The Bible is a source of inerrant truth to over a billion humans but with a book (or more literally a set of books) of this age, speculation arises as to the facts contained therein. This list looks at some of the historical mysteries and even some of the theological mysteries contained in the Bible. These are all topics which fascinate biblical scholars and laymen alike.
The mystery: Where is the Holy Grail?
According to Christian mythology, the Holy Grail was the dish, plate, or cup used by Jesus at the Last Supper, said to possess miraculous powers. The connection of Joseph of Arimathea with the Grail legend dates from the late 12th century in which Joseph receives the Grail from an apparition of Jesus and sends it with his followers to Great Britain. Belief in the Grail and interest in its potential whereabouts has never ceased. Ownership has been attributed to various groups (including the Knights Templar, probably because they were at the peak of their influence around the time that Grail stories started circulating. There are cups claimed to be the Grail in several churches, for instance the Saint Mary of Valencia Cathedral, which contains an artifact, the Holy Chalice (pictured above – note, only the top “cup” portion is original), supposedly taken by Saint Peter to Rome in the first century, and then to Huesca in Spain by Saint Lawrence in the 3rd century. The Valencia chalice does hold some merit as a contender for the true grail as it has been scientifically asserted to have been created between the 4th century BC and the first century AD in the Middle East. Other stories claim that the Grail is buried beneath Rosslyn Chapel or lies deep in the spring at Glastonbury Tor. Still other stories claim that a secret line of hereditary protectors keep the Grail, or that it was hidden by the Templars in Oak Island, Nova Scotia’s famous “Money Pit”.
The mystery: Where is the Ark of the Covenant?
The Ark of the Covenant is a container described in the Bible as containing the tablets of stone on which were inscribed the Ten Commandments as well as Aaron’s rod and manna. The ark was kept in Jerusalem until the Babylonians plundered and destroyed the temple. From then, the Ark entered the domain of legend as it vanished forever. Some of the theories for where it may be are: Intentional concealment by the priests under the Temple Mount; Intentional removal from Jerusalem in advance of the Babylonians; and Removal of the Ark by the Ethiopian prince Menelik I. Modern excavations near the Temple Mount in Jerusalem have found tunnels, but digging beneath the Temple Mount is heavily restricted. One of the most important Islamic shrines, the Dome of the Rock, sits in the location where the First Temple of Solomon is alleged to have stood. According to the Bible, King Solomon, when building the temple, had the Ark of the Covenant put on a platform which could be lowered down into a tunnel system if the Temple were ever overrun. This would make it a plausible location.
The mystery: Were they real cities and if so where are they?
For the sins of their inhabitants Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim were destroyed by “brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven” (Genesis 19:24-25). In Christianity and Islam, their names have become synonymous with impenitent sin, and their fall with a proverbial manifestation of God’s wrath. The historical existence of Sodom and Gomorrah is still in dispute by archaeologists. The Bible indicates they were located near the Dead Sea. Possible candidates for Sodom or Gomorrah are the sites discovered or visited by Walter E. Rast and R. Thomas Schaub in 1973, including Bab edh-Dhra, which was originally excavated in 1965 by archaeologist Paul Lapp. Other possibilities also include Numeira, es-Safi, Feifeh and Khanazir, which were also visited by Schaub and Rast. All sites were located near the Dead Sea, with evidence of burning and traces of sulfur on many of the stones and a sudden stop of inhabitation towards the end of the Early Bronze Age.
The mystery: Where is the Garden of Eden?
While the majority of Biblical scholars and theologians consider that the story of the Garden of Eden is most likely not literal, some people do believe that the place existed in reality. Furthermore, the Bible gives directions to the location. This has led to many attempts to locate the garden. The creation story in Genesis relates the geographical location of both Eden and the garden to four rivers (Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, Euphrates), and three regions (Havilah, Assyria, and Kush). There are hypotheses that place Eden at the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates (northern Mesopotamia), in Iraq (Mesopotamia), Africa, and the Persian Gulf. While the true location is a mystery, there is a particularly fascinating twist to this tale: Ethiopia is mentioned as being near or surrounding the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2:13 (“And the name of the second river is Gehon: the same is it that compasseth all the land of Ethiopia.”). Since 1974 Paleontologists have excavated six million years of life and conclude that Ethiopia is the scientific location of human origin, a scientifically true Garden of Eden.
The mystery: The Bible appears to contain coded messages; is this a coincidence?
The Bible code, also known as the Torah code, is a series of messages alleged to exist within the Bible text, that when decoded form words and phrases supposedly demonstrating foreknowledge and prophecy. The study and results from this cipher have been popularized by the book The Bible Code.
The primary method by which purportedly meaningful messages have been extracted is the Equidistant Letter Sequence (ELS). To obtain an ELS from a text, choose a starting point (in principle, any letter) and a skip number, also freely and possibly negative. Then, beginning at the starting point, select letters from the text at equal spacing as given by the skip number. For example, the bold letters in this sentence form an ELS. With a skip of -4, and ignoring the spaces and punctuation, the word SAFEST is spelled out backwards. Bible codes proponents usually use a Hebrew Bible text. The use and publication of “predictions” based on Bible codes has succeeded in bringing about popular awareness of the codes, most notably based on the work of journalist Michael Drosnin. Drosnin’s most famous prediction, in 1994, was the 1995 assassination of Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, using a Bible code technique.
The mystery: What happened to the lost tribes?
The phrase Ten Lost Tribes of Israel refers to the ancient Tribes of Israel that disappeared from the Biblical account after the Kingdom of Israel was destroyed, enslaved and exiled by ancient Assyria. Many groups of Jews have doctrines concerning the continued hidden existence or future public return of these tribes. This is a subject that is partially based upon authenticated and documented historical fact, partially upon written religious tradition and partially upon speculation. There have been some bizarre claims about who may be descended from the lost tribes. Some claims include the Irish, Native Americans, British, and the Japanese. The Kaifeng Jews (pictured above) in China claim to be descended from one of the lost tribes.
The mystery: Who was the pharaoh of the Exodus?
The Pharaoh of the Exodus is the pharaoh (king) who ruled over ancient Egypt at the time of the Exodus. More precisely, it is the question of who this pharaoh might have been. The story of the enslavement of the Children of Israel in Egypt, the plagues by which God forces their release, and their subsequent escape from a pursuing army at the Crossing of the Red Sea, is told in the opening chapters of the Book of Exodus. The pharaoh of the story is not named – he is referred to simply as “pharaoh” – and the question of his identity has been the subject of much speculation among those who believe the Exodus to be a real event. The most commonly imagined figure in popular culture is Ramesses the Great, although there is no documentary or archaeological evidence that he had to deal with the Plagues of Egypt or anything similar or that he chased Hebrew slaves fleeing Egypt. There is also an account made by Merneptah, in the form of a poem from the so-called Israel Stele, which makes reference to the supposed utter destruction of Israel in a campaign prior to his 5th year in Canaan: “Israel has been wiped out…its seed is no more.” There is basically no evidence to strongly support the view of any specific Pharaoh as the one mentioned in Exodus.
The mystery: Where is Noah’s Ark?
From at least the time of Eusebius (c. 275 – 339 AD) to the present day, the search for the physical remains of Noah’s Ark has held a fascination for Christians, Jews and Muslims. Despite many rumours, claims of sightings and expeditions no scientific evidence of the ark has ever been found. The search for the ark has been called a “wild goose chase” by some archaeologists. Ark searchers have had little to guide them to the Ark beyond Genesis’ mention of the “mountains of Ararat”. By the middle of the 19th century, archaeologists had identified a 1st-millennium BC kingdom and region of Urartu, contemporaneous with the Assyrian empire and the early kingdoms of Judah and Israel, located in the mountains of present-day Armenia and eastern Turkey. Not until the 19th century was the region settled enough, and welcoming enough for Westerners, to make it possible for significant expeditions to search for the Ark. By the beginning of the 21st century, two main candidates for exploration had emerged: the so-called Ararat anomaly (pictured above) near the main summit of Ararat (an “anomaly” in that it shows on aerial and satellite images as a dark blemish on the snow and ice of the peak), and the separate site at Durupınar near Dogubayazit, 18 miles (29 km) south of the Greater Ararat summit. Here is an interesting article on the most recent discovery of petrified timber purported to be part of one of the walls of the boat.
The mystery: Who was the Beloved Disciple?
One of the biggest mysteries in biblical scholarship concerns the identity of “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” According to the Gospel of John, this was the disciple who leaned on Jesus during the Last Supper, and the only male disciple present at the crucifixion. In addition, John 21:24 implies that the entire Gospel of John is based on this disciple’s memories. Yet, oddly, it never gives his name. The other three gospels don’t give his name either. In fact they never even mention this “Beloved Disciple” (as he is often called). They also say nothing about any disciple leaning on Jesus during the Last Supper or witnessing the crucifixion. Their total silence on the matter only adds to the mystery. A number of scholars have argued that the Beloved Disciple was Lazarus, the brother of Mary and Martha of Bethany, and the man that Jesus raised from the dead. The reason for this is the fact that when the sisters summoned Jesus to help Lazarus, they said: “Lord, the one you love is sick.” Some modern theories even claim that Mary Magdalene was the Beloved Disciple – an idea which would certainly impress Dan Brown. [Source]
The mystery: Who wrote the Gospels?
The gospels are probably the most important part of the New Testament and until the 18th century their authorship was generally not regarded as a mystery. But as modern biblical scholars investigated the history of the four books, they began to question the fact that they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There is much speculation (mostly based on the order of the writing of the books) that the gospels were written by people who know the apostles, but not by the apostles directly. This is a mystery that is unlikely to be solved unless a “master” source document for the common quotes in the gospels is discovered which would explain the anomalies which are spoken of in support of the non-apostolic author theories.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. Text is derived from Wikipedia.






















September 7th, 2009 at 1:35 am
Here comes the typical argument…
September 7th, 2009 at 1:39 am
Mixed feelings about this one – the “Bible code” has largely been discredited as misunderstanding statistical theory (very easy to do, mind you).
One of the notable things about the Noah’s Ark search is that wherever they go, people claim to find evidence (usually petrified wood) that the ark was there – I think that tells us more about the searchers than about Iron Age boats.
September 7th, 2009 at 1:40 am
Aaaaannndd bring on the religious debates!
September 7th, 2009 at 1:42 am
Wow.
I had just finished reading through all the amazing the lists for the last week. (I like to save them up and read them all at once, it seems like more this way)
Anyway, had just read the last one and when I went back to the main page, I was so happy to see another one posted. YAY!!!
September 7th, 2009 at 1:45 am
I dont believe in god or any of that crap but this is very interesting.
September 7th, 2009 at 1:46 am
The bible code thing is complete bullsh*t. You can arrange the letters in any books into anything you want given enough time to search though and to make up the keys for codes. Can’t believe people still believe in “bible codes”.
September 7th, 2009 at 1:51 am
My favorite is ‘Matthew 5:38-39′ where Jesus admits there was a typo in the old testament.
September 7th, 2009 at 1:56 am
@O_o (6): I have to admit you are right – Moby Dick predicts some amazing stuff! But I did feel the code should be included because a LOT of people do still believe it. Personally – I don’t.
September 7th, 2009 at 1:56 am
interesting list, the only subject i have spent serious time thinking about would be the lost tribes. other than that, i think people who spend too much time wondering where noah’s ark is located are the same people who do not understand the the real message of the abrahamic religions…how to live your life and such. you do not need to be a religious person to appreciate the philosophical teachings of jesus, moses, mohammad, ect.
September 7th, 2009 at 1:59 am
@Kibey (7): I tend to think that is more an extension of the Old Testament rather than declaring an error. I think Jesus is saying that we should not seek revenge for its own sake – but the fact remains that a punishment should be appropriate for its crime (which is what an eye for an eye means).
September 7th, 2009 at 2:00 am
@robfl (9): I agree – and I think that is why fundamentalists are usually the exact opposite of the message Christ taught. They get so caught up in the minutiae that they forget the whole “peace” thing. Not entirely unlike the pharisees.
September 7th, 2009 at 2:05 am
And the sign said, “Beware Of Dogma”!
September 7th, 2009 at 2:06 am
“Cave ab homini unius libri”
September 7th, 2009 at 2:16 am
My karma just ran over the dogma.
September 7th, 2009 at 2:24 am
Thanks for this list, JFrater. It’s is utterly compelling to read through these unanswered questions and as a Christian I can say that these mysteries are integral to my faith. I agree with robfl – we shouldn’t dwell on the matters which will, ultimately, lead to no real teaching of value.
It is also fair that the “Bible Code” be included in this list. I think it is nonsense, but as you said, so many people stick to it, so it is only fair to include it.
And I hope we can be civilised about this and not let these comments descend into theological mud-slinging. So far so good anyway
Great list.
September 7th, 2009 at 2:34 am
Nice list .. Listverse rules
September 7th, 2009 at 2:34 am
i know where the holy grail is, han solo has it. he used it to heal his father, james bond after he was shot by king richard.
September 7th, 2009 at 3:08 am
The problem with the Ten Lost Tribes is that they split off at a time before Jews could be said to have existed. Kind of.
The Laws of Moses were actually laid out and integrated into Jewish culture after the kingdom split, with ten tribes on one side and two on the other. The ten lost tribes were carried away by (I think; not bothering to look up right now) the Babylonians, and, in all likelihood, integrated into Babylonian culture after a few centuries at most.
I think it was King Hezekiah that introduced the Laws of Moses into his kingdom, the remaining two tribes. After he did so, the Babylonians came for his people too – but their traditions had gotten so ingrained by the time they were taken that they never came out.
September 7th, 2009 at 3:12 am
Bigger mystery:
When will the masses ever realize how stupid the bible is and consequently themselves for believing it’s blatant lies?
Oh wait, I solved that mystery.
NEVER
September 7th, 2009 at 3:13 am
Most of this is ridiculously based on the concept of the bible actually being accurate, that the events even took place and that you have to ignore the mounds of evidence against it or distort the original story to near enough nothing to make it fit.
Why dont we all go on a quest for the enchanted ball point pen? or the rock which was inserted into robin hood on several occassions?
Garden of Eden, noahs arc and the bible code have to be the worst, i often love the lists, but this one…..no sale.
September 7th, 2009 at 3:16 am
Wow Jono.. It’s all so clear now!!! Thanks you for your insight and wisdom. We’ve all been waiting for some serious input in these comments
Well at least we got 18 comments that avoided this pettiness. Shame.
September 7th, 2009 at 3:18 am
I personally hate religion, and im amazed by how people still believe in this bullcrap…
you could publish tomorrow Top 10 Mysteries Of The Song Of Ice and Fire, it would be much more interesting imho.
September 7th, 2009 at 3:28 am
“The search for the ark has been called a “wild goose chase” by some archaeologists.”
Some? Ha!
September 7th, 2009 at 3:37 am
Considering the global flood would have changed the geological landscape of the planet, people shouldn’t expect to be able to find the Garden of Eden anyway.
The grail to me is just silly, it has absolutely nothing to do with the bigger picture of the Bible so why people bother with that “mystery” is beyond me. Similarly bible codes are just looking for things between the lines that aren’t there.
Also it’s widely accepted that the beloved apostle was John. Also, “leaning on the bossom” is actually a term that referenced a person being seated at a place of honour at the right hand of the master of the feast.
Think the authorship of the gospels isn’t really a mystery to any Christians
September 7th, 2009 at 3:38 am
Is it a coincidence that the “Bible code” has April first on it?
Kudos to the writers of the bible, they have a big imagination. Tolkien must be jealous.
September 7th, 2009 at 3:39 am
I believe the the beloved disciple is Mary Magdalene. Aaaanndd that she was married to Jesus!
I loved this list by the way Jfrater, you are awesome and happy belated birthday.
: )
September 7th, 2009 at 3:42 am
What about the apocalypse in the book of revelation?
September 7th, 2009 at 3:45 am
Thankfully none of these are a mystery to me as I don’t believe in any of it.
However, I did like the list and found the “codes” to be interesting. Some people want to go the extra mile it seems to believe. Cool list, JFrater.
September 7th, 2009 at 4:04 am
Another good list, JFrater *ducks thrown projectiles from argumental listversers*. I actually found this quite interesting, as although I am not Christian, I am extremely interested in the beliefs that are set out in the Bible, and how they are accepted in today’s world, so things like the Holy Grail, Garden of Eden and Noah’s Ark made for interesting reading in my eyes (although one has to think hard as to who came up with the idea of ‘If we look really hard, we might find some REALLY old wood that won’t have yet degraded over the years and claim it as proof of Noah’s Ark’. That’s a pretty far out idea to come up with…)
And also, if you really look, you can find codes in any book. People only care because it’s the Bible, one of the best-known books of Earth, if not THE best.
Once again, thanks for hunting down and killing my boredom for another day, JFrater.
Ny ~♪
September 7th, 2009 at 4:11 am
on number 7,
I think it’s kinda funny how when science says that any part of a religion is wrong (like everything in it, science don’t mean squat but when it says that it’s right then oooh.
thats so friggin amazing, now theres no doubt about it.
-_-
September 7th, 2009 at 4:27 am
This is very interesting… I’m not a religious person, I mean I am a catholic but not devoted to all this religious stuff… I don’t wanna offend anyone with my words but people have to learn that religion is based on what we have been taught by our parents… Later on in life we make our own choice based on what we believe. I don’t care what religion you are, just the person you present yourself to be. Either way let’s not start another heated argument on religion because that is just dumb. State your opinion and try not to offend anyone…
September 7th, 2009 at 4:56 am
Does anyone else weary of the “I’m intelligent, therefore I don’t believe in god” drek? There is a reason the Bible is discussed and debated among many great minds.
It’s controversial, intriguing, influential, and affects the lives of millions of people around the world. Those who argue against The Bible make wild proclamations about the inability to prove its veracity. Don’t get me wrong, I agree much of it cannot be proven.
The fun comes in when you realize, much of it cannot be disproved either. That’s why these are mysteries. There’s enough evidence, or alleged evidence, that keeps things like this alive. There’s enough to tittilate imaginative, thoughtful, intelligent, and scholarly minds that research and the search carries on.
Fun list. Thanks for it.
(Not that it matters, but before someone gets the notion I’m a “Bible thumper” you could not be more wrong. Typically, I’m universally despised by that ilk)
September 7th, 2009 at 5:25 am
How can “God” not be one of the mysteries? He has no origin, possess super powers, and seems to have disappeared for last 2000 years.
September 7th, 2009 at 5:41 am
While searching for something else, I found 2 Tim 2:23
“Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.”
September 7th, 2009 at 5:54 am
Immaculate Conception would have been on my list.
Interesting read. Thanks JF.
