitely felt it on LV before – Creationism thread for just as sec, and pretty much all of the music threads I’ve foolishly commented on – so I do understand. But the thing is that before I start writing every comment like Maggot and Matt I’ll take some time out, go play some guitar, listen to some music, study a bit, *then* I’ll come back and comment. That’s how I avoid being too hostile and making a fool of myself.
590 Mark
April 19th, 2009 at 8:16 pm

581. Stizzy : Yep, I know I am

584. Maggot : In practice there are many things worse than hypocrisy. The advice he gave wasn’t bad in itself – you just have to read into it to get it – keep an open mind. Because after all, if Stizzy came in tomorrow and proved that God was real, would you believe him?
591 Commodianus
April 19th, 2009 at 9:42 pm

People can believe this or not, it’s independently verifiable:

People have increasingly tried to use December 25th as an “angle of attack” on Christianity due to alleged similarities with “other similar figures”.

A quick Google search of “debunking Jesus similarities” should offer quite a bit of insight into this.

In the first 200 years of Christian history, no mention is made of the calendar date of Jesus’ birth. Not until the year 336 do we find the first mention of a celebration of His birth.

So these alleged similarities are done post hoc.

Speculation on the proper date began in the 3rd and 4th centuries, when the idea of fixing Christ’s birthday started. Quite a controversy arose among Church leaders. Some were opposed to such a celebration. Origen Adamantius (185-254) strongly recommended against such an innovation.

“In the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners who make great rejoicings over the day in which they were born into this world” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908 edition, Vol. 3, p. 724, “Natal Day”).

If Origen Adamantius (Christian church father and philosopher) had his way, we would still have
Christianity, just no Christmas, and certainly no Dec. 25th.

During this time (3rd and 4th century) eight specific dates during six different months were proposed by various groups. December 25, although one of the last dates to be proposed, was the one finally accepted by the leadership of the Western church (which is to say Rome).

For several hundred years various Churches celebrated the birthday of Jesus on different dates. The eastern Churches kept it on January 6th, now the Epiphany. Other Churches chose April 24th or 25th and some placed it in May. Only in 354 AD did the Church choose December 25th as the date to celebrate the birth of Christ.

LET’S DRAW A REAL PARALLEL:

Presidents day, was originally a commemoration of George Washington’s birthday in 1796 (the last full year
of his presidency). Washington, according to the calendar that has been used since at least the mid-18th century, was born on February 22, 1732. According to the old style calendar in use back then, however, he was born on February 11. At least in 1796, many Americans celebrated his birthday on the 22nd while others marked the occasion on the 11th instead.

By the early 19th century, Washington’s Birthday had taken firm root in the American experience as a bona fide national holiday. Then along came Abraham Lincoln, another revered president and fellow February baby (born on the 12th of the month). The first formal observance of his birthday took place in 1865, the year after his assassination, when both houses of Congress gathered for a memorial address. While Lincoln’s Birthday did not become a federal holiday like George Washington’s, it did become a legal holiday in several states.

In 1968, legislation (HR 15951) was enacted that affected several federal holidays. One of these was Washington’s Birthday, the observation of which was shifted to the third Monday in February each year whether or not it fell on the 22nd. This act, which took effect in 1971, was designed to simplify the yearly calendar of holidays and give federal employees some standard three-day weekends in the process.

While the holiday in February is still officially known as Washington’s Birthday (at least according to the Office of Personnel Management), it has become popularly (and, perhaps in some cases at the state level, legally) known as “President’s Day.” This has made the third Monday in February a day for honoring both Washington and Lincoln, as well as all the other men who have served as president.
592 Matt Howard
April 19th, 2009 at 9:48 pm

Mark: I do actually agree with your philosophy. I mean I was harsh and I realize that, and it would serve me better in future to do what you suggest and take some ‘time out’ before I reply to a creationist in haste. I also think I read somewhere on here that you’re 16? Correct me if I’m mistaken. My point is that Stizzy seems like a genuine guy. He most likely is an extremely flattering and sincerely nice person, a person you could easily get talking to in a pub and strike up a friendship. Maybe your youth is a factor in believing Stizzy’s personality makes up for his abhorrent scientific beliefs, but that sounds pretty condescending and I wouldn’t necessarily use that as an argument against you, more like a compliment for the nonjudgmental nature of young people (again, if you’re over 16, I apologize).

There is something more sinister going on with creationists though (When I say creationists, I mean young Earth, global flood, no Evolution types). I don’t mean to sound like a doomsayer, or a fear monger (watch out! The scary creationist will get ya!). What I’m taking about is the purposeful and quite devious way that creationists go about their ‘research’. Their most common argument is that they interpret evidence differently. Stephen Jay Gould interpreted the evidence differently from Richard Dawkins (punctuated equilibrium, more or less rapid evolution in a short period of time followed by long periods of stability). Newton interpreted evidence differently from Einstein. Ptolemy interpreted evidence differently from Galileo and Copernicus. What creationists do is IGNORE the evidence. They IGNORE evidence such the layers of re-frozen ice that can be COUNTED (not dated, incase I get the common argument against radiometric dating again) up to 40,000 years ago. They IGNORE evidence of past Egyptian civilizations that existed at the time, and didn’t mention the global flood was supposed to have happened. There are so many, innumerably many pieces of evidence that they ignore in regards to Evolution and the Age of the Earth. In fact, in the Creationist Journal ORIGINS, creationists ADMIT THAT THEY CAN NO LONGER DEFEND A YOUNG EARTH! Here is the source:

http://www.grisda.org/origins/19087.htm

Creationists operate by this one rule. The Bible is the ultimate authority, and if the evidence contradicts ANYTHING in the Bible, then it is the evidence that must be sacrificed, not their beliefs. They will sacrifice the evidence by either ignoring it or trying to ‘twist’ it to conform to their way of thinking (Stizzy actually made this mistake in his big post I initially responded too. He claimed that the fact that there are marine fossils on the top of Mt Everest is proof of a global flood. In fact, and he stumbled through the point completely obliviously, marine fossils on the top of Mt Everest is concrete proof that the mountains once DID exist at sea level, before continental plates, over millions of years, collided together and formed the Himalayas).

I guess the defense of my initially angry response was that too many times I have heard the same old refutable arguments trotted out by creationists who are just too damn stubborn to realize that EVERY SINGLE ONE of their points have been scientifically destroyed. Yet they still keep doing it. That is not something to be respected, and certainly not something that can be justified by the person in question having a nice personality. I’d rather be horrible to people, yet completely honest, than nice to people and purposefully deceitful. Wow. That was a long rant:P
593 bigski
April 19th, 2009 at 9:57 pm

Faith is to be respected concerning just about anything,not just religion.
594 Maggot
April 19th, 2009 at 10:00 pm

588 Mark: at the very least you were very mistaken.

I’ll take my chances.

why is having more than one wife chauvinistic

It’s just not an arrangement based on equality. They’ve become property, to be acquired. And (typically), they’re arranged hierarchically. It’s really another form of oppression. It just fosters a strict patriarchal way of thinking.

then you all barge in here and start insulting the guy

It’s a public forum. He was insulting our intelligence. Albeit, in a “nice” way.

if Stizzy came in tomorrow and proved that God was real, would you believe him?

What kind of proof are you talking about? Well, I think that is all anyone is asking for: proof – empirical evidence acquired via scientific method. Why would I or anyone else not believe that? As has been explained time and again, research scientists aren’t afraid of finding an unexpected answer. It would just change the path going forward for continued research. Why aren’t you holding Stizzy to that same standard?
(if you are and I missed it, sorry. I honestly didn’t get thru your and his entire exchange).
595 Matt Howard
April 19th, 2009 at 10:22 pm

Bigski: What do you mean? If I sit in my car, knowing full well that my engine has been removed by thieves, and I have faith that I can put the key in the ignition and start it up, is that to be respected?
596 Rising Falls
April 19th, 2009 at 10:28 pm

If you think it is alright for a man to have more than one wife, then it should also be alright for a woman to have more than one man. Imagine if two women married the same two men, so that both men are married to the same two women. Nice combo, eh? It’s only fair.
597 Mark
April 19th, 2009 at 10:37 pm

592. Matt Howard : I am 16, but I don’t think my youth has anything at all to do with this matter. Sure, life experience helps, I understand and accept that – I don’t have a choice with a bunch of old people around, I say that with the greatest affection LVers – but this isn’t a matter of cooking myself dinner or picking fruit from the supermarket. This is a matter of intellect and opinion, I don’t have a pre-made, definite opinion like almost everyone else here, that does not make me stupid. On the contrary I believe that I argued quite capably for your side of the argument further up. I do respect you for not saying that my youth *is* the reason I’m not going off at Stizzy, almost all other LVers that know much about me would be. Don’t look at me like that, you’ve all done it, Anon – wherever he went – Gabi, oouchan, Maggot, that’s a *relatively* comprehensive list.

Maybe you’ve heard it a million times, maybe a billion. But when you first went off at Stizzy how many times had you heard it from him? I’m not saying it’s a poor excuse on your behalf, just maybe more calmness would make this thread a bit easier to follow for those of us here purely out of interest. Not to mention that aggressive hostility isn’t going to help you convince those people on the fence.
598 Mark
April 19th, 2009 at 10:49 pm

594. Maggot : “…It’s just not an arrangement based on equality. They’ve become property, to be acquired. And (typically), they’re arranged hierarchically. It’s really another form of oppression. It just fosters a strict patriarchal way of thinking….”

Who said what the arrangement was? I’m not referring to the one (many?) in the Bible, I’m saying that in general, having more than one wife is not inherently wrong or bad.

“…It’s a public forum. He was insulting our intelligence. Albeit, in a “nice” way…”

At least he did it in a nice way

“…Why aren’t you holding Stizzy to that same standard?…”

Because him and I didn’t discuss any physical evidence in our earlier debates. He only really tries hard to convince the hardcore, prove-the-fundie-wrong group of people like you and Matt of God’s existence. All him and I really discuss are more theoretical, philosophical aspects. That’s why I talk to him, it’s enjoyable

596. Rising Falls : Of course it’s fair, and why not? Sure you have an increased chance of catching something, but by using that as an argument you would be almost conceding that having a one partner that you have sex with for enjoyment is also unnecassery and pointless. What other decent reasons are there for only having one spouse?
599 Matt Howard
April 19th, 2009 at 10:53 pm

Mark: I know my point was a little condescending, and trust me, from reading your previous posts I realize that you are more than capable of defending yourself intellectually. I respect you for that. I still defend my point, however, that no matter how accessible, kind or polite a person may be, intellectual honesty alone should be the yardstick by which to measure their character. As YEC’s are at the very least dishonest, not to mention some other stronger criticisms that for the moment I will bite my tongue in order not to mention, I reserve my right to not respect them in the slightest. I will forever respect their rights to hold them views, but I will never respect the views themselves.

I will take your advice, though, and from now on I’ll be more restrained and polite:) I will not, however, respect Stizzy’s creationist arguments scientifically or philosophically, as I think arguing from the standpoint of an inflexible and intrinsically authoritative source that hasn’t been proven and is contradicted by every piece of scientific evidence is dishonest and intellectually harmful.
600 Mark
April 19th, 2009 at 10:59 pm

599. Matt Howard : “…will take your advice, though, and from now on I’ll be more restrained and polite:) I will not, however, respect Stizzy’s creationist arguments scientifically or philosophically, as I think arguing from the standpoint of an inflexible and intrinsically authoritative source that hasn’t been proven and is contradicted by every piece of scientific evidence is dishonest and intellectually harmful.”

This is where I think most of the anti-YEC arguments hit a hurdle, and usually fall down. If God is omnipotent, how hard would it be to convince these people – that had gone out to disprove him anyway – that they were right? I’m not arguing for YEC, because frankly, I believe just like you that it is a joke, and a bad one at that. But what you fail to see that I think I do, is that maybe you are wrong. There’s no guarantees that you’re right until science has filled all of the gaps, and even then… *whispers* I heard he’s all powerful or something like that man…
601 Stizzy
April 19th, 2009 at 11:06 pm

587. Rising Falls – April 19th, 2009 at 6:07 pm

Stizzy, explain how eating fruit from a tree by Adam and Eve messes up the universe. I truly want to know the answer to this.

—

Certainly
Tis not the fruit itself that is the root of all evil, but the act of eating it and motivation behind the act. When God created man, He created Him intrinsicly linked to the rest of creation, perhaps on a level beyond the physical. I believe He created us with an inate ability to affect our physical environment through spiritual or metaphysical means.

In a sense, it could be said that as an intelligent, physical being, Adam in effect “spoke for” all physical creation. His act was an act of disobedience. Hence, by doing it, he came to know what it is to do something against God’s will and thus know evil. The corruption experienced on a spiritual level resonated physically throughout the universe, shifting all creation out of line with God’s will. Without His life sustaining power, all things enter a state of decay.
602 Matt Howard
April 19th, 2009 at 11:07 pm

Mark: I never said I was right and that I had all the answers. All I was saying, and I will defend this, is that things like Noah’s Ark, the Earth being 10,000 years old, the Tower of Babel as an explanation for the proliferation of languages, are extremely weak explanations that not only lack evidence, but most importantly contradict current evidence. Aside from the philosophical arguments in the Bible which are open to interpretation from not only secular scholars, but other Christian denominations, the historical stories have absolutely no supporting evidence with which to prove their claims.

There’s no guarantee that I’m right. There’s no guarantee that I will ever be right! But what I’m arguing against is believing in things that have been proven wrong. Then again, I could wake up tomorrow with Ragnarok going on all around me, and Thor trying to hammer my arse and prevent me from getting into Valhalla, so I don’t know what to believe:P
603 Stizzy
April 19th, 2009 at 11:08 pm

584. Maggot – April 19th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

(582) Ya might want to think twice about calling others ignorant, Stizzy.

—–
I said others were ignorant of the Bible if they look at everything as prescriptive, and it’s true. Doesn’t make them ignorant in a complete overarching sense in every way.
604 Mark
April 19th, 2009 at 11:15 pm

602. Matt Howard : I agree with you – sorry Stiz – that the Bible if taken literally is stupid at best, which is why I agree that YEC is *insanely* stupid. I don’t know what to believe though, which is exactly why I keep an open mind.
605 Stizzy
April 19th, 2009 at 11:17 pm

Also, I don’t recall being rude, abusive or disrespectful to anyones intelligence so I fail to see how I was insulting it. Not to mention it would be presumptuous of me to assume to know the level of peoples intelligence and therefore insult it

—
“I will take your advice, though, and from now on I’ll be more restrained and polite:) I will not, however, respect Stizzy’s creationist arguments scientifically or philosophically, as I think arguing from the standpoint of an inflexible and intrinsically authoritative source that hasn’t been proven and is contradicted by every piece of scientific evidence is dishonest and intellectually harmful.”

I appreciate that you’ll be more polite however I don’t see how we can possibly talk about anything when I’m not given the right to believe what I believe whether privately or publicly. You want to remove any ground I stand on by denying me the right to be respected. Should I therefore not respect your naturalistic arguments, scientifically or philosophically?

You argue that there is no evidence for stories within the Bible. Many times the Bible has been shown to be on point in terms of archeology. For years people said neither Jericho or Ninevah existed and therefore the stories were false. They must have been embarrassed when both were uncovered.

There are historians who also question the current egyptian chronology, believing that certain rulers who are said to have ruled one after another may have ruled simultaneously in different parts of Egypt, which would reduce egyptian chronology significantly.

I also wonder, and this is out of curiousity, what kind of physical evidence for the existence of a spiritual being would people count as viable?
606 Stizzy
April 19th, 2009 at 11:25 pm

I understand what you mean Mark about taking things literally

One has to understand though that God presents a reality, a picture of the universe, that exists on not just a physical but a spiritual plane. The Bible presents things that are descriptive and prescriptive. It speaks of things literally and figuratively. It presents dual natures in many instances.

What I often find is that people will try and make a physically based case against God, as well as prescriptive and literal cases against the Bible, completely ignoring the other side.

It’s similar with Jesus, some will argue either for complete humanity or complete spiritualiy, forgetting that His very nature was presented as both.

Food for thought
607 Mark
April 19th, 2009 at 11:30 pm

606. Stizzy : If you don’t take the Bible literally then why advocate that POV here, where people obviously aren’t fond of it?
608 Matt Howard
April 19th, 2009 at 11:33 pm

Stizzy: Read my post carefully. I will eternally respect your right to believe whatever you want. If you want to believe that the Universe is merely the dream of some super creature and we are all figments of it’s imagination, fine! What I won’t do is respect your beliefs based solely on the fact that you believe them. I will also not respect your intellectual capabilities if those beliefs are held in the face of such overwhelming evidence. Would you honestly respect someones intellectual capabilities if they kept asserting and asserting that the Earth was flat, and every time you tried to point out how the evidence doesn’t support that view, they just kept asserting that it does?

You can choose whether or not to respect my naturalistic arguments. The difference is I back them up with evidence, with the consensus of the scientific community, with logic and with reason.

I apologize for the generalization I made in respect to the Bible. In fact, I believe Jesus did exist, as opposed to some Atheists who assert that he didn’t. I just don’t think he was supernatural. Of course, some things in the Bible are true, in terms of locations, times, people. However, there are a lot of things that aren’t, and those things are exactly the things you assert to be true (Noah’s Ark, Tower of Babel, the great Flood). You then either ignore all the evidence that discredits these theories or try to twist it in order to fit your beliefs. If I may, here is an actual document that you MUST sign if you want to be a member of the CRS (Creation Research Society):

“CRS Statement of Belief

All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.”

THAT is why I have no respect for creationists. Again, I will say I respect, and would vehemently DEFEND, their right to hold that view, but on an intellectual, scientific level, it is about as fraudulent as you can get.

Physical evidence for a supreme being? If all creatures on Earth suddenly levitated, a big man appeared from the sky, in full view of every person on Earth, and said “I am God and I exist”. That would change my mind. But what I won’t do is INFER it’s existence from ignorance. I won’t go “hmm, well, I can’t explain a certain aspect of the Earth or the Universe, so it MUST be a creator!”. That’s the intellectual equivalent of running away.
609 Stizzy
April 19th, 2009 at 11:42 pm

607. Mark – April 19th, 2009 at 11:30 pm

606. Stizzy : If you don’t take the Bible literally then why advocate that POV here, where people obviously aren’t fond of it?

—

The point I’m making Mark is that not everything in the Bible is literal, but in order to know what is and want isn’t, you have to actually read and understand it. You have to understand interpretation according to scripture. Scripture interprets scripture and there are certain things that simply won’t be understood apart from the guidance of God Himself.

If everything in the Bible was to be taken literally, I should expect that at the end of time, on the day of judgement, I’ll either be turned into a lamb or a goat for all eternity.

—–

Matt, I don’t understand how what you quoted is fraudulent on an intellectual or scientific level. There are many scientists who held those same views and made remarkable advances in their fields.

Also, what if people did see a man who claimed to be God and performed miracles and wrote down their account of said events, would that change your mind?

And I don’t believe it’s as simple as “I can’t explain this, therefore there MUST be a creator.” I look at the workings of the cell and I see design. I recognise it as design because I see similarities in things that have been designed by people, and they aren’t even as complex. Is that intellectually running away? Whether I can explain whether the cell came about through natural means or not, I can certainly say that it looks like it was designed to me, which would indicate a designer.
610 Matt Howard
April 20th, 2009 at 12:00 am

Stizzy: It’s not fraudulent if you hold them beliefs. It IS fraudulent if those beliefs are a REQUIREMENT before you can conduct scientific investigation! Many scientists hold religious beliefs, but those beliefs aren’t a prerequisite to how scientific research is conducted, and they aren’t used as a infallible guide that cannot be changed! Telling someone that before they conduct any research, they must believe in the Noachian Flood as truth, before any type of inquiry has been conducted, is intellectually fraudulent! The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany did exactly the same thing when it came to scientific research and historical publications; they told the scientists and historians exactly what they must believe before hand, which in turn negatively affected their work because it put an unnecessary filter on intellectual freedom. As a result, incredibly biased, factually wrong research was published. It was a disgrace.

If you’ll notice in my last post, I said EVERY human being, removing the possibility of bias or hallucination. It was just a silly example of the kind of evidence that would be needed before a believe in a supreme being would be justified.

Cells do look designed. The whole Universe looks designed. But there is a massive difference between how things look and how things actually are. If you want to look at them and believe a designer made them, fine. But I look at the same things and realize that Evolution and Natural selection offer much more comprehensive explanations for, what I consider, the illusion of design in biological organisms. In regards to the Universe, it does look designed on the surface. But if you delve into the murky world of quantum physics, you will see it looks anything BUT designed! It is the absolute opposite of order; chaos reigns, particles jump in and out of existence, they can exist in two place at once, they vibrate erratically and the laws of physics simply don’t apply to them. Is that really evidence of design?

Let me put it this way. Even if Evolution was totally false, how is that proof of design? If there is a shoe at the bottom of a well, and someone says to me “well, there are two explanations; someone threw it down there, or an elf stole it at night and dragged it down there” that doesn’t mean that if I can’t prove
611 Matt Howard
April 20th, 2009 at 12:04 am

(cont.) that someone threw it down there, then an elf stole it! Before I leap to that conclusion, I would need proof of Elves and proof that a particular elf stole the shoe. Same goes for Evolution and creationism. Even if Evolution was wrong, before you concluded creationism was right you would need proof.
612 Stizzy
April 20th, 2009 at 12:33 am

Stizzy: It’s not fraudulent if you hold them beliefs. It IS fraudulent if those beliefs are a REQUIREMENT before you can conduct scientific investigation! Many scientists hold religious beliefs, but those beliefs aren’t a prerequisite to how scientific research is conducted, and they aren’t used as a infallible guide that cannot be changed! Telling someone that before they conduct any research, they must believe in the Noachian Flood as truth, before any type of inquiry has been conducted, is intellectually fraudulent!
—-
An organisation such as Answers in Genesis specialises in teaching the biblical authority of the Bible and the book of Genesis. As such, it wouldn’t make sense for those people not to believe it.

They also use their world-view to aim their research. This doesn’t mean that it affects the means that they perform experiments but that they may perform experiments other scientists wouldn’t think of or bother to do because they hold naturalistic presuppositions. Their view may not be a prerequisit for how research is conducted, but it will certainly affect how they interpret their findings. And the same can be said for scientists with an evolutionary world view. They use the scientific method, and their conclusions are centered around the evolutionary world view.

“The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany did exactly the same thing when it came to scientific research and historical publications; they told the scientists and historians exactly what they must believe before hand, which in turn negatively affected their work because it put an unnecessary filter on intellectual freedom. As a result, incredibly biased, factually wrong research was published. It was a disgrace.”

What were these scientists told that they must believe and how did it affect their research?

“If you’ll notice in my last post, I said EVERY human being, removing the possibility of bias or hallucination. It was just a silly example of the kind of evidence that would be needed before a believe in a supreme being would be justified.”

Didn’t catch that bit, my mistake Even if everyone on the planet saw the same thing, doesn’t mean that they would agree on what they saw and not have a bias. You have to draw the line somewhere.

“Cells do look designed. The whole Universe looks designed. But there is a massive difference between how things look and how things actually are.”

Isn’t it more a question of which is more plausible? If everything looks designed, is it not more plausible that there IS a designer?

“But I look at the same things and realize that Evolution and Natural selection offer much more comprehensive explanations for, what I consider, the illusion of design in biological organisms.”

Can evolution offer a more comprehensive explanation for how you are able to logically deduce this? What basis do you have to rely on your senses to see design as an illusion? I don’t see how we should expect the universe to be rationally understandable in the evolutionary world view.

“In regards to the Universe, it does look designed on the surface. But if you delve into the murky world of quantum physics, you will see it looks anything BUT designed! It is the absolute opposite of order; chaos reigns, particles jump in and out of existence, they can exist in two place at once, they vibrate erratically and the laws of physics simply don’t apply to them. Is that really evidence of design?”

So it’s a world beyond the purely natural and potentially beyond naturalistic assumptions? Almost like something that exists in an unpredictable, spiritual vein. Sounds a lot like the fingerprint of a particular designer to me one who deals with duality that seems inexplicable.

Spiritual & physical
Prescriptive & descriptive
Figurative & literal
Order & chaos
God & man

It makes me wonder by what channel does this apparent chaos become ordered. In what manner do you believe this chaos becomes ordered?

“Let me put it this way. Even if Evolution was totally false, how is that proof of design?”

No one said it was, but it does leave it as an alternative does it not?

“If there is a shoe at the bottom of a well, and someone says to me “well, there are two explanations; someone threw it down there, or an elf stole it at night and dragged it down there” that doesn’t mean that if I can’t prove that someone threw it down there, then an elf stole it! Before I leap to that conclusion, I would need proof of Elves and proof that a particular elf stole the shoe. Same goes for Evolution and creationism. Even if Evolution was wrong, before you concluded creationism was right you would need proof.”

With the whole idea of the elf, surely you would use common sense and experience to make a deduction. It’s far more likely a person threw a shoe down there than an elf, because I know the characteristics of people, I have met people and I have seen them do similar. I don’t know elves, never met an elf and never seen an elf do similar.

It’s far more likely a designer designed the universe, because I know the characteristics of designers, I have met designers and I have seem them design things. A painting, for example, when you go deep enough will look like a chaotic spattering of particles, minerals, liquids and colours, yet we see how it’s all been ordered to produce something of design.
613 Matt Howard
April 20th, 2009 at 1:09 am

Stizzy: Lets start from the bottom:)

In regards to your Elf solution. You just answered your own question! It is FAR more likely for Evolution to have occurred due to the evidence, where as there is no proof of God or the mechanism of design.

“It makes me wonder by what channel does this apparent chaos become ordered. In what manner do you believe this chaos becomes ordered?”

String theory:P Seriously though, we don’t quite know yet. Not to say String Theory is weak; it offers a magnificent explanation of how Gravity and the Strong/Weak nuclear and electro-magnetic forces interact. I just have doubts about it’s testability. We know that gravity governs the order of the Universe above the quantum level, and we know the strong/weak nuclear and electro-magnetism work in the quantum. We don’t know as of yet how they interact with each other definitely, however that is not an excuse to throw God into the mix. That is a classic ‘God of the gaps’ argument i.e. if we can’t explain it right at this moment, God dun it!

“Can evolution offer a more comprehensive explanation for how you are able to logically deduce this? What basis do you have to rely on your senses to see design as an illusion? I don’t see how we should expect the universe to be rationally understandable in the evolutionary world view.”

What you fail to understand is that the evolutionary world view came about solely due to the evidence the world presents, not the other way around. We didn’t pull Evolutionary theory out of our behinds then try to find things in nature that fit, we found things in nature that lead us to formulate the current Evolutionary synthesis. Evolution provides us with a workable model that explains how things that look designed (The Eye) can evolve from lesser complex things. The eye was once a mainstay of the ID movement, a model of Irreducible Complexity. More research by qualified scientists has fully explained how the Eye evolved not just in humans, but in the animal kingdom in general. That is why Evolution offers a better explanation than just ‘well it’s too complex for me to understand how it formed, ergo, something made it’.

While we are on the subject of ID, if there was a God that designed everything…what was he thinking?! There are some examples of TERRIBLE design in the animal kingdom, and the human eye is about the worst! Our optic nerve runs right across our lens, which gives us a blind spot. Octopuses evolved differently, and their lens is in front of the optic nerve. Why would a designer give us such a crappy eye? I’m actually wearing glasses now as I type this because my eyes are crap:)

“Isn’t it more a question of which is more plausible? If everything looks designed, is it not more plausible that there IS a designer?”

No. Evolution can, and has, demonstrated how the successive evolution of complex structures from less complex structures can give the illusion of design when, in reality, it is fully explainable. There is a common misconception that evolution adds layers upon layers of extra ‘stuff’ to each evolved system. That isn’t the case. Evolution can replace redundant parts (for example, the tailbone in humans) and render that part useful in another regards (the tailbone in humans NOW acts as a support for the sphincter). This is an example of a once useful part (a tail) that is now redundant being incorporated into a useful attribute (a support structure).

“What were these scientists told that they must believe and how did it affect their research?”

Soviet Union historians were told to downplay the significance of the Holocaust in relation to the Jews, and restructure it as a massive tragedy ONLY for Soviets and Communism in general. Absolutely abhorrent and dishonest. Researchers in Nazi Germany were told to look for evidence in Nepal that supported their racial theories, and when they couldn’t find any, they simply made it up. Both examples of how authoritative world-views that are pre-requisites for scientific and historical research can adversely affect the quality of the output.

“An organisation such as Answers in Genesis specialises in teaching the biblical authority of the Bible and the book of Genesis. As such, it wouldn’t make sense for those people not to believe it.”

Exactly. Therefore, it’s not a science.

What you seem to view Evolution as, Stizzy, is a competing religion. There are ‘evolutionists’ who pulled Evolution out of thin air, and now go about the world trying to find snippets of information that support their beliefs. It is EXACTLY the opposite. Evolutionary theory came about due to the detailed study of the world; it is a by-product of scientific research and rigorous study, supported by observable and testable evidence.

Creationism is based on people believing in a book that is not, nor can be, confirmed as true. They then go out and try to find bits and pieces of natural data that support their view, and ignore the bits that don’t, which unfortunately is nearly all the evidence.

I think that pretty much covered all your questions.
614 Stizzy
April 20th, 2009 at 2:08 am

“In regards to your Elf solution. You just answered your own question! It is FAR more likely for Evolution to have occurred due to the evidence, where as there is no proof of God or the mechanism of design.”

See, you placed evolution as the person throwing the shoe and placed creationism as the elf, when its just as easy and makes more sense to reverse the roles.

“String theory:P Seriously though, we don’t quite know yet. Not to say String Theory is weak; it offers a magnificent explanation of how Gravity and the Strong/Weak nuclear and electro-magnetic forces interact. I just have doubts about it’s testability. We know that gravity governs the order of the Universe above the quantum level, and we know the strong/weak nuclear and electro-magnetism work in the quantum. We don’t know as of yet how they interact with each other definitely, however that is not an excuse to throw God into the mix. That is a classic ‘God of the gaps’ argument i.e. if we can’t explain it right at this moment, God dun it!”

So in other words, faith shouldn’t come into it?

Here’s a lovely definition of faith: Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.

You hope science will answer the questions you don’t know the answer to, and hold your faith in science as the evidence for the answers that will surely come.

You say it’s not an excuse to throw God into the mix, I say it’s not an excuse to take Him out. You start by assuming He isn’t even there, I start by assuming He is. Therefore you see me as trying to throw Him in, I see you as trying to throw Him out. When it boils down to it, we don’t get anywhere and it’s irrelevant to keep referring to “God of the gaps”.

“We didn’t pull Evolutionary theory out of our behinds then try to find things in nature that fit, we found things in nature that lead us to formulate the current Evolutionary synthesis.”

And who said we pulled God out of our behinds? It’s the same thing I said above.

“What you fail to understand is that the evolutionary world view came about solely due to the evidence the world presents, not the other way around. We didn’t pull Evolutionary theory out of our behinds then try to find things in nature that fit, we found things in nature that lead us to formulate the current Evolutionary synthesis. Evolution provides us with a workable model that explains how things that look designed (The Eye) can evolve from lesser complex things. The eye was once a mainstay of the ID movement, a model of Irreducible Complexity. More research by qualified scientists has fully explained how the Eye evolved not just in humans, but in the animal kingdom in general. That is why Evolution offers a better explanation than just ‘well it’s too complex for me to understand how it formed, ergo, something made it’.”

I keep hearing this, and yet what I find is a complete lack, where it counts, of the criticisms of this view. More so, I have seen rebuttels to the supposed evolutionary explanation for the eye. Every explanation I’ve seen sounds like a “just-so” story. This happened, then this formed, then that burst into existence, then this changed to that. There’s never a detailed explanation of how this step by step process worked.

“While we are on the subject of ID, if there was a God that designed everything…what was he thinking?! There are some examples of TERRIBLE design in the animal kingdom, and the human eye is about the worst! Our optic nerve runs right across our lens, which gives us a blind spot. Octopuses evolved differently, and their lens is in front of the optic nerve. Why would a designer give us such a crappy eye? I’m actually wearing glasses now as I type this because my eyes are crap:)”

How is the human eye inefficient, and why are you wearing glasses? I’m not wearing glasses as I type, does that mean my eyes aren’t crap? We’re both human, we both have human eyes.

Do cephalopods actually see better than humans?

They live in a different environment and live different lifestyles, and many only live for two or three years. Why would their eyes be designed in the exact same way when they aren’t even used in the same way or for the same needs? Our eyes suit our needs very well and evolutionists would agree. Your bad eyesight may not be so much a product of poor design, but a product of corruption to design

“No. Evolution can, and has, demonstrated how the successive evolution of complex structures from less complex structures can give the illusion of design when, in reality, it is fully explainable. There is a common misconception that evolution adds layers upon layers of extra ’stuff’ to each evolved system. That isn’t the case. Evolution can replace redundant parts (for example, the tailbone in humans) and render that part useful in another regards (the tailbone in humans NOW acts as a support for the sphincter). This is an example of a once useful part (a tail) that is now redundant being incorporated into a useful attribute (a support structure).”

Come on now, even if evolutionary theory can provide an alternative explanation for design, doesn’t it still make more logical sense that there was a designer? It seems to become less a matter of what is more plausible and logical, but which answer you prefer.

“Soviet Union historians were told to downplay the significance of the Holocaust in relation to the Jews, and restructure it as a massive tragedy ONLY for Soviets and Communism in general. Absolutely abhorrent and dishonest.”

But not really anything to do with their scientific method. You also make an assumption that a biblical world-view is abhorrent and dishonest. Seems more like a matter of perspective.

“Researchers in Nazi Germany were told to look for evidence in Nepal that supported their racial theories, and when they couldn’t find any, they simply made it up. Both examples of how authoritative world-views that are pre-requisites for scientific and historical research can adversely affect the quality of the output.”

So what evidence have creationists and ID advocates made up? And it seems to me that for a long time, many people in the world who weren’t Nazi’s or Soviets saw evidence in the world that supported their racial theories, and they acted upon it. The supposed “evidence” was there, but their interpretation was way off base.

“Exactly. Therefore, it’s not a science.”

Quoted from their website:

“Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively.”

Apologetics isn’t a scientific field in and of itself. It’s a field of study concerned with systematic defense. It can use science as a means to this end, but it is not the be all and end all of the organisation.

“What you seem to view Evolution as, Stizzy, is a competing religion. There are ‘evolutionists’ who pulled Evolution out of thin air, and now go about the world trying to find snippets of information that support their beliefs. It is EXACTLY the opposite. Evolutionary theory came about due to the detailed study of the world; it is a by-product of scientific research and rigorous study, supported by observable and testable evidence.”

I would say that evolution as a “competing religion” seems to come naturally from evolutionary assumptions. But you said it, not me I’ve never said people pulled evolution out of thin air, but you presume so for creationists.

Creationism came about due to detailed study of the world through a biblical world view. It is also a by-product of scientific as well as rigurous theological and philosophical study, supported by observable and testable evidence.

“Creationism is based on people believing in a book that is not, nor can be, confirmed as true. They then go out and try to find bits and pieces of natural data that support their view, and ignore the bits that don’t, which unfortunately is nearly all the evidence.”

The evolutionary world view is based on naturalism, which cannot be confirmed as true. That is it’s ultimate standard and it can’t appeal to a greater standard than that, it must appeal to itself. And this is true of any alleged ultimate standard, the Bible included. The accusation you hurl at creationists can easily be made for evolutionists. It’s an empty one either way.

You didn’t pretty much cover all my questions as you failed to account for why we should expect the universe to be rationally understandable in the evolutionary world view.
615 Matt Howard
April 20th, 2009 at 2:48 am

Stizzy:

“See, you placed evolution as the person throwing the shoe and placed creationism as the elf, when its just as easy and makes more sense to reverse the roles.”

Except creationism doesn’t have any positive evidence; it relies on trying to disprove Evolution in order to try and logically claim that if A is disproved, B is proved. Science doesn’t work that way.

“So in other words, faith shouldn’t come into it?

Here’s a lovely definition of faith: Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.

You hope science will answer the questions you don’t know the answer to, and hold your faith in science as the evidence for the answers that will surely come.”

Yep, that’s correct. I place faith in the scientific method, as it is the only method humans have in order to increase our understanding of the Universe. I don’t place faith in a 2000 year old book that hasn’t been shown to be true.

“I keep hearing this, and yet what I find is a complete lack, where it counts, of the criticisms of this view. More so, I have seen rebuttels to the supposed evolutionary explanation for the eye. Every explanation I’ve seen sounds like a “just-so” story. This happened, then this formed, then that burst into existence, then this changed to that. There’s never a detailed explanation of how this step by step process worked.”

There is a step-by-step process if you’d bother to actually read some evolutionary textbooks. Educate yourself on the evolution of the eye; it is a fascinating step-by-step process. While we are on the subject, where is the step-by-step process of creation? How exactly did this intelligent being created us? Did he will us into existence? Did he physically manipulate the materials on the Earth in order to make us? If so, how did he accomplish this and by what mechanisms? Even Duane Gish, an authority on creationism, has said it is not possible to know HOW the creator created because the processes he used are not in use anymore. This is an astonishing statement. Not only does he admit he doesn’t know, he also renders the study of an entire field obsolete by proclaiming we can NEVER know. That is bad science.

“How is the human eye inefficient, and why are you wearing glasses? I’m not wearing glasses as I type, does that mean my eyes aren’t crap? We’re both human, we both have human eyes.

Do cephalopods actually see better than humans?

They live in a different environment and live different lifestyles, and many only live for two or three years. Why would their eyes be designed in the exact same way when they aren’t even used in the same way or for the same needs? Our eyes suit our needs very well and evolutionists would agree. Your bad eyesight may not be so much a product of poor design, but a product of corruption to design”

You missed my point. Why would the creator create a human eye with the optic nerve running across the lens for a creature that lives 70-80 and relies heavily on its eyes to survive, yet create a better designed eye for a creature that has none of the intellectual capabilities of man? My eyesight is bad because the human eye is prone to failure, unlike an Eagle’s eye which can not only see ultra-violet light, but also see unhindered for miles. Why did God design our eyes to fail so badly? I could understand if there was a drawback, for example, if we had the best eyesight on Earth, and failure was due to the constant stress this ability put on us. But we don’t. We have rather mediocre eyes compared to many other animals.

“Come on now, even if evolutionary theory can provide an alternative explanation for design, doesn’t it still make more logical sense that there was a designer? It seems to become less a matter of what is more plausible and logical, but which answer you prefer.”

It doesn’t become an answer to which I prefer; it becomes an answer for which there is more evidence. Let me ask; imagine that evolutionary theory had never been proposed. Imagine that we are living normal lives, and no one had ever heard of evolution. What proof do you have of design? What inherent proof is there that life is created?

The whole reason the scientific method exists is because our perceptions of things are quite often wrong. By your logic, it is preferable to believe that the Sun is moving around us. We can see it. It always does the same thing. We can see that we aren’t moving. It always moves in the same direction. If we trusted our initial ‘hunches’, then more often than not we would be wrong because humans are so prone to making the wrong assumptions based on our subjective senses.

“So what evidence have creationists and ID advocates made up? And it seems to me that for a long time, many people in the world who weren’t Nazi’s or Soviets saw evidence in the world that supported their racial theories, and they acted upon it. The supposed “evidence” was there, but their interpretation was way off base.”

You missed my point. I wasn’t trying to say that ID/Creationism is identical to Nazi Germany. I was making the point that if you start a scientific inquiry with an unconfirmed truth as the base, then you are susceptible to making massive errors. Evolution is not an unconfirmed truth; it is a well documented, well verified, testable, falsifiable fact.

Tell me, what could falsify your theory? What could you discover tomorrow that would lead you to say “well, my hypothesis is wrong; there is no intelligent creator”. I could name a thousand that would prove Evolution wrong. One testable experiment came at the time scientists were studying Chimpanzee mtDNA. The hypothesis was that if chimp mtDNA was non-related to human mtDNA, Evolution would be considerably weakened. The experiment was the comparison between these two mtDNA codes. It was found that humans and chimps shared around 99% of each other’s mtDNA. Evolution passed a testable, falsifiable experiment. Could you name me just ONE test or experiment you could use to falsify your hypothesis?

“I would say that evolution as a “competing religion” seems to come naturally from evolutionary assumptions. But you said it, not me I’ve never said people pulled evolution out of thin air, but you presume so for creationists.”

Again, evolution relies on evidence. Creationism relies on simply trying to disprove evolution, which, even if it succeeded in doing, would not actually prove creation. It would simply mean Evolution was wrong.

“Creationism came about due to detailed study of the world through a biblical world view. It is also a by-product of scientific as well as rigurous theological and philosophical study, supported by observable and testable evidence.”

Creationism came about in the 1960′s due to the reactionary politics of religious leaders in the South who were trying to justify their beliefs scientifically. Again, name some tests that can be constructed to falsify creation.

“The evolutionary world view is based on naturalism, which cannot be confirmed as true. That is it’s ultimate standard and it can’t appeal to a greater standard than that, it must appeal to itself. And this is true of any alleged ultimate standard, the Bible included. The accusation you hurl at creationists can easily be made for evolutionists. It’s an empty one either way.”

‘Naturalism’, by definition, is true because it is the only thing that can be experimented on, tested, and falsified. I don’t even really know what you mean by naturalism. If you simply mean the natural world, then it is inherently true because it is the only paradigm in which were know for certain we exist.

Please provide examples of testable experiments that can falsify creation. I’m not talking about looking at the world and going “it looks like it’s designed, it says it’s designed in the Bible, therefore, it’s designed”. Nor am I talking about simply disproving Evolution. Provide examples of tests.
616 Stizzy
April 20th, 2009 at 3:28 am

“Except creationism doesn’t have any positive evidence; it relies on trying to disprove Evolution in order to try and logically claim that if A is disproved, B is proved. Science doesn’t work that way.”

Here you display your ignorance on creationism as you assume it’s one purpose is to disprove evolution. It disagrees with and competes with evolution, but it’s not the main push of the movement. In like manner, the only purpose of evolution must be to disprove creation. I don’t recall stating that if evolution is disproved creation is proved, and I don’t recall any creationist organisations asserting as such.

“Yep, that’s correct. I place faith in the scientific method, as it is the only method humans have in order to increase our understanding of the Universe.”

Are you sure about that? So philosophy, the arts, sociology and other fields offer nothing to increase our understanding of the universe?

“I don’t place faith in a 2000 year old book that hasn’t been shown to be true.”

I’ll deal with this in a mo…

“There is a step-by-step process if you’d bother to actually read some evolutionary textbooks.”

Why do you assume I haven’t? If I don’t agree with your conclusions, I must not have done anything to find out for myself?

“Did he will us into existence?”
By His will and by His spoken Word. Genesis 1 is full of “God said…” references.

“Did he physically manipulate the materials on the Earth in order to make us?”
He formed us from materials and minerals on the Earth.
Genesis 1:7 “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”

“If so, how did he accomplish this and by what mechanisms?”

And here is where you make the mistake. You assume that everything was an entirely natural process that could be explained by natural processes when God was not just creating a physical being but a spiritual being as well as a physical and spiritual reality.

“You missed my point. Why would the creator create a human eye with the optic nerve running across the lens for a creature that lives 70-80 and relies heavily on its eyes to survive, yet create a better designed eye for a creature that has none of the intellectual capabilities of man?”

And you missed my point, who said the octopus eye is better? There’s debate over whether it even sees in colour.

“Why did God design our eyes to fail so badly?”

Have you not read anything I’ve said about the fall of man and the corruption it caused? It would have caused corruption on a genetic level. Physically we are most likely not what the original man once was. Our eyes weren’t designed to “fail so badly”.

“We have rather mediocre eyes compared to many other animals.”

What is it that makes our eyes mediocre?

“It doesn’t become an answer to which I prefer; it becomes an answer for which there is more evidence.”

And I see more evidence for design than blind chance. Therefore I conclude that you’re acting on preferance.

“imagine that evolutionary theory had never been proposed. Imagine that we are living normal lives, and no one had ever heard of evolution. What proof do you have of design? What inherent proof is there that life is created?”

I believe the apparent design in nature and in the universe that you yourself acknowledged is evidence enough for design.

“By your logic, it is preferable to believe that the Sun is moving around us.”

Preferance is a matter of choice not logic.

“We can see it. It always does the same thing.”

And we can see that complex systems usually have a designer.

“You missed my point. I wasn’t trying to say that ID/Creationism is identical to Nazi Germany. I was making the point that if you start a scientific inquiry with an unconfirmed truth as the base, then you are susceptible to making massive errors. Evolution is not an unconfirmed truth; it is a well documented, well verified, testable, falsifiable fact.”

I didn’t say that’s what you said. You imply that creationists have made up evidence, I asked you which evidence they’ve made up. And evolutionary theory is not a fact. No one has seen goo turn into you. Science is about observation and experimentation. No one has observed this process or produced an experiment that has repeated it. Natural selection on the other hand has been observed and seen reproduced in experimentation.

“Tell me, what could falsify your theory?”

Do you even know what my theory is? I theorise that goo-to-you evolution has not and does not occur. Therefore if someone could show me that it has, if someone could show me that intelligence, information and meaning can be produced from nothing, then that would go a ways to falisifying my theory.

“The hypothesis was that if chimp mtDNA was non-related to human mtDNA, Evolution would be considerably weakened. The experiment was the comparison between these two mtDNA codes. It was found that humans and chimps shared around 99% of each other’s mtDNA. Evolution passed a testable, falsifiable experiment. Could you name me just ONE test or experiment you could use to falsify your hypothesis?”

Couldn’t this experiment have easily been one to indicate common design? If a designer used similar elements in all of His creation, you would expect to find similarities in DNA. And I believe I already answered the last question.

“Again, evolution relies on evidence. Creationism relies on simply trying to disprove evolution, which, even if it succeeded in doing, would not actually prove creation. It would simply mean Evolution was wrong.”

I’m pretty sure I’ve already covered this. You’re making an assumption here that isn’t true.

“‘Naturalism’, by definition, is true because it is the only thing that can be experimented on, tested, and falsified.”

Naturalism assumes that there’s nothing beyond the physical. It can’t experiment, test and / or falsify something that is beyond it. It is an ultimate standard because it must appeal to itself. And here is where I pick up on your point about the Bible. The Bible too must appeal to itself because it is an ultimate standard. Being an ultimate standard, it can’t appeal to a greater source of authority or standard.

“If you simply mean the natural world, then it is inherently true because it is the only paradigm in which were know for certain we exist.”

Yet the question arises about consciousness, is consciousness a physical thing? Are words and ideas and meanings phyiscal things? We know for certain they exist because we are experiencing and using them now. But then (and again I note you missed this question) one must ask, in an evolutionary world view, how do we know that we are conscious, that we are using words, that we are entertaining ideas or applying meaning? You yourself said that our observations can be wrong yet how can evolutionary account for the possibility of our observations also being right? Creationism can account for this because it infers an intelligent designer who designd us to be conscious, to produce ideas, to apply meaning etc.

Question, what test do you think could be done on a computer to falsify it’s design?
617 Matt Howard
April 20th, 2009 at 4:07 am

Stizzy:

You completely sidestepped my request for you to provide a test that could falsify your hypothesis that God created everything. You didn’t even acknowledge if your hypothesis CAN be falsified. If it can’t be falsified it’s not science.

“Here you display your ignorance on creationism as you assume it’s one purpose is to disprove evolution. It disagrees with and competes with evolution, but it’s not the main push of the movement. In like manner, the only purpose of evolution must be to disprove creation. I don’t recall stating that if evolution is disproved creation is proved, and I don’t recall any creationist organisations asserting as such.”

Provide me with an example where creationists construct an experiment to test creationism without resorting to simply trying to destroy Evolution. The purpose of Evolution is to explain the diversity of life on Earth. It has nothing to do with how life got here in the first place; that’s Abiogenesis.

“Are you sure about that? So philosophy, the arts, sociology and other fields offer nothing to increase our understanding of the universe?”

Of course not, but when did I say that science is the only THING? I said the scientific METHOD, which can be applied to all the above fields. Philosophy, specifically logic, is highly influenced by, and in turn influences, the scientific method.

“He formed us from materials and minerals on the Earth.
Genesis 1:7 “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.””

Right. A magic man got a bunch of dust and blew into it. …evidence? How is that an explanation that would satisfy anyone over the age of 3? Provide evidence. Provide lots of evidence.

“I didn’t say that’s what you said. You imply that creationists have made up evidence, I asked you which evidence they’ve made up. And evolutionary theory is not a fact. No one has seen goo turn into you. Science is about observation and experimentation. No one has observed this process or produced an experiment that has repeated it. Natural selection on the other hand has been observed and seen reproduced in experimentation.”

…goo turn into you? You’re really losing it now, Stizzy mate:) No one has ever seen ‘goo’ turn into me, and they never will. We have never actually seen Pluto orbit the sun. It takes around 200 years and we’ve only known about Pluto for 90. Yet we still know it does it, because of..EVIDENCE. By your ridiculous logic, no crime would ever been solved unless the judge had been in the room when the perpetrator killed the victim. And by the way, CREATION WAS NEVER OBSERVED EITHER! You know you’re being asinine, and so do I. You’re right, evolutionary theory is not a fact. Common descent, the passing of genes onto offspring, IS. Please don’t make me explain the mundane ‘theory vs fact’ argument again. Go to this site.

http://www.notjustatheory.com

“Do you even know what my theory is? I theorise that goo-to-you evolution has not and does not occur. Therefore if someone could show me that it has, if someone could show me that intelligence, information and meaning can be produced from nothing, then that would go a ways to falisifying my theory.”

Yes…your theory is that God created everything. Have a look at nylon-eating bacteria. A clear case of information being added to the genome, due to the fact that nylon is, surprise surprise, a man-man synthetic. Can you tell me how your God can come from nothing? Don’t say he is eternal; if it’s valid to say that God doesn’t need a beginning, it’s equally as valid, if not more so, to say the Universe doesn’t need a beginning. Meaning is also a ridiculous point to make. Meaning is a subjective feeling independent of biological processes.

“What is it that makes our eyes mediocre?”

I’ve explained the eye example. It has a bloody big nerve running across the center of the most important part; the lens! THAT’S what makes it less functional than a Octopuses. It’s not useless, it’s not redundant, it could just have been designed a hell of a lot better, but Evolution is not perfect. Evolution is a trade off. Why do we get lower back pain? Why do millions of old people get Osteoporosis? It’s because the human back wasn’t meant to cope with us being bi-pedal! However, us being bi-pedal has provided us with many other useful attributes that outweigh the negative of having a sore back; easier use of the hands, ability to make tools etc etc.

“And here is where you make the mistake. You assume that everything was an entirely natural process that could be explained by natural processes when God was not just creating a physical being but a spiritual being as well as a physical and spiritual reality.”

Again, you’re making claims that lack any type of objective evidence. Prove that a spiritual dimension exists and your question will be valid.

“Yet the question arises about consciousness, is consciousness a physical thing? Are words and ideas and meanings phyiscal things? We know for certain they exist because we are experiencing and using them now. But then (and again I note you missed this question) one must ask, in an evolutionary world view, how do we know that we are conscious, that we are using words, that we are entertaining ideas or applying meaning? You yourself said that our observations can be wrong yet how can evolutionary account for the possibility of our observations also being right? Creationism can account for this because it infers an intelligent designer who designd us to be conscious, to produce ideas, to apply meaning etc.

Question, what test do you think could be done on a computer to falsify it’s design?”

Wow. The computer question. I think you’ve lost it, Stizzy buddy:P We know how a computer is created because we did it. We don’t know that life was created by a being because there is no evidence; all you keep saying is basically the fact that things exist is evidence enough to prove your point. Well I believe aliens created us. That view holds way more credibility than yours because it operates in a framework that me know exists.

How are you applying evolutionary theory to meaning and the cosmos? Evolution deals with how life on Earth diversified after it arose; Cosmology deals with the Big Bang; Abiogenesis deals with how life arose on Earth in the first place. Your asking me to answer questions with the wrong tools. You’re basically asking me something like ‘what does the speed of sound taste like?’ then when I can’t answer adequately claiming that Evolution is therefore unequipped to answer everything. Guess what? Evolution can’t answer everything! It deals with the diversification of life after it came into existence, period.

All I asked you for was a simple explanation of a scientific test. You keep claiming that creationism is as scientifically valid as Evolution, and is far more equipped to answer questions that Evolution apparently can’t. But you can’t even come up with an experiment! That tells me all I need to know.
618 Matt Howard
April 20th, 2009 at 4:19 am

Left a bit out

“Have you not read anything I’ve said about the fall of man and the corruption it caused? It would have caused corruption on a genetic level. Physically we are most likely not what the original man once was. Our eyes weren’t designed to “fail so badly”.”

Again, you’re relying on a 2000 year old book of myths and fairytales in order to try and explain the genetic inequalities between human eyes and Octopus eyes. Provide evidence that the fall of man is what caused our eyes to fail ‘on a genetic level’. You’re right; physically, we are not what the original man was like. Around 2 million years ago our ancestors were quite different to us; smaller skull size, curved spines, more hirsute…
619 Hukkahua
April 20th, 2009 at 5:20 am

Another interesting fact about Krishna is that he belonged to The Jadu clan
620 FTW
April 20th, 2009 at 5:45 am

In medieval times when lightning struck a building and started a fire it was thought to be the work of the devil.When a hurricane or an earthquake destroyed a town it was believed to be the work of the devil. ( it amuses me that these works formerly attributed to the devil are now considered ” Acts of God “.) The Black Death that raged across Europe was considered the devils handiwork . All things bad that happened to man where blamed on the devil. This is why that period of time was know as the dark ages. Since SCIENCE has come to the forefront it has shown us that lightning , hurricanes and earthquakes are all natural phenomena. Science showed us that the plague was carried by fleas on the backs of rats . The devil is no longer blamed for these events . Science has shown us cause and effect. Christians , Jews , Muslims all accept these scientific explanations . It took hundreds of years to crawl out of the dark ages and we are still crawling. The devil has lost his place of prominence. It is only a matter of time before Jesus takes his place amongst the pantheon of mythological figures.
621 Mark
April 20th, 2009 at 5:54 am

620. FTW : “…It is only a matter of time before Jesus takes his place amongst the pantheon of mythological figures.”

Says the naive fool with the huge grin on his face because he thinks he’s solved it…
622 lostatsea
April 20th, 2009 at 6:04 am

Stizzy; you never answered my question regarding your thoughts on how old the universe or earth is!!
Why are many animals homosexual or able to change their sex in order to procreate? Matt; I admire your tenacity and all the other posters who try to inject some sense into an unwinable fight with someone so entrenched in their beliefs.
With the advent of quantum mechanics all our old views of natural order are in flux and the future should prove interesting. I can’t believe how far this has gone and have enjoyed reading all your posts.
Love and peace to all.
ps. for a good site on our global situation please check;
Globalresearch.ca I’m afraid that a great scam is being perpetrated by the US to defraud their taxpayers as the Federal Reserve is a private bank not controlled by the people of America. Sorry for going off topic but it was mentioned earlier!!
623 Matt Howard
April 20th, 2009 at 6:14 am

lostatsea:

Thanks for the encouragement.

As soon as I saw “goo-to-you” “evolution is not fact” and “God created man from minerals” I knew I was genuinely wasting my time. I won’t be conversing anymore, Stizzy. Nice chatting though.
624 Cybogen
April 20th, 2009 at 6:17 am

The existence of Jesus Christ is recorded not only by Josephus and Tacitus, but also by ancient writers such as Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian. And from the Jewish Talmud, “we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God.”3

Thus, historians both favorable and unfavorable regarding Jesus did write about him. Also there were many historical writings about the early Christians.

Note: Many people also have an internal source of confirmation that Jesus existed, and still exists today. The Bible says that God by His Spirit bears witness of Christ (John 15:26) and convinces the world concerning Him (John 16:8-11). So it’s possible for someone without access to ancient historical writings or the Bible to believe that Jesus was real. A person can hear about Jesus from another source, and God can confirm it by His Spirit.
625 Stizzy
April 20th, 2009 at 6:20 am

“You completely sidestepped my request for you to provide a test that could falsify your hypothesis that God created everything. You didn’t even acknowledge if your hypothesis CAN be falsified. If it can’t be falsified it’s not science.”

What I find odd is that you keep demanding physical and scientific proof and testing for a theory that is not PURELY scientific. Creation is about more than science.

“Of course not, but when did I say that science is the only THING? I said the scientific METHOD, which can be applied to all the above fields. Philosophy, specifically logic, is highly influenced by, and in turn influences, the scientific method.”

A method is a thing is it not? And you said the scientific method is the ONLY method, right here:

“Yep, that’s correct. I place faith in the scientific method, as it is the only method humans have in order to increase our understanding of the Universe.”

“Right. A magic man got a bunch of dust and blew into it. …evidence? How is that an explanation that would satisfy anyone over the age of 3? Provide evidence. Provide lots of evidence.”

Not a man my friend. And again, you want me to provide natural evidence for a supernatural event. And this explanation satisfies around a billion people, not all children, around the world so maybe you should look into that question yourself rather than asking me.

“goo turn into you? You’re really losing it now, Stizzy mate:) No one has ever seen ‘goo’ turn into me, and they never will.”

I beg to differ. Many scientists have put forth the theory of life arising from primordial soup. Sounds like goo to me. They further theorise that macro evolution has allowed this soup to progress from single celled to multi-celled organisms. Again, sounds like “goo-to-you” to me.

“By your ridiculous logic, no crime would ever been solved unless the judge had been in the room when the perpetrator killed the victim.”

Only if you presume that mankind is the final judge on all things. Of course, we have witnesses as well as evidence to provide a case. Yet you deny the witness and you deny all the evidence pointing to such a witness.

“And by the way, CREATION WAS NEVER OBSERVED EITHER!”

Not by us, but by the aforementioned witness. It was observed.

“Common descent…IS.”

You’ve done a bit of bait and switch here, I’m pretty sure they’re not the same thing. Common descent implies all organisms at some point arose from some single celled organism. It further implies that apes and humans have a common ape/human-like ancestor. This is not a fact, it’s a theory. A theory is a hypothesis, a hypothesis is a guess.

“Yes…your theory is that God created everything.”

I tell you what my theory is in regards to this discussion, and then you disregard it and tell me what my theory is. Of course, God creating creation is part of it.

“A clear case of information being added to the genome, due to the fact that nylon is, surprise surprise, a man-man synthetic.”

Did not the elements and means to produce nylon previously exist? So who’s to say that the genetic information required to potentially digest nylon wasn’t present in some form? Or that a genetic mutation couldn’t have contributed? There’s nothing to say that the ability to adapt in such a way isn’t an inherent design aspect.

If someone creates an artificial language, they aren’t pulling something out of thin air, they’re working according to pre-existing characteristics and conventions, borrowing from some places and combining other elements to create something “new” but it doesn’t involve additional information being created but uses already present information in a creative way.

“Can you tell me how your God can come from nothing? Don’t say he is eternal.”

See, you keep doing this. You ask me to tell you something and then dictate what the answer can’t be, knowing exactly what answer I would give you.

“if it’s valid to say that God doesn’t need a beginning, it’s equally as valid, if not more so, to say the Universe doesn’t need a beginning.”

How so? Doesn’t everything so far point to the universe having a definite beginning?

And I thought meaning was the message that is intended, expressed or signified. You acknowledge it is independent of biological processes but keep telling me the scientific method can explain everything in the universe.

“I’ve explained the eye example. It has a bloody big nerve running across the center of the most important part; the lens! THAT’S what makes it less functional than a Octopuses.”

And yet scientists will readily acknowledge that our eyes work just fine for what they need to do, so again I ask you, how is this mediocre? An eye’s function is to see and we see just fine. If it’s debatable whether an octopus can see in colour when we can, wouldn’t that make it less functional? For it’s purpose, the octopus eye functions fine. For our purposes, our eyes function just fine.

“Why do we get lower back pain? Why do millions of old people get Osteoporosis? It’s because the human back wasn’t meant to cope with us being bi-pedal!”

Isn’t lower back pain generally to do with skeletal degeneration or musculoligamentous injury? Osteoporosis is a disease of the bone and it’s prevention can depend on your lifestyle, not being bi-pedal. And how do you know what the human back was “meant” to cope with if “meaning” is a “subjective feeling independent of biological processes”? Sounds like you’re talking about purpose. Purpose would indicate design.

“Again, you’re making claims that lack any type of objective evidence. Prove that a spiritual dimension exists and your question will be valid.”

You keep talking about physical evidence and proof, again, for something that is beyond the natural. What kind of proof are you looking for exactly?