September 7th, 2009 at 6:01 am
List time I checked they found Sodom and Gomorrah not to mention that Bible code technique works on any text of sufficient length. If you use the same technique on the lyrics of Ice Ice baby you can predict 9/11 with a great deal more info that using the bible.
September 7th, 2009 at 6:21 am
I always suspected Vanilla Ice was in Al-Qaeda
September 7th, 2009 at 6:23 am
I believe that 95% of Christians read the bible methiphorically, which I believe it should. If you use the bible this why then it is great. Its the 5% who literally believe in the bible that worry me. Maybe a list should be compiles for the stories in the bible and what they really mean (to the reader)
September 7th, 2009 at 7:03 am
OOh, my favorite kind of list! I saw something about one of the lost tribes being in Ethiopia, and the descendants had returned to the promised land, which is one of the events predicted for the end of days… interesting. As we say here in Texas during hurricane season… “Ya’ll hunker down!” Haha.. Well, at least I have some mysteries to think about today while I pretend to be working. Thanks!
September 7th, 2009 at 7:06 am
Extremely interesting list. Love it!
September 7th, 2009 at 7:06 am
I see a lot of posturing by atheists and agnostics…
…and a lot of personal attacks by Christians.
What I don’t see is any proof whatsoever by any Christians regarding a single tenet of their faith. (Not to mention any of the mysteries on this list.)
So while being an obnoxious atheist may not be all one should aspire to, if that’s my only choice over believing utter bull$h!t then sign me up.
I find it funny how every Sunday morning Christians get together with a very narrow segment of people who look and act exactly like them to pay lip service to the idea of love and respect for all of humanity. Especially the ones they shun or go to war and murder simply because they don’t worship exactly as they do.
September 7th, 2009 at 7:21 am
When it comes to the question of “proof” I always feel compelled to ask the person what “proof” they would accept? Rarely do I actually get an answer.
That said, if one cannot look at the entire universe and see evidence of a creator, they’re hardly going to accept anything more miraculous such as God Himself showing up or performing some kind of miracle.
Main reason being that everyone starts with a philosophical bias, and we’ll interpret whatever evidence we see in light of it. If presented with contrary evidence, we’ll revert to a rescuing device to explain away this evidence according to our bias.
Someone mentioned Christians reading the Bible metaphorically. In all honesty, if you read the entire Bible metaphorically, there’s no real point being a Christian as you essentially allegorise the entire reason for being a Christian in the first place. E.g, if Genesis isn’t literal history, there was no Adam & Eve, there was no original sin, there’s no atonement for sins and therefore no reason for Jesus. If there’s no reason for Jesus, there’s no reason to follow Him.
September 7th, 2009 at 7:27 am
Great list. It’s interesting that so many of the mysteries ask where something mentioned in the Bible is.
Of course, now a bunch of idiots who think they know everything will come on here saying all Christians are retarded while the Christians bash Frater. Then the idiots will start bashing the Christians because they aren’t as “enlightened” as they are. Not all atheists are like that, of course.
Note: I’m not Christian, but I am sick of everyone thinking they’re better than them because they “don’t believe in a bunch of stupid stories”. Grow up.
September 7th, 2009 at 7:33 am
They are mysteries, because they are all fairy tales.
September 7th, 2009 at 7:36 am
I. Could. Not. Care. Less.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to talk to the pixies that live at the bottom of my garden.
September 7th, 2009 at 7:44 am
I don’t believe in God or Devils or anything much supernatural at all. That doesn’t stop me from realizing that the bible is a useful historical text. Much in the Bible has already been proven (Jesus’ existence for one), the trick is to separate the metaphorical and the natural human trait to embellish and exaggerate for effect (adding multi-headed beasts etc – gotta keep the audience enthralled eh?) from the facts. Always fascinating when that kernel of truth is proved.
Should cause about 60 fits for some of those “fundementalist Christians” (the kind that pack guns and live in compounds) if they ever prove that Eden actually was in Ethiopia. Means that Adam and Eve were black. (Of course if there was an Adam and Eve, they would be black – the cradle of humanity is in Africa after all)
September 7th, 2009 at 7:48 am
sweet list …..good job man.
September 7th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Great list Jamie. I love the bible lists- partially because I like seeing the non-believers become as self righteous as the much maligned brain washed believers.
insert caveat: not a Christian. I actually grew up on an Ashram and my only bible education came from the illustrated books at the dentist. I’m with 32 vtenebrae- I love the mystery. And the religious/faithful don’t exactly have a monopoly on hypocrisy, warmongering or any of the other horrible human failings the atheistic like to accuse them of. Sure religion has stirred countless conflicts and launched its share of wars but so has greed, hubris and lust for power- qualities that lurk within every human heart regardless of whether we bow to a higher power or not.
@41 I find the juxtaposition of “proof” and “faith” to be… well, interesting
September 7th, 2009 at 7:53 am
@Stizzy
Here’s anice video about what would count as evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rqUsC2KsiI
September 7th, 2009 at 7:56 am
I’m a Christian, and would like to clear things up.
The Bible mentions nothing about the Holy Grail, I find the belief to be rather preposterous.
I find most of the Bible to be literally true, except of course Parables.
Most Christians are idiots, of course, they’re cruel, unloving, hypocritical, and make me ashamed to call myself one
Christianity should not be a religion, it should be a relationship with God
How can you say God stopped existing for 2,000 years? Would you not call what happened to Rome rather terrible? And mostly due to their own debauchery.
September 7th, 2009 at 7:59 am
Very interesting list. I know I’ve seen number eight before, where have I seen it…
September 7th, 2009 at 8:04 am
@the sea captain (50): You believe the world to be 6000 years old? and that Adam and Eve were created from dust? None of the Christians I know believe any of that.
And Rome seems in pretty good shape today.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:09 am
@get a clue (41): Hey there “get a clue”, just wanted to say stop stereotyping. I am a Christian. I believe in evolution. I believe in a metaphorical interpretation of most Biblical events. I believe in gay rights. I do not believe in war. I am not here to push my beliefs upon you. I am not some goody-goody stuck up prick who thinks I am more righteous than thou. Some Christians are offended and intimidated by things like swear words and open-mindedness. Me, I don’t even give a fuck. My peeve isn’t that your views are different than mine, but that you lumped me into the same category with backwater fundy idiots. I have come to find that a majority of atheists to be infinitely more narrow minded than myself or a lot of my Christian friends. This includes you. I am very liberal, a proud Democrat, not in the least bit racist (yes I’m white, go figure), have many gay friends who I am in no way intolerant of, and various other things that break free of your stereotypical mold. And wait… I’m intelligent, too! Holy crap! Look at that education GO!!
You want me to be a bad guy, like “all” Christians, so you may be justified in your attack. You don’t believe in God? I don’t care. It’s your belief, not mine, and who am I to change that? Truth is, I cannot prove what I believe. I have my reasons, but typing them on here would in no way change your mind, but it’s not like that was my mission anyway. I have personal reasons for believing, and you have yours for not. I cannot prove I’m right about my choice of religion anymore than anybody else can. Therefore, as far as I’m concerned, everybody is right, or else nobody is, myself included. I will not push beliefs on someone when the only reasons I’ve got only make sense to me.
So, stop stereotyping, because I’m nothing like what you would like me to be. As a former arrogant atheist, I can tell you this: Whether you are supporting or attacking religion, you are still letting God rule your life.
Fin.
Ps- Excellent list, I enjoy the religious themed ones. Do more like this one, JFrater
September 7th, 2009 at 8:14 am
I have been following listverse for almost a year now and this is my first comment
September 7th, 2009 at 8:16 am
@the sea captain (50): How can you say God stopped existing for 2,000 years?
He just stopped keeping score
youtube.com/watch?v=6b2ZXKX9NSY
September 7th, 2009 at 8:28 am
religion is a crutch for the weak-minded
September 7th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Hey. I have the Holy Grail. You could have it if it weren’t for the fact that every time I try to give it away, the other person is instantly turned to ash and it comes back to me under its own power, shouting, “YOU ARE THE CHOSEN ONE.” One time, a guy tried to steal it and he was horribly incinerated by white-robed giants that shot blue flames from their eyes.
(sigh)
It’s not that I have a bad attitude – some things are ok. Like when I fill it with tap water, it turns into beer. And I win almost every contest I enter. I find money in parking lots like crazy – I quit my job last year because I every time I need something, I just ask it and POOF!
But now I’m just a fat drunk with a bunch of Ferraris.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:37 am
(33)- Exactly what I thought.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Isaac Newton spent years trying to crack the Bible Code.
All he needed was a computer!
Mary Magdalene was the Holy Grail…
September 7th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Who were the Nephalim? If they were Sons of Angels who slept with humans, do “super-humans” like Hercules, etc., seem so far-fetched?
September 7th, 2009 at 9:04 am
@the sea captain (50): @Stizzy (42): @vtenebrae (32):
You are all very silly people. Please go back to school.
A pretty dubious list all round, but number three is just mind numbingly ridiculous. To treat the search for Noah’s Ark like it is a legitimate point of discussion, honestly the mind boggles. It suggest that their are people out there who actually believe some bloke called Noah built an ark and filled it with at least two of every animal. I’m sorry but those people should not be aloud to vote.
@ianz09 (53):
‘Therefore, as far as I’m concerned, everybody is right, or else nobody is, myself included.’
No. I am right, you are wrong. We can be as certain that there is no god as we can that the earth revolves around the sun.
And to the person who said, and i’m paraphrasing here, ‘what evidence would atheists need to believe in god?’
Any. We would need any evidence. But there is none. There is no evidence to suggest any of the mumbo jumbo you believe in is even remotely true.
September 7th, 2009 at 9:04 am
”The Bible is a source of inerrant truth to over a billion humans” LMFAO!!!!
September 7th, 2009 at 9:10 am
It’s interesting to me that atheists and agnostics generally start the arguments on this site, but the Christians are the ones who are considered rude and dogmatic.
September 7th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Ok, I decided I might as well have a say in this…
I’m not religious but I’ve always been interested in them. No matter what you may think of christianity, the Bible has had a huge impact on the world and it’s definitely an important document.
That being said, I believe that most things in the Bible should be taken metaphorically, but it is still rather interesting to see people dissect the books. I mean, who knows, maybe some of it is true. We don’t know a lot about the people back then, nor about those who wrote the Bible.
I recently read a part of the Bible during English (this may seem weird, but I’m not native English) and we read the part where they mentioned Ethiopia and the four rivers. I wondered what the deal was with that, because that’s quite a lot of land to cover.
September 7th, 2009 at 9:23 am
@skiffo….
I agree
September 7th, 2009 at 9:33 am
@ 5 (55)
someone else said that, I was addressing and arguing against it
September 7th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Congratulations alphebitman90, this must be a big day for you!
September 7th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Thanks for the list JF makes interisting reading, no matter which side of the fence you are sitting on.
I will sit this one out, but as a devoted LServer I always try and leave a comment everyday, as so many of us older LServers do.
mom424 + oouchan when I typed OLDER I meant long serving commenters not AGE so please dont shoot me down in a hail of bullets.
September 7th, 2009 at 9:59 am
What about the Spear of Longinus?
September 7th, 2009 at 10:00 am
@ IrigD (64): That’s exactly the same as my view.
I have always found Christianity to be interesting even though I’m not a Christian, but I do believe there’s some kind of a God out there hehe.
Values and beliefs are what keeps us being individuals =)
I just don’t know how they are going to find the remains of a wooden boat that has rotted away, covered by snow/mud/storm/dirt through the decades…
September 7th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Christians are always being asked or demanded to prove that there is a God. I am asking the atheists to prove to me that there isn’t. I am asking the evolutionists to explain to me how an accident (aka the Big Bang Theory) could ever produce a carniverous plant like a venus fly trap or beauty like a sunset or even an organism as complex as the human being… Who orchestrated the creation of creation? Just wondering…
September 7th, 2009 at 10:32 am
@71 Precisely put.
September 7th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Awesome list, JFrater! I’ve never heard of some of this stuff. My half-brother’s dad is a rabbi and has his masters in theology… gonna have to bring some of this stuff up to see what he thinks about it
September 7th, 2009 at 10:35 am
@71 No “big bang” created the beauty of a sunset. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
September 7th, 2009 at 10:54 am
@mom424 (46): Right there with you!
@undaunted warrior (68): Thanks for putting that small comment at the end….and here I was ready to defend my age! hehe
September 7th, 2009 at 10:56 am
@ #18 Talanic:
You were close it was the Assyrians not the Babylonians.
To fellow Christians, and people of faith, it is important to put your views out and defend them, however do so in a way as to not raise hypocritical views of that which you claim to practice(namely love, compassion, forgiveness). You must realize that it is impossible to argue civilly on the internet when anonymity makes every person feel like a tough guy; people will come out and scream that we are weak minded just because we’ve decided to live our lives a certain way and accept certain truths(note that I did not say facts) on faith alone, rather than requiring irrefutable evidence to accept such truths. These hateful comments exist only for the entertainment of the ones commenting so they can see us get riled up and start to become hateful as we are pushed even further, ignore them, or respond in such a way that does not invoke hate until you are bored with them, then simply move on.
To the Atheists/Agnostics- I agree that most of the mysteries on here and most of the stories in the bible are ridiculous when compared with modern day knowledge, however we have not always been as advanced a society. Why bash Christians from earlier ages, for example, the middle age when they clearly were not advanced enough to see the obvious flaws and hypocrisy that were contained within their theological teachings and practices. Do you believe scientific findings and research has always been completely rock solid and factual, I could scoff at the “Science of Alchemy” or the introduction of the four humors as that which regulated a person’s health. I cant believe science lovers are so stupid that they believe in a single unified theory when they cant even completely prove at this point that quantum theory and general relativity match up(note this sentence is meant to be read highly sarcastically not literally). It seems you also take quite alot of things on faith just as we do. Hindsight is always perfect, and now that we can look back and see the ridiculousness of our religious views and our scientific views we realize that they were stepping stones towards the right path. I (along with most Christians) believe that the Bible is to be taken metaphorically, in order to become a better person to others and to create a sense of inner peace. Yes we are tainted by the fundamental crazies, but come on theres crazies all over the place, not just in Christianity. Come on people lets try for once to not let this comment section turn into a playground of hate like all of the other religious lists on this site, we are better and more intelligent than that. As Bob Marley said, “Life is one big road with lots of signs. So when you riding through the ruts, don’t complicate your mind. Flee from hate, mischief and jealousy. Don’t bury your thoughts, put your vision to reality . Wake Up and Live!”
September 7th, 2009 at 11:14 am
JFrater:
I find it really interesting that you made a Catholic misconceptions item saying science and religion don’t have to be polar opposites, reiterated this yet again with your birthday list…and yet once again, I’m seeing comments where people believe these are two separate entities completely incapable of interweaving.
Chill out, kids.
And go back to school for some learnin’.
So we have to make an on-line declaration of our spirituality, eh? I am a High Dudist Priestess of the Church of Latter-Day Dude. Look it up. It takes two seconds to be ordained, lol.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Can I just mention to begin, especially to all the Catholics, is that Catholic dogma actually does believe in evolution (Vatican II).
Anyway, the bible is interesting. Just like a lot of other historical (religious) texts, it presents a mix of fact and mythology.
For example, the Garden of Eden. Could it not be that this story actually points us to the direction of where the Israelites or even humanity originated? The correlation between Ethiopia and the evolutionary origin of mankind is quite cool. Furthermore, climate shifts could have eradicated any sign of ‘Eden’ to a now desertified landscape.
There are other things. I’m not quite sure where I remember this from but Babylonian texts also talked of a Great Flood. Perhaps there was a Great Flood in the Middle East sometime ago!
September 7th, 2009 at 11:26 am
@ianz09 (53): “Whether you are supporting or attacking religion, you are still letting God rule your life.”
Very well put!
September 7th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Great list. I am atheist, but I find the analysis of religions (Specifically Christianaity) to be extremely interesting. It is great to see what people make of the unanswered questions in the bible.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:58 am
@undaunted warrior (68): It’s all cool – I like being older. The body is still cooperating; I do all the same stuff I always did, just no one around telling me not to.
It also breeds a tolerance for most of those who don’t believe as I do. (those gun-toting guys in the compound mentioned earlier being a notable exception)
September 7th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
@alphebitman90 (54): I have been following listverse for almost a year now and this is my first comment
And that’s it? End of post? You blew your entire wad with that ? I think you should’ve held on to that chestnut for another year at least, so that it would have a little more impact. As it stands now, I’m feeling kind of “meh” about it…
September 7th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
I think that John is the beloved disciple.
September 7th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
People always state with such certainty that the Jesus from the bible was proven to have existed, but never elaborate about evidence they are basing this on! Are you guys basing this on the Jesus Tomb documentary or is there more I just haven’t herd about?
September 7th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
@Maggot (82): Awesome.
September 7th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
I am a Christian.And I find these things fascinating–The History and Discovery channels are forever having programs about everything on this list and I love to watch them because it’s always interesting and entertaining just as this list is.But as a Christian I have to add that none of it is important.It doesn’t really matter if a wine cup still exists or if Noah’s ark landed on Lookout Mountain in Tennessee.And I’ve never seen any “codes” in the Bible–It pretty well says what it says and I can’t find Jesus speaking in code anywhere in the New Testament.He does use parables but they are easily understood.The only thing that’s really important is whether or not you believe Christ died for you and accept Him as your Saviour–Looking for wine glasses (and watching Indiana Jones movies) and lost tribes is very interesting but it’s just bullshit.
September 7th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
@sofkes (84): Read the excellent Wiki article and then follow the source links. If you’re not convinced it’s because you don’t want to be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
September 7th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
@Maggot (82):
Shh! You’re going to scare the newbie!
…but I can’t deny that it made me giggle.
I’m with alphabits here. I’ve been following Listverse for almost a year now and this is my…I don’t knowth…comment.
End of statement.
September 7th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Sweet list. I definatly wont get into any debate on this subject. Ill debate American stuff, abortion, and drug legalization. But where im from religous debates usually end up bloody. (we are bored). I will say ive lived a very wicked life dealing hard drugs, havin people beat who owe me money and much more. Now as my wife has setteld me down ive grown regretful of some of my life. And have decided to seek religion. Im sure God and evn Allah and Buddha exsist but to commit to any is rough. I love smokin pot and wont stop that and i love bar fightin and other crap like that so im not sure wat to do. I jus know theres got to more out there than jus science.
September 7th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
These rank right up there with why Darth Vader didn’t recognize C3PO, a robot he built. When a book is fictional and you believe it real, there’s a lot of loose ends.
September 7th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
You want to know what? The Big Bang was an explosion from a condensed space. This condensed space had to appear somehow. How did it?
How did birds evolve wings? A fluke, then a long line of flukes. Eventually, we got birds. Same with creatures on land, but it only took a couple million years. This is way too fast, according to physics.