“Wow. The computer question. I think you’ve lost it, Stizzy buddy:P We know how a computer is created because we did it.”

I wasn’t questioning whether it was designed or not, I was asking you what test do you think could be used to try and falsify it’s design.

“We don’t know that life was created by a being because there is no evidence; all you keep saying is basically the fact that things exist is evidence enough to prove your point.”

You keep saying there is and that I have NO evidence. I’ve told you what I hold as evidence. You may not think it enough to prove whatever point you think I’m trying to make, but it is evidence.

“Well I believe aliens created us. That view holds way more credibility than yours because it operates in a framework that me know exists.”

And how do you know that a spiritual framework doesn’t exist? Should we expect to find physical evidence of something spiritual? Or is it likely that such evidence would be beyond the natural because it is inherently supernatural? Retreating to the alien scenario is common, but again it begs the question of how they arose. Did another alien race create them? An eternal being doesn’t have an origin so doesn’t need a potentially endless succession of creators.

“How are you applying evolutionary theory to meaning and the cosmos? Evolution deals with how life on Earth diversified after it arose; Cosmology deals with the Big Bang; Abiogenesis deals with how life arose on Earth in the first place.”

I’m not applying the theory, im applying the world-view that nothing can produce something.

“Your asking me to answer questions with the wrong tools. You’re basically asking me something like ‘what does the speed of sound taste like?”

I’m asking you how does nothing produce something and seeing as life and the cosmos would all appear to have come from nothing according to current theories, I don’t see how I’m asking you to answer the questions with the wrong tools.

“then when I can’t answer adequately claiming that Evolution is therefore unequipped to answer everything.”

I say that the evolutionary/naturalistic world-view is unequipped to answer everything.

“All I asked you for was a simple explanation of a scientific test. You keep claiming that creationism is as scientifically valid as Evolution, and is far more equipped to answer questions that Evolution apparently can’t. But you can’t even come up with an experiment! That tells me all I need to know.”

As I said, I’m talking about the world-view which covers more than just science and the scientific method.

“Again, you’re relying on a 2000 year old book of myths and fairytales in order to try and explain the genetic inequalities between human eyes and Octopus eyes.”

Even if you just stuck with the ID view, you could still imply that the current design is not the intended design and that something could have happened to alter this design. The fact that genetic information is often lost and new information is not added alone would imply something has changed.

“Provide evidence that the fall of man is what caused our eyes to fail ‘on a genetic level’.”

Well our eyes haven’t failed because mine seem to be working fine eyes can have the potential to fail because genetic information can be lost. We see this happen in natural selection all the time.
626 FTW
April 20th, 2009 at 6:22 am

621.Mark
I claim to solve nothing ! I choose to believe in science instead of a book of fairytales or a conglomeration of mythical gods rolled into one.

The naive fool is one who continues to believe in fairytales taught to them as a child.
627 gabros
April 20th, 2009 at 6:24 am

Randall, you are right about Jesus and Buddha but you are wrong about wikipedia. It has an average of 2.3 errors per entry as compared to Encyclopaedia Britannica which has 1.6 and is so much more amusing. Also wasn’t there another guy, Sumerian called Gilgamesh who not only did the resurrection thing but also the Noah and the flood bit too?
628 Stizzy
April 20th, 2009 at 6:27 am

Stizzy; you never answered my question regarding your thoughts on how old the universe or earth is!!

Calm down I believe in a six day creation, therefore I believe the Earth as we know it is around 6000 years old.

“Why are many animals homosexual or able to change their sex in order to procreate?”

I don’t see what homosexuality has to do with evolution or natural selection personally. You would think that they would hinder it. That said, it could simply be a consequence of the same corruption that has afflicted all creation.

And those creatures able to change their sex to procreate are possibly able to do so because of an inherent design feature that allows them to.

Matt, I guess it’s only a waste of time depending on what your intentions were. If you were trying to change my mind, then perhaps it has been a waste of your time. If you just wanted some interesting debate, I wouldn’t say it’s been a waste of time. I’ve found it quite awesome take care.
629 Matt Howard
April 20th, 2009 at 6:29 am

Stizzy:

“A theory is a hypothesis, a hypothesis is a guess.”

I will no longer debate someone who can’t distinguish between a theory, hypothesis, guess, fact or law.

http://www.notjustatheory.com
630 Stizzy
April 20th, 2009 at 6:29 am

“The naive fool is one who continues to believe in fairytales taught to them as a child.”

Good thing I neither believe in a book that tells tales of fairies and am also taught as an adult then
631 Stizzy
April 20th, 2009 at 6:32 am

“I will no longer debate someone who can’t distinguish between a theory, hypothesis, guess, fact or law.”

It still stands that evolutionary theory is not a fact. It’s a proposed explanation for observations is it not?
632 Bobby
April 20th, 2009 at 6:35 am

For Zoroaster, it mentions beign born of “immaculate conception”. That is being confused with the Virgin Birth. The IC is that Mary was free of Original Sin(nothing to do with Jesus), not born without any intercourse.
633 Matt Howard
April 20th, 2009 at 6:36 am

http://www.notjustatheory.com
634 Stizzy
April 20th, 2009 at 6:38 am

Also, the bit you quoted to me about what I said about theory was in regards to common descent. Common descent is meant to explain the FACT that there are similarities between different creatures right? This doesn’t make it fact in and of itself.
635 Commodianus
April 20th, 2009 at 6:39 am

RE: 626.

Kenneth R. Miller. Google him.
636 Cybogen
April 20th, 2009 at 6:41 am

Whatever your emotions, there is a reality that is unchanging. That God is there. Circumstances might cause you to wonder, but God cares about you. He is very aware of you, and aware of your needs and hurts. Jesus said, “Come to me, all you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” How can he give you rest? He can carry your burdens. He can shoulder your problems, because his strength is not exhausted. He can give you direction, because he knows the future and can guide you through it. Jesus said, “…learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.”3 God gently asks you to trust him. He holds out a hand to you, to carefully lift you, to restore your hope. “The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.”4
There is nothing you need to bring to him. He asks us to come empty-handed, and that is exactly how you feel right now anyway. Nothing to promise to him. Nothing to offer him. And that’s fine, because it is God offering you a new way to rebuild your life, not alone, but in relationship with him.
Maybe you have not lived in such a way that you think God would accept you. None of us, not a single person, has lived a holy life. Not according to God’s standards. The Bible says that we all sin, we all fall short of God’s glory and righteousness. We don’t earn God’s acceptance, nor do we need to. Jesus brings us his acceptance, through his own suffering on the cross. You are not alone in your suffering.
The Bible says of Jesus that he was “a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief.” He knew hardships. He knew death. When his best friend, Lazarus died, Jesus stood there and wept. When Jesus saw the crowds it says, “He had compassion on them for they were helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.” Jesus not only observed suffering, he experienced it. He, who performed miracles and raised the dead, healed the sick, made the lame walk and the blind see….he let them press thorns into his head, beat him, whip him, and nail him to a cross, where he carried our sin. Enduring enormous suffering, Jesus paid for sin on our behalf. He died, but rose again, showing he has complete power over death. When Jesus said he came to give us eternal life, he showed that he owned eternal life and he offers it to us as a gift. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him…might have eternal life.”5
No matter what your life has been like, no matter what little attention you may have given to God, he offers you complete forgiveness and a relationship with him. He offers to be your God and walk with you in this life, providing light in the darkness, strength and hope for the future. Jesus said, “I am the light of the world. He who follows me, will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”6 Do you want your life to proceed with his light, with his guidance, with an awareness of his love for you? Then ask him into your life right now and begin the relationship with God that he intended for you to have.
Jesus said, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him.”7 Here is how you can go to him right now, “Jesus, I am feeling lost and you offer to be my shepherd. Forgive me for the sin in my life, the many times I have lived my way instead of yours. Not only am I coming to you now for help, but because for the rest of my life I desire to be in relationship with you. I want you to be my God and direct my life whatever way you choose. My desire is to know you better and honor you with my life. Come into my life right now. Thank you for accepting me and making me a child of yours. Amen.”
Jesus said, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.”8
637 Matt Howard
April 20th, 2009 at 6:42 am

http://www.notjustatheory.com – Read it. Understand it. Come back when you’ve done that. It’s not Evolution propaganda, it’s not creationist propaganda. It clears up a simple vernacular mistake that people get easily confused over.
638 Stizzy
April 20th, 2009 at 6:44 am

I have read it Matt, and I didn’t say “evolution is just a theory, not fact” so I fail to see how this applies to me.
639 Matt Howard
April 20th, 2009 at 6:44 am

Cybogen:

You’ve completely changed my mind. I now see the light. All it took was those few paragraphs to convince me to abandon all reason and logic, and to accept the eternal Lord. Without providing so much as a sniff of objective evidence, you have fundamentally changed every single one of my beliefs about my life and my place in the Cosmos. Thank you, Cybogen. Thank you.
640 Matt Howard
April 20th, 2009 at 6:46 am

No you didn’t Stizzy. What you said is this.

“It further implies that apes and humans have a common ape/human-like ancestor. This is not a fact, it’s a theory. A theory is a hypothesis, a hypothesis is a guess.”

That is actually worse than saying “Evolution is only a theory”

http://www.notjustatheory.com
641 Matt Howard
April 20th, 2009 at 6:48 am

Look I think that’s enough. Nice chatting, Stizzy. I guess the next time you see me is when you’re looking down from Heaven at me burning in Hell.

Ta-ta.
642 FTW
April 20th, 2009 at 6:50 am

” Good thing I neither believe in a book that tells tales of fairies and am also taught as an adult then ”

fairy
Pronunciation [fair-ee] Show IPA noun, plural fairies, adjective
–noun
1. (in folklore) one of a class of supernatural beings, generally conceived as having a diminutive human form and possessing magical powers with which they intervene in human affairs.

How does this differ with biblical ‘angels’ and ‘cherubs ‘.
643 lostatsea
April 20th, 2009 at 6:51 am

Matt; well he did it!! He believes the earth is only 6,000 yrs old LOL and probably thinks that dinosaurs were a recent
creation ala the Flintstones good dino! here dino! good boy!! I’m afraid I cannot argue that type of thinking which
disregards all science as fallacy and realize the danger of teaching that in public schools to impressionable children.
I don’t deny their was a historical person called Jesus but Rome took advantage of this to create the church of Rome and incorporated Pagan rites to exert control over the people it had conquered.
Stizzy; since you aknowledge the existance of Black Holes,where does all the matter go?
644 Matt Howard
April 20th, 2009 at 6:54 am

lostatsea:

Exactly. I don’t care that people believe that crap. It’s just a pretty embarrassing thing when creationists (not say Stizzy) want to actually teach that ridiculous nonsense at schools. Frightening.
645 oouchan
April 20th, 2009 at 6:55 am

I go to bed and wake up to some interesting reading. Guess I now have something to do on my lunch. This is turning into a merry-go-round.
646 Stizzy
April 20th, 2009 at 7:01 am

Alright, so setting aside my everyday use of theory and hypothesis, let’s move on.

The word theory in science is reserved for a hypothesis that has withstood rigorous examination to explain something that can be observed.

So science demands testable explanations for observational occurances yes? Origin science is based on what can’t be observed. Operation science is based on science being done in labs and is observable today. Operation science can help us understand the past, but at best it is an extrapolation or a best guess based on what’s observed today.

Macro evolution is not observed today. Common descent is based on macro evolution yes? Would it not therefore stand that common descent is not a fact?
647 Stizzy
April 20th, 2009 at 7:06 am

“How does this differ with biblical ‘angels’ and ‘cherubs ‘.”

Cherubhim, in the Bible, aren’t depicted as appearing in human form. And angels can appear in human form but are spiritual beings. Not quite the same thing.

“Stizzy; since you aknowledge the existance of Black Holes,where does all the matter go?”

Are you assuming it goes somewhere beyond our universe? I would assume that matter going into a black hole is condensed into the singularity and doesn’t really go anywhere else.
648 lostatsea
April 20th, 2009 at 7:21 am

oochan; welcome back!! yes quite a merry-merry-go-round it boggles the mind, ha ha!!
Matt; how true, seems the dark ages are still alive!
Another interesting site is http://www.brasschecktv.com for more insight to the problems facing us today.
I have no wish to deny anyones faith or try to change them, only wish they might at least explore others POV. I certainly do not have answers to for how we came to be, but to deny the ancient civilizations whom existed 10,000 and more yrs. ago or that water erosion on the great sphinx, or that the Sahara was once lush with vegetation is quite unbelievable.
Stizzy; did you ever answer how ancient maps of Antartica without ice and seemingly mapped from an ariel
perspective came to be as it would have been during a global warming in a distant past, ie. more than 6,000 yrs ago?
649 Stizzy
April 20th, 2009 at 7:24 am

Nope, I didn’t. What do you think is the explanation?
650 Cybogen
April 20th, 2009 at 7:27 am

Your quite welcome Matt. I thank the Lord.
651 lostatsea
April 20th, 2009 at 7:27 am

Stizzy; according to quantum mechanics universes are constantly changing and matter must go somewhere ergo it erupts in a parallel universe, just as I assume our own universe originated.
652 Stizzy
April 20th, 2009 at 7:33 am

Interesting assumption, in what way is our universe changing in respects to quantum mechanics? You could easily assume that if all matter was created by God, matter could easily go back to Him as well.
653 Stizzy
April 20th, 2009 at 7:34 am

Cybogen: I believe Mattw as mocking you and what you said about Jesus
654 Cybogen
April 20th, 2009 at 7:45 am

653. Stizzy – Thank-You Stizzy
Well it does not matter to me if he was mocking me or not as it is knows whats in his heart. I will not throw contempt upon him. The Lord know all that mad thinks and does.
655 6twistedbiscuits
April 20th, 2009 at 7:45 am

i read that what goes into a black hole doesnt go anywhere. it just gets crushed up. if thats not right then i dont believe it goes into a parallel universe.
656 Cybogen
April 20th, 2009 at 7:46 am

Sorry for the Typu. I meant “The Lord know all that “man” thinks and does.
657 oouchan
April 20th, 2009 at 7:57 am

lostatsea: I love merry-go-rounds…so I will catch up on this conversation and join in later.
658 lostatsea
April 20th, 2009 at 8:05 am

655; matter is condensed to a finite point and, where it goes is conjecture on my part but it does explain how our Big Bang came about, as all that matter and energy came from somewhere!! Quantum mechanics at least makes more sense than some God who is bigger than the universe and can swallow or spew out all the countless nebuli and galaxies in
our universe!!
659 lostatsea
April 20th, 2009 at 8:09 am

oochan; me too!! see you all later!!
Peace.
660 GTT
April 20th, 2009 at 8:23 am

Stizzy

(614)- “Creationism came about due to detailed study of the world through a biblical world view. It is also a by-product of scientific as well as rigurous theological and philosophical study, supported by observable and testable evidence….”

(616)-”Do you even know what my theory is? I theorise that goo-to-you evolution has not and does not occur. Therefore if someone could show me that it has, if someone could show me that intelligence, information and meaning can be produced from nothing, then that would go a ways to falisifying my theory. ”

OK, my problem is that in your first post you claim that Creationism is supported by observable and testable evidence but when asked to provide such a test all you can say is “Prove me wrong?” What kind of falsifiable test is that?

If you want to believe in Creationsim as a metaphorical philosophy then be my guest. But you CANNOT claim it as a science when it suits you and then cover your ass by saying “It´s more than that.” Either it is a science or it is not. Creationism obviously is NOT.

(625): “A theory is a hypothesis, a hypothesis is a guess.”

And this is where I too stopped reading. If you have to resort to this crap argument then all intellectual rigor has flown out the window.

*****

Mark (621):
661 oouchan
April 20th, 2009 at 8:45 am

597. Mark: Yeah….I have accused you of being your age and not having some of the world experience that older folks have. However, you are quite intelligent despite that. (fair’s fair…when you call me old! )

Stizzy: I am mostly ignorant of the bible. Only because of the less than desirable way that it was introduced into my life when I was younger. (I’ll spare you the rant on that!) I have since chosen to think for myself instead of having others think for me. In no way is that a slight to you or your beliefs. You are allowed to believe what you want and how you want. I respect that. I would think however, that it would broaden your horizons if you “see” that there is another side to this coin. Not to throw away what you have but just to acknowledge there is another side. Don’t try to disprove it or fit it into your view but…just to “see”.

My best friend is Lutheran. I follow Inari (Japanese Shinto Religion). We do not talk about religion as a rule unless it’s to make fun of each other. I said this in another post before. We are not mean but it’s to have fun and enjoy each other without coming off as arrogant.

You posted this above: “I also wonder, and this is out of curiousity, what kind of physical evidence for the existence of a spiritual being would people count as viable?” I guess to see with their own eyes. For example, most people don’t believe in UFO’s. A small amount do. Of that, some have seen them and others have not but they believe it’s there. I have not seen a UFO or an alien, but I believe they are there. Which is weird since I don’t believe in god.

Both Matt and Stizzy: You both stand on a different side of the fence. You both are bringing up valid points for your own reasoning. Just for one moment, think this: “What if the other is right?”
Kinda scary, isn’t it?

659. lostatsea: Great, catch up with you later, then!

Cybogen…your scripting again, dear.
662 gabi319
April 20th, 2009 at 8:50 am

Well done, Matt. Nicely and efficiently done.

—–

Perhaps it’s dangerous of me to give Stizzy the tools to better his debate skills but I’ve always been interested in the pursuit of good debate so here goes (second time I’ve given advice to him and first time appears to be a resounding failure). Here’s a neatly done C&P summary of the opposing side:

371. Mark – “370. Stizzy : You’re being thick, I don’t know if it’s intentional of not but you are.”

373. Mark – “372. Stizzy : No, now you’re paraphrasing me.”

442. lostatsea – “your dogmatic approach using your book to back your arguments is counter productive to a discussion.”

486. dbrownl – “for stizzy mark and whoever else, you guys are arguing yourselves in circles here”

502. lostatsea – “Stizzy; I see you did not respond to my reference to Piri Riis or the Dogon’s knowledge of Sirius’s companion star.”

608. Matt Howard – “Stizzy: Read my post carefully.”

617. Matt Howard – “Stizzy: You completely sidestepped my request for you to provide a test that could falsify your hypothesis that God created everything. You didn’t even acknowledge if your hypothesis CAN be falsified.”

622. lostatsea – “Stizzy; you never answered my question regarding your thoughts on how old the universe or earth is!!”

Some could have been missed in the mix but this many? Stizzy, you can spin circles around a philosophical debate without providing any argument of your own and bravo to you for that… but a scientific debate is very different and it portrayed you as quite passive aggressive. So scientific arguments: Less questions, more statements. Less ‘witty’ retorts, more factual data. And frankly, a better understanding of science.
663 Cybogen
April 20th, 2009 at 8:58 am

Oouchan- Yes, I know I script from time to time but I usually do it only when somebody asks “Where in the bible does it say that?”
in more words or less.
664 oouchan
April 20th, 2009 at 9:00 am

663. Cybogen:…true..but you know I like to pick on you for that. Keeps people honest.
665 Stizzy
April 20th, 2009 at 9:30 am

If you’re picking me up on that Gabi, I believe you should pick people up on the same as I may not have called it every time someone didn’t bother to answer something I said, but there is a lot in there and from more than one person.

Where possible, I did try to answer what I missed

And I often find in these debates that rather than deal with what I’ve said, people attack the way I’ve said it in an effort to discredit it. If I’ve made any mistakes or have been ignorant of anything, I take full responsibilty for that and ask you forgive me But I do wish people wouldn’t use this as excuse to toss everything I’ve said out the window, as seems to be the inclination.

Ouchan: Does make one quiver doesn’t it?;)

GTT: “OK, my problem is that in your first post you claim that Creationism is supported by observable and testable evidence but when asked to provide such a test all you can say is “Prove me wrong?” What kind of falsifiable test is that?”

I didn’t say prove me wrong. I was asked what would shed doubt on what I believe and I provided an example.

“If you want to believe in Creationsim as a metaphorical philosophy then be my guest. But you CANNOT claim it as a science when it suits you and then cover your ass by saying “It´s more than that.” Either it is a science or it is not. Creationism obviously is NOT.”

I said that the Creationist world-view contains more than just science. I wasn’t trying to claim it as something when it suits me. I will say though that in many such debates, both sides have likely made the same honest mistake.
666 Cybogen
April 20th, 2009 at 9:34 am

Okay but in case you didn’t know I get alot of that already from Mark. Its all good anyhow. I mean what the f_ _ _ right? People here go to bed at night not even thinking twice about what went on at this site that day. I like replying back to you. You keep it smooth.
667 oouchan
April 20th, 2009 at 9:44 am

666. Cybogen: hate to be the bearer of bad news…but you were the unlucky post on this list…check the number! I know you get the short end, but it’s all in fun! He likes to call me old, but then I call him young so we’re even!
668 Cybogen
April 20th, 2009 at 10:01 am

Oouchan- WHy is that an unlucky number in your eyes ?
669 oouchan
April 20th, 2009 at 10:13 am

cybogen…its not really a bad number in my eyes. A lot of people put a weird superstition feel to that number. I was just picking on you again…totally harmless.
670 Cybogen
April 20th, 2009 at 10:17 am

Yep. I understand. I know what you’re saying. I still see that number meaniog something but not sure what it is???
671 GTT
April 20th, 2009 at 10:29 am

Stizzy (665):

“I didn’t say prove me wrong. I was asked what would shed doubt on what I believe and I provided an example.”

No, you were asked to provide a test for falsiability. That is what you still have not provided.
672 gabi319
April 20th, 2009 at 10:38 am

Stizzy:
Here’s where your presuppositions come into play yet again. You assume it was purely stricture against your character intended my previous comment when it was written as constructive criticism seeing as this is the second time I’ve seen and decided to address your rather weak scientific debating skills. It may appear one-sided to you but I did peruse through the entire conversation starting roughly at 371. I could and probably should delete those first two examples as they are more from (my interpretation) your CCD class with Mark (and I apologize for that) but the others I still stand by when you decided to enter a scientific discussion. The questions (and to be honest, a number of statements) you posed throughout that were of a philosophical slant rather than a scientific one and could (and to me were) inadmissible in scientific discussion. I’ve already commended you on your lingual abilities on the philosophical argument and decided to give you help on how to strengthen your scientific argument simply because I am more interested in the quality of debate than anything else. It is your prerogative that you take the defensive on what was given. I don’t feel the need or even the desire to help you further.
673 bigski
April 20th, 2009 at 12:11 pm

#595-That`s not faith,but it`s a clear case of stupidty.
674 Stizzy
April 20th, 2009 at 1:37 pm

That’s fair enough Gabi. Although if you wanted to help strengthen my scientific argument it might have helped to provide examples of where it was weakest. In my defense, however, the debate started as a philosophical one and I’ve found that people come in and then try and turn it into a purely scientific debate. It was not my intention to change the nature of the debate, and because I still saw this as a philosophical one, I tried my best to maintain focus on that aspect.

When there were scientific natured questions brought up, I answered to the best of my ability and then tried to shift the focus back. I appreciate your interst in the quality of the debate, and so I ask that perhaps you should be less one sided in your criticisms if it is the whole debate you wish to see strengthened.
675 lostatsea
April 20th, 2009 at 1:59 pm

gabi319; you must hand it to Stizzy for his skills of debate, unfortunately he/she has blinders on and has a narrow view of this amazing thing called life, from the one celled amoeba(with a brain otherwise how to reproduce!!} to us higher primates!(although I sometimes doubt some of our species!!!)
Stizzy; I assume you are American(if wrong my apologies!!)
I congratulate you on your intelligence, what I and possibly
other posters do not understand, is how a loquacious person would argue known facts and have such a one sided view, astounds us I think, Sorry all, for summing up what I have felt and interpreted as your frustration!!
oouchan; you sound a kindred spirit, I’m a newbie on here and hope you enjoyed my portrayal of Devil’s Advocate and also gave some other views on how it all happened!!
Stizzy have you travelled over seas and lived in other countries and had to learn another language and customs??
just wondering!!
676 oouchan
April 20th, 2009 at 2:04 pm

675. lostatsea: Yes I do enjoy your comments. Interesting spin, I might say. By the way, welcome…stick around, this place is fun!
677 lostatsea
April 20th, 2009 at 2:11 pm

676.oouchan: Thank you so much for your reply, you’re so right…it is indeed!!!
678 NotBrainWashed
April 20th, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Why the argument on evolution? Where did anything in this list have to do with it?

Zeitgeist is debunked over and over again

Rushfan I appreciate your work, but technically you just took Zeitgiest and laid it out in list form.
679 lostatsea
April 20th, 2009 at 2:30 pm

There are many secrets that we still must learn to become crearures of light and if a belief in true Christian values can bring that about…great..I wish all would embrace the beauty and revere our planet and all our brothers and sisters with love and respect.
That I believe is what we are here for…to achieve happiness within and how you get there is a personal thing.
Yes I believe there are other forces which we cannot see(some may!!) Who can say what reality is since we exist in space, our very atoms which make up this corporeal world are mostly space!!
There are wonders beneath the sea of which we are only starting to see!!
680 Maggot
April 20th, 2009 at 6:40 pm

671 GTT: No, you were asked to provide a test for falsiability. That is what you still have not provided.

Nope, still hasn’t. But way back at #582 he had the audacity to say: “If you don’t mind me saying, there seems to be a lot of mudslinging going on here and a lot of posturing but nothing much beyond that.” Yet when given the chance to actually end the debate in his favor by responding to Matt’s simple challenge with something of actual merit, he can’t do it. Why is that, Stizzy?
681 gabi319
April 20th, 2009 at 7:50 pm

Tie up some loose ends

675. lostatsea – “gabi319; you must hand it to Stizzy for his skills of debate,”

(662) Stizzy, you can spin circles around a philosophical debate without providing any argument of your own and bravo to you for that

(672) I’ve already commended you on your lingual abilities on the philosophical argument

See, lostatsea? I did . And I also complimented him in the other list he debated in as well. I do partially admire his philosophical skills, which I am not ashamed to say surpass my own. (I say partially because the question talk does aggravate me)

“what I and possibly other posters do not understand, is how a loquacious person would argue known facts and have such a one sided view”
That is specifically why I was helping him. Finally, someone whom I thought might provide more than “goddidit”. What use is science if it is complacent and unchallenged? It’s not a field for those who cannot confront the idea of possibly being wrong, which is why I gave help however unwanted it was. If these facts (whichever side) can withstand a true battering, then they are truly worthy of recognition. If not, then why the pretend it is?
682 Matt Howard
April 20th, 2009 at 9:19 pm

Maggot:

Thanks for the back up. Creationists simply can’t provide a testable experiment. Stizzy did actually say that if Evolutionary theory could provide some answers that demostrate organisms have evolved he would consider his theory weakened. Evolutionary theory has actually done that. If he would bother to look up the arguments Kenneth Miller puts forth on human/chimp mtDNA and not only the simalarities between them, but HOW exactly human mtDNA differs from chimps that WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE without a mutation that happened FROM chimp mtDNA, he would see that a testable and falsifiable experiment had been conducted and passed by evolution. Yet when I actually mentioned the human/chimp mtDNA argument, he simply pushed back the tired old ‘God dun it’ argument and said “well isn’t that simply evidence of common DESIGN, not descent?”. We can prove things were created on Earth that were created by man. Computers for example. If we find a computer under sediment at the bottom of the ocean, I’ll give it to you that maybe our understanding of geological processes are wrong. What proof can you provide that natural things were created, other than looking at them, shrugging your shoulders and saying “if I can’t explain how these occured naturally, then a god must have done it”.

See, Evolution actually explains HOW things. It explains how mutations occur, how genes are passed on, how complex organisms can form from less complex ancestors. When I pushed and pushed for you to explain exactly HOW God created man, this was the response:

“God breathed the breath of life into man”

…excellent explanation. Sky guy blew onto a bit of dust and that was that. We should all be satisfied with that.

The answers to Stizzy’s questions are available if he wants to educate himself properly about Evolution, and not just resort to saying stuff like “goo-to-you never happened”. He simply doesn’t want to acknowledge the validity of Evolution. Doesn’t matter what you show him, he will just find a way to say ‘God dun it’.

Another point he willfully won’t enlighten himself on is observation. He postulates that because no one has ever seen Evolution happen it can’t be proven. When I quizzed him onto how we know Pluto orbits our Sun, even though we have only known about Pluto for 90 years and it takes 200 years to orbit, he never replied. When I told him that looking at something and deducing the answer based solely on our observation can be misleading, such as looking at the Sun from Earth and deducing that it is the Sun that moves and not the Earth, he never provided an answer.

Macro-evolution has never been seen. Speciation will NEVER been seen by ONE human being because it takes longer than our lifespan. But the EVIDENCE, not just from the fossil record, but from genetic information, clearly shows that creatures change over time. He just wants to keep asserting that this doesn’t matter. He then comes out with the boring old ‘it’s only a theory not a fact’ crap. Incase he STILL hasn’t educated himself on theory and fact, a theory is the better than facts, and better than laws! A theory is what scientists strive to come up with. It simply means EXPLANATION. It encompasses all the facts as well as the laws, and turns them into an explanation for natural data. End of.
683 lostatsea
April 20th, 2009 at 10:33 pm

Matt: Can’t believe we are still at it!!
It’s 1 am and couldn’t sleep so fired up the net to pass some time!!
Stizzy: We can see evolution on the micro scale as microbes, germs and viruses mutate and become resistant to our drugs and vaccines.
In striving for the light, I meant the light of knowledge rather than the darkness of intolerance, bigotry and dogmatism.
Perhaps you might enlighten me on why we have that useless appendage at the end of our spine?(that thing called a TAIL bone!!)
It really suprises me that a modern person could think that not only our earth but also the universe is 6,000 yrs old. Blows my mind!!!!
btw, these angels who copulated with humans, was that not a sinful act? Why did God allow that to happen??
‘Yawn’ night all!!!
684 Stizzy
April 21st, 2009 at 12:39 am

What I don’t understand is how one can argue that intelligent design is unfalsifiable and therefore not science, and then on the other hand claim that there is evidence against it. Would this not make it falsifiable?

A test of design would be to prove whether biology is teleological or not. Or to demonstrate that a code (such as the ordering of nucleotides in DNA molecules that carries the genetic information in living cells) can arise from pure chance with no intelligent input.
Afterall, we can infer that a code has an intelligence source based on what we know.

Behe himself said:

“In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum–or any equally complex system–was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.”

Furthermore, people seem to think that I was dismissing evolution in it’s entirety.

I have not denied that creatures change over time, but I have denied macroevolution.

As for planets, we know the mechanisms for orbit, we can observe other planets orbiting our sun and based on consistent conditions, we can calculate the continued orbit of a body such as pluto.

We have not observed the mechanism that changes one kind of creature into another (macroevolution) in ANY creature. We speculate that it’s natural selection and mutation, yet natural selection and mutation don’t lead to macroevolution.

With God breathing life into man and forming his shape, I said you are asking me to try and explain a supernatural event naturally. So how could you possibly be satisfied with any answer I give you?

Just a thought, but I would have thought that finding a computer buried under sediments at the bottom of the ocean would question more our understanding of history and the advancement of mankind than geological processes

Lostatsea: You’re assuming the coccyx is useless. It forms an important point of muscle attachment required for our upright posture. If you want to test how useless it is (which I really don’t recommend) you could fall down the stairs and land on it. You’ll find yourself unable to stand, sit, lie down, roll over or even do a number 2.

As for angels, they obviously have free will to make their own choices. And to answer an earlier question, no I’m not American and I’ve travelled a fair bit but unfortunately never had the opportunity to live in another country, but I would love to! I have taken steps towards learning a few languages though.
685 Matt Howard
April 21st, 2009 at 2:27 am

“Afterall, we can infer that a code has an intelligence source based on what we know.”

How can we infer that? It may seem probable that a code needs an intelligent source, but not certain. You are basing your argument on an assumption you have made that is in no way verified.

“What I don’t understand is how one can argue that intelligent design is unfalsifiable and therefore not science, and then on the other hand claim that there is evidence against it. Would this not make it falsifiable?”

I’m not saying there is evidence against it, as that would imply that it has been verified and accepted in the first place. I’m saying there is no evidence FOR it. That’s a big difference. When I reference your designer and the fact that design in nature is not intelligent at all, I am simply pointing out the fact that since you have made the assumption that design is intelligent, there are millions of cases in nature where the design is clearly NOT intelligent.

“To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum–or any equally complex system–was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.””

Behe’s argument is extremely weak. It is making the assumption that the bacterial flagellum, or another complex system, is inherently going to evolve given enough time. This is simply not true. We cannot replicate millions of years of Evolutionary steps in one simply laboratory. The whole argument against the bacterial flagellum being intelligently designed is that its evolution was in gradual steps, each step replacing a redundant part and incorporating it into the new paradigm. Just because we cannot test this specific example does not mean that evolution is not testable. It simply means we cannot reproduce every single aspect of a creature and their millions of years of evolution in a lab, just like we can’t create black holes and experiment on them. Remember, the tests themselves have to be repeatable, not nature.

Behe’s argument for the bacterial flagellum and it’s complexity is a very old ID chestnut that has been put to bed by the real scientific community. Sources:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/flagellum-evolu.html (not an academic source, but very easy to access for non-scientists)

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html

Look up the Hawthorne fly. I am proud to say after a bit of basic research that I discredited my own point I made in the previous post. This appears to be an example of speciation that has been observed and is still being observed.

“We speculate that it’s natural selection and mutation, yet natural selection and mutation don’t lead to macroevolution.”

Why not? You’ve made this claim that fundamentally challenges a major part of Evolutionary theory. Why doesn’t natural selection and mutation lead to macroevolution, when the fossil record, genetic evidence, comparative physiology and biochemistry and a heap of other observations clearly indicate the gradual change of creatures over time?

“With God breathing life into man and forming his shape, I said you are asking me to try and explain a supernatural event naturally. So how could you possibly be satisfied with any answer I give you?”

Exactly. I’m saying that the existence of man was not a supernatural event, and we have overwhelming evidence to support that, evidence that you dogmatically refuse to acknowledge. We have evidence for the evolution of man; you have a fairytale. There’s a reason you can’t describe the creation of man from a supernatural standpoint; because the naturalistic standpoint explains it a hell of a lot better than something blowing on some dust.
686 lostatsea
April 21st, 2009 at 6:02 am

Stizzy: Sorry you sounded like some southern Americans I have met in my travels. We must agree to disagree.
I brought up the coccyx as a possible remnant of a prehensile tail!!!
It has been fun sparring with you, we all have our views and I have no wish to change yours or others, I respect your
views and spirituality and if I have insulted you in any way you have my apologies.
I find that Islam, Judeaism and Christianity have caused much suffering and loss of life, whereas Bhuddhist and Hindu
are more benign to humanity and the planet.
687 Cybogen
April 21st, 2009 at 6:38 am

When it comes to the possibility of God’s existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God.1 On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, “You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you.”2 Before you look at the facts surrounding God’s existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to consider…

1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Many examples showing God’s design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:

The Earth…its size is perfect. The Earth’s size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth’s surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth’s position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4

Water…colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You’ll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:
688 Matt Howard
April 21st, 2009 at 6:58 am

Cybogen:

Your whole argument is rendered obsolete by the assumption that the Earth must have adapted to Life. Life, both microscopic and macroscopic, has been shown to adapt to its surroundings. Apart from human beings and our ability through our intelligence to transform the physical attributes of our surrounding environment, every single other life form either adapts to its surroundings, or becomes extinct.

“Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Many examples showing God’s design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few”

This argument is a logical fallacy. I know that wikipedia is probably one of the worst sources on the internet for finding anything of any truth-value, but this article aptly covers why your argument from personal incredulity is logically invalid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
689 GTT
April 21st, 2009 at 7:02 am

Stizzy:

I think I should be clear on the fact that I am, in fact, Roman Catholic and I do believe in God.I believe that God made man and yet I also belive in evolution. How? I simply see God in the evolutionary process. I believe in “goo-to-you” evolution because I see God in every step of the process. I guess where some people see 100% chance, I see the influence of God. It´s a small point on contention on a philosophical level.

What i struggle to understand, however, is how someone can take the stories in the Bible so literally. Do you really think God made humans exactly as they are today from the get-go? In what *your definition* of the first moment was? Can you not belive that maybe God has made us in his image over what WE consider a very long time but that to him would be an instant in eternity? How in the world can anyone think that God´s perception of time and space MUST be the same as ours? The arrogance of it baffles me…
690 Cybogen
April 21st, 2009 at 7:03 am

I think you are wrong my friend in your sources. Try again!
691 Matt Howard
April 21st, 2009 at 7:07 am

…care to elaborate, Cybogen? Usually when I say someone is wrong about something I take the time to explain why…
692 Stizzy
April 21st, 2009 at 7:18 am

“How can we infer that? It may seem probable that a code needs an intelligent source, but not certain. You are basing your argument on an assumption you have made that is in no way verified.”

I’m basing this on the fact that every code known to man has been produced by an intelligence. This can and has been verified, not to mention it’s common sense.

“I’m not saying there is evidence against it, as that would imply that it has been verified and accepted in the first place. I’m saying there is no evidence FOR it.”

There is evidence for it, and when you’re presented with it, you ignore it.

“When I reference your designer and the fact that design in nature is not intelligent at all, I am simply pointing out the fact that since you have made the assumption that design is intelligent, there are millions of cases in nature where the design is clearly NOT intelligent.”

If it’s not intelligent, then it’s not design. Perhaps you should stop referring to it as such. That’s not an assumption, that is something we can plainly see in all walks of life where design is present. With every other example of design in our world, we know intelligence is behind it. Why is it only with life and the universe that this is denied?

“Behe’s argument is extremely weak. It is making the assumption that the bacterial flagellum, or another complex system, is inherently going to evolve given enough time. This is simply not true.”

So what is going to happen? And I’m pretty sure this is the argument that is constantly being pushed forward, that complex systems will form given enough time coupled with natural selection and mutation.

“We cannot replicate millions of years of Evolutionary steps in one simply laboratory.”

Are you saying that macroevolution is untestable and therefore unfalsifiable?

“Just because we cannot test this specific example does not mean that evolution is not testable.”

But see, we’re talking about macroevolution here, and yet you’re saying thaat it can’t be tested. From what I’m being told, if it’s untestable it’s unfalsifiable, correct me if I’m wrong.

“Remember, the tests themselves have to be repeatable, not nature.”

But aren’t the tests meant to explain something in nature that is repeatable?

I’ve heard the panda thumb argument before, and it’s based on an assumption that the writer knows better than the designer how the animal was intended to be. From our own human bias, we presume to know what designs would be better.

Other rebuttels to Behe’s argument seem to be ignorant ones. They assume that he was saying that certain elements of say the flagellum have no other function when seperate from the flagellum. Yet his argument was that the flagellum has a purpose and that if all the componants weren’t present and in their arrangement all at once, the flagellum would not be able to fulfill it’s purpose. This extends to other things such as the blood clotting system, which if not in place completely would cause serious problems.

Erm…all I can find about the Hawthorne fly is that it’s a fishing hook…so not sure what you’re getting at.

“Why not? You’ve made this claim that fundamentally challenges a major part of Evolutionary theory. Why doesn’t natural selection and mutation lead to macroevolution, when the fossil record, genetic evidence, comparative physiology and biochemistry and a heap of other observations clearly indicate the gradual change of creatures over time?”

None of what you have cited shows one type of creature (say a dinosaur) changing into another type of creature (ie a bird). There are no intermediate fossils. Now take note, I’m not saying there are no TRANSITIONAL fossils showing changes within a kind of animal (say a bird with short beak transitioning to one with a long beak), but there are no intermediates.

Every observation you look at shows that apes remain apes, men remain men, dogs remain dogs, cats remain cats.

“Exactly. I’m saying that the existence of man was not a supernatural event, and we have overwhelming evidence to support that, evidence that you dogmatically refuse to acknowledge.”

Really? I don’t believe you do have overwhelming evidence. You have fossils of ape like creatures and fossils of humans. Every year we see more and more reports of how close neanderthals were to us yet to anyone who just looks, you would think you were just looking at humans. DNA evidence has shown there is very little if not any difference between them and modern day humans on a genetic level.

“There’s a reason you can’t describe the creation of man from a supernatural standpoint; because the naturalistic standpoint explains it a hell of a lot better than something blowing on some dust.”

I’m afraid it doesn’t, because the naturalistic standpoint cannot adequately explain origins. It cannot adequately explain the first single celled organisms, let alone the first genetic codes before it can even get to the first humans.

It cannot adequately explain intelligence, information, meaning, purpose, conscious, appreciation of beauty, and music to name a few things.

The naturalistic world-view proposes that life can come from non-life and nothing can produce something without intelligence when everything we observe and common sense tells us otherwise.

Cybogen: Well said.
693 Stizzy
April 21st, 2009 at 7:26 am

GTT: “I think I should be clear on the fact that I am, in fact, Roman Catholic and I do believe in God.I believe that God made man and yet I also belive in evolution. How? I simply see God in the evolutionary process. I believe in “goo-to-you” evolution because I see God in every step of the process. I guess where some people see 100% chance, I see the influence of God. It´s a small point on contention on a philosophical level.”

In believing in macro-evolution, you’re believing in a process of creation through continual death. You’re believing that there was no original man and woman. You’re believing that there was therefore no original sin and that death was not the consequence of this original sin. Therefore, it follows that man has no need of salvation, and that Jesus dying on the cross for our sins was therefore pointless and made no difference.

You’re also denying the words of Jesus Himself who said “From the beginning God made them man and woman.” You’re denying that Jesus was the agent and witness of creation and calling Him a liar.

“What i struggle to understand, however, is how someone can take the stories in the Bible so literally. Do you really think God made humans exactly as they are today from the get-go?”

I have expressed in my argument several times that this is not so. Man today is not the same as he was when God first created him. You can see that just from reading Genesis.

“In what *your definition* of the first moment was? Can you not belive that maybe God has made us in his image over what WE consider a very long time but that to him would be an instant in eternity?”

Again, Jesus made it clear when creation happened and when God made man.

“How in the world can anyone think that God´s perception of time and space MUST be the same as ours? The arrogance of it baffles me…”

God is outside of time, and the bible says that a day with God is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. However, the universe was created within time and we exist within time therefore WE have a perception of time and according to that perception, God tells us when He created the universe. It’s really not that complicated.

What I don’t understand is what basis you have for being Catholic when you deny the foundation upon which your faith stands.

Matt: “Your whole argument is rendered obsolete by the assumption that the Earth must have adapted to Life. ”

The argument is not rendered obsolete. Your assuming different doesn’t make his argument obsolete. And also I believe you miss the point. He’s not saying the earth adapted to life, but that the Earth was designed to accomodate life. Creatures are able to adapt because God designed them to be able to do so.
694 Cybogen
April 21st, 2009 at 7:35 am

691. Matt Howard – April 21st, 2009 at 7:07 am
…care to elaborate, Cybogen? Usually when I say someone
is wrong about something I take the time to explain why…

Sure Matt- Here Goes
No other factor in this debate makes evolution look more ridiculous than when we consider the impossibility of chance empowering the origin of life. Astronomer and mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle said, “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” Interestingly, a 747 is made up of six million components. The human body is made up of trillions of cells. The information in just one cell is enough to fill 1000 books of 500 pages apiece.

The magnitude of the complexity of the human body was illustrated recently with the mapping of the human genome. This represented a major scientific milestone in history. Nevertheless, mapping the letter sequences of human genes is not the same as understanding the genes. Despite this wonderful achievement in science, molecular biologist Dr. Ian Macreadie “explained humbly that humanity is still only just ‘scratching the surface’ in such matters.”

To point out the burden placed on chance by evolution, Allen Cornell, in the journal, “Firm Foundation” calculated the likelihood that one million monkeys typing randomly would produce the phrase “Why not creation?” If the monkeys typed at the rate of 10 keys per second, all worked 24 hours a day, all have typewriters equipped with only 30 keys (26 capital letters, three punctuation marks, and a space key) and hit the keys entirely at random the monkeys would produce the phrase once every 41 billion years. He goes on to explain, “Since sections of three subunits on a DNA (or RNA) molecule can code for any of 20 amino acids, the chance of getting a particular chain of any 20 consecutive amino acids is less than the chance of the monkeys producing the specified phrase.”

Furthermore, he says, “[Evolutionists] have always been reluctant to apply mathematical statistics to determine probabilities of certain chance events.” Then he points out an often-overlooked point in this debate: “The burden on chance does not just occur at the point of the origin of life. It reoccurs at every point in the evolutionary concept that demands the emergence of an entire new protein molecule. The genetic material, and the proteins that it codes for the production of, is the point where evolutionists have to place unmerited faith in chance.” Not only this, but the necessity of chance in the evolution of the plant world is also often overlooked.

Why is it that evolutionists wallow in blissful unawareness of the magnitude of the problem that evolution has with statistics and probability? Because they have a commitment to the religion of evolution. Donald Chittick said, “There is no actual proof for evolution; it has never been demonstrated by laboratory experiment, and when all is said and done, it turns out to be a belief system. Repeated confession of belief in something for which there is no proof is a well-recognized and practiced religious device used to build the faith of the believer.”

Ken Ham explains, “To believe that matter came from nowhere for no reason; to believe
695 lostatsea
April 21st, 2009 at 7:38 am

GTT:

It could also be said that since the Big Bang our timeline was established, that it took billions of yrs for our planetary system to coalesce and more billions for life to exist.
Where that first spark came from is anyones guess, could have come from a meteor or asteroid hitting our planet!!
We once lived in caves and worshipped the skies and animal gods but ancient man(homo sapiens)seem to have had knowledge not only of mathematics, medicine, electricity but also astronomy, this knowledge was widespread. Thor Heyerdahl proved with the voyages of RaI
and II that ancient Egyptians could have reached the Americas in reed boats. Kon Tiki also showed South Americans could have reached Polynesia on balsa rafts. His museum in Oslo is must visit as is Vegeland (sp?) park in central Oslo.
696 Matt Howard
April 21st, 2009 at 7:50 am

Stizzy:

You argue there is evidence of design. You say that the very fact that things look like they have been designed is proof, and that evolution can’t explain it. Again, one big fat massive argument from ignorance and personal incredulity. The fact that something exists is not proof that something designed it just because it exists. No matter how many times you keep saying that it must be designed because it looks like stuff we’ve designed doesn’t make it true. You need evidence. Evidence that something created it. When I asked for this, you gave me clap-trap about God blowing onto dust.

“With every other example of design in our world, we know intelligence is behind it. Why is it only with life and the universe that this is denied?”

Because there is evidence that man made it i.e. repeatability, methods of production, logo’s of companies on the machine blah blah blah. There is no evidence of this in nature, and the only thing, the ONE thing that you keep saying is that because it looks designed, it must be designed.

“Are you saying that macroevolution is untestable and therefore unfalsifiable?”

We are going in circles. I’ve explained how macroevolution can be tested and falsified in regards to human/chimp mtDNA. Just because we can’t create an ape-like ancestor that died two million years ago and watch it evolve into a human doesn’t mean that the observations cannot be tested. That is like saying that in order to study Hawking radiation output in Black Holes we have to set up a laboratory that can fit a black hole and then observe it.

“Other rebuttels to Behe’s argument seem to be ignorant ones”

Behe is an academic joke. His arguments have been thoroughly proven to be non-explanations that evolution can, and has, explained quite easily. He was laughed out of Court in Kitzmiller vs Dover and none of his ideas have ever been published, let alone verified and accepted, in any mainstream scientific journal. He had to stand before a court of law and admit this. He even argued that the bacterial flagellum has never been explained by evolutionary biologists, at which point the prosecutor came in with 20 biology textbooks under his arms. Behe admitted he had never read them, and admitted they did contain adequate explanations of the bacterial flagellum by evolution. Evolution has 140 years of observed data, tested hypothesis, experimental evidence and constructed theories that have withstood the most viperous scientific scrutinies. ID has had around 15 years of absolute derision and offered no positive evidence that a creator actually created anything. Their last line of defense is to specially plead that scientific rules don’t apply to them. The rules do.

“None of what you have cited shows one type of creature (say a dinosaur) changing into another type of creature (ie a bird). There are no intermediate fossils. Now take note, I’m not saying there are no TRANSITIONAL fossils showing changes within a kind of animal (say a bird with short beak transitioning to one with a long beak), but there are no intermediates.”

Archeopteryx – look it up, it’s the most obvious example of an intermediate. There are plenty of transitional AND intermediate fossils, you just choose to ignore them. Let me ask, what exactly would qualify for you as an acceptable intermediate fossil? For every one presented that showed a stage from one species to another, you could easily say ‘well where is the one between THOSE fossils?’. It’s an un-winnable argument for someone who doesn’t accept evidence that undermines their religious beliefs.

“I’m afraid it doesn’t, because the naturalistic standpoint cannot adequately explain origins. It cannot adequately explain the first single celled organisms, let alone the first genetic codes before it can even get to the first humans.”

You’re talking about abiogenesis, a completely different field. While it is still an experimental field, it offers extremely strong theories (yes, I know you cringe at the very word) that explain how life can arise from non-life. What is a non-explanation is your view; an infinitely complex being, that has still not been explained in a way that violates logic, created life in a way that can’t be explained without resorting to the Bible. That is the most ridiculous explanation I can think of.

“It cannot adequately explain intelligence, information, meaning, purpose, conscious, appreciation of beauty, and music to name a few things.”

Purpose is subjective, as is meaning, appreciation of beauty and music. Evolution explains how humans have evolved the capabilities to comprehend these things.

Common sense, although I’ve used the phrase before, is not an adequate argument. Just because you can’t comprehend how creatures evolved doesn’t give you the justification to lay it on the shoulders of a creator, just because it looks that way.
697 Matt Howard
April 21st, 2009 at 8:01 am

Cybogen:

“Because they have a commitment to the religion of evolution”

At least Stizzy has some interesting and well constructed arguments. As soon as I read that, and THEN saw that you were quoting bloody KEN FREAKING HAM of all people, I immediately lost all respect for your intellectual capabilities.

All I will say is that you still continue to argue from ignorance. You are saying that because life is complex, we humans cannot explain it THEREFORE, God dun it. Did you even bother to read my original post? You’re arguing a logical fallacy.

I know arguments from authority don’t sit well with people, and I certainly wouldn’t use them to justify a belief in something, but I will say this. I take great solace in the fact that 99.99999999% of the worlds most inquisitive and intelligent people accept that age of the Earth and Evolution are confirmed scientific facts. I also take solace in the fact that the 0.0000001% of people who advocate creationism and intelligent design are people of the caliber of Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Duane Gish, Michael Behe and William Dembski; in other words, brainwashed fundamentalist Christians who are so uncomfortable with the fact that the worlds data does not conform to their beliefs that they are willing to sacrifice their dignity and respectability in order to cling to bronze-age myths. They are willing to attack, not challenge or debate, but ATTACK one of histories most important and beautiful scientific theories, simply because they are too cowardly to change their beliefs.

Let me ask you guys this. Roman Catholics, many Anglicans, and various other denominations of Christianity fully accept Evolution and the age of the Earth. They reject that the global flood happened, and they also reject things like the Tower of Babel. In your opinion, does this make them false Christians?
698 TEX
April 21st, 2009 at 8:20 am

Everyone knows that mankind came into being @ Genesis, just a few thousand years ago. The fossil record was created by Satan to confuse those who are susceptible to confusion, he also created Al Gore.
699 Matt Howard
April 21st, 2009 at 8:23 am

TEX:

I’d normally laugh heartily at that remark, but judging from the previous comments regarding the global flood and Tower of Babel…I’m not sure if you’re actually serious.

Satan definitely created Al Gore, though. I’m super serial.
700 TEX
April 21st, 2009 at 8:38 am

Matt:

Hint – I know what archaeopteryx is without having to look it up, known since I was eight years old, when they only had the one specimen. Delighted to see they located a “bed” in Germany, I believe (?), with multiple specimens in good condition.
701 Matt Howard
April 21st, 2009 at 8:49 am

TEX:

I’m relieved:) You do know that Archaeopteryx is simply a different ‘kind’ of animal God made though, not a transitional fossil?
702 TEX
April 21st, 2009 at 9:03 am

Don’t believe in the boogey man.
703 Cybogen
April 21st, 2009 at 9:03 am

Matt its alright. Im OK with you believing what you want and I honestly and sincerely think that we are only here as commentators on this website to gain some insight and seize some curiosity and to have some fun. This debate goes on everywhere with everyone and has been going on for some time. Maybe someday there will be the display of hard truth to prove one of us right. Good Day Mate!
704 Stizzy
April 21st, 2009 at 10:36 am

“You need evidence. Evidence that something created it. When I asked for this, you gave me clap-trap about God blowing onto dust.”

No, when I said that, you had asked me how God created man, not what the evidence was. And like I said, every time you’re presented with evidence, you dismiss it.

“I’ve explained how macroevolution can be tested and falsified in regards to human/chimp mtDNA.”

“We cannot replicate millions of years of Evolutionary steps in one simply laboratory.”

Your words. Either Macroevolution can be tested or it can’t. Make up your mind.

“Behe is an academic joke. His arguments have been thoroughly proven to be non-explanations that evolution can, and has, explained quite easily.”

You keep saying this but I see nothing of the sort. His ideas have been dismissed but no one has actually been able to refute them, and replies to their supposed refutations are always (but not surprisingly) absent from most circles.

“There are plenty of transitional AND intermediate fossils, you just choose to ignore them.”

Archaeopteryx is a bird dude. And I was not arguing transitionals, I said intermediates so quoting both is pointless as I wasn’t ignoring them both. The first I acknowledge, the second there is nothing to ignore.

“You’re talking about abiogenesis, a completely different field.”

“There’s a reason you can’t describe the creation of man from a supernatural standpoint; because the naturalistic standpoint explains it a hell of a lot better than something blowing on some dust.”

We were talking about the naturalistic world-view which deals with origins, including abiogenesis. When it suits you, you love to switch the field and then tell me I’m referring to the wrong thing when in fact it wasn’t the specific field being discussed. By the way, are you familiar with the law of biogenesis?

“What is a non-explanation is your view; an infinitely complex being, that has still not been explained in a way that violates logic, created life in a way that can’t be explained without resorting to the Bible.”

How does belief in an eternal being violate logic?

“That is the most ridiculous explanation I can think of.”

Whether you think it ridiculous or not is of no consequence in the search for truth, that said, scientists have made some pretty wild speculations about the universe in their time.

“Common sense, although I’ve used the phrase before, is not an adequate argument. Just because you can’t comprehend how creatures evolved doesn’t give you the justification to lay it on the shoulders of a creator, just because it looks that way.”

Common sense is a sound practical judgement, and yet you speak of logic. There’s no other explanation for it and it looks like it was a creator…but of course it’s not…alrighty then

“I take great solace in the fact that 99.99999999% of the worlds most inquisitive and intelligent people accept that age of the Earth and Evolution are confirmed scientific facts.”

You know that to quote such a number is just silly because there is no way you know that.

“I also take solace in the fact that the 0.0000001% of people who advocate creationism and intelligent design are people of the caliber of Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Duane Gish, Michael Behe and William Dembski; in other words, brainwashed fundamentalist Christians who are so uncomfortable with the fact that the worlds data does not conform to their beliefs that they are willing to sacrifice their dignity and respectability in order to cling to bronze-age myths.”

or that.

“They are willing to attack, not challenge or debate, but ATTACK one of histories most important and beautiful scientific theories, simply because they are too cowardly to change their beliefs.”

You refer to one of these people as “KEN FREAKING HAM” and assert that just the mention of his name removes the right of someone to be respected and then accuse someone like him of attacking others rather than debating. You are not debating, you are attempting character assassination.
705 cymraegbachgen87
April 21st, 2009 at 10:44 am

Guys,

You are not going to change stizzy’s mind. He doesn’t understand evolutionary theory – indeed he doesnt understand the TERM.

He has already attested to blind faith in the lord so common sense and evidence will never shift that.

If I had the time or patience, I would take each of stizzy’s points one at a time but I cannot be bothered. I believe we have already crossed swords and to the best of my recollection, no matter what evidence I put forward, nothing made the blindest bit of difference.

At the end of the day:

Genesis is flawed and contradictory (as is the entire bible both NT and OT)
If you are going to accept the bible’s innerancy for creationism then you have to accept as truth that pi is 3, rabbits chew the cud and goats coats can be determined by what they look at while copulating.
If you follow the bible as truth, then you must obey the dietry laws laid down in it – yet most christians I know do nothing of the sort.

Remember, YECs merely say all the evidence we put forward is either biased, false, or flawed. No matter how much science we back it up with.

And to all those who think evolution is a religion. You clearly do not know the definition of religion, or science, or the scientific method.

I’m going to cool off. This much ignorance on one page hurts my eyes.
706 Stizzy
April 21st, 2009 at 10:46 am

Also forgot to say, you assume that I first look and can’t figure out how life arose and so resort to a creator. No. I started with the creator, and I didn’t throw Him in where I couldn’t figure things out.

That seems to be more in line with what you are doing. You can’t comprehend (or won’t accept) anything other than macroevolution to explain life today, so you lay it on the shoulders of macro evolution, natural selection and mutation, not because it looks that way but because the other way simply can’t be.
707 cymraegbachgen87
April 21st, 2009 at 10:47 am

Occam’s razor states one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

If God created the world etc (He didnt but hell, devils advocate) where did god come from?
708 Stizzy
April 21st, 2009 at 10:48 am

cymraegbachgen87: just about everything you said about the Bible is out of ignorance. I suggest you actually look into it properly before you mock and dismiss it in such a way.
709 Stizzy
April 21st, 2009 at 10:49 am

Seriously…Occams razor?

If God is God and created everything, no other entity is necessary and so your question doesn’t apply.
710 cymraegbachgen87
April 21st, 2009 at 10:53 am

Brought up CofE, engaged to a christian, attended sunday school.

Sorry stizzy, but I DO know the bible.

Another example of creationists belittling or ignoring things that contradict their world view.

You seem to think the book is the word of god. Idiot

It was written by ROMANS (yes those nasty people who crucified your savior) and any book that made the big JC look mortal was removed. I would wager I know far more about the bible than you. Ass
711 cymraegbachgen87
April 21st, 2009 at 10:55 am

How old is the universe by your idiotic view stizzy?

6000 years old?

Explain how light from stars millions of light years away got here?

The biblical flood happened?

Where did the water come from/go to and how did the atmosphere stay around our planet. Why are erosion rates throughout the planet different?

Explain fossils proven to be millions of years old. In fact, explain fossils.

The Roman catholics accept evolution, as do the CofE. What makes millions of christians wrong and YOU right?
712 cymraegbachgen87
April 21st, 2009 at 10:56 am

“If God is God and created everything, no other entity is necessary and so your question doesn’t apply.”

And if my auntie had testicles she would be my uncle.

Evolution is testible and falsifiable.

Your ardent and blind belief in some cloud dwelling spirit is not.
713 cymraegbachgen87
April 21st, 2009 at 10:59 am

“Also forgot to say, you assume that I first look and can’t figure out how life arose and so resort to a creator. No. I started with the creator”

Precisely. That is everything that is wrong with creationism. It starts off with an answer and looks for evidence to support it, ignoring anything that doesnt, and actively attacking anything that contradicts it.

If evolution was wrong, it wouldn’t have stood up to the test of time. A single human bone in pre-cambrian strata would blow the theory out of the water. It hasnt happened.
714 cymraegbachgen87
April 21st, 2009 at 11:01 am

Wow. Got a bit worked up here.

Stizzy, with more respect than you deserve, you are entitled to your baseless faith requiring opinion. I have no problem with you adhering to this religion. But don’t spout this BS as if it is truth when science has shown it isnt.
715 joy
April 21st, 2009 at 1:42 pm

this list will really test your faith! makes me think that jesus may be have existed historically but all the things written about him might have been fabricated.
716 Simons
April 21st, 2009 at 1:58 pm

Thanks Matt! Oh and Ced…I sure hope that just because I was confused with the whole Hercules/Heracles thing; you weren’t directly that “idiot” critique my way =(
717 cymraegbachgen87
April 21st, 2009 at 3:15 pm

715. Joy

Fabricated? Perhaps. More likely is exageration caused by centuries of chinese whispers. That isn’t to say that the teachings of the man were not worthwhile.
718 spincast
April 21st, 2009 at 4:00 pm

I think its the same time traveler going back at different times/places until the one-god religion stuck. Of course what he didn’t realize is that once it stuck, it stifled the science necessary to invent the time travel tech and when he jumped back to the future, his time machine ceased to exist and now we’re stuck with this crap. LOL!
719 Matt Howard
April 21st, 2009 at 5:02 pm

Thanks for the support, Cym. It is getting rather frustrating now. I’m just glad that this sort of crap will never be taken seriously outside of some ridiculously backwards school board in the American South. Even then, as is shown by recent history, the American legal system is still robust enough to rightfully strike down any undeserved opposition to Evolution being taught as an ‘alternative’.

““I’ve explained how macroevolution can be tested and falsified in regards to human/chimp mtDNA.”

“We cannot replicate millions of years of Evolutionary steps in one simply laboratory.”

Your words. Either Macroevolution can be tested or it can’t. Make up your mind.”

I mean, I don’t know how much clearer I can make my point. If we want to test and experiment on black holes, phenomena we can’t even see without the use of imaging tools, we DO NOT HAVE TO CREATE ONE IN A LAB. The same goes for Evolution! Macroevolution has been tested, can be tested, can be falsified and doesn’t need to be created artificially when there are experiments that can be performed (as I said, mtDNA tests between chimps/humans).

Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Duane Gish and William Dembski (I’m leaving out Behe because although his ideas may be laughable, he still conducts himself with some decorum) all deserve to be character assassinated because they are frauds, plain and simple. Kent Hovind is in prison; Ken Ham is simply a fundamentalist preacher who only has a Bachelors Degree in Biology, yet feels he is adequately educated enough to challenge one of sciences greatest theories; Duane Gish is well known for the ‘Gish Gallop’, a steadfast denial of others arguments and his tendency to simply ignore difficult questions and move on to the next topic; William Dembski, who advocated specified complexity, has had his ideas stuck down by eminent mathematicians and number theorists, and his works have never been peer-reviewed or supported.

Intelligent Design and Creationism want to cheat. They don’t want to have to stand up to peer-review and criticism. Every other scientific field has to;

1. Come up with a claim that can be falsified and tested
2. Research: Come up with ways of finding out more about the subject.
3. Peer-review: Submit the findings to a reputable, critical and non-biased scientific journal or group and have the claims examined by other experts.
4. Scientific consensus: Once the publications have been criticized and accepted based on merit and evidence, scientists form a consensus:
5. Schools, institutes, academia: Now a scientific theory is ready to be taught.

ID/Creationism doesn’t want to do this. They simply want to try and shout their way into academia. Instead of taking peer-review seriously, they want to lobby politicians and school boards. Instead of trying to respond to criticism and strengthen their own theories, they simply want to tear down evolution, as if disproving evolution would make any difference to the lack of positive evidence to their claims. America is pretty much the only country in the developed world that still has a bit of a fight going on in regards to this, but the more creationists try to get their ‘theories’ academically accepted, the more they are continually laughed out of mainstream science.
720 Prof. Meger Foot-Love
April 21st, 2009 at 7:51 pm

In whilst the presumption of categories pertaining to the spectacular area known as the ‘Taint’…

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,blah blah.

Good article though.
721 ZephyrEire
April 21st, 2009 at 9:44 pm

Lots of interesting stuff here for sure. The trends are clear, and I agree wholeheartedly that these stories and figures heavily influenced each other in their creation.

But the specifics of a lot of these I’d have to hesitate on buying into 100%. The internet has a nifty trick of turning anything passed along enough into fact, and I fear that’s involved here to some extent, too.

What claims like these need are references. Ideally, references to the primary texts of merit (such as the Bible and the Book of the Dead).
I first heard the Horus-Jesus comparison, this lists #1. The specifics given are STRIKINGLY similar, of course. I wanted to check into this, so I did a little digging.

The best and most convincing thing I found was the following entry at http://stupidevilbastard.com/index/seb/comments/ending_the_myth_of_horus/
This is a Christian guy, but a level headed, reasonable, and open-minded one to be sure. His arguments are logical, well-researched and CITED, and convincing. To sum it up in one sentence, almost ALL the claims made in the Horus-Jesus myth presented here, by Zetegiest, and even my beloved Religulous are EXAGGERATED or TOTALLY UNSUBSTANTIATED.

I encourage everyone to keep an open mind and be willing to do a little digging and welcome both sides. I am an atheist and I have a lot of problems with organized religion, but I can see when something I loved when I heard it has been sensationalized. I still think Horus was a definite influence on the writers of the Bible when they created it, as were most on this list – but as for the mirror-image scenario here, Jesus wins this round.
722 Stizzy
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:42 am

“Brought up CofE, engaged to a christian, attended sunday school.”

I don’t see how you consider these credentials. All this means is that you probably went to church once a week where you attended sunday school, and that you’re engaged to a christian…this says nothing about your knowledge of the Bible. You demonstrate by what you say that you don’t know as much as you claim to know.

If I was raised in Turkey, engaged to a Muslim and attended lessons in Arabic, doesn’t mean I know the Quran.

“Another example of creationists belittling or ignoring things that contradict their world view.”

No it isn’t, it’s an example of seeing someone spout things that are out of context and implying what the Word of God says when it does not.

“You seem to think the book is the word of god. Idiot”

Yes I do, but that hardly makes me one of subnormal intelligence

“It was written by ROMANS (yes those nasty people who crucified your savior) and any book that made the big JC look mortal was removed. I would wager I know far more about the bible than you. Ass”

I would wager you don’t from what you say. The Old Testament wasn’t written by Romans and that’s the majority of the Bible. The writers of the four gospels were not Romans. The apostle Paul had Roman citizenship, but He was a Jew. The entire New Testament was written before the close of the first century with the majority of the books written within 30 – 40 years of Jesus’ death. The book of John is a fascinating book because of it’s emphasis both on Jesus’ divinity and also His humanity.

False books began to arise in the 2nd and 3rd centuries that tried to paint the image of Him as either only mortal or only divine and were considered heretical by the early church fathers. In fact, even as early as the writings of Peter were such ideas condemned. Many such wrote regarding these false gospels and simultaneously quoted from the books of the new testament. Scholars have said that from these quotes alone, they would be able to recover the majority of the New Testament without manuscripts.

“Explain how light from stars millions of light years away got here?”

Are you aware that the big bang theory also has a light travel problem?

“Where did the water come from/go to and how did the atmosphere stay around our planet. Why are erosion rates throughout the planet different?”

There is already enough water present on the Earth to flood it. All you would need would be to lower mountains and for the sea bed to be higher. The mountains we see now would have been pushed up towards the end of the flood due to the shifting of tectonic plates. I always find it odd that people scoff at the idea of a global flood whilst simultaneously we are told by scientists of the dangers of severe flooding should the ice-caps melt.

What erosion rates in particular are you referring to?

“And if my auntie had testicles she would be my uncle.”

I think that would make her a hermaphrodite , but nothing to do with the point being made

“Your ardent and blind belief in some cloud dwelling spirit is not.”

Except He doesn’t dwell in a cloud and it isn’t blind

“Precisely. That is everything that is wrong with creationism. It starts off with an answer and looks for evidence to support it, ignoring anything that doesnt, and actively attacking anything that contradicts it.”

And I could say the naturalist world view starts with a naturalist presupposition and ignores anything that disagrees with it, actively attacking it. Both sides often accuse each other of the same thing, so why bother trying to use that argument?

“If evolution was wrong, it wouldn’t have stood up to the test of time.”

And yet belief in creation has stood the test of a far longer time than the naturalistic world-view.

“Stizzy, with more respect than you deserve…”

I hardly think it’s for you to judge how much respect I do or don’t deserve.

“…you are entitled to your baseless faith requiring opinion. I have no problem with you adhering to this religion. But don’t spout this BS as if it is truth when science has shown it isnt.”

Science has not shown it isn’t, therefore I will “spout” what I believe. You say I am entitled to my faith, part of that faith involves speaking about it so by your own admission, I have every right to continue to speak what I believe to be true.

Matt: “If we want to test and experiment on black holes, phenomena we can’t even see without the use of imaging tools, we DO NOT HAVE TO CREATE ONE IN A LAB.”

And yet scientists are planning to try and create at least mini-black holes using the hadron collider to help substantiate their claims

“Macroevolution has been tested, can be tested, can be falsified and doesn’t need to be created artificially when there are experiments that can be performed”

It has not been tested, and it can not be tested. And what about the countless news reports we hear from scientists claiming to have witnessed it within the lab?

“Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Duane Gish and William Dembski (I’m leaving out Behe because although his ideas may be laughable, he still conducts himself with some decorum) all deserve to be character assassinated because they are frauds, plain and simple.”

Just your word, why are they frauds? You want to have a debate, you want to have your voice heard and yet you are stooping to a low to try and attack individuals rather than consentrating on what they are saying.

“Ken Ham is simply a fundamentalist preacher who only has a Bachelors Degree in Biology, yet feels he is adequately educated enough to challenge one of sciences greatest theories”

You are just a guy posting on a website with no credentials in theology and yet feel you are adequately educated enough to challenge the Bible. Bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

“Duane Gish is well known for the ‘Gish Gallop’, a steadfast denial of others arguments and his tendency to simply ignore difficult questions and move on to the next topic.”

Seeing as this kind of behaviour has been seen in this very debate, I hope you critique yourself as well as others so seriously

“William Dembski, who advocated specified complexity, has had his ideas stuck down by eminent mathematicians and number theorists, and his works have never been peer-reviewed or supported.”

Have to say I don’t know who he is, but because he’s been basically ignored, he deserved to be character assassinated? Surely you should just continue to ignore him, and indeed all these others rather than wasting your time trying to sabotage their reputations. Especially if they are already in such tatters as you imply.

“Intelligent Design and Creationism want to cheat. They don’t want to have to stand up to peer-review and criticism.”

It’s not that they don’t want to, it’s that they are not allowed to.

“ID/Creationism doesn’t want to do this. They simply want to try and shout their way into academia. Instead of taking peer-review seriously, they want to lobby politicians and school boards. Instead of trying to respond to criticism and strengthen their own theories, they simply want to tear down evolution, as if disproving evolution would make any difference to the lack of positive evidence to their claims.”

I disagree, they simply want to see science taught and sought honestly and I do not see all of them trying to force their belief into schools.

You claim Creationists don’t want their work peer-reviewed, and yet there are many claims to the contrary. And whom do you think their work should be peer-reviewed by? Peer review is a system whereby one’s written work is evaluated by one’s “peers,” i.e., other scholars who are knowledgeable about the topic of the written work.

You say “un-biased”, what would this entail?

You say they don’t want to stand up to criticism. They do and I have seen them do so.

Here’s what Dr D. Russell Humphreys, a nuclear physicist, had to say about creationists publishing their work:

‘When people ask me this, I feel a certain amount of frustration because of the evolutionist brainwashing in our society which it reveals.

‘Firstly, it shows that the questioner is unaware of the large number of published professional scientists who are creationists. Where I live and work (Albuquerque, New Mexico) there are large numbers of scientists, and I know many who happen to be biblical creationists. Using a simple statistical approach, I would conservatively estimate that in the United States alone, there are around 10,000 practising professional scientists who openly believe in six-day recent creation.

‘Secondly, it suggests that the questioner doesn’t understand what the day-to-day life of a scientist is all about. One could almost say that publication in professional journals is the essence of being a scientist. So asking a man who says he is a scientist if he’s published in secular journals is like asking a man who says he’s married if he’s got a wife!

‘I would therefore reply to such a question ‘Are there any who don’t?’ Every one I know does publish. Even scientists who are full-time in creationist organisations usually have a few such publications, despite the serious disadvantage their institutional connections give them. Although there is strong discrimination against high-profile creationist scientists, most creationist scientists publish non-creationist scientific articles frequently. Moreover, many of them have published data with important creationist implications—but without explicit creationist conclusions, which would point out the significance of the data to the average non-creationist scientist.

‘What about creationist scientists publishing articles, in secular journals, which specifically come to creationist conclusions? The bitter experience of a number of us has made it clear that there is almost no chance that such articles will pass the review process, no matter what their quality. I have also had repeated correspondence with the letters editors of major journals, having submitted brief, well-written items which critiqued published conclusions favourable to long-agers or ‘big-bangers’. These contained no explicit creationist connotations, but I have concluded that, now that I am known as a creationist, such items have virtually no chance of publication.’
723 Matt Howard
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:38 am

“And yet scientists are planning to try and create at least mini-black holes using the hadron collider to help substantiate their claims”

Completely missed my argument. It was an argument against the replication of natural phenomena versus the replication of repeatable tests that examine said phenomena.

“It has not been tested, and it can not be tested. And what about the countless news reports we hear from scientists claiming to have witnessed it within the lab”

It can and has. Again, you ignored my argument about human/chimp mtDNA tests. What countless news reports? That’s two arguments you have now ignored.

“Just your word, why are they frauds?”

Ken Ham is beyond a joke. If you seriously want to vouch for his personal credibility, then I can only say I feel sorry for you. Kent Hovind is in prison. He was convicted of 58 federal counts, including twelve tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents and forty-five counts of structuring cash transactions. I reserve my right to call him a fraud. I have explained why Duane Gish is a fraud. He actually said that creation cannot be observed because the methods the creator used are no longer in use, therefore, rendering his whole field obsolete and unwelcoming to any further experimentation. And he calls himself a scientist. THAT is fraud.

“Seeing as this kind of behaviour has been seen in this very debate, I hope you critique yourself as well as others so seriously”

I’ve answered all of your claims about creationism to the best of my ability. I have provided you with positive evidence, and links to positive evidence, of Evolution within my ability. You have provided me with NO positive evidence of creationism, and all you have done is point me to people and sources that try and falsify evolution. How many times do I have to say it? Just because you claim evolution is wrong DOES NOT logically mean creationism is correct. You, and every other creationist, have created a false dichotomy in which if one out of two outcomes is wrong, the other is correct. This is wrong and it doesn’t count, because you can’t provide any positive evidence for creationism, other than ‘it looks designed, I can’t think of any way it could of happened, therefore, God dun it’.

“It’s not that they don’t want to, it’s that they are not allowed to.”

Special pleading is a hallmark of psuedo-scientific reasoning. I guess in your mind there is a castle in Transylvania where all the scientists in the world gather to plot how to keep creationism out of the journals. There is a simpler answer; creationism has absolutely no evidence for it other than ‘I looked at a cell; it looks complex, therefore, it’s a designer’.

“I disagree, they simply want to see science taught and sought honestly and I do not see all of them trying to force their belief into schools.”

If lobbying school boards and taking them to court isn’t trying to force their way into schools, what is?

“You are just a guy posting on a website with no credentials in theology and yet feel you are adequately educated enough to challenge the Bible. Bit of the pot calling the kettle black.”

When it comes to fairy tales like Noah’s Ark, the Tower of Babel and God blowing onto dust to make humans, I think me and anyone above the age of 5 is educated enough to challenge the Bible. I’m not trying to debate its morals and I’m not debating its influence. I’m debating how the hell people in 2009 can still believe Noah collected 2 of every animal, loaded them into a boat, maintained them for a year, then deposited them all over the Earth in their natural habitat. I felt embarrassed typing that sentence.

“Here’s what Dr D. Russell Humphreys, a nuclear physicist, had to say about creationists publishing their work:”

Here is some information I found on D. Russell Humphreys:

“David Russell Humphreys is an American physicist and creationist author. He has offered a young Earth creationist cosmological model to deal with the distant starlight problem. This model has been rejected by the scientific consensus and old earth creationists.”

Hahahahahaha. Throwing in one of your creationist buddies to help, eh Stizzy?

You criticize me for attacking people like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and Duane Gish. You say I’m assassinating their characters and simply relying on personal attacks to discredit their ‘scientific’ merits. Then you say that ‘scientists won’t let creationists tell their side’, assuming that their side is scientifically credible, which is infinately more insulting to the vast, VAST majority of scientists who accept Evolution and the age of the Earth. You are basically saying they are so dishonest, so conniving, so fundamentally mean and averse to debate that they are willing to gather together in a massive conspiracy to hold down creationism. There is a much, much simpler explanation. Creationism is not a science. It has absolutely no positive evidence.

You know what the irony is? From the 1930′s onwards, creationism has evolved;). In it’s beginning it used the bible freely and openly; creationists quoted verses and referenced it in public. That didn’t work, and they didn’t get their beliefs into public schools. So they changed their game. They started calling themselves ‘creation scientists’. In 1987 they were defeated again, struck down in the Supreme Court. They realized that their language was still to religious to get around the pesky Constitution. Now they have Intelligent Design; the supposedly legitimate, secular equivalent. They have evolved from crude, Bible thumping, mouth-foaming Evangelicals into refined, polite, pseudo-scientific Intelligent Designers who can be quite charming in order to adapt to their increasingly hostile environment:P A delicious piece of irony, don’t you think?:)
724 Stizzy
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:51 am

“It can and has. Again, you ignored my argument about human/chimp mtDNA tests. What countless news reports? That’s two arguments you have now ignored.”

I didn’t ignore your argument, I said from the moment you mentioned it that it isn’t proof of macroevolution and it could easily be evidence for common design. And missing an argument is not the same as ignoring it.

““Just your word, why are they frauds?”

Ken Ham is beyond a joke.”

Doesn’t explain why he’s a fraud.

“Kent Hovind is in prison. He was convicted of 58 federal counts, including twelve tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents and forty-five counts of structuring cash transactions.”

Does this make creationist claims fraudulant?

“I have explained why Duane Gish is a fraud.”
“Duane Gish is well known for the ‘Gish Gallop’, a steadfast denial of others arguments and his tendency to simply ignore difficult questions and move on to the next topic.”

Is denial and avoidance the same as intentional deception? I don’t think so.

“He actually said that creation cannot be observed because the methods the creator used are no longer in use, therefore, rendering his whole field obsolete and unwelcoming to any further experimentation. And he calls himself a scientist. THAT is fraud.”

He is a biochemist, and if he does work in the field of biochemistry, that makes him a scientist. What you’re talking about isn’t fraud.

“I’ve answered all of your claims about creationism to the best of my ability.”

You haven’t answered all my claims.

“I have provided you with positive evidence, and links to positive evidence, of Evolution within my ability. You have provided me with NO positive evidence of creationism, and all you have done is point me to people and sources that try and falsify evolution.”

We use the same evidence. It’s not a question of the evidence, it’s a question of how that evidence is interpreted. Think about it: We have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals, the same plants, the same stars.

We interpret these things differently because we start with what we assume to be true.

For example, I believe in the Bible. The Bible says:
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Psalm 11:10); “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7); “but the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14)

I have given examples of how the issue of sin and judgement is relevant to geology and fossil evidence.

I have spoke of how the fall of man and the subsequent Curse on creation makes sense of harmful mutations, violence and death.

And I’ve mentioned how the original “kinds” of animals have given rise to the wide variety we see today.

You believe in natural selection, which is real science, as you observe it happening.

Creationists also believe in natural selection. You accept the science of genetics and so do creationists.

The difference is that you believe that over millions of years, one kind of animal has changed into a totally different kind.

Those like me, based on the Bible’s account of origins, believe that God created separate kinds of animals and plants to reproduce their own kind. One kind won’t turn into a totally different kind, and this can be tested today.

Scientific observations support the interpretation that the changes we see are not creating new information. The changes are all within the originally created pool of information of that kind, sorting, shuffling or degrading it.

The creationist account of history, based on the Bible, provides the correct basis to interpret the evidence of the present, and real science confirms this interpretation.

“How many times do I have to say it? Just because you claim evolution is wrong DOES NOT logically mean creationism is correct.”

I didn’t make such an assertation so I don’t know why you keep saying this anyway.

“You, and every other creationist, have created a false dichotomy in which if one out of two outcomes is wrong, the other is correct.”

No I don’t believe we have. We’ve said that we believe our interpretation explains the facts better.

“This is wrong and it doesn’t count, because you can’t provide any positive evidence for creationism, other than ‘it looks designed, I can’t think of any way it could of happened, therefore, God dun it’.”

You keep saying this as well which isn’t what I’ve said or how I’ve put forth my argument.

“Special pleading is a hallmark of psuedo-scientific reasoning. I guess in your mind there is a castle in Transylvania where all the scientists in the world gather to plot how to keep creationism out of the journals. There is a simpler answer; creationism has absolutely no evidence for it other than ‘I looked at a cell; it looks complex, therefore, it’s a designer’.”

Pure opinion which says nothing about the amount of people who have experienced hardship in having their work published due to bias. And again, you distort and oversimplify the argument.

“If lobbying school boards and taking them to court isn’t trying to force their way into schools, what is?”

Not all creationists do this and the big institutes I’m familiar with actually discourage this.

“When it comes to fairy tales like Noah’s Ark, the Tower of Babel and God blowing onto dust to make humans, I think me and anyone above the age of 5 is educated enough to challenge the Bible.”

No it doesn’t because you simply mock what you do not understand and think that makes you an expert.

“I’m not trying to debate its morals and I’m not debating its influence.”

No one said you were.

“I’m debating how the hell people in 2009 can still believe Noah collected 2 of every animal, loaded them into a boat…”

He didn’t collect them, God Himself drew the animals to Noah. He collected 2 representatives of every unclean kind of animal and 7 representatives of every clean kind of animal.

“…maintained them for a year, then deposited them all over the Earth in their natural habitat.”

God told Noah to gather resources and food to feed these animals. Besides his three sons and their wives, it’s likely he would have had other paid workers to aid him in this. Noah didn’t deposit them all over the Earth in their natural habitats. The creatures naturally migrated after the flood.

“I felt embarrassed typing that sentence.”

And I felt embarrassed reading it as you clearly don’t understand what you’re trying to mock.

““David Russell Humphreys is an American physicist and creationist author. He has offered a young Earth creationist cosmological model to deal with the distant starlight problem. This model has been rejected by the scientific consensus and old earth creationists.”

Hahahahahaha. Throwing in one of your creationist buddies to help, eh Stizzy?”

He’s also had many papers published in non-creationist scientific journals. And you laugh simply because ONE of his proposals was rejected by those who would be naturally biased against it. I fail to see what you’re trying to prove.

“Then you say that ’scientists won’t let creationists tell their side’, assuming that their side is scientifically credible, which is infinately more insulting to the vast, VAST majority of scientists who accept Evolution and the age of the Earth.”

Don’t see how this makes the creationists intentionally rude and offensive.

“You are basically saying they are so dishonest, so conniving, so fundamentally mean and averse to debate that they are willing to gather together in a massive conspiracy to hold down creationism. There is a much, much simpler explanation. Creationism is not a science. It has absolutely no positive evidence.”

I believe they are more ignorant and bias than the face of pure evil. And there is plenty of evidence that these people can be (not necessarily ALL are) biased towards creation scientists.

“You know what the irony is? From the 1930’s onwards, creationism has evolved;).”

Many things change in the world, and what’s even more ironic is that the changes you speak of had an intelligent hand

“it’s beginning it used the bible freely and openly; creationists quoted verses and referenced it in public. That didn’t work, and they didn’t get their beliefs into public schools.”

The Bible and belief in the creation was around long before the 1930′s.

“They started calling themselves ‘creation scientists’. In 1987 they were defeated again, struck down in the Supreme Court. They realized that their language was still to religious to get around the pesky Constitution. Now they have Intelligent Design…”

Intelligent Design isn’t even a religious or creationist movement.

“They have evolved from crude, Bible thumping, mouth-foaming Evangelicals into refined, polite, pseudo-scientific Intelligent Designers who can be quite charming in order to adapt to their increasingly hostile environment:P A delicious piece of irony, don’t you think?:)”

Ironic yes because, as I stated, their evolution hasn’t been the result of blind, random chance but the minds of conscious, intelligent, creative, inquisitive minds
725 Stizzy
April 22nd, 2009 at 2:54 am

“He actually said that creation cannot be observed because the methods the creator used are no longer in use, therefore, rendering his whole field obsolete and unwelcoming to any further experimentation. And he calls himself a scientist. THAT is fraud.”

Also regarding this point, obviously if the earth, mankind and the universe is no longer being created in the sense that they were in the beginning, of course it’s not being observed. This doesn’t mean evidence of design can’t and hasn’t been observed.
726 Matt Howard
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:30 am

“He didn’t collect them, God Himself drew the animals to Noah. He collected 2 representatives of every unclean kind of animal and 7 representatives of every clean kind of animal.

God told Noah to gather resources and food to feed these animals. Besides his three sons and their wives, it’s likely he would have had other paid workers to aid him in this. Noah didn’t deposit them all over the Earth in their natural habitats. The creatures naturally migrated after the flood.”

Hahahaha…evidence? Where is Noah’s Ark by the way?

“No I don’t believe we have. We’ve said that we believe our interpretation explains the facts better.”

It doesn’t ‘explain’ anything. It provides you with the ability to postulate a designer created things. When we ask you to explain exactly how this happens, you quote Bible verses. Evolutionist can explain exactly how creatures change throughout generations. The concept behind this is that creatures are not static and un-changing. The concept behind Intelligent Design is that there is a designer. When pushed to explain how it designed, you simply cannot answer…apart from unverified Bible verses.

“Does this make creationist claims fraudulant?”

When a man who proclaims to be holier-than-thou, and who challenges the very basis of modern biology gets sent to prison for tax fraud, it’s well within peoples rights to question his critical faculties as well. He is a fraud who is not taken seriously.

“Pure opinion which says nothing about the amount of people who have experienced hardship in having their work published due to bias. And again, you distort and oversimplify the argument.”

Can you explain the Intelligent Design argument clearer? It is not simplified; it’s an accurate summary of their position.

“Ironic yes because, as I stated, their evolution hasn’t been the result of blind, random chance”

*sigh*…Yet again the boring old ‘Evolution is chance’ argument. Simple concept, listen carefully. Random mutations are inherited by offspring based on their ability to benefit the creature in its environment. Mutations are random; natural selection is not. It is the most un-random process you can think of. You clearly still do not understand Evolution.

“Intelligent Design isn’t even a religious or creationist movement.”

It has exactly the same underlying principle; complexity is too difficult to explain by Evolution, so God/Aliens/Allah/Odin/Apollo/Whoever created us. Argument from ignorance.

“God told Noah to gather resources and food to feed these animals. Besides his three sons and their wives, it’s likely he would have had other paid workers to aid him in this. Noah didn’t deposit them all over the Earth in their natural habitats. The creatures naturally migrated after the flood.”

…evidence?

“He’s also had many papers published in non-creationist scientific journals. And you laugh simply because ONE of his proposals was rejected by those who would be naturally biased against it. I fail to see what you’re trying to prove.”

I’m proving that once a scientist relegates himself to the level of intellectual dishonesty and believing in the literal interpretation of a 2000 year old book that haven’t been proven, he is more than open to criticism and derision.

“Also regarding this point, obviously if the earth, mankind and the universe is no longer being created in the sense that they were in the beginning, of course it’s not being observed. This doesn’t mean evidence of design can’t and hasn’t been observed.”

What the hell is the point in studying anything to do with biology then? If you know that God has created everything, if this has been confirmed by your observations (which you continually keep mixing up with witnessing), if you know that the Bible is literally true…you have all the answers! Stop studying, you don’t need to do it anymore, do you?

“And I felt embarrassed reading it as you clearly don’t understand what you’re trying to mock”

I’m sure you felt embarrassed reading it. I’d feel embarrassed too if someone accused me of believing in fairy tales and it was actually an accurate description of my beliefs. There isn’t anything to understand. Noah’s Ark didn’t happen; the Tower of Babel didn’t happen; the world wide flood didn’t happen.

Do not reply back saying ‘well prove it’. Non-belief is the default position for every single claim until evidence that supports that claim is presented. You are claiming that these things happened, therefore it is logically your responsibility to provide proof. If I say to you “I believe in unicorns, prove to me that they don’t exist” it doesn’t automatically make me true if you can’t provide evidence that they DON’T exist.

I believe there is an invisible pink hobbit living in the moon that secretly controls everything on Earth. It is undetectable by science because it exists outside space and time. Prove to me that is doesn’t exist. If you can’t prove that, I’m right.
727 pilkington
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:43 am

Cliff Richard
728 Stizzy
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:21 am

“Hahahaha…evidence? Where is Noah’s Ark by the way?”

It’s said to have landed on the mountains of Ararat. That’s an entire range of mountains. Being built of wood, it’s not likely to still be intact and due to the limited supplies that would have been around, it’s possible Noah, his family and immediate descendants could have used the materials from the Ark for various purposes. Of course it’s possible that remains are still there and that they haven’t been found yet even though there have been some unconfirmed claims of sightings.

“It doesn’t ‘explain’ anything. It provides you with the ability to postulate a designer created things. When we ask you to explain exactly how this happens, you quote Bible verses. Evolutionist can explain exactly how creatures change throughout generations…”

And as I said, creationists agree with natural selection.

“The concept behind this is that creatures are not static and un-changing.”

And we don’t say they are.

“The concept behind Intelligent Design is that there is a designer. When pushed to explain how it designed, you simply cannot answer…apart from unverified Bible verses.”

You’re trying to get me to explain how it was initially, physically designed using supernatural power. How things ARE designed and continue to work as a produce of that design is clear from studying them.

“When a man who proclaims to be holier-than-thou, and who challenges the very basis of modern biology gets sent to prison for tax fraud, it’s well within peoples rights to question his critical faculties as well. He is a fraud who is not taken seriously.”

The question was whether this makes what he and others have said about creation fraudulant. What you’re saying is like claiming that if a scientist has been caught doing tax fraud, their scientific studies should be tossed in jail with them when the two aren’t even related.

To me, your argument falls flat.

“Yet again the boring old ‘Evolution is chance’ argument. Simple concept, listen carefully. Random mutations are inherited by offspring based on their ability to benefit the creature in its environment. Mutations are random; natural selection is not.”

If macro evolution is natural selection acting on random mutation, the driving force behind it would be random would it not? Natural selection involves the following:

Long furred dogs produce offspring who have a mutation. This mutation causes them to grow short fur. They live within a hot environment and the long furred dogs are not adequately equipped to survive. They die out and their numbers are replaced by the flourishing short furred dogs. The long furs have been “selected” against and the driving force was a random mutation. They didn’t inherit this mutation based on it’s ability to benefit them in their environment. The environment came first, followed by the random mutation and then the realisation of its benefit when the creature flourished.

What am I not understanding here?

“It has exactly the same underlying principle; complexity is too difficult to explain by Evolution, so God/Aliens/Allah/Odin/Apollo/Whoever created us. Argument from ignorance.”

That is not the basis of the movement. The basis of the movement is that there is evidence of design within nature and the universe and most ID advocates do not presume who the designer was.

““God told Noah to gather resources and food to feed these animals. Besides his three sons and their wives, it’s likely he would have had other paid workers to aid him in this. Noah didn’t deposit them all over the Earth in their natural habitats. The creatures naturally migrated after the flood.”

…evidence?”

The Bible account as well as the scattered and distorted accounts of a global flood catastrophe, the survival of a handful of humans and many animals on a boat that have been held in the collective memories of various civilisations throughout history, as well as what we know about animals and migration patterns.

“I’m proving that once a scientist relegates himself to the level of intellectual dishonesty and believing in the literal interpretation of a 2000 year old book that haven’t been proven, he is more than open to criticism and derision.”

And where was Dr Humphreys being dishonest? And the Biblical account of creation is more than 2000 years old. His belief in it is no reason for derision.

“What the hell is the point in studying anything to do with biology then? If you know that God has created everything, if this has been confirmed by your observations (which you continually keep mixing up with witnessing), if you know that the Bible is literally true…you have all the answers! Stop studying, you don’t need to do it anymore, do you?”

Perhaps because they want to learn how their Creator has designed life to work. Why shouldn’t they study it? The Bible tells them about why they exist, why life exists, the history of the universe and the ultimate fate of it and mankind. It tells them why they exist and for what purpose.

“I’d feel embarrassed too if someone accused me of believing in fairy tales and it was actually an accurate description of my beliefs.”

But it isn’t it’s an ignorant, inaccurate and slightly spiteful description of my beliefs.

“Noah’s Ark didn’t happen; the Tower of Babel didn’t happen; the world wide flood didn’t happen.”

There is evidence to the contrary so aside from “It’s stupid / ridiculous / idiotic / foolish etc” I believe you should explain how you know it didn’t happen. I’ve already mentioned other sources for the global flood as well as it’s connection with fossil layers, and the Tower of Babel is mentioned in extra-biblical sources such as the writings of Nebuchadnezza and Josephus. Like the multiple flood accounts, there are a number of traditions throughout the world of an ancient confusion of tongues. The tower was commissioned by Nimrod who is also mentioned in various extra-biblical sources.

“Non-belief is the default position for every single claim until evidence that supports that claim is presented.”

Says who?

“I say to you “I believe in unicorns, prove to me that they don’t exist” it doesn’t automatically make me true if you can’t provide evidence that they DON’T exist.”

And it doesn’t make one automatically wrong if you don’t provide evidence they do exist. But that isn’t the case here

“I believe there is an invisible pink hobbit living in the moon that secretly controls everything on Earth. It is undetectable by science because it exists outside space and time. Prove to me that is doesn’t exist. If you can’t prove that, I’m right.”

From what we know of Hobbits, they are physical, mortal, finite beings and you just said it lives in the moon and the moon exists within time and space, so bit of a contradiction there

And again, you oversimply and distort my argument in an attempt to show its “stupid” or “false”.
729 Cybogen
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:37 am

723. Matt Howard
Hahahaha…evidence? Where is Noah’s Ark by the way?

Here’s an answer to your comment Matt;
Satellite pictures taken last summer of Mount Ararat in Turkey may reveal the final resting place of Noah’s ark, according to Daniel McGivern, the businessman and Christian activist behind a planned summer 2004 expedition to investigate the site.
“We’re telling people we’re 98 percent sure,” said McGivern, a member of the Hawaii Christian Coalition. “In one image we saw the beams, saw the wood. I’m convinced that the excavation of the object and the results of tests run on any collected samples will prove that it is Noah’s ark. ”
Floods Swept Ancient Nile Cities Away, Expert Says
New Underwater Finds Raise Questions About Flood Myths
Bible-Era Artifacts Highlight Archaeology Controversy
McGivern wrote a list in his Bible more than 20 years ago of ten great projects. Finding Noah’s ark was at the top of his list.

McGivern began his quest in earnest in 1995, when the publication of a book on the topic moved him to arrange for satellite images to be taken of Mount Ararat.

Attempts to take satellite images in previous years had been foiled by clouds, unavailability of imaging equipment, and lack of image resolution. But the attempts had helped pinpoint the location. In the summer of 2003, everything came together.

“Last year was the hottest summer in Europe since 1500; more than 21,000 people died of the heat wave,” McGivern said. “The summer melt was far more extensive than it has been in years.”

DigitalGlobe, a commercial satellite-imagery company, confirmed that they took the images that McGivern is using.

An international team of archaeologists, forensic scientists, geologists, glaciologists, and others is being recruited to investigate the site sometime between July 15 and August 15.

Ahmet Arslan, a professor in Turkey who has climbed the mountain 50 times in 40 years, will lead the expedition. Arslan reported an eyewitness sighting of the ark and took a photograph in 1989 from about 220 yards (200 meters) away. However, he couldn’t get any closer, and the picture is not definitive.

“We hope to assemble what we’re calling the Dream Team,” Arslan said. “The slopes are very, very harsh and dangerous on the northern face—it is extremely challenging, mentally and physically.”

Noah’s Ark

The story of Noah’s ark is told in the Book of Genesis. It says God saw how corrupt the Earth had become and decided to “bring floodwaters on the Earth to destroy all life under the heavens.” God is said to have told Noah, an honorable man, to build an ark 450 feet (137 meters) long, 75 feet (23 meters) wide, and 45 feet (14 meters) high, and fill it with two of every species on the Earth. It reportedly rained for 40 days and 40 nights. After about seven months, the waters receded, and the ark came to rest, according to the Bible.
730 Matt Howard
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:32 am

Cybogen:

Sorry…where’s the evidence? You’ve pointed me to an outdated snippet of information from someone who runs a Christian Coalition who claims to have maybe found an anomaly on Mount Ararat yet hasn’t actually gotten any wood samples from it yet?

That’s not evidence; it’s an anecdote. Come back to me when the findings of Noah’s Ark are published in an archaeological journal.

Let me ask you this. Even if a boat was found, which is not uncommon seeing as there have been Viking Longships found in near pristine condition, in what way is that proof of anything other than a boat being found? In what way does it prove God told a man called Noah to do anything?

I asked for evidence. I didn’t ask for a story from 2004 about a trip that never even ended up happening. Here is an actual source that describes the failed trip:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2004/09/0920_040920_noahs_ark.html

Here is another source that claims a totally different site for Noah’s Ark from another committed Christian. Guess you Christians can’t form a consensus about this either?

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40060

Get back to me when you have more to offer than a useless story about a guy who planned a trip to Mount Ararat that never actually happened.
731 Stizzy
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:49 am

My response is taking awhile to appear, think it’s being moderated still :-p

That said, Cybogen, I would approach such things as you cited above with caution as some creationists would wait to hail such efforts as definite proof, and there have been many fraudulent claims in the past of locating the Ark. As it stands, for us, the Biblical account is where we start from.
732 oouchan
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:10 am

I have to give credit to Stizzy and Matt for keeping this going far beyond what is expected. You both know you will never convince the other, right?
As for the Ark…my 2 cents is that it really didn’t exist. That one sounds more like a story than any other accounting. Because of the quality of the pictures taken from Turkey, the Ark is still waiting to be solved.
IMHO…You guys should just call it a draw….for now.
733 Matt Howard
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:15 am

I’m up for that. My fingers are starting to cramp:P

Guess it’s a stalemate.
734 Stizzy
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:16 am

Hehe we probably should Oouchan as interesting as it’s been and as much as it’s helped to pass time when I have nothing to do at work, the debate has been going for quite awhile now hehe. I don’t mind calling it a day
735 lostatsea
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:23 am

Stizzy:
If stone age man did not exist, who created the cave drawings found throughout the world?
The speed of light is a proven Law, as we peer deeper into our universe we see the birth of star systems billions of years past. Is all this an illusion created by a devil??
I still posit we live in duality, either creating heaven or hell by how we choose to live!!
My theory of parallel universes and black holes somehow inter-connecting with ours, makes more sense(I think!) than some gigantic creature bigger than the universe creating us!!
736 Stizzy
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:30 am

I never said stone age man didn’t exist or say the speed of light isn’t proven law, or that all these things were illusions created by the devil lostatsea cave drawings are clearly there, there are even some that would appear to depict dinosaurs If I were to say anything about them, I would question the ages people have assigned to them.

I too believe we live in a duality, but one of the physical and spiritual. I also believe that there is a parallel spiritual reality that we don’t see.

I can understand though why you believe what you do as there was a time when parallel universes inter-connected by worm holes was something I seriously considered
737 Cybogen
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:32 am

The Strong Delusion is coming; the strong delusion will be sent by God, and the strong delusion will be directed not only at those of the world that are lost in their sins, but specifically at all lukewarm, undecided, and corrupt Christians…

2Thesalonians 2:11: And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie

2Thesalonians 2:12: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Webster’s definition of “unrighteous”:
evil, guilty, immoral, unholy, unjust, sinful, unworthy, wicked

Romans 13:11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed
Romans 13:11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed
Why would God send a Strong Delusion upon the world?
Because lost (unsaved) people of the earth including those that claim to be Christians “believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”
Thessalonians 2:7-12
God will send the strong delusion on those among us that are guilty of not accepting the truth of His Holy Word found within the Old and New Testament Bible. Their guilt also lies in their accepting and following after the unrighteous teachings perpetrated by false prophets within the Christian church.

These false prophets are controlled by seducing spirits; and while working under the guise of end times preachers, pastors, teachers, elders, and church laymen they are preaching, teaching and promoting doctrines of devils.

1st Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times some (Christians) shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
738 lostatsea
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:55 am

Oouchan:
It is fun sparring with Stizzy, I know I cannot hope to change his/her mind!!
Stizzy:
If God is so benevolent, why do we have to fear him/her/it??
Cave drawings also depict creatures in space suits, does that not prove alien visitation?
Colour fades quickly under water and in order to see the fantastic colours one needs a dive light, so octupi would have no need for colour vision.
Where is Randall?? We could use some more intelligence!!!
739 oouchan
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:03 am

lostatsea: I thought the cave drawings were proven to be fake? Either way I still believe there is life elsewhere.
As for fearing god…that is left up to the believer…and many of them love god more than they fear. That I do know from growing up in the middle of it.

Matt/Stizzy…I don’t want either of you to think that I was scolding you. Your debate was well mannered, informative and thought out. It was the nicest bickering I have seen.
740 Stizzy
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:05 am

“If God is so benevolent, why do we have to fear him/her/it??”

This kind of fear isn’t the “you scare the pants off me” fear, but that kind of reverance and awe of profound respect.

“Cave drawings also depict creatures in space suits, does that not prove alien visitation?”

Haven’t seen those, any idea where I can find images? I did watch an interesting documentary though on aliens which put forth the idea that what we call “aliens” are really spiritual beings (basically what we’d called demons and fallen angels) who are masquerading.

“Colour fades quickly under water and in order to see the fantastic colours one needs a dive light, so octupi would have no need for colour vision.”

Sounds like their eyes were designed for them to live under water
741 Stizzy
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:06 am

Don’t think that at all oouchan if it’s been informative, that’s great
742 ComeOn
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:20 am

Stizzy: I am not a US citizen and i am amazed at the current efforts in the US to convert creationism into science. Why bring religion & beliefs into science? I don’t see the need.

Creationism & Intelligent Design are pseudo-sciences, at best. Your Thoughts?
743 lostatsea
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:25 am

Stizzy:
VonDaniken has authored some interesting books on ancient man’s depictions of alien beings, also check NASA footage of strange objects seen from the Shuttle. Thousands of people including pilots and police have reported UFOs.
To give credence to these reports are radar tracks of some.
Oouchan:
Some may be fakes but since they are scattered in many different parts of the world it would be hard to fake them all.
If one accepts the validity of alien beings intelligent enough to visit our planet, it also stands to reason that they could have interfered with our genetic makeup!!
Perhaps we were an experiment!! ha ha!!
See I can explain our origins with mythic beings too!!
744 redpanda
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:30 am

Ultimately, only the weak minded have a need for a god or any gods. Is life really so difficult one cannot function without praying to a tostada that looks like jesus or a scone that resembles allah? Survival of the fittest clearly includes mental fitness; it’s a shame the religious find the time to breed and pass on their insecurities to their brood. Humanity would be so much better if not for the sheep. Hell, if not for the religious-based restrictions on all aspects of society during the first dozen or so centuries, Columbus might have flown to the moon, not just voyaged to the Americas.
745 lostatsea
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:36 am

Stizzy:
Forgot to add, otupi perhaps adapted to living under water!
There are many unknown creatures deep within the oceans of the world adapted to living in extreme pressure and total darkness. There have been sea creatures long thought extinct
caught in various parts of the planet.
I simply keep an open mind and realize how much we don’t know.
746 Stizzy
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:37 am

I’m not a US citizen either ComeOn, but I don’t see what that has to do with it as these views aren’t limited to the US. There isn’t an effort to turn creationism into science. Throughout history there have been many scientists who had a creation world view and this has inspired their pioneering work. “Beliefs” and “religion/world views” are inherent to all people who study science when you think about it. If you can define religion as:

Any system or institution which one engages with in order to foster a sense of meaning or relevance in relation to something greater than oneself.

It blurs the line between the distinctions and questions whether religion and belief is already in science anyway.

I don’t believe it’s pseudo science as there isn’t an effort to make it “appear” as science, as many people seem to imply.

Many believers in creation are scientists who actively engage in scientific study, however they may interpret their findings and draw conclusions based on their belief, but what they practice is nontheless science.

Lostatsea:”VonDaniken has authored some interesting books on ancient man’s depictions of alien beings, also check NASA footage of strange objects seen from the Shuttle. Thousands of people including pilots and police have reported UFOs.
To give credence to these reports are radar tracks of some.”

Yeah I’ve seen a lot of footage of strange objects but that’s just what they are…strange, unidentified objects that fly.

Will look into Von Daniken though, and whether the drawings you speak of have been found to be fakes. Either way, if “aliens” were really masquerading demons and fallen angels, ancient peoples recording sightings of them wouldn’t be a surprise. From the account of the Nephillim alone you could expect this.

“If one accepts the validity of alien beings intelligent enough to visit our planet, it also stands to reason that they could have interfered with our genetic makeup!!
Perhaps we were an experiment!! ha ha!!
See I can explain our origins with mythic beings too!!”

Except your explanation leaves the question of the origin of said mythic beings that said, if you can believe that, I can assume you understand why it’s possible for many to believe what I believe.
747 Stizzy
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:43 am

“Forgot to add, otupi perhaps adapted to living under water!
There are many unknown creatures deep within the oceans of the world adapted to living in extreme pressure and total darkness. There have been sea creatures long thought extinct
caught in various parts of the planet.
I simply keep an open mind and realize how much we don’t know.”

Indeedy, they very well could have adapted.

The fact that there have been sea creatures long thought extinct and even appearing in fossils having been found alive today is not something that surprises me at all

There really is a lot we don’t know.

Btw, took a quick peek at some of Von Daniken’s claims, does seem that a lot of his conclusions are based on the assumption that ancient man was more primitive and less intelligent than modern man (due to evolutionary presuppositions) and that he wouldn’t have been able to construct certain artifacts, implying alien intervention.

However, from the biblical point of view, early man would have been far from primitive, would have lived longer and may have possessed certain knowledge we don’t have today. So there’s no need to appeal to aliens as the source of this knowledge or the amazing feats of ancient man. I think we should give mankind more credit and the Creator who made such intelligence possible
748 oouchan
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:06 am

lostatsea: You might have a point there. They might not all be fake. As for them being intelligent to visit our planet…If I were them, I would avoid us like the plague. If they did land, we would shoot first, ask questions later.
749 smithstar15
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:52 am

Atheists believe it’s ridiculous to believe that a creator created the universe.And they love to ask,”ok,where did God come from”? But they don’t find it the least bit incredible that Irvin invented the universe.For the ones who don’t know,Irvin was a tiny particle of energy just floating along in a void whistling,”Me And My Shadow” when all of a sudden Irvin started to expand-HE didn’t know what in the heck was going on–He just kept gettin bigger and bigger. Irvin got so big he just exploded and became the suns and planets and moons and McDonalds and Disneyworld and slurpies and well,just everything. As you can see,this is much more plausible than believing in a ridiculous “Creator”–
750 lostatsea
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:12 am

Oouchan:
So true!! As in the old movie ‘The Day The Earth Stood Still’ with Michael Rennie. Oh oh smithstar strikes again!!ha ha
751 750
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:14 am

comment 750 DO IT!
752 750
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:15 am

im a douche
753 smithstar15
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:40 am

PS:I have no idea where Irvin came from–I guess he always was.
754 smithstar15
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:42 am

PPS: It takes a lot of faith to believe in Irvin–
755 Maggot
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:40 pm

582 Stizzy: If you don’t mind me saying, there seems to be a lot of mudslinging going on here and a lot of posturing but nothing much beyond that.

Matt (several times, paraphrasing): give me a falsifiable test for creation.

Stizzy: continued verbal gymnastics, ignoring that simple challenge.

Matt: continued logical, orderly, fact-based rebuttals.

Stizzy: continued circular reasoning, logical fallacies, special pleading, and word parsing of Matt in attempt to cloud the facts and trip him up.

671 GTT: No, you were asked to provide a test for falsiability. That is what you still have not provided.

Cybogen: interjection of more stories and useless nonsense.

Matt (several times, again paraphrasing): give me evidence, other than “it appears to be designed”.

Stizzy: same ol’ song and dance.

732 oouchan: IMHO…You guys should just call it a draw

No, let’s call it: “Stizzy has lost” until he either puts up (a falsifiable test) or shuts up.
756 Matt Howard
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:07 pm

Thanks, Maggot:) I honestly couldn’t be arsed anymore with it, but glad to know someone appreciated what I was trying to ask Stizzy for.
757 Mark
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:12 pm

“Oh look at me, I’m a reasonable and rational atheist. What I’m saying *must* be correct because evidence, and thus, the scientific method say it is. I can’t be wrong, the Christians must be. I’ll just get pissed off at anyone who doesn’t share my view after I present my side of the argument, I mean, they must be wrong anyway.”

For crying out loud! I’m as peeved at you guys as you are with Stiz!
758 Matt Howard
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:26 pm

…Stizzy believes in Noah’s Ark and the Earth being, at most, 10,000 years old. I rest my case, Mark. Christians aren’t wrong; Young Earth Creationists are wrong.
759 Mark
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:35 pm

758. Matt Howard : But if God *is* omnipotent like Stizzy says, then your science and evidence mean absolutely nothing. I mean *literally* nothing, at all. You can *not* proove that God doesn’t exist and that he isn’t omnipotent, so a touch of humility would be in order. That’s all I’m saying, not that Stizzy is right, and definitely not that you’re wrong, just that you’re not necessarily right.
760 Maggot
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:43 pm

757 Mark: For crying out loud!

Yes, you do it so well.

I’m as peeved at you guys as you are with Stiz!

Then you are in as much denial as he is.
761 Mark
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:49 pm

760. Maggot : Sometimes you act nicely toward me – the Death Metal list being my best example – but other times you are just condescending. Is it because I’m young? What is your problem with me? All you did there was attack me, there was no reason that I’m in denial, just that I am apparantly. Oh well, you obviously know so much more than me, I guess I’d better take your word on it
762 Matt Howard
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:53 pm

Mark:

I have my own opinions on the Bible. I don’t believe it is true, and the only thing that would change my mind is evidence, evidence which you claim is impossible. That is besides the point though.

Stizzy came on here advocating a Young Earth, denial of Evolution and the truth of Noah’s Ark. I steadfastly defend that he is wrong in these cases, and my claims are backed up by scientific consensus; he is not arguing in the religious realm when it comes to these claims, he is arguing in a realm in which evidence and proof ARE important and CAN be used to determine truth. In regards to these claims, I, and the vast majority of scientists, in fact every scientist in the world aside from 700 or so who signed a statement the creationists put out claiming evolution was not verified, deny their validity.

You should be peeved that people like Stizzy demand respect for these views in the face of such overwhelming evidence contrary to their claims, simply for holding the belief. I’m guessing you wouldn’t respect someone who claimed the moon-landing didn’t happen or that the World Trade Center destruction was perpetrated by Jews, so why do you demand that I respect Stizzy’s views on Noah’s Ark?
763 Maggot
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:53 pm

759 Mark: You can *not* proove that God doesn’t exist and that he isn’t omnipotent, so a touch of humility would be in order.

You’re giving undo credence to a story that is made up. Plain and simple. It is an imagined being. Just like the good ol’ FSM. Prove that one doesn’t exist. You can’t, because you can’t prove a negative. Doesn’t make it any more credible though.
764 lostatsea
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:53 pm

Matt:
Actually Stizzy said 6,000 yrs for the universe and the earth together!!! 12.50am. can’t sleep!!
Mark:
Perhaps we’re all wrong and smithstar has it with irving!!!
he he he!!
765 Mark
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:09 pm

762. Matt Howard : Heh, I don’t remember demanding you to respect Stizzy’s views? I don’t even remember asking you to. I only said that you are not 100%, completely, utterly and definitely right, so why act like it? Isn’t that what you don’t like about Stiz, his stubborness? You do notice how hipocritical it is to say “Stizzy is wrong. Stizzy is also stubborn.” right?

763. Maggot : Doesn’t make it any *less* credible either…
766 Maggot
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:11 pm

761 Mark: All you did there was attack me

I took your sarcastic 757 as being an attack on me, that’s why. You drew first blood.

By “denial” I mean that you are denying that his POV has no credibility whatsoever, just for the sake of promoting “let’s just all get along”.

I did say in an earlier post that I don’t have anything personal against the guy though, FWIW. Nor do I with you. Re the DM list, I just try to keep any differences of opinion about whatever subject separate from other unrelated topics.
767 lostatsea
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:14 pm

Matt:
http://www.AE911TRUTH.org for a look at the World Trade Center from Architects and Engineers who doubt the official version of their destruction. After the hotel fire in China which burned for 22hrs the structure was still standing!!
Sorry went off topic!!!
Maggot:
One could give credence for aliens with advanced technology coming to earth as gods just as easily!!
Although I do believe there is a cosmic force that flows through the universe and if someone wants to call that God is fine by me, just dont tell me HE created all life in 6,000yrs.
768 Maggot
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:21 pm

765 Mark: Doesn’t make it any *less* credible either

“Making something up” is way less credible than drawing evidence-based conclusions.
769 Matt Howard
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:24 pm

Mark:

“I don’t remember demanding you to respect Stizzy’s views?”

I felt it was implied by the way you attacked us Atheists. Apologies if you didn’t mean it that way

No one can be 100% right. Absolute truth is not what I said I had, nor is it what the scientific method dictates. Never have I said “Stizzy, I AM CORRECT”. That would be a completely ridiculous thing to say. People CAN be 100% wrong though i.e. their beliefs and claims can be falsified. That is the whole premise of science; science doesn’t prove things, it tries to falsify them, and if they survive the onslaught of criticism and falsification the theory remains. If it doesn’t, the theory gets thrown out because it is wrong. Stizzy’s theories on the age of the Universe have been completely falsified, and are wrong, so why should I say “oh, well you may be right”?

If you consider me stubborn because I refuse to believe in claims that have been continually falsified scientifically, then consider me stubborn.
770 lostatsea
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:36 pm

Stizzy:
Just wondering if you are Baptist and are a born again Christian, also (Luke 14:33) seems to preach ascetism as the way to God (‘abandon all possessions in order to reach me’) or words to that effect!!
Curious that Lucifer mean light bringer or bright one strange name for the prince of darkness!!
Well that tired me out so night all!!
Peace
771 lostatsea
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:39 pm

Matt:
Cosider me stubborn too!!
772 Mark
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:42 pm

766. Maggot : I thought you were coolly logical? If Matt posted, then me, wouldn’t that indicate that if it was anything – or anyone – the provoked me, it was Matt? I did say “you guys” at the end of 757, I was talking about all of the atheists here at LV that just can’t stand someone believing in Creationism, because they are convinced that it is wrong. You’re just coming across as superior and gloating when you and Matt talk about how “stupid” and “ignorant” Stizzy is.

I agree with you and Matt that Stizzy shouldn’t be arguing here. Creationism and an omnipotent being can’t be proven with what we know at the moment – neither can Evolution, but we’re a lot closer. Where I object is where you and Matt seem to think that just because Evolution wins this argument, it *must* be right and we shouldn’t bother with alternatives. If the world worked like that, we would all still believe in God because he definitely used to have the upper hand. How do you *know* that we won’t wake up tomorrow and be saying to yourself “Aww, damn…” when you see some fellas on horses riding around killing everyone?

You do have at least one problem with me, you’ve already admitted it. All I was saying is that maybe you have a few more complaints that you haven’t mentioned yet.

Matt and Maggot, in 768/769, take a step back. I’ve already said, your evidence wouldn’t mean anything if God does exist. I’m obviously not on Stizzy’s side here, so there’s no need to explain the scientific method to me. I’m not talking in facts, figures, statistics, measurements and observations, I’m talking philosophically, metaphysically. I’m not saying “Stizzy’s views have credence given what science and human observation says.”, I’m saying “This whole thing we’re seeing, *could* just be a creation formulated by something bigger. If you don’t believe that, fine, but don’t act as if it *can’t* be, because until you prove that it can’t, it can be.”.

I’m not saying that just because you can’t disprove God he must exist, I’m using logic here – one of your tools – if we can’t prove that it wasn’t something or someone bigger, how can we be sure it wasn’t? How can we be *sure* that we are right?
773 Matt Howard
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:00 pm

“neither can Evolution, but we’re a lot closer”

Nothing in science is proven. Evolution has survived every single falsifiable test put forth in 140 years, that’s why it is still the theory that best explains how life diversified. The theory of Gravity isn’t proven either.

“your evidence wouldn’t mean anything if God does exist”

I know it wouldn’t, but you claimed God couldn’t been proven with science anyway, so who cares? If the only way I’ll find that out is when I die, why should I care while I’m alive?

“How can we be *sure* that we are right?”

We can never be sure that we are right. The only thing we can be sure about is if something is wrong. I take it you’ve never heard of Popperian falsification. Sir Karl Popper realized the problems of proving something was true. He put forward the explanation that scientists could claim every single Swan was white, but short of gathering every single Swan in the world and eternally watching them until the end of existence, we would never know for certain if the hypothesis was correct. He then said that the only thing we could be absolutely certain about was that if a black Swan was found, the theory is falsified. This is the principle science on which science operates.

I’m not sure I’m right about anything. I consider my particular beliefs strong because they don’t contradict any evidence and until they do so I will keep believing them.

“I’m talking philosophically, metaphysically”

Philosophically, I’m alright with. When you start talking about metaphysics, you enter an entirely different realm, one that treads the fine line between validity and bullshit. It is an extremely subjective realm, hence, I don’t give it much credence.

“because until you prove that it can’t, it can be”

The default position for any claim is disbelief until evidence is provided, and that is the logic I live by. If you can’t provide evidence, I won’t believe it.

“You’re just coming across as superior and gloating when you and Matt talk about how “stupid” and “ignorant” Stizzy is.”

Just because someones claims can never definitively be defined as wrong given your presupposition that God could have created every bit of evidence and, hence, an illusion, doesn’t mean I share this logic. I believe that claims which have been falsified, and every aspect of their explanations falsified, should not be believed in. Belief in the face of contradictory evidence is not a value I find particularly endearing, and I’ll defend my decision to view someone who operates in that manner unworthy of respect. That’s my opinion, and if I come across as superior and gloating because I view the literal interpretation of Noah’s Ark, the Tower of Babel and a Young universe stupid, well…I guess I’m acting superior and gloating. Whatever.
774 Stizzy
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:10 pm

Lostatsea:”Stizzy:
Just wondering if you are Baptist and are a born again Christian, also (Luke 14:33) seems to preach ascetism as the way to God (’abandon all possessions in order to reach me’)”

What Jesus is teaching here is not that abandoning possessions leads to God, but that you shouldn’t be so attached to things on Earth that it gets in the way of you following Him. If you live for the things of this world, which are passing away, you can’t hope to have life as you’ll perish with those possessions.

“Curious that Lucifer mean light bringer or bright one strange name for the prince of darkness!!”

Well not so strange when you consider that he was once a high ranking angel of incredible beauty and form, and can still appear as an angel of light.

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works. 2 Corinthians 11:13-15

It’s something of an irony that the bearer of light would become the prince of darkness.

“Just wondering if you are Baptist and are a born again Christian…”

I am what I am.
775 Maggot
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:14 pm

Mark: Where I object is where you and Matt seem to think that just because Evolution wins this argument, it *must* be right and we shouldn’t bother with alternatives.

Mark, trying not to condescend here, but you are just not getting it. The “alternatives” being presented by YECs have absolutely no basis for credibility. None. They have already been falsified. How many times does that have to be said? Why should they continue to be bothered with?

How can we be *sure* that we are right?

Evidence (and scientific interpretation thereof). We go with what we have, until it is proven otherwise.
776 Stizzy
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:24 pm

“Evolution has survived every single falsifiable test put forth in 140 years.”

Even the big one, macroevolution, which can be neither observed or tested? As opposed to gravity which can be observed and tested.

“If the only way I’ll find that out is when I die, why should I care while I’m alive?”

Because then you’ll have to answer for why you didn’t care while you were alive. Scary prospect and you won’t have Maggot to help you.

“We can never be sure that we are right. The only thing we can be sure about is if something is wrong. I take it you’ve never heard of Popperian falsification…”

Was just wondering, if we can never be sure we’re right, how can we ever be absolutely certain that something being wrong is the right conclusion?
777 Stizzy
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:35 pm

Incidently Maggot:
(with lots paraphrasing)

Matt: I have evidence. The Earth, fossils, fossil layers, genetics, mutation, natural selection, paleantology, biology. Where is your evidence?

Stizzy: The Bible, The Earth, fossils, fossil layers, genetics, mutation, natural selection, archeology, history, paleantology, biology…

Matt: That is NOT evidence. The Bible is false because it’s false! Prove to me that is evidence!

Maggot: Yeah, prove it or shut up!

Stizzy: (explanation of relation between evidence and belief)

Matt: That’s NOT an explanation, that’s special pleading and an argument from ignorance.

Maggot: Yeah, prove it or shut up!

Matt: Give me a test for creation!

Stizzy: Give me a test for macroevolution.

Matt: Common descent!

Stizzy: Common design!

Two can play that game. It doesn’t mean anything in the long run because it’s incredibly truncated :p
778 Maggot
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:43 pm

777 Stizzy: Two can play that game.

Yet still you don’t put up.
779 Matt Howard
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:43 pm

“Was just wondering, if we can never be sure we’re right, how can we ever be absolutely certain that something being wrong is the right conclusion?”