How was life made before life was? A rat from a haystack is ridiculous, but so is a cell from fire. How?
I am not one to debate, especially religion, but I am taking a stand for once. So many ask why God lets bad things happen, and he answers softly, “Why do you?”.
September 7th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
i dont believe in anything that the bible says and i grew up in a catholic family. but i do believe in its moraeles and that they should be thought cuz theyre a good basis to live your life. that being said i think that whoever mad the bible just wanted to get money like l.ron hubbard
September 7th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
My sincere regrets for double posting, but didn’t see randy (90).
Anakin repaired C3P0, so he could think it was another nearly identical protocol droid. After all, there could be a mascu-feminine sun-bleached droid like him. Or, he maybe did not want to admit his care and respect for something he actually repaired and rebuilt with his own hands when he was younger.
Always an explanation for something.
September 7th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
interesting.
September 7th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
People shouldn’t be ALLOWED to vote who spell allowed as aloud. We are not reading.
September 7th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
The greatest mystery of the Bible = Why is it being taught tto my child at school as truth? ….Discuss…
September 7th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Well you can read this list allowed….lolol
September 7th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Hey Iananz09 #53, right on man very well put. I like that if i go christian im gona be jus like that.
September 7th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
First, I would like to say how much I enjoyed reading this list. The Bible is fascinating.
I would also like to assert the fact that I am not Christian, even though my main target for criticism here is atheists.
Christianity is a relationship with God, not a religion. Christians do not have to believe in everything in the bible as literal truth. Many stories of the Bible are metaphorical, and can guide even nonbelievers into a more fulfilling way of life.
I find it humorous that many atheists claim that Christians are silly for believing in the existence of God. Those who attack Christianity call Christians silly for believing in something without logical proof. God has NEVER been unproven. Many stories of the Bible are historical fact, and those to ignorant to believe that are just as ignorant as those who don’t believe in evolution.
Faith is what atheists lack. It is not that many Christians believe in the evidence of God, but rather that they have faith in his existence.
I am not a Christian, in the religious aspect. I do not believe in the Garden of Eden, or Noah’s Ark, or many beliefs of the Christian religion. But I do have faith in God. I have faith that there is something greater than us, something that makes the mystery of the universe itself make sense.
Just because the universe is a mystery (nobody knows just how we’re here, even those who support the theory of the big bang, and the odds of humanity existing without divine intervention is extremely slim, if impossible) doesn’t mean the universe doesn’t exist. Just because God is a mystery, doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist.
September 7th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Ok, I’m going to try and stay away from any debate here, and simply state that this was an enjoyable and entertaining list.
And lol at #14.
September 7th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Most everyone I first tell this two rolls their eyes in disbelief but this is a new Bible find that everyone can check out for themselves very easily. Don’t comdemn too quickly — Prov 18:13 He who gives an answer before he hears, It is folly and shame to him.
A new discovery that is not a code but an easily verifiable God inspired pattern that spans the Bible perfectly from end to end…These are verifiable facts — the only question is if you decide to dismiss them as coincidence. In these last days God is revealing some facinating new truths…Here are a few of a mountain of evidence for this discovery:
• John 3—home of John 3:16 is the 1000th chapter
• Psalms 22- The 500th chapter—Jesus on the cross
• Psalms 117-Middle and only two verse chapter
• Matt 24:42-24000th verse about the Day (24) of the Lord-be on the alert
• Rev 14:4 — the Bible’s description of the 144,000 –Note the verse ref (144)
The Bible is perfect beyond comprehension down to the inspiration and preservation of Book, chapter and verse numbers. The numbers are also associated with consistent symbolic meanings and their themes are a valuable aid to interpretation.
September 7th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
@archiealt: Did you actually have a rational contribution to this discussion or were you simply going to settle for ad hominem and rhetoric?
@49:
1) Inerrant book: Most of the people who claim the Bible is inconsistent and self-contradictory are people who don’t know how to read the Bible properly and so it is due to a case of misunderstanding
few (if any) people approach it without first having already decided what they think of it which impedes their search for truth. It is a book of history and it should be read in a straight forward manner, understanding that there are 66 books of various genres and styles, with not everything that is descriptive being prescriptive.
2) If the lack of factions and divisions is a prerequisite for truth, we may want to reconsider many scientific theories as not everyone agrees on them
this is a fallacious argument as the appeal to majority or authority doesn’t indicate truth. Not to mention, Jesus Himself in the Bible specified that His message would bring division and yet He claimed to be God. He also prophesied that there would be chaff among the wheat, goats among the sheep, bad fish among the good fish. There would be those capable of and committing atrocities within the church, and that is indeed what we find. Also, it is begging the question for us to assume how a God should deliver His Word to humanity.
Not to mention that as we’ve all been created with free-will, we have the free-will to disagree. Therefore, God Himself would not force people to agree, they have to come to that conclusion Himself. Romans says He’s made His existence and the truth of His Word plain to all those who actually want to look for it.
We can’t claim to want independence and to have high intelligence and then expect to be spoonfed every detail
3) This one’s just silly. A religion whose followers have never committed atrocities? The unfortunate reason for Jesus’ coming is that humanity has committed and will commit countless atrocities. If this wasn’t so, Jesus wouldn’t have died once and for all, but would have died once for everyone who’d come before but not for those who would come afterwards. Again, we have free-will. We either choose to follow God or we do not. There are many who like to act as if they do but in their heart, they are corrupt. This is not God’s failure but their own.
This also disregards the nature of the original teachings which those who commit atrocities claim to abide by. Simply put, we shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bath water.
That said, apart from God, how do we define what is an atrocity and what isn’t? What is our ultimate standard for morality by which we can label something an atrocity? Are WE the ultimate authority? I mean, we are the same humanity who commits these atrocities, which makes one wonder if we can be trusted. But then, if we live in a universe of chance, surely morality is relative anyway?
4) This falls under what I said before about rescuing devices. We can all simply dismiss evidence using our philosophical bias and our own preconceived notions of what should or shouldnt be but this says nothing about absolute truth as our thoughts on these things can just be subjective.
I agree with all the following points after the first except the last one which is just incredibly dismissive, and for someone who says they want logical, justifiable explanations for belief in God, he doesn’t logically justify why he’s so dismissive of intelligent design or Creation.
That said, I feel compelled to repeat what I said earlier:
If one cannot look at the entire universe and see evidence of a creator, they’re hardly going to accept anything more miraculous such as God Himself showing up or performing some kind of miracle. (And may I add, claims of inerrancy or even a perfect track record. Afterall, Jesus had a perfect track record and He is still dismissed)
Main reason being that everyone starts with a philosophical bias, and we’ll interpret whatever evidence we see in light of it. If presented with contrary evidence, we’ll revert to a rescuing device to explain away this evidence according to our bias.
September 7th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
biggest mystery of the bible = why does anyone follow this rubbish
September 7th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Comedians on religion
Gervais: youtube.com/watch?v=ocgcj-C_nIw
Izzard: youtube.com/watch?v=OT4FZUZz2kU
Stewart Lee: youtube.com/watch?v=fY8_jBjA6cs
WARNING: contains jokes about religion, read on your own risk
September 7th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
@Stizzy (101): ppl who read the bible properly are the ones who see it for the self contradictory nonsense it is
god is merciful,kind and all forgiving yet kills millions -like the two cities, the entire earth and everyone who dies
god is all powerful yet makes satan who can kill and inflict pain at will
god gave us free will yet if you dont follow his rules to the letter you get tortured in hell eternally
jesus is gods son and god. which is it? jesus never claims to be god and speaks to god (himself?) directly many times
the world was made in 6 days in an instant- science has proven that wrong
jesus is all loving and kind- killed a tree as it wouldnt bear fruit on command, not knowing it was out of season.
also attacked and destroyed poor traders stalls in a fit of rage. he also mocked a woman from a lower class of people in isreal calling her a dog.
isrealites were oppressed slaves of egyptians yet historical records show they werent. david had a massive empire yet historical evidence shows he owned a small patch of land.
god is wise and fair yet kills and maims. turns a woman into salt just for looking back, orders a man to kill his son, forces a man to kill his daughter in exchange for victory.
September 7th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
@Stizzy (42): ‘Someone mentioned Christians reading the Bible metaphorically. In all honesty, if you read the entire Bible metaphorically, there’s no real point being a Christian as you essentially allegorise the entire reason for being a Christian in the first place. E.g, if Genesis isn’t literal history, there was no Adam & Eve, there was no original sin, there’s no atonement for sins and therefore no reason for Jesus. If there’s no reason for Jesus, there’s no reason to follow Him.’
And that’s how it should be.
September 7th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
ianzo9 (53)makes some great points in his post that I agree with.I was wilder than most in my youth and now in my late 60’s and sick I still would back down from no man.Some atheists seem to have an image of a Christian that is set in stone-We’re all goody-two-shoes who are out to change them at all costs-HaHa-We sit around and worry about atheists and where they’re going when they die.And some Christians do worry about atheists and try to talk with them-But the hard truth is there are more and more like ianz09 and myself who couldn’t care less what you believe–You can pray to Oprah and that’s fine with me.And this “proving Jesus” crap is silly on the face of it. The very essence of Christanity is FAITH–We don’t need a video of Jesus being risen on the 3rd day or later ascending into heaven.We know by faith he did.And if you don’t believe he did..well,that’s fine too.But please don’t try to equate atheism with intelligence..That’s a joke..The truth is,there are smart people and there are idiots on both sides of this aisle.
September 7th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
In my earlier post I mentioned some evidence for God inspired chapter and verse numbers. I know how crazy this sounds–I thought it a crazy idea when I began seeing it– but the evidence for it was overwhelming. I have no problem with skeptics, that’s an honest position, but…
I’d like to ask an honest question of skeptics–one I only get about one in twenty to answer. Are you bold enough to take a stand? Do you think the following facts a result of coincidence? YES, NO, CAN’T DECIDE, don’t accept the facts
#1 John 3—home of John 3:16 is the 1000th chapter
#2 Psalms 22- The 500th chapter—Jesus on the cross
#3 Psalms 117-Middle, shortest and only two verse chapter located precisely at the centerpoint of the Bible
It is a question that forces you into a bit of a corner. You either dismiss these as coincidence or are concluding they are by design. Most people who struggle with the question typically say they don’t believe in coincidence but then don’t know how to explain these situations. It’s not difficult, but simply a matter of realizing some things we have decided about the Bible are not really correct.
I honestly and in a friendly way would appreciate other’s input and answers to the question. It helps me find ways to explain what is so difficult to accept. Please don’t respond with criticism, I’m presenting, serious, verifiable facts worthy of investigation and discussion.
September 7th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
I do not understand religious people who think that God is the answer to sceince’s unanswered question. How did life first appear may not be a question we have an answer to, but saying that God did it only begs a much larger, more difficult question of where did God come from. The answer given is that he is eternal, nobody made him. How is that more believable than life just appearing or some confluence of events happening to form the first cell? Religion doesn’t answer anything- it just makes you stop asking questions and trying to find out. We would still be living in caves if we never tried to figure anything out. You go find the ark. I just hope somebody is trying to solve our real problems of global warming and large scale poverty, famine, and war. But that’s just my opinion.
September 7th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
@Stizzy (101):
I’m sorry Stizzy, did you just accuse me of bringing a lack of rationality to the argument. Did you, somebody who believes, from what i can tell, that the bible is an historical account of the past six thousand or so years, accuse me of bringing a lack of rationality to the table? Back up your beliefs with one, just one, piece of evidence. Until then you are in no position to talk about rationality. Surely when you learnt about Dinosaurs, surely the moment somebody taught you about these gigantic lizards that ruled the Earth some 200 hundred million years ago, you realized that it completely disproved, without any room for argument, a lot of what is written in the Bible. But wait, that was just meant as an allegory. Since when, since when was some of the bible just meant as an allegory? If it really is the word of god, why would he speak in fucking allegories. It’s just ridiculous. So go ahead, take that holier-than-thou tone of voice, what you believe in is absolute rubbish and it’s a shame you’ll never know what a fool you were to waste you life with pathetic superstition. Just do me one favour, if you’ve got or ever plan on having kids, don’t feed them the nonsense you believe as if it’s fact, its tantamount to child abuse.
@General-Jake (94):
Your correct Jake, my spelling and grammar isn’t what it could be. You on the other hand, enjoy ‘bar fighting and other crap’, only see fit to debate ‘American stuff’ and you now appear to have developed an unhealthy taste for believing in a multitude of deities. I’m not going to lie to you buddy, if i had to choose to have your list of vices, or my inability to distinguish ‘there’ from ‘their’, well…….
September 7th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
@Frushka (35): The Immaculate Conception is on this list: Top 10 Misconceptions About The Bible.
September 7th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
@Stizzy (42): The Catholic Church advocates a predominantly metaphorical perspective on the Bible (which you have to do really, considering it says things like “the mustard seed is the smallest seed” when it isn’t in reality). However, it believes that it is metaphorical descriptions of real things – ie, the fall in the garden describes the act by which man gained original sin. Following that line of reasoning, the other things you mention retain their merit.
September 7th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
@Wilson (49): His third point says that no follower of a given religion must have taken part in an atrocity in order for it to be compelling evidence that it is “the true” religion. The problem is that he is not looking for a true religion, he is looking for a system which prevents human nature from exercising itself. Religion is not meant to make everyone perfect – it is meant to give them the tools to freely choose to try to become perfect. His argument is flawed to begin with.
September 7th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
@the sea captain (50): “The Bible mentions nothing about the Holy Grail”
Actually it does: “In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.” (1 Corinthians, 11:25)
The chalice used there is what has become known as “the Holy Grail”.
September 7th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
@Grog Blossom (56): You think Copernicus was weak minded? And Father Lemaitre (who invented the Big Bang theory), and Newton, and so many other fathers of modern science…
September 7th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
@Man (60): The Nephalim (referred to as giants) were the children of Seth who rebelled. The reference to them as giants is most likely a Hebrew metaphor for extremely violent and cruel people. I am not aware that any person with a more than basic knowledge of the Bible would consider it a true reference to giants in the sense that we know them.
September 7th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
When I was in high school back in the stone age,I remember a science teacher talking to us about the “big bang”. He told us that before the bang there was a tiny particle of matter and energy,no bigger than a proton,floating along thru a void.One of the kids asked him where this particle of energy came from.He said,”it either sprang from nothing or it always was”.
September 7th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
@Skrillah (62): There are more than 1 billion Catholics in the world and Catholics believe the Bible is inerrant. You may not like it, but my statement is factual
September 7th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
@gabi319 (77): Alas sometimes people don’t remember all that they read – or they don’t want to
September 7th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
@archangel (78): Vatican II is one council of many and it did not define any dogma. Evolution can not be considered dogmatic as it deals with science not religion – dogmas can only be defined in matters of religion. Catholics are free to believe scientific thought – evolution is a good example of this. The Popes before Vatican II also said that evolution was not contrary to the Catholic religion.
In case I am not clear – this is not to say you are wrong about the Church and the evolution – it is to say you are wrong that it has anything to do with Vatican II which is actually a very insignificant council in the history of the Church.
September 7th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
As true catholic I believe that teachings of Cathol are inerrant
September 7th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
@Norm Patriquin (101): My problem with your assertion is that the protestant Bible (which I presume you are basing this on) has a number of books missing from it and the numbering of the psalms is different in various editions of the Bibles. That really renders your point completely useless.
September 7th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
apparently the holy grail wasn’t the only item at the last supper assumed to possess miraculous powers, biblical scholars concerned with the leftovers are now seeking the whereabouts of the last tupperware
September 7th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
@archiealt (61):
Go back to school? For what? Finding this list interesting? For making note that the Bible is debated, discussed, and researched by scholars? For pointing out that while atheists shout “prove it”, others shout “disprove it” with about the same results?
If you’re going to tell me to go back to school, tell me about what I should be educating myself. I never postulated belief in any of the items on this list. I didn’t actually declare an opinion about the list at all, other than to say it was interesting.
However, you did prove my point that the most arrogant people tend to be self important atheists who believe that they, and their kind, alone have the market cornered on The Truth.
But, just to throw a monkey wrench into your machinery. I don’t believe in God. I’m just someone interested in religions, philosophy, and the world around me to be open minded enough to explore other people’s beliefs and ideologies.
I don’t think it’s particularly sage or intelligent to puff out one’s chest and exclaim to be better than those who don’t believe as you do.
September 7th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Thje Lost Tribes are Lost, thats why they are called the Lost Tribes, Duh….
September 7th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Something that has interested me is that evolution does not give a solution to the question “how did life start?” only how it has progressed. So if I did believe in god and someone was trying to argue that there is no god by using evolution as their evidence, it would be perfectly logical to say god created life and then it evolved. Funny how atheists cling to evolution as the only way to dispute the existence of god. Luckily there are plenty of other reasons not to believe in god.
September 7th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
I wish everyone would just be open-minded and respectful and realize that everyone is going to believe differently, and while we can try to alter those beliefs, in mass, it won’t ever happen.
I believe what I believe because of personal experiences with myself and my family, and can easily see why both sides believe what they believe. Some people believe in some pretty bizarre things, but I would never dream of being so childish as to mock them for such a thing.
Everyone already knows that Christians can be ignorant, arrogant, close-minded, dogmatic, and pushy with what they believe.
What people also need to realize is that Atheists can, and do, behave in the exact same manner.
I believe that the bible is a mixture of allegory and historical fact, and to deny that it’s an incredible detailed and intricate piece of literature, even if you view it as a piece of fiction, is just plain foolish.
It seems a lot of Atheists are now adamant about oppressing different forms of belief and religion. In fact, I recently read a lengthy article about how believing in any form of God at all was detrimental to society.
Why though? This disgusts me to no end. How is it that people can seriously think that way? Where I live, here in the bible-belt south, there is a lot of ignorance, but a lot of good too. The churches around here do so much good to help the community, and have even helped my family in some tough times. This also goes against personal freedoms that we in the United States have based on our constitution. I think all too often people ignore the good and just point out the bad. That goes for atheists too.
I respect atheists. I don’t view them as the enemies, and have several atheists friends, all of whom are very respectful and smart. Most atheists are very intelligent people and a lack of faith in anything certainly doesn’t make them villainous. They don’t seem to understand why people believe in things like God and Jesus, and that’s a logical thing to question. Certainly, it’s pretty much impossible to have any proof on the matter. But if you’re curious about it, why not just ask politely “Why do you believe in God?”. Why does it have to be “How can anyone believe in this garbage”? There are people in this world that believe in God that are very intelligent and well-educated. Not everyone is dogmatic moron.
I can discuss anything with anyone, no matter how controversial it is. All I ask is that people be respectful and calm about things. There’s no need for aggression. It doesn’t help anything, and only makes both sides feel worse.
I wish we could all just discuss how interesting this list is instead of just acting so disrespectful.