It is a logical necessity. Popperian falsification applies to scientific theories about the natural world. Logic, and all its various subsets, deals with language, statements and arguments, and it is possible to have logical truths; A or B; not A, therefore, B for example. A conclusion is a logical outcome of the process of assessing claims. There are objections to Popperian falsification, but it is still an extremely strong method of structuring understanding of natural phenomena.

Your argument is a bit confusing, as it muddies the waters between logical deduction and natural phenomena. It’s a bit like saying “this sentence is false”; pretty confusing. I must say though, it’s a pretty cool argument. Got me thinking!

“Because then you’ll have to answer for why you didn’t care while you were alive. Scary prospect”

Not gonna get into this. Debating about Evolution and Intelligent Design is enough for now.

“Even the big one, macroevolution, which can be neither observed or tested? As opposed to gravity which can be observed and tested.”

We’ve been over this. You simply keep ignoring the example of provided of evolution passing a falsifiable test in regards to Chimp/Human mtDNA. Can you acknowledge next time that you have understood this argument, and give me reasons why you keep rejecting it?
780 Matt Howard
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:58 pm

Stizzy:

Copied your previous post with some more accurate annotations.

Incidently Maggot:
(with lots paraphrasing)

Matt: I have evidence. The Earth, fossils, fossil layers, genetics, mutation, natural selection, paleantology, biology. Where is your evidence?

Stizzy: The Bible, The Earth, fossils, fossil layers, genetics, mutation, natural selection, archeology, history, paleantology, biology…

Matt: That is NOT evidence. The Bible is false because it’s false! Prove to me that is evidence! (The Bible is falsified because it contradicts currently known evidence, plus it doesn’t actually have any evidence supporting the claims you extract from it.)

Maggot: Yeah, prove it or shut up!

Stizzy: (explanation of relation between evidence and belief)

Matt: That’s NOT an explanation, that’s special pleading and an argument from ignorance.

Maggot: Yeah, prove it or shut up!

Matt: Give me a test for creation!

Stizzy: Give me a test for macroevolution. (already did, plus you never responded to my accusations about special pleading and why it isn’t an argument from ignorance)

Matt: Common descent!

Stizzy: Common design! (never actually provided me with a test)

Two can play that game. It doesn’t mean anything in the long run because it’s incredibly truncated :p
781 Stizzy
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:13 am

“Logic, and all its various subsets, deals with language, statements and arguments, and it is possible to have logical truths.”

I see, although the only place it becomes murkey is that logic is more about reason, which can be subjective, and what we define as “truth” may not be certain, especially given that we can’t be certain about what’s right and therefore what’s true. Can send your head into a spin just thinking about it loool but guess my question is with that in mind, do you think we can really have logical truths?

“We’ve been over this. You simply keep ignoring the example of provided of evolution passing a falsifiable test in regards to Chimp/Human mtDNA. Can you acknowledge next time that you have understood this argument, and give me reasons why you keep rejecting it?”

This was your original post on the subject:

“One testable experiment came at the time scientists were studying Chimpanzee mtDNA. The hypothesis was that if chimp mtDNA was non-related to human mtDNA, Evolution would be considerably weakened. The experiment was the comparison between these two mtDNA codes. It was found that humans and chimps shared around 99% of each other’s mtDNA.”

The argument (from what I can gather) with mtDNA is that there are similarities between chimp/human DNA that can’t have arisen through separate mutation, therefore they must have common descent. But this would imply that because it can’t have happened through separate mutation, either they have common descent or they were both designed separately with those similarities by a common designer.

To quote Dr J Safarti:

‘Since DNA codes for structures and biochemical molecules, we should expect the most similar creatures to have the most similar DNA. Apes and humans are both mammals, with similar shapes, so both have similar DNA. We should expect humans to have more DNA similarities with another mammal like a pig than with a reptile like a rattlesnake. And this is so. Humans are very different from yeast but they have some biochemistry in common, so we should expect human DNA to differ more from yeast DNA than from ape DNA.

See, I’m not rejecting that it’s possible, I’m simply saying it isn’t the only conclusion that can be drawn from that test and that if one wanted to test for common design, the results would go a ways to supporting it.
782 Stizzy
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:23 am

“The Bible is falsified because it contradicts currently known evidence, plus it doesn’t actually have any evidence supporting the claims you extract from it.”

By that same logic, macroevolution is falsified because it contradicts currently known evidence. Doesn’t this more show something is capable of being falsified, and not that it most certainly is?

And the Bible does have evidence, it has historical evidence, it has archeological evidence, and scientific evidence that support the claims.

“plus you never responded to my accusations about special pleading and why it isn’t an argument from ignorance”

I did, you just used special pleading and argument from ignorance to ignore my response.

“never actually provided me with a test.”

I don’t need to, you already provided it with YOUR test.
783 Matt Howard
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:42 am

“The argument (from what I can gather) with mtDNA is that there are similarities between chimp/human DNA that can’t have arisen through separate mutation, therefore they must have common descent. But this would imply that because it can’t have happened through separate mutation, either they have common descent or they were both designed separately with those similarities by a common designer.”

Not just similarities, i.e. things that look the same. There are similarities that couldn’t be possible without a direct influence from a common ancestor. Humans have 46 chromosomes, or 23 pairs, while all the other primates have 48, or 24 pairs. There is no possible way that humans could have lost a pair of chromosomes without it being lethal, so the only way we could have 2 less chromosomes than primates is a fusion of 2 chromosome pairs. If we couldn’t find this in humans, that was it. Evolution would be in serious trouble, trouble enough to make me question it’s validity and I dare say most of the scientific establishment. Chromosome pair number 2 in humans is the result of the fusion of two different chromosome pairs that are found in lower primates. We can tell this because at the end of each chromosome is a thing called a telomere. If a fusion of two chromosomes occurred, a telomere would be located in the middle; something that doesn’t happen in any other chromosome. Chromosome number 2 in human beings has a telomere located in the middle of it, impossible without the fusion of two chromosomes, hence the primates having 48 chromosomes and us having 46.

Is this explanation easy to grasp? Hell no. And I can pretty much guess your following argument. It’s going to be that it is indicative of common design, and to be honest any sort of explanation that I put forward can be countered by ‘it was designed that way’. That’s not a strength; it’s a fundamental weakness of Intelligent Design.

Can you please tell me now what test you could put forward that matches the strength of that extremely reliable and repeatable test that Intelligent Design could perform to falsify there hypothesis?

“I see, although the only place it becomes murkey is that logic is more about reason, which can be subjective, and what we define as “truth” may not be certain, especially given that we can’t be certain about what’s right and therefore what’s true. Can send your head into a spin just thinking about it loool but guess my question is with that in mind, do you think we can really have logical truths?”

It really is an interesting question. I do think we can have logical truths, but it is highly dependent on the framework in which you establish the argument. If I construct a syllogism like:

‘Bear’ has four letters
Letters make up words

Therefore

Bear is a four-lettered word

I would consider it a logical truth. However, something like:

Love is an emotion
Emotions are real

Therefore

Love is real

This is a highly subjective and interpretive kind of concept, and I don’t think that would be truthful.

You’re right, it does bloody make my head spin:P
784 Stizzy
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:42 am

If I may, I want to present a crude thought exercise which I think illustrates my point:

Imagine mountain bikes and motorbikes. You believe that both evolved from another transport some time in the past.

In order to test your theory, you devise a test to examine the parts that make up the mountain bikes and motorbikes. If they have similar parts, this would imply common descent.

You discover that the mountain bikes and motor bikes share 95% of their components and so conclude they came from one form of transport in the past.

Someone else comes, sees the same bikes and theorises that both mountain bikes and motor bikes have the same designer.

In order to test their theory, they examine the parts that make up the bikes. If they have similar parts, this would imply common design.

They discover that the mountain bikes and motor bikes share 95% of their components, and so conclude they have a common designer.

Now, bear in mind that this depends on what kinds of components were being examined. If it were components such as wheels, seat, handles, peddles etc, that would give you one percentage of similarity.

If it were components such as metals, plastics, paints, oils, fabrics etc that would give another percentage of similarity.

If it were the chemical compositions of such components and their arrangements within the bikes, that would give another percentage of similarity.

Such is the case with the chimp/human DNA analysis. It depends on what exactly is being tested.
785 Stizzy
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:45 am

“It really is an interesting question. I do think we can have logical truths, but it is highly dependent on the framework in which you establish the argument.”

Yeah, and I too think we can have logical truths. The question that always bakes my noodle is, why can we have logical truths?
786 jfrater
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:48 am

Matt Howard: you are right about an “objective truth” and it annoys me no end when people talk about “my truth” or “your truth”.

Having said that, I am not sure your syllogism is valid – because “letters make up words” does not necessarily stand true:

“t x tn v ppp”

Those are letters – but none are words. A better syllogism is:

All mortals die.
All men are mortals.

Therefore, all men die.
787 Stizzy
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:49 am

“…to be honest any sort of explanation that I put forward can be countered by ‘it was designed that way’. That’s not a strength; it’s a fundamental weakness of Intelligent Design…

…Can you please tell me now what test you could put forward that matches the strength of that extremely reliable and repeatable test that Intelligent Design could perform to falsify there hypothesis?”

This is where I begin to scratch my head, because if the same test or argument can so easily be said to indicate design, why is it a weakness for design yet strength for your case?
788 Matt Howard
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:59 am

jfrater:

Good point. I reject subjective truth also, and now I look my syllogism does fall apart:P I always thought the ones that ended up with a true conclusion but were preceded with false premises were interesting:P

All men have brown hair
Einstein wasn’t a man

Therefore

Einstein didn’t have brown hair

hehe:D

Stizzy:

“This is where I begin to scratch my head, because if the same test or argument can so easily be said to indicate design, why is it a weakness for design yet strength for your case?”

You just answered your own question. Because no matter what test is put forth, and no matter what the outcome, it can always be taken to indicate design – hence, no falsifiability!!!
789 Stizzy
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:01 am

Also to add in relation to the thought experiment, one might say that having the same components doesn’t indicate design alone. But here is the key…the key is purpose. The bikes have clearly been built for, tailored to and arranged for a specific purpose and specific circumstances. The question for the evolutionary model is why these components would have arranged themselves or have been arranged in such a way?

They would appear to have no purpose and yet indicate that they fit a specific purpose.

The design model would give an explanation for why they appear to have a purpose and fit specific circumstances, because they are the result of an intelligent designer.

So I guess the question becomes, does existence have a purpose or is it all just an illusion? If it’s all just an illusion, how can we be certain there isn’t a purpose, because we can’t be sure of anything in such an illusion?
790 Stizzy
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:05 am

“You just answered your own question. Because no matter what test is put forth, and no matter what the outcome, it can always be taken to indicate design – hence, no falsifiability!!!”

But isn’t the whole point of falsifiability that a test can be done that IF the results indicate otherwise, it could be falsified?

If all the tests that can be and have been done so far indicate design, it doesn’t mean there isn’t another test somewhere that someone hasn’t thought of yet that can falsify it.

To say that no test can be done, and no matter what the outcome it will always indicate design is to presume to know that every possible test has been thought of and that the extent of possible knowledge on the matter has been reached. And you don’t know this, therefore how can you state such a thing?
791 Stizzy
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:08 am

To add,

I believe this would be the argument from ignorance…just because you can’t conceive of something, doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
792 Matt Howard
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:10 am

Stizzy:

The bikes sure have. However, bikes aren’t biological organisms. And the purpose you speak of is quite clear in Evolution; reproduction. The benefits become benefits to creatures based on the characteristics they provide which allow the creature to reproduce. Nothing more, nothing less.

How would you answer my example of telomeres being in the middle of chromosomes in humans, the result of a fusion from past generations? Is God being deceptive, trying to trick us? Why didn’t he create this one single chromosome exactly the same as the others? It seems if God did design that chromosome he was in a particularly strange mood that day:P
793 Matt Howard
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:12 am

Stizzy:

“To say that no test can be done, and no matter what the outcome it will always indicate design is to presume to know that every possible test has been thought of and that the extent of possible knowledge on the matter has been reached. And you don’t know this, therefore how can you state such a thing?”

Give me an example. That’s what I’ve been arguing from the beginning. You can’t just say “well, Intelligent Design isn’t falsifiable right at the moment, but it will be once we can be bothered to think of a test!”. Well by that logic, until you can think of that test, ID shouldn’t be considered falsifiable and therefore shouldn’t be considered science.
794 Stizzy
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:33 am

And what’s been happening from the beginning is that you keep saying give me an example and I keep saying the example YOU gave is good enough. But because it can support ID and other test presumably could, you deny it.

Even so, if there is indeed an absolute truth, it would stand to reason that it would not be possible to falsify it. If there truly is such an incredibly intelligent designer, who by essence IS absolute truth, it makes sense that we would not be able to refute His existence or His design. Now this may not be good “science” according to what people define as the “scientific method”, however the word itself means knowledge. If He does exist, who are WE – mere humans, mere designs – to tell such a designer, a true source of ALL knowledge, what knowledge is? Who are we to presume what is true knowledge when true knowledge would begin with such an Intelligence?

“The fear (reverence & respect) of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.” Proverbs 1:7

“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. To him belongs eternal praise.” Proverbs 111:10

“If you seek her (wisdom) as silver, and search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God. For the LORD gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding.” Proverbs 2:4-6
795 Matt Howard
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:40 am

“Even so, if there is indeed an absolute truth, it would stand to reason that it would not be possible to falsify it. If there truly is such an incredibly intelligent designer, who by essence IS absolute truth, it makes sense that we would not be able to refute His existence or His design. Now this may not be good “science” according to what people define as the “scientific method”, however the word itself means knowledge. If He does exist, who are WE – mere humans, mere designs – to tell such a designer, a true source of ALL knowledge, what knowledge is? Who are we to presume what is true knowledge when true knowledge would begin with such an Intelligence?

“The fear (reverence & respect) of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.” Proverbs 1:7

“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. To him belongs eternal praise.” Proverbs 111:10

“If you seek her (wisdom) as silver, and search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God. For the LORD gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding.” Proverbs 2:4-6″

Then it isn’t science, it shouldn’t be taught it schools, it isn’t justifiable to compare it Evolution. End of discussion. I win:)
796 Matt Howard
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:42 am

Edit: Then it isn’t science, it shouldn’t be taught it schools, it isn’t justifiable to compare it TO Evolution. End of discussion. I win:)
797 Stizzy
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:45 am

Who said anything about teaching it in schools? And it is justifiable to compare it (as an entire world view) to naturalism (as that is also a world view), while comparitively discussing their interpretations of scientific findings.

What I find ironic is that you say:

“You can’t just say “well, Intelligent Design isn’t falsifiable right at the moment, but it will be once we can be bothered to think of a test!”. Well by that logic, until you can think of that test, ID shouldn’t be considered falsifiable and therefore shouldn’t be considered science.”

But you didn’t give an example of a test that hasn’t been done yet, but of a test that’s been done in the past and used to support macroevolution. How can a verified test be used as a case for a falsifiable theory? By YOUR logic, macroevolution shouldn’t be considered falsifiable and therefore shouldn’t be considered science.

In trying to dig my grave, you dig your own because we’re standing on the same spot!
798 Matt Howard
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:51 am

“But you didn’t give an example of a test that hasn’t been done yet, but of a test that’s been done in the past and used to support macroevolution. How can a verified test be used as a case for a falsifiable theory? By YOUR logic, macroevolution shouldn’t be considered falsifiable and therefore shouldn’t be considered science.”

…How exactly can I give an example of a test that hasn’t been done?

If evolution had failed to pass this test, which it would have if there had been no trace of fused chromosomes in humans, the hypothesis that humans evolved from primates would have been falsified.

End of discussion again. I still win:)
799 Stizzy
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:58 am

Erm….because before you have to think of the test before you actually do it.

You asked me to think of a test after giving your example, I said your example could be the test.

You then try and play ping-pong by saying because that test supports ID, ID can’t be falsified and therefore it’s not science.

But by that same logic, since the test supports macroevolution, macroevolution can’t be falsified and therefore it’s not science.

What you’ve been trying to subtley do is get me to think of a test that hasn’t been done yet, but could in theory falsify ID. Now, when I expose that that’s what you’ve been trying to do, you say:

“…How exactly can I give an example of a test that hasn’t been done?”

If you can say that, I can say, how can I?

If ID had failed to pass your test, which it would have if there had been no trace of common design, the hypothesis that humans and primates were seperately but commonly designed would have been falsified.

I don’t know if you’re trying to be silly on purpose or if you’re doing it unintentionally.
800 Matt Howard
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:21 am

“What you’ve been trying to subtley do is get me to think of a test that hasn’t been done yet, but could in theory falsify ID. Now, when I expose that that’s what you’ve been trying to do, you say”

SUBTLY?!?! I’ve been blatantly asking you from the start!

Look, with all your verbal gymnastics as Maggot put it, let me spell it out.

The hypothesis was that humans evolved from primates. A test was constructed that could either:

a: falsify that prediction by failing to find a fused chromosome.
b: support that hypothesis by finding a fused chromosome.

You claim that this is evidence of common design. Fine.

I could name you another test that would falsify evolution.

The hypothesis is that no mammals existed in the pre-Cambrian. There are two options

a: The fossil of a mammal is found in pre-Cambrian strata, which would fundamentally shift our understanding of fossil formation, geological formation and evolution.
b: No fossil is found, which would support the hypothesis that no mammals existed before the Cambrian Explosion.

Now it’s your turn, buddy.

I’ve just given you an experiment that could easily falsify evolution.

“You asked me to think of a test after giving your example, I said your example could be the test.”

Ok, fair enough. Give me an example now that is different from a falsifiable evolutionary test. After all, if your theory can stand on it’s own two feet without resorting to simply disproving evolution, you should be able to think of a test, right?

“If ID had failed to pass your test, which it would have if there had been no trace of common design”

How would constitute no trace of common design? It’s your theory; you provide me with that information.

You provide me with an experiment that could falsify design.

This is the end of this. You are just jumping around the rather easy question of providing me with a falsifiable test. Maggot picked up on it, I’m sure if the other LV’ers who understand proper science read this thread they could pick up on it too.

Provide me with a test.
801 Mark
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:00 am

773. Matt Howard : Sorry, got a little sidetracked – maths assignment and dinner, om nom nom nom – anyways, back to it.

“…If the only way I’ll find that out is when I die, why should I care while I’m alive?…”

Yeah, and while you’re alive you suffer as well, so why not just die now so you don’t have to feel pain anymore?

“…I take it you’ve never heard of Popperian falsification…”

No, I hadn’t heard of it before you pointed it out specifically to me. But, then again, I realized that this was the case with God when I first arrived here.

“…I consider my particular beliefs strong because they don’t contradict any evidence and until they do so I will keep believing them…”

Yeah, and in the middle ages it wasn’t unreasonable to assume that the Earth was flat and God was in charge of everything…

“…The default position for any claim is disbelief until evidence is provided, and that is the logic I live by. If you can’t provide evidence, I won’t believe it…”

That is more than reasonable. I’m also sure that you would prefer the BoTD to be given to you by people who live with different beliefs. I just wondered if you were willing to give them the same respect?

“…I view the literal interpretation of Noah’s Ark, the Tower of Babel and a Young universe stupid, well…I guess I’m acting superior and gloating. Whatever…”

And that’s the problem I have with you, no offence, it wasn’t an insult. Fair enough, The Tower of Babel might not be so relevant now – not necessarily false, that would be premature – but why does that mean that Stizzy *has* to be wrong? That is ALL that I am saying, he isn’t definitely wrong. Humility is a brilliant virtue – no matter what Dr House says – and it will garner you respect if you are man enough to say “You could be right.”. It’s as simple as that, because, well, he could be

775. Maggot : “…Mark, trying not to condescend here, but you are just not getting it. The “alternatives” being presented by YECs have absolutely no basis for credibility. None. They have already been falsified. How many times does that have to be said? Why should they continue to be bothered with?…”

You miss my point completely. I see yours, science has shown us that YEC is crazy, nuts, absolutely false. But my point is that if God was up there, and pissed off at a lack of belief, who knows? He is the jealous type, I heard he doesn’t even like sharing fruit!

“…Evidence (and scientific interpretation thereof). We go with what we have, until it is proven otherwise…”

As I mentioned above, there was once a time when there was very compelling evidence to believe in God. Namely, a complete lack of explanation for many natural occurences. What makes a full circle unpossible?
802 Mark
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:01 am

Aww, for crying out loud – I am good at it, aren’t I? – stupid moderation! It’s one word. I think it’s causing a lot more annoyance than it’s saving IMO
803 Stizzy
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:20 am

Mark: I would say you did a bang up job moderating

Matt: So, what you want me to do Matt is design a test to falsify design in nature? Could you come up with a test to show life has no purpose? As that would be the test wouldn’t it.

God created life to be fruitful and multiply after it’s kind. He created man specifically to not only do this, but to help cultivate and tend to this life and the world as well as worship Him.

So, we could test to see whether life is driven to reproduce after it’s kind and protect itself. We see it does. A test against this would be to see if any life form produces a kind of creature of a different kind.

We could test whether mankind has an affinity and emotional attachment to nature and the world. We can see generally people do, but whether we actually do this is down to choice.

We could see that people indeed do worship God and appear to have a natural inclination to seek out the divine. There have been test done that indicate we are naturally wired to believe in God. If other creatures could be shown to have something similar, that could maybe go some ways to falsifying the unique design of man.

We could test for other signs of purpose by examing whether the human mind is specifically tailored for language and speech, as God made us in His image as part of His design and He communicates through language and speech. If we could find that we are not special in this regard, that would go some ways to falsifying design.

We could also test whether this design, though amazing, is perfect for survival as the Bible indicates that it has been corrupted. We do find evidence of corruption of the design through disease, mutation, and violent natures. We can test to see that accumilations of these corruptions can get in the way of our purposes to multiply, to serve and to worship the designer.
804 Matt Howard
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:47 am

“So, what you want me to do Matt is design a test to falsify design in nature? Could you come up with a test to show life has no purpose? As that would be the test wouldn’t it.”

Nope. You have linked purpose and design with absolutely no evidence supporting this assumption. Your only reason for doing this is your religious convictions. So basically you have rendered Intelligent Design as a field un-scientific, due to the fact that ID, as you yourself described, is non-religious. You base your entire ‘tests’ on the unsubstantiated assumption that in order to test design, you must inherently test purpose. The Intelligent Design field is now obsolete as they admittedly try to portray themselves as a secular, non-religious, tied-to-no-religious-text discipline.

Purpose and evolution, however, go hand in hand. The purpose is reproduction and survival; the method is evolution; the mechanism is natural selection and genetic drift.

“We could test whether mankind has an affinity and emotional attachment to nature and the world. We can see generally people do, but whether we actually do this is down to choice.”

That would be in the field of psychology, not biology.

“We could see that people indeed do worship God and appear to have a natural inclination to seek out the divine. There have been test done that indicate we are naturally wired to believe in God. If other creatures could be shown to have something similar, that could maybe go some ways to falsifying the unique design of man.”

Religion is an extremely useful evolutionary tool. It makes the concept valuable; not the actual beliefs. Other creatures don’t have cognitive ability.

“We could test for other signs of purpose by examing whether the human mind is specifically tailored for language and speech, as God made us in His image as part of His design and He communicates through language and speech. If we could find that we are not special in this regard, that would go some ways to falsifying design.”

Anthropology, not biology. The evolution of language is a well-studied field. First languages were extremely basic and rudimentary. We have evolved the skills to use language more effectively.

“We could also test whether this design, though amazing, is perfect for survival as the Bible indicates that it has been corrupted. We do find evidence of corruption of the design through disease, mutation, and violent natures. We can test to see that accumilations of these corruptions can get in the way of our purposes to multiply, to serve and to worship the designer.”

Religious argument. Starting with the unsubstantiated claim that the Biblical account of corruption is true and then basing your tests on false premises.

You have been very clever, Stizzy. You have been unable to come up with a test for design, so you have substituted design for ‘purpose’, and used your religious convictions as the premises on which to base your arguments. Any argument that follows an assumption that has not been verified in science is not valid, and therefore is rejected.

Nice try, but by invoking Biblical premises in order to base your arguments around ‘purpose’, you have eliminated Intelligent Design, an supposedly secular and non-biased field, from science.
805 Stizzy
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:10 am

“Nope. You have linked purpose and design with absolutely no evidence supporting this assumption.”

Design:
plan: make or work out a plan for; devis
e
the act of working out the form of something

plan something for a specific role or purpose or effect
an arrangement scheme

create the design for; create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner

blueprint: something intended as a guide for making something else

make a design of; plan out in systematic, often graphic form

a decorative or artistic work

purpose: an anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions

conceive or fashion in the mind; invent

a preliminary sketch indicating the plan for something
intend or have as a purposeinvention: the creation of something in the mind

That is where I have drawn purpose from. All of that implies purpose, you can’t have design without a purpose for that design.

You say by invoking biblical premises, I’ve eliminated Intelligent Design….the God of the Bible IS an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER.

“The purpose is reproduction and survival; the method is evolution; the mechanism is natural selection and genetic drift.”

If there’s no design, there’s no purpose. If there’s no purpose, why do we need to see? Why do we want to survive? Why do we need to reproduce? Why do we need to defend ourselves? Why do we sense these needs? Why did these needs arise in the first place?

Purpose is about anticipation, aim and function.

“That would be in the field of psychology, not biology.”

Psychology is the the science of mental life.

“Anthropology, not biology”

Anthopology is a social science.

“First languages were extremely basic and rudimentary.”

It’s funny, because I have seen no evidence of that, but evidence to the contrary. People presume the first languages were extremely basic, but the further back in history we go, the more complex language seems to get!

“Other creatures don’t have cognitive ability.”

Evidence that man is uniquely designed!

“Religious argument. Starting with the unsubstantiated claim that the Biblical account of corruption is true and then basing your tests on false premises.”

You may not believe the Bible is true but I do and it is upon that basis that I base my interpretation and make my conclusions, and I have shown how it fits what I see.

You start with the unsubstantiated claim that there is nothing beyond the natural. We both start with an assumption Matt, so what good do you do arguing this point?

“Any argument that follows an assumption that has not been verified in science is not valid, and therefore is rejected.”

Well naturalism hasn’t been verified by science, does that make it not valid and rejected?

Whatever is rejected by science, doesn’t mean it isn’t ultimately true. It just means people have decided for themselves what they will accept as truth and so reject anything to the contrary. That, to me, is a big delusion.
806 lostatsea
April 23rd, 2009 at 6:18 am

Morning all, wow over 800 posts!!
Stizzy: Actually the bible does say to fear the Lord for HIS wrath is mighty,(the fire and brimstone type!!)
As to (Luke 14:33) that would make Ghandi much closer to God than any of us here as we have possessions and he was not even Christian!!
Many eastern religions preach ascetism as a way to purity of thought and mind in order to achieve Nirvana.
As to the paired chromosones, could also be said aliens did it!! Not saying that happened but by your logic it could have!
Nostradamus in his Quatrains supposedly fortold the future and we have interpreted them to fit modern events just as many interpret the bible.
The Tibetans chose their Dali Lama by showing objects belonging to the past one to the child they feel is the reincarnation and that child picks out only the objects that he had in the previous life!! Does that prove reincarnation??
Any diver who dove off Bimini and saw ‘The Wall’ can attest to the forces which rent our planet in ages past as it drops thousands of feet in a steep drop from 120 or so feet.
If ancient man stone age or earlier were as you posit so intelligent why did they use flint arrow heads??
The Middle East was the cradle of knowledge until those nasty Templars with their dark age mentality decided to kill all those unbelievers, not very Christ like!!
I can’t remember who postulated; that we have a inherent need to seek the divine as we struggle to understand the meaning of life. Stephen Hawkings who has a uncanny mind is a must watch to come up with meaning by observation and deduction.
I forget the name of the ape who was taught to type and who communicated with her trainer, so cognition is not just a human trait!!
807 Dick
April 23rd, 2009 at 6:41 am

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
808 lostatsea
April 23rd, 2009 at 6:47 am

Forgot to add the experiments conducted on plants, especially the one in Russia where identically clad assistants one of whom attacked and killed one of a series of plants in which all the plants had an electrical spike at that moment, when later those same people reentered the lab that same spike occurred when the one who did it entered. A similar experiment was carried out using brine shrimp dropped into a pot of boiling water by random selection, a similar spike was registered by the plants which were in the room. Does that prove cognition??
As many other religions and even Aboriginal beliefs have reverence for ALL life, this gives much more credence to them than to a religion with so much death and destruction not to mention sacrifices. I would think a little humility is required as well as an understanding of how truly ignorant we are.
As to those missionaries, were they not instrumental in spreading disease among the natives they encountered??
809 Stizzy
April 23rd, 2009 at 7:08 am

Ack, my comment is still awaiting moderation ¬_¬. In the meantime, let me answer you lostatsea.

“Stizzy: Actually the bible does say to fear the Lord for HIS wrath is mighty,(the fire and brimstone type!!)”

It’s still reverence and respect lostatsea. He’s not saying “Be scared of me or feel my wrath!” He’s saying “Show me the respect, honour and reverence I’m worthy of, or one day you will feel my wrath.” :-p

“As to (Luke 14:33) that would make Ghandi much closer to God than any of us here as we have possessions and he was not even Christian!!”

No it wouldn’t because He wasn’t a follower of Jesus, and it’s our estrangement from God (sins) that keep us away from Him, not our possessions. Think you misunderstood my explanation.

“Many eastern religions preach ascetism as a way to purity of thought and mind in order to achieve Nirvana.”

Ascetics isn’t what brings you closer to God according to the Bible. Only by faith can you please Him and only by accepting the sacrifice of Jesus by faith and having the Spirit of God dwell within you can GOD REACH YOU. Nothing you do can ever get you closer to God, it’s what He can do to draw you to Himself.

“Nostradamus in his Quatrains supposedly foretold the future and we have interpreted them to fit modern events just as many interpret the bible.”

Nostradamus’ predictions were so incredibly vague that they could be applied to almost anything. Jesus alone had more than 300 accurate prophesies about Him made centuries before His birth. Furthermore, the book of Daniel had such profound predictions about future events that scholars were forced to try and insinuate that these portions were written after the events in question. Jesus also predicted the destruction of the temple long before it happened. The account of this was spread throughout the church even before it was written down prior to the destruction.

“The Tibetans chose their Dali Lama by showing objects belonging to the past one to the child they feel is the reincarnation and that child picks out only the objects that he had in the previous life!! Does that prove reincarnation??”

Not sure what that has to do with anything being discussed here.

“If ancient man stone age or earlier were as you posit so intelligent why did they use flint arrow heads??”

Because the knowledge for metal-working was lost after the flood. In essence, they hadn’t yet rediscovered metal.

“The Middle East was the cradle of knowledge until those nasty Templars with their dark age mentality decided to kill all those unbelievers, not very Christ like!!”

Exactly, not very Christ-like, against what He taught and therefore not His followers. Interestingly, the Middle East is where mankind would have spread out from after the flood so it makes sense that it would be the cradle of civilization and knowledge.

“I forget the name of the ape who was taught to type and who communicated with her trainer, so cognition is not just a human trait!!”

Seen nothing about an ape being taught to type. Heard about one being taught sign language although I think this was exposed as a hoax.

I’m really at a loss for what to say to you concerning a lot of the points you bring up. Many of the questions you pose to the Bible are based not on what it actually teaches but on what people have done through twisting it’s teaching to justify their actions. So I fail to see your point in bringing them up, unless your point is that mankind is inherently twisted and will therefore corrupt and use whatever they consider to be authoritative to justify the evil intents of their hearts.

Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams,
Ten thousand rivers of oil?
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,
The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
He has shown you, O man, what is good;
And what does the LORD require of you
But to do justly,
To love mercy,
And to walk humbly with your God? Micah 6:7-8

That’s just one passage but there are others. Sacrifices were a consequence of the sin of man. The sacrifice of animals could only cover sins for a time, but couldn’t cover all sins, but Jesus chose to become the ultimate sacrifice and bring an end to all future sacrifices. No one is therefore encouraged to sacrifice to God. That said, are you a vegetarian?

The more mankind sinned, the more blood would be required for the remission of those sins.

Does this mean there was no reverence for life from God? Of course not, it shows the opposite. It means that mankind showed such disdain for creation, for God, and for his fellow man that he would continue to transgress knowing it would cause bloodshed. God didn’t want animals to be sacrificed.

You’re right, humiilty is required as well as an understanding of how ignorant we truly are, not to mention how debased and evil the heart of man truly is.

“As to those missionaries, were they not instrumental in spreading disease among the natives they encountered??”

Even if they were (which I doubt), again what has this to do with the Bible itself? If they spread disease, it was down to their own personal hygiene I imagine.
810 Stizzy
April 23rd, 2009 at 7:26 am

Wanted to wait til the other comment appeared before adding this.

Matt:
“I could name you another test that would falsify evolution.

The hypothesis is that no mammals existed in the pre-Cambrian. There are two options

a: The fossil of a mammal is found in pre-Cambrian strata, which would fundamentally shift our understanding of fossil formation, geological formation and evolution.
b: No fossil is found, which would support the hypothesis that no mammals existed before the Cambrian Explosion.

Now it’s your turn, buddy.”

Your test was one based around geology and palaeontology and you’re trying to pick me up for using psychology and anthropology? Thought we were talking science here and those are all sciences are they not?

You call me clever, I’ll take that as a compliment.

You, sir, would appear to be acting quite hypocritical. Not so flattering.
811 lostatsea
April 23rd, 2009 at 7:43 am

Stizzy:
No not vegetarian, omnivorous although I eat less meat due to all the hormones, pesticides and GM feed!
Actually the missionaries brought smallpox infected blankets and gave them to the native peoples as they had no antibodies against it. That at least proves our bodies adapt to changes in our environment as europeans evolved those antibodies in response to past experience of that disease.
How do you explain a plant having knowledge of death not only in their own species but also others or how a plant could identify the one person who killed their kin? The assistants entered the lab one at a time and only when that one entered did they react!!
812 Matt Howard
April 23rd, 2009 at 7:57 am

Stizzy:

Psychology is an offshoot of evolutionary theory in terms of explaining animal behavior based on on evolutionary worldview. However, when using evolutionary psychology to explore the behavior of animals, evolution must actually exist as a concept.

Fossil formation, geological information and evolution are all linked in terms of understanding the history of life on Earth. Therefore, falsifying an aspect of one inextricable has an impact on another and also on the biological field. In terms of geological strata, this would have a massive impact on evolutionary theory. Same goes for fossil formation.

I fail to see how psychology and anthropology have any inextricable link with design, except in terms of explaining the human desire to believe in a designer or religion. The only link that you can give in terms that make any sense in regards the biological field is when you link design with purpose.

“You start with the unsubstantiated claim that there is nothing beyond the natural. We both start with an assumption Matt, so what good do you do arguing this point?”

That’s all I wanted to hear:) The basis of any claim is disbelief until provided evidence otherwise; we can examine the natural world because in manifests in reality; we cannot examine the supernatural world because there is no evidence for it no matter how many times you keep saying it.

“You may not believe the Bible is true but I do and it is upon that basis that I base my interpretation and make my conclusions, and I have shown how it fits what I see.”

Classic god of the gaps argument.

“Well naturalism hasn’t been verified by science, does that make it not valid and rejected?”

The natural world is all we know exists because it manifests in reality. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of a supernatural world.

“You say by invoking biblical premises, I’ve eliminated Intelligent Design….the God of the Bible IS an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER.”

I would beg to differ, based on the horrible design of many elements of the human body, as well as useless and totally unnecessary elements such as our redundant third eyelid, our appendix (of which a considerable number of people are now born without), the ability of our skin to produce goosebumps, any many other badly designed or useless features. Yes, you rely on corruption to explain this. This is an uncorroborated and religious explanation that has no evidence, so I dismiss it.

“Psychology is the the science of mental life.”

Wasn’t arguing the merits of whether they were scientific or not; I was arguing what they had to do with design, which is nothing.

“You may not believe the Bible is true but I do and it is upon that basis that I base my interpretation and make my conclusions, and I have shown how it fits what I see.”

I think I’ll end my arguments with the above quote from you, Stizzy. Usually I’d accuse you of god of the gaps reasoning, but you freely admit it, so there is no need to debate further.
813 lostatsea
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:10 am

Matt:
You fought a good fight but Stizzy will always return to the bible to refute you!!
No-one can win against such dogmatism and while it is illuminating to see such a blinkered view it also shows the strength of their convictions.
All the knowledge and research conducted by science pales when confronted by twisted logic, ie. the chicken or egg argument, since God created all obviously HE made the chicken first!!
814 lostatsea
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:59 am

Stizzy:
If you wish to, check Puijila darwini, a terrestial ancestor of the aquatic seal found at the Haughton crater in the high Artic in 2007, a report may be found in the British journal Nature. It had long legs with webbed feet and estimated at 20-25 million yrs old!!
The crater on Devon island was created by a meteor 39 million yrs ago and and this ancestor lived at a time when the Artic was temperate. A most effective evidence of evolution, it should also be pointed out that this was a living fossil, ie. one which existed on land while its consanguinous kin had already evolved to the aquatic species we see today. It had a dog like snout and smaller eyes which grew larger to cope with its new environment, under water!!
I could give so many more instances on the fossil record but seems futile to argue, so much evidence for our belief in science that you blissfully ignore!!
815 smithstar15
April 23rd, 2009 at 9:40 am

A unicorn has one horn–
If a unicorn has one horn–
Then a unicorn exists–

I can tell that everyone who posts on this site has taken philosophy 101–LOL
816 pointbeing
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:54 am

A lot are striving to find the difference rather than the parallels… That is not what the point is here.
You could easily say that they were all born in different places but that does not make the similarities less valid (for those that are valid).
Point being is that a lot of the Christian beliefs were adopted and therefore up for debate as much as any myth.
817 Matt Howard
April 23rd, 2009 at 7:03 pm

“If you wish to, check Puijila darwini, a terrestial ancestor of the aquatic seal found at the Haughton crater in the high Artic in 2007, a report may be found in the British journal Nature. It had long legs with webbed feet and estimated at 20-25 million yrs old!!
The crater on Devon island was created by a meteor 39 million yrs ago and and this ancestor lived at a time when the Artic was temperate. A most effective evidence of evolution, it should also be pointed out that this was a living fossil, ie. one which existed on land while its consanguinous kin had already evolved to the aquatic species we see today. It had a dog like snout and smaller eyes which grew larger to cope with its new environment, under water!!
I could give so many more instances on the fossil record but seems futile to argue, so much evidence for our belief in science that you blissfully ignore!!”

Stizzy won’t believe that because he dismisses radio-metric dating out of hand, simply because one or two improperly controled and badly executed tests showed anomalies.

I think he fails to see that purpose in terms of design is highly subjective. Evolution has a ‘purpose’ that renders subjectivity null and void because the purpose is derived from natural processes i.e. we call reproduction a purpose in a predictive sense because we can see that every single animal on Earth reproduces. If it fails to reproduce due to lack of fitness, it dies out and becomes extinct.

Design on the other hand has a purpose which needs to be proven. It’s no good relying on the Bible to establish purpose, because the Bible hasn’t been shown to be an objective source of truth. This renders purpose in Stizzy’s terms useless. Someone with the Koran, or a Scientologist, or a Zoroastrian, or a Taoist, or a Buddhist, or a Hindu, or a Sikh or anyone with one of the thousands of religious texts out there could interpret purpose in nature in their own subjective way. If we are going to argue that purpose is a falsifiable tool in terms of a designer, we first have to establish an objective meaning of ‘purpose’, as evolution clearly does from objective observation and study of natural processes.

Until Stizzy can do this with the Bible, and establish an objective purpose, his arguments hold no weight.
818 Cybogen
April 24th, 2009 at 5:41 am

813. lostatsea – your logic is is insightful and yet so true. Creation of all matter by the Lord God cannot be refuted.
819 Matt Howard
April 24th, 2009 at 5:45 am

Cybogen:

“Creation of all matter by the Lord God cannot be refuted.”

That renders the study of the natural world absolutely obsolete outside of it being a mundane little hobby.
820 Cybogen
April 24th, 2009 at 5:52 am

809. Stizzy
I’m really at a loss for what to say to you concerning a lot of the points you bring up. Many of the questions you pose to the Bible are based not on what it actually teaches but on what people have done through twisting it’s teaching to justify their actions. So I fail to see your point in bringing them up, unless your point is that mankind is inherently twisted and will therefore corrupt and use whatever they consider to be authoritative to justify the evil intents of their hearts.
Stizzy well stated. I commend your work, Keep on!
821 Cybogen
April 24th, 2009 at 5:55 am

819. Matt Howard – That renders the study of the natural world absolutely obsolete outside of it being a mundane little hobby.
No Matt I wouldn’t say it renders study of the natural world obsolete. I do say thought that throught the magnificent discoveries we made through science, we have more reason to glorify God for his magnificent living creation!
822 lostatsea
April 24th, 2009 at 5:57 am

Matt:
Thank you for your insight, those that wish to see, shall, others well!!!
Cybogen:
Then using your logic; God created evolution, ergo the earth is over 6 billion yrs old and therefore the fossil records hold true!!!
823 Cybogen
April 24th, 2009 at 6:19 am

WHy can some people not believe something just because they cannot see it. GOd is not shown to us in a physical form that we can identify with. We have many elements of the earth that we cannot see but we know they are there. They are not visible to our eyes but they do sustain life.
Do you think that there is no chance there is a all powerful creator who is far superior to our level of understanding. We have so limited intelligence of how things came about because we rely on seeing evidence. Skeptics say if it isn’t there to be seen then it can’t exist. The same people do not believe that there can be other intelligence beyond our understanding. That there may be other dimensions in space where time is non existent and parallel universes that are being investigated and researched. You can’t believe it until you see it. Just like our ancestors, to try to make them believe there would be computers today that would do the work of 1000′s of minds would have them laughing at you then. What would they say now if they could see it all.
You probably just need to look at this universe and at least this amall planet earth we live on and understand that the possibilities that we are a unique form of life.
We live in a perfect evenso adaptable environment perfect for living. We are perfectly situated within distance of the sun just right to sustain life and just enough of its gravity pulling on us to keep us in a sustainable temperature range and orbit around the sun. here are many other miracles that make us possible to be here today I cannot say in this amount of space. Just realize that time usually proves out most theories.Thoguh I know the existence of GOD is real fact and his creation of all the universe is fact as well. There will be a time when HE will show again in his form where all the world will see him. Then all mankind will know for sure that GOD is real.
824 lostatsea
April 24th, 2009 at 6:25 am

Stizzy:
Christianity accounts for approximately one third of total religions in the world and I am sure most of these believe just as fervently as Christians, ie. of your ilk. Are all these people relegated to some Hell for not knowing your Gospels?? Or all the past peoples who worshipped Horus, Isis, Aten, Cybele, Zeus, etc. etc.??
Throughout history so called holy men were the rule rather than the exception and priests used the naivity of man to control mankind and fill their coffers.
We are all atheists as we fail to give credence and respect for these earlier Gods, Goddesses, etc.
825 Matt Howard
April 24th, 2009 at 6:26 am

Cybogen:

Ok, that’s your opinion then. I just don’t get why creationists want to reject current scientific theories that are so unbelievably beautiful and explanatory, and which are accepted by the vast majority of Christians as being proof that God is a brilliant being, so they can conform to silly fairy tales like Noah’s Ark and Adam and Eve.

Most Christians, and the Catholic Church too, fully accept Evolution. They claim that it is a testament to the creative ability of their God and that it is a material demonstration of his glory.

Personally, I find Evolution to be spine-tingling. To understand that we share a common link between all other species, to comprehend that all other life forms are our cousins, in my opinion creates an Earth in which there is no inherent difference; there is no ‘us and them’. There is equality, with each specie deserving of the same right to exist as us. So you can understand when people like me vigorously defend one of the most important scientific discoveries of the past 200 years. You can understand why it would be such a tragedy to throw away all we have learned about nature, just so John Smith from Alabama in his ignorance can believe that the Earth is 10,000 years old. Can’t you?
826 oouchan
April 24th, 2009 at 7:15 am

Wow. Still going at it I see.

824. lostatsea: I like your last comment. We do need to give credit to other religions. No just one. In saying that, I don’t mean to worship the others but to see that they exist. To foolishly hold onto one extreme could lead to a downfall. This goes for both sides. I will just sit back and wait. I got time.
827 lostatsea
April 24th, 2009 at 7:15 am

Cybogen:
Our planet has gone through many severe and destructive phases, due to collisions with meteors, volcanic upheavels,
tectonic plate movement, etc. Many species were destroyed by these events and the earth’s orbit and tilt were not as they are now, even our magnetic fields have been reversed.
Where I live in Ontario, Canada, I have seen the geologic evidence of molten granite doing U turns giving credence for ancient legends of cataclysmic events where the earth actually stood still, ie. the crust stopped while our core revolved.
Since we are in the dawn of discovery re. our universe, I’m sure we will find other planets blessed as we are with the conditions for life to EVOLVE!!
If one takes into account quantum mechanics and the supposition of parallel universes whose to say that life didn’t come from there??
We are animals albeit of the higher primates and are hard wired for survival, it isn’t evil that creates the problem, rather it’s our ability to become civilized and have respect for each other or not!!
828 lostatsea
April 24th, 2009 at 7:31 am

Oouchan:
Besides there are too many problems created by this religious discord when we face so much more extreme problems
regarding our planet and our wanton destruction of it.
Matt:
I wish they would defend our environment with equal fervor!!
Anyway must go for now.
Peace!!
829 Cybogen
April 24th, 2009 at 7:49 am

lostatsea – When’s the last time you saw a meteor strike the earth and wipe out the human race. last time I checked it never happenmed to the human race. Also as you look up at the moon you can see that it is significantly pelted with craters from meteor hits. I know we don’t have as many craters here on earth, but yet our planet is so close to the moon. Why haven’t we got hit as much or at list enough to show up. Perhaps I say a intelligent and all powerful creator such as GOD is looking out for us in his plan of our existence.
830 oouchan
April 24th, 2009 at 7:56 am

829. Cybogen: True we don’t have as many craters, but we have atmosphere. That is what keeps the meteors and the like out. The moon doesn’t have this so it is not protected. I will not say who or what put the atmosphere there, just saying that is the reason.
831 Cybogen
April 24th, 2009 at 8:19 am

Good Point Oouchan I guess we can be content we have the atmosphere as well.
832 Randall
April 24th, 2009 at 8:25 am

Cybogen:

Really, there is no excuse whatsoever for a grown up in this day and age, in this 21st century, to speak so utterly ignorantly of what is commonly-known and understood science, that any layman should have a grasp of.

The earth HAS been peppered with as many meteor and asteroid strikes as the moon or any other body in the solar system. The difference is that the earth has an atmosphere and is geologically active—and thus, through erosion of wind and water, and through volcanic activity and the movement of layers of rock and the continents, over a vast span of time, most of the craters produced by these strikes have been erased. But the barely-discernible remnants of MANY of them have been found, and a few still exist of very recent origin.

As for the human race, we have been here on this earth for only the last 100,000 years or so. In geologic and astronomical time, that is nothing but the wink of an eye.

But you should know this if you’re smart enough to be posting your opinion on the internet.

Willful ignorance of the facts and of commonly-known science is beyond pathetic, Cybogen. It’s reprehensible and even somewhat disgusting. You’re the citizen of a modern world where we’ve tried very hard to understand and grasp the universe around us. It does no service to yourself, your fellow man, or to your god, to negate and fail in your responsibility to be a party to that understanding–to use the brains that the god you believe in gave you.
833 Matt Howard
April 24th, 2009 at 8:31 am

“lostatsea – When’s the last time you saw a meteor strike the earth and wipe out the human race. last time I checked it never happenmed to the human race. Also as you look up at the moon you can see that it is significantly pelted with craters from meteor hits. I know we don’t have as many craters here on earth, but yet our planet is so close to the moon. Why haven’t we got hit as much or at list enough to show up. Perhaps I say a intelligent and all powerful creator such as GOD is looking out for us in his plan of our existence.”

Big, fat, obvious, massive, classic argument from ignorance; I can’t figure out why the Earth isn’t hit by meteors; GOD DUN IT!!!11!!1ONEone!one11
834 Stizzy
April 24th, 2009 at 8:37 am

Lostatsea:
“Christianity accounts for approximately one third of total religions in the world and I am sure most of these believe just as fervently as Christians, ie. of your ilk. Are all these people relegated to some Hell for not knowing your Gospels??”

Jesus didn’t make Christianity, man did. God didn’t make religion, man did. Jesus didn’t come to condemn the world, because the world was condemned already.

Not knowing the Gospels isn’t what condemns someone to hell, it is their evil heart that does so. Death can’t be avoided, and that is the irrevocable penalty for our sin.

However, death is not the end.
The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.

None of us can say we deserve a fate other than damnation for rejecting the one true God, however God in His mercy looked past what we deserved and decided to give us the gift of life through His Son, Jesus.

By covering our sins with His sacrificial blood, Jesus paved the way for man to be reconciled with God. He basically stepped in to say “I will take their punishment and they can have my glory.”

Through this, we can be justified…just as if I’d never sinned. All debts are paid.

By our own nature we are condemned, and by our own choice we choose to remain in that condemnation.

“Or all the past peoples who worshipped Horus, Isis, Aten, Cybele, Zeus, etc. etc.??
Throughout history so called holy men were the rule rather than the exception and priests used the naivity of man to control mankind and fill their coffers.”

Again, all this says is that mankind will abuse whatever power and authority they have because the heart of man is deceitful above all things. Jesus Himself accused the religious establishment of His time for doing exactly what you describe. He taught that those who truly worship God worship in spirit and truth, in the inner-man and not through outward, empty expressions, traditions and doctrines of men.

God is just and merciful, and who are we to know or determine the ultimate fate of those who have come before? God knows their hearts and He will judge rightly.

If the God I serve is the one true God, than all others are mere fabrications and to serve them is to serve in vain. If another chooses to do so, however, that is their choice and by freewill they are entitled to it. It may give them direction, but will it save them from damnation?

“We are all atheists as we fail to give credence and respect for these earlier Gods, Goddesses, etc.”

Again, if the God I serve is the one true God, we can’t all be atheists and there are no other gods to give credence and respect to. If the individual wants to, that is their choice.
835 smithstar15
April 24th, 2009 at 8:40 am

Matt Howard
Big, fat, obvious, massive, classic argument from ignorance; I can’t figure out why the Earth isn’t hit by meteors; GOD DUN IT!!!11!!1ONEone!one11

Boy,what an intelligent answer to lostatsea’s post
836 oouchan
April 24th, 2009 at 8:45 am

834. Stizzy :
“Again, if the God I serve is the one true God, we can’t all be atheists and there are no other gods to give credence and respect to. If the individual wants to, that is their choice.”

It works both ways. That is what I mean when I say you should acknowledge other religions. What if my god was the one true god? Where would that put you? (Just playing the other part here.)

We can go about this debate over and over. Nothing will be solved. It’s ok to share your opinions, but to not “see” the other side of the coin is an epic fail. I see you side, quite clearly. More than you know actually, since I was like that when I was younger. I now see all sides and will sit back and see how this unfolds.

This last post of yours was a little more of ‘my god is better than yours’ than your other posts. It compelled me to comment.
837 Cybogen
April 24th, 2009 at 8:58 am

832. Randall- You speak with so much stupidity. Do you understand anything of what you are saying or did your mom tell you what to say?
838 Stizzy
April 24th, 2009 at 9:05 am

You’re right, it does work both ways oouchan. If another god was the true god, that would leave me as a petiful man.

It’s not that I don’t see the other side or the possibility of it, it’s that people try to impress on you that in order to see the other side, you must give it an equal standing with your own, within your world view. I can’t serve two masters.

Obviously these other religions exist and because I would want to have complete freedom to practice and express my belief, I would not wish to take that right from someone else.

Yet, what I believe doesn’t allow me accept the existence of other gods to be equally as real as mine and where people fail in the “respect & tolerance” sphere is that they fail to acknowledge that to the person who believes in one true God, their God is above all else.

If no one else believes my God is better than theirs or even exists, it should be inconsequential to them if I think so, unless I am trying to force them to agree with me. I don’t endeavour to do such a thing. Like you said, I’m simply sharing my opinion.

To me personally, and this may not apply to others, I feel it is far too risky to simply see all sides and wait to see what happens. I would rather search for the absolute truth, and for me I have found it. If another thinks me a fool, it makes no difference to my belief that I have something unbelievably precious.
839 oouchan
April 24th, 2009 at 9:20 am

837. Cybogen: Careful there, dear. Randall is far more intelligent then you will ever know.

838. Stizzy: I do not think you a fool for what you believe. You and anyone out there can do that. You can even believe in unicorns like someone else. (hehe)
Believing in what you will shouldn’t stop you from seeing other religions. I said nothing of acceptance. Having knowledge of these other religions for myself, doesn’t stop me from following my god.
As for me…the only absolute truth I have is that I love my daughter. Everything else….doesn’t come close to being truth.
840 Cybogen
April 24th, 2009 at 10:36 am

These type debates will go on and on and I know that both sides make good points. I just feel that as I was angry as of what somebody else said and responded similiarly in the same way. I found that it gets out of control with emotions. Then the subject gets off the real issues. I let it go from now on. Peace everyone!
841 smithstar15
April 24th, 2009 at 3:02 pm

A man told his grandson: “A terrible fight is going on inside me — a fight between two wolves. One is evil, and represents hate, anger, arrogance, intolerance, and superiority . The other is good, and represents joy, peace, love, tolerance, understanding, humility, kindness, empathy, generosity, and compassion. This same fight is going on inside you, inside every other person too.”

The grandson then asked: “Which wolf will win?” The old man replied simply: “The one you feed.”

Quote: “Ode To Timothy” (Whitehouse pub.)
842 Matt Howard
April 24th, 2009 at 6:43 pm

smithstar15:

“Matt Howard
Big, fat, obvious, massive, classic argument from ignorance; I can’t figure out why the Earth isn’t hit by meteors; GOD DUN IT!!!11!!1ONEone!one11

Boy,what an intelligent answer to lostatsea’s post”

…do you understand what an argument from ignorance is? If you did, then you would realize that what Cybogen put forth in regards to his explanation for why the Earth isn’t hit by meteors (which was then rebutted using natural explanations instead of ‘God dun it’) is a classic example, a textbook example, of an argument from ignorance/personal incredulity.

It was NOT an argument against lostatsea, who has defended me numerous times and who I consider to be a voice of reason in this debate, it was an argument against CYBOGEN’S argument AGAINST lostatsea. An argument against CYBOGEN himself.

What an intelligent answer, smithstar15! Maybe you should read the posts a little more carefully before you mock me?:)
843 lostatsea
April 24th, 2009 at 7:13 pm

Matt:
Smithstar:
Oouchan:
I sincerely bow before your acceptance of humble self, I only saw discord and while I did have fun, playing Devil’s Advocate I don’t have the answers, I only hope I interjected
some semblance of what we must become in order to fight the most important battle me may face….The ability to see one and other as fellow humans endowed with the ability to see life as it really is!!
Stizzy:
If you had read my posts carefully you would see I was not attacking you per se..but only trying to open your mind!!
844 lostatsea
April 24th, 2009 at 7:16 pm

Sorry WE may face..
845 lostatsea
April 24th, 2009 at 7:29 pm

Smithstar 15:
May have misjudged you!! You have my appologies!!!
I live in perhaps the only city where all the peoples of the planet(exept remote tribes!!) live in harmony, if we can do it why can’t you?? Toronto, a place to grow, as human beings of a spaceship we call Earth, withought the weight of religion, without the weight of distrust, with only Love for each other and realization of …WE Have NO Lifeboats….
This is it, we either get it together or….
Peace…
846 lostatsea
April 24th, 2009 at 7:46 pm

Smithstar 15:
So very true, what one feeds one’s heart is truly what we become…as an old Hippie I always thought we tried through the 60s & 70s that Love would enlighten us and we would stop the WAR in Vietnam… well we’re still trying!!!
To stop all wars and the destruction of values we hold dear!!
Thank you all for trying to inject sanity, where sanity seems stranger than the mendacity we have been subjected to!!
847 lostatsea
April 24th, 2009 at 7:51 pm

SURPRISE: There are some who question all, who seek answers to life’s travails…We will not rest till that day we breathe no more!!!
848 lostatsea
April 24th, 2009 at 8:04 pm

Smithstar:
What I try to follow; I have finally managed to love me.. to forget all the mistakes i may have made.. and most important to forgive myself for the pride of vanity..to humbly try to understand WHY!! John Lennon was a prophet in our time, who wrote; ‘Imagine’, a way for us to truly become one with each other..
Seems some people don’t want that!!!!
849 smithstar15
April 25th, 2009 at 10:52 am

Science Resurrects God
by Jim Holt
Copyright 1997 Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
Reprinted with permission of
The Wall Street Journal (December 24, 1997)

——————————————————————————–

Scientists are hard to work with on a committee, an academic friend once told me, because they often change their minds when they see new evidence. I was reminded of this a few months ago when I saw a survey in the journal Nature. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God–and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

This percentage, it turns out, is exactly the same as it was in 1916, when an identical poll was taken. Strikingly, as the nation’s intelligentsia has turned toward atheism, many in the scientific community have stuck to theism. They apparently haven’t changed their minds about whether God exists.

I did not write the above–It came from an article in The Wall Street Journal–(Yes,I know it’s a conservative newspaper).
smithstar15
850 smithstar15
April 25th, 2009 at 10:54 am

“The more I study science,the more I believe in God”
Albert Einstein
851 Maggot
April 25th, 2009 at 1:51 pm

“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”
Albert Einstein
852 Matt Howard
April 25th, 2009 at 4:46 pm

Well done, Maggot. It’s such a common creationist/intelligent design/anti-science trait to quote Einstein completely out of context in order to further their own views, as if some of his scientific credibility will somehow rub off onto them.

smithstar15 (post 849.)…So Jim Holt is relaying information not from his own experience, but from the experience of a so called ‘academic’ (doesn’t identify who it is, and also doesn’t identify what field he was in), and that’s supposed to be proof of a big scientific conspiracy? Second hand information and hearsay is proof for you? Wow. You have pretty low standards in regards to evidence.

Also, a bit of quick research on Mr. Jim Holt reveals that he actually endorsed and supported Kent Hovind (convicted tax fraud who is currently serving 10 years in prison), and invited him to talk about an anti-Evolution bill that he put before the Arkansas (surprise, surprise) State Senate. So, in other words, he is a conservative Republican Southern Baptist Minister with absolutely no scientific credentials who opposes Evolution based solely on his religious convictions (not scientific credentials) and openly supported Kent Hovind, convicted criminal and fraduster. Wow. What a credible source!

Try again:)
853 smithstar15
April 25th, 2009 at 5:41 pm

Well,most everything on here is based on faith–Whether it’s Creationism or The Big Bang or Evolution or whatever,it takes a lot of faith to belive in any of these. But some facts are observable–Take a maggot for example–A maggot,which is vermin,can be observed in two day old goat feces.This is indisputable.

Matt Howard: Go sit in the corner and play with yourself if you can find it.

“DUH..God dun it–”
854 smithstar15
April 25th, 2009 at 5:51 pm

RESEARCH THIS A..OLE:

“Before God we are all equally wise – and equally foolish.
We know nothing about [God, the world] at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. Possibly we shall know a little more than we do now. but the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never”. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, Page 208)

Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can’t hear the music of the spheres. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)

In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214)
855 Maggot
April 25th, 2009 at 5:52 pm

A logical truth:

smithstar15 is an idiot.
Maggot doesn’t mind telling him so.
smithstar15 will respond with imbecilic childish vitriol.

This has yet to be falsified.
856 smithstar15
April 25th, 2009 at 6:03 pm

Oh No–What a zinger Professor Goat-Feces-Maggot has hit me with–How witty-I’m demoralized–Never again will I try to match wits with you and your scientific collegue Butthead (Bunson Burner) Howard–I have learned my lesson.
857 Matt Howard
April 25th, 2009 at 6:10 pm

“Well,most everything on here is based on faith–Whether it’s Creationism or The Big Bang or Evolution or whatever,it takes a lot of faith to belive in any of these. But some facts are observable–Take a maggot for example–A maggot,which is vermin,can be observed in two day old goat feces.This is indisputable.

Matt Howard: Go sit in the corner and play with yourself if you can find it.”

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

…has that theory been published yet?!:)
858 Matt Howard
April 25th, 2009 at 6:14 pm

“A logical truth:

smithstar15 is an idiot.
Maggot doesn’t mind telling him so.
smithstar15 will respond with imbecilic childish vitriol.

This has yet to be falsified.”

That should stand up to any test of falsification known to current science:P Nice one, Maggot.
859 lostatsea
April 25th, 2009 at 6:39 pm

Smithstar:
Maggots perform a necessary function in the decay of matter!!
Zen has a saying; one must have both faith and questioning, with only faith one becomes narrow minded, whilst questioning without faith leaves one cold and bitter!!
I have my faith and my questioning and keep an open mind to all religions. Because I find most organized religions do not practice this simple concept, I tend to disregard them.
I have equal contempt for Islam, Judeaism and Christian Zealots who decry all who do not follow their values.
This creates the schism we are seeing in these posts and in the world at large. Religion has divided us and caused us to stray from the teachings of wise men who tried to teach us harmony and understanding, tempered by love and respect for ALL LIFE not just human.
Our planet is a living breathing biological entity and SHE deserves our respect and reverance…seems your bible missed that part!!
860 Matt Howard
April 25th, 2009 at 6:47 pm

Well said, lostatsea. It seems when I tell religious people I put my faith in the scientific method (not scientists, but the method), they claim I am as zealous as them. I’m not bothered about that, as long as I put my faith in a system which is based on questioning, not just obeying, I believe that makes me a good person.
861 lostatsea
April 25th, 2009 at 7:41 pm

Matt:
Thank you; you would make a poor zealot!!, since they do not quest for understanding and knowledge, instead they wish to convert all to their beliefs without acknowledging the mysteries of science and new discoveries.
I previously gave the new discovery in the Canadian High Artic of a living fossil which was given the appellation Darwini in honour of the man who foresaw just such a creature. This otter like animal became the seals we see today. God did not create these seals… they EVOLVED(sorry for shouting!!) in order to survive the approaching ice age by changing from terrestial to aquatic. We are as I said earlier at the dawn of discovery, to close one’s mind seems such a waste!!
That said; I do have faith in a cosmic consciousness which some might interpret as God, whilst I interpret as
the life force of all things, both seen and unseen.
As Oouchan pointed out; Homo Sapiens is a relative new creature blessed with awareness of self and world.
Let’s work together to make it a better one by accepting our differences and stop squabbling over interpretations!
862 smithstar15
April 25th, 2009 at 9:07 pm

Lostatsea
I very much accept the fact that the decaying feces Maggot and butthead Howard are different than me.(Thank God)–But it always irks the hell out of me when people with the IQ of a dead cockroach try to come on as intellectuals.And why is it that these people don’t have jobs? Randall and I have had our differences but at least he makes salient, intelligent arguments–These two jerks are just flailing at the air.
863 Matt Howard
April 25th, 2009 at 9:20 pm

“Randall and I have had our differences but at least he makes salient, intelligent arguments–These two jerks are just flailing at the air.”

Your argument would be a hell of a lot stronger if you didn’t preface that sentence with:

“decaying feces Maggot and butthead Howard”

A salient, intelligent argument indeed.

lostatsea:

Thanks for acknowledging I would make a poor zealot:) Whilst I don’t believe in God, I can’t get annoyed at people who believe in a spirit/life force/aura/whatever as I consider them things to be quite benign and maybe beneficial. I’ve never seen a Yoga practitioner blow himself up in the name of Yoga. While I don’t share your beliefs, I believe strongly in ‘live and let live’ as long as your beliefs share that same sentiment. You’ve more than demonstrated that you value this particular philosohpy. However, people who believe in a spirit/life force/aura and most importantly a specific type of God (Christian, Islamic, Judaic) more often than not have extremely loud and vicious minorities (sometimes majorities) that actively attack science, that is of course when they aren’t attacking each other. They don’t believe in ‘live and let live’; their philosophy is basically ‘live as we say or die’. This is why I consider fundamentalist Christianity, although a belief in the same sense of ‘cosmic consciousness/life force’, extremely differently and a lot more harmful.

“I previously gave the new discovery in the Canadian High Artic of a living fossil which was given the appellation Darwini in honour of the man who foresaw just such a creature. This otter like animal became the seals we see today. God did not create these seals… they EVOLVED(sorry for shouting!!) in order to survive the approaching ice age by changing from terrestial to aquatic. We are as I said earlier at the dawn of discovery, to close one’s mind seems such a waste”

You obviously have done your research, and yes, it is quite a remarkable specimen and a concrete example of a transitional fossil. Will creationists/intelligent design activists recongnize and appreciate it? HELL NO!!!!! Not in a million years (that is, of course, if the do believe in ‘millions of years’). I fear you’re wasting your time relaying information of this exciting new discovery. It doesn’t go unappreciated though:)
864 Maggot
April 25th, 2009 at 11:42 pm

859 lostatsea: Maggots perform a necessary function in the decay of matter!!

Since smithstar doesn’t matter, I guess my work is done.

862 smithstar15: Randall and I have had our differences but at least he makes salient, intelligent arguments

Compared to you, a tree stump makes salient, intelligent arguments.
865 lostatsea
April 26th, 2009 at 5:29 am

Smithstar;
Those maggots are gonna eat your dead body!!! Cockroaches predate humans and will probably be here long after we as a species are gone!!
The Dogon tribe of Mali are animist and believe a divine man called Amma created the first man and woman who begat eight children from whom all Dogons are descended. The dog star Sirius is of primary importance as they were able to predict the periodic appearance of Sirius and knew of its companion stars, which were only found in 1995!!! Odd that of all the planets in our solar system easily viewed by ancient man they had this fixation on Sirius or that they knew the number of stars, when only recent observers have confirmed this!!
Their cave drawings show the orbits of this star system!!
Perhaps only the Dogons are the chosen ones!!! or the first tribe!! Maybe some aliens in our remote past gave them this knowledge???
Matt:
Thanks for the appreciation, I appreciate that:) Actually, please don’t compare me to the followers of organized religions, as they believe in the dominance of man over dominion. I have quite the opposite view!!
Maggot:
I do enjoy humour:) tree stump!! haha
btw. Darwin was born 200 yrs ago!! As we discover more about ancient life I think we will find more evidence of his prescience.
866 smithstar15
April 26th, 2009 at 8:03 am

lostatsea: I’m not saying anymore about Howard and Maggot—They’re amusing for awhile and then they become boring–I don’t know why you bow to them but that’s your business–But I did want to note the following in your post.

“Odd that of all the planets in our solar system easily viewed by ancient man they had this fixation on Sirius or that they knew the number of stars, when only recent observers have confirmed this”!!

I would be curious to know how it is known what ancient man had a fixation on–And I’m serious. Cave drawings? The position of Stonehenge? I mean you may be right but it seems a little presumptive on our part to say we know what fixations ancient man had unless you could download an ancient man’s brain. It would seem to me that ancient man’s fixation would have been on surviving from day to day.I do know that scientists have found evidence that pre-history man built altars and made sacrifices to a “God”–They have found actual material evidence of this. I’m not arguing about it-I’m genuinely curious as to how we know what ancient man’s thoughts were.
867 oouchan
April 26th, 2009 at 8:39 am

lostatsea: Just to say, wouldn’t they have a fixation on Sirus because it was the brightest?
I can only conclude that ancient man didn’t have distractions like we do today. No pollution or lights that could cause distortions. We send probes into space and now we can see. They just looked up at a naked sky and saw the same thing. In no way shape or form am I disputing you claim but it’s another thought. Our astrology professor was very keen on what we could see with out own eyes more than any device. I guess that is why I am taking a differnt pov on this.
868 lostatsea
April 26th, 2009 at 8:51 am

smithstar15:
I might add the great pyramids of Giza showing perfect alignment with the main stars in the constellation Orion as they were around 10,000 yrs ago. I would imagine in order to build such edifices would show what prominence these ancient people thoughts were on astrological events.
2007 the Hubble telescope found the first evidence of organic matter on a planet 61 light yrs away.
The Mayans had a incredible knowledge of the heavens and knew the solar system and how all planets revolved around our sun. The list is long and quite staggering, how ignorant we became due to the destruction of the Catholic church.
869 lostatsea
April 26th, 2009 at 9:00 am

Oouchan:
You would be correct, except how did they know of the companion stars? Since the Hubble some 18 yrs ago many things we thought impossible are proving true, including the theories of Imanuel Velikofsky:)
870 lostatsea
April 26th, 2009 at 9:15 am

Smithstar:
I am not bowing to anyone, just having fun and passing some time and hopefully imparting some food for thought. My main point I think I have stated…no one has all the answers, as each answer raises so many more questions!!ergo the more we know the more we dont!!
871 oouchan
April 26th, 2009 at 9:18 am

lostatsea: I saw a picture not too long ago when they were testing out some of the high-tech telescopes. This was done maybe 15 years ago. They took one picture from the city and one from a deserted area. You could see the companion stars in the deserted area…in fact many of the observers could see them with the naked eye. Light and pollution cause distortions so we can’t see them. Now, even 15 years ago we would still have problems as we do today but none of the pollutio would have existed with ancient men. Makes you wonder….

I find all info on space to be very fascinating. I would love to be there on the frontlines so to speak to see these images we are getting from the Hubble telescope up close and personal.

Oh, by the way, did you see the tests they did on the Great Sphinx? It seems it is way older than the other structures around it and it has water damage. Interesting. We humans were said to be around about 10,000 years or something like that. They figure that the Great Sphinx was about 12,000 if I am correct. So who built it? Your theory about others not from our planet…might be more credible then others.
872 smithstar15
April 26th, 2009 at 9:30 am

lostatsea: I’m not questioning whether or not ancient man was aware of sirius–It was the “fixation” that I wondered about and how we knew they were obsessed with the dog star.
873 lostatsea
April 26th, 2009 at 10:01 am

Oouchan: Actually the third star showed up as a green blob through high power telescopes, I believe it was a pair of Japanese asronomers who made the discovery!! In one of my earlier posts I stated the fact that the Sahara was once a lush tropical land and the erosion was caused by torrential rains, this would have occurred more than 10,000 yrs ago.
Since I’m not a geologist, I don’t know what conditions were like then, there may have been volcanic events spewing dust and ash thereby occluding the sky!!
Smithstar: Since they have incorporated dances to show their reverence and to show through dance the orbit of Sirius from ancient times, seems rather obsessive to me!!
They also depict the orbits in their cave drawings dating from early history.
The incredible feats of early man including the movement and construction of massive stones modern cranes can’t lift, joints thinner than a business card, blows my mind!! Both Mayan and Egyptian people had an advanced knowledge of mathematics and astronomy well beyond other races of their times.
874 lostatsea
April 26th, 2009 at 10:20 am

Oouchan:
I make no claims, only try to put questions to people who are inflexible in their views. I simply say I prefer to ponder the immensity and quanderies that we face today.
I would probably have been burned at the stake not too long ago!!
We are truly a fascinating species, we have now the power to totally destroy ourselves and yet we strive to find the goodness within. If I was a God I don’t think I would allow that!! Or as I said earlier; we are just an experiment to see what we will eventually do!!!
So many questions to be answered by future science.
875 oouchan
April 26th, 2009 at 10:40 am

lostatsea: I whole-heartedly agree! I know I would have been burned at the stake. Too many questions with too few answers. Religion is the only subject that I am content to let the answer fall in my lap. I won’t go searching as to me, it’s a waste of time. However…space and all that jazz I do want to more of.
As for putting forth questions and the like…I like to play the other side sometimes, just to see what happens. Truly just for the sport of it.
876 oouchan
April 26th, 2009 at 10:41 am

*”to more of” that was to be— “to know more of”
877 lostatsea
April 26th, 2009 at 11:09 am

Oouchan: Love to play ‘Devil’s advocate’ just to get a rise out of people. haha Gotta go..ta ta for now!! Just watched The Messenger with Mila Jojovitch about Joan of Arc, speaking of stakes!!
878 oouchan
April 26th, 2009 at 2:53 pm

lostatsea: It’s true that I love to play devils advocate. It makes people think harder in my opinion. Sometimes just to throw in a 3rd or 4th possible explination is also a way to go. You did that with the whole alien thought process. I liked where you took that, btw.
879 lostatsea
April 26th, 2009 at 6:06 pm

Oouchan: that is the first step in enlightenment the ability to BE ‘Devil’s Advocate’…to see the other side of the arguement and be able to defend it!
That is step 2 the tolerance you find; when you can see another view from inside.
With that new knowledge you are now ready for stage 3…
With new knowledge, comes a price; will you accept or repel this knowledge and go to 4!!!
880 lostatsea
April 26th, 2009 at 6:42 pm

Oouchan: We have these miraculous times in our history where
floods, famines, volcanic upheavels, not to mention meteor strikes have unsucsessfully exterminated us!!!
Through all this we triumphed, we, survived, we are tenacious…and hopefully we might understand how precarious life is on this planet, this is our home… our refuge in a stormy universe. Rather than fight over whose GOD is right. I would rather we focus on the incredible damage we have created to our SPACESHIP!!!
We travel !,000s of kilometers per hour protected by an atmosphere that we destroy daily!!!
Are we really intelligent??? Or are we the dumbest parasite on the planet????
WOW!!!!can’t believe ‘I lost it!!’
881 oouchan
April 26th, 2009 at 6:54 pm

lostatsea: “Through all this we triumphed, we, survived, we are tenacious…”

If we don’t destroy ourselves in the process.

I would give just about anything to go space exploring! To see what is out there…that would be awesome!
882 lostatsea
April 26th, 2009 at 7:09 pm

Oochan: some day we will travel between the stars!! We have to!! we’re destroying this one!!!! Love and Peace will heal us…war and religious divisions kill us!!! Basic logic really!!
883 Cybogen
April 27th, 2009 at 7:09 am

Here is very interesting possibility of what could be happening in our unknown universe.
Everything you’re about to read here seems impossible and insane, beyond science fiction. Yet it’s all true.
Scientists now believe there may really be a parallel universe – in fact, there may be an infinite number of parallel universes, and we just happen to live in one of them. These other universes contain space, time and strange forms of exotic matter. Some of them may even contain you, in a slightly different form. Astonishingly, scientists believe that these parallel universes exist less than one millimetre away from us. In fact, our gravity is just a weak signal leaking out of another universe into ours.
For years parallel universes were a staple of the Twilight Zone. Science fiction writers loved to speculate on the possible other universes which might exist. In one, they said, Elvis Presley might still be alive or in another the British Empire might still be going strong. Serious scientists dismissed all this speculation as absurd. But now it seems the speculation wasn’t absurd enough. Parallel universes really do exist and they are much stranger than even the science fiction writers dared to imagine.
It all started when superstring theory, hyperspace and dark matter made physicists realise that the three dimensions we thought described the Universe weren’t enough. There are actually 11 dimensions. By the time they had finished they’d come to the conclusion that our Universe is just one bubble among an infinite number of membranous bubbles which ripple as they wobble through the eleventh dimension.
Now imagine what might happen if two such bubble universes touched. Neil Turok from Cambridge, Burt Ovrut from the University of Pennsylvania and Paul Steinhardt from Princeton believe that has happened. The result? A very big bang indeed and a new universe was born – our Universe. The idea has shocked the scientific community; it turns the conventional Big Bang theory on its head. It may well be that the Big Bang wasn’t really the beginning of everything after all. Time and space all existed before it. In fact Big Bangs may happen all the time.

Of course this extraordinary story about the origin of our Universe has one alarming implication. If a collision started our Universe, could it happen again? Anything is possible in this extra-dimensional cosmos. Perhaps out there in space there is another universe heading directly towards us – it may only be a matter of time before we collide.
884 lostatsea
April 27th, 2009 at 7:26 am

Cybogen:There is also Dark Matter, Anti Matter and so much more that only now are we becoming aware of. As I said earlier; we stand at the new dawn of discovery with our probes and space based instruments. There are Black Holes at the center of our Galaxies and collisions between Galaxies is the norm…many of our legends may have occured by a near collision with another Galaxy in ancient times ala Velikofsy!! This also explains our Universe and its creation. Good post!!
885 Cybogen
April 27th, 2009 at 7:36 am

lostatsea- Yes, I agree and the possibilities that exist about us of what we percieve and what we actually don’t know is amazing.
To think as in the post I have above that there is possibilities of parallel universes with perhaps duplicates of ourselves going about similiar routines as each one of us is doing on earth boggles the mind.
This is an area of science that I hope is pursued further!
886 JesusisNOTrealboiii
April 27th, 2009 at 8:03 am

I have to agree with the number one person in this list. Purely because the name is Horus, it’s a homage to teh modern day WHORES. I mean, they get no credit right? Also, number 6? Since when was there a god for the Louis Theros centre? (if you don’t get this, i wouldn’t advice looking it up, unless your a peadophile) That image is pure sickness and how anyone say that’s their god, well…. i think someone needs to be castrated.

No but really, it’s sick, your all sick, srsly.
887 oouchan
April 27th, 2009 at 8:30 am

Cybogen: Excellent post! Makes one think, doesn’t it? With so much of the universe unexplored it’s like letting your imagination run wild. As I said before, I would give just about anything to see all of that as we discover it.
888 Cybogen
April 27th, 2009 at 8:42 am

oouchan – I would give just about anything too to just have a chance to travel in space for a week or 2.
As for the other info in my post I can only hope that we’re lucky enough to find out more and to maybe actually experience it. Im with you all the way with that!
889 oouchan
April 27th, 2009 at 8:55 am

Cybogen: Just 1 or 2 weeks? I would go forever if I could! No need to come back when there would be so much to see out there.
I think more than anything just to stand on another planet would be the highlight of it all. Next to seeing alien life, that is.

If you are into reading, then I suggest Anne McCaffrey’s Freedom series. It’s along these lines. It’s good sci-fi.
890 lostatsea
April 27th, 2009 at 9:39 am

Oouchan:
Cybogen:
Had to go back a while to post 452 when I posted that to Stizzy
he replied with 3 parallel universes, ours, the spirits and God’s throne!!!!
I would probably travel in space for as long as I could, just to see first hand the wonders and beauty of our universe.
Nice to know other people who can keep an open mind and seek knowledge without twisting it to fit their biased views.
891 oouchan
April 27th, 2009 at 9:52 am

lostatsea: That’s what I ment in my post #414. Grab your towel and stick your thumb out!
892 lostatsea
April 27th, 2009 at 1:27 pm

Oouchan: Ahso!! And a copy of Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy:)
893 Dazz
April 27th, 2009 at 1:29 pm

the answer is 42
894 oouchan
April 27th, 2009 at 1:33 pm

lostatsea: So true!

Dazz: Good one!
895 lostatsea
April 28th, 2009 at 5:38 am

oouchan: Towels take up too much space in backpack, I travelled for 3 yrs and rarely kept one. Used t shirts or bought one locally if staying in one place for a while!! I guess that’s why I missread that comment about the towel. How easy it is to missinterpret another’s comment and perhaps take offence!!
Women’s right to vote was won by courageous women who went against the staus quo only 100 or so yrs ago. The US still had segregation 50 yrs ago and the rascist views still linger in some states. Clearly we have quite a ways to go in our quest for harmony and understanding. Just rereading J. Conrads ‘Heart OF Darkness’ a brilliant look at the supposed superiority of the white man in Africa. Sort of sums up the attitude of some posters who will not entertain any view but their own and the missionary zeal that they try to convert others to their beliefs.
896 116880
April 28th, 2009 at 3:55 pm

Jfrater, why do you allow stuff like this to be posted? I know there are many on this site, and probably you, who are atheist, but there is a small number of users on this site who are Christian. We do not appreciate it when we see our Savior slandered like this. It violates our rights to worship freely, and I can almost guarantee that a list pro-Christian would never make it onto this site. Though it would not make a difference, and I will get laughed at, I can’t tolerate stuff like this, and will leave this site if more of this stuff happens. Go ahead, Listversers, laugh.
897 Spange
April 28th, 2009 at 4:06 pm

and I can almost guarantee that a list pro-Christian would never make it onto this site

http://listverse.com/religion/10-strange-legends-and-images-of-saints/

It’s not the only one.

Incidentally, I’m intrigued. Just how does a list on a website violate your right to worship freely?
898 Matt Howard
April 28th, 2009 at 5:08 pm

116880:

“Jfrater, why do you allow stuff like this to be posted? I know there are many on this site, and probably you, who are atheist, but there is a small number of users on this site who are Christian. We do not appreciate it when we see our Savior slandered like this. It violates our rights to worship freely, and I can almost guarantee that a list pro-Christian would never make it onto this site. Though it would not make a difference, and I will get laughed at, I can’t tolerate stuff like this, and will leave this site if more of this stuff happens. Go ahead, Listversers, laugh.”

Wow. Just wow. How on Earth does it violate your right to worship freely? Do we all pile into your church armed with laptop’s and wireless connections and force the congregation to read every comment on this site? Pretty much the only times that LV’ers get angry or hostile to Christians is when they;

a) Post something along the lines of ‘All you deniers are going to Hell and you’ll burn for all eternity’
b) Say Evolution never happened; it’s just a theory
c) Offer to prey for us all because we haven’t seen the light

It is not your right to go through life without being offended. By living in a democracy, in a market place of ideas, it is guaranteed that one day someone will say something to you that will offend you. I’m offended all the time. SO WHAT?! Does that give me the right to censor others because I’m so insecure in my beliefs I get in a hissy-fit every time someone with a different idea voices their opinion?

Listverse is one of the few sites left where you’re free to throw in your opinion on ANY topic without being censored simply because your belief is different or offensive.

If you’re offended by other peoples right to voice their opinion, then I suggest you leave Listverse straight away.
899 Maggot
April 28th, 2009 at 5:08 pm

“116880”: there is a small number of users on this site who are Christian. We do not appreciate it when we see our Savior slandered like this.

I can imagine. I recommend that you avert your eyes.

It violates our rights to worship freely

How so?

I can almost guarantee that a list pro-Christian would never make it onto this site.

You would be incorrect.

I can’t tolerate stuff like this, and will leave this site if more of this stuff happens.

Attempting to force censorship by blackmail is a far greater crime that anything you’re whining about. Talk about “violating rights”. Hypocrite.

Go ahead, Listversers, laugh.

bwaha
900 lostatsea
April 28th, 2009 at 5:18 pm

896: Allow !! the net is a place where ideas are freely allowed. How dare you suggest we be censured. Have you even taken the time to read ALL the posts? If you had you would find an argument over creation versus evolution. 6,000yrs against the actual 16+ Billion yrs of our universe. Everyone is welcome to practice whatever faith they wish, but to decry others for not practicing your particular brand
or to call them atheist could be construed as slanderous!!
901 jfrater
April 28th, 2009 at 5:22 pm

116880: I am not an atheist. As for not allowing religious posts – how about these:

14 Stations of the Cross
Top 10 Misconceptions About The Bible
Top 10 Astonishing Miracles
top 10 Items of Papal Regalia
Top 10 Incorrupt Corpses
The 8 Crusades Explained

You can’t say that any of those lists are anti-religious can you?
902 Matt Howard
April 28th, 2009 at 5:23 pm

lostatsea:

Aren’t you aware that ALL atheists are immoral, baby-killing, god-hating, homosexual, socialist, communist, abortion-providing, Satan-worshipping, Christmas-destroying, tree-hugging, Obama-supporting, Godless heathens?
903 Maggot
April 28th, 2009 at 5:32 pm

Matt: I kind of preferred “decaying feces”, myself…
904 lostatsea
April 28th, 2009 at 5:39 pm

Matt: and Maggot: Seems we all had the same reaction to that post!! Can’t wait to see oouchans reply!! Common sense is an uncommon trait it seems!!
905 Matt Howard
April 28th, 2009 at 5:46 pm

Maggot: And I was always partial to “Butthead”…would have preferred “Beavis” though.

lostassea: I think the right reaction to the post is utter disgust at someone trying to censor another persons right to free speech. I’m guessing that guy won’t be coming back
906 ZeitTarded
April 28th, 2009 at 5:46 pm

As my name suggests, anyone who believes the similarities are retarded. Read a friggin book and see how none of these similarities are real.

Romulus Jesus-like?

ODYSSEUS?!?!
907 ZeitTarded
April 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

Does no one realize that zietgeist is a conspiracy theory movie? That it’s all speculation?
908 ZeitTarded
April 28th, 2009 at 5:53 pm

For 896.

It doesn’t really affect your ability to worship freely, I would suggest not reading it. Or, you could just take comfort with seeing how all of these similarities are terribly inaccurate. Just type “Zeitgeist debunked” into google and read up on ACTUAL background of the above figures.

The list selection process is about finding interesting lists, not really that it attacks Christianity.

However I am disappointed in how this list was allowed to go through simply because of its HUGE inaccuracies and stretches.

JFrater you’re better than this.
909 lostatsea
April 28th, 2009 at 6:51 pm

ZeitTarted: Sorry you’re disappointed, but it seems others aren’t. I have found it entertaining and informative as to depth of belief and counter views. 900 + posts are quite a lot for an irrelevant list.
910 oouchan
April 28th, 2009 at 7:34 pm

899. Maggot: I was so tempted to post just a laugh but you beat me to it!

Wow, 116880…you do have some nerve, I’ll give you that. Per the post above, it is painfully clear you saw this one list and freaked out. Way to go. Check out those post above so you can see the lists that *do* pertain to you and are *not* offensive.
Also, if you have been here longer than a minute, you would know that jfrater isn’t an antheist. But kudos for trying! (that was offensive…just so you know…so’s this….bwhahahahaha!)

ZeitTarded: We love our bizarre lists like this one. Its a wonderful way to debate and have fun. So, you mentioned “HUGE inaccuracies “. Please name them for us. Thanks!
911 dnana
April 28th, 2009 at 9:40 pm

There is no god and there is no supreme power. We just created those “terms” because at tough times when we are helpless and things are out of control, it feels good to leave things to “god”. May be it fills u with hope and give u mental strenght. I do not ridicule people worshiping god as its their way to keep their hope alive. These people who we are calling god may be myth or human like us but we do not want to believe that they were like us and doesnot pocess any supernatural powers because it would contradict their theories about good and evil and lots of things like that, along with hurting their faith as well.
912 Cybogen
April 29th, 2009 at 4:33 am

911. dnana – Hello, I think you can make a comment like this without somepeople saying much. Although you seem so sure that there is no God or supreme power. What makes you so sure?
913 Cybogen
April 29th, 2009 at 5:18 am

116880- JFrater and the staff of Listverseve this site listverse gives some fair site representation of Christianity as I have observed over time. Thye do have a mixture of Pro Christians as well as anti-christian.
Although I stand strongly as a Christian, I will back uip the site as giving fair representation of Chrisianity.
914 lostatsea
April 29th, 2009 at 5:39 am

Cybogen: Personally I believe in a life force within all things, as we are part of this we are aware of what we call spirituality. The aboriginies and native tribes had reverence of this reality and gave thanks to the animals that sustained them. They understood their lives depended on sustaining the Great Mother (our Earth) and we in our arrogance denigrate their primitive ways!!
We are primates but unlike our siblings have become parasites and destroy what we do not understand or whose skin or features don’t conform with ours.
It is presumptious of us to say with any certainty what is right as we simply don’t know!!
The point is; keep an open mind and seek to learn as much as possible about the wonders of our universe and the precarious position we are all in!!
915 Mark
April 29th, 2009 at 5:50 am

914. lostatsea : For what you’re advocating “destroying” those whose “features don’t conform with ours” might be the right thing to do. How can you condemn it and them preach about keeping an open mind? Unless you have proof…?
916 lostatsea
April 29th, 2009 at 6:12 am

Mark: Should also have mentioned religion. I certainly do not advocate destruction of any one, but in our sordid past we have as humans attacked and made slaves of what we considered sub-humans. The slave trade still happens today in many parts of our world. That was the point I was making.
100 + yrs ago the ivory hunters massacred and enslaved Africans for The Company, then the missionaries came to save what was left!! Exactly what happened in the Americas in the hunt for gold.
We are still barbaric savages with a thin veneer of civilization and if our planet suffered a cataclysmic event where social structure disappeared I’m afraid we would revert to our inherent instincts!!
917 lostatsea
April 29th, 2009 at 6:39 am

Mark: Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it!! The Nazis thought they were the Master Race and persecuted all who did not conform to their racial ideals, whether Gypsy, Jew, Homosexual, mental deficient etc. That was only 60 + yrs ago. Were those the actions of civilized man??? Or Lenin who was probably responible for some 20 million fellow humans?? That is only recent history!!
I rest my case!!
918 oouchan
April 29th, 2009 at 6:51 am

lostatsea: I, too, agree with what you wrote in your posts. We as humans are more into destruction then in repairation. “He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing.”. This is a quote from one of my favorite movies, “Dune”.
It sums us up nicely, doesn’t it?
919 lostatsea
April 29th, 2009 at 7:12 am

oouchan: I too have enjoyed your posts as a voice of reason in an unreasonable world!
Frank Herbert’s ‘Dune’ summed up the dichotomies we face as sentient beings! Unfortunatly we are destroying the very thing we need to survive (Our Planet) for Corporate gain.
The Bush family, Ford and other banking and corporate interests bankrolled Hitler for monetary gains. Research that, as usual follow the money trail. Millions died for Corporate profit. When will we learn??
What we see today is a rapacious scam founded on the trickle down theory, but when we stop buying it is the trickle up that will cost us dearly.
http://www.globalresearch.ca , http://www.brasschecktv.com have cogent reports on what is really going on.
920 oouchan
April 29th, 2009 at 8:25 am

lostatsea: Why thank you! The movie and book “Dune” are my all-time favorites. It does sum up humanity quite well.

“He who controls the Spice controls the universe…”
921 ZeitTarded
April 29th, 2009 at 1:50 pm

ouchan the inaccuracies are way too many to list.

THIS IS THE BEST LINK TO FOLLOW AND READ THE INACCURACIES.

http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/
922 oouchan
April 29th, 2009 at 2:04 pm

ZeitTarded: No need to shout. All caps leaves the impression of that, in case you didn’t know.

I will check it out. However…the word “conspiracy” has a habit of leaving a yicky taste in one’s mouth. Hopefully this site isn’t one like that.
923 ZeitTarded
April 29th, 2009 at 2:15 pm

Sorry about the caps, I wasn’t sure how fast the comments were rolling along, i just assumed quickly because of the near 1000 it’s already received.

I don’t know much about the website or what its criteria is for choosing what things to review, so I would ignore the website name for now. You can find other videos on youtube by typing “zeitgeist debunked” doing the same kind of thing.
924 oouchan
April 29th, 2009 at 2:36 pm

923. ZeitTarded: Understandable about the caps. As for the website…I always reserve judgment before jumping in. Well, mostly.

As for debunking…That I might want to hold off on for now. Sometimes when a theory or new idea comes out, the first thing we do is try to debunk it.
I will admit that I do not know much on the subject of religion. Well, most of what I know was shoved down my throat when I was younger making me very jaded and I purposely put it in the back of my thoughts. Due to this, I will follow my religion before I follow christianity.
Thank you for the site.
925 oouchan
April 29th, 2009 at 4:26 pm

ZeitTarded: I finally managed to have a peek at that website. It does have some interesting information. Here is what I found out:

1) It also makes speculation such as the content of this list.
2) Very concerned that the director of the movie made money since its on every page.
3) Points out the differences clearly and has sources available.
4) It came off as a conspiracy…unfortunately.

I would say that all in all…it doesn’t conclude anything. I am not saying this list did either. However, most of the lists on this site are made for fun, information and entertainment. This list was researched well as it could be. It really is a matter of opinion on what you believe. I have an open mind so this list didn’t bother me in the slightest.

That website…It was an informative read but in my opinion, the author was trying very hard to prove all points of the movie as false. It again, doesn’t conclude anything. For all we know, it could be the truth (meaning his information on that site.)

What it boils down to is we don’t know for certain as there are too many paths that we can take.
926 ZeitTarded
April 29th, 2009 at 5:20 pm

To each is own. I noticed also after reading the contents it didn’t really sum up the arguments or anything.

I also agree that these lists are made for fun. I just feel it is inaccurate, that the rest of the lists are much more factual (for as much as I know of).

Have a good day sir, =)
927 oouchan
April 29th, 2009 at 5:27 pm

ZeitTarded: True…to each his own…however, I’m a girl.
928 Alexis
April 29th, 2009 at 11:44 pm

Oh wow. a great and very interesting list.

Could you post the dates of the other Gods on which they existed?

I was hearing about Constantine and how he made up the Christianity religion. i was wondering if youc an make up a list about it?
929 Legend and Lore
May 1st, 2009 at 11:35 am

It’s no wonder the Gods never visit us anymore. Every time they do, they get brutally murdered, only to resurrect themselves, ascend into heaven and call out: “SUCKERRRSSS!!!!”
930 lostatsea
May 2nd, 2009 at 2:58 pm

Oouchan:
Someone once said; The only certainty….Is uncertainty!!
Whose to say GOD is real or unreal….. we simply do not know!!!It behoves us to believe, as the alternative was too dreadfull to contemplate!!
Would love to read your thoughts on this!!
Love & Peace
931 Maggot
May 2nd, 2009 at 3:47 pm

930 lostatsea: Whose to say GOD is real or unreal….. we simply do not know!!!

My take on this question is that it starts off on a faulty premise. It’s a cart before the horse scenario. Where did this idea of “god” come from, but from the minds of man? Had that *idea* never occurred to anyone, then your resultant statement/question would not have any reason to exist.

Another way of looking at it is, exchange that word with the name of any other conjured up idea or being, and you have a statement/question that is no more or no less accurate than the one you just said. So then, why all the focus on this particular one? It is *manufactured* relevance.
932 oouchan
May 2nd, 2009 at 6:09 pm

930. lostatsea: Kind of goes along with death and taxes, you think?
True…we do not know. As Maggot pointed out, we can place any name in your sentence and get the same result…zues, buddha, allah…hell, you could throw in dragon or unicorn.
What we don’t know is astounding. What we do know is a mere fraction in comparison. That is why it is amazing to see what we learn new each day. Kind of like this website. I visit to learn new things or re-learn things that I might have taken for granted.

Maggot: “So then, why all the focus on this particular one?”
My only guess would be because this is the one most people fight, bicker or debate about. Not too much with buddha or others. Just the christian god. I can tell you that no one has argued with me about Inari!
933 lostatsea
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:00 am

oouchan: We have…as a recent geneticist found…a God gene! Some have a stronger disposition towards faith than others, due to the predominence or strength of this gene.
To early man the sun was God since it gave warmth and light, only later did we start to name God.
Zoroaster in the Zend-Avesta portrayed a conflict between a spirit of light and good and a spirit of dark and evil…this was six centuries BC in Persia. Seems we’ve had this duality for a long long time!!
Maggot: The focus on this particular one…regards the creationist’s teaching of their views as science. Islam proclaims death to the infidel…Jews are the chosen ones…Christians are the only ones going to heaven!! All divisive and full of hate or disdain for others.
Buddha at least taught tolerance and love.
934 lostatsea
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:45 am

oouchan: Should have added as did Jesus, as to tolerance and love…Inari might be a remnant of the belief in Vulcan ‘the blacksmith of the Gods’ and rice the staple food!!
935 Cybogen
May 4th, 2009 at 6:19 am

The Bible is not false in any of its statements. If anything is said in it that is contradictory it is likely that man changed the wording of it later on in the ages after its original writing. This is most likely.
The inspired word of God is in infalliable and if there is any discrepancys it is surely the results of mans decision to change something to fit their need and not that of what God intended.
936 Matt Howard
May 4th, 2009 at 6:37 am

Cybogen:

You seem to keep doing this. A particular discussion gets going then out of the blue you leap in, veering off topic, making absurd claims and proclaiming the infallibility of the Bible.

You have totally contradicted yourself in this post. I take it you can’t speak ancient Hebrew. I take it you read the King James Bible in its English translation. Why then do you accept it? If the Bible you read, which clearly demonstrates some of the most illogical and blatantly false things known to man (zombies getting up out of the ground and walking into town, look it up in Matthew 27:51-54), is simply a mistranslated interpretation by men of the REAL original text, why don’t you learn ancient Hebrew and only stick to that?

What you’re saying is that the Bible isn’t false. You then provide a rather sneaky loophole to avoid discussing the OBVIOUS falsehoods contained in the Bible, in the form of it being a mistranslation of man.

The logical conclusion to follow from this is that you MUST TOTALLY REJECT the ‘modern’ Bible, go to night school and learn ancient Hebrew/Aramaic, then stick to the original text and NEVER read the ‘modern’ Bible again.

Simply put, the Bible is false in so many ways that it beggars belief why people actually believe some of the ridiculous things in this 2000 year old manuscript. People walking around after death? Women being turned into pillars of salt? Talking snakes? I honestly get a shiver of fear and feel a cold slab of resignation slide over my heart when I contemplate the fact that people in 2009 still believe in talking snakes…
937 Maggot
May 4th, 2009 at 8:57 am

932 oouchan: I can tell you that no one has argued with me about Inari!

And why should they? You, nor any other Inari adherent (at least as far as I know) aren’t out there trying to twist its ideology into some narrowly interpreted guidelines in effort to control or preach to others about how to live their lives.

936 Matt: zombies getting up out of the ground and walking into town, look it up in Matthew 27:51-54

I can hear it now: “can you prove that zombies don’t exist?!”
938 oouchan
May 4th, 2009 at 9:13 am

Maggot: So true! I love food so it’s only apparent that I worship the god of it…don’t you think? hehe

Ok…I’ll bite…prove that zombies don’t exist.

lostatsea: With more knowledge we gain, we have less to believe in. I guess that is why most people cling hard to their beliefs as if someone will yank the rug out. I’m not saying that they can’t believe, but sometimes not to see the other side is to be blind to all sides. Hope that made sense.
I can’t really blame them, since I follow Inari. I also believe in a few other myths that I will keep to myself but I still believe in them. Makes me feel good.
939 lostatsea
May 4th, 2009 at 9:19 am

Maggot: There have been reports of zombies in Haiti created by voodoo (with a little help from Puffer fish poison!!)
As to Dean Hamer’s God gene: Seems there is some dispute from fellow geneticists over his claims!!
As to belief in a book that has been rewritten so many times by men with agendas shaped by kings or churches centuries ago seems rather pointless!!
940 Sarah, the Interdenominational
May 4th, 2009 at 12:24 pm

As a person who believes that all religions are the same, I highly applaud your list. Just as people speak different languages, they give different names to the same God. If only more people would see these similarities!
I call what I belive to be Interdenominational, a mix of all religions.
Once again, thank you for your list!
941 Cybogen
May 4th, 2009 at 12:50 pm

936. Matt Howard -You seem to keep doing this. A particular discussion gets going then out of the blue you leap in, veering off topic, making absurd claims and proclaiming the infallibility of the Bible.

Matt- You can’t claim anything in the Bible to be false anymore than you can prove anything you say is true.
There is no real good reason to believe that the Bible is nothing but the TRUTH. How do you explain its ability to hold through the ages as it has and to hold on to believers and to continue to increase its list of readers as the True word of God year after year by Billions of people all over the earth? There is the Holy Spirit of GOD that allows the Bible to prosper and be known and held as the truth not just in its pages but written in the Hearts of Men. What reason beyond a doubt do you take the Bible to be unable to stand up to the fact that it is not the inspired word of God. Do you have any real proof to it being a false hood in its entirety?
942 Matt Howard
May 4th, 2009 at 5:06 pm

oouchan:

“Ok…I’ll bite…prove that zombies don’t exist.”

Haha thanks for biting. I can’t prove zombies don’t exist any more than I can’t prove magical butt fairies exist.

Cybogen:

“You can’t claim anything in the Bible to be false anymore than you can prove anything you say is true.”

No one can claim for absolute certain that ANYTHING is not true! What you fail to understand is that the burden of proof is laid squarely at your feet, and that the default position for ANY claim is total disbelief until evidence is provided that suggests otherwise.

It is up to YOU to provide proof of your claims! If I told you that I believe in a magic pixie that lived in the Moon that was undetectable by modern science, just because you couldn’t prove it doesn’t exist doesn’t make the claim any stronger! It would be up to ME to provide evidence.

“There is no real good reason to believe that the Bible is nothing but the TRUTH”

…you just said there was in your first post…deliberate mistranslations by man for his own purposes?…Do you want to contradict yourself again?…

“There is no real good reason to believe that the Bible is nothing but the TRUTH. How do you explain its ability to hold through the ages as it has and to hold on to believers and to continue to increase its list of readers as the True word of God year after year by Billions of people all over the earth?”

There is a good reason to believe it’s not true; it contradicts itself all the time and there is evidence that refutes its claims. How do I explain its increase of readers? The same way I explain the increase of Muslims, and the increase of Hindus, and the increase of Jainists; proselytizing, annoying, very persistent believers who continue to manipulate the minds of the gullible with promises of glory and eternity. The number of people who believe in something does not increase its truth value one bit. Millions of people believe in Bigfoot too. Just because I can’t prove it doesn’t exist doesn’t make its claims any stronger.

“Do you have any real proof to it being a false hood in its entirety?”

*sigh*…idiot. The burden of proof is on YOU. I don’t know how much clearer I can make this. ANYONE who postulates a claim is truth has to provide evidence! It’s not enough to just say ‘well you can’t prove it’s NOT true, therefore, it is true!’. That’s a logical fallacy and an extremely weak argument. Plus, we’ve never ever seen people who have been dead for years get up and shuffle about.

Cybogen, why did you completely sidestep my argument about the King James vs Hebrew Bible and the logical necessity for you to never read the King James again (because you think it may be mistranslated)? Is it maybe because fundamentalists like you hardly ever actually address a difficult question head on, preferring to change the subject and simply offer more bold assertions that lack evidence?

One more time before I go, because this is an important point, a point which Christians fail to understand over and over and over. It is a logical fallacy to say that just because someone can’t disprove it means the claim is stronger. NO. Anyone who makes a claim HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF. THEY have to provide evidence, and until they can the automatic response for that claim is DISBELIEF.

YOU can’t prove the Koran is wrong any more than you can prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is wrong. Why then do you disbelieve in these things? Yet another contradiction on your part.

Answer the original question about why you stick to the ‘mistranslated’ King James Bible.
943 Matt Howard
May 4th, 2009 at 5:10 pm

Maggot:

“936 Matt: zombies getting up out of the ground and walking into town, look it up in Matthew 27:51-54

I can hear it now: “can you prove that zombies don’t exist?!””

How right you were, mate.
944 oouchan
May 4th, 2009 at 5:59 pm

Matt: Just to clarify…I was joking…you knew that right?
Although…what that has to do with butt fairies is beyond me. Didn’t know that was a species…hehe
945 Matt Howard
May 4th, 2009 at 6:06 pm

Haha of course I did, oouchan. Oh, and butt fairies are real, I know they are real because I read about them in a 4000 year old text and there is no way that you can disprove them therefore, they exist.
946 oouchan
May 4th, 2009 at 6:12 pm

Matt: That was great!
Of course, the same can be said of unicorns. I read about them in a similar book. They live in a forest near a big castle that’s a school for witchcraft and wizardry. Pretty good book by the way.
Best seller, too.
947 Maggot
May 4th, 2009 at 6:13 pm

Matt: “magical butt fairies”. LOL

For the first time ever, I don’t have a witty comeback.
948 Matt Howard
May 4th, 2009 at 6:18 pm

oouchan:

That wouldn’t be the one about a little heathen kid who will be cast into Hell for all eternity for being a pagan and wizard?
949 oouchan
May 4th, 2009 at 7:03 pm

Matt: You read that, too? Amazing. See, we can believe in the weird but wonderful as well. (pffft!)
950 Cybogen
May 5th, 2009 at 4:27 am

942. Matt Howard – *sigh*…idiot. The burden of proof is on YOU. I don’t know how much clearer I can make this. ANYONE who postulates a claim is truth has to provide evidence! It’s not enough to just say ‘well you can’t prove it’s NOT true, therefore, it is true!’. That’s a logical fallacy and an extremely weak argument. Plus, we’ve never ever seen people who have been dead for years get up and shuffle about.

My friend Matt. Please understand that I do not feel my quest is to prove me right to anyone actually. I am just trying to do for you what others try to do for non-believers. Thye only one I am concerned to answer to is my LORD and is and will come again and very soon.
I am just trying to sway you to what you need to know BEFORE He comes again. I care that you are revealed the truth and be given salvation. It is up to you to accept it. I am in a winning situation. I have nothing to lose when HE indeed comes again for I know I will be with my LORD and GOD. I hope you can have that chance to MATT.
Tell me what is life Everlasting worth to you?
Do you want the choice? You do have a choice you know.
Tell me my friend. It is free to you to choose.Choose right.
951 Matt Howard
May 5th, 2009 at 4:39 am

Cybogen:

I sincerely hope that when you arrive at the gates of Valhalla, Thor will grant you forgiveness for not having died in battle. Please, Cybogen, I’m only telling you this because I care.

What will you choose? Everlasting peace with Thor, or for him to laugh at you and cast you out of Valhalla?

I am in a winning situation. I believe in the Norse Gods and when I die in battle I will ascend to Valhalla and live in happyland forever and ever.

You have a choice, my friend. Please respect the Norse Gods or you will never reach Valhalla. Is that a chance you wish to take? I’m offering you a choice. Choose right.
952 Cybogen
May 5th, 2009 at 5:50 am

951. Matt Howard – May 5th, 2009 at 4:39 am
Cybogen:
I sincerely hope that when you arrive at the gates of Valhalla, Thor will grant you forgiveness for not having died in battle. Please, Cybogen, I’m only telling you this because I care.
What will you choose? Everlasting peace with Thor, or for him to laugh at you and cast you out of Valhalla?
I am in a winning situation. I believe in the Nor

Mr. Howard. That was really not cool. I am not talking about a book like the Lord of the Rings here. This is not an adventure story my friend. This is real life. I am talking about the Bible and our Lord creator of all that is. You are mocking his existence and GOD is merciful but to mock HIM is wrong. Do you have no fear of GOD mr. Howard?
953 Mark
May 5th, 2009 at 5:56 am

952. Cybogen : OMFG! You stupid fundie! You are not cool mate, seriously. He was joking, and showing how pointless what you preach here is. If you think we’re fucked – oh, a naughty word, there goes my salvation – fine. BUT WE DO *NOT* WANT TO HERE IT, PAL!

Seriously, preach somewhere else. I’m fine with what you want to believe. Unlike most other people here, I’m fine with you saying it here. I am *not* fine, however, with you preaching and pretty much gloating – “I’m right, you’re wrong, you’re fucked!”.

For fuck sake mate, we don’t care. So if that’s what you’re resorting to now, leave. Matt said it subtly, now I’m saying it not so subtly. Bye…
954 Cybogen
May 5th, 2009 at 5:57 am

My friend, I hope the Lord forgives you. Do you not have respect for He that made all things. He that allows the earth to continue its existence, riding its orbit around the sun and rotating on its axus allowing a stable existence for us day to day.
Lets just say that for a moment even today the LORD came to call judgement on all mankind. The almighty comes to Matt Howard with all his pwer and wrath and Matt Howrd says. Hey…you don’t exist GOD. I don’t believe in you and Im not accepting you as real. The almighty before you
with your eternity is HIS hands and you tell him he is not real. Can you think of that scenario playing out in your favor my friend?
955 Cybogen
May 5th, 2009 at 6:00 am

953. Mark – GO stick your head in the sand
956 Mark
May 5th, 2009 at 6:01 am

954. Cybogen : “…Can you think of that scenario playing out in your favor my friend?”

Can you think of a reasonable comeback that doesn’t break the commenting rules?

955. Cybogen : I’m pretty sure the genepool would benefit a lot more from you doing that my friend…
957 cymraegbachgen87
May 5th, 2009 at 6:02 am

Of course the more likely scenario is all that stuff DOESNT happen but hey. Live and let live.

If People want to live in ignorance and put their faith in a cloud dwelling mysterious beast whose existence cannot be proven either way; A being with the GREATEST publicist in history, let them

Remember, ignorence is bliss.

Personally, when the revolution comes, I will have to destroy you all.

(Didnt that last bit sound harsh? Well that is effectively what christians say to non believers everyday)
958 cymraegbachgen87
May 5th, 2009 at 6:02 am

Cant believe I spelt ignorance wrong so many times.

Wow I’m ignorant
959 cymraegbachgen87
May 5th, 2009 at 6:04 am

“955. Cybogen : I’m pretty sure the genepool would benefit a lot more from you doing that my friend…”

his head is already in the sand. He uses the bible as a safety blanket from his own fear of his mortality. It is something to pity, I suppose – just as they are told to pity us (even though they dont and attack non believers at every available turn. I submit to the court…the above list.)
960 lostatsea
May 5th, 2009 at 6:05 am

oouchan: Odd that Inari; A patron of blacksmiths seems to follow Thor and Vulcan, perhaps due to the reliance on blacksmiths who created the weapons that allowed man to defend against his enemies!! Just an odd thought!!
You can see how we created gods to explain what we could’nt when we truly lived in dark ages.
There are many who disbelieve in Pangea, Atlantis or Mu and some who do. Geology has proven that we had a large landmass which broke up into our present continents, how and when is conjecture!!
961 Cybogen
May 5th, 2009 at 6:05 am

Mark, I think not. You’re on a losing streak here and you stand no ground. You have resorted to small words and petty vocabulary. You are the one sinking in the pool. You’d be wise to leave here now.
962 Cybogen
May 5th, 2009 at 6:07 am

Go away now and play soeplace else!
963 cymraegbachgen87
May 5th, 2009 at 6:09 am

As far as I am concerned, I shall believe in the cloud being when there is scientific proof of his existence – there is none. Christians say that this lack of evidence IS evidence or that faith is required or that he shouldnt have to prove his existence…like I said, best publicist in history (it makes me laugh when they criticise evolution for a PERCEIVED lack of evidence) I am not going to bend my own parameters for ascertaining the truth of something just because people say I should believe.
964 Cybogen
May 5th, 2009 at 6:31 am

963. cymraegbachgen87 – I cannot and would not want to have you believe anything that you don’t want to believe.
We all believe what we want to. I myself in this list and others like it on listverse defend my beliefs and my GOD just as others defend their dis-beliefs.
Nobody can take it from any of us and all we can do here is just debate it. I don’t need to know if I change anybody. I need to only answer for myself. I will know that in the end when I am justified
965 Matt Howard
May 5th, 2009 at 6:58 am

Cybogen:

“My friend, I hope the Lord forgives you. Do you not have respect for He that made all things. He that allows the earth to continue its existence, riding its orbit around the sun and rotating on its axus allowing a stable existence for us day to day.
Lets just say that for a moment even today the LORD came to call judgement on all mankind. The almighty comes to Matt Howard with all his pwer and wrath and Matt Howrd says. Hey…you don’t exist GOD. I don’t believe in you and Im not accepting you as real. The almighty before you
with your eternity is HIS hands and you tell him he is not real. Can you think of that scenario playing out in your favor my friend?”

“We all believe what we want to. I myself in this list and others like it on listverse defend my beliefs and my GOD just as others defend their dis-beliefs.
Nobody can take it from any of us and all we can do here is just debate it. I don’t need to know if I change anybody. I need to only answer for myself. I will know that in the end when I am justified”

We can never debate brainwashed fundamentalist rednecks who are so sure of their own righteousness that their brains are pretty much redundant pieces of meat useless in all aspects except as paper weights.

If the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible is in fact real, I’d rather burn in Hell for all eternity than worship that megalomaniacal, egocentric, petty, unjust, violent, bullying C*NT of deity. And that fact that you interpret the Bible literally, and actually accept this freak of a God as it is written, is testament to your totally immoral character. Now stop preaching, get on your ‘moral’ high horse, and leave people who actually value reason and rationality the F*CK alone.
966 Cybogen
May 5th, 2009 at 7:12 am

I965. Matt Howard- if the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible is in fact real, I’d rather burn in Hell for all eternity than worship God. And that fact that you interpret the Bible literally, and actually accept this freak of a God as it is written, is testament to your totally immoral character. Now stop preaching, get on your ‘moral’ high horse, and leave people who actually value reason and rationality the F*CK alone.

My little friend. You may just get your wish to where you want to go. Let me not stop you from getting there in a hurry wither. Let me make one point said here that you brought up. YOU said get on my moral high horse and leave people alone. It is actually yourself that is putting yourself up on a pedestal even above the LORD you are doingf this. Do you not see what you are saying about yourself as being hypocritical. DO not lose your mindhere. It is only a debate site. You are far too gone in the game to maybe know this but you are losing it!
967 Matt Howard
May 5th, 2009 at 7:56 am

Cybogen:

I’m only losing it with you, who, instead of answering my questions, arguing coherently or debating the points I raise, simply resort to quoting scripture and telling me I’m going to Hell.

It was you who started preaching and simply ignoring my arguments, then threatening me with Hell if I didn’t conform to your line of thinking.

I’m not afraid of Hell or God, and if he does exist (and I’m paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson) I’m sure he prefers his creations to use the gifts of reason, rationality and logic instead of living in blind fear of punishment.

“It is actually yourself that is putting yourself up on a pedestal even above the LORD you are doingf this.”

I don’t know what the Hell that meant.

“DO not lose your mindhere. It is only a debate site”

First, what is a “mindhere”. Second, it was a debate site when we were actually having a debate. When I raised legitimate objections to your beliefs, you totally IGNORED my questions and arguments, threatened me with Hell, then told me to repent.

Go away. You’re annoying.
968 oouchan
May 5th, 2009 at 8:20 am

960. lostatsea: Inari is the god/goddess of food and rice. One of the Shinto Temples gods of Japan. (Not sure where blacksmith fits into it.) I love food so it’s natural for me to follow that. ha!
969 Cybogen
May 5th, 2009 at 8:27 am

967. Matt Howard- I’d ather I’d burn in Hell for all eternity than worship

First of all Matty..You have forgotten that YOU are the one who said you would rather burn in hell. I just simply said… ” I hope you get your wish” obviously if you believe in Hell over heaven then you got a one way ticket for yourself if YOU want it.
Second of all you are the one who lost track of the debate and started up with the four letter words and losing your mind over this discussion. I think you are on the worng side of the street frined and you should play with people you can handle logical and intelligent debate with. There are small minded people discussion sites on the internet for you my friend. GO there and play. COme back in a few years when you understand whats going on Matty!
970 FTW
May 5th, 2009 at 9:36 am

There would be no debate if only JC had put quill to papyrus himself . I would hate to think that the divine being was illiterate. If he came to teach man then why didn’t he write his own philosophy instead of leaving it up to man , ( who according to christian dogma is inherently evil ), to record his words YEARS AFTER the fact.

If Jesus had something to say would it not have given it credence to have come from his own hand.
Yet we have absolutely nothing from the purported time he walked the earth. We only have after the fact accounts.

“If Jesus saves then he better save himself …”
971 lostatsea
May 5th, 2009 at 9:48 am

968.oouchan: also patron of blacksmiths, warriors 16th century Edo. Sideline: Cherokee; inari means grey fox!!

Matt and Cy now! now! getting a bit catty are’nt we!!
Besides we already live in hell, no one read the news!!
Gods and Godesses have come and gone since the beginning…
who’s right who cares!! The hostility and division caused by Zealots are the problem.
972 oouchan
May 5th, 2009 at 9:53 am

971. lostatsea: I didn’t know that. I need to polish up on my patron diety…don’t I?
I also believe we are already in hell. It would make sense.
973 Maggot
May 5th, 2009 at 10:07 am

951 Matt: I am in a winning situation. I believe in the Norse Gods and when I die in battle I will ascend to Valhalla and live in happyland forever and ever.

What, you don’t get 40 virgins or anything cool like that? Sucker.
974 lostatsea
May 5th, 2009 at 10:19 am

972. oouchan: We live in a duality of heaven and hell, and how we treat each other and the planet governs who we are!! From your comments I feel you have a firm place in heaven!!
975 Cybogen
May 5th, 2009 at 10:40 am

Lostatsea- You’re probably right this could be hell we are living in now. It often seems like it doesn’t it?
976 oouchan
May 5th, 2009 at 10:47 am

974. lostatsea: Why thank you! I will see you there!

I am hoping for a sci-fi version…that would be cool!
977 Cybogen
May 5th, 2009 at 11:50 am

lostatsea – I think that when a God believing person talks about religion to a non-believing person like Matt.
They look at their debate as alright but they see their opposites (believers) as preaching. Its not that way. I stand in defense of my beliefs just as Matt does but he sees it as me cursing him or defacing him. Its never been like that. Any from of defense to ones belief on this website should be looked at as just debate. Thats all.
978 lostatsea
May 5th, 2009 at 2:29 pm

977.Cybogen: My view of the world is based on empirical evidence, ergo. I rail at any-one who states the universe is 6,000 yrs old. I also try to keep an open mind and become a little rattled when others quote as reference a book written by MEN not GOD who twisted and perverted it to fit THEIR needs thousands of years ago!! Especially the ROMAN Catholic church. An old Irish joke: Paddy goes to confession..Father father I’ve Killed a cat..Oh Paddy ye’el be damned for that..Aye, but Father twas a Protestant cat!!!
Och well..surely ye’el be blessed for that!! Sort of sums it up!!
979 Matt Howard
May 5th, 2009 at 5:37 pm

Cybogen:

“Second of all you are the one who lost track of the debate and started up with the four letter words and losing your mind over this discussion”

…no, what happened was I asked you about the King James Bible and why you accept it, and you suddenly started saying stuff like this;

“My friend Matt. Please understand that I do not feel my quest is to prove me right to anyone actually. I am just trying to do for you what others try to do for non-believers. Thye only one I am concerned to answer to is my LORD and is and will come again and very soon.
I am just trying to sway you to what you need to know BEFORE He comes again. I care that you are revealed the truth and be given salvation. It is up to you to accept it. I am in a winning situation. I have nothing to lose when HE indeed comes again for I know I will be with my LORD and GOD. I hope you can have that chance to MATT.
Tell me what is life Everlasting worth to you?
Do you want the choice? You do have a choice you know.
Tell me my friend. It is free to you to choose.Choose right.”

This is not an answer to anything; it’s proselytizing, and it was a complete snub of my arguments and questions. THAT is when the ‘debate’ went downhill, not because I started getting abusive, but because you started ignoring my question and preaching, then when I had a bit of fun about Valhalla you got your knickers in a twist and started calling me ‘Mr. Howard’ for some strange reason.

“Any from of defense to ones belief on this website should be looked at as just debate. Thats all.

Ummmm, no. Any form of defense MUST include answering other peoples questions and rebutting their arguments. All you did was read my posts, decided that the questions and arguments were too difficult for you to answer, so you basically put your fingers in your ears while screaming ‘La La La’ and resorted to telling me I’d better repent.

Maggot:

“951 Matt: I am in a winning situation. I believe in the Norse Gods and when I die in battle I will ascend to Valhalla and live in happyland forever and ever.

What, you don’t get 40 virgins or anything cool like that? Sucker.”

I will pray for you, Maggot. I only hope Thor takes mercy on you for mocking his glory. The only reason there are no virgins in Valhalla is because the mighty Thor didn’t leave any for us mere mortals. Repent, Maggot, Repent!
980 Matt Howard
May 5th, 2009 at 5:43 pm

Cybogen:

“I think you are on the worng side of the street frined and you should play with people you can handle logical and intelligent debate with. There are small minded people discussion sites on the internet for you my friend. GO there and play. COme back in a few years when you understand whats going on Matty!”

Logical and intelligent debate involves not believing the Earth is 6000 years old, that there was a great flood and that there really was such a thing as a talking snake. End of discussion, unless you actually want to answer my question about why you accept the King James Bible, you know, the question that you blatantly ignored at the beginning because it was too difficult?
981 oouchan
May 5th, 2009 at 5:45 pm

979. Matt Howard: I am going to become a Valkarie and take over Valhalla! Only because Thor has a nice …. (fill in the blank…since all his parts are appropriate!)
982 Matt Howard
May 5th, 2009 at 5:55 pm

oouchan:

shhhhhhh…don’t mock Thor. He’ll smash you with his mighty hammer.
983 oouchan
May 5th, 2009 at 5:58 pm

Matt Howard:…no silly….I’m not trying to mock the mighty Thor! I’m trying to win a date! (hahaha!)
984 Matt Howard
May 5th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

oouchan:

Haha! Then I think Thor will be more than happy to let you into Valhalla
985 Cybogen
May 6th, 2009 at 7:49 am

Peter foretold Christ’s Second Coming would be in fire: “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness: but is longsuffering to us-word, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall MELT WITH FERVENT HEAT, THE EARTH ALSO AND THE WORKS THAT ARE THEREIN SHALL BE BURNED UP.” 2.Peter 3:9, 10.
986 oouchan
May 6th, 2009 at 8:07 am

985. Cybogen: You lost me. What does that have to do with Valhalla or other parts of this thread? You didn’t explain…so I lost what you were trying to do.
987 Dee Dubya
May 6th, 2009 at 8:44 am

This is proof that people will believe anything.
988 Cybogen
May 6th, 2009 at 9:04 am

986. oouchan -It has nothing to do with Valhalla or any of that stuff. It has more to do with the topic of this list. Thats where I’m staying focused on. Don’
t know how Valhalla came up or Thor or any of those other items.???
989 gabi319
May 6th, 2009 at 9:31 am

oouchan – “so I lost what you were trying to do”
He was trying to preach. It had nothing to do with the topic on hand (Christ-like figures) or the many off hand. It was nothing more than a fancy get up essentially hiding: “Repent and accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior or suffer the fiery bowels of eternal damnation.”