September 7th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
@ Skiffo (127): Thanks for that comment.
September 7th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
@jfrater (111): I read somewhere that the term “virgin” in context for the times, didn’t mean someone who had not had sex but referred to an unmarried woman. Not sure if it’s factual or not…
September 7th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Well actually some atheists say they do know how life started-
There was something called primordial ooze emerging from a bit of frozen earth where the sun had heated the rock
and somehow (they don’t explain how this miracle happened)life came crawling up out of this ooze. I think he saw his shadow and went back into the ooze and came back out when it got warmer.I think his name was Henry.Anyway he went ahead and bought a coat and tie because Henry knew that in a couple of billion years he would evolve into being the head-waiter at a French restaurant.You can prove this for yourself. Next spring dig a hole and fill it with mud.After the sun has heated your mud a salamader or something will crawl out of the hole.But treat him well because in 2 billion years,he might be your boss.
September 7th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Hi! I have also been visiting Listverse for a year now but this is my first time to comment. The list was great but I find the comments more entertaining.
By the way I am also a fan of your other website. (www.cogitz.com).
September 7th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
jfrater:
Sorry Jamie, but the “sea captain’s” got you on this one (the holy grail). The grail is NOT mentioned in the Bible. The chalice (cup) that Christ drank out of is mentioned. But the *grail* is never mentioned, and it has never been definitively established that the grail=the cup that Jesus used.
In point of fact, the Holy Grail was a fictional motif going back a long ways–but not as far back (to the best of our knowledge) to a time concurrent with the Bible. It is, rather, medieval in origin. But it *is* an entirely fictional motif (and has only been *connected* with the cup used by Christ, later on… and has at other times been associated with other items).
In fact, it’s been said to be a chalice (the interpretation best known to us) but also a dish, a bowl, or a cauldron. Other accounts and traditions have said that it was a gem of some kind, or the philosopher’s stone.
I quote here my favorite source, the non-pareil Cecil Adams: “The earliest mention we know of (the Grail) is in a retelling of the King Arthur legend called Le Conte du Graal, written in the last quarter of the 12th century by the French poet Chretien de Troyes…Chretien apparently died before he could finish the story–that was left to later writers, called “continuators,” who worked over a span of about 50 years. Their versions vary considerably in detail, most obviously with respect to what the Grail was, but on the whole they made the religious angle much more overt. Other writers during the same period wrote “histories” of the Grail that purported to trace its origin to the time of Christ. Scholars have long debated where the different elements of the tale came from; present appearances to the contrary, much of the story probably is of non-Christian origin.”
In short, the Grail is not only an invention of much later writers, if it draws upon any tradition or previous mythology, it draws upon pagan Celtic mythologies, not Christian.
September 7th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Hey Archiealt. Lol my bad dude i wasnt givin you angry shit. Just jokin shit. Anyway hell yeah my list of vices is lengthy (i really love life) but trust that im actually a decent guy. Oh ya i mispell shit all the time but no need to be insulting we cant all be gurus of perfection such as yourself. lol just kiddin again.
September 7th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Still alls been fairly civil for a religous list.
September 7th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Xenu is the one and only true god
September 7th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
@archiealt (61): well, it doesnt get much more narrow minded than this. just gotta tell you, u sound an awful lot like the religious idiots you are attacking. my point was valid, and to claim it isnt is utterly ridiculous. your lack of belief in God is based on lack of evidence. understandable. I will never be able to prove to u that God exists, becuz, truth be told, i will never obtain evidence that he exists. Darn, you got me there! But my belief in God is FAITH based, meaning you will under no circumstance ever be able to disprove the existence of God. I’m so sorry that you can’t hear logic from your high horse, but maybe you wont be so arrogant when you dismount and spend some time down here with us uneducated common folk. Boy, being humble sure is bitch. You say you would accept any evidence of God’s existence, but short of the big guy himself jackslapping you, nothing would be enough to slip into that closed mind of yours. It’s the same with Christians who have closed minds. You present them with any evidence of hypocrisy, and they scream “blasphemy!” and condemn you to hell. Becuz of your eagerness to down anybody who believes, you are allowing God to have a strangle hold on you. Or, as far as you are concerned, the figment of God. In other words, your life is being ruled by an imaginary being. Hope that makes it all better. I think most organized religions are a sham, they are all full of hypocrisy and bigots. I am a man of God, not of religion. Yes, there IS a difference.
So in short, when it comes down to proving God’s existence, you are right, I never will. When it comes down to disproving God’s existence, you’re wrong, you never can. Not to me. Go ahead, make fun of me, do your worst, I’ve taken flak before. Rest assured I will in no way push any beliefs on you or anyone else, becuz I have no good reason to attempt such a futile feat. Each to his own.
@KatiesGoldenDust (79): Thanks! Glad you liked it.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
@Eire (38): Wrong. Quite a bit read it in a literal sense. I personally believe this is wrong, dead wrong, and that it is metaphorical. I wish 95% read it that way. Unfortunately, these Literalists have the narrowest minds and the loudest mouths, with provides just a grand old stereotype of Christians being idiots and gives the arrogant atheists ammunition. If more people were more open, these comment arguments would be more along the lines of civilized debates, instead of both sides going “I’m right your wrong blahblahblah”, which is annoying as shit.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
@Skiffo (127): we need more people like you.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
the biggest mystery of the bible is why people believe it. But really, in todays society, it seems that religious people are just there to piss off people who are . let’s face it: religion is irrelevent and quaint. I don;t understand why people get so uppity when someone comes along and says. “Look god doesn’t exist and here’s why” Isn’t better to know the truth, with evidense and logic provided? would you ignore evidence in a courtroom? “sure is there is overhwhelming evidence to put the accused in the room at the time of the rape and not to mention sperm, hair etc, but more likely, the devil put them there to trick us.”
And really, to anyone who believes in the biblical god, either Dinosaurs existed or god does.*
*no, there weren’t dinosaurs on the ark. Actually read the bible.
Look, I don’t have anything against religious people, but believing in talking snakes, ghosts, people turning into stone, people living 900 years plus, two of every animal on earth on one boat, people living in whales, people following stars to witness a virgin birth etc just seems idiotic.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Hooray for the (non-Orthodox) Jews, Quakers, and Unitarians who are amused by this argument. Not to mention Eastern religions and Muslims.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
@ianz09 (136): Well said, but that brings up something important. What would have to happen to disprove gods existence. Like what if Jesus rose from the dead and said “There is no god, my dad was just some dude with a cool beard.” Wouldn’t that be some shit.
@bosoxfanzz (140): I was raised Unitarian. I think it was a good experience but I now judge all Unitarians as hippies haha.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Oh yeah on a serious note I only debat American stuff cuz its wht i know well. I was educated (on this very site actually) to never debate what you dont know. Youl get your ass handed to you as i did. Just cuz i like to box every now and again does mean iam or wanna sound stupid. I would never begin a debat about New Zealands president or laws cuz i dont shit about it. (does new zealand hav a pres or prime minister like the brits anyway?) see? im provingmy point already. Anyhoo jus wanted to add that in.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
@General Tits Von Chodehoffen (141): Well, that’s the thing. Since, most Christians’ beliefs are faith-based, disproving is an impossibility. Not saying “haha we won”, but in truth, these claims can’t be validated. I personally believe that Scientology is crap, but in all honesty, I can’t really say it isn’t real (unfortunately). So, you are right, what WOULD have to happen? Really, nothing can happen that will be able to disprove. For example, my beliefs manifested on their own, and therefore must disintegrate on their own. Nobody else can take that away from me, because nobody else gave it to me. Just for the record, I’m not bashing you, just in case you thought I was. Your comment made me lol
September 7th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Holy crap, people are actually acknowledging my existence! Now I just need a reply from JFrater and I’m set.
lol
September 7th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
I cant say I believe any of it, if I believed in anything it’d be science. Interesting/good list nonetheless.
September 7th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
I’am a dudist too…Be cool
September 7th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
@vtenebrae (32): good comment on the biblical mysteries..it is quite annoying!
September 7th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Admit it. You’ve been watching that (now misnamed) History Channel again. Sigh. Book. Of stories. Written by people.
September 7th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
In response to npatriquin
I do not mean to sound rude, however I truly fail to see the validity of your argument. This whole pattern things sounds a little nonsensical.
Let’s approach this from a both logical and religious perspective ( oxymoron.)
1. The closer a copy is to the original text in age (ex. the new testament) the more likely it would contain fewer errors, or changes.
2. The closer a copy of a text is to it original languages the more likely it would contain fewer changes, errors, or mistranslation.
3.When the new testament was begin “put together” , there was much debate about what to included. in the end men decided what to add and what to excluded.
Therefore one would argue that if someone wished to use the most accurate bible, it would have to be one that is in it original language or directly translated into another language, furthermore it would have to be translated from the oldest possible copy and also contain as many books , that can verifiably traced to the time period or/and writers of the bible.
If your bible does not meet this standard , then all the patterns in the world will not make it any closer to the original writings of the new testament.( which i do hope is the goal, right?)
#1. the bible was most likely not written by the apostle, and was instead passed around through oral means. this in -turn leads us to questioned the reliability of the writings to what was originally said by the apostles. but one must take into account the religiously significance of this. if you have ever been to a Muslim or Jewish place of worship, you will see how through repetition of verses(many times daily in some cases) , how amazing accurate oral tradition can be in a religious context.(Many of the orginal followers were indeed jewish) it is possible through this , the new testament was recorded extremely accurately to what the original apostles said.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
I’ve always thought John was the Beloved Disciple. O_O
September 7th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
neat list!
: )
September 7th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
the stupid holy grail, mary magdalene, bible codes stuffs are made up by roman catholic shits.. nonetheless they just want to get money from gullible people believing in popes and crucifixion stuffs. lol..
September 8th, 2009 at 12:05 am
im not religious but it is an interesting subject and this is very interesting list. Particularly the ‘beloved disciple’. Are we suggesting Jesus might have been gay? Wouldnt that throw a spanner in the works of fundamentalist beliefs!
September 8th, 2009 at 12:07 am
@105:
god is merciful,kind and all forgiving yet kills millions -like the two cities, the entire earth and everyone who dies
You forget that God is also Holy, Just and Judge. This isn’t a contradiction. Are your parents any less merciful, kind and forgiving if they punish you for your wrongs?
god is all powerful yet makes satan who can kill and inflict pain at will
Actually he can’t. Have you not read the account of Job and how satan was not permitted to take his life? He can only do what God, or we allow him to do.
Being all powerful means that God can do anything He determines to do. Creating satan doesn’t contradict this.
god gave us free will yet if you dont follow his rules to the letter you get tortured in hell eternally
You have the free-will to assume what is true about the universe and act upon it. Whatever you choose has consequences. Would you say that you don’t have free-will in society because if you break the law you go to jail? The difference is you reject what God has laid down simply because you don’t like it, not because it contradicts free-will.
This isn’t a rational way to think.
jesus is gods son and god. which is it? jesus never claims to be god and speaks to god (himself?) directly many times
It is both. In Him dwells the full nature of God, and this also makes Him the only begotten Son of God. Would you ask “light is red and blue, which is it?” knowing that it can be both?
Have you not read where Jesus said “I and my Father are one?” And again when He was asked by the religious authorities if He was the Son of God, He said “It is as you say”, and furthermore, when He claimed to be greater than Abraham, He said “Before Abraham was, I AM” invoking the name of God Himself and claiming to be eternally pre-existent?
Tell me, what crime did they accuse Jesus of when they tried to put Him to death? It was blasphemy because He claimed to be God.
the world was made in 6 days in an instant- science has proven that wrong
This is a contradiction. How can something be made in 6 days in an instant? It can be posited that science hasn’t proven this wrong and that science can show this to be entirely plausible. It’s the interpretations of evidence that differ.
jesus is all loving and kind- killed a tree as it wouldnt bear fruit on command, not knowing it was out of season.
He was demonstrating His power to His disciples and making a point about being active and bearing fruit whether in season or out of season because they were not like plants, they were expected to be ready and active at all times. This says nothing about His treatment of humans or animals as the same ethics do not apply.
also attacked and destroyed poor traders stalls in a fit of rage. he also mocked a woman from a lower class of people in isreal calling her a dog.
Haven’t you read how the traders were dishonoring the temple by turning it into a place of consumerism? If a person enters your fathers house as a guest, do you let them treat it as they wished?
You lack understanding of the context of Jesus’ statement. He was not mocking the woman but testing her. Do you not also know the difference between analogy and reality? He was sent first to Israel and it was His disciples who would be sent to the rest of the world, yet this woman demonstrated great wisdom and faith in realizing that even the smallest gesture from Jesus was enough to heal her child. He commended her, He did not mock her.
isrealites were oppressed slaves of egyptians yet historical records show they werent. david had a massive empire yet historical evidence shows he owned a small patch of land.
Historical records used to show that Ninevah didn’t exist. Imagine the surprise when it was discovered. There has also been found archeological evidence for both the slavery and David’s empire. What records are you referring to?
god is wise and fair yet kills and maims. turns a woman into salt just for looking back, orders a man to kill his son, forces a man to kill his daughter in exchange for victory.
God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in a catastrophic way. Lot’s wife died because she fell behind so she could watch and fell victim to the destruction. If there were an explosion behind you, would you stop and look or turn and run? Could you blame anyone other than yourself if you fell victim to the explosion as a result?
God tested Abraham’s faith, knowing full well He didn’t want Him to sacrifice the boy (as he was the result of a promise) and Abraham acted in faith being aware of that promise and the power of God to raise the boy from the dead. Bottom line, Isaac wasn’t sacrificed but people like you tend to ignore that
God did not force the man to kill his daughter. That man made a foolish vow to God and he was convicted by his own conscience to carry out this vow. God didn’t tell him to and He didn’t force him to. We are told repeatedly to be careful of vows and even not to make them. This man also didn’t consider that God forbade human sacrifice.
There is also the theory that he actually dedicated his daughter to life service in the temple rather than took her life.
When all is said and done, I present the same question to you as I have before. Apart from God, how do you define what is good or bad? What is your ultimate standard for defining evil? For it is God who said not to murder because man has been made in His image and is therefore of great worth, and it is He who created the universe and blessed it calling it very good. Therefore, He defined why it is imperative to protect and preserve it. How else would you justify this in a universe of chance, meaningless and lack of purpose?
@110:
I asked you if you had a rational point to make, as in one you can logically justify and that isn’t simply arbitrary emotive rhetoric and you have answered that question by doing the same thing again.
If you wish, I can logically justify why I believe the Bible is a historical account of the last 6000 years or so. I can also provide examples of evidence that is consistent with this.
The existence of animal remains in the ground doesn’t prove or disprove anything. They do not come with a label saying how old they are and indeed, to date them you have to make several assumptions that can’t be justified.
Have you not read that Jesus spoke in parables so that those who wanted to hear would hear, and those who didn’t wouldn’t hear. In other words, it separates those who are truly searching for truth from those who aren’t. Those who transparently search for truth without an agenda will go where ever the evidence leads and will examine all things, fully convinced that there is an answer. Those who believed Jesus’ words believed that even if they didn’t have the answers right then, God would provide them if they looked for them. The other person is the one who has already decided that they will not search below the surface and will reject whatever is said as foolish.
If you want to find God, you will. If you don’t, you won’t. That’s why He sometimes spoke in figurative language or parables. Tell me, have you actually tried to search deeper into these things?
It’s unfortunate that you have to resort to ad hominem in your response because this further confirms that you don’t have a rational argument because this isn’t a rational way to debate.
@112:
You only “have” to do that if you aren’t reading the Bible the way it’s meant to be read, in the historical grammatical context. In such a context, you would understand that to the audience Jesus spoke to, the mustard seed was indeed the smallest seed known to them that would grow to a tree of great size as a metaphor for the church starting small and becoming great.
Aside from the account of Genesis, there is no original sin so what would it be a metaphor for? Where did original sin originate and with whom? Was it simply part of creation because if so, man could not be punished for what he didn’t choose to do. The Catholic Church is not the ultimate authority on what is true and what isn’t in the Bible. The Bible is its own authority as the Word of God, as there is none greater than God it stands to reason that His Word would stand on its own merit.
To say that mankind decides what is and isn’t true within it is to assume that man is the ultimate authority and not God. It’s essentially shooting oneself in the foot because they would remove all justification for their belief. This isn’t to say they would lose their salvation, but they would have no logically justifiable reason to have it in the first place.
September 8th, 2009 at 12:53 am
Huzzah~!!!Jesus & God is fake!
September 8th, 2009 at 1:07 am
In the KJV, the 47th word of Psalm 47 is “shake”. The 47th last word is “spear” – “Shake-spear”. Ta-da!
September 8th, 2009 at 2:03 am
Of course, none of these mysteries will ever be solved as the bible is fiction, but it is still quite entertaining that at least one author of the Bible felt that Ethiopia(or a location quite near it) was the cradle of humanity. Realisitically though, it may have been common for all ancient civilizations/religions to have “known” humans first emerged in the area we now call Ethiopia, but most religious works were either lost, destroyed, or never written down.
September 8th, 2009 at 2:14 am
Lord Darth Mysterio (125): “The Lost Tribes are Lost, thats why they are called the Lost Tribes, Duh….” -ROFLMAO !
September 8th, 2009 at 2:33 am
The Honest truth: One of the most fundamental questions we ask are self during are life . do i believe in God? interesting……. believe? not do I know there is a God? Whether due to the fragility and limits of the human mind, or simply because of the limit of are lifespan. it is impossible to know truthfully if he exists or not.
To the scientist amongst us: Evidence can come about that greatest contradict the bible account, however that disproves the bible , not the fundamental question whether god exist or not. Science cannot completely disprove that god does not exist, no more can it disprove , alien might exist or ghost. Science deals with what CAN be observed, tested, or made to react. If we are unable to observe something do we assume it is not there? Only a foolish scientist would fall into such a trap. The proper scientist we simply say,” it is not testable at the moment , therefore I don’t know. ”
to the believer amongst us: Faith. simply put, is the driving force behind all conviction. You choose to believe, all for their own reasons. Some find hope, other strength, for other it is a tool used for self promotion. Still the fact remains, you do not know. (unless God has spoken to you personally, which i doubt). All you have to go by is a book and your faith. When asked to prove without a doubt god exists the honest faithful say ” I cannot”. then how do you know he exist? ” I just know.”
I myself am an agnostic , I can not lie to myself or to god. I simply do not know. but who amongst us does?