I’ve made it a point to ignore you for a couple weeks now, Cybogen, notably after you declared that we non-Christians are incapable of love, but I’d like to point out yet again that the commenting FAQ prohibits preaching. I’ve said that to you at least once from my immediate recollection although if my hip would stop being so irritable and let me stay in one place for a decent length of time, I could probably find more. And many other people have called you out on your proselytizing. If you don’t have anything of value to contribute then stop contributing until you can.

“Don’t know how Valhalla came up or Thor or any of those other items.???”
It’s called reading. Particularly something other than the Bible…in context to your comment, I’m referring to reading the comments above you.
990 oouchan
May 6th, 2009 at 9:47 am

989. gabi319: That is why I asked the question…I wanted to clarify before I pointed out that he was preaching.

Cybogen: It’s ok to post scripture, but it needs to have some substance to it and to back it up…otherwise you are preaching.

(which has nothing to do with me trying to take over Valhalla…Thor is hot… )
991 Cybogen
May 6th, 2009 at 9:58 am

989. gabi319 – Im glad you ignored me gabi319 cause I show the hell enjoyed it. By the way you are putting words in by mean that were NEVER said. I mever never said anything like ” that we non-Christians are incapable of love,’
Youn are such a damm Hypocrite it stinks through the list. Man you’re are so full of it. Why don’t you go get a life and quit your bullshitting on here. you;’re pathetic!!!
992 Maggot
May 6th, 2009 at 10:01 am

989 gabi He was trying to preach…“Repent and accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior or suffer the fiery bowels of eternal damnation.”

Hell, you can get that by drinking a glass of milk.
993 Cybogen
May 6th, 2009 at 10:02 am

990. oouchan- When I post scripture I always back it up. Check my post on #985, Please don’t let that HYPOCRITE Gabi319 influiece you with lies. It is furthest from the truth of what he says about me.
994 oouchan
May 6th, 2009 at 10:22 am

993. Cybogen: I did. It’s just a scripture. That’s it. What I am looking for is for you to elaborate…not all of us follow scripture so putting it down with no reference is meaningless to me and others.
And you know no one influences me. I speak for me and only me.

992. Maggot: Where you referring to heartburn?
995 gabi319
May 6th, 2009 at 10:35 am

991. Cybogen

By the way you are putting words in by mean that were NEVER said. I mever never said anything like ” that we non-Christians are incapable of love,’

Top 15 quotes by Famous Atheists
410. Cybogen – …It must be because I said it on an atheist listing. Not believing in GOD which is Love proves one can’t believe in Love.
Thanks for that grapefruit you tossed me. Haven’t searched through LV to prove the fallacy of people’s words like that in a while. Felt good.

Im glad you ignored me gabi319 cause I show the hell enjoyed it.
Apparently didn’t enjoy it enough to ignore me and continue on in this conversational cold war. Nice touch with the “Youn are such a damm Hypocrite” and the “you;’[].,>/-+=re pathetic!!!” Real Classy. Let it show on the record that I have yet to resort to childish name calling and character slurs with this fellow. Frankly, there’s no challenge there.

992. Maggot – 989 gabi He was trying to preach…“Repent and accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior or suffer the fiery bowels of eternal damnation.”

Hell, you can get that by drinking a glass of milk.

So what can I get if I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior AND drink a glass of milk?
996 oouchan
May 6th, 2009 at 10:39 am

995. gabi319: “So what can I get if I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior AND drink a glass of milk?”

Heartburn
997 Maggot
May 6th, 2009 at 10:40 am

995 gabi: So what can I get if I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior AND drink a glass of milk?

Fiery bowels and a delusion.
998 gabi319
May 6th, 2009 at 10:48 am

997. Maggot:
gabi: So what can I get if I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior AND drink a glass of milk?

Fiery bowels and a delusion.

Really? I never knew that Jesus Christ causes fiery bowels and that a glass of milk gives you a delusion. Between that and oouchan’s heartburn, you two are making religion sound so appealing…
999 oouchan
May 6th, 2009 at 10:50 am

998. gabi319: “Really? I never knew that Jesus Christ causes fiery bowels and that a glass of milk gives you a delusion. Between that and oouchan’s heartburn, you two are making religion sound so appealing…”

…but it can be cured with some Pepto Bismol.
1000 Cybogen
May 6th, 2009 at 10:52 am

Maggot,Gabi319: Eli Eli lama sabachthani
1001 gabi319
May 6th, 2009 at 11:08 am

999. oouchan – “…but it can be cured with some Pepto Bismol.”

Great. Now I have the Pepto Bismol song and dance stuck in my head. Thanks, oouchan. And today of all days when I’ve got a dance class to hit up soon.

…Wonder how receptive class would be about me doing a little Pepto improv…
1002 vneck
May 6th, 2009 at 12:06 pm

wow no one seemed to mention enoch the Ethiopian who also pre dates christ and has one up on him too, he ascended into heaven mind body and soul, and guess what he came back the same way! how you ask? he was never killed! kinda like moses
1003 Maggot
May 6th, 2009 at 12:06 pm

1000 Cybogen: Eli Eli lama sabachthani

Is that the sound of gabi’s bowels after eating a Klondike Bar?
1004 gabi319
May 6th, 2009 at 1:22 pm

1003. Maggot – “Is that the sound of gabi’s bowels after eating a Klondike Bar?”

HAHAHA! Maggot, that might very well become the reason I won’t let my intestines do anything for a Klondike Bar.

and oouchan:
I write this here to discourage contaminating a more active list. cybogen’s excuse is rather weak. He started with the name calling before we even ventured into lord-and-savior mocking (first by calling me a ‘damm hypocrite’). It was meant in the same jesting tone as the above conversation on Thor and Valhalla – Thor being a deity of another religion, thus creating a parallel of this deity conversation – and there was no objections or indignities from the party of the second part. That is the TRUE meaning of hypocrite.

My take on the why’s of name calling… he’s sick of seeing us call him out on his preaching just as we’re sick of seeing it.
1005 Maggot
May 6th, 2009 at 1:31 pm

gabi: I better stop bringing it up or people will start to think that I am obsessed with your bowels.
1006 oouchan
May 6th, 2009 at 1:31 pm

1004. gabi319: I follow that…I guess I just like to keep the peace. Unless that person is truly an asshat like a few people recently, then let me at ‘em!.
1007 Maggot
May 6th, 2009 at 1:44 pm

1006 oouchan: I guess I just like to keep the peace.

It didn’t go unnoticed that you were kind of sticking up for me over there (I think), but believe me, ya didn’t have to.

And I hope you weren’t offended by my follow-up post there. None was intended. None to you at least.
1008 oouchan
May 6th, 2009 at 1:53 pm

1007. Maggot: I know and I wasn’t offended at all…and I was sticking up for you. Hard habit to break…especially when I can’t understand where an attack comes from.
1009 Hugh
May 6th, 2009 at 1:59 pm

meh.might aswell worship the popular one
1010 lostatsea
May 6th, 2009 at 2:56 pm

I’m offended; no-one liked my Paddy joke!!
1011 Maggot
May 6th, 2009 at 3:12 pm

1010 lostatsea: I’m offended; no-one liked my Paddy joke!!

Sorry. Cybogen was having a melt-down. That was ten times more fun.
1012 Matt Howard
May 6th, 2009 at 5:40 pm

Cybogen:

“989. gabi319 – Im glad you ignored me gabi319 cause I show the hell enjoyed it. By the way you are putting words in by mean that were NEVER said. I mever never said anything like ” that we non-Christians are incapable of love,’
Youn are such a damm Hypocrite it stinks through the list. Man you’re are so full of it. Why don’t you go get a life and quit your bullshitting on here. you;’re pathetic!!!”

HAHAHAHA. Oooooh, the ever-loving Christian is losing it. Calm down, it’s just a debate thread. That’s all we’re doing; debating. You’re losing it, my little friend. Maybe you should go away and let intelligent, rational people debate. You swore as well, you Godless heathen!

Don’t you think it’s ironic that while Cybogen is threatening eternal hellfire for us, he himself is having a ‘meltdown’? (crappy joke there, I know)

Honestly though, Cybogen, we are not all mocking you because you are a Christian. As much as I disagree and reject Christian doctrine, it is not the sole reason we are having a go at you. It’s because you simply REFUSE to debate with us! Numerous times I put forth arguments and questions you simply ignored, which would have been fine if you had just ignored them then left. But instead, you started preaching, throwing in Bible verses, threatening us with Hell and generally being a proselytizing little shit. THAT’S why were mocking you, my little friend.
1013 lostatsea
May 6th, 2009 at 6:57 pm

Matt:When I first read Cybogen’s post 883..I felt real hope
for Cy…but then you guys got a wee bit Catty he he…at least more hope than for Stizzy!!!
To reiterate; the only hell I believe in…is the one created by men; hatred, bigotry, racism, all and any isms…all life deserves respect and perhaps if we followed some of the Pagan and Native beliefs in the sanctity of our Mother Gaia and the life she supports we might be happier and healthier! Off topic sorry!! Monsanto is a great danger to our planet and its biodiversity…thousands of India’s
farmers commit suicide after failure of Monsanto crops!!
Evolution strikes again as species once killed by Roundup now resistant!!!
1014 Matt Howard
May 6th, 2009 at 7:57 pm

lostatsea:

Yes, we did get a bit catty:P But Cybogen started a discussion, made claims like the Bible is totally infallible, and when I offered some objections and arguments to that claim he simply ignored them and started preaching. Started threatening me with Hell. Started proselytizing and throwing in obscure Bible verses. I think being ‘catty’ was justified.

I don’t think you should put anymore hope in Cybogen. He’s obviously too far gone down the ‘everyone else in the world is an absolute heathen and blasphemer because they aren’t a Christian’ road. He is simply brainwashed and impervious to any logical discourse, unless it involves talking snakes and zombies.
1015 oouchan
May 6th, 2009 at 8:03 pm

lostatsea: Couldn’t agree with you more about hell is here on earth. That would explain the haters!
(by the way, I did like your joke, but as Maggot pointed out, we got side-tracked) Having said that, I did get a giggle out of the Round-up quip!
1016 lostatsea
May 6th, 2009 at 8:45 pm

Matt: One thing I’ve learned in my travels and existence of 61 yrs on our Spaceship Earth; We are a diverse and curious species. I have been fortunate to have met many wonderful people who traveled to understand that diversity and were curious like me. Watching the stars overhead in the middle of tumultous seas is truly amazing. Learning new language and customs can open ones eyes and mind to other ways. I feel truly sorry for hidebound people who fail to see other’s viewpoints…that to me is a type of hell!! For heaven to exist here on Earth these are anathemic for that to exist. religionism is a devisive force which only creates an us and them relation…which has no relation to heaven on Earth!! ergo…religion creates HELL!!
oouchan: hope you can follow my twisted logic!! haha
I feel I know you so well that I know you can see my points clearly!! We have become debt slaves under the control of powerful families and I have fears for our future… http://www.globalresearch.ca , brasschecktv.com and many many other sites are trying to enlighten us of the dangers we face and it behooves us to learn and take a stand for our freedoms…oops now I’m preaching..but for a good cause!
1017 gabi319
May 6th, 2009 at 8:45 pm

lostatsea:
Am currently setting a little bit of time here and there to catch up on this list reading with where I left off (approx 400 comments ago) and only jumped in the fray to answer oouchan’s question above. Patience, sir. I’ll get to your Paddy joke when I find it. In a few days hence if I randomly start laughing at you, assume I finally found the joke and thought it was irresistibly hilarious.
1018 lostatsea
May 6th, 2009 at 8:53 pm

gabi319:just a stupid joke about Catholic and Protestant schisms and confessions…don’t get me started on bought popes and indulgencies!!haha ps. it’s 978 after some banter with Cybogen!
1019 oouchan
May 6th, 2009 at 9:01 pm

lostatsea: I will go with kindred spirit! I like that. I do follow what you are saying and I agree! There are concerns for our future…especially if they want to collect. Scary thought. (preachy…not yet. But rest assured, I will let you know when you do! )

By the way, you need to spread out to the other lists for a few. Check out some of the ramblings? quotes? of Dr Bart….He goes on about the Spaceship Jesus. I can’t tell yet if he is serious or not. However, it’s for some interesting reading.

gabi: I so do miss talking with you! Please stick around more…this place is addictive. (I wonder if there is a clinic for LV abuse…)
1020 lostatsea
May 6th, 2009 at 9:23 pm

oouchan:Jesus has a spaceship?? oh! great! he can come and get all his people and leave us to face Islamic and Jewish zealots haha!! oh shit!! I’m addicted to LV itis!! such fun though!!
1021 lostatsea
May 6th, 2009 at 10:19 pm

oouchan:took your advice…just caught Randall’s brilliant
comments on bizarre practices…and yours of course.
1022 oouchan
May 6th, 2009 at 10:40 pm

lostatsea: Glad you branched out. It’s interesting when you see some of the wacky stuff going on here.

Yeah…I was surprised on the spaceship jesus thingy…some weird stuff.
1023 Cybogen
May 7th, 2009 at 5:13 am

MATT HOWARD – THAT DOY IS A LOST HOPE. SHOULD BE A POSTER BOY FOR “JERRYS’ KIDS” LOL
1024 Mark
May 7th, 2009 at 5:16 am

1023. Cybogen : Have you been upping your dose mate? Maybe you should just down the whole bottle and save us all a huge headache…
1025 Matt Howard
May 7th, 2009 at 6:03 am

Cybogen:

“MATT HOWARD – THAT DOY IS A LOST HOPE. SHOULD BE A POSTER BOY FOR “JERRYS’ KIDS” LOL”

It’s getting embarrassing now…
1026 lostatsea
May 7th, 2009 at 6:08 am

Matt: What’s a ‘DOY’?? methinks Cy’s been into the devil rum!!haha
1027 Cybogen
May 7th, 2009 at 6:13 am

1026. lostatsea – LOL, LOL, GOod one! LOL Actually a Doy is a Dumb boy.
Yeah and BTW and the Rum is good! Yeah!!!!!
1028 Matt Howard
May 7th, 2009 at 6:16 am

lostatsea:

Most likely!
1029 Cybogen
May 7th, 2009 at 6:17 am

Me likes~
1030 gabi319
May 7th, 2009 at 6:19 am

omg…this kid’s got a serious case of commenting diarrhea… I’m working on three hours of sleep. Too effin early for this crap…

But seriously, before he was an annoying little gnat with an overly-religious bent. Now, with the last few comments I’ve seen, he’s becoming more of a generic troll.

I need some coffee…
1031 lostatsea
May 7th, 2009 at 6:26 am

1030.gabi319..I’m on my second cup…and on the 8th day God made rum…that’s why we haven’t heard from him!!
1032 gabi319
May 7th, 2009 at 6:31 am

1031. lostatsea
Sir, I’m jealous. My parents prefer the weak, watered down “coffee” so I need to leave house to find the good drugs. Oh coffee, how I miss you…

Haven’t read your Paddy joke yet, but I giggled over your God made rum joke! …simply pointing out I noticed it so you don’t get offended later
1033 lostatsea
May 7th, 2009 at 6:39 am

1032.gabi…yum..love my coffee.. much better than the demon rum..haha..thank Mithras I don’t take offense easily!!
1034 oouchan
May 7th, 2009 at 6:45 am

1031. lostatsea: bwhahahaha! That was a good one.
1035 Cybogen
May 7th, 2009 at 6:46 am

1030. gabi319 – But seriously, before he was an annoying little gnat with an overly-religious bent. Now, with the last few comments I’ve seen, he’s becoming more of a generic troll.
Yeah I guess I’ve gone to trash talk. I learned it from the natives I suppose. Anyway I shouldn’t care right? It seems to be the way here the way people are I have noticed. So what the F#ck? Why not?
1036 gabi319
May 7th, 2009 at 6:54 am

1033. lostatsea
What kind of coffee do you buy? I’m always willing to try a new kind if I can find a small bag of it just for me since no one else here would partake. Anything’s gotta be better than driving out to forage for a quality cup of joe or *shudder* drinking my parents’ ‘coffee’.
1037 lostatsea
May 7th, 2009 at 6:54 am

oouchan: a heads up message..from http://www.brasschecktv.com..
Senator Jay Rockefeller is proposing a shutdown of the internet with his bill; 773…wow those damn Americans with
their paranoid delusions…or is it CONTROL??? just thought I’d pass it along!!
1038 gabi319
May 7th, 2009 at 6:57 am

Ooh, anyone else ever try Turkish coffee?! Ambrosia, that’s what it is! I’ve a friend who’s a month or so shy of finishing a teaching contract in Turkey. I’m really hoping she learned how to make proper Turkish coffee because I could really go for some.
1039 lostatsea
May 7th, 2009 at 7:06 am

gabi319…there was a Turkish cafe in Zurich that had a real eye opener…free trade Arabica beans…yum..
1040 lostatsea
May 7th, 2009 at 7:32 am

oouchan: seems there is a colony of Amazonian ants, who are all female and are clones of their queen..Mycocepurus smithii, have evolved, thus no energy expended on keeping males for reproduction!!! that should send a wee shiver to all useless males!! hehe…not naming names haha :0
1041 oouchan
May 7th, 2009 at 8:06 am

1037. lostatsea: Wow…I checked that article. Guess the reason he doesn’t want it anymore is because he needs to show his expenses…can’t have porn on the books, now can we?

As for the ant…did you see my post about the lizards? All female but when it’s time to mate they change for 15 days only. 2 females get together and one becomes male and impregnants the other. Then after 15 days, they switch. Perfect society if I might add.
Also, a study shows that the male chromosone is getting smaller by the year. They are weeding themselves out (hee hee). It won’t happen for a while, but it is happening. We could end up like the ant or the lizard.
Feels good to be famale! (btw..this was not meant to be male bashing!)
1042 Cybogen
May 7th, 2009 at 8:36 am

Oouchan -No offense taken about male bashing. It feels good for u s to feel good females! LOL
1043 lostatsea
May 7th, 2009 at 8:40 am

1042..you are becoming a disgusting little troll…beneath contempt!!!
1044 lostatsea
May 7th, 2009 at 8:43 am

oouchan…much to learn from the animal kingdom…sometimes feel ashamed of the male animal!!! :0
1045 gabi319
May 7th, 2009 at 8:52 am

1039. lostatsea
I don’t have much time before I head out and probably won’t be near the computer later but could you clear up the confusion over the “free trade” business? I know there’s some controversy over how it’s used and how it’s abused but was confused reading up on the topic. There’s a dark chocolate candy maker from somewhere in South America (I think) that refuses to use the free trade label because it would increase the cost of their chocolate bars by nearly double. Won’t be able to converse with you since I won’t be here, but could you lecture me on the details of free trade? I’ll be back later to read it!

Incidentally, I learned about this South American chocolate bar because it is heralded as one of the best chocolate bars ever made! AND it is completely lactose free! …tried it…absolutely bitter stuff. Took a while to unclench my jaw and stop making a stinky face.
1046 Cybogen
May 7th, 2009 at 9:04 am

1043. lostatsea -1042..you are becoming a disgusting little troll…beneath contempt!!!
What?…Did I say something wrong. I like females and they feel good. Its not a bad thing from a mans point of view. I don’t see and disgust in liking this in anyway. Why do you?
1047 gabi319
May 7th, 2009 at 9:11 am

haha, I see I wrote free trade numerous times when I meant ‘fair trade’. Three hours is definitely not enough sleep to be conversational. Good thing the five year olds don’t care much for good conversation that’s more elaborate than what episode of the Backyardigans was playing yesterday
1048 lostatsea
May 7th, 2009 at 9:45 am

gabi319:a misnomer that: not much free in free trade!!
fair trade however means organically grown and workers paid a fair wage for their labour.
1046:It’s the veiled inference behind your post!!! treating women as mere sexual things that pisses me off!!
1049 lostatsea
May 7th, 2009 at 9:54 am

oouchan:www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13480
interesting take on the swine flue!!
1050 Cybogen
May 7th, 2009 at 10:07 am

Noo..Nooo….Noooo…. Please…They are more than sexual things! The are great maids too! They are good cooks and housekeepers as well! They are well appreciated!
1051 oouchan
May 7th, 2009 at 10:16 am

1049. lostatsea: Wow…that was a fantastic article. I had a feeling anyway about it. Pigs are supposed to be the cleanest animal, but what we humans have done to them has now made them the dirtiest…don’t you agree?

Funny story…2 days after they announced the swine flu…my mom calls me to say she doesn’t feel good and that she might have it. ROFLMAO! It sure was funny to hear her say that.
I knew it was blown out of proprtion as soon as she called me.

Cybogen: Bad joke…so’s this:

Men are like copiers.
You need them for reproduction, but that’s about it.

See…just as bad.
1052 Cybogen
May 7th, 2009 at 10:25 am

1051. oouchan – May 7th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Men are like copiers.
You need them for reproduction, but that’s about it.

See…just as bad.

Touche’
Homer to Bart : “a woman is like beer. They look good, they smell good, and you’d step over your own mother just to get one!”
1053 Maggot
May 7th, 2009 at 10:28 am

1051 oouchan: Men are like copiers.
You need them for reproduction, but that’s about it.

Burn in hell, beee-otch…
1054 lostatsea
May 7th, 2009 at 10:29 am

1051:oouchan:That’s why I don’t eat much meat, too many growth hormones and antibiotics, plus the inhumane treatment
of the animals in factory farms.
1055 oouchan
May 7th, 2009 at 10:35 am

1052. Cybogen: I wasn’t being funny. I was trying to point out that your joke was in poor taste. It’s not nice when someone does it back to you.

1053. Maggot: Better to be a beee-otch than a copier! hahahahaha!

1054. lostatsea: Wish I could say the same. I like meat (total carnivore here!). I have cut back on red meat and sticking with fish and chicken (only free range).
My kid doesn’t like anything beef but will eat pork and chicken. Sometimes I wonder if she’s mine…weird kid. hehe
1056 lostatsea
May 7th, 2009 at 10:46 am

oouchan:happen to like copying!!hehe
Free range are happy animals and taste better too!! at least they can have some freedom before being BBQed.!!
Corporate greed are having detrimental effects on our health..wish more people would wake up!!
1057 lostatsea
May 8th, 2009 at 6:35 am

gabi319: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/187.html Two comedians who sum up the financial meltdown, very funny.
1058 GTT
May 8th, 2009 at 7:07 am

Matt Howard:

“megalomaniacal, egocentric, petty, unjust, violent, bullying C*NT of deity”

OK, I´m all for debate and logical questions and scientific reasoning (hey, I even believe in evolution which for some reason got me condemned by Stizzy) but this is where I draw the line. I´m sorry, you´re bashing someone for not keeping a debate logical and civil and you resort to this? Disappointing from someone I was enjoying reading.
1059 Cybogen
May 8th, 2009 at 7:18 am

1058. GTT – May 8th, 2009 at 7:07 am

Matt Howard:

“megalomaniacal, egocentric, petty, unjust, violent, bullying C*NT of deity”

OK, I´m all for debate and logical questions and scientific reasoning (hey, I even believe in evolution which for some reason got me condemned by Stizzy) but this is where I draw the line. I´m sorry, you´re bashing someone for not keeping a debate logical and civil and you resort to this? Disappointing from someone I was enjoying reading.

GTT – Thank-You GTT. I felt the same way about the comment from Matt Howard. I admit Im not perfect but the line about “megalomaniacal, egocentric, petty, unjust, violent, bullying C*NT of deity” was the one that threw me. I am not a deity so I assume he was talking about GOD.
I couldn’t believe the contempt somebody would have even if Atheist tro say that about God!
1060 GTT
May 8th, 2009 at 7:53 am

Matt Howard:

OK, I´ve seen your comments after this one particular post and I understand that you were irritated. I was getting pretty ticked off myself… I think the calling you out on it still stands though….

*****

Cybogen:

While that line really pissed me off, I will not agree with your posts on this list. You want to believe in God, I´m with you. But this is a debate and preaching has no business here. Telling people you feel sorry for them because they dont believe in God does no one any good and only opens the door to this type of response.

Sorry to all for the rant.
1061 Matt Howard
May 8th, 2009 at 8:13 am

GTT:

“OK, I´m all for debate and logical questions and scientific reasoning (hey, I even believe in evolution which for some reason got me condemned by Stizzy) but this is where I draw the line. I´m sorry, you´re bashing someone for not keeping a debate logical and civil and you resort to this? Disappointing from someone I was enjoying reading.”

That particular line by me was nothing other than a personal opinion based on my reading of the Bible. And I fully stand by it. It had no bearing on my argument and I wasn’t claiming disbelief simply because I find the God of the Bible to be absolutely abhorrent; I was saying that in my personal opinion the God of the Christian Bible is totally unworthy of ANY kind of respect and I think my summation of his character was overly kind if anything.

Cybogen:

“GTT – Thank-You GTT. I felt the same way about the comment from Matt Howard. I admit Im not perfect but the line about “megalomaniacal, egocentric, petty, unjust, violent, bullying C*NT of deity” was the one that threw me. I am not a deity so I assume he was talking about GOD.
I couldn’t believe the contempt somebody would have even if Atheist tro say that about God!”

Well cry me a river. Whilst I respect your right to hold a belief in God, I don’t not respect in any way, shape or form the actual belief. The character the Bible describes as God is, in my opinion, exactly what I described above. Do you not think atheists feel exactly the same way (offended, insulted, patronized and condescended) when you claim we deserve to burn in Hell for all eternity?

GTT and Cybogen:

That was a personal opinion and quite frankly, I don’t really care whether it was offensive or not. No one has a right NOT to be offended, especially religious people. As the comment in regards to God didn’t really have any bearing on the validity of my argument, nor its soundness, and was merely a speculation on the character of Magic Man, I don’t see what the problem is.
1062 Matt Howard
May 8th, 2009 at 8:49 am

GTT:

I’d just like to explain my point a little bit better, as reading over my response it seems unnecessarily curt. I didn’t mean it to sound rude but I do want to defend my position. Here goes.

When discussing characters, real or fictional, a subjective account and assessment of their attributes must be allowed. To exclude an opinion would be censorship of the highest order; stifling a thought.

If this were a list, say, discussing the moral characteristics of Hitler, or Jeffrey Dahmer, or Ted Bundy, or Idi Amin, I believe my response in question wouldn’t have received as much as second-glance from the vast majority of readers (excluding neo-Nazi’s or wannabe serial killers).

But because the character in question is God, opinions shouldn’t be heard? The God of the Christian Bible, if read literally, is totally corrupt. He kills babies, orders genocides, endorses slavery, FLOODS THE ENTIRE EARTH TO EXTERMINATE PEOPLE HE DEEMS UNWORTHY. He is basically a shit. Now as Cybogen went on record as saying the Bible is unadulterated literal truth, why shouldn’t my opinion on the character of God as it is written in the Bible be heard?

Could it be that maybe, to paraphrase Richard Dawkins, religion is surrounded by a shield that repels criticism? Is it fair to say that just because I was commenting on a religious character people buy into this weird respect that isn’t granted to any other position in the world (political, economic, social opinions)?

The God of the Christian Bible is, in my opinion, totally unworthy of respect of worship, and is possibly the most unlikeable character in literary history. And if people endorse literal interpretations of the Bible, then I reserve the right to criticize the character of God based on that interpretation. And that’s my defense.
1063 Cybogen
May 8th, 2009 at 9:09 am

MATT – As somepeople on here say not to preach, I alsdo say not to be anti-semitic towards GOD. You see why anyone would have to support GOD if you making him out the way you do with “megalomaniacal, egocentric, petty, unjust, violent, bullying C*NT of deity”.
you are not going to say that type of stuff about my GOD and think I’m not going to say anything about it. NO WAY!
I will die for my LORD and if you had a bad life and things went terribly wrong for you…well don’t go blaming GOD for your trouble. You ar somebody close to you may have messed up bnt it wasn’t GODs’ fault.
Then you say this B.S. like: He kills babies, orders genocides, endorses slavery, FLOODS THE ENTIRE EARTH TO EXTERMINATE PEOPLE HE DEEMS UNWORTHY. He is basically a shit. WHat are you talking about son?!? Are you for real. GOD made man but he didn’t cause that all to happen. Seems the only time you actuall believe in GOD is when you want to bnlame him for yours or mankuinds troubles. IO say it as it is and I’ll NEVER EVER back down. NO WAY!!!
1064 Cybogen
May 8th, 2009 at 9:11 am

PRAISE and GLORY to GOD FOREVER and EVER AMEN!
1065 Matt Howard
May 8th, 2009 at 9:29 am

Cybogen:

Good for you. Defend your God. But when you come into a forum to debate the absolute truth of the Bible you must be prepared for varying opinions. I agree that not everyone views God the way I do because they don’t take the Bible literally.

You, on the other hand, do. And you are willfully ignorant of some of the terrible things that the Bible describes.

“I will die for my LORD and if you had a bad life and things went terribly wrong for you…well don’t go blaming GOD for your trouble. You ar somebody close to you may have messed up bnt it wasn’t GODs’ fault.”

I’ve had a brilliant upbringing and I thank my parents everyday for the sacrifices they have made in order to provide things for me that a great majority of people don’t have. I’m not blaming God for anything because;

a) He doesn’t exist
b) If he did exist I wouldn’t be a whiny little bitch about things and blame him for my own problems

“Then you say this B.S. like: He kills babies, orders genocides, endorses slavery, FLOODS THE ENTIRE EARTH TO EXTERMINATE PEOPLE HE DEEMS UNWORTHY. He is basically a shit. WHat are you talking about son?!? Are you for real. GOD made man but he didn’t cause that all to happen.”

a) He does kill babies (all the first born children and that…)
b) He does order genocides (Deuteronomy 20, God orders the Israelites to go to war with their neighbors, who, if they don’t submit, are to be slaughtered along with every other living creature in the vicinity)
c) He does condone slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46, sets out the guidelines for owning slaves)
d) He did make a flood that killed everyone he deemed unworthy

Now, I understand that many liberal Christians who view the Bible as a set of imperfect documents don’t take these stories literally. They either reject them, or interpret them differently as to adhere to modern moral codes.

YOU, on the other hand, have said that the Bible is infallible and is written as it is supposed to be taken.

I’m not preaching; I’m responding to your claims and arguments that the Bible is infallible and God is absolutely moral. The difference between you and me is that I address your points and counter your argument, while you just rattle off the same old ‘repent or burn’ shtick that you’ve been doing since day one.

The sad part is that I know your response will be barely intelligible gibberish that will address exactly NONE of the points I have made. Let me preempt your response so as not to waste your time or mine:

GOD is teh LORD of all things, and YOU must eccept HIS glory! READ the BIBLE its all in there. I WILL never back DOWN, glory be to GOD everything you say is BS!!!111!!1 ARE u for real? WHERE will you go wen you die, you better make a CHOICE.
1066 Spange
May 8th, 2009 at 9:31 am

Um…Genesis, chapter 6. God was displeased with the ways of man and decided to destroy them with a flood. It’s quite explicit about this: “And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them”. That’s from KJV but other translations are essentially the same. Surely this pretty important story hasn’t passed you by?
1067 Matt Howard
May 8th, 2009 at 9:38 am

Spange:

For people like Cybogen the Bible varies from being infallible truth to the big book of multiple choice; they accept the good parts and ignore the horrific parts. They then pick and choose which moral lessons they feel like living by. It’s alright to persecute gays and limit their freedoms but they then completely ignore the following verse about stoning your teenage child to death on the edge of the city because said child was being unruly.
1068 Cybogen
May 8th, 2009 at 9:44 am

DUDe, You didn’
t even bring up any verses from the Bible on the subject. You’re making up your own lines as you go along. For one thing God didn’t send out the order to kill off the firstborn. That was Herod. The flood came about and He saved the righteous one from the flood by having noah put he and his family and clan on the Ark preceeding the floodwaters. Yes there were plenty of people who drowned because they were greatly displeasing GOD even after having warn the earths inhabitants throu Noah to repent from their sins and to lead just lives. No they just thought who the heck is that telling me I can’t have have sex with one anothers wife, husband, sister, brother and children. It was pretty bad then as it is getting now.
WOuld you have it that way that the world be filled with sinners to pollute the world with evil. Tell me what is the good of sin? What good has it done for you or anyman?
You would be the first to complain if you were the victim of the sins being committed then. SO if you are one who doesn’t believe in GOd how do you know about gthe flood and other Bible related storys?
1069 Matt Howard
May 8th, 2009 at 9:56 am

Cybogen:

“DUDe, You didn’
t even bring up any verses from the Bible on the subject. You’re making up your own lines as you go along. For one thing God didn’t send out the order to kill off the firstborn. That was Herod.”

And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)

Wow, Cybogen. I guess a Godless heathen knows more about the Bible than you.

“Yes there were plenty of people who drowned because they were greatly displeasing GOD even after having warn the earths inhabitants throu Noah to repent from their sins and to lead just lives.”

Wow. So because people were displeasing God instead of forgiving them or just leaving them alone he decided the most moral course of action was TO DROWN THEM? If he didn’t like them exercising their free will, why didn’t he just end their existence? Why did he have to inflict a terrifying and painful death upon them? Moral my arse.

“WOuld you have it that way that the world be filled with sinners to pollute the world with evil. Tell me what is the good of sin? What good has it done for you or anyman?”

Sin is not real; it’s a label we put on things that are detrimental to human society. Same with evil. And we have ways of dealing with that quite easily; the court system and prisons. We don’t round up all the muggers, rapists, murderers and thieves, put them in a big aquarium and drown them all, do we? We give them a trial, offer them a chance to defend themselves then punish them if punishment is necessary. If we behaved like God did in the Bible the world would be a friggin’ awful place.

When it comes down to it, Cybogen, if you take the Bible literally you must accept the fact that it contains a lot of horrific and immoral things perpetrated by God. Keep arguing. I’ll just keep linking you to verses that describe horrible acts committed by God. There is enough of them to keep me going for a loooooong time…
1070 Cybogen
May 8th, 2009 at 10:10 am

1069. Matt Howard When it comes down to it, Cybogen, if you take the Bible literally you must accept the fact that it contains a lot of horrific and immoral things perpetrated by God. Keep arguing. I’ll just keep linking you to verses that describe horrible acts committed by God. There is enough of them to keep me going for a loooooong time…

Well Matt I’m glad we finally got you to start believing in GOD after all if he didn’t exist if it could’nt have been HIM that as you say caused all those nasty things.
Yeah, the fact of thBible is there were alot of horrific things goig on (that) mankind brought on. I suppose if I was out their poking your female relatives and maybe even your pets as the peole back then were doing in those days then thats all fine and good by you.
i know one thing by most peoples standards they would start to ask themselves….why is this sodomy and immorality going on and then they would start to blame GOD for that too? SO GODs to blame is the world gets worse and GODs to blame if HE punishes those who deserve punishment. i’d like to see what form of justice you would come up with. You think the world would be a better place with out GODs intervention? I think we’d be much worse off then we are now that is if we’d still exist.
But yeah, keep sending those verses to me causwe I know at least you are conforming to your beliefs in GOD. You must have a Bible close at hand. GOOD for you Matt!
1071 Matt Howard
May 8th, 2009 at 10:20 am

Cybogen:

“But yeah, keep sending those verses to me causwe I know at least you are conforming to your beliefs in GOD. You must have a Bible close at hand. GOOD for you Matt!”

Haha. Yep, you got me, Cybogen. Quoting material from a book and referring to the lead character without always prefacing it with ‘this character’ is definitive proof that I’m a believer.

“Yeah, the fact of thBible is there were alot of horrific things goig on (that) mankind brought on. I suppose if I was out their poking your female relatives and maybe even your pets as the peole back then were doing in those days then thats all fine and good by you.”

I guess all the babies that were wandering around poking female relatives and pets would be gravely threatening to a supreme being…

“SO GODs to blame is the world gets worse and GODs to blame if HE punishes those who deserve punishment.”

And by saying that, you have admitted the most insidious thing about religion; the belief that all humans are inherently evil and deserving of eternal punishment unless they intellectually submit to a malevolent tyrant in the sky.

I’m just glad you admitted there are horrific things in the Bible, and that you believe people deserved torture and death because of these things.

That says a lot about your character, Cybogen.

Oh yeah, nice way to ignore my response to your Herod claim. Are you going to acknowledge that you were wrong or simply ignore it as you’ve been doing throughout this thread?
1072 Cybogen
May 8th, 2009 at 11:32 am

Matt – The fact that the Bible is God’s progressive revelation of Himself to us through historical events and through His relationship with people throughout history might contribute to people’s misconceptions about what God is like in the Old Testament as compared to the New Testament. However Matt when you read both the Old and the New Testaments it becomes evident that God’s wrath and His love are revealed in both Testaments.
For example, throughout the Old Testament, God is declared to be “merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness and truth” (Exodus 34:6; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 4:31; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 86:5; Psalm 86:15; Psalm 108:4; Psalm 145:8; Joel 2:13). Yet in the New Testament, God’s loving-kindness and mercy are manifested even more fully through the fact that “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Throughout the Old Testament, we also see God dealing with Israel much the same way a loving father deals with a child. When they willfully sinned against Him and began to worship idols, God would chastise them, yet each and every time He would deliver them once they had repented of their idolatry. This is much the same way that we see God dealing with Christians in the New Testament. For example, Hebrews 12:6 tells us that “the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son.”
In a similar way, throughout the Old Testament we see God’s judgment and wrath poured out on unrepentant sinners. Likewise, in the New Testament, we see that the wrath of God is still “being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness” (Romans 1:18). Even with just a quick reading of the New Testament, it is evident that Jesus talks more about hell than He does about heaven. So, clearly, God is no different in the Old Testament than He is in the New Testament. God by His very nature is immutable (unchanging). While we might see one aspect of His nature revealed in certain passages of Scripture more than other aspects, He Himself does not change. When one really begins to read and study the Bible, it becomes clear that God is the same in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Even though the Bible is really sixty-six individual books, written on two (or possibly three) continents, in three different languages, over a period of approximately 1500 years by more than 40 authors (who came from many walks of life), it remains one unified book from beginning to end without contradiction. In it we see how a loving, merciful, and just God deals with sinful men in all kinds of situations. Truly, the Bible is God’s love letter to mankind. God’s love for His creation, especially for mankind, is evident all through Scripture. Throughout the Bible we see God lovingly and mercifully calling people into a special relationship with Himself, not because they deserve it but because He is a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness and truth. Yet we also see a holy and righteous God who is the Judge of all those who disobey His word and refuse to worship Him, instead turning to worship gods of their own creation, worshiping idols and other gods instead of worshiping the one and only true God (Romans 1).
Because of God’s righteous and holy character, all sin—past, present, and future—must be judged. Yet God in His infinite love has provided a payment for sin and a way of reconciliation so that sinful man can escape His wrath. We see this wonderful truth in verses like 1 John 4:10: “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” In the Old Testament, God provided a sacrificial system whereby atonement could be made for sin, but this sacrificial system was only temporary and merely looked forward to the coming of Jesus Christ who would die on the cross to make a real substitutionary atonement for sin. The Savior that was promised in the Old Testament is more fully revealed in the New Testament, and the ultimate expression of God’s love, the sending of His son Jesus Christ, is revealed in all its glory. Both the Old and the New Testaments were given “to make us wise unto salvation” (2 Timothy 3:15). When we study them more closely, it really is evident that God is no different in the New Testament than He was in the Old Testament
1073 i gots the giggles
May 8th, 2009 at 11:57 am

HAHAHA!!! The kid couldn’t even come up with his own answers! Got Lucky on Google, did you?
anya
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-different.html
1074 Cybogen
May 8th, 2009 at 12:03 pm

1073. i gots the giggles – SO whats your point? You got a problem with that. At least I know how to research information. You weren’t even in the conversation so why don’t you just leave~
1075 Bert
May 8th, 2009 at 12:04 pm

Plagarism, thy name is Cybogen.
1076 i gots the giggles
May 8th, 2009 at 12:14 pm

Nicely and succinctly done, Bert.

I personally have no problem with google. I use it often, especially when I want to make sure my facts are right. What I DO have a problem with are those who take other people’s work and try to pass it off as their own. You may enjoy doing that but I made sure everyone else knows where those sources are cited.

And what tipped me off was the fact that words were spelled right. If you had bothered to paraphrase it and spell some words wrong here, there and frankly everywhere, then maybe I would’ve thought maybe this kid actually knows some shit.

It’s a comment board that is accessible to the public. As it is, I’m enjoying reading Matt Howard’s comments so I feel no compulsion to leave simply because you told me to.
1077 Matt Howard
May 8th, 2009 at 12:20 pm

Cybogen:

HAHAHA. Now we can add plagarism to the list of immoral things you believe in!

I was going to mention that your whole post didn’t answer my question, nor did it provide a justification for Gods horrible atrocities.

Just because the Bible says God is loving, protecting blah blah blah does NOT justify the slaughter of babies, owning slaves, committing genocide and generally being an amalgamation of the 20th Centuries worst dictators.

Grow up, Cybogen. If you can’t argue with me using your own intellect (which is blatantly obvious by now) don’t copy entire pages of text from a website and not even bother to cite your references!!! That’s unbelievably dishonest!
1078 Bert
May 8th, 2009 at 12:20 pm

Thanks i gots the giggles. One of my pet peeves actually.

“At least I know how to research information” – ummm, no you don’t. Taking someone else’s work, copying it, and passing it off as your own is NOT research. That’s why it would get you a big fat F on a college paper, and may even get you expelled. If you agree with the author, just post a link and let them take the credit for their work.
1079 Matt Howard
May 8th, 2009 at 12:22 pm

i gots the giggles:

Thanks for the heads-up.
1080 Matt Howard
May 8th, 2009 at 12:23 pm

Cybogen:

“At least I know how to research information”

Damn, I wish you’d have bestowed your learned methods of research upon me before I started university. All that useless trolling through ‘books’ and ‘journals’ looking for so-called ‘facts’, ‘arguments’ and ‘evidence’. I could have just used Google! How stupid of me!
1081 Cybogen
May 8th, 2009 at 12:32 pm

Great work Matt. WOW you’re onto me. I actually research information and send it along! WOW…now cry me a river Matt! Nobody ever did that before, well I’ll be damm! Whadda you know about that?!? Thats so smart of you to notice that to side track my information to you about GOD. Well now your not only learning about GOD you now realize people believe that the internet is there for information! You’re gaining much knowledge today my friend! Good for you Matt!
1082 Maggot
May 8th, 2009 at 12:38 pm

1074 Cybogen: You weren’t even in the conversation so why don’t you just leave

At least they’re not embarrassing themselves.
1083 lostatsea
May 8th, 2009 at 3:55 pm

Matt:He’s worse than Stizzy!! Try to explain to an ancient civilization an asteroid or meteor striking the ocean, creating a Tsunami which inundated them…survivors would attribute it to the wrath of some god!!! ergo myths and legends.
1084 Matt Howard
May 8th, 2009 at 4:36 pm

“Great work Matt. WOW you’re onto me. I actually research information and send it along! WOW…now cry me a river Matt! Nobody ever did that before, well I’ll be damm! Whadda you know about that?!? Thats so smart of you to notice that to side track my information to you about GOD. Well now your not only learning about GOD you now realize people believe that the internet is there for information! You’re gaining much knowledge today my friend! Good for you Matt!”

Don’t know what that meant…

lostatsea:

Yeah it’s pretty much a lost cause now. Think I’ll just stop before we descend further into absurdity.
1085 Spange
May 8th, 2009 at 5:03 pm

Matt: Yeah, seems some people can be um…a little inconsistent. That said I know an unruly kid who should probably thank her lucky stars they do ignore that particular law
1086 oouchan
May 8th, 2009 at 8:02 pm

I leave for the day and I missed out on this…poo.

Wow. Some interesting reading here. I have to add my two cents even though it’s going to piss someone off.

Cybogen…when you first started here, you did a very good job of holding your own and your temper. Now…completly different. What you established as a solid base has now been destroyed based on the comments you have made in the last 2 days. You have hurt yourself more. I find that sad.
I have respected you and your beliefs because you had shown me the same.
I have told you of my best friend. She believes the same as you. However, she doesn’t take anything said about god as a personal attack because she is secure in her beliefs and she doesn’t force them on others. That is what you are doing now. Forcing this on us, but not accepting our point of view. Not like you used to. Not rising to the bait and taking offense on what is said shows you are secure.
Today, your comments were not only preachy, but they came off as fanatical. Not good. They show me that you are no longer secure. No matter what you say now. Again, I find that sad.
1087 lostatsea
May 9th, 2009 at 6:46 am

oouchan:sad..yes..but scary..He states ‘he’d die for god’..
sounds like an Islamist suicide bomber..where is that Christian love?? Reading ‘Lost Innocence’ by Elissa Wall on
the (FLDS) Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints, a polygamist offshoot of Mormans. Men are the master and the women and young girls slaves…now that’s scary!!
1088 lostatsea
May 9th, 2009 at 7:25 am

Cybogen:Thank you for proving my points regarding the divisiveness and hatred of religious zealots no matter whose BOOK they follow. Sounds like you have devils tormenting you!!! With all the problems facing us today, one would hope that you would pursue solutions rather than spout eternal damnation!!!
1089 Maggot
May 9th, 2009 at 10:27 am

1088 lostatsea: With all the problems facing us today, one would hope that you would pursue solutions rather than spout eternal damnation

A rather profound statement, lostatsea. But unfortunately in the sheep-like mind of a zealot, the solution is rather simple: “Praise be to the Lord and He will grant us salvation”. By believing in this so-called solution, they don’t have to actually “do” anything. Except blame the non-believers, that is.
1090 lostatsea
May 9th, 2009 at 10:59 am

1089 Maggot:Except blame the non-believers, that is. wish it was only blame…more likely they wish to exterminate any and all who don’t follow their way!!
1091 Maggot
May 9th, 2009 at 4:10 pm

1087 lostatsea: where is that Christian love??

Christianity is running amok, that’s where:

http://tinyurl.com/q5bczo
1092 lostatsea
May 9th, 2009 at 4:41 pm

1091Maggot:Thanks! Reminds me of a Baptist fundie I worked for in the 60s, the biggest hypocrite I’ve ever met..kept porno mags in a desk and had the audacity to ask me if I’d been saved by Lord God Jesus..oh! might add he was a fat slob!! Needless to say I soon quit!!
FLDS the Mormon offshoot is ruled by one man The Prophet..he supposedly hears the word of god and can determine who marries whom..usually a young girl to an older man and can break apart families if they don’t toe the line.
The rise in fundamentalist sects are blinding Americans to the dangers they are facing. I’ve always fought against the Machine and tried to awake people to the danger of complacency.
1093 Cybogen
May 11th, 2009 at 6:15 am

1088. lostatsea – Cybogen:Thank you for proving my points regarding the divisiveness and hatred of religious zealots no matter whose BOOK they follow. Sounds like you have devils tormenting you!!! With all the problems facing us today, one would hope that you would pursue solutions rather than spout eternal damnation!!!

LOSTATSEA- I show no hatred for people. My religion and my GOD promote Love. Its the main commandment to love one another! Its is only the evil in mankinds hearts that allow people to act with hatred. DO not assume that it is caused by religion. Perhaps you need to look deeper into your heart and into what is really going on in the world.
1094 lostatsea
May 11th, 2009 at 6:35 am

1093.Cybogen:Suggest you read ‘Stolen Innocence’ by Elissa Wall who at fourteen was ordered by The Prophet to marry, this after having her family torn apart by this self styled Prophet…that is the danger of blind obedience to scriptures and brainwashing. I have no problem with my heart and live by my own precepts…I was not born in sin and try to live by the adage of do unto others as I would wish them to respect me. Unfortunately I understand too well what is happening in this world and try to alert others to the power games being played at our expense!! You seem to imply that all mankind is evil…I have found the opposite, however there are some who through greed and avarice seek control and yes some of them do it under the guise of religion!!
1095 Cybogen
May 11th, 2009 at 6:39 am

1087. lostatsea – May 9th, 2009 at 6:46 am
oouchan:sad..yes..but scary..He states ‘he’d die for god’..
sounds like an Islamist suicide bomber..where is that Christian love?? Reading ‘Lost Innocence’ by Elissa Wall on
the (FLDS) Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints, a polygamist offshoot of Mormans. Men are the master and the women and young girls slaves…now that’s scary!!

lostatsea- once again you misread what I wrote in one of my comments. “I would die for my God” Yes this is true. …but mnot as you read it ibn the sense of a serial bomber. WHy do you always go off the edge with peoples comment s and misrweading them. I would die for those I love. My God is most impoertant to me and also my family I would die for. That means I would not deny my faith in believing in my Lord Jesus if I was ever put to the question to hold my faith true in him. I love life like anyone else does but to for you to assume that everyone is a suicide bomber that loves the Lord..well it has me worried about your state of mind!
1096 lostatsea
May 11th, 2009 at 6:44 am

1095.Cybogen:Allah is God to a Muslim…same God as yours as it is to the Jews…the God of Abraham…my state of mind is quite fine thank you!! can’t take some sarcasm??
1097 cybogen
May 11th, 2009 at 7:57 am

Ok….I didnt know you were messing around. I just know I hate suicide bombers as much as anyone and if they think that whoever their God is to them approves taking lives in HIS name I can be pretty certain they are very wrong about it all. Taking a life just does’t jive with me for any reason. Even if some do not believe in the same religion another does is no reason at all to kill them off. Its an atrocity! Just thought I’d make that point.
1098 Maggot
May 11th, 2009 at 2:49 pm

1093 Cybogen: My religion and my GOD promote Love…Its is only the evil in mankinds hearts that allow people to act with hatred.

“(I could) crush you like the MAGGOT you are. God does’nt (sic) like Maggots either!”

Ringing any bells there, Cybogen? LMAO
1099 Matt Howard
May 11th, 2009 at 5:54 pm

Cybogen:

“Its is only the evil in mankinds hearts that allow people to act with hatred. DO not assume that it is caused by religion.”

That is why I detest religion so very much. This horrendous concept that every single person is fundamentally evil and dirty and that they need to realize they are unworthy and in need of saving. Can’t you see how destructive this kind of thinking is? Can’t you see how telling a child that they are evil destroys their self-esteem and frightens them? Can’t you see that a God who believes that infinite burning as a punishment for finite ‘crimes’ is not moral at all? It’s absolutely ludicrous.
1100 Cybogen
May 12th, 2009 at 4:49 am

Well Matt. It is sad to say that we have evil in our hearts but its true. We h ave all hurt others as much as we have been hurt by others also. Most of mankind just seems to look out for ourselves because of our selfish nature. Its true that a child is born innocent and free of wrong but it is once they are in society and the ways of people that they start to imitate their surroundings and become corrupt unless their parents are extraordinary upright people who work diligently to keep them morally upright and just. Its almost like a disease that the world has a whole lot more wrong in it than right and it usually happens that a person will take the easiest path for them right or wrong to survive. There is not denying the fact that the world is infested with sin.
A GOD that punishes evil does not necessarily mean he is hearltess at all. I believe that some sin is punished but is not eternal punishment but just for a period of time until the heart is purified. Remember that THE LORD IS A JUST AND MERCIFUL GOD. he who trusts in the Lord will be live forever in the kingdom of heaven.
1101 Mark
May 12th, 2009 at 5:02 am

1100. Cybogen : What school of philosophy do you consider yourself a believer in then Cyb? Because anti-humanism sounds pretty close to me. If the world was black and white like you think it is, we’d all be fucked, including you.
1102 Cybogen
May 12th, 2009 at 5:06 am

Maggot I see what you mean by your comment. The evil in mens hearts! I agree with it so much. You reinforced my beliefs by many of your comments! LMAO
1098. Maggot – May 11th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
I could) crush you like the MAGGOT you are. God does’nt (sic) like Maggots either!”
Ringing any bells there, Cybogen? LMAO

Yeah It sure does ring some bells there Maggot as I read your comment bnelow form a previous post. Your comment inspired me to talk about the evil in mens hearts.

Remember writing this????
1053. Maggot – May 7th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Ouchan- Burn in hell, beee-otch…

Maggot-Thanks for pointing yourself as such. I see what you mean about yourself being hypocritical!
1103 nonBeliever
May 12th, 2009 at 5:17 am

…he who trusts in the Lord will live forever in the kingdom of heaven.

He who trusts in Allah will live forever in the kingdom of heaven with many virgins.

You wonder how someone can strap a bomb to themselves and detonate it on a crowded bus ?
It’s simple , they believe in their god more than you believe in your god.

I believe a recent ad campaign sums it up best -

Science flies you to the moon.
Religion flies you into buildings.
1104 gabi319
May 12th, 2009 at 5:37 am

You’re right, lostinsea. We’ve two examples now that the guy can’t take some sarcasm.

Interesting conversation you’re having here, especially since I just finished rereading my textbook from my Moral & Ethics philosophy course (written by Jonathan Glover. I recommend it). Of course, rather than go into the intellectual discussions gleaned from Mr. Glover regarding and attempting to explain the atrocities of mankind, I’ll go the immature route and quote Family Guy:

Peter: I’m looking for some toilet training books.
Book Salesman: We have the popular ‘everybody poops”, or the less popular ‘nobody poops but you’.
Peter: Well, you see, we’re catholic…
Book Salesman: Ah, then you’ll want ‘You’re a Naughty, Naughty Boy, and That’s Concentrated Evil Coming Out the Back of You’.
1105 oouchan
May 12th, 2009 at 5:53 am

1099. Matt Howard: I agree. Especially about the part with how damaging it is to a child.
My daughter yesterday got very upset with her friend. My daughter is following in the Babtist religion. She was told by her friend (also a Babtist) that gays are evil, cause problems for families…blah, blah etc. So my kid who is ok with everyone tried to defend gays but was stopped by the pastor who agreed with her friend. Needless to say, my daughter is now confused. I pointed out the difference in thinking between what she believed and what they believed. She is no longer going to be a Babtist. She can’t see how someone will condemn another just for who they are.

From Cybogen’s post: THE LORD IS A JUST AND MERCIFUL GOD…not yesterday he wasn’t. Not by any means. That is what I struggled with when I was younger….what she is struggling with now. (I just used part of your post…not going after you directly)

1103. nonBeliever: Now that was funny!
1106 Mark
May 12th, 2009 at 6:01 am

1104. gabi319 : Rofl! Watched that episode today (Or was that yesterday? Man I’m too tired to LV…) sooooo funny. “You know what happened to the Lindbergh Baby…”
1107 nonBeliever
May 12th, 2009 at 6:21 am

Fundamentalist Muslims believe that the Koran justifies their actions in regards to suicide bombings.
Moderate Muslims say the Koran does not condone these actions .
Both groups read the same book but have different interpretations of the Koran.

Fundamentalist Christians believe that in handling venomous
snakes and writhing on the floor and ‘ speaking in tongues ‘
is a literal belief in the Bible and that such actions prove their faith.
Moderate Christians claim their interpretation does not condone this serpent handling.
Both groups read the same Bible but draw different conclusions.

These are just a few of the many examples of ‘Holy Books’ that are open to interpretation.
Anyone who bases their lives on books that are open to various INTERPRETATIONS are bound to have conflict.

We end up with what we have today -
MY GOD IS BETTER THAN YOUR GOD AND MY BOOK JUSTIFIES ME KILLING YOU IN THE NAME OF MY GOD BECAUSE YOU ARE AN INFIDEL.

I believe man is inherently good.
It is books like the Koran and the Bible that teach man is inherently evil.

I am all for freedom of speech but if ever there were two books that deserved to be burned it is the Koran and the Bible.

If there really was a God , why has he allowed all this killing to go on and on in his name.
1108 Cybogen
May 12th, 2009 at 6:28 am

1105. oouchan – You are citing an incident that was unhappy to you and blaming it on a whole group of people. Its an individual persons action not a whole religious group you’re talking about!
1109 lostatsea
May 12th, 2009 at 6:31 am

1105.oouchan: Any religion which preaches intolerance and relegates others to purgatory or hell for not following their dictates is one to stay far away from.
FLDS teaches female children to be ‘sweet’ and follow the dictates of the men and their prophet, all outsiders are considered apostates and will not reach heaven.

1104.gabi319: ha ha good one!!
1110 nonBeliever
May 12th, 2009 at 6:47 am

Forgive my ‘preaching ‘. I know this is a discussion forum.
I’ve followed this post from the start and could not hold back any longer. My intent was not single out any individual.
My intent was a general condemnation of all organized religions that espouse intolerance for their fellow man.
1111 Mark
May 12th, 2009 at 6:50 am

1110. nonBeliever : Are there not times when intolerance is acceptable, in one form or another?
1112 Mark
May 12th, 2009 at 6:51 am

Sorry for the weak comment. I just wanted comment 1111
1113 oouchan
May 12th, 2009 at 6:52 am

1108. Cybogen: What? I’m blaming a whole group for the actions of one person? Wrong…it was the whole lot of them. So you are saying you are ok with gay people? The death penalty? A woman’s right to her body? I don’t think so. That is what my daughter learned yesterday. What I learned in the past. Also, it wasn’t just one person with me…but my entire family and community. Where I lived was in the Bible Belt here in the US and it was *all* of them…not one or two.
I just wanted to point out to you that your statement didn’t make sense because it wasn’t the truth about me.

1105.oouchan: Why do you think I follow Inari? No haters there. I can be who I want without someone’s approval. I can’t live my life the way I want with someone telling me I can or can’t do this…I own me. That should be enough.
1114 Mark
May 12th, 2009 at 6:56 am

1113. oouchan : “…No haters there…”

One of the main reasones for my own creed. It’s a very, very good reason at that.
1115 lostatsea
May 12th, 2009 at 6:57 am

1112.Mark: Weak!!! Illogical! What is happening in the world is intolerance, that’s what created all this shit!!
1116 Mark
May 12th, 2009 at 7:00 am

1115. lostatsea : I’m intolerant of rapists if I have a daughter? Weak? Illogical? Irrational?

I’m intolerant of paedophiles if I have a child? Weak? Illogical? Irrational? Unfair? Evil?

*IS* there a problem with that?
1117 oouchan
May 12th, 2009 at 7:00 am

1111. Mark: Can I answer that? How about yes and no? I know that is wishy-washy but when you define intolerance down to a right or wrong, then that’s the answer you get. It’s more of a behavior that we should be intolerant of. At least to me, using your own judgement might be the key.

However, intolorance of a race, creed, sex or religion is not acceptable.

(and you stole my number..poo!)
1118 Cybogen
May 12th, 2009 at 7:02 am

1108. Cybogen: What? I’m blaming a whole group for the actions of one person? Wrong…it was the whole lot of them. So you are saying you are ok with gay people? The death penalty? A woman’s right to her body? I don’t think so.
Thats putting words in my mouth. I did not say that. It was somebody else and you cannot say the whole of Christianity is wrong because of what one said. You are judging billions of people based on a persons statement to your daughter. the problem is not with Christianity but those who interpret it in their own way and tell others in the wrong fashion. Thats the whole problem with religions. Not one of them says it the way GOD wanted it brought out into the truth as said “Love one another” .Thats is one of the main themes of Christianity and tghis is what I believe. so don’t put me in any groups that said things that I never said.
1119 lostatsea
May 12th, 2009 at 7:05 am

1116.Mark: I guess you haven’t read my posts otherwise you would have realized that was not my point. That is why we have laws…

1117.oouchan Thank You
1120 Mark
May 12th, 2009 at 7:05 am

1118. Cybogen : Intolerance of religion is unacceptable? I understand that actions are important, but can’t Luciferism be defined as a religion? If someone believes something “dangerous” or just generally “wrong”, does that justify it?

“…(and you stole my number..poo!)”

BWAHAHAH!
1121 Mark
May 12th, 2009 at 7:06 am

1119. lostatsea : Does a law change the fact that your daughter or child – or both – were raped and are now dead?
1122 lostatsea
May 12th, 2009 at 7:14 am

1121.Mark: Either your daughter is your child or!! both!!
sorry doesn’t make sense!! What has that to do with a discussion on religion??? Shall we now engage in witch hunts for perverts etc??
1123 oouchan
May 12th, 2009 at 7:16 am

1118. Cybogen: No….I am not putting words into your mouth. I just pointed out that you wouldn’t accept those types of views. I don’t hate christianity or any religion. I just don’t understand how love can be preached about but it’s only for a select few…see my point. I didn’t mean anything against your personally. I also didn’t put you in any group…that is someone else, not me. I am just pointing out the fallacy of “love” with religion. Every christian I have met or known say love this or love that for god…but if you don’t follow god, are gay, cheat on your wife and make decision on your own about your own body…then that “love” doesn’t extend to you. That is what gets me the most. Why are they being excluded? “No heaven for you because what you are, who you are and what you have done doesn’t get you a ride ticket” (sorry for the sarcasm)

lostatsea and Mark: Intolerance for crimes…that is different. I have to go with Mark on that one, lostatsea. That is what we should be intolerant of and for behaviors but not for who that person is, the color of their skin, etc. That might have been what you were saying, btw.
1124 Mark
May 12th, 2009 at 7:17 am

1122. lostatsea : A daughter doesn’t have to be a child. Depends on definition, if you define childhood as a period of life and a child as someone going through that period then being a daughter doesn’t make you a child.

Who cares if it’s off topic? Unless you’re avoiding? Don’t worry, I’m going to bed soon anyway.
1125 lostatsea
May 12th, 2009 at 7:22 am

1124.Mark: Try telling that to any mother…they are always children to them!!!
1126 Mark
May 12th, 2009 at 7:25 am

1125. lostatsea : I do have the advantage of having a mother myself – with the obvious disadvantage of being a son rather than a daughter – and I know what you mean!
1127 lostatsea
May 12th, 2009 at 7:29 am

1126.Mark: Thank you, unfortunately mine is long gone…but to the end I was always a child to her.
1128 nonBeliever
May 12th, 2009 at 7:33 am

Intolerance of peoples differences should never be tolerated. We don’t need the Bible or the Koran to tell us murder , rape , theft is wrong. We pass laws to deal with these matters. The problem arises when people base their lives on cryptic books open to various interpretations that teach it is OK to harm other people because they don’t believe in the same god you do.

In regards to my earlier post.
Why aren’t the fundie Christians strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up Muslims. Doesn’t the old testament teach an eye for an eye. Scores of non-believers were slain in the old testament. I guess their faith isn’t as strong or maybe it’s because the Christian faith doesn’t offer incentives like the Muslim faith does. It’s amazing what a man will do if you dangle a few virgins in front of him with the promise of an afterlife of continual cherry picking.
1129 gabi319
May 12th, 2009 at 7:41 am

1117. oouchan – “At least to me, using your own judgement might be the key.”
I don’t have much time today!! But quickly address this slippery slope. Morality is a construct of individual beliefs of what constitutes as right and wrong, correct? And Social Morality takes into account society’s views (or laws) of what is right or wrong. So we enter the gray area in which Social Morality may contradict Individual Morality. Just as we see in sociopaths, their own judgment may justify the action to rape, murder, and pillage because their views on society are allow him/her this ‘privilege’ even if that doesn’t fit within the general public’s idea of what is right. It’s not just sociopaths that can fit in this example. We’ve also got vigilantes who go after the sociopaths and if there are enough people, this is where mob mentalities are rooted – from the idea that their Right & Wrong as a whole is better than other people’s moral codes.

Now taking it into a less extreme approach regarding intolerance of schoolyard bullies… One may say zero tolerance and we should not put up with that crap, but do we understand the full story? What if the bully were bullied? Although essentially pointless, it’s interesting to delve into the land of What if’s and wonder what would’ve happened if you had stood up to a certain bully or even more interesting, if you stood up FOR a bully against those who attacked him (essentially ‘kill them with kindness’). Which decision would work best? Problem with that (and with many morality issues) is that there is almost no black and white. Judgments may appease individual morality but sometimes at the expense of the group’s morality.

Crimes and laws regarding those crimes are merely a construct of social morality. Remember at one point, it was a legal crime to be a homosexual. (thanks Mark for that little gem!) And in the US Constitution, blacks were legally considered 3/5ths human.
1130 lostatsea
May 12th, 2009 at 7:41 am

1128.nonBeliever: Scores!! If only!! Millions more like! Don’t forget all the pillaging and raping carried out under the Catholic church…That red bloody cross on the shields and banners…Onwards Christian soldiers!!!
1131 nonBeliever
May 12th, 2009 at 7:46 am

You don’t need to have a daughter to be intolerant of rape.
You don’t need to have a child to be intolerant of pedarist.

Some religions advocate these acts.
1132 Mark
May 12th, 2009 at 7:49 am

1129. gabi319 : “…Crimes and laws regarding those crimes are merely a construct of social morality…”

Yep, and offer a snapshot of a point in time. Laws are going to change a year down the track, two years, three. Fifty years from now when I’m an old fella – if my rock’n'roll lifestyle hasn’t caught up with me – I daresay I won’t recognize most of the legislation from my youth.

“…Remember at one point, it was a legal crime to be a homosexual. (thanks Mark for that little gem!)…”

You’re welcome, but you can thank Alan Turing for that, he’s the only reason I knew. Such a waste… But then again, one day people may decide that he did the right thing, there may be no more homosexuals. Full circle? Who knows?
1133 lostatsea
May 12th, 2009 at 7:54 am

1132.Mark: Rock and Roll will never die!! haha
Homosexuality has been with us since the dawn of time and is widely practiced in the animal kingdom…Just means more women for me hehe!!
1134 nonBeliever
May 12th, 2009 at 7:57 am

1132.Mark

There will always be homosexuals because some people will always BELIEVE in vagina dentata.
1135 oouchan
May 12th, 2009 at 8:09 am

1129. gabi319: That’s not what I meant…In another post I pointed out crimes are not to be tolerated. Some laws might have changed due to a change in mindset, but murder is still a crime, right? That one didn’t change. So we should be tolerant of a murderer? Laws change but I seriously doubt that one will. Along with rape and child molestation.

I am talking about behavior. When a child acts up in a restaurant are we just to sit by and watch? This is what I am trying to point out.

“At least to me, using your own judgment might be the key.”
This still stands.
1136 nonBeliever
May 12th, 2009 at 8:09 am

The problem arises when their BELIEF in this MYTH becomes so strong that they feel entitled to use pliers to attack women .
1137 nonBeliever
May 12th, 2009 at 8:16 am

For those wondering WTF ??
The word for the day is analogy.
1138 Cybogen
May 12th, 2009 at 9:38 am

1122. lostatsea – May 12th, 2009 at 7:14 am
1121.Mark: Either your daughter is your child or!! both!!
sorry doesn’t make sense!! What has that to do with a discussion on religion??? Shall we now engage in witch hunts for perverts etc??

Lostatsea. – I agree with you.HWat the comment made from Maark had anything to do with religion was unclear!
1139 Mom424
May 12th, 2009 at 9:44 am

Cybogen (1138): We wouldn’t have to look too far would we? I could just ask House for pictorial proof.
1140 Cybogen
May 12th, 2009 at 9:48 am

Oouchan – IO know what you mean. The sinners that may be excluded from the rewards of the just God.
Well I am a sinner and I have committed sin I am sorry for and try earnestly not to committ again. the sorrow in your heart in apology to the Lord for sinning is what gives a person forgiveness from the Lord. There are many people who sin against God and mankind but they are not sorry for their sins and they cannot expect that everything is fine with the Lord knowing you do not even feel regret for your sins. There are many people that will see heaven because they are sorrowful for their sin and express that in prayer for forgiveness. That is what shows God they you love by your repentance. god is a forgiving God but how can one be forgiven if he/she does not even care that they sinned but keeps on hurting others and offending the Lord with no regret or remorse in their heart?
1141 oouchan
May 12th, 2009 at 10:08 am

1140. Cybogen: I see what you are saying but that would (in my mind) apply to those who commit the deadly sins or broke a commandment or two.
Here is what I was taught. (This is Southern Baptist and Christianity that I learned when I was a kid)
Example 1: A man kills another man who raped his wife. Ok…he did it out of revenge or justification and he feels bad about it. However, he is going to hell because he committed a cardinal sin.
Example 2: A man kills for the sake of killing. (Not military type training) I am talking about a serial killer. Also going to hell.
Example 3: A gay man…going to hell. No debate.

This is what I am talking about. 2 of them should not be going to hell. Also, why is it a sin? Love should not be a sin, but that is what is being taught. “You can love but not that person.” I can’t work that way. So to me, it’s not a sin and I didn’t do anything wrong. Therefore, I would go to heaven. These are my thoughts on the matter.

Yesterday, this is what I told my daughter: “I refuse to believe that a higher authority would exclude someone if they preach or practice love. Since love is unconditional you can’t put restriction on it. There are many forms of love. Child to a parent and vice versa. Friends to each other. Lovers, spouses. Even how you love and take care of a pet. Love is an expression.”
(I did point out to her that a full grown man loving a child isn’t love but a sick fantasy no matter what that man might say. He doesn’t “love”…he’s sick in the head. Same goes for the Mr. Hands story)
1142 Cybogen
May 12th, 2009 at 10:37 am

I believe you have some very good points here aimee.
I am not able to speak for the Lord but I feel that a man who acted out of sense of common sense (temporarily insane) in the sense that it could happen to a man who is so hurt that his wife was brutally raped as in your example that he may kill the perpetrator out of irrational behavior. Perhaps then he is remorseful now that not only his wife is traumaized by the rape but he feels that he has killed a man because of his rage. This of course being brought on by the rapist in the first place. Even St. Paul who persecuterd Christians befopre he was converted (from Saul to St. Paul) was remorseful of his sin and is said to have gained favor with God.
I believe that the way our justice system acts on earth compared to GODs ways is not always the same. SOmetime our ways may seem more lenient then Gods justice and then sometimes we may see our ways as being more harsh then how God would judge. In any case I find it wrong for a grownup to wrongly teach a child what is sinful only in their way of seein git. its always up to the parent to have that right to teach the child right from worng and I believe that is your unconditional right always Aimee to teach your child the right way you see fit.
1143 nonBeliever
May 12th, 2009 at 12:53 pm

1142.Cybogen

” I believe that is your unconditional right always Aimee to teach your child the right way you see fit.”

Muslims teach their children that martyrdom is a glorious way to die and that they will reap great rewards in heaven if they kill themselves and take as many infidels with them as possible.
They truly , in their hearts believe this and they cite passages from the Koran to support their beliefs.

Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church’s interpretation of the Bible gives them the right to protest military funerals because it is their belief that we are a nation of sodomites .He has raised an army of children that believe what they are doing is right because the Bible says it is so.

If we didn’t have the Bible or the Koran to support these ideas the vast majority of people would view these ideas as a lunatic’s rantings.

But because we have these supposed ‘Holy Books’ that give these lunatic rantings credence they have their believers and in their hearts and minds their actions are justified.
1144 nonBeliever
May 12th, 2009 at 2:12 pm

I have preached enough and it is now time to end this sermon.
Please be generous as the collection plate passes.
Dirham and Dollars accepted.

Praise The Lord and
Allāhu Akbar
1145 Maggot
May 12th, 2009 at 3:35 pm

oouchan asks Cybogen: So you are saying you are ok with gay people? The death penalty? A woman’s right to her body? I don’t think so.

Cybogen replies in 1118: Thats putting words in my mouth. I did not say that…don’t put me in any groups that said things that I never said. It was somebody else…

Did you not say this:

“The Bible is not false in any of its statements.”

Just asking, because I want to be sure to put you in the correct group. You know, the same group as the misguided fool that attempted to pollute oouchan’s innocent young daughter’s impressionable mind with evil value judgments.
1146 Cybogen
May 13th, 2009 at 4:03 am

Maggot – Nope not that guy See ya later!
1147 Cybogen
May 13th, 2009 at 4:13 am

1143. nonBeliever – May 12th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Maggot also – Hey I cant speak for the Koran cause I never read it but the Westboro Baptist chuirch is acting on their own interpretation of the Bible. I never believed that anybody that lived in anyplace doesn’t deserve a funeral. Its never mentioned in the bible as a matter of fact. And like I said before every individual is responsible for their own actions if they take their own view of Christianity. It is not the group.. it is the heart of the INDIVIDUAL. Its much like saying all gun owners are criminals because a gunman commits a crime with a gun. Its just NOT he way to be judging people as a gruoup. Thats the plain truth!
1148 lostatsea
May 13th, 2009 at 4:44 am

1147.Cybogen: I suggest reading the Quran you might broaden your Knowledge!! Unfortunately it is group think we’re talking about, some Christian groups home school their children and without outside communication are ill prepared for life. J. Witnesses not allowing blood transfusions,FLDS teaching that outsiders are apostates and waiting for Zion and women to be good little slaves to their men and the Prophet etc.
1149 Cybogen
May 13th, 2009 at 4:52 am

ALl those things ar enot taught in the Bible. J. Witnesses acting out of context with Christianity doctrine. It is not mentioned in the Bible that blood transfusions are wrong or immoral. ALso that some people home school their children is not a bad idea as from what its said is being taught in and not taught in school.
Teaching kids that homosexuality is alright and that prayer is not allowed cause its wrong. If I could I would havwe my kids taught at home if I didn’t have to work.
1150 oouchan
May 13th, 2009 at 5:36 am

1149. Cybogen: “Teaching kids that homosexuality is alright and that prayer is not allowed cause its wrong.”

What school does that?

My kid’s school teaches not to hate and to embrace others. It doesn’t say this is right or this is wrong….but a church would. And it has. Her school also doesn’t say prayer is wrong. It just doesn’t have a time in the day to have prayer.

I teach that homosexuality is right to my daughter. I am the one who will teach her about prayer as well. It’s not the school that will be in charge of that. Only me.
1151 Cybogen
May 13th, 2009 at 5:50 am

Like I sadi in a previous post. It is your right to teach your child what you want them to learn at home.
1152 Maggot
May 13th, 2009 at 12:59 pm

1147 Cybogen: the Westboro Baptist chuirch is acting on their own interpretation of the Bible.

Why is it so easy for you to just dismiss their interpretations (and JWs and FLDSs) out of hand? But yet other interpretations, such as those expressed by Matt or myself, are met with vitriolic condemnation? And why do you continue to push here your own convoluted interpretation as being the only correct one, when even *you* have had trouble keeping it consistent? How are you (or your actions) any different than these other groups, or individuals within those groups?

And like I said before every individual is responsible for their own actions if they take their own view of Christianity.

I don’t disagree with this statement per se, but your take seems to be that rejecting Christianity altogether is some kind of huge sin in and of itself. Non-Christians and Atheists can be good people too, can they not? Good morals, good values, raising their children right, etc. You accuse me and others of mocking god, but I ask how can I mock something that in my mind doesn’t even exist? It’s like mocking the tooth fairy. If anything, what’s being mocked is the idea of it, or rather the acceptance of the idea with nothing tangible to support it. Do I do that to everyone I come across in life who has ever expressed a belief in the idea some type of deity or unknown power? No, to each their own. But when I’ve directed that towards you, it’s only being done as a result of *your* actions. Some lame thing you’ve said, some inconsistency, etc. Actions that you don’t take responsibility for and instead continue to blame and condemn, blame and condemn.

1151 Cybogen: Like I sadi in a previous post. It is your right to teach your child what you want them to learn at home.

Do you have the balls to tell her straight up that by exercising that right, you think she’s going to hell because she is teaching her child contrary to what the “never false” Bible says? Or will you just keep kissing her ass and hope she doesn’t notice that’s what you imply.
1153 oouchan
May 13th, 2009 at 1:23 pm

1152. Maggot: I kinda like having my own knight in shining armor!
I agree. He didn’t address my main point. I wasn’t really talking about *what* I teach my girl. I was bringing up that he stated schools teach that homosexuality is right and prayer is wrong. Never heard that before even once from all of the schools that I had gone to. None of my daughter’s schools do either. I have lived in 5 states and have had 43 residences. I have been in a bunch of schools. I just don’t know where he was getting that statement.
1154 gabi319
May 13th, 2009 at 8:12 pm

Maggot, comment 1152
*THAT* has been what you’ve been hiding behind your sarcastic one-liners?! Now I’m in a predicament…I don’t know if I like your funny zingers or your thought-provoking lengthier comments better!

1135. oouchan
Good answer!! However… you know…I had thought up a really good philosophical rebuttal while in the shower this morning and of course, as usual, I’ve forgotten it. If someone made a waterproof laptop that is affordable to the masses, they would make BANK! I do remember “When a child acts up in a restaurant are we just to sit by and watch?” being the only really weak statement in that comment. Not being the parent severely undermines your ability to do something about the situation. I don’t work in food services (thankfully. I have no desire to deal with angry people who are also hungry) but do deal with kids on a daily basis. Unless the kid is a danger to himself or to others, usually the only thing we can do is watch and hope that eventually their parent will rein them in. I’ll try to distract them with conversation but there are times when running around and breaking stuff seems like more fun than talking to the lady with the cute shoes.

1143. nonBeliever – “Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church’s interpretation of the Bible gives them the right to protest military funerals because it is their belief that we are a nation of sodomites .”
Not just military funerals. They also attempted to protest the funerals of teachers and students of school massacres as well.
1155 JesusChris
May 13th, 2009 at 8:37 pm

Quit arguing, children.

I’m not the son of God.

End.
1156 lostatsea
May 14th, 2009 at 4:20 am

1151.Cybogen: You think it’s okay to teach children to fear God and everlasting Hell in order to subjugate them? To teach them boys are snakes and nothing about sex, marry them at 14 so they totally freak out when the older male molests them??
1157 Cybogen
May 14th, 2009 at 4:47 am

1156. lostatsea – May 14th, 2009 at 4:20 am

1151.Cybogen: You think it’s okay to teach children to fear God and everlasting Hell in order to subjugate them? To teach them boys are snakes and nothing about sex, marry them at 14 so they totally freak out when the older male molests them??

AMMM WHAT the F*CK are you talking about?!!? I NEVER said that. Where the hell did you pick that up from????

that would be like me saying HEY LOSTATSEA…Do you like going out hurting kids and abusing them? How would you like that???
1158 Cybogen
May 14th, 2009 at 4:53 am

1152. Maggot – Do you have the balls to tell her (Oouchan)straight up that by exercising that right, you think she’s going to hell because she is teaching her child contrary to what the “never false” Bible says? Or will you just keep kissing her ass and hope she doesn’t notice that’s what you imply.

Listen Bro you are way out of bounds here. Oouchan can do what she wants just as I do whaty I want. We both have kids and I teach my kids what I want and she teaches them what she wants. Nothing will change that! I know it and Oouchan knows it and as for you…well you either don’t have kids and know where we are with that or just plain ignoprant Maggot!
1159 lostatsea
May 14th, 2009 at 4:53 am

1157.Cybogen: ‘Lost Innocence’ a true account of life in the FLDS a Christian sect of the Mormons by Elissa Wall. I suggest you read it!!
1160 Cybogen
May 14th, 2009 at 4:55 am

Oouchan Please don’t assumne what some of them say. WHat I say to you has nothing to do what they are saying. They are just throwing words out there to make me look bad.
1161 lostatsea
May 14th, 2009 at 4:56 am

1158.Cybogen: Now now!! Getting flustered are we?? Tch tch swearing is not very Christian!!
1162 Cybogen
May 14th, 2009 at 4:59 am

1159. lostatsea – I suggest you read the Bible and the part where it say ‘ DO not bear false witness against thy neighbor” Its right in their with the other 9 commanments.
1163 Cybogen
May 14th, 2009 at 5:02 am

Lostatsea-WHat you have said was worse than any swearing. You have completey made false statements about me. That would make anybody angryenough to revolt back! WHat you really did is lied about my character!! Shame on You!
1164 lostatsea
May 14th, 2009 at 5:08 am

1162.Cybogen: Which part of TRUE don’t you understand? The RCMP carried out investigations in Bountifull, British Columbia regarding this polygamous sect. It’s where children were sent (also Alberta) for not following their strict code of obedience to The Prophet Rulon and later his son Warren Jeffs.
1165 lostatsea
May 14th, 2009 at 5:13 am

1163.Cybogen: No slur was intended at you. It was in regards to your statement on home schooling and my rebuttal.
Are you that insecure? I simply showed the dangers inherent to home schooling and how it could be used for nefarious purposes.
1166 Cybogen
May 14th, 2009 at 5:15 am

What does any of that have to do with me???
1167 lostatsea
May 14th, 2009 at 5:19 am

1166.Cybogen: Do I have to spell it out? N o t h i n g! ok! Just pointing out how the bible can be used to create mindless robots!!
1168 Cybogen
May 14th, 2009 at 5:19 am

1165. lostatsea- As I said before Oouchan can do what she wants just as I do what I want. We both have kids and I teach my kids what I want and she teaches them what she wants. Nothing will change that! I know it and Oouchan knows it.
There could be no better control of what you want your child to learn than doing it yourself at home.
1169 lostatsea
May 14th, 2009 at 5:25 am

1168.Cybogen: Ahh, the magic word…CONTROL…Oouchan seems like a well rounded person who ALLOWS her child to learn diverse topics and to QUESTION not follow in blind obedience.
1170 gabi319
May 14th, 2009 at 5:26 am

“They are just throwing words out there to make me look bad.”

No second or third party is needed to make you look bad.

Neither oouchan nor Maggot’s points were addressed. I will be working one and a half shifts today so that gives you plenty of time to come up with valid answers without me pointing out that you’re doing a poor job sidestepping the discussion. Looking forward to coming home and seeing what other ‘ignoprant’ comments may follow.
1171 lostatsea
May 14th, 2009 at 5:28 am

1170.gabi319: ROFL that was very funny!!
1172 oouchan
May 14th, 2009 at 5:46 am

1160. Cybogen: “They are just throwing words out there to make me look bad.”

Maybe…maybe not. What I want to point out is my post after Maggots. You can teach what you want, but I was more concerned over your statement that a school is teaching the wrong things. What school is that? Have you complained to the school board?

As for home schooling…can’t agree with that. Certain things I will teach her, but she needs a well rounded education…not a controlled one. I also want her to be happy and make her own decisions. Even if they are bad…she will learn from her mistakes.
1173 Cybogen
May 14th, 2009 at 5:58 am

Gabi319- You are ignorant of the issue but I forgive you based on your simple-mindedness about Cristianity and the bible. You seem to know how to back up other people once they have done all the talking with your use of petty words. You must be in the learning stage. I think you try but you don’t seem to arrive at any plausible answers or comments for topics that are above you. DO not be ashamed though, you are trying and you will learn as you grow up.
1174 Cybogen
May 14th, 2009 at 6:00 am

1171. lostatsea- May God forgive you what you do.
1175 Cybogen
May 14th, 2009 at 6:03 am

Teaching at home is fine and a well rounded education is important but the Bible must always be taught to a child whose parent are concerned with them growing up to be Christians and Livng a good life from the commandments of God
1176 lostatsea
May 14th, 2009 at 6:05 am

1174.Cybogen: I realize some Baptists consider dancing to be a sin…but laughing?? I must be a baaad sinner as I love to laugh! Haha!!
1177 oouchan
May 14th, 2009 at 6:15 am

1173. Cybogen: Resorting to attacking now? She is quite capable of holding an intelligent conversation so I am a little upset that you would insult her like that. She was responding to your comment about others making you look bad. That’s not always the case. Sometimes we do it to ourselves. I have done it and you have too.

1175. Cybogen: Be careful of what you state here. It makes you sound as if my child will not have a good life because she didn’t follow the commandments of god. It also came off a little high and mighty. I would have said something like this: “To give the child a well rounded christian education, parents should teach them at home.” Simple yet it does the job.

I am only pointing out that sometimes what we write doesn’t come off as what we intended.
1178 gabi319
May 14th, 2009 at 6:16 am

Ok, at the risk of being late to work but for the sake of unbiased information…

Re: Home schooling
There are benefits and disadvantages just as with regular public or private schooling. A major benefit being a curriculum catered to the individual rather than the other way around. A disadvantage being a possibility of having an extremely slanted education. Just as with the public school system, the best homeschool system comes about with a variety of activities and a variety of teachers. We do have a program at my job where homeschoolers meet with one of us for art lessons. What better way to learn than from one of a professional art background? And some I know take trips to museums and have special history lessons/tours with curators. There a number of educational advantages to homeschooling provided they aren’t being taught only one individual or group’s extremely biased views. Homeschooling should provide the same well-rounded education that public schools offer. But won’t make it out to be all grand and dandy. Many parents I talk to say it’s a rough gig and 24 hour a day job making sure their homeschoolers get a chance to learn from as many teachers as the parents can find.

I’d like to point out that I live in an environment in which over 90% of (public) high school graduates go on to college. My sister’s graduating class almost had a full 100% except one student decided to enter the military first. Doubt that all of these public schools teach the wrong things when they have produced some of the rather noteworthy and at times newsworthy individuals.

“she will learn from her mistakes”
It truly is the best way to learn things, oouchan.

especially with the goofy mistakes. Case in point: I had been trying for weeks to reach a friend of mind who moved in the area a few months ago. Turns out, I have been calling and texting an area code one number off and reaching someone in a whole different time zone. I learned to make sure I know what I’m typing AND that wrong numbers can at times be an EXCELLENT way to make new friends.
1179 Cybogen
May 14th, 2009 at 6:21 am

LOSTATSEA- I know you and many others disprove of me for my Beliefs in GOD. I am sorry that we didn’t all have the same viewpoint and I guess it will never be. I also know for some people on here…and I’m not saying you but they come here just to poke fun and to stir up trouble. Its without doubt as you read through some of the comments.
Seeing inappropriate reactions and combating it with more inappropriate reactions seem to be the main theme for the site. Can’t you feel it going on? I can.
I don’t think we’re going to make it in this world much longer are we? I mean soon man will continue to take arguments further and further into violence and other forms of hatred. Religioins will rise against religions as countries erise against countries until we self destruct are own species. Its easy to see that there is much evil in the world and in the hearts of men and this evil will be mankinds downfall
It seems mankinds hatred wills be our own manner of extinction. Just the way I see it is~
1180 Cybogen
May 14th, 2009 at 6:24 am

1177. oouchan – May 14th, 2009 at 6:15 am
Cybogen Resorting to attacking now? She is quite capable of holding an intelligent conversation so I am a little upset that you would insult her like that. She was responding to your comment about others making you look bad. That’s not always the case. Sometimes we do it to ourselves. I have done it and you have too.
Cybogen Be careful of what you state here. It makes you sound as if my child will not have a good life because she didn’t follow the commandments of god. It also came off a little high and mighty. I would have said something like this: “To give the child a well rounded christian education, parents should teach them at home.” Simple yet it does the job.
1181 Cybogen
May 14th, 2009 at 6:31 am

Oouchan-DO as you please. Teach your child what you want ansd you feel the 10 commanments will not help her then thats fine with me. My kids are doing fine with them that all I know. I see them to only have made my life and the one I Love much better. I can’t think of one commandment thats should be ignored or i sn’t worth following. I bet you can’t either but hey …I don’t care if you do or not.
B.T.W. What I said in response to Gabi319 is in my defense to what Gabi319 said to me and if you want to defend Gabi319 on anything let it be with somebody else Im fine with everything I had to say to Gabi.
1182 lostatsea
May 14th, 2009 at 6:33 am

1178.gabi319: Nicely put without slinging mud as some seem to do! Variety is the key, not slavishly following the dictates of some MAN using the damnation threat of obedience to a book. Man wrote the commandments and basically reflect the moral values of living together in harmony. Men also wrote the bible and use God as justification for many horrendous acts carried out in His name.
1183 Cybogen
May 14th, 2009 at 6:41 am

Mans words will pass away but the WORD of the living GOD will always be forever. His word is true and will forever.

Heb 4:12 For the Word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
1184 lostatsea
May 14th, 2009 at 6:43 am

1179.Cybogen: I have never disproved of your beliefs. In fact I think I’ve commended you on your faith. I only wish to point out how some Christian groups have used the bible and the promise of the Rapture or Ascension to create a group of basically slaves.
1185 lostatsea
May 14th, 2009 at 6:48 am

1183.Cybogen: Same could be said of the ancient Egyptians when the heart would be weighed at death!! Sorry I’m a two finger typist!! So a bit slow to respond!!
1186 oouchan
May 14th, 2009 at 6:57 am

1178. gabi319: That was funny! I have done that myself…got someone in NY…a little old lady that talked about her cats. It was kinda cute!

1179. Cybogen: No…I do not disapprove of your beliefs. I just disapprove of the way your are representing them.

Some of what you wrote in this post isn’t true. We do get into arguements on this site, but many of them are fun natured. It’s the trolls that make it bad. Thankfully, they don’t stick around much. I have been on this site for several months now and previously it got really bad with the attacks. But we got scolded like the naughty children we are and we got better.

As for religion against religion….that is already happening.

1181. Cybogen: I know 3 commandments and that is all I care to know. If they make your life better fine, but don’t sit here and tell me that my life or my daughter’s life will be better for them too. I don’t work that way.
I am not objecting to your religion. Just the way your comments are coming across. You are losing your point by not being consistant and coming across as above others.

As for gabi’s comment “No second or third party is needed to make you look bad.” I would have pointed out that to you too. It’s because what we say didn’t come across as intended. Maybe your comments before that did….I am not sure. That is what I was addressing…and you attacked her for pointing the same thing I am doing now.
1187 lostatsea
May 14th, 2009 at 6:58 am

1179.Cybogen: I agree we are living in perilous times…Please check; http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13614
for an alarming report on world events!
1188 Cybogen
May 14th, 2009 at 7:05 am

Ouuchan- ouch!
1189 lostatsea
May 14th, 2009 at 7:06 am

1186.oouchan: Ohayou gozaimasu!! Unfortunately Cybogen feels we are attacking him instead of pointing out flaws in his reasoning!!
1190 oouchan
May 14th, 2009 at 7:15 am

1188. Cybogen: I am not attacking you….just as lostatsea post said below your’s….just your comments and reasoning.

1189. lostatsea: konichiwa! I don’t want him to feel as if I am attacking him…just want to point out this is how he is coming across to the rest of us. That is why he feels he is being ganged up on.
1191 Cybogen
May 14th, 2009 at 7:18 am

Ouch- I am not here to object. I am only here to bear witness to the Truth and the Truth is Jesus Christ who is the son of GOD. Jesus is part of the theme of this this sop thence I bring my opinion forward.
1192 lostatsea
May 14th, 2009 at 7:28 am

1191.Cybogen: You’re preaching again!! have you studied Egyptology?? You might find some interesting parallels!! How about your thoughts on the link I gave at 1187.
1193 oouchan
May 14th, 2009 at 8:07 am

1191. Cybogen: Actually you are. You object to almost everything we have said because it doesn’t go with what you believe. That is fine! I am not critizing that.

That is the truth you believe in, but not for the rest of us. I have my own truth.
1194 Maggot
May 14th, 2009 at 9:54 am

1158 Cybogen: Listen Bro…

No, you listen. A simple “no, I have no balls” would’ve sufficed. As I, oouchan, gabi, and Matt long before us have all pointed out, when you’re faced with difficult questions, you sidestep them. But you sure are quick to come back with calling others ignorant and issuing more preachy diatribes. Accusing others of making you look bad? Lol you do it to yourself…like I said, you don’t take any responsibility for your own actions. If you don’t like having your nose rubbed in it, that’s your problem.

Look, as has been said time and again, no one disproves of you having your beliefs. What we (well I can only speak for me really, but I hear it in the others’) disprove of is you coming in and preaching them to us as if your way is the only way, and refusing to acknowledge, consider, or discuss, legitimate counter-arguments, opinions, and ideas, other than to basically condemn us to hell for not believing as you do. *That* is being ignorant, Mr. Pot/Kettle/Black.
1195 Maggot
May 14th, 2009 at 10:00 am

1179 Cybogen: I mean soon man will continue to take arguments further and further into violence and other forms of hatred.

The only person to have ever threatened violence in this discussion is *you*, Cybogen.

Religioins will rise against religions as countries erise against countries until we self destruct are own species.

Sounds like “religion” fosters the problem then, eh?

Its easy to see that there is much evil in the world and in the hearts of men and this evil will be mankinds downfall

Nobody said we’re all perfect, but there is allot of good in the world too. Try focusing on the positives for a change.

It seems mankinds hatred wills be our own manner of extinction.

And what are *you* doing about it? Being an apocalyptic doomsayer and arrogantly preaching your way to salvation on anonymous web forums? Stop blaming the “evils of mankind” and try being a part of the solution rather than a part of the problem.
1196 Cybogen
May 14th, 2009 at 12:28 pm

Oh No..Its Maggot. _ Dang! Why did he have to come on. I was having a fairly good day too!
1197 Cybogen
May 14th, 2009 at 12:32 pm

Maggot- Being an apocalyptic doomsayer and arrogantly preaching your way to salvation on anonymous web forums?

If you’ll notice this site is themed for what IO am talking about. I didn’t see anything in it that said Top Ten Rednecks. So what brings you here?
1198 oouchan
May 14th, 2009 at 12:41 pm

1195. Maggot: Well said.

Cybogen…sad to say that you are becoming more troll-like with each passing day. I guess that enough for me.
1199 Maggot
May 14th, 2009 at 12:44 pm

1181 Cybogen: I can’t think of one commandment thats should be ignored or i sn’t worth following.

See, right off the bat you are starting with a faulty premise. Of course *you* can’t think of any, because you are a god-fearing Christian. Nothing wrong with that, but that is not the case with everyone. This is the basic fact that is causing you so much grief in this thread.

So, as such, the first couple are debatable. The ones talking about having one god, no idols, remember Sabbath, etc. Certainly, those are very important to some people (like you), and again, there is nothing wrong with that. But to other folks, not so much, and there shouldn’t be anything wrong with that either. It’s not “going against them” or “disobeying them” or “being evil” or what have you, it’s that they simply don’t apply to some POVs. The rest are basic morals that most anybody would abide by whether they are religious or not (don’t kill? well, duh). So for you to tout them as being some master god-given plan for how we all should model our lives is not really saying much more than to simply use common sense in being a good person. The basic “Golden Rule” that we learn in childhood works just as well, if not better, does it not?
1200 Cybogen
May 14th, 2009 at 12:52 pm

True the Golden Rule works for me. I agree in your thoughts in your above comment. Thank-You!
1201 gabi319
May 15th, 2009 at 5:50 am

1173. Cybogen
Gabi319- You are ignorant of the issue
Yes I am ignorant of the issue you try to discuss because it’s not along the lines of what other people are discussing

…but I forgive you based on your simple-mindedness about Cristianity and the bible.
Don’t forgive me because I want nothing from you.

You seem to know how to back up other people once they have done all the talking with your use of petty words.
As it is, I’m exhausted. I’ve had an absurdly busy and stressful few weeks and can only visit LV a few minutes at a time – time of which I probably be sleeping a little more to rest up for another long day. No time to commit to a full out debate but why enter a discussion when there are already capable people actively involved who are saying essentially the same things I would? I believe in contributing comments of quality instead of quantity.

You must be in the learning stage.
Yes, I am still in the learning stage. In fact, I plan to STAY in the learning stage forever. The problems arise when one takes a solitary (and most likely outdated) source as the ONLY information from which to understand everything. I NEVER want to be that narrow-minded, hence I insist on continuing to learn from everything and everyone around me.

I think you try but you don’t seem to arrive at any plausible answers or comments for topics that are above you.
Because I wasn’t continuing to defend a position against oouchan that I myself don’t believe but have learned enough about to possibly defend? One out of 43,000 arguments that I’ve had in my life. I suppose you’re right and that does label me as a major fail.

DO not be ashamed though, you are trying and you will learn as you grow up.
No I’m not ashamed, No I am not trying when it comes to pushing your buttons because which is either a testament to my button-pushing abilities or a testament to the fact that you can’t take it when someone goes straight through the bullshit and points out nothing of value was contributed.

I addressed every single point in that comment without attacking you or acting superior by doling out the pity (i.e. “Do not be ashamed” implying that I felt that way and the general condescending tone of the entire comment). What have you said in response?

Addressed to lostatsea but stealing it for my own purposes:
1163. Cybogen – May 14th, 2009 at 5:02 am [Report Abuse]
Lostatsea-WHat you have said was worse than any swearing. You have completey made false statements about me. That would make anybody angryenough to revolt back! WHat you really did is lied about my character!! Shame on You!
Thus far, you have said to me:
In addition to calling me ignorant. All of which are completely false statements about me (Not that I can prove it to your satisfaction but you can’t do the same in your reverse situation with lostatsea)…thus lying about my character. In addition to the number of your vaguely censored swear words littered throughout this comment board. According to you, that should make me angry enough to revolt back… Compare my ‘revolt back’ to that of yours.
1202 Cybogen
May 15th, 2009 at 6:12 am

Me and loststsea are at peace now…I hope! How about you and I making peace? I just feel its imoportant than arguing still. I am sorry if you want to forgive me.
1203 gabi319
May 15th, 2009 at 9:25 am

Cybogen – “How about you and I making peace?”
No.

I tolerate you only out of my respect for oouchan who admirably still seems to continuously turn the other cheek despite your repeated insults to her. I refuse to stoop to your level of character slurs because I don’t act that way, however, I never treated you any different from anyone else here. I point out the flaws of any argument regardless of it comes a friend, a random commenter, or someone I don’t particularly care for.

So in short, no. No peace, no forgiveness, and no respect that comes from such privileges because given how you’ve presented yourself on LV and my subjective views on how you’ve interacted with me in particular, you haven’t earned that from me.

The italics messed up my typing and deleted that quote from the last paragraph of the 1201 which should include Cybogen’s 991 which reads:
Youn are such a damm Hypocrite it stinks through the list. Man you’re are so full of it. Why don’t you go get a life and quit your bullshitting on here. you;’re pathetic!!!

Are you beginning to see why you haven’t earned my respect yet? I’ve included a ‘yet’ because despite my skepticism regarding you, I won’t hold firm to any preconceived ideas. It’s up to you and how you decide to portray yourself that will determine if I eventually respect you for you rather than because of oouchan.
1204 oouchan
May 15th, 2009 at 9:34 am

1203. gabi319: Check out my post 1198. I said all that I am going to say to him. It’s over. He was nice in the begining with none of what has been going on recently. He changed into a troll…therefore, I will treat him as such. I’m done…
1205 lostatsea
May 15th, 2009 at 10:00 am

1202.Cybogen: Not ready to smoke a peace pipe yet! like gabi I will wait and see!! We Canadians try to be a moderating force…although we do have our share of trollz!!
Sorry you didn’t read in total that link I gave you as it is a hard and brutal look at what happened in that hell-hole. Canada also tried to cover up its complicity in war crimes but we had the balls to show our shame to the world and took steps to abolish such practices. Our soldiers try to lessen civilian casualities, most times at risk of their own lives. There are always going to be times when civilians are going to face collateral damage or a stressed out soldier lets go a burst…War is HELL after all but the torture of women and chidren in a jail is beyond any excuse.
Taliban were armed, trained and funded by the CIA in a proxy war with Russia in Afghanistan.
Many questions about how much the American govt. knew in advance of 9/11 and the subsequent lies have been exposed for some time. The 9/11 report thus excludes, a priori, the most important question raised by the events of September 11, 2001: did US government agencies deliberately permit—or actively assist—the carrying out of this terrorist atrocity, in order to provide the Bush administration with the necessary pretext to carry out its program of war in Central Asia and the Middle East and a huge buildup of the forces of state repression at home. Not enough answers from your govt. and many coverups. I realize I’ll get castigated for even raising these points!
1206 Cybogen
May 15th, 2009 at 10:11 am

1205. lostatsea – Well I can make peace I just won’t go far to become an unbeliever cause I still stand my ground on Christian issues. Its been part of my life for 60 years now.
1207 gabi319
May 15th, 2009 at 12:11 pm

1204. oouchan
If you were really really really hoping for a different outcome, then I’m sorry it had to come to that. Shall I attempt to make you smile with another Gabi-goof-gone-good?

So a while ago clumsy me ran into another girl during a dance class. ….ok technically it wasn’t ‘during dance class’ but ‘in the dance classROOM’. We weren’t dancing but rather walking in opposite directions in a mostly empty studio and kerPLOW! body checked against the boards (I’m so embarassed!). Well, my lack of paying attention paid off because we’ve befriended each other since then and she told me this morning before class that she will soon start teaching a dance class herself and asked me to make sure to set aside some time so she’s not teaching a completely empty room! aww!! Of course, I said of course and soon I will be learning how to dance Bollywood! HAHAHAHA! Never saw that coming when I attempted to plan out my life…but it’s a welcome addition, nonetheless.
1208 oouchan
May 15th, 2009 at 12:26 pm

1207. gabi319: How is the bollywood done? That sounds very interesting (or very weird!). See…even mistakes have a habit of turning into something good. Like how I met a friend when I was 10. We were playing on the playground and were in one of those tunnels…it was very bright outside but dark inside. She crawled in one end and I got in through the other….bumbed heads something fierce! We stayed friends up to the time I moved. She was very upset that I moved and didn’t want to forgive me…I got new ones now who are not as shallow as she was. She might be better now, but that was a long time ago.

As for hoping for a different outcome…I was actually wondering if he was going to pull his head out, but I guess not. No matter how nice I was, I still got attitude and the run around. So…that respect you were kinda holding onto because of me…not needed anymore, since I lost mine as well. Sad.
1209 gabi319
May 15th, 2009 at 6:47 pm

oouchan – “How is the bollywood done?”

To be honest, I don’t know. From some bollywood movies I’ve seen, I know there’s a lot of jumping and skipping…it’s going to be brutal on the knees, I’m guessing. I suppose I’ll find out when classes start!

“She was very upset that I moved and didn’t want to forgive me”

I had an issue kind of like that! …except she was the one who moved away. Friendships (like any other relationship) is a two-way street and neither of us were doing much to maintain the friendship. I had moved on while she apparently hadn’t. I think it was three years after the last time we had talked, I got a phone call from someone I didn’t recognize. She said “Is this [my name]? This is [her name]. I just called to let you know that your friend [ex-friend's name] from middle school has a new best friend now. That’s me and not you.”

sheesh… drama drama drama. If that was supposed to make me feel bad, then it didn’t work.
1210 Larry
May 15th, 2009 at 7:43 pm

look, the zeitgeist is a conspiracy theory video. the other parts talk about a secret society that rules the world, and another talking about the u.s. government being behind 9/11.

it is borderline stupid to take the zeitgeist video seriously.

i take that back, it IS stupid..
1211 oouchan
May 15th, 2009 at 7:56 pm

1209. gabi319: Sounds like swing! I would like to learn that. Right now…I am limited at what I can do, so I stick with Dance Dance Revolution with my kid..hehe.

Your story…wow. Kinda like a current girlfriend calling the ex-girlfriend to say “neener, neener” or some such childish stuff. Gotta laugh at that.
1212 Maggot
May 16th, 2009 at 12:13 am

1209 gabi I just called to let you know that your friend [ex-friend’s name] from middle school has a new best friend now. That’s me and not you.

You should’ve replied: “Hmm, tell her I’m sorry that she had to trade down.”
1213 religion
May 16th, 2009 at 2:52 am

religion all around the world has one common basic and evolved from that. the princebles of most religions are the same, and some are taken from different religions, which came before.
therefore it is obvies that there are so many jesus like figures. jesus wasnt the first nor the last.
1214 oouchan
May 16th, 2009 at 7:44 am

1212. Maggot: Traded down…hahahaha! That was good.

Gabi…you should have asked for your deposit back!

1213. religion: Now that was an interesting statement. Just like plants and animals evolving…why not religion? Have to go through several prototypes before getting the finished product? Makes you wonder…what might be coming next?
1215 jim
May 16th, 2009 at 7:53 am

It’s interesting, though, that there are so many Greek comparisons, because Greek religion returns again and again to the notion that the Alpha, the God, is to be made manifest in flesh and eaten at a Eucharist, especially when dealing with Dionysus.
1216 nonBeliever
May 17th, 2009 at 8:51 am

1147. Cybogen

I had to go out of state to attend my sons wedding which is the reason for this delayed response.

My posts are not an attack on you personally but on the book you base your arguments and life on.

The point I have been making is that Mr. Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church and you follow the same book.
You cite passages from this book to support your cause just as Phelps cites passages from the same book to support his cause.

How can anyone base their lives on a book that supports such divergent views ?

My background: – so as not to be accused of being a troll.
Age – 51
Raised in the Catholic Church
Altar boy for several years
Attended Catholic school till 6th grade.
Kicked out of Catholic school after 6th grade for being a non-conformist.
Stopped going to church at 14 although my parents attended every Sunday.
At 14 I began reading all the books on various religions I could get my hands on. I became a self styled student of religion. I have attended every kind of church or temple service that I had access to . Baptist , Lutheran ,Presbyterian , etc. etc. I have Jewish friends and I’ve gone to temple with them.
The point I’m trying to make is that when it came to religion I had an open mind.
What I learned in all of this is that each of these religions wanted their members to be closed minded in regards to their faith. Accept what is taught and do not question.
The lessons I learned are that blind faith is dangerous and organized religions on a whole segregate people according to what faith they follow. Neither of these things are helpful if we are all to get along globally.

After studying various religions I couldn’t help but conclude that they are all a bunch of hype whose sole purpose was mind control.

If I had to pick the least harmful I’d choose Buddhism.
NO central deity demanding worship and a tenant that professes personal enlightenment .
1217 mousey
May 17th, 2009 at 3:39 pm

To all you precious image-bearers: Always remain open-minded. Remember the analogy of the cave (Plato), maybe some have gone up above (in faith) and see more than just shadows. Some just see shadows and think that this is all there is. Faith is a gift. It is given to those who earnestly seek it. Don’t fight and tear at each other with your words, especially those who claim to know God who is love. Read Dr.Tim Keller’s book, THE REASON FOR GOD and THE PRODIGAL GOD. He is the voice to listen to right now.
1218 oouchan
May 17th, 2009 at 7:07 pm

1217. mousey: You state you want others to be open minded but then throw out Keller who is a self styled fundamentalist. Fundamentalists are as closed minded as they come. I just wanted to point that out to you. He says that he is not, but based on his work and words of his sermons…he is.
It comes down to, if you believe, then no other words or items are needed. If you don’t believe, then no amount of words can change that.
And just to point out…god is love to those who believe. I believe love comes from within. But that’s just me.
1219 lostatsea
May 17th, 2009 at 9:37 pm

1216:nonBeliever: I must agree that Buddhism seems the least harmful to all lifeforms…much like some Pagan religions or Native beliefs…ALL life is sacred, period!!
Man has shaped and perverted religion to mindfuck people into drones. The my GOD is better than yours bullshit.
1218.oouchan: Love and RESPECT are the basis of all human interactions, when some MAN preaches that HIS way is the only way to salvation…watch out!! Either you RESPECT all life and greet each day with love and happiness and the joy of living another day in our beautifull Planet without preconceptions or you live in your own HELL. Sorry Cy!! I don’t believe in damnation I try to teach people to query all things, and respect all beliefs.
1220 gabi319
May 17th, 2009 at 10:22 pm

1212. Maggot, 1214. oouchan:
Haha! I wish you were tiny fairies on my shoulder telling me what to say when this phone conversation happened because your retorts were far better than mine! The best I could come up with was a cheerful “Ok?” with a shrug she couldn’t see but definitely heard through the phone. All I can hope is that my pleasant demeanor and happy tone of voice angered the two of them to an unspeakable degree. muahahahaha…

nonBeliever re: religion background
Interesting diversity, sir. I myself grew up in a very Catholic environment and had a very upset family when I began playing with a wind chamber that occasionally played at Presbyterian services (hey, a job’s a job) and worked for a Jewish artist who produced intricate works for religious ceremonies. I also have friends of various religious background. One of the things I noticed as well is that a number of them seemed to separate themselves according to their religious beliefs. One group may talk about the same exact non-religious topics as another group, do the same activities, enjoy the same foods… but the minute an infiltrator is detected, they act quite stiff and closed-mouthed or so overly polite that it borders on fake and phobic. It fascinates me from a sociology point of view but saddens me when considering their close-mindedness. They’re missing out on getting to know some fascinating people.
1221 Cybogen
May 18th, 2009 at 5:10 am

There shouldn’t issues about what people call religions. There is only beliefs and they can be so diversified that it causes people to cross paths throughout the world. In my life I believe in God and Jesus Christ. I don’t condemm anyone,unlike what some people on hear try to accuse of me. You get alot of people feeling that you are what they think a religion is. Its like saying all gunowners are criminals. Some are criminals and most are not. Thats the way it is with beliefs as well. Some are corrupt and try to change what they think Jesus followers are not. They loop all people of belief into a group of bad people and their beliefs. And then you have a group of non believers saying they don’t believe in a faith because of all the negativity when its not but a few people who make it seem that way. Its Like the saying goes…”One bad apple don’t spoil a whole bushel of apples”
1222 nonBeliever
May 18th, 2009 at 6:07 am

1219. lostatsea
“much like some Pagan religions or Native beliefs…ALL life is sacred, period!!”

I agree.

For sheer entertainment value the Hindu Vedas make for some interesting reading and the Kama Sutra is another ancient text not to be dismissed.
1223 oouchan
May 18th, 2009 at 8:08 am

1219. lostatsea: So true. Its true….they all say, my god is better than yours! This is what leads to the terrorism we have today. Respecting life is valuable as well as important. So glad I picked Shintoism!

Close-minded individuals and groups will keep the religion debate going on until the end of time. Not one is willing to hear the other out. Just take the catholics and the protestants!

1222. nonBeliever: Read about both! I am fascinated with other religions as the main ones have more hate then love. No matter what is being said by a few individuals I have met. The majority rules. Sad.
1224 lostatsea
May 18th, 2009 at 7:41 pm

1222.nonBeliever: The Hindu Vedas are on my list of further research, Kama Sutra: My body isn’t as limber as it used to be..hehe ‘A nods as good as a wink to a blind bat’
Religion promotes hatred, sad but true.
1225 nonBeliever
May 19th, 2009 at 4:37 am

1224. lostatsea

The Vedas offer much more descriptive and colorful stories than the Christian bible.

Other enjoyable reading include the Sanskrit epics dealing with Vimana .
The Vimana stories deal with mythological flying machines.

AS for the Kama Sutra , well , you have to hand to a culture that provides an instruction manual on the ways of pleasure.
1226 lostatsea
May 19th, 2009 at 4:53 am

1225.nonBeliever: Many ancient legends concern these flying machines ergo there must be some truth to them…Von Daniken certainly believed that!! The Kama Sutra should be required reading for all religions…if people were making love they would have less time for hatred. BTW the Japanese and Chinese also devoted much of their art to pleasure!!
1227 nonBeliever
May 19th, 2009 at 5:30 am

1226. lostatsea

Now there is a good topic for a list !
Ancient legends concerning flying machines .

As an atheist living in the self professed Christian nation of the United States I agree about the Kama Sutra.
Instead we take the stance that sex is dirty and is only for procreation .
These repressed natural urges contribute to the high instances of child abuse by the Catholic clergy.
Maybe these repressed feelings contribute to America’s high murder rate and our incessant need to wage war.
1228 lostatsea
May 19th, 2009 at 5:58 am

1227.nonBeliever: Just finished reading ‘Lost Innocence’ by
Elissa Wall on the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints which documents the crimes against children perpetrated by this offshoot of the Mormons…scary shit!! They also have members here in Canada, as in Bountiful BC.
As to America’s need for war…check… http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/624.html
1229 nonBeliever
May 19th, 2009 at 7:09 am

It never ceases to amaze me how the likes of David Berg , David Koresh, Paul Schaefer just to name a few ,invoke God to further their agenda of child abuse. The Catholic Church just moves their pedarist priests to a different parish. Rabbi in New York are facing child abuse charges.
It makes it easy for me not to believe in god. In the old testament God had no problem intervening on mans behalf to slaughter fornicators and sodomites (Sodom and Gomorrah).
Yet in modern times he seems to have turned a blind eye to the lost innocence of children.

That is a great link you posted.
I was just reading the other day how corporate America needs to wage continual war to survive.
1230 lostatsea
May 19th, 2009 at 7:17 am

1229.nonBeliever: Nice to hear some do follow links…gotta run, will be back later.
1231 oouchan
May 19th, 2009 at 8:17 am

1227. nonBeliever: Great thoughts. How can we teach that set is dirty or evil and still have child abuse that seems to be swept under the rug.
I will teach my daughter differently. I will let her know that it’s a joy, not a sin.

lostatsea: I read a few passages on the FDLS church and they are a sick bunch. They always say to stay out of their business and that if you are not a member you wouldn’t know or understand. Glad I am not one of them. How can they get away with hurting children? It just has to stop.
By the way, always enjoy your links. Thanks for the info.
1232 GTT
May 19th, 2009 at 2:25 pm

lostatsea(and some others):

Religion (or the Bible) does not a bad person make.

This might be a controversial metaphor (and I think it has been used above), but just because you OWN a gun does not mean that you will necessarily be a murderer. The PERSON chooses how to use the gun: either in self-defense, for recreational hunting, or murder.

Or if you are in favor of gun control, substitute guns with knives. Some people use knives to cook, some to kill. Can we say “KNIVES MAKE MURDERERS!!!” No.

Your Bible argument is just as ludicrous. Just because some people choose to twist the words of a written document to suit their needs does not mean that the document should be destroyed, nor does it mean that the document is inherently evil and somehow FORCES anyone who reads it to interpret it (and consequently act out) in the the same way.
1233 oouchan
May 19th, 2009 at 9:03 pm

1229. nonBeliever: Below are some links that show a missing link that was released today dealing with the fossil record. These were provided on another thread:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/scie…..ssing-link

http://www.plosone.org/article…..ne.0005723
1234 lostatsea
May 20th, 2009 at 5:43 am

1232.GTT: I have never advocated the destruction of the bible, that would be ludicrous! That said however, the Bible, Quran and Torah followers have resorted to the destruction of anything which in their eyes was considered idolatrous or contrary to their teachings; that is ludicrous!
We have lost so much history and suffered untold misery by these books that perhaps they should be banned!!

1231.oouchan: My dear kindred spirit, I do admire how you keep a balanced and nuanced response to others.
I’ve given up on the America bashers, hope you caught the duck story!!
1235 oouchan
May 20th, 2009 at 8:02 am

1234. lostatsea: Missed the duck story. I do try to be diplomatic in my responses, but sometimes I just want to let loose. Got the links here I see…

Did you see the google logo?
1236 GTT
May 20th, 2009 at 2:36 pm

lostatsea (1234):

I do see where you´re coming from but you are missing my point completely. The Bible, Quran, Torah, etc are a source of comfort, guidance, etc to the majority of people who read them. (In my metaphor above, the knife in this case is used for cooking, providing needed nurishment for yourself and your family).

However, there are some people (unfortunately the most vocal and well-known) that use these books for their own twisted purposes, to find some sort of justification for their own twisted desires. (Referring to my metaphor again, the knife in this case is used as a tool in various kinds of crime).

In the end, you cannot ban a book (just like you cannot ban all knives) just because SOME people will use it for the wrong reasons.

Not to mention that this is censorship which is frowned upon in most forward-thinking countries.

And again (as I think was mentioned on another list although I cannot quite remember which one), a lot of the wars people call “religious wars” were not really about religion. A lot of these were about land and power and only used religion as a front or an excuse. I believe that if they had not had this particular excuse, they would have found another… At the end of the day, the human race thrives on conflict and we will always have differences of opinion which will inevitably lead to violence. If you dont believe me, just see the excuses to hate America list. Absolutely nothing to do with religion and yet people are still gouging each other´s eyes out!
1237 lostatsea
May 20th, 2009 at 8:47 pm

1235.oouchan: I also try to be diplomatic but sometimes I feel like screaming GET A FUCKING LIFE people and stop bashing each other over stupid comments…oops see I lost it there hehe!!
1236.GTT: See above!! then reread my post!! Noah wasn’t even jewish…where did all that water come from??
Your GOD of Abraham which the Christians slaughtered so many muslims over is the same BLOODY GOD the Islamists slaughtered all you bloody Christians over, is the same one the Jews worship! Hello how much clearer can I make it??
1238 Matt Howard
May 20th, 2009 at 8:56 pm

GTT:

“Just because some people choose to twist the words of a written document to suit their needs does not mean that the document should be destroyed, nor does it mean that the document is inherently evil and somehow FORCES anyone who reads it to interpret it (and consequently act out) in the the same way.”

“However, there are some people (unfortunately the most vocal and well-known) that use these books for their own twisted purposes, to find some sort of justification for their own twisted desires. (Referring to my metaphor again, the knife in this case is used as a tool in various kinds of crime).”

GTT, I’m sure you have sat down and read the Bible cover to cover, so I’m unsure how you came to these conclusions.

The people who ‘twist’ and interpret the Bible are usually the ones who are the most civilized and, although wrong, moral! The people who follow the Bible to the letter are usually the most vocal, ignorant, hateful and mean-spirited people on the face of the Earth.

The Bible doesn’t NEED to be twisted and interpreted in order to make the things in it abhorrent; it’s already like that! Taken literally, the Bible advocates slavery, genocide, infanticide, rape, selling your daughter, murder, jealousy and numerous other horrendous things.

I will counter your argument by saying that the Bible NEEDS to be twisted and interpreted if you are going to derive any morals from it at all. To read it literally is to be immoral of the highest order.
1239 lostatsea
May 20th, 2009 at 9:02 pm

1235.oouchan: Sorry forgot the link to my last comment on hate America list.. simply said..a good reason to love America..thought it might mitigate some of the comments!! Didn’t seem to work..as they are still at it!!
http://childcarebyjudylyden.blogspot.com/2008/08/ducks-in-san-antonio.html
enjoy
1240 lostatsea
May 20th, 2009 at 9:07 pm

1238.Matt Howard: This is really a no win situation…a horse with blinders on can only see straight ahead..there are no other sides to see!!
1241 oouchan
May 20th, 2009 at 9:18 pm

1236. GTT: In a sense you are right. It does provide comfort and joy for those in need. But that is a small few. The majority use it like a sword and shield to bash the rest of us. That is why many look upon those books as evil. I wouldn’t want to take them away by any means, but there is no need to force others to follow, read or abide by those pages.

1237. lostatsea: Couldn’t agree more! So many times, I have to bite my tongue instead of just saying what I really want.
Thanks for the link
1242 GTT
May 21st, 2009 at 4:31 pm

Matt Howard:

Yes, true. But I think you are talking about the Old Testament. This part of the Bible is more of a historical account and should be seen as such. It is a review of the way things were, not the way things should be. You’ll notice most Catholics (this is the group I belong to so it’s the only one I can speak about) don’t follow dietary laws, etc. as stipulated in the OT.

What we find most important is the New Testament, an account of Jesus´ time on Earth, his teachings, his sacrifice. There’s a lot of beauty and poetry in the NT if you care to read it metaphorically. JC spoke in parables, using stories and metaphors to convey a message. Reading the words LITERALLY makes JC simplistic and takes away from the depth of his message.

In any case, I’m not trying to preach. All I’m saying is that you cannot condemn or ban a book just because people interpret it differently. A LITERAL interpretation is just as much an interpretation of how it should be read.

*****

lostatsea (1240):

“a horse with blinders on can only see straight ahead..there are no other sides to see!!”

Since you referred to Matt Howard’s comment to me in 1238, I’m guessing I’m the horse with blinders in your metaphor. Are you saying that just because I have a different opinion than yours, I’m closed minded? I was not preaching, I was not trying to convert you. I was merely pointing out that you cannot stereotype all religious people as fundamentalist zealots.

Please reread the last paragraph of my post. I said that a lot of these wars were not necessarily all about religion. They were also about land, and power and wealth. To say that they were 100% RELIGIOUS WARS and that we all killed each other over GOD is simplistic in the extreme. If it wasn’t religion, they would have found another excuse to go to war. “Hello how much clearer can I make it??”

I do understand where you’re coming from, I just don’t necessarily agree. You, on the other hand, call me a “bloody Christian.” Tell me again, who´s closed-minded?

*****

oouchan (1241):

I completely agree. TO EACH HIS OWN. I’m not preaching (and I’m truly sorry if it ever came off that way, it was not my intention), just defending my right to believe what I want. I am defending my belief in my religion, not forcing it down anyone’s throat, and for that I am called a horse with blinders. Oh well…
1243 Matt Howard
May 21st, 2009 at 8:04 pm

GTT:

“Yes, true. But I think you are talking about the Old Testament. This part of the Bible is more of a historical account and should be seen as such. It is a review of the way things were, not the way things should be. You’ll notice most Catholics (this is the group I belong to so it’s the only one I can speak about) don’t follow dietary laws, etc. as stipulated in the OT.”

Exactly. When it comes down to the nitty-gritty, most Christians pick and choose which bits of the Bible to believe that agree with their own particular moral code. Instead of being a holy doctrine, it become the big book of multiple choice; people only obey the laws that they agree with.