September 8th, 2009 at 3:03 am
All of these lost biblical treasures can be easily found… in your head.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:09 am
Even thought i am not a religious person this was very interesting
September 8th, 2009 at 3:17 am
@Stizzy (155):
Listen, the earth is older than six thousands years. Genesis is not an historical account. Dinosaurs did exist millions of years ago. We know all of these things to be fact. They are as infallible as our knowledge that the Earth revolves around the Sun and that people who use smileys in their writing tend to be more than a little annoying. If you choose not to believe these things then, again, please don’t talk to me about rationality. So far everything you’ve said has been completely devoid of any rational logic. And yes, i am attacking you. Your ideas do not deserve to be debated, we know that they are wrong and i’m not going to treat them with any kind of respect. It’s you who i take issue with. Why, with all the evidence that is available, do you still choose to believe the rubbish that you do. It’s cowardly and lazy. Yes it may be hard to accept that you’ve devoted your life to something wholly imaginary, but be big enough and brave enough to accept that and move on. If you cant do that then at least keep your craziness to yourself.
@ianz09 (136):
First off,
‘your lack of belief in God is based on lack of evidence.’
No. I don’t believe in god because of the insurmountable pile of evidence that suggest otherwise.
‘But my belief in God is FAITH based, meaning you will under no circumstance ever be able to disprove the existence of God. I’m so sorry that you can’t hear logic from your high horse’
Can you not see the ludicrousness of this. Accuse me of not hearing logic, whilst also claiming that you believe in something which no body will ever be able to disprove, what? That is the height of stupidity and fundementalism. Trust me i understand logic, and there is not an ounce of it in any of your argument. As i’ve already said, the evidence is out there, if your too blissfully ignorant to pick up a book and look at it then i really am at a loss. Again, just don’t force your nonsense on your children.
@Tenebrae (124):
I apologies for tarnishing you with the same brush, i was quite rash in my exasperation with this whole argument. However i still do not agree with some of what you say. The burden of proof always must lie with those who make the claim. Just because something cannot be disproved it does not make it a valid point of discussion. (google Russel’s teapot).
Secondly, i do believe that people who base their opinions on evidence, facts and logic should have a monopoly over ‘The Truth’. People who base their beliefs around faith, or blindly following what others have told them, without any thought of questioning them should not be allowed in to the grown ups room.
@General-Jake (133):
Again my apologies, you sound like a decent bloke and i didn’t mean to jump down your throat.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:21 am
lolfail
September 8th, 2009 at 4:15 am
I like the Equidistant Letter Sequence! hehehe!
September 8th, 2009 at 5:00 am
@163:
You believe all those things to be fact. I do not.
What is fact is that the Earth is here and has been for a long time, that its age must be interpreted and that there are many dinosaur remains within earths strata. Those are facts we can observe.
You contrast the earth going round the Sun (a fact) with people who use emoticons being annoying (an opinion) and then claim that your interpretations of these other facts is as infallible as the facts themselves. Do you see the problem here?
I have logical reasons for why I do not believe these things and I can rationally justify those reasons. You haven’t provided reasons for why you believe let alone justified your belief. You’ve simply sat there and hurled abuse and resorted to dismissive rhetoric so of course i’m going to talk to you about debating rationally.
If you cannot even do it and refuse to do it, how can you try and impose such a standard on anyone else?
To name just a few examples, the presence of C14 and helium in diamonds meant to be billions of years old points to a young Earth.
The presence of soft tissues in dinosaur bones would seem to indicate that these bones are not in the millions of years as such traces should have decayed.
The Bible has consistently and accurately described historical events and people both during, after and even before such events took place.
Furthermore, I find that nothing else apart from the biblical God can logically justify the universe we exist in.
Our DNA contains digial, complex, specified information. In every context known to man, such information is always the product of an intelligence. It is highly improbable that given the entirety of time scientists claim we’ve had in the universe that even the simplest protein could form through natural processes.
In a universe that has consistent laws of physics, we must ask how such laws came to be and why they are consistent? What reason do we have to believe such conditions will exist tomorrow?
If you say “Because we remember they’ve always remained the same”, we may ask if our memories are the resulting product of random chemical reactions, how can we be certain they are reliable? If you say “Because I took a memory test 2 weeks ago and did quite well” how do you know your memory of taking the memory test is accurate or reliable?
Further, if our senses (through which we observe these things) are the resulting product of random chemical reactions, what justifiable reason do we have to assume they basically work?
I believe the universe is consistently and uniformly upheld by physical laws because God has decreed it to be so and upholds such laws so that the life is possible and as a reflection of His nature as a logical, consistent God.
Also, could we not rely on this uniformity, predictability would be impossible and furthermore science itself would be impossible. We have to assume that if we do a test tomorrow that is the same as one we did yesterday, that the results will be the same due to the laws of physics not changing. But apart from God, what reason do we have to assume this would be so?
I believe that God has created our memories and our senses to be basically reliable so that we can observe, explore and understand this amazing universe, interact with it and each other and ultimately interact with Him.
I believe we are capable of vast intelligence, a sense of morality, comprehension of logic, perceptions of beauty and altruism because we are made in the image of God and are thus able to reflect His nature.
Furthermore there is the immaterial nature of information, logic, laws of nature and mathematics. Things that stand in stark contrast to philosophies such as materialism, naturalism and empiricism which I find all to be self-refuting.
How do you determine that the material is all there is without going beyond the material universe? If you did so, you would refute materialism. In order to prove it true, it would have to be false.
How do you determine that all things are the product of natural processes when natural processes cannot justify the pre-conditions of intelligiblity?
How do you determine that all knowledge can be observed through the senses when that very statement cannot be observed through the senses?
There are many other reasons I believe, but this is a few in brief.
And yes, i am attacking you. Your ideas do not deserve to be debated, we know that they are wrong and i’m not going to treat them with any kind of respect. It’s you who i take issue with.
Again, subjective opinion and therefore arbitrary. What you think of me or your problem with me is irrelevant to the points I’m making.
Why, with all the evidence that is available, do you still choose to believe the rubbish that you do. It’s cowardly and lazy. Yes it may be hard to accept that you’ve devoted your life to something wholly imaginary, but be big enough and brave enough to accept that and move on. If you cant do that then at least keep your craziness to yourself.
I disagree that it is rubbish and it is because of evidence and other factors that I believe what I do.
In what way is it cowardly and lazy? It is not I who is attacking a world-view without actually taking the time to look into it and check that my attacks hold weight.
Wholly imaginary? So, that we live on an incredible world within a vast universe that appears fine tuned to life, that this universe is ordered with uniform laws of physics, that the world is filled with a vast array of creatures that all reproduce according to their kinds, that humanity have the capacity for vast intelligence, a sense of morality, comprehension of logic, perceptions of beauty and altruism are wholly imaginary? Because you can find all of these things and more in what I’ve devoted my life to.
If that really is all imaginary then I really am crazy, but then I suspect so are you as I doubt you would say those things are wholly imaginary.
That my beliefs crazy is your own belief, and as you do not feel you should keep yours to yourself, you can hardly impose that I keep my beliefs to myself.
A wise person once said “Behind every double standard is a single hidden agenda” I suspect that your double standard isn’t a product of the data or the facts, but philosophical bias. I suspect that your double standard comes from you simply not liking what I believe irrespective of whether it’s true or not.
If someone were to argue that common descent via modification was rubbish & untrue because they didn’t like the idea of being descended from an ape, you’d hardly consider that a rational argument.
All I’ve asked is that rather than being rhetorical, you justify your statements
I don’t expect that anything I have said should persuade you as that isn’t my intention. My intention is simply to justify my position.
Stay well.
September 8th, 2009 at 6:59 am
@Stizzy (165):
I’m stunned. You honestly believe with all your heart that the world is around 6000 years old. What’s more you try to rationally justify your beliefs. I thought people like you were just a myth. A scary story you tell idiot kids so that they do their homework. I am genuinely interested in hearing your views on other things which i know, repeat, know to be fact that you perhaps have decided are not to your liking.
1) Do you believe in evolution
2) Do you believe the Earth is round
3) Did we exist at the same time as dinosaurs, or did they just not exist at all.
I would be more than appreciative if i could here your fruitcake views on these matters as well.
Oh, and if you want me to show my workings, how i came to the crazy conclusion that the world is billions not thousands of years old, then Google radiometric dating. I’m sure you’ll find some interesting articles to start with.
September 8th, 2009 at 7:00 am
@archiealt (162): You misunderstood my argument.
My belief in God is, I’ll admit, illogical, but if you read my previous comments, you will know that I never claimed it was. You are illogical because you assumed that by claiming insurmountable evidence to God not existing, you would be able to bestow your immaculate truth upon the believers. My argument was THIS: Evidence will shatter fact, not faith. My argument was NOT: God is real. Whether you believe or do not believe, it is undeniable fact that evidence will not destroy faith, unless that person is irrefutably weak and fickle in that faith. This isn’t a contradiction, or an opinion. It is simple, hard fact, that despite your best efforts, some people will grasp at straws just keep their god. I am not saying God is real. I AM saying, that my personal belief is that He is, and that because I believe without evidence, that evidence will not change my mind. You believe in evolution because there is evidence to support it. If facts were released today that indisputably denounced evolution, you would disown evolution. I don’t foresee this happening, however, as evolution makes too much sense (yes, I believe in evolution).
If you have never known faith, you won’t understand, not fully. I am generally a logical person. I am a skeptic when it comes to most things, and do not accept anything as truth without evidence or experience. However, I always accept things as possibility, so as not the lock the door on them before they even knock. I have had personal experiences that have lead me to faith in God, and no I will not share them. First, because they’re personal, second, because it wouldn’t help anyway. I used to be an atheist, a rather arrogant one. You will never be able to comprehend unconditional faith in anything, not just God, until you have been given a reason to throw yourself out there for it. “You don’t know peace ’til you’ve had suffering.” (Solitaire Unraveling, Mushroomhead). Don’t denounce my faith, simply denounce your own. Even if God doesn’t exist, He has had a bigger impact on this world than any living man (yes, a paraphrased line from South Park, but it’s true). Therefore, is it really that illogical to have faith?
When it comes to the aspect of God, you are a man of fact, I of faith. We will never come to an agreement, but I wasn’t trying to convert you anyways. Like I said before, atheist or not, it is undeniable that evidence won’t shatter (true, unconditional) faith. It would be like trying to unlock a door with the wrong key.
I’m done, archiealt, I’ve made my point. I’m not bashing you over the head with a God-is-real-I’m-right-you’re-wrong stick, so don’t argue that angle anymore. I’m tired of typing the same argument in multiple comments. You are trying to play my chess game with checkers pieces.
In other, simpler words, I’m done giving a shit, kiss my ass. Debating with you is like trying to break out of a supermax prison with a meatball and a shoe string.
September 8th, 2009 at 7:40 am
Some day I’ll actually finish reading the Bible, from the standpoint of a lit nerd, it’s a great piece of writing. But, I am not a follower. To me, finding Eden or the Grail or the Ark equates to someone trying to find Middle Earth or Florin and Guilder. But to each his own. Very nice list.
September 8th, 2009 at 7:51 am
Some very interesting points raised here, which has got me thinking!
September 8th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Can I have a go…
Where is the Holy Grail?
The cup Jesus drank from at the last supper would have been used many more times then probably thrown away when it broke and it would have rotted away centuries ago.
Where is the Ark of the Covenant?
Melted down after the Babylonians destoyed the temple and probably made into coins, jewelry etc…
Where is the Garden of Eden?
If it was a Garden created by God, anywhere. It does not even have to exist in our plan of existance. The authors of the Bible wrote desciptions of the world to their understanding of it.
The Bible appears to contain coded messages; is this a coincidence?
Yes, Duh!
What happened to the lost tribes?
They’re lost, if we knew where they were they wouldn’t be lost. Alternatively. after the destruction of Israel the people who made up the tribes were scattered, enslaved or dead.
Where is Noah’s Ark?
Rotted away centuries ago
September 8th, 2009 at 7:56 am
Glad I came back to this site some new very interesting items which I wanted to know more about. Great work on your site.
September 8th, 2009 at 7:59 am
@ianz09 (167):
Please don’t talk to me like a fool, i understand your argument completely, it is just a ridiculous argument to be making. To say we cannot apply evidence to faith is a very dangerous notion. Many of the problems we have in this world would be solved with logic, if it were not for the fundamental position that people like yourself take which prevents logic from prevailing. Faith and fact are not two separate ways of arriving at a conclusion. Faith is not on a par with fact. Faith is a by word for irrationality. A man such as yourself who seems to understand this, and yet still chooses to look the other way is even more infuriating than somebody who perhaps does not know any better. Despite what you may think, faith is also not a tangible emotion, such as happiness or fear. So to say something such as ‘if you have never known faith’ is an incredibly annoying and condescending thing to say. It also shows a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the word faith. It is a word, and therefor is man made. It has no deeper, special, hidden meaning, simply a word used to justify somebody’s irrational position when there is no evidence to support there claim. Nothing more nothing less.
September 8th, 2009 at 8:12 am
Some very interesting points have been made here, it is refreshing to see that your site gets quality visitors.
September 8th, 2009 at 8:28 am
Love the new look, keep up the great work the number of visitors must have increased?.
September 8th, 2009 at 8:52 am
This was a really great read, I am very glad I came across your site.
September 8th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Although it is correct that it is common thought that the Exodus occured when Rameses II the Great was Pharaoh, the picture you show above is his father, Seti I. Minor thing, but just thought I’d point that out.
September 8th, 2009 at 10:10 am
@166:
1) That depends on what you mean by “evolution” If you mean “change” or “natural selection” then yes, I do. This can clearly be seen and has been tested.
If you mean common descent via modification, that all organisms have a single ancestor and have evolved from that organism, then no. This isn’t fact, this is theory. This hasn’t been observed but speculated and the data is stacked against it being possible.
2) Why wouldn’t I? That’s something we can actually see (as opposed to one kind of creature changing into another or abiogenesis), furthermore, the Bible itself said as such even when people were claiming it was flat
3) Mankind existed at the same time as dinosaurs. They being land animals, they would have been created on the same day as all other land animals.
We can find numerous accounts of supposed sightings of creatures that fit the description of dinosaurs. You can see cave drawings and etchings that depict recognisable dinosaurs. Furthermore, you have to wonder why we have so many dragon legends throughout history. Perhaps these were based on actual encounters with humans?
We also should consider the numerous “living fossils” scientists continue to find and continue to find. The question you have to ask is why do you assume that humans could never or have never lived side by side with dinosaurs?
Ah yes, radiometric dating. You must have missed my mention of C14 in diamonds as radiometric dating methods would say such diamonds are as old as the Earth and yet there shouldn’t be any C14 or Helium inside them. We find an abundance.
There is also instances of radiometric dating being performed on rocks of known age such as the dome on Mt Saint Helens which was dated to millions of years old even thogh the dome formed in the 1980’s.
Following this is the fact that radiometric dating is based on assumptions that cannot be verified, such as the starting proportions of daughter to parent element and that the rate of decay has remained constant.
Tests have shown that the rate of decay can change and recent reports have shown that neutrinos have been found to increase the decay rate of a certain element which seems to coincide with the earths position relative to the sun if I remember correctly.
But see, I can present all this to you but because of your philosophical bias, you may use a rescuing device to explain away such contrary evidence and so the debate comes down to one of world-views. I have presented mine and I have rationally justified it. You haven’t provided evidence that I haven’t done so or presented a counter-argument. You haven’t addressed the issues I raised about how a Godless world-view affects the possibilty of science and knowledge.
Put simply rather than actually providing any rational argument when asked if you have one, you’ve dismissed everything arbitrarily. You say that my ideas are fruit cake ideas, yet how do you expect your point to be taken seriously if you cannot even logically present it?
September 8th, 2009 at 11:03 am
silly mormons believe the garden of eden is in Missouri, USA!
September 8th, 2009 at 11:14 am
((In response to #149 atlaseternal at Sep 7 at 10:58 pm …re: This …pattern things sounds …nonsensical. Let’s approach this from a both logical and religious perspective…1. The closer a copy is to the original text in age …the more likely it would contain fewer errors))
atlaseternal –thanks for your response. I try to never take good strong discussion as rude—yours are good comments. What I believe you are saying is that based on our best logical analysis we can conclude the most accurate Bible is the one we can best trace back to the original text. The problem is, how do we really know which is the original text since we don’t have any copies of them? All this study is based on scholars best guesses based on the evidence they can find. I agree with your conclusion, but you must admit there are many honest scholars who have come to different conclusions about these “truths”. There can only be one truth about what passages of God’s word are God’s and which ones men have corrupted.
But now there’s new evidence contridicting some of our scholar’s assumptions. Evidence that is very compelling in verification through both common sense and mathematical calculation– I asked and nobody has yet answered; is the middle chapter of the Bible being the smallest and only two verse chapter a coincidence (PS 117)? It would seem a simple enough question but I suspect you are hesitating to answer because the answer you want to give (not coincidence) does not make sense. It does not matter what Bible we are speaking of – if Ps 117 is found as the centerpoint chapter in any Bible, did it find itself there by accident? If not, then it is by design. The simple math that makes this evidence compelling is taking the total number of chapters (1189) and dividing by two to come up with the center chapter number. The common sense part is to ask ourselves; does our common sense tell us that is an accident? I’m trying to appeal to calculations that I cannot misuse to make an incorrect assertion. Let me give you an even more compelling one.
In the KJV, Matthew chapter 24 is a chapter focused on the Day of the Lord — the day the Lord will come to avenge his people. Note, that “coincidentally” there are 24 hours in a day. Verse 42 (the numbers 24 in reverse which Greek and Hebrew number expression-gematria- considered the same) which is the key verse of the chapter tells us to be on the alert because we do not know at what hour/day this will occur. So verse 42 (24) is associated directly with verse text about the Day of the Lord. It probably seems like I’m playing with numbers and I would agree without this next bit of evidence…Matthew 24:42 with both chapter and verse text focused on the “DAY” of the Lord is the 24,000th verse of the KJV Bible. This is amazing– I’ve had a professional mathematition calculate the probabilities of these five associations for the number 24 falling together on one verse of the Bible and his calculated number of inprobability was so big I don’t like to quote it—billions to one. With a little effort and a KJV anyone can verify how all these numbers line up for themselves. What does your common sense tell you about this evidence? Coincidence? By design? How did this happen?
The evidence is like God is saying; STOP, PAY ATTENTION. I’M SHOWING YOU SOMETHING I WANT YOU TO KNOW.. If these were only a few limited evidences, I would have dropped this long ago, but as you might expect; if the pattern goes throughout the Bible as I claim, the evidence is enormous when you know what to watch for. I have five friends now, all strong believers who once strongly believed I was nuts, but now can’t deny the evidence themselves. For myself and these friends, it has really been a process of no longer being able to deny the evidence that finally pushed us to give in to the reality. It has taken my friends years to finally accept the discovery. My book editor finally accepted the evidence after six months but we were working together on almost a day basis for that time.
When I first began observing these evidences I rejected them as well knowing that for thousands of years scholars and those much smarter and wiser than I both had evidence to the contrary, and certainly would have spotted this evidence before now. But over ten years in a very slow and progressive way the evidence I could no longer deny finally pushed me over the edge—God had somehow supernaturally constructured and preserved his word.
It might surprise you to know I would be a happy man if I was proven wrong. I could go back to my normal life and no longer have to tell this impossible story nobody believes. My book was not written to make money, it was written to explain this discovery. I’ve sacraficed hundreds of thousands of dollars of income to do what I’m doing now. But, the math and numbers do not lie-it is what it is and I will keep sharing what I see until God somehow tells me to stop. I know this sounds nutty—that is, until you truly investigate it for yourself.
Psa 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times. You, O LORD, will keep them…
September 8th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Noah’s Ark – Found (mystery solved)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PSZNYdfawQ
Sodem and Gomorrah – Found (mystery solved)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG3QsisQrkc
The Garden Tomb – Found (mystery solved)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DXT7CbaCjE
Ark of the Covenant – Found but only by witness. Yet to be shown to the public in due time..
September 8th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
@NinthPixel (180): Those “discoveries” were made by Ron Wyatt who was considered a fraud not just by the scientific community, but by many American evangelical communities as well. Here are some of the things he claimed to have discovered in his lifetime:
- Noah’s Ark (the Durupınar site, located 18.25 miles south of Mount Ararat at an altitude of 6,525 feet above sea level)
- Anchor stones (or drogue stones) used by Noah on the Ark
- The post-flood house, grave markers and tombs of Noah and his wife
- The location of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other (3) Cities of the Plain: Zoar, Zeboim and Admah
- Sulfur/brimstone balls from the ashen remains of Sodom and Gomorrah.
- The Tower of Babel site in southern Turkey
- The site of the Israelites’ crossing of the Red Sea (located in the Gulf of Aqaba)
- Chariot wheels and other relics of the army of Pharaoh at the bottom of the Red Sea
- The true site of the biblical Mt. Sinai, located by Wyatt in Saudi Arabia at Jabal al Lawz
- A chamber at the end of a maze of tunnels under Jerusalem containing artifacts from Solomon’s Temple
- The site of the Crucifixion of Jesus
- The Ark of the Covenant (container with the Ten Commandments)
- The original stones of the Ten Commandments (the second set)
- Blood of Jesus, dripped onto the Mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant, directly beneath the Crucifixion site
Pretty ridiculous claims really and none with verification.
September 8th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
@npatriquin (179): Please stop posting links to your website and your name. We don’t allow signatures here.
September 8th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
I love this site but this list was a little weak… You may as well run up a list of the top ten mysteries of Aesop’s Fables.
September 8th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
npatriquin:
Your argument for God’s existence based on the location of what seems to be arbitrarily-chosen passages in the bible intrigues me. Tell me, where in this picture does the Council of Nicaea fit? As I’m sure you are aware, the bible as we know it today is cobbled together from a number of different texts by a group of men in 325 c.e. Many of these texts were dropped, some after the fact. Was God nudging this process along so that John 3:16 is located in the 1000th chapter in the bible? Or do you expect me to believe that you think the bible was hand-delivered by God in its modern format?
September 8th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
This is the first time that i see Christians actually holding up against atheists, and i dont believe in religion but i do believe in Abba (no not the band).
Extreme opposites always touch, i remember going to an atheist rally just to see what kind of points of view they had, it was pure hate, no more different that a KKK “Christian rally” i even saw a little 2 year old kid with a Tshit “FUCK JESUS” i asked the dad why did he put the Tshirt on he’s bab…”Because religion promotes hate” he said.
The hate spawns the fear of wich that it is protested.
September 8th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Responding to SlickWilly–what about the council of Nicaea.
Thanks for the question. My conclusion about how the organization happened.
We accept the original text of the Bible to be inspired by God and yet know it was written by men so we assume that God worked through men to write the original text. Did men take dictation from God…no. Men likely wrote like any writer, what came to their mind. I suspect the Holy Spirit was putting every letter of every word into their minds.
We accept the canonization is inspired yet me know men did that too and we still believe it was of God. So do I. I suspect it happened in the same way, men were making the best decisions they know how but God was making sure his result was accomplished.
The numbering of the chapter and verses was also done by different men and we have always assumed they were not inspired. We had no reason to suspect they were inspired so down through the centuries this has become the truth we have known. It is no different to consider the book, chapter and verse numbering inspired than to consider the canonization and many original writings inspired. It would seem that men did it as we understand from our history but the Holy Spirit left nothing to chance and guided the assignment of every number. It is all perfect as God had it all designed from the beginning.
The evidence points clearly to a perfect and divine organization–only God really knows how he brought it about. It is the same issue when it comes to inspiration of books, chapters, verses and canonization so this question is not a new one, it is just being applied to a part of the Bible we never before considered inspired.
Norm
September 8th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
RE: jfrater Please stop posting links to your website and your name.
Oops. Sorry, I didn’t post my website on the last post but just automatically added my name. Note, my website is full of real information and is not just a front for selling a book.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Answer to questions 3,7,8,9,10…….They are nowhere. They are fake and never existed. These stories are fiction.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Alright…as much fun as it is listening to so many people call religious people stupid and brainless, I would like to make the following list of people who WERE religious and were NOT remotely stupid, and would probably put half of the people accusing the religious peoples stupid in their place.
Albert Einstein
Religion: Jewish
Contribution: Well…what wasn’t his contribution tomodern science.
Neils Bohr
Religion: Jewish/Lutheran
Contribution: Structure of the Atom
Charles Darwin
Religion: Anglican (attended masses regularly I’d like to add)
Contribution: Father of Evolution (Funny how that works out, eh?)
Galileo Galilei
Religion: Catholic
Contribution: Earth revolves around sun
Antoine Laurent Lavoisier
Religion: Catholic
Contribution: The Revolution of Chemistry
Johannes Kepler
Religion: Lutheran
Contribution: Planetary Motion
Nicolaus Copernicus
Religion: Catholic (PRIEST)
Contribution: Heliocentric Universe
James Clerk Maxwell
Religion: Presbyterian/Anglican/Baptist
Contribution: Electromagnetic Field
Werner Heisenberg
Religion: Lutheran
Contribution: Quantum Theory
As you can see, the accusation of Christians and other religious people as being “weak minded” is an incredibly ignorant thing to say. It gets old being accused of stupidity by self righteous nonbelievers. Don’t get me wrong now, I am not saying that one is right and the other is wrong. I’m simply saying that we need to cut the crap about people with faith being brainless. It’s just making you look like ignorant fucking assholes.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
to stizzy: we all are entitled to our own opinion but not our own facts! The FACTS are undeniable the earth is a lot older than 6,000 years. This is not to say god does not exist simply to say, your calculation are way off.
It seems to me that whenever a scientific fact remotely supports your belief you aspect it as fact, but when it disagrees with you, it’s just a theory made by corrupt scientist.
As a member of the scientific community , I assure you that most scientists seek only one thing : truth.
whether it agrees or disagrees, with what the current data says.
There is too much data pointing to a much older earth.
according to the bible “You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.”
Through fossil record we have been able to identify thousands upon thousands of extinct species, did all these species become extinct with-in this short 6,000 year old? The great flood maybe, if so then Noah would not have saved all the animals species but only a nearly miniscule(1 or less) percent that still exist today.
Rock erosion, through the use of mathematic we can see how long it would take for rock erosion to occur. by comparing time value that we do know , we can accurately estimate the time it would take for erosion, like the grand canyon to occur. The numbers I assure you are much more than 6,000!
Plant growth, Clonal trees. plant growth can be easily measured, as any elementary student can tell you. by the use of mathematics we can estimate the time it took of these clonal plants to grow to the size they can currently be found at. some are estimated to be between 80,000 – 1,000,000 .
movement of the earth, plate tectonic. Anyone who has ever experience an earth quake can tell you the earth moves. The plate movement can be measure by current technology. often time these plate collide and form mountains over long periods of time. by using the rate of movement we know about the plates, we can give an accurate estimate about how long it would take for these mountains to form, and it is a much larger number than 6,000 years.
these are just a small amount of mathematical proof , that the earth is over 6,000 years old. people lie math does not. I did not mention evolutionary proof, or particles dating techniques because I know many believers regard this as flawed. but the fact remains , you logic is flawed.
i am not attacking your faith,believe what you wish. however you try to pass religion as science.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
God is my favorite fictional character.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
To me the greatest mystery of the bible would be that it doesn’t state whether or not people who commit suicide go to heaven or hell. i think they do this because if they do go to heaven, more people would be killing themselves. but if they go to hell then the familys of those who have commited suicide would be in so much pain. now that is a good mystery.
September 8th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Yay Freddy! I’m giving you the parsimony prize
September 8th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
I love this list, I have no controversial comments to leave. Only want to say nice list and it gives me something to continue researching. Thank you, JFrater
September 8th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
The entry at 154 in response to the enrty at 105 is just an instance of the bland leading the bland.
September 8th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Here are my answers, based upon my personal research and what I’ve read to most of those “mysteries.” I don’t put them forward as authoritative, just my current conclusions based upon the evidence that I’m aware of. These conclusions could well change if I’m made aware of new evidence.
#10 – Holy Grail – It’s just as you say, it’s a myth. If Jesus used a cup at the last supper it was probably made from simple pottery or wood and was not some ornate chalice.
#9 – Ark of the Covenant – Hmmm, don’t know, but most likely looted by the Babylonians.
#8 – Sodom & Gomorrah- Probably real cities destroyed in an earthquake and probably became remembered as more “wicked” as time went by.
#7 – Garden of Eden – Never existed. I don’t think Ethiopia as the scientific “Garden of Eden,” is what most people have in mind when they talk about the garden.
#6 – Bible Codes – Pretty much discredited. You can find the same kind of thing in the Iliad and the Odyssey as well as War and Peace.
#5 – The Lost Tribes – Hmmm, don’t know. But suspect they were simply assimilated into the Assyrian Empire.
#4 – The Pharaoh of the Exodus – Since it appears to be archeologically and historically highly unlikely there actually was an Exodus, there probably wasn’t a pharaoh.
#3 – Noah’s Ark – Never existed.
#2 – The Beloved Disciple – A true mystery. I’ve read many of the papers arguing for John, Lazarus and Mary Magdalene and I’m most impressed by the Lazarus theory. But I have to admit that the traditional argument that it’s John is pretty strong as well. John 21:20-23 has the answer, but it’s tantalizingly difficult to be absolutely certain what it’s telling us.
#1 – Authorship of the Gospels – Granted this is technically a mystery, but authorship seems to have been pretty much established as Mark, Matthew, Luke and John in the 2nd century. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I’ll go with the traditional authors.
September 8th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Love the list and the controversy it created. Would like to add a lesser known mystery. The Land of Ophir. Now this one I actually think there is a fair bit of evidence to support. King Solomon allied with the Phoenicians (a great Seafaring nation) and together they dominated naval trade. They used to send ships on 3 year voyages to the Land of Ophir, a land rich in gold and silver. But, what is really interesting, is that they could depart from Mediterranean ports AND ports on the Red Sea to reach the same destination. Some suggest that this is South Africa, but the problem with this theory is that the ships returned with Peacocks, a bird native to Asia and it wouldn’t take 3 years to sail around Africa. One theory that I love (because I like the possibility of alternative history) is that Ophir was in the Americas, possibly Brazil. The ships would literally go on round the world voyages (hence the 3 years it took for a round trip.) Remember, this was all in about 1000 BC. Before you dismiss this as some kind of conspiracy theory, remember that everyone used to deny Vikings had beaten Columbus to the Americas until settlements were found. Also, people in 1000 BC were not the barbaric savage idiots that we too often believe they were. Think of the Pyramids. They were capable of far more than we give them credit for. On a final note, it is alledged that artifacts have been found with Hebrew and Phoenician writing on them in the Americas and Pacific region. I’m not presenting all this as fact, but I think it’s a possibility. Do yourself a favour and google “Biblical Ophir” if you have a curious mind.
September 8th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
@Iakhovas (197): That’s interesting, definitely worth a look. I read about the Pemberton Wedge, an axe head discovered in America (I believe on the East coast though, not West). It predated both settlements in what is now the United States and Columbus’s initial discovery of America. Written on the axe head are characters that I think (and don’t quote me, I’m paraphrasing from memory) Hebrew. I would have to dig to confirm this information. Your Ophir theory reminded me of this. Interesting stuff. To any United States residents into bizarre and macabre history, I highly recommend Weird US, it’s both a book and a website (although the book has more) that is well worth your while.
September 8th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
I’ve seen several people bring up the council of nicaea here which is interesting because there is a list on this site that mentions the council.
The Bible canon wasn’t even discussed.
Furthermore, you can reassemble something like 99% of the NT from quoting early church fathers writing in the early 2nd century.
Also, the Bible itself refers to other scriptures. The epistles of Peter refer to Paul’s letters as scripture and all of the books were written before the close of the 1st century, with the majority written by 70 AD.
Yet this myth still persists
@190:
If it can be shown that dating methods are flawed, you can hardly say that the age of the Earth is fact.
Furthermore, there are things beyond Earth, in our universe which point to youth. The arms of spiral galaxies not having wound up over billions of years, the presence of comets in the solar system that should have been annihilated already.
It seems to me that whenever a scientific fact remotely supports your belief you aspect it as fact, but when it disagrees with you, it’s just a theory made by corrupt scientist.
No actually, if a theory surrounding a fact seems consistent and explains the evidence adequately, I will accept it. If the theory doesn’t, I won’t.
As a member of the scientific community , I assure you that most scientists seek only one thing : truth.
whether it agrees or disagrees, with what the current data says.
Then in all honesty, I have to say you are either mistaken or you’re being dishonest. Scientist, whatever they claim, will not generally follow the evidence where it leads because they are seeking a paradigm, not truth.
There is too much data pointing to a much older earth.
according to the bible “You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.”
Through fossil record we have been able to identify thousands upon thousands of extinct species, did all these species become extinct with-in this short 6,000 year old? The great flood maybe, if so then Noah would not have saved all the animals species but only a nearly miniscule(1 or less) percent that still exist today.
And here you demonstrate what you don’t know about the Bible or about creatures. The Bible refers to “kinds” and kinds are defined by creatures that are capable of interbreeding. Therefore, wolves, coyotes, dingos, and domestic dogs for example are all one kind. Horses, donkeys, zebras are all one kind. Lion, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, lynxs, and domenstic cats are all one kind.
All that was required were two representatives of certain kinds (seven of some others). You could compare “kind” to the level of genus or family.
Furthermore, it isn’t Noah who gathered the animals, he simply brought them into the Ark.
So in summary, representatives of the kinds were taken onto the Ark and all current species of creature are descended from those kinds.
Rock erosion, through the use of mathematic we can see how long it would take for rock erosion to occur. by comparing time value that we do know , we can accurately estimate the time it would take for erosion, like the grand canyon to occur. The numbers I assure you are much more than 6,000!
And yet this is based on the assumption that rates have remained constant and have not been subject to catastrophy. The Global Flood would have been an absolutely catastrophic event. We can just look at the recent mudslides, tsunamis and even a small canyon that formed in the UK over night to see what vast amounts of water in a short period can do.
Plant growth, Clonal trees. plant growth can be easily measured, as any elementary student can tell you. by the use of mathematics we can estimate the time it took of these clonal plants to grow to the size they can currently be found at. some are estimated to be between 80,000 – 1,000,000.
Not an area I know much about to be honest, although from what I do know there is only one example of clonal trees that are speculated to be 80,000 old, but the majority of oldest trees are dated between 1000-4000 years. But again, you have to assume conditions have remained constant to allow a consistent rate of growth.
movement of the earth, plate tectonic. Anyone who has ever experience an earth quake can tell you the earth moves. The plate movement can be measure by current technology. often time these plate collide and form mountains over long periods of time. by using the rate of movement we know about the plates, we can give an accurate estimate about how long it would take for these mountains to form, and it is a much larger number than 6,000 years.
And once again, based on the assumption that the rates have remained constant. These are all uniformitarian assumptions that can’t actually be empirically verified. Interestingly, one creationist prediction surrounding plate tectonics (based on Flood models) said that there would be a sheet of cold material near to the Earth’s core, and lo and behold, there it is.
Much study has been done on catestrophic plate tectonics in this field which indicate that runaway subduction and other factors may have been key mechanisms in the Global Flood.
these are just a small amount of mathematical proof , that the earth is over 6,000 years old. people lie math does not. I did not mention evolutionary proof, or particles dating techniques because I know many believers regard this as flawed. but the fact remains , you logic is flawed.
i am not attacking your faith,believe what you wish. however you try to pass religion as science.
People make mistakes and their math can follow those mistakes. Or they can start with the wrong assumptions and although their math is sound, it is based on a flawed principle.
Where is my logical flawed exactly? Have I committed a logical fallacy somewhere? If so, please point it out so that I may know.
But as I’ve said already, this is a debate on world-views my friend as we can both explain away evidence and theories by referring to our philosophical bias.
So the question is which world-view can most logically and rationally account for existence as we percieve it. I’ve already pointed out some of the flaws in the presuppositions that make up the evolutionary world-view and these have no been addressed.
If you can’t address those, frankly what ever argument you put forth has nothing to stand on.
@195: If you have an actual, non-arbitrary objection to my argument I’d be happy to hear it
otherwise I see no reason to regard your statement as relevant.
September 9th, 2009 at 2:33 am
*Sigh* Can angry Christian-bashers come up with a new way of being pissy? “Like, omg, the biggest mystery is why anyone believes this poop”. Ferchrissakes get a new tagline.
I thought this list was a brilliant read; I have a degree in theology religious studies so I’m always going to be a fan of the religious/biblical-historical lists so thanks JFrater! I only wish they didn’t always result in such a flurry of pointless comments about religion being ‘teh suxors’…….
If you have nothing intelligent to say then shut yer pie-hole!
On a more serious note, I’m putting my money on Mary Magdalene as being the beloved disciple (can you sense my dissertation title coming through there?!) I’m not going to try to suggest that she married Christ or that they humped like rabbits but being the apostola apostolorum giver her a sense of authority shared by particularly few of the apostles….. any thoughts people?!
September 9th, 2009 at 3:54 am
@200:
I don’t see how the beloved apostle could be Mary.
John 19:26-27 tells us:
When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!”
Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.
Then in John 20:1-3:
Now the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.
Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.”
Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple, and were going to the tomb.
In John 21:20-21 we read:
Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?”
Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?” (Emphasis mine)
Few verses down we read:
This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.
Think it’s safe to say that the beloved apostle wasn’t a woman and therefore wasn’t Mary. It’s also clear that this same apostle is the author of the book.
September 9th, 2009 at 4:25 am
@Renegade (189):
Please do some research in to those people before just spouting of names that your priest has told you. It’s really not quite as black and white as ‘Einstein was Jewish’.
September 9th, 2009 at 6:50 am
@Stizzy (199): “No actually, if a theory surrounding a fact seems consistent and explains the evidence adequately, I will accept it. If the theory doesn’t, I won’t.”
So why do you believe in Noah’s ark? There is absolutely no proof that this exists.
September 9th, 2009 at 7:19 am
@archiealt
Oh! I’m so sorry. I wasn’t aware we had such an expert on knowing how someone got their information. Really, it’s impressive, your psychic abilities. Can you predict for me the lottery numbers now? It’d be beneficial for the college education that you and your fellow advocates imply that I need oh so badly. Here’s my source, and with a good deal more scientists along with those.
http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html
Now, no shit it isn’t as black and white as “Einstein was Jewish”. However it is as black and white as this. He believed in a God. Whether it be Jewish, Christian, or whatever the hell else other, the fact remains that he believed in A god. Which, by some of the accusations that are being tossed around here, is enough to qualify him as weak minded and brainless. Let me pose you this question, since you seem to be so full of answers. Why the hell do you give a damn whether I, or anyone else, choose to believe in God. Don’t give me some bullshit answer that you want a smarter society either, because religion isn’t what makes people stupid. Laziness and the lack of effort to learn is what makes people stupid. If I woke up tomorrow, and by reading your words, and decided I thought you were right, what difference does it make to you? It’s not like your entire world is being changed just because of my, or any other person’s, beliefs change. What you’re doing by attacking all of our beliefs is silly and altogether pointless. I’m a christian. I don’t give a damn what you believe. I still think if you are a good person you can go to heaven. Hell, I’ll even pray that you do so. How are ANY of those beliefs harmful to your physical or mental well being? It’s all simply wishing you the best. However in return for these sort of well wishes, I get called weak minded and brainless. That seems like a very mature thing to do.
September 9th, 2009 at 7:35 am
@archiealt (202): Okay, now you’re just grasping at straws. You aren’t helping your argument, you’re just coming off as desperate. You aren’t going to convert anybody.
September 9th, 2009 at 7:36 am
@Renegade (204) : Thank you! Another relevant argument.
September 9th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
@Renegade (204): I’m a christian. I don’t give a damn what you believe. I still think if you are a good person you can go to heaven. Hell, I’ll even pray that you do so. How are ANY of those beliefs harmful to your physical or mental well being?
“It’s ok if you don’t believe, I’ll pray for you anyway”. Please. Those kind of condescendingly pious and self-serving proclamations, when directed towards an atheist, are just as annoying to them as when they say stuff like “your blind faith is silly” or whatever to you. That’s how.
September 9th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
@Maggot
Really? Condescending? ..really? That is in no way, form, or fashion looking down on someone. I’m wishing them well and, in my own way, hoping they do well. In order for me to look down on someone I would have to believe I’m better than them. I never once said, or even implied, I was better than him, and therefore couldn’t possibly be condescending. If he wants to take it as condescending when it isn’t meant to be, that isn’t any skin off my back for the simple reason I know I wasn’t. As for self serving, I wasn’t aware wishing well and praying for another is self serving. If I was doing it for me I would pray for myself, why the hell waste time with him? I’m doing it for him, hence why I pray for HIM. The difference is, I don’t do it with the intent to insult, whereas those who are calling believers weak minded and brainless are indeed doing it with the intent to insult.
September 9th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
((@Renegade (204): I’m a christian…I still think if you are a good person you can go to heaven.))
Sorry, with all respect, God made everything including the rules. We don’t get a vote on this. The Bible says clearly the only way to God’s Kingdom is through Jesus. At best this something we might wish and hope is true for those who have not believed, but certainly not something to hang one’s eternity on.
September 9th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
@Renegade (208): I never once said, or even implied, I was better than him, and therefore couldn’t possibly be condescending.
IMO a subtle implication is there. Perhaps unintentional, but that’s how it plays.
As for self serving, I wasn’t aware wishing well and praying for another is self serving.
It’s not. That’s not what I said.
If I was doing it for me I would pray for myself, why the hell waste time with him? I’m doing it for him, hence why I pray for HIM. The difference is, I don’t do it with the intent to insult
My point is – why do you feel the need to announce it to the person? If you know a person does not believe in prayer, what purpose is served by telling said person that you are praying for him anyway? That IMO is a passive-aggressive intent to insult the non-believing person, and as such, only serves your own ego.
September 9th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
@Maggot
The intent was to make a simple point. This point was that I don’t believe what he believes. However, I will still do something that I believe is nice for him. Whereas he doesn’t believe what I believe and, as such, feels the need to insult me over it. The statement itself wasn’t saying that I was going to actually pray for him, however it was there to convey if I so chose I would.
September 9th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
@Renegade (204):
No renegade, he did not believe in ‘A god’ as you and i understand it today. He did not believe in a god that was omnipotent and omniscient, and would concern himself with human affairs. He believed in a ‘Spinoza esque’ god. By the way, i am absolutely thrilled with the amount of research you put in to it. Pulling random pages from the internet and claiming them to be full proof fact is much more reliable than hearing it from a member of the clergy.
Now to your question of why people being religious bothers me. I would have no problem if they kept it to themselves, but sadly that is not what happens. Many religious people force their views on their offspring, which i find thoroughly repulsive, and yet society seems to turn a blind eye to. If i tried to force on my children my beliefs that the world was flat, and all people who did not also agree with that view would suffer for all eternity when they die, i’m pretty sure social services would have something to say about it.
People vote according to their beliefs, they make life changing decisions based on their beliefs, they block the crucial progress of medical science due to their beliefs, along with a host of other things which directly affect my life.
Even if that wasn’t true, even if all religious people were wonderful human beings who’s views did not encroach on my life, the point stands……it’s not true. We know now, thanks to the wonder of science, more than we have ever known about this beautiful universe we inhabit, and we have done away with the need for religions which once claimed to give answers to questions which were, up until now, unanswerable. The evidence to suggest that there is no god is now so strong that to deny it would be to act in the same way that those of your ilk did when Galileo confirmed the heliocentrism of our solar system.
When it comes to calling people who are religious ‘weak minded and brainless’ i do have to apologies somewhat. I understand that if you are constantly told something is true as a child, it is very hard to denounce that belief when you move in to adulthood. I just get frustrated with people who are not brave or intelligent enough to want to challenge their beliefs.
September 9th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
@archiealt
Honestly, I agree with you in some ways. I do believe every person should find what they believe in their own way down their own path. Parents that force their children to think a certain way are wrong in their way of thought. However it doesn’t happen as often as you’re making it sound. The majority of parents, at least in my experience, teach their kids about whatever religion they’re from. They raise them inside of the religion, and when the time comes they let them figure things out for themselves. If you don’t believe in a god or a religion, that is your own choice based off of your learning and experiences. If I choose to, then I do so out of my experiences and reasons. What is wrong with accepting that?
I completely understand your reasoning behind that, but in a way aren’t you doing the exact same thing that you’re criticizing? You’re attacking us for what we believe and, in turn, pushing and forcing your own beliefs upon us. It just seems a bit contradictory to me.
As for getting frustrated with people who don’t challenge their beliefs, I’m in the exact same boat as you are in the department. I started as a Christian, raised so, then I became agnostic in thought. I then, because of a personal experience of mine, decided to return to Christianity. However I’m constantly challenging my beliefs. The proof of that lies in the fact that I am a Biology major, a path in which I gets to listen and learn the full side of the other argument. I’m constantly questioning what I believe, and as someone in that position it bugs me when people blindly accept a faith. I am still of the opinion though that it isn’t my place to attack them about it. Let them believe what they want, it’s not like changing their mind is going to turn into a big life changing even for me.
I’d also like to add that I did actually READ the additional information. (If you click on the religion next to the person’s name it redirects you to an article with further information on their beliefs.) I wasn’t just throwing around an internet site either, since all the information on that particular page either is based off of a book written with the purpose to explore the scientists religious backgrounds themselves. I’d appreciate a bit more credit than that lol. I would also, if you want to further discuss this, want to try and keep things civil
September 9th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
@archiealt (212): People will do that. Religion is their front for hate mongering. Islamist extremists claim that their acts are righteous, and therefore justified. We look at that and cannot comprehend their views, but obviously they are fully convinced of what they preach. Christians use the bible to back up their bigotry and homophobia. Politicians use it as a tool to get more votes. You’re completely right. God doesn’t cause problems, but people’s ignorant interpretations do, and God has yet to intervene directly. And since you clearly do not believe in God, these ignorant pricks are all you have to look at. So, and after locking horns earlier, you should be aware that I’m not terribly happy to say that you are right. However, atheists hate monger as much as religion. Hell, the Illuminati, the foremost atheist organization to ever exist, killed people. It isn’t God, or lack thereof that causes the hate, it’s people, plain and simple. They just use their deity and their holy book and their science and their theories as an excuse to justify these horrible actions. Once again, I make no claim that you are wrong, just don’t blame religion. It isn’t the cause, but the excuse.
Would you tell your kids there is no God? Or would you let them come to their own conclusions? And what if they found God through that? Would you support them? Religious people think they are right. Therefore, they will pass on the “truth”. You don’t agree, but the fact remains that regardless, these people think they are right. You don’t strike me as pro-atheism so much as anti-religion. If people followed holy books to the letter, this world would be in far less turmoil. But, PEOPLE use these books to justify human actions. The deity, or the figment of such, is rarely portrayed as promoting violence and hate. Please don’t stereotype us, I’m nothing like what you probably think I am.
September 9th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
@Renegade (211): Not tryin to make waves, maggot has a point. Even though you may not have meant any harm, to someone u are a bit at odds with, that comes off kinda self-righteous. No offense intended
September 9th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
@ianz09
It was intended to be an example to a different point, but I understand how it could be taken at ill. Fortunately I think archiealt understood what I meant by it. No worries buddy ^_^
September 9th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
@Renegade (216): Yeah, just pretty easy to offend people anymore, especially on the internet, where conflict is free to roam and grom
September 9th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
good, late nite comment, chalk up another typo. make grom into grow and ill come off as slightly less stupid.
September 9th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
hahaha oh man..I was wondering for a moment there lol
September 9th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
@Stizzy
hello friend, I hope this day finds you well.
“Where is my logical flawed exactly? Have I committed a logical fallacy somewhere? If so, please point it out so that I may know.”
okay.
“Furthermore, there are things beyond Earth, in our universe which point to youth. The arms of spiral galaxies not having wound up over billions of years, the presence of comets in the solar system that should have been annihilated already.”
Light travels at about 186,000 miles per second, we can see light coming off stars that are billions of light years away, this tells us that the light left those stars billions of years ago, And if the light was traveling for billions of years, than the stars must be very old, and the universe is very old. billions of years old at least, so I guess your right compared to the universe earth’s couple million years is pretty young.( it would seem odd for the earth to be 6,000 years old yet the stars billions, when “1 First God made heaven & earth”. first thing he did! then after that he said 3 And God said, “Let there be light”.if you would like more info
http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/Evolve1.html
“And here you demonstrate what you don’t know about the Bible or about creatures. The Bible refers to “kinds” and kinds are defined by creatures that are capable of interbreeding. Therefore, wolves, coyotes, dingos, and domestic dogs for example are all one kind. Horses, donkeys, zebras are all one kind. Lion, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, lynxs, and domestic cats are all one kind. All that was required were two representatives of certain kinds (seven of some others). You could compare “kind” to the level of genus or family. Furthermore, it isn’t Noah who gathered the animals, he simply brought them into the Ark. So in summary, representatives of the kinds were taken onto the Ark and all current species of creature are descended from those kinds.”
(this is but one example )There are 41 known species of felids in the world today, by your logic a small group (2-7 at the most species ) in your words ” descended from those kinds”. how can a creature of a certain species develop into a creature of another species? evolution maybe ? descent with modification maybe? finally we agree on something. unless you believe somehow a lion+ tiger = 41 known species, because if you do we can visit the zoo at your earliest possible conveniences (and see the tigon and liger) . Animals of different species usually produce hybrid offspring that are infertile or sterile not constantly creating new species. The time it would take for any animal to ” descend” into 41 different species ( not to mention different breeds) , will take longer than 6,000 years or less . if you have proof contrary I would love to hear it . PROOF mind you.
“Not an area I know much about to be honest(clearly), although from what I do know there is only one example of clonal trees that are speculated to be 80,000 old, but the majority of oldest trees are dated between 1000-4000 years. But again, you have to assume conditions have remained constant to allow a consistent rate of growth.”
There are many clonal trees speculated older than 6,000 years first off. secondly If we were to go by your logic than the rate of the plants growth would have to be more than a hundred times its current rate, then suddenly stop growing at that speed in order to account for the short 6,000 years of growth it would have had. seem unlikely doesn’t it? what condition could make something grow at such an unfathomable rate? Nothing we know of in science.
“And once again, based on the assumption that the rates have remained constant. These are all uniformitarian assumptions that can’t actually be empirically verified. Interestingly, one creationist prediction surrounding plate tectonics (based on Flood models) said that there would be a sheet of cold material near to the Earth’s core, and lo and behold, there it is.”
I never denied that a flood occurred, just not in the last 6,000 years.
And once again, based on the assumption that the rates has gone astronomically faster than it’s current rate, With it would have needed to do to account for such a short period of time. If this was the case the sheer amount and strength of earthquakes , would have completely destroyed everything.
One word. Pangaea!! As I am sure you are aware the continents when put together fit rather well, like pieces of a puzzle.(try it if you like) The movement of the continents coincide with what and where we know about plate tectonic and their movements. or do you deny this? At what point in earth short 6,000 years history did this occur? and if it did occur, at what speed? because the speed necessary for this to occur in this small 6,000 year period would be thousands of times the current rate. seems unlikely huh?
“Mankind existed at the same time as dinosaurs. They being land animals, they would have been created on the same day as all other land animals.”
Really? why is there no mention of them in the bible? seems odd, considering how large and dangerous they were, not to mention wide spread.
also, If you have done any research into how diamonds are formed, or how fossil fuel develops you would see how much evidence points to a much older earth.
The only thing I will agree with you on is particle dating, can be tricked or wrong, however with the sheer amount of proof pointing at a couple million years for earth age is staggering, it is hardly the only piece of evidence. The only reason I do not use more evolutionary evidence, like transitional fossils, structural similarity, DNA analysis, Homologous structures, etc. is because when most believer hear evolution they no longer listen to any thing you have to say, and my debate is only with your idea of a 6,000 year old earth.
good day sir, and thank you kindly for your time
September 10th, 2009 at 1:03 am
@220:
Dude, you really need to put spaces between your paragraphs. It’s very cumbersome to read otherwise.
Have you read recently about low energy electromagnetic radiation reaching Earth quicker than high enery electromagnetic radiation? If the intersteller medium is a dispersive medium, this could influence the rate at which light reaches us. Though the group velocity would remain constant, it’s possible that light may reach us quicker.
We also need to consider the fact that there are quasars that appear to be linked to galaxies and yet are separated by hundreds of millions of light years according to using light as a measure of distance. This at least points to the possibility that using light as a measure of distance may not always be accurate.
And this point doesn’t really address that Galaxies appear to “young” for the universe no matter how far away you look.
You’re approaching the creature issue from the wrong angle. My words were “2-7 kinds” not species. These “kinds”, which can be compared to genus or family, have diversified into numerous species over time. You can have a numerous amount of different species but they all fall under one kind.
This speciation is caused by natural selection, yet you will never see one kind of creature changing into another kind.
Indeed, many species nowdays that interbreed produce sterile offspring. If we consider that the initial speciation is due to genetic mutation and that genetic information is progressively lost as this process goes on, it stands to reason that certain species would reached a point where they’ve accumilated so many genetic errors or differences that they can no longer produce offspring that aren’t sterile or offspring at all. Yet they still remain in that “kind”. You may go from a Lion/Tiger-like creature to a tabby cat but it will not turn into beaver.
You claim that for a creature to descend into 41 creatures would take longer than 6000 years. How long would it take then and on what are you basing this on? And isn’t this in stark contrast to the rapid speciation we actually see today? Say in sticklebacks that have gained and lost armour, or in the way that dog breeds are produced?
have remained constant to allow a consistent rate of growth.”
There are many clonal trees speculated older than 6,000 years first off. secondly If we were to go by your logic than the rate of the plants growth would have to be more than a hundred times its current rate, then suddenly stop growing at that speed in order to account for the short 6,000 years of growth it would have had. seem unlikely doesn’t it? what condition could make something grow at such an unfathomable rate? Nothing we know of in science.
Sounds almost like inflation doesn’t it?
Yet few now question that that is possible. Indeed I do not personally know but this doesn’t rule out the possibility. Would the rate really be “unfathomable” when you consider that the oldest tree ages would only have to be reduced by around 2000-3000 years?
Scientists are always quick to appeal to the unknown when faced with something they cannot yet explain. I am certain there is an answer
I never denied that a flood occurred, just not in the last 6,000 years.
And once again, based on the assumption that the rates has gone astronomically faster than it’s current rate, With it would have needed to do to account for such a short period of time. If this was the case the sheer amount and strength of earthquakes , would have completely destroyed everything.
One word. Pangaea!! As I am sure you are aware the continents when put together fit rather well, like pieces of a puzzle.(try it if you like) The movement of the continents coincide with what and where we know about plate tectonic and their movements. or do you deny this?At what point in earth short 6,000 years history did this occur? and if it did occur, at what speed? because the speed necessary for this to occur in this small 6,000 year period would be thousands of times the current rate. seems unlikely huh?
Oh no I do not deny this at all
and it makes perfect sense in the Biblical framework. Of course the earth quakes would have destroyed everything, that was the point of the flood…to destroy everything. The mechanism most likely responsible for the breaking of the continents is the Global Flood, and various models have been produced to show this. I suggest reading the following on Catestophic Plate Tectonics:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/catastrophic-plate-tectonics
And why does the speed seem unlikely? On what basis do you define this as unlikely? All you have to go on is the current rate at which the plates move but you are assuming this rate has remained constant. It is just as likely that it hasn’t as that it has as you have no real reason to think otherwise except for your philosophical bias. Although if you do have a reason I’ll stand corrected.
I mean the Earth itself orbits the Sun at 66168 mph and rotates at 1040.402 mph, yet it’s unlikely that it’s plates can move at high speeds? Why?
Really? why is there no mention of them in the bible? seems odd, considering how large and dangerous they were, not to mention wide spread.
Actually, we find the following in the book of Job:
Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you;
He eats grass like an ox.
16 See now, his strength is in his hips,
And his power is in his stomach muscles.
17 He moves his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
18 His bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.
19 He is the first of the ways of God;
Only He who made him can bring near His sword. – Job 40:15-19
Sounds something like the description of a Brachiosaurus like creature to me, and few creatures are described in the Bible with such detail. I mean tail like a cedar tree? That’s a pretty big tail
. Strong, thick bones, powerful stomach muscles.
Also there are many widespread, dangerous animals that are not mentioned in the Bible yet there is not doubt men lived at the same time as them. Furthermore, do you think humans would want to live that close to the more dangerous dinosaurs? You must also consider that the word “Dinosaur” was not invented until the 1800’s so it is feasible that a different word could have been used to describe them in the past, whether it be Behemoth, Leviathan, Great Beasts, Monster or even Dragon.
Yes it is true that people generally switch off, and this is ture for both sides of the debate. This is why I say it is a debate of world-views and which world-view can better explain the universe as a whole because people can generally be very dismissive of what is contrary to their belief.
It is interesting though that you mention transitional fossils, structural similarity, DNA analysis, and homologous structures as evolutionary evidence as all of these are also used for design evidence. Afterall, we all have the same evidence…the universe
Good day to you, and thank you for taking the time to respond.
@203:
So why do you believe in Noah’s ark? There is absolutely no proof that this exists.
There are many ways to infer the existence of Noah’s Ark and the historical truth of the events, from which you can build a theory around. The fact is we have a book that makes the claim of being an eye-witness account to these events. Furthermore, by examing the account we can logically determine what we should expect to find if is true.
For example, we should expect to find that mankind seemed to spread from a single location around the world.
We should expect to find evidence of civilizations suddenly springing up rapidly, seemingly from nowhere.
We should expect to find, due to the founder effect, a lot of genetic mutation which could result in rapid speciation. (bearing in mind that when you take into account genetic decay, humans and creatures back then may have had a far more diverse gene pool than we do today, as it would have to be capable of producing the species we now see).
We may infer that nothing of the Ark may remain if it had been dismantled to build shelters and be used for supplies as resources would have been scarce following the flood.
We can look at the detailed dimensions of the boat to determine it’s storage capacity and how it would have fared in the conditions described during the flood. Many tests and experiments have been done which show the dimensions are optimal. It is about as large as you can build a wooden ship.
We can also expect that almost every culture would have some memory of this catastrophic event. Not all of these memories would have been preserved accurately, but the main details would be there. We find flood legends in just about every culture across the planet.
If the flood were true, we should expect to find layers and layers of sediments and within those sediments the remains of dead creatures and plant life, and guess what…we do!
These are just a few of the reasons I believe Noah’s Ark existed. To claim that it must not exist because it hasn’t been located isn’t logical when you consider the many factors that could prevent its ever being found. And even without it, there is enough evidence to infer that if very likely existed.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:06 am
Whoops, sorry for all the boldness, hehe forgot to close it off.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:06 am
Hi Stizzy.
“If it can be shown that dating methods are flawed, you can hardly say that the age of the Earth is fact.”
If all or even most methods were shown to be flawed, I would be inclined to agree with you. However, U-Th dating, K-Ar dating, Ar^40/Ar^39 dating and even C^14 dating have all been repeatedly tested and proven to be reliable. Taken in combination from what we know about the physics of geology and the evidence from the rock strata, as well as well-supported facts from plate tectonics and astronomy, we have fairly conclusive evidence about the age of the earth. Certainly enough support to claim it as a scientific fact.
“Furthermore, there are things beyond Earth, in our universe which point to youth. The arms of spiral galaxies not having wound up over billions of years, the presence of comets in the solar system that should have been annihilated already.”
I’d be interested to see your sources on these. Could you explain this a little more?
“No actually, if a theory surrounding a fact seems consistent and explains the evidence adequately, I will accept it. If the theory doesn’t, I won’t.”
Certainly I won’t argue that this is a nice way to see oneself. No one intelligent would want it to be otherwise. However, darwinian evolution and the support it receives from the earth sciences constitutes one of the most consistent and explanatory theories in modern science. It’s power comes from its consistency with evidence available from genetics (including epigenetics), physiology, morphology, microbiology including germ research, biogeography (the distribution of related groups of organisms, including distribution of fossils and extinct transitional species), plate tectonics, dating methods, biochemistry, paleontology, population studies, and experimental and observational evidence. Biology (and all good science) demonstrates a principle called “consilience.” What this means is that science at different levels of reduction as well as science concerning different magisteria of the natural world buttress and support one another, and share explanatory responsibility for given phenomena. The picture that emerges is a science that looks much like a jigsaw puzzle; science from different arenas coalesces into a recognizably picture that creates specific outlines around other areas for which we can expect to find certain evidence. The puzzle that represents the modern picture of science creates an outline for biology that evolutionary theory fills precisely as we would expect. Creation science, including catastrophism, flood geology, irreducible complexity and work on dating methods fails to adequately fill in these outlines. It is thus far less consistent and far less explanationally valuable than evolutionary theory. Furthermore, it is also less internally consistent. Yet you reject evolution. This is in contention with your statement above.
“Then in all honesty, I have to say you are either mistaken or you’re being dishonest. Scientist, whatever they claim, will not generally follow the evidence where it leads because they are seeking a paradigm, not truth.”
Strictly speaking, this is not true. I assume here you are referring to Thomas Kuhn’s work on paradigms and scientific revolutions. It is true that scientists typically adhere to a particular paradigm, and that anomalies that run contrary to that paradigm are often reassessed or reinterpreted to fit within the paradigm. However, this is not an arbitrary process. Paradigms become paradigms by virtue of their explanatory value, consilience with other well-supported theories, fruitfulness, predictive accuracy and the strength of supporting evidence. To serious scientists, who share a commitment to scientific realism, all of these factors taken together are our best indicator of the truth of our theories. It is precisely this reason that anomalies are reinterpreted; scientists see the prevailing paradigm as a reflection of true reality, and want to be able to interpret that paradigm in a way that covers all the available evidence. It is important to note that the paradigm is only very, very rarely amended post-hoc; more often, the central tenets of the paradigm are reapplied to the problem in other, less obvious ways. This means that, in the case of anomalies, the paradigm is not changed at whim…rather, the goal is to explain the anomaly without compromising the integrity of the paradigm.
A paradigm is only seriously amended when it encounters sufficient anomalous cases to warrant a serious reconsideration of its foundational assumption, and is only thrown out when anomalies become so numerous that it is impossible for the paradigm to be reinterpreted to fit the evidence. Occasional anomalies like, for instance, soft tissue found preserved in fossils, are not enough to unseat the evolutionary paradigm, and a failure to find in favor of creationist explanations is not enough to say that all scientists seek is to preserve a paradigm. Truth is at the center of the scientific enterprise, and for scientists, truth is not found by tossing out 10,000 positive results for every 1 negative result.
“And here you demonstrate what you don’t know about the Bible or about creatures. The Bible refers to “kinds” and kinds are defined by creatures that are capable of interbreeding. Therefore, wolves, coyotes, dingos, and domestic dogs for example are all one kind. Horses, donkeys, zebras are all one kind. Lion, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, lynxs, and domenstic cats are all one kind.
All that was required were two representatives of certain kinds (seven of some others). You could compare “kind” to the level of genus or family.”
The identification of biblical kinds with genus or family is an arbitrary distinction that is not supported by a literal interpretation. In fact, from the various contexts in which the word “kind” appears in the bible, “kind” could mean any level of organization from family down to individual species. Furthermore, all information I’ve seen on biblical kinds invariably relies on isomorphisms between species. This falls prey to the same problem as phenetic classification in biology: which characteristics do you determine to be the the defining traits for a particular kind? Do you have just a few characteristics or do you rely on the form of the organism as a whole? If you rely on the form as a whole, at what point do you draw the line between animals that exhibit traits from different kinds? For instance, where would the platypus fit into the concept of biblical kinds? Or the giraffe? Or the rhinocerous? Or extinct organisms like Tiktaalik or Acanthostega gunnari?
“And yet this is based on the assumption that rates have remained constant and have not been subject to catastrophy.”
and
“But again, you have to assume conditions have remained constant to allow a consistent rate of growth.”
and
“And once again, based on the assumption that the rates have remained constant. These are all uniformitarian assumptions that can’t actually be empirically verified.”
I assume that you mean, as most creationists do, that you are referring to the decay rates of the carbon-14 isotope. There is no good evidence to suggest that decay rates have changed over the past few millennia; the evidence in favor of a consistent rate of decay is corroborated back at least 10,000 years through corroboration with tree-ring dating methods, and all attempts to simulate natural phenomena that have been claimed by creationists to affect radioactive decay have been fruitless in the laboratory. Moreover, the results of C^14 dating are corroborated by other, independent radiometric and non-radiometric dating methods. This consilience is too potent to be allow for changing decay rates.
“Where is my logical flawed exactly? Have I committed a logical fallacy somewhere? If so, please point it out so that I may know.
But as I’ve said already, this is a debate on world-views my friend as we can both explain away evidence and theories by referring to our philosophical bias.
So the question is which world-view can most logically and rationally account for existence as we percieve it. I’ve already pointed out some of the flaws in the presuppositions that make up the evolutionary world-view and these have no been addressed.”
Your logic is flawed because a rational decision making process involves weighing all the available evidence both in favor and against a particular hypothesis and concluding based upon which side makes the strongest case. The case for evolution is overwhelming compared to the scant evidence in favor of creationism; this is including the reinterpretation of many evolutionary concepts within a creationist framework. However, you continue to rely on the inherent uncertainties in science to make your case, picking evidence where it fits with your preconceived notions and ignoring it or explaining it away when it doesn’t. This makes little sense in the face of the massive block of evidence you are contending with. Thus, you are committing a logical fallacy by concluding against the weight of the available evidence.
I certainly agree with you that this is a battle of competing world-views. But given that you (and other creationists) are attempting to borrow principles from the opposing world-view to satisfy your own seems disingenuous to your own cause. Moreover, the science you are relying on is not even very good. It’s fine that you believe in God, but when you try to force the science to conform to a set of preconceived notions about the supernatural ontology of life, you do a disservice both to science and to the legitimacy of your own views. I’m not trying to convince you to give up your beliefs, I’m just trying to convince you that the practical justification you are giving for it is wrong.
Thanks for reading.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:09 am
@ianz09 (214):
‘atheists hate monger as much as religion’
That’s just not true. In this day and age i see very few atheist terrorists, i see very few ‘Atheist Wars’, i see very few atheists going about killing pro-life activists, and i see very few atheists campaigning against gay rights.
I do however see an abundance of Religious Wars, religious terrorists, Christians killing doctors who perform abortions, and religious people campaigning against gay rights.
And before we start making the tired argument that ‘Stalin and Pol Pot where atheist, and they were evil’, yes they were atheist, but they did not commit the atrocities they did in the name of atheism. So there is a big difference between them and, say, the crusades, which was done in the name of religion.
‘Would you tell your kids there is no God? Or would you let them come to their own conclusions? And what if they found God through that?’
I would hope to teach my children all the skills they needed to make up their own minds and be their own people, not just when it comes to religion. I truly believe that if starting today, all children where given these skills, and then presented, without bias, all the available information for and against religion (if we were being fair we should present all religions, Egyptian, Greek, Pagan, Hindu, Norse, and all the others. I’m not to sure why they are seen as any less legitimate than the big three monotheistic religions of today.) then religion would die out within a few generations. Nobody who approached the subject with a completely unbiased view, could ever walk away from that decision believing their to be a god. This is somewhat backed up by the fact that i have never met a religious person who did not have religious parents. Without that childhood indoctrination, the case for religion becomes pretty flimsy.
‘If people followed holy books to the letter, this world would be in far less turmoil.’
If people followed holy books to the letter, then children could still be stoned to death for cheeking their parents, and women would still be treated as second class citizens, and people could still be put to death for working on the sabbath, and slavery would still be in common practice. That’s just if we followed the Christian holy book, which isn’t even the worst one out their. Have a browse through the Qur’an one of these days, then tell me holy books hold all the answers.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:53 am
@archiealt (224): I have to say that is one of the best comments so far. Well written. I especially liked your last paragraph. There was a guy who tried to live his life just like the bible said. I think he lasted 45 days before his wife almost divorced him. He said it was very hard to take it literally.
I am staying out of this debate because I have better conversations with my cat…and he has better responses.
September 10th, 2009 at 6:31 am
@archiealt (224): You yourself are preaching a great hate toward religion. I never said it was as bad as religion is anymore, but every group, every religion has it’s extremists who take it too far. You are clearly anti-religion, which is classified as hate. A KKK member may say “Niggers cause everybody’s problems” but that doesn’t mean he would actually participate in a lynching. Just because one doesn’t act out their hate, makes them no less hateful.
Touche on the last paragraph, I meant the morals, but obviously failed to make my point. You are correct, if books were followed to the literal letter, this world would still be what it was 2000 years ago. However, if people actually lived by, say the ten commandments, we would have much less heartache in the world. And the Qur’an does not preach violence and bigotry either. So, you were right, and my point was very very poorly phrased. But the morals that are supposed to be taken from religion are generally very positive, but people being people take what they want.
I didn’t mean to start another debate, sorry I did. Go ahead and have the last word, I have to go to class. It is reasonable to hate religion because of it’s people, but don’t people because of their religion. You wouldn’t assume that every single Muslim was going to blow up a car, do you? I don’t appreciate being stereotyped. You are entitled to your opinion, but don’t let your bias spill over onto me. The unfortunate part is that we probably would have agreed on quite a lot. Have the last word, I’m done with this one.
September 10th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Ever read The Bible? Some of the things there, are horrendous! The Plague, forcing parents, to eat their children, God kills Uzzah, for looking into the Ark, ordering the Aradites, to be slaughtered, and sending two female Bears, to kill children just because they called a man, “you baldhead, you baldhead.” God`s atrocities, are worse than Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il put together!
September 10th, 2009 at 11:53 am
@STIZZY
hello friend,
Although I enjoyed debating with you , I must say I am beginning to see the futility of it. It seems to me that no matter how illogical or improbable something seems ,you would rather except it.IN YOUR “WORLD” the principle and laws of science as we know it no longer apply. light no longer behaves as we observe it to, interspecies mating no longer occur as we can observe it , plant growth , erosion, plate movement , no longer behave as we can observe it. It seems logical it use something we know for certain to estimate something we do not know, instead of your argument that everything behaves radically differently before we were able to observe it in a short 6,000 years. Unlikely. There is no science behind this thought.
As SlickWilly wrote u: However, you continue to rely on the inherent uncertainties in science to make your case, picking evidence where it fits with your preconceived notions and ignoring it or explaining it away when it doesn’t. This makes little sense in the face of the massive block of evidence you are contending with. Thus, you are committing a logical fallacy by concluding against the weight of the available evidence.
Although I do not agree with you at all, I still respect you as a human being. May we all continue it seek truth.
have a good day sir.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
@archiealt (172):
“Despite what you may think, faith is also not a tangible emotion, such as happiness or fear.”
Unless you have experienced it yourself, you have never know what faith is like to people who have it. Dont try to describe what you have never felt.
“It is a word, and therefor is man made. It has no deeper, special, hidden meaning, simply a word used to justify somebody’s irrational position when there is no evidence to support there claim. Nothing more nothing less.”
LOVE, HAPPINESS, FREEDOM are also words and yet the have very deep meanings. To someone who has never loved, LOVE is just a man-made word.
Now on to comment(212):
“Even if that wasn’t true, even if all religious people were wonderful human beings who’s views did not encroach on my life, the point stands……it’s not true.”
I would absolutely love to hear your irrefutable proof regarding the non-existance of any type of God. Sources, please.
“I just get frustrated with people who are not brave or intelligent enough to want to challenge their beliefs.”
Spare us your condescending pity. How do you know those views have not been challanged and upheld? Who are you to judge?
The problem, I think, is that you are taking the vocal minority and applying it to majority. Not every Christian murders abortion doctors, just like not every Muslim straps a bomb to his chest. To say that the actions of a few represent the majority is a stereotype of the worst kind.
And “yes they were atheist, but they did not commit the atrocities they did in the name of atheism”
They had other excuses… All that says is that humans will find whatever excuse they can find to satisfy their needs. If it´s not religion, it´s money or land or power or what have you.
September 10th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
@223:
Do the other dating methods you cite depend on the same set of initial assumptions as other radiometric dating methods? If so, they are subject to the same potential flaws.
I’d be interested to see your sources on these. Could you explain this a little more?
Comets are made of ice and dirt. We know they have long elliptical orbits. The tail of a comet we see is formed when they pass near the sun and the heat causes this material to evaporate. At every pass, a comet loses much of its material and some comets are obliterated in one pass. The average orbital cycle is a few hundred years and few comets would be able to last more than 100,000 in such conditions.
In order to explain this, scientists have evoked the hypothetical and unobservable Oort Cloud. Others refer to the Kuiper Belt, although the masses within the belt are far larger than comets.
Could you give examples of how Creation Science fails to fill the same lines that evolutionary science does when it makes use of the same fields of study?
Truth is at the center of the scientific enterprise, and for scientists, truth is not found by tossing out 10,000 positive results for every 1 negative result.
No doubt, however, if the very founding principles of a paradigm do not hold weight (such as materialism, naturalism, emiricism) and they fail to account for several things that they take for granted (preconditions of intelligibility, laws of physics, laws of logic, complex specified information) which are in turn crucial to the reality the paradigm seeks to explain, should we not consider shifting the paradigm?
The identification of biblical kinds with genus or family is an arbitrary distinction that is not supported by a literal interpretation. In fact, from the various contexts in which the word “kind” appears in the bible, “kind” could mean any level of organization from family down to individual species.
The Bible specifies that creatures will reproduce according to their kinds and families. In other words, cats will reproduce according to the blue-print of a feline within their family. Therefore, this isn’t an arbitrary disctinction. We start from the biblical assumption and we can find that reality is consistent with it.
For instance, where would the platypus fit into the concept of biblical kinds? Or the giraffe? Or the rhinocerous? Or extinct organisms like Tiktaalik or Acanthostega gunnari?
If there is none other like the platypus, it is logical to conclude that it is its own kind. You seem to misunderstand the definition of “kind”. Even if you have only one presentative of a kind, this does not make it impossible to define it biblically.#
I assume that you mean, as most creationists do, that you are referring to the decay rates of the carbon-14 isotope.
Actually if you read what I actually said, I was referring not only to carbon dating, but the movement of tectonic plates, erosion and growth rates.
There is no good evidence to suggest that decay rates have changed over the past few millennia
Recent findings have shown that decay rates can and do change. These findings have been published in scientific journals and magazines to my knowledge and so it shouldn’t be hard to find the data. That said, you definition of “good evidence” could be subjective and therefore arbitrary. What constitutes good evidence may depend on the individuals philosophical bias.
Your logic is flawed because a rational decision making process involves weighing all the available evidence both in favor and against a particular hypothesis and concluding based upon which side makes the strongest case.
And isn’t it fallacious to assume I haven’t done so simply because I have come to different conclusions from you? Because aren’t you starting