“What we find most important is the New Testament, an account of Jesus´ time on Earth, his teachings, his sacrifice. There’s a lot of beauty and poetry in the NT if you care to read it metaphorically. JC spoke in parables, using stories and metaphors to convey a message. Reading the words LITERALLY makes JC simplistic and takes away from the depth of his message.”

…Like when Jesus clears the Temple of the market traders by going away, seething in anger, constructing a scourge (not just simply picking one up in a hot rage, but taking the time to sit down and construct a friggin’ scourge), running back to the temple and going mental with it? That’s not poetry; that’s the tale of a madman whipping traders with a scourge out of sheer anger and rage.

“In any case, I’m not trying to preach. All I’m saying is that you cannot condemn or ban a book just because people interpret it differently. A LITERAL interpretation is just as much an interpretation of how it should be read. ”

I totally agree. I don’t think any text, no matter how evil or abhorrent, should EVER be banned. That goes against everything I stand for. However, a literal interpretation isn’t an ‘interpretation’ as such because no metaphor or themes are needed in that perpective. If I read a sign saying “keep off the grass” that is posted next to a fresh lawn, and I then keep off the grass, I’m not ‘interpreting’ as a drug addict would if they take it to mean “keep off the marijuana”.
1244 lostatsea
May 23rd, 2009 at 6:45 am

1242.GTT: They were bloody; with the blood of the Islamists they slew with their swords..It was in reference to the Crusades..not a personal attack as you seem to imply!! Saladin was more compassionate than the Hospitaliers who slew all without regard to religion, Jew, Christian or Muslim all dispatched under God’s name!
1245 oouchan
May 23rd, 2009 at 7:00 am

1242. GTT: I didn’t think you were preaching…not at all.
Each person can believe what they want. But I agree with Matt when he said that many religious folks ‘pick and choose’ passages from their chosen book and warp them or misinterpert (sp?) them. This of course hurts others and makes the whole religion look bad. Those that are not vocal are the ones to suffer because of this. If more were like those who take the book to heart, then we wouldn’t have many of the messes we have today. I will continue to support the right to believe what you will as long as I get the same respect.

1243. Matt Howard: You got me with that last line. That was hilarious! “Stay off the marijuana!” I think I might use that the next time I have a kid on my lawn.
1246 lostatsea
May 23rd, 2009 at 7:04 am

1243.Matt: Silly lad! You don’t walk on it, you smoke it !!
BC bud rules!!
1247 Matt Howard
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:11 pm

oouchan:

Haha thanks! It was kind of a weak argument but I do believe that a literal ‘interpretation’ isn’t comparable to other metaphorical interpretations.

lostatsea:

Thanks for the advice.
1248 lostatsea
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:16 pm

1247.Matt: This Buds for you he he!
1249 oouchan
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:39 pm

1247. Matt Howard: Couldn’t agree more.
1250 lostatsea
May 24th, 2009 at 5:04 am

1249.oouchan: I have warned people about the danger of GM food and the evils of Monsanto…now doctors are finally realizing this fact:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13701
A further link shows effects on Indian farmers:
Source: PTI, December 14, 2008
The Hindu, December 12, 2008
The Indian Express, December 10, 2008
PTI, November 20, 2008
http://www.mainstreamweekly.net, June 21, 2008
I know its off topic!! but we have all wandered off! hehe
1251 lostatsea
May 24th, 2009 at 5:33 am

More Mosanto:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13025
Not many realize the danger of one company having PATENTS on seeds..how was this possible?? Also the lobby that forbids a plain notice on packaging that GM foods are involved in the production. The FDA are controlled by the corporate giants and the CDC by the military. While we argue over religion, they continue to wrest more control.
http://www.WantToKnow.info/newsarticles.
1252 lostatsea
May 24th, 2009 at 5:38 am

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/
content/india/press/reports/genetic-gamble-safe-food-the.pdf, http://www.mainstreamweekly.net,/
1253 lostatsea
May 24th, 2009 at 5:46 am

Last link!! George Carlin always saw the bullshit and tried to educate us..he will be missed..RIP
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/628.html
1254 oouchan
May 24th, 2009 at 6:54 pm

1250. lostatsea: We always go off topic around here.

I will also read up on those links that you provided here. Got some reading to do I guess!. I did hear about the food one before so I hope to expand on that with the links you gave. Thanks!
1255 lostatsea
May 24th, 2009 at 8:33 pm

1254.oouchan: Glad to help enlighten a fellow traveller I only hope more people may become fellow questers!!
I sort of lost it on America hatred. 9/11 bugs me!! :-[
1256 B
May 25th, 2009 at 10:18 pm

Odin would not fit on the list as that story does not as far as anyone knows predate Jesus.
1257 alpha
May 25th, 2009 at 11:30 pm

@comment 174. Kevin

go there for “ZEITGEIST, Part 1″ Debunked? Acharya Responds
1258 jippers
May 26th, 2009 at 12:18 am

“Exactly. When it comes down to the nitty-gritty, most Christians pick and choose which bits of the Bible to believe that agree with their own particular moral code. Instead of being a holy doctrine, it become the big book of multiple choice; people only obey the laws that they agree with.”

The whole point of the New Testament is that even if you are sinning by only following the laws you agree with, Jesus will forgive and has forgiven you, so there’s no reason to be super pious about it. Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try though, just keep it mind that “everyone is right in their own eyes” (some verse in Proverbs I can’t remember).
1259 shadowphoenix85
May 26th, 2009 at 12:22 am

Correction on the tidbit about Dionysos’ origin:
A popular version of the myth talks about the birth of a child conceived by Zeus and Persephone named Zagreus. As a result of Hera’s jealousy over her husband’s affair, she had the Titans kill baby Zagreus (who also tore him to pieces). Hermes was able to save Zagreus’ heart, which Zeus then sewed into his thigh. Dionysos was later born from Zeus’s thigh, much like Athena sprang form Zeus head, via parthenogenesis.
1260 shadowphoenix85
May 26th, 2009 at 12:30 am

Sorry, correction my last comment:

After Zagreus’ heart was salvaged, Zeus implanted it into Semele’s womb. Zeus had previously sworn on the river Styx to comply to any request Semele would have. After being influenced by Hera (in disguise) to persuade the child’s father to reveal himself, Semele ask that Zeus appear to her in his true form. As he did, Semele was overtaken by the power of his apparition, which caused her to burst into flames and die. Immediately, Zeus reached into her womb, pulled out the developing child, and sewed it into his thigh.
1261 Matt Howard
May 26th, 2009 at 2:05 am

jippers:

“The whole point of the New Testament is that even if you are sinning by only following the laws you agree with, Jesus will forgive and has forgiven you, so there’s no reason to be super pious about it. Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try though, just keep it mind that “everyone is right in their own eyes””

Here is what Jesus proclaims in light of people ‘doing what they want’ and only adhering to the laws they agree with;

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

Not only is he saying the opposite of what you claim, but he is also making clear that the Old Testament has to be taken seriously and followed to the letter.
1262 lostatsea
May 26th, 2009 at 2:15 am

1254.oouchan: Thought this was appropriate!
May 26, 2009
Tricycle’s Daily Dharma

Plant Seeds of Compassion

The mind is like a fertile field. If we contaminate it with the poisons of ignorance, desire, anger, jealousy, and pride, we will inevitably produce poisonous crops. Acting carelessly or harmfully toward others, or working for our own benefit at the expense of others, will only create limitation and suffering. Medicinal seeds—wholesome, virtuous acts of kindness, love, and compassion—will produce the fruits of peace and benefit. Actions that are both positive and negative will produce a mixture of happiness and sadness. This is the principle of karma. Karma originates in the mind. Our thoughts give rise to words and actions, and these have consequences. We cannot plant poisonous seeds and expect edible or medicinal fruit. When we begin to see the negative results of our self-centeredness, we understand why we must carefully choose which seeds to plant. Our future is in our own hands.

–Lama Shenpen Drolma, from Change of Heart: The Bodhisattva Peace Training of Chagdud Tulku (Padma)
1263 Stupidtimesinfinity
May 26th, 2009 at 3:51 am

FYI:

Zeitgeist was nonsense. Hardly anything said about Horus is even remotely accurate. Most of it was just made up for the movie and is quite contrary to the myth of Horus.

Religion is stupid enough on it’s own. Not doing research and making dumbass claims just makes us atheists look bad. Don’t do that.

This list is worthless.
1264 oouchan
May 26th, 2009 at 6:07 am

1258. jippers:
The whole point of the New Testament is that even if you are sinning by only following the laws you agree with, Jesus will forgive and has forgiven you, so there’s no reason to be super pious about it. Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try though, just keep it mind that “everyone is right in their own eyes” (some verse in Proverbs I can’t remember).

But he will only forgive you if you believe….and if you believe, you should be able to follow all laws, not just those you think will get you a passing grade.
Matt’s post in 1261 does a nice job of summing that up.

1262. lostatsea: Nice quote. I think I might use that one. I especially like this sentence…

Acting carelessly or harmfully toward others, or working for our own benefit at the expense of others, will only create limitation and suffering.

Words to live by.
1265 lostatsea
May 26th, 2009 at 7:23 am

1264.oouchan: Of course if you were Catholic you could always go to confession?? haha
My secrets out..I’m a closet Buddhist!!
1266 lostatsea
May 26th, 2009 at 8:58 am

1264.oouchan: Who we really are…
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/287.html
I think your daughter will enjoy!!

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/287.html Christianity and war.
1267 lostatsea
May 26th, 2009 at 9:04 am

1264.oouchan: oops!! Christianity and war on nonbelievers.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/473.html
1268 jesdun1
May 26th, 2009 at 10:43 am

The 3 day period following the crucifixion refers to the the 3 days of Dec 22, 23, and 24 (immediately following the Winter Solstice of Dec. 21st), when the Earth’s revolution around the sun and its rotation are such that it experiences the darkest days of the year. The sun appears to resurface after the 3rd day, commencing it’s slow ascent to more and more daylight.

Hence, the Sun dies on December 21, remains dead for 3 days, then rises again on the 25th, marking it’s rebirth.

This is why many of these gods are said to be born on December 25. They are all astronomical (astrological) allegories. The 3 days of darkness was applied to Christ’s death, which occurs around the Spring Equinox, when the sun’s light equals to and begins to overcome the darkness; or when the light (Christ) begins it’s reign over the darkness (evil).

We could go on and on about how 10,000 year old stories have had a sort of Mr. Telephone effect over the millenia. But suffice it to say, Christna (Christ + Krishna), and everybody else referred to above, are all in fact deriviative of one original astrologically influenced story.
1269 Sacred Altis
May 26th, 2009 at 12:56 pm

The Catholics have known this since the inception of the church and the bishops and popes all know the truth, because they invented the lies to harness power over people through fear… this coming from someone who “was” in priesthood… trust me, it’s all fables and those at the top know it. The proof can be found in the bible like this… God creates everything with astounding power and accuracy (think planets, orbits, people, etc.) then decides to create a much less “astounding and accurate” book that’s supposed to offer wisdom and the way to eternal life… but to any that read it, realize it is a mess of confusion and contradictions… obviously not something a Creator of a perfect universe authored or “inspired”. I believe there’s a God who created all of this but so far I don’t see any religion that can claim to know who God really is. One thing he is not… a God that creates people just to torture and destroy later for so-called “sin”. That would make an “ALL-KNOWING” God… sadistic at best. Christians, like other blind-faith low IQ’rs, are the ones that blow out of proportion everything including their own faith which they so sorely lack.
1270 Allenbeme
May 26th, 2009 at 1:15 pm

Zoroaster was not born of a virgin. Saoshyant yes: Zoroaster, not. Your research is faulty- intentionally or not.

What else are you wrong about?
1271 lostatsea
May 26th, 2009 at 2:06 pm

1269.SacredAltis: Well said! With all the evil and wars in our history; We should have been destroyed thousands of times as in Sodom and Gomorrah!!
1272 JL Wallace
May 26th, 2009 at 4:32 pm

All messiah’s (solar or otherwise) ALL share the same similarities.

Read: “The Power of Myth” by Joseph Campbell
1273 Oh Come on!
May 26th, 2009 at 7:37 pm

Why is this going around the net? All this was debunked years ago. It’s not like this is new.

Krishna wasn’t crucified. He was shot in the foot with an arrow by mistake. His mother Devaki had 7 other children before him. Jesus wasn’t born in Muturea. He was born in Bethlehem. Remember, Bethleham/Nazareth? What is Muturea? Is that even mentioned in the Bible? Krishna’s father was not a carpenter. There were no wise men. He was born in a prison. Do you people even bother to fact check?

Even if you don’t believe in God certainly you don’t believe in letting yourself be purposely mislead do you? Seriously, most to all these claims have already been debunked long ago. Simply go to the Wikipedia page for all these listed characters and SEE FOR YOURSELF!

You’ll see all these claims at best are misleading and worst outright lies! And I’m an Atheist! Please double check these for yourself.
1274 oouchan
May 27th, 2009 at 8:47 am

lostatsea: Thanks for links as always. I enjoyed that short video. That was cute.
1275 Exekias
May 27th, 2009 at 3:23 pm

jesdun1 has got it absolutely right.

These myths all derive from sun worship.
1276 4dam
May 28th, 2009 at 2:48 pm

I like the part where people argue back and forth for over a MONTH pretending to be under the assumption that they’ll be able to convince the others of the superiority of their point of view when in fact they really just enjoy appearing superior within the bounds of their own incredibly small worlds.

And the winner of the run on sentence awards goes to…. me. Suck it bitches.
1277 oouchan
May 29th, 2009 at 4:08 pm

1275 Exekias: That was my original thought as well which is why I like this list.
1278 Matt Howard
May 30th, 2009 at 2:59 am

4dam:

“I like the part where people argue back and forth for over a MONTH pretending to be under the assumption that they’ll be able to convince the others of the superiority of their point of view when in fact they really just enjoy appearing superior within the bounds of their own incredibly small worlds.

And the winner of the run on sentence awards goes to…. me. Suck it bitches.”

Yeah, I agree, screw conversation and debate. Idiot.
1279 Cazilu
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:32 am

Erm. Shakyamuni didn’t go into a monastery at the age of twelve at all, and Krishna is certainly not part of a Trinity. The Hindu Trimurti consists of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.
1280 lostatsea1
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:48 pm

1277.oouchan: I found a link you might enjoy;
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9987-top-10-weirdest-cosmology-theories.html
1281 4dam
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:02 pm

Matt Howard:
“Yeah, I agree, screw conversation and debate. Idiot.”

But earlier…
“The sooner the tiny minority of extremely loud morons like yourself just shut the hell up and go away, the better.”

“Trying to change a Fundies useless mind is about as fruitful as trying to find scientific evidence in the Creation Museum in Kentucky. It just feels good once in a while to unleash a few tidbits of hostility towards Fundamentalist/ID advocates. They deserve it, after all.”

“I think I have a problem. I always swear once I’ve debated with a Creationist and gone through point after point of refutations, clearing up terminology, pointing out why it isn’t science, that is that. I won’t do it again. But I always do! Whenever I see a YEC or ID advocate try and worm their way into a legitimate discussion I always end up sitting at my keyboard furiously typing away, getting myself wound up and annoyed until they shut up. It’s an addiction, methinks. Can anyone give me a cure?:)”

To paraphrase: if people disagree with me go away, arguing with fundies is pointless but I enjoy unleashing hostility towards them. How do I stop arguing with fundies? I call this conversation and debate and it is meaningful and necessary. Idiot.

——-

Thank you for your kind response. It is surprising that you have chosen to identify yourself as someone who enjoys appearing superior within the bounds of your own incredibly small world. As that is precisely what your response to my comment signifies. Although I doubt you recognized that at the time.

What you fail to realize is that there really is no debate. To use an analogy, you’re giving Calculus lessons to a two year old and either you think you look smart by doing so, or you honestly believe you can teach them.

To anyone that may have taken offense to being called a two year old, it was simply an analogy to show that minds of a certain state are unable to grasp some concepts. Under the analogy above, no amount or type of teaching will normally result in a two year old mind being able to absorb the fundamentals of Calculus. The mind itself needs changes to occur first.

In the analogy above this would be brain development that normally occurs with age. In those that may have taken offense it would likely require regimented deprogramming and psychotherapy treatments in an effort to reverse years of systematic brainwashing. This simply cannot be done on an online forum. Thus, debate truly is futile.
1282 oouchan
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:24 pm

1280 lostatsea1: Thanks for the link. It was an interesting read. You know I like anything to do with space. Thanks, again!

1281 4dam: Thus, debate truly is futile.

But, it’s so much fun!
1283 Maggot
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:59 pm

1281 4dam: no amount or type of teaching will normally result in a two year old mind being able to absorb the fundamentals of Calculus. The mind itself needs changes to occur first…it would likely require regimented deprogramming and psychotherapy treatments in an effort to reverse years of systematic brainwashing. This simply cannot be done on an online forum. Thus, debate truly is futile.

There’s a difference between a mind not being able to comprehend something vs. a mind not wanting to comprehend something. With the latter, debate may still be futile once it becomes apparent you’re talking to a brick wall, but at least initially, debate has some merit in that the ignorance might be chipped away. “Regimented deprogramming and psychotherapy treatments” is a bit of an exaggeration IMO. Funny though…I might steal that for my own use sometime. lol

It is also true that in venues such as this, while either side of the debate at hand may appear to be unmoving brick walls, the open forum discussion might inspire others to either join in, or lurk silently and absorb whatever information interests them or that they find useful. He did say *conversation* and debate, you know. Isn’t that the whole point of a “forum”?

As an aside, had you opened with the kind of dialog I quoted of yours here, rather than coming across as condescending as what you’re accusing others of, perhaps you would’ve gotten a more proactive conversation in response. Maybe you weren’t looking for that, which is fine, but right now in your posts 1276 and parts of 1281, you are just sounding like Pot/Kettle/Black.
1284 Matt Howard
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:36 pm

4dam:

“To paraphrase: if people disagree with me go away, arguing with fundies is pointless but I enjoy unleashing hostility towards them. How do I stop arguing with fundies? I call this conversation and debate and it is meaningful and necessary. Idiot.”

…and what part of my conversations on a PUBLIC board do think apply strictly and solely to creationists? I stand by my assertions. Arguing with a creationist is akin to debating a 2 year old, and it’s a thoroughly useless and time wasting exercise if the goal is to change their mind. That is PRECISELY why I don’t bother emailing them and debating them one on one or in private. It is exactly why I do it on a public board. The whole point of talking, debating, arguing and conversing with a creationist publicly is for the benefit of those who may be on the fence. It’s for the benefit of people who either haven’t had the chance to research issues for themselves, or have just escaped a suffocating religious environment. It’s to show them that creationist dogma and their bald assertions CAN be challenged and CAN be shown to be totally ignorant and false.

Unfortunately, it’s come to the point where creationists have become so numerous and vocal that people like you have resigned themselves to conceding that their theories and beliefs are EQUALLY as valid as logical conjecture and scientific discourse. How sad. I, on the other hand, feel it’s perfectly justifiable to respond to these dogmatic idiots. When someone posts a ridiculously erroneous but quite rhetorically convincing ‘theory’ in a public forum along the lines of ‘the Earth is 6000 years old, Noah’s Ark happened and Evolution is a conspiracy’ no matter HOW superior I feel or how pointless debating with them is, it’s still necessary to show them how fucking wrong they are.

You, obviously, feel no need to do this. *clap clap*. I don’t debate creationists JUST for the fun of it. I admit, it’s quite fun to respond to their outlandish assertions and show them how stupid their claims are, but that fun would be null and void if it wasn’t in a public forum. The whole reason debating creationists on Listverse is justifiable is precisely because it’s public, and if one of my posts helps someone who is not quite sure where to stand on evolution or creationism reject superstition in favour of logical scientific discourse, I’m quite happy.

I just wish I was like you, where instead of putting my name to my opinions, choosing a side and vigorously defending it, I could cowardly shy away from actually revealing my own arguments in favour of chastising both sides for being ‘superior’.

Plus, it’s really, REALLY funny to converse with dullards who think a man really lived in the belly of a whale.
1285 Mark
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:45 pm

1284 Matt Howard : “…Plus, it’s really, REALLY funny to converse with dullards who think a man really lived in the belly of a whale.”

Duh, everyone knows Pinocchio was a boy
1286 oouchan
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:01 pm

1284 Matt Howard: I don’t debate creationists JUST for the fun of it. I admit, it’s quite fun to respond to their outlandish assertions and show them how stupid their claims are, but that fun would be null and void if it wasn’t in a public forum.

Totally agree! The dark side of me gets a thrill out of these conversations, all the more because they are on a puplic site. Anyone can join in and it’s fun to go head to head with these people and others.

1285 Mark: Good one!

Ahhh…but Pinocchio was made of wood…so he is fake. Sound familar?
1287 Matt Howard
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:13 pm

Mark:

Haha, nice one.

oouchan:

I guess 4dam would have a point if I endlessly emailed creationists and tried to change their un-changeable minds. But I enjoy reading creationist vs people with brains debates, especially when new points are made and argued.
1288 4dam
June 4th, 2009 at 10:52 am

Too much to reply to one by one but in essence: This isn’t a debate and nothing said here will change anyone’s mind who is ‘on the fence’. Why? Because if you’re sitting on the fence between science, logic, and reason and… fairy tales, then you’re either not fully brainwashed yet or mentally retarded. In either case – you can’t have a debate with either one of those types of people. And there really aren’t that many ‘new’ arguments and lets not pretend this is the first time these topics have been argued. Look at any list here that remotely mentions religion and the comments devolve into the above. And that’s just this site, the internet is even bigger than this site. No offense Jamie

What you’re not realizing is that by actually thinking you’re even debating them you’re empowering their stance as something that is debatable. It is not. Jokes aside, there is no debate for a flat earth vs a round earth. 2+2=5 vs 2+2=4, etc. By attempting to debate even for your own amusement, actually empowers the other side simply by recognizing them as the other side.

If you do actually want to debate them you have to essentially sink to their level. I would suggest the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a start. Although that’s not really a fair fight because there is evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster all around us and he impacts our lives on a daily basis.
1289 4dam
June 4th, 2009 at 11:30 am

All I’m saying is, laugh at them, mock them, call them names, imply or state that they are inferior in some way but please don’t debate them. Debating them makes them actually think that they have a valid argument since their point of view is being debated.

Debating has been tried an endless number of times. The internets are littered with the proof that nothing ever comes of it.

Escalation is required. Public ridicule – yes, debate – no.
1290 oouchan
June 4th, 2009 at 11:37 am

1289 4dam: Ahhhh…but that’s how you draw them out. Debate starts, arguements occcur…then the fun begins. It’s a thrill to see what they will come up with next. I am talking about fundies here, not your average everyday religious person. They can see valid points (at least most can) and we can have an interesting back and forth talk.
Throw a fundie in for fun and sit back to watch the show.
1291 Uncouth Angel
June 6th, 2009 at 12:58 am

This list contains obvious bullshit. Most of the similarities between Jesus and these other figures are superficial, not deep. Check out this link (amogn others) to see a rebuttal of the supposed parallels between Jesus and Horus, showing that almost every “fact” about their simimlarities is completely bogus:

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html
1292 lovelife
June 6th, 2009 at 12:41 pm

The freaking problem with this greek fools is that they make a spectacle out of every important story in the world.. thats why greek lore seems like legends and fantasized stories. because they manipulate and twist certain parts of how the story is told..
and the reason the story of JESUS seems so similar to stories from other parts of the world is because. god divided the people with other skin-colors and language, because they wanted to reach the heavens by building a tower. DUH!.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel
1293 Phippo
June 13th, 2009 at 6:46 pm

Krishna was not crucified, he was killed when shot in the foot with an arrow. Get your facts straight. And if this is false, think of how many other lies are in this post. Disgusting laziness.
1294 Isayhello
June 20th, 2009 at 9:28 pm

Firstly, cool list.
Secondly, just love watching these debates – wow. Littleboots, I really like the quotes you put down. All you guys seem really interesting and well-informed… Well, most of you.

I was reading up on religion and came upon some interesting theories for man’s need for it. One states that man is faced with a horrible dilemma: Our primal instinct is to survive and yet, we are the only species that KNOW we will die. Faced with this knowledge, our poor psyches has a horrendous task ahead of them – to keep this goddamn humanoid alive. Therefore we have to create a prospect of immortality. This can be done in the literal sense – a life after death, or more figuratively – through a legacy. Cool, hey?

Also, I HEARD (I haven’t researched this, but place value in my source) that religious people live longer on average. Which, according to the above theory, makes a lot of sense, since our whole system would then have a much needed promise of life.(Logic will always fuck us over in the end.)

Then, of course, there’s the Freud-thingy, stating that your relationship with your father has a large influence on your relationship with, or belief in a supreme being.

Jfrater: (And I’m NOT doing this myself) How about a list of the different “adaptations” of or short comments on Descartes in/famous statement, “I think, therefore I am”. Ayn Rand, for instance, said “I am, therefore I’ll think” whereas Milan Kundera said “I think therefore I am is the statement of an intellectual who underrates toothache”.
Just thought it would be cool.

Before I go back to drinking tragic, milkless coffee, I have to confess something. There’s this whiny little stickman in my head urging me to say that smithstar15 is a sad, sad, but very funny little man whom I would like to incessantly poke with a stick.
But I won’t.
Silly whiny stickman.
1295 oouchan
June 20th, 2009 at 11:27 pm

@Isayhello (1294): Our primal instinct is to survive and yet, we are the only species that KNOW we will die. Faced with this knowledge, our poor psyches has a horrendous task ahead of them – to keep this goddamn humanoid alive. Therefore we have to create a prospect of immortality.
I wonder if this is where the idea of vampires came from? I would have to agree that man could quite possibly be making up the whole idea of the here-after just because we know what’s coming…at least we have an idea.

As for the whiny stickman…he needs to be let out to play.
1296 Isayhello
June 21st, 2009 at 6:13 am

Oouchan: And perhaps all myths on immortality? Our little voices DESPISE the idea of death and would really go to quite silly lengths in order to protect us from it.

Oh no, no, no. Mister whiny stickman will be babysit by my poor, burnt-out superego today.
1297 lostatsea1
June 21st, 2009 at 7:48 am

Oouchan: Maybe our universe isn’t real. Philosopher Nick Bostrom has claimed that we are probably living inside a computer simulation. Assuming it ever becomes possible to simulate consciousness, then presumably future civilisations would try it, probably many times over. Most perceived universes would be simulated ones – so chances are we are in one of them. In that case, perhaps all those cosmological oddities such as dark matter and dark energy are simply patches, stuck on to cover up early inconsistencies in our simulation. The Matrix theory!
1298 lostatsea1
June 21st, 2009 at 7:59 am

@Isayhello(1296) I rather like the Budhist view of respect for ALL life as we might be killing an ancestor. Karma anyone?
1299 oouchan
June 21st, 2009 at 8:03 am

@Isayhello (1296): You got a point there. It is amazing what our subconscious (sp?) and imagination can come up with. Check out His Noodlyness, The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Now that was a imaginary friend most of us could get behind.

@lostatsea1 (1297): There are many days that I feel this way. Everytime I have a bad day or if things seem to be going weird, I always say: There seems to be a glitch in the Matrix.
1300 lostatsea1
June 21st, 2009 at 8:46 pm

@oouchan(1299) Or a ghost in the machine!!
1301 oouchan
June 22nd, 2009 at 8:04 am

@lostatsea1 (1300): Classic! I should use that one as well.
1302 lostatsea1
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:37 am

@oouchan(1301):Ghost in the Machine: Jimi Hendrix out of cassette, commission, 2009 (cassette is real, no paint, no photoshop)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/iri5/3344465546/ –
Hendrix was amazing to see in action, he is missed.
1303 lostatsea1
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:46 am

@oouchan(1301): This guy could be a ghost in a machine..like WOW!
1304 Matt Howard
June 25th, 2009 at 2:58 am

lostatsea1:

THAT was the strangest thing I’ve ever heard…lol
1305 lostatsea1
June 25th, 2009 at 6:15 am

Mat Howard:
That’s what I thought too! LMFAO!
1306 znpzsy
July 5th, 2009 at 2:17 am

beliefs are not static. karen armstrong has a nice book about the subject.
in fact, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong#Books
pick one, you’ll find it interesting.
1307 secondprince
July 13th, 2009 at 12:30 am

Nonsence…ur research is very poor..Budda’s story is just the made resemblance..budda never believed in god in the first place..den wer did the devil come from..he was a prince..Gothuma Buddha refused the caste system(hindu hierarchy of people) n the authority of the vedas..(hindu literature)..
the same goes for horus also…even for krishna..krishna was the 7th son of his mom.and was nowhere a saviour for his ppl nor did he go out caring n healing nor fasting i wonder wer do u get all these nonsense…shame… o yea they wer in his uncles prison wen he was born he like all the other saviours was not born in 25 or was guided by star not visited …please…
1308 Chris Woodcock
July 18th, 2009 at 11:32 am

Hey man, killer list. I am a Christian, however I have been aware of these similarities for quite some time. I would like to print this out and take it to some of the members of my church. The modern church is so overloaded with blind assholes that don’t realize that a lot of the bible was, a)edited to fit a small governing bodies will, b) based mostly on verbal legends and stories, c) not exactly an original work. So thank you, from a follower of Jesus’ teachings for putting together a concise list that I can show to those who tell me that because I do not put 100 percent faith in the divinity of the bible that I am not a Christian. Be well.
1309 meatpuppet
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:25 pm

Fer Pete’s sakes, the vast majority of you are either missing the point or purposely ignoring it. The point is that none of your beloved religions/faiths are even close to being original. They’re all based on similar legends/ideas/fairytales. The similarities don’t have to be exact matches for anybody who’s not a blind zealot to see and acknowledge them. As I’ve always said, deities, all of em, are creations of man, devised as a way for man to feel less alone in the universe and to explain things that they either can’t or don’t want to understand.
1310 Jessica
August 4th, 2009 at 9:32 am

@joe mama (7):

I hope she kicks your ass.
1311 Jessica
August 4th, 2009 at 10:37 am

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho1.html

Oh, and the one before this one talked about how scholars borrow language from Christianity to describe other practices performed in other religions like Paganism, and I’m sure that’s not the only example. It’s done to give people reading about these things an example to relate to.. but it’s not grounds for comparison unless the rituals had the same idea behind them, were done for the same purpose. However, it is very easy for a person to read about past religions and because the terminology is so similar… to make the mistake of thinking that it was done here and also there.. :O and that maybe it was all just borrowed from an earlier time.

My personal opinion is that if these things and myths and prophets all occurred before my Lord Jesus, then God gave Jesus the qualities of all these previous myths or prophets.. Not just some of the qualities.. the qualities of ANY “savior” before Him. He was all-powerful and could do ALL things.. These were the characteristics that people had seen before as being signs of a savior, so these were the things that God used to show others that Jesus was it. He is the First and the Last. He was the embodiment of a Messiah.. that’s what he was supposed to be. He was the REAL Messiah, right..? That would make sense to me.
1312 Jessica
August 4th, 2009 at 11:10 am

@cymraegbachgen87 (153):

http://www.jewishroots.net/LIBRARY/Prophecy/A-Virgin-Birth-2-Isaiah-7-14.html

Look, I found it for you. You’re welcome.
1313 tendr
August 4th, 2009 at 6:21 pm

best to study it yourself instead of just repeating bits and pieces of what other’s say. it’s such a joke.
atheists don’t look bad, they look ignorant. EVEN satan believes in Christ……it’s a relationship NOT A RELIGION. The Bible talks of many false gods and this is just one example. Spend time reading all of these so called religious books yourself and don’t confuse them with stories of mythology. I’m glad i know the truth and it took me yrs of growth and not just listening to some “atheist” and believing him. The world hates the teacher so it will also hate the student.
1314 j.
August 6th, 2009 at 9:13 am

you say Horus “Was crucifed, descended into Hell; resurrected after three days.”

please site the source of this information, and PLEASE, don’t say “Zeitgeist”
1315 Jim Smith, João Pessoa, Brazil
September 1st, 2009 at 9:08 am

This shows is that the early christians borrowed heavily from other myths so they could attract followers with familiar tales.

It also demonstrates that the other religions “borrowed” from each other, too. finally, it shows that all religions are a scam to permit one small group to control the thoughts and actions of a large group.
1316 4Jesus
October 3rd, 2009 at 12:20 am

I used to believe this when I was an athiest and used it as another excuse to not come to Christ. My only objection to this load of poop top ten is why is it that it’s 2009 AD in the year of our LORD Jesus Christ then? and not 5009 in the year of Horus? There must not be that many miracles happening in the world of these pagan gods.

Note:Satan has been referred to as ‘the great deciever’. Don’t be decieved by this load of bollocks.
1317 Red7
November 17th, 2009 at 2:57 am

Just to add a new slant to the whole believe/not believe turmoil: I once heard that according to Mayers-Briggs personality typing that one of the major type groupings has as characteristic the “need to believe”. This group (around 37% of the population) tend to be more inclined to believe without seeing or questioning and makes up a substantial part of the people running the churches/sitting in the churches. Now when one falls into a type that are more prone to question and analyze where does that leave them?

I personally find blind faith impossible to achieve and never understood why as I was brought up in the Protestant faith. After doing the personality typing tests I better understood how my base being requires stuff to make logical sense. Am I therefore doomed to hell due to a miss print in my personality make-up?
1318 claire
December 10th, 2009 at 7:15 pm

I LOVE THIS!! btw last year i read the this story called Gilgamesh. It was the first story ever written. The similarities with that story and the bible in general is astounding. They talk of the flood and etc. you should add that on your list =) thank you soo much
1319 kimbo slice
December 14th, 2009 at 6:59 am

this page is gay
1320 kimbo slice
December 14th, 2009 at 7:01 am

gayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
i bench 350 pounds
1321 Lies_all_around_us
December 17th, 2009 at 1:35 pm

For anyone who wants a fresh look on an Old Topic, check out Kent Hovind a.k.a. Dr.Dino. He is founder of Creation Science Evangelism. Check out his seminars 1-7, and his public debates with evolutionists. His son Eric Hovind is running the show at the moment due to some federal tax evasion charges. But, don’t judge the guy for that. There is a plethora of negative things on the Web about Kent Hovind. They are scoffers, walking after their own lusts. Just listen to him with an open mind, keep your KJV of the Holy Bible right beside you, and just check out what his ministry has to say. And I’m living testimony. I was a staunch atheist before i seen this guy. I have read all of Richard Dawkins books and was a firm Dis-beleiver. His book “The God Delusion” was my bible. But by the power of God, Kent Hovind saved me. Check him out http://Drdino.com
1322 Maggot
December 17th, 2009 at 2:10 pm

@Lies_all_around_us (1321): For anyone who wants a fresh look on an Old Topic, check out Kent Hovind

You mean Kent Hovind the convicted criminal? There’s nothing fresh about his “look”. He’s a YEC, a laughing stock among like-minded believers, and has zero credibility in the scientific community.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/

And I’m living testimony. I was a staunch atheist before i seen this guy.

You were not. You’re just another shill for the deluded, and always have been.
1323 Red7
December 18th, 2009 at 5:30 am

Kent Hovind is a magical guy as he obviously serves both sides of the coin according to Lies_all_around_us.

The way the churches and believers distribute the crap he thinks up has been largely responsible to make me realize that the very act of praying and standing in faith take intelligent people to the level of brainless fools. The fact that church leaders, pastors and the like does not see through his lies in both character and knowledge when they profess to be “of God and serving God”, has convinced me that being plugged into the greatest power source we as human beings are apparently capable of does not help at all.

If human beings are praying for enlightenment and guidance in their daily lives and the guidance they actually receive leads to the propagation of Kent Hovind’s nonsense, I very seriously question whether faith, praying and devotion means anything in practice. The proof of the pudding lies in the eating. Therefore the outcome of praying and the rest should definitely in some way act to expose lies rather than help to propagate them.

The answer lies somewhere outside the confines of religion as we know it today – and unfortunately the way that Kent Hovind and other frauds are acting in the “name of God” does not help towards actually finding the truth about God.
1324 Addisyn
January 15th, 2010 at 1:09 am

Ok, I realise that this comment will probably disappear into obscurity, as there are about 1,000 people that have commented before me, but I must have my say anyways.

This list is interesting, but there are some major inaccuracies concerning the inclusion of Zoroaster. There is very little known about Zoroaster, and the idea that he was born of a virgin mother is ludicrous. He was just a very wise, but quite normal bronze age man (who just happened to be a divinely logical prophet.) A much more accurate use of the “number 3″ position in this list would be the inclusion of Mythra, an ancient deity who was the “Son of God”, and was born on the 25th of December, among many other similarities to Christ.

And the first person to comment was quite correct by saying that Ahura Mazda is an important figure in Zoroastrianism – He is God. Ahura Mazda is Persian for “Supreme God” or “Highest Power”.

Addisyn.
1325 OpinionMe
January 15th, 2010 at 12:18 pm

one of the most inaccurate aspects of Zeitgeist is the well known “25 of december”…the actual birth of Jesus was in the month on Nisan according to the Scriptures, Nisan is the hebrw month designated between march-april…so as you see the 25Dec its just a liturgical date and has no real impact towards the actual event.
The second lithurgical overview is the fact of the 3 kings, nowhere in the bible that name is mentioned, it is more of a conjecture based on the number of presents given to Jesus, which were 3…yet they had more to do with prophecies about the 3 assignaments Christ had, than they were related to the number of kings…
About the similarities between characters, remember the hebrews had profethized all of the major events regarding Christ’s birth, life and death, for they are the foundations for God’s redemption plan to humanity, the jews new it, we knew it, and so did everyone in the old world did…in fact the jews where highly respected for their religion and lithurgical calendar, and widely imitated for it. No surprise there. But beyond that we must not deny the fact that for some reason, the only one who still is well known is Jesus, all of the others became history, but He, He remains,and He will always Be, so how come everyone else, came and go, but He didnt, dont you think that’s Godly of Him?
1326 anotherComment
January 15th, 2010 at 11:13 pm

it is rather interesting to notice how none of the legendary characters mentioned here never claim to live forever, some claimed to be gods, or sons of gods etc but they were all mortal…others where just myths that never really existed. An let’s face it, it wouldn’t be good for the worship if someone would claim to live forever when they knew they weren’t going to last that long, so none of these people said that, because IT would be INSANE, now wouldn’t? but Jesus did, He even make sure to spread that word, with the exact date on how he will rise from death…now either He was a really mad person or He was right, no one has ever believed Jesus to be a mad man, because how can a mad man be so sane, wise and racional?
Now the other option is that He was lying, but if HE WAS, then he wouldn’t be a really good role model, now would he? I mean a liar theaching about courage, honesty, purity, santity and love…that doesn’t look like a match neither…so either He is who He says He is, or He is just a lying demon…but He certaintly never let room for Us to call Him “a good teacher, or a prophet” either HE is the Son of God, or a liar, buster and worse…so make your choice, either reject Him or embrace Him, cause he didnt leave any other choice.
1327 anotherComment
January 15th, 2010 at 11:36 pm

@meatpuppet (1309): the fact that you seemed to overlook is that Jesus in His life acomplished none less than 300 prophecies that were said long time before He was ever born, those prophecies were well known in the ancient world, well known by all the people who at one point of history made of Israely their slaves, such as: the egyptians, romans, babilons, etc, look for a map at to where these nations where extendend in the ancient times and yo will see India, Iraq, Iran, and all of the asian territory…so yes, they were all conected…and yes they copied from the prophecies, even the jews adapted some of the pagan rituals of their masters, and it is all recorded in the bible, but now let’s focus on the main thing none of the others ever achieve the unbelievable record of 300 prophecies acomplished perfectly…religion is a word made out by humans, but the bible never claims to be a religion, infact it urges you to do everything because you choose to do it, not because someone tell you to. there is no road to absolution, only faith trough Jesus that you accept Him as Lord, nothing more, but He is also very very clear that if YOU choose not to do so, then you will go to a very special warmth place called hell…now dont think is unfair and that God is horrible, think of it as your choice, because you were warned my friend…and if there is no hell and no afterlife then your safe, but if there is, then what will you do then?
Hope the best for you..but mostly look for God, just try and read it for yourself…im sure you’ll find Him.
1328 Red7
January 16th, 2010 at 1:23 am

Interesting mention of the fairness of the choice put before us as discussed clearly by ‘anotherComment’…

Where do you draw the line with people not hearing about God/Jesus – what is their choice? E.g. the Aborigines that died before enlightenment struck them when Australia was “discovered” and colonized? What happen to them in the afterlife? Do they burn? What about millions of people growing up in countries where they never hear the Jesus Gospel and die? Do they burn? Or do they simply cease to exist? If they cease to exist it gives an option NOT MENTIONED in the Bible – people argue endlessly about it and come up with fairy tale options they think up to make this question “go away”. If they do burn according to what is mentioned in the Bible – then is God fair or just immensely cruel?

What is fair in a choice between life and death? What is the choice for average minded people? Is there a choice or is it like a dad saying to his child – give me a hug or I smack you ? What does that hug indicate – love or fear of retaliation? What can God possibly deduct from my choice if I do it out of fear? I am pressurized endlessly into making that choice…

So just making a hollow statement that “you were warned my friend” does not say anything about the thinking abilities of the people transferring that knowledge to me or the God that put us before such an absolutely ridiculous “choice”. If I make the choice out of love its fine!! But making it out of FEAR!!! Not fine…
1329 Red7
January 16th, 2010 at 1:40 am

A question to OpinionMe about something that really bugs me…

Your statement about the prophecies of the Jews regarding Jesus and the respect for their religion etc. (See also the 300 prophecies mentioned by AnotherComment.) It seems very strange to me that the religion making those prophecies does not believe in their outcome… According to reading up on Judaism (the remnant of the original Jewish faith) they do not believe Jesus is the Messiah.

If someone can please explain to me how that makes sense?
1330 anotherComment
January 16th, 2010 at 11:26 am

@Red7 (1329): yes, of course, ill explain it to you as best as i can..
well you see the old testament is exactly the same between a jew and a christian, it is the new one that makes it totally different. Now the prophecies about the Mesiah always portrayed Him as a Savior, Ruler of Mankind, King of Majesty,Admirable, etc…therefore the jews expected someone who will be their king, almighty and powerfull, they expected a military skilled politic, now they were disappointed none the less when they saw Jesus, a man son of a carpenter, who did not want power whatsoever…so how does that make sense? It is rather simple and well explained in the book of Revelation, when you get to see about the 2Comming of Christ and its chores in that comming, now Jesus Himself where rather serious about what He was meant to do in his first comming and in his second, you can read about it in mathew 5 when He reads a portion of Isaiah but conscionsly lefts out the last part of the message, given the fact that the last part was mean to b acomplished in His second comming.
Oh and the most amazing is that 1 of the 300 prophecies acomplished perfect in Jesus is the fact that His own kind would deny Him as the Mesiah! Amazing isnt it? all perfectly fits…
1331 anotherComment
January 16th, 2010 at 11:45 am

@Red7 (1328): about this comment i can totally understand what you are saying…so ill do my best to explain myself propoerly
About the first part th aborigen and all that…well you see there is this thing called “dispensations” they are about 7,but most people will accept around 2 or 3… the meaning of this dispensations is that they explain that God has treated in different ways with mankind across time, basic example the old and new testament, before it was about sacrifices, now its about grace…but the mainpoint, the constant factor is faith, back in the days Noah had faith and built an arch, when nowhere before there were rain…now its about believing in a man youve never seen and as far as fisical evidence there is none(jesus) now as humans we all have that sense that there is something greater out there… a “higher power” im guessing that feeling has been around us, since forever, and i believe that God does reveal Himself to everyone, it is their choice either to believe or not do so.
And about God being cruel, well i believe that inside of us, there is much more evil than anything else, you can see that everyday, and so he provided with an answer for us to not “burn forever” to cover our sins with blood, before it was the blood of a ram, now its the blood of His Son.

I understand if you find that irrational or doesnt satisfy you at all as an answer, and will not change your mind, but i have studied the bible a lot, for my personal pleasure, and i have found it fulfilling…and because of that i do recomend, that whenever an argument like this comes up, never believe in what other people said, rather go to the source, in my case that source is the bible..not a religion, not a leader, not a pope or any other book, because i have choosen to believe in the invisible one and personally ive seen the amazing changes in life, the everyday miracles and the hidden secrets for happiness, but that cannot be implanted, cannot be force in to you, can only be accepted. Forgive mi rambling…i get passionated about this.

My regards to you.
1332 Crosshairs
January 17th, 2010 at 4:50 pm

I know I came late to this party (just found it with a search engine), but would some one research if these Jesus-like figures can be associated to a specific zodical age in the past? I am working on the assumption that the satanic forces of the world, in order to keep us asleep via a false intercessor, must refresh our “Saviour cults” every 2100 years are so. Seems that Christanity was the Saviour Cult for the Pices Age. Can anyone associate the other Jesus-like characters to their Zodiacal age?
1333 silent bob
January 27th, 2010 at 9:03 pm

NOOOOOOOO! On topics such as this, please use scholarly sources that have been fact checked. Achira S. and Kersey Graves as well as gandy/freke and gerald massey are all known to have falsified information/misquoted sources on this topic quite heavily.
1334 Trilliongrams
January 29th, 2010 at 10:11 pm

Odin. Read up on Odin’s hanging from a tree.
1335 TH322
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:34 pm

I’m surprised Socrates didn’t make it on here.
1336 matmohair1
February 26th, 2010 at 3:05 am

Dr Chris Forbes, Senior lecturer in Ancient History of Macquarie University and member of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, has severely criticized Part I of the movie as having no basis in serious scholarship or ancient sources, relying on amateur sources that “borrow ideas from each other, and who recycle the same silly stuff” and “not a single serious source” can be found in official reference lists attached to the movie.[26] Of the film he says “It is extraordinary how many claims it makes which are simply not true.”[26]

Forbes claims there is no evidence in Egyptian sources saying that Horus’ mother Isis was a virgin. Similarly, neither Krishna (the eighth son), Dionysus (whose mother had slept with Zeus) nor Attis were ever supposed born of virgins. He points out that “son” and “sun” are not homophonic words in either Latin, Ancient Egyptian, or Greek, and therefore no such misunderstanding would occur; that the December 25 birth is not part of any of the myths—including that of Jesus, for whom Christmas Day was appointed as a festival day in open knowledge that the real date was not known.

Dr. Forbes also criticizes the movie’s use of Roman sources to suggest that Jesus didn’t exist, noting that a long list flashed across the screen of supposed contemporary historians that did not mention Jesus is actually a list of geographers, gardening writers, poets and philosophers, who should not be expected to mention him. The allegation that Josephus’ mention of Jesus was added later is criticized as misleading. Josephus actually mentions Jesus twice, with only one reference believed by scholars to have been doctored in the Middle Ages but to change an already existing mention of him. He also argues that the film misrepresents Constantine when it presents him as making Christianity compulsory, when he only legalized it; and inventing the historical Jesus, when early church records show that the historicity of Jesus had been a key element of faith from early on.
1337 Imma Kathe
April 20th, 2010 at 5:02 pm

One complaint: Odysseyus is an evil, evil man for killing all of the suitors, and the female servants who slept with them. He was angry becuause they had been courting his wife, after he was presumed dead while away from Ithaka. He had slept with pretty much every woman he met on his way back home, and he knew his wife was still alive.

I’m not a hard-core Christian, but I still feel the need to defend Christianity from THAT comparison… -.-’
1338 Kaldean8
April 28th, 2010 at 12:59 pm

He who controls the Past controls the Future.
He who controls the Presant controls the Past.
1339 Stocrat
April 28th, 2010 at 2:25 pm

Interestingly enough is that religious people that defend uniqueness of Jesus vs. pre-Jesus similar characters are missing major point – that they are arguing specific details and not the overall concept. It’s like saying “Look, these penises are not the same because this one is short, uncircumcised and twice as large in diameter and, what the heck different color” obviously they a not even arguing that both things are penises and even less that both belong to a man. How many similarities and differences doesn’t matter, what matters is that you can see a definite trend in thinking of people across the world over the period of thousands of years. Following the same trend, today we have morals, laws , science and philosophy. Maybe these are to many things and too complex and of course these science things don’t allow you to avoid taxes  I am sure that any Christian today will explain you why the early Gods were B.S. Because they reflected people’s fear of nature, is in it? But sure when the Jesus arrived – all of a sudden all bets are off and this one is the real deal. For thousands of years not a single valid god,… and here you go … 1st and the only one. Why Jesus (or other Jesus-like gods), because that’s when actual societies started forming, because people needed some kind of rules to live together and to run them. People basically replaced they fears of nature with the fears of society and came up with a new reincarnation of divine creature, a bit more intelligent in nature than the guy which throws lightings down to Earth . Before they prayed to god of rain to survive, now they are praying to Jesus to survive in society because it’s the source of unfairness. No need to condemn ancient people for starting with this simple thought about all things being related to gods, but today, common, after so much development in science and thinking some still seriously look up to the sky for an answer … what are the winning lottery numbers for this weekend. Of course if that the way to prevent people from going on killing spree I am all for Jesus, Joseph Smith, Krishna, Budda, even Ron Hubbard – whatever, but for those who a bit farther from the apes… really… common guys.
1340 Crosshairs
April 28th, 2010 at 4:05 pm

O.K. folks, let’s have a reality check. A “savior cult” is created with varying degrees of success every 600 years or so as an adjunct to a belief in a “Spiritual Overlord”. Why is this so?

Answer: To address the needs of the spiritually immature who want their destiny molded by someone other than themselves.

When one chooses to adore, worship and/or emulate some “being” considered grander than one’s self, a personal disservice is imposed resulting in irrational and dangerous conduct which has proven historically disastrous to mankind.

There will always be criminals (e.g.; Organized Religion) to fulfill the needs of the spiritually immature thus setting up master/slave and victim/victimizer relationships.

There is no overlord. You are responsible for your own spiritual maturity and empowerment. And there is nothing to fear. Analyze Barbara Marciniak’s famous quote — “Your power ends where your fear begins.”
1341 PhillyBilly
May 2nd, 2010 at 5:40 pm

Hello,
Never been on this site untill today. This is a very interesting topic.I consider myself a beliver of God, but I do not find it nessary to push my beliefs upon others, now if someone asks me about my beliefs i will be glad to tell him/her. I also believe that SOME atheist push there non belief on people just as SOME christians push there beliefs on people.Perfect example of this, me and my family were at some festible and outside the area where all the attractions were i see a group of church people with anti abortion signs some of which had pictures of aborted babies i walked the other direction because i didnt want my 3 year old son to be exposed to that. another example is when non believers belittle people of faith saying that you believe in an invisable man in the sky that takes care of all your problems and grants all your wishes. I have something in my life that helps me get through the tough days, make me appreciate the good days, helps to give my childern valueable lessons on life and how we should treat one another. Call that silly or whatever but i have a peace that i never had before, I heard someone say awhile back “dont let religion get in the way of God” I just refuse to believe that this is all there is now if you believe that this is it then i have no problem with that either. seek what makes u happy whatever that may be for me its God and Jesus Christ for some its budda , for some its allah. We need to find a world that all of us can exsist in relaitive peace, i doubt we’ll ever get there though.on a lighter note; why is this site so sloooooow?? when i type it takes a few seconds for the words to show up Also i want to apologize for all the misspelled words and bad grammer peace!!
1342 Arsh
May 14th, 2010 at 2:34 am

please view this to correct your article : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cKRHzpnp1I
1343 skgalhotra
May 27th, 2010 at 4:00 pm

that's…. I've a lot of knowledge about Hinduism….and studied a lot about Jesus there are lot of difference in their lives"Krishna" and "Jesus"..A LOT…
1344 Abhidev
June 6th, 2010 at 5:39 am

There is nothing similar between Buddhism and hinduism. Buddhism was a reaction against the cruelty and stupidity of hinduism. Even a king was so moved that he was ready to forsake his kingdom to eliminate the plague of hinduism from his kingdom.

But eventually the Buddhists and the Jainists lost the battle and were forced to seek refuge in China and East Asia.

The widely known secret today is that, if many of the hindu temples are razed down, it would reveal the many Jainist and Buddhist structures beneath and even hundreds of thousands of bodies of Jainists and Buddhists who were cruelly killed.

The extent of cruelty of the vedic hindus (savarnas) can be fathomed by the fact that an entire civilisation (Indus Valley) was decimated after appropriating all their knowledge. Even their language was forced into extinction with not even a branching sub language.

It is a known fact that the early pioneers of ancient India were the Indus Valley people, Charvakas (a much respected group of atheist scholars and scientists), Sangkyas, Dravidians etc. and that most of their knowledge were appropriated and assimilated with the mythological stories. Even different forms of mental exercises and breathing techniques which were known to have been freely practised by these people were appropriated and later fused with idiotic religious chantings and hymns. And subsequently more stories and more gods and goddesses and avatars were created and these people were relegated to avarnas and shudras or backward-low castes in the mythologies.

The Indus Valley people, the Charvakas, the Sangkyas and the Dravidians were mostly atheists with a small mix of nature worshipping. It is well known fact that these people were hobbyists of fire-walking, body contraction excercises, body piercing etc. which were later subjugated as derisory temple rituals.

The seeming similarities on the outward is because of the fact that the hindu mythologies were also influenced by the Egyptian and Greek cultures.

For example according to the hindu set of mythologies, everything in hinduism including the birth of vishnu and other gods and goddesses is after a great flood in the world. The entire basis of hinduism starts after the so called great flood. After the flood vishnu was born. vishnu first created water. Afterwards vishnu created the earth and finally the sky.

Then vishnu gave birth to brahma and brahma gave birth to narada, daksha and veerani. daksha and veerani gave birth to 5000 children and these are the humans.

One of daksha’s daughters married kashyap, another son of brahma, and their children became the animals of the world.

And going forward from there, the birth story created by the authors for krishna (avatar of vishnu) is an exact reproduction of the birth events of Moses. Even the killing of krishna is an exact clone of Achilles story. The writers gave the character of krishna only one weakness and that is his heel like the Achilles’ heel, and the story goes on to say that the character of krishna is killed during a fight, when an arrow strikes his heel.

And contrary to the popularly circulated image, the real character of krishna in the mythical stories is that of a cunning, foxy and ruthlessly efficient war general with numerous examples of ruthless killings coupled with guile. The bhaghavadh geetha (exhortation of krishna) is a war call to another character named arjun to take up arms.

The stupidity and idiocy is complete when these mythologies state that even the most wicked are automatically granted a special sky (heaven) known as heroes sky, if they go to battle even for an unjust or cruel cause and are killed in battle. Otherwise it is the usual stuff of rebirth. (Now that many parts of the world are without war, guess we don’t have to worry about extinction, because someone somewhere will be reborn as some animal. LOL)

Circa nineteenth century, the influence of western culture and the consequent threat of Christianity has softened hinduism to such an extent that it has been forced to sugar-coat or change meanings of original words and phrases by bastardising and playing with sanskrit (a dead language) or even pretending that many things which were previously the norm don’t exist.

And true to the guileness and deceit present abundantly in these mythological gods and goddesses which in itself is a reflection of the mindset of the authors and the lives they led, the hardcore faithfuls of today always try to create bridges with other religions and the western culture to gain respectability and foothold.
And here again the bastardised sanskrit coupled with the ancient atheist mental exercises and breathing techniques is their weapon of choice.

One fact to always bear in mind is that the official channels of history had always been dominated by the forward castes. It is only in recent years the backward castes have begun to climb the ladders of education, society and power structures.
1345 bidzi
June 7th, 2010 at 9:50 am

hi nice list. very very interesting.
but for #1 Buddha didn't turn to spirituality the way it is described(seeing a monk). he was the prince and one day he went to visit his town. there he saw people's sorrow, disease and death. So he realized no matter we are rich or healthy today, we don't have any escape from it. so to find a way out of this mortal pain, he left his family and went into the forest. where he worshiped god for knowledge for a long time without food, water. then he gained the knowledge of immortality through spirituality(MOKSHA).
in #2, Krishna was nor crucified neither resurrected. and his life story is totally different from Jesus.
1346 keith
June 8th, 2010 at 10:49 pm

I don’t understand how anyone could follow any religion; all of the storys are crazy as hell. people these days should be smarter than a people that didn’t know much about how anything works.
1347 Ozzy
June 9th, 2010 at 1:26 pm

Krishna had no sin ? He was a sexual pshycopath who peeped on gals ( gopiyaan) taking bath ! He stole milk from everybodys home ! Source : Indian
1348 Tony Amendola
June 20th, 2010 at 11:13 am

If you all look deeper you will find not only that the stories are simular but also that they are all pointing at the same thing……………….

God has been sending the same message to us since we thought we left Him.

Same message pointing to the same centre using different symbols and stories.

If you read something more current like ACIM you will see how these ALL fit together.

I would also add that Bahai scripture, Story of Moses are all again pointing the same TRUTH.

And if you decide scripture is boring you will be gifted these messages in everyday life through relationships, film and songs………………….

Such is our Fathers LOVE for us that none are left without guidance and in the end none are left behind………

Unfortunately Christian Doctrine often has little in common with the original teachings or the meanings

Having had the Expereince of God I know what I look at and what it means and the message is always one of utter Love for us…………..without reservation.

God IS LOVE
1349 Tony Amendola
June 20th, 2010 at 11:18 am

For those speaking of Hell above

Sin means miss the mark or error
Hell is not mentioned in the Bible – The origin points to "rubiish tip" and the idea of an eternal Hell is incorrect………The original meaning means when you make a poor choice you will suffer temporarily until you "change your mind" REPENT
The Eternal Fire is GOD hence Moses describing the Burning Bush
Wilderness is "here and now" ………….The world of form ever changing…………what is perfect does not change.

W e are all Love created by Love to know only LOVE…Cease judgement via true forgivness and you will see….All remember and ALL return HOME

The Hell concept was introduced into Christianity as a means of control and revenue generation.
A man stands at the pulpit (PULL PIT) and terrifies everyone and then tells them a generous donation would put them in a better light ……………nice

Just a a sword was put in Jesus`s hand……………perfect for crusades

You all have "Loving Reason"
Use it
1350 CPWP
June 26th, 2010 at 10:09 pm

Odin may also be a corruption of Adon, the prevailing Semitic word for Lord. Jesus was usually referred to as Lord.
1351 oranje
July 16th, 2010 at 10:21 pm

Of course they are. Krishna is spelled with a K and Jesus with a J.
1352 oranje
July 16th, 2010 at 10:23 pm

Sourced by the same group who believes dinosaurs aren't real and evolution is false.
1353 Truthseeksyou
July 19th, 2010 at 6:05 am

Wake up my friend and be free! We have been lied to. The truth lies with in you. What has been done by the powers that be is they have taken bits and pieces from all of these stories and made up the one about Jesus! For the sake of "Love" and truth my brother realize! No, the stories are not exactly the same but the idea was taking from them… REALIZE!
One Love My Brother!
1354 SanityFair
August 24th, 2010 at 10:01 am

I watched the Zeitgest video awhile ago, and it's very interesting. Even though I'm more secular than religious, I still try to take those things with a grain of salt, because everyone has an agenda.

However, as an art student and art history minor, I have studied both Tibetan Art and Egyptian Art (both detailed heavily in their religions and beliefs), and both far outdate Christian art and beliefs by thousands of years, not just a couple of years. Horus is the most often mentioned when the topic of "Christianity before Christ" comes up, as almost everything that is attributed to Jesus, even the numbers of things, far attributed to Horus.

The only flip side I can see to any of this, is that Christians will believe that non-believers are behind this and are spreading non-truth about other Gods to shed bad light on Christ. I can understand why they might worry, but in a way I don't find that it makes Christ any less "true", but more unifies the religions. However if there is one place that change is not welcome, it is in the realm of religion, and that can scare people. People dont want to accept that something they've dedicated their whole life to might be "wrong" even if it ends up not being in vein. However, these are the same people that refuse to believe that Jesus wasn't a pale white man.
1355 Zod
August 31st, 2010 at 11:10 pm

human evolution is science fact as much as anything else in science is. all this doesn't matter, none of its truth.
1356 34E
September 1st, 2010 at 3:53 am

It seems odd that such an archaic concept is still widely believed in today's society… especially given the discrepencies between the two halves of the Bible. Reading the Bible is what made me an atheist, and I maintain that anyone with common sense would follow the same path if they read the Bible with an unbiased mind (and I was raised Roman Catholic, in the RC school system, which is borderline brainwashing… good thing I was a damned smart kid).

All that aside, the lessons of the New Testament are excellent guidelines for a utopian society.

Have your say... [Read me first | Top of page, comments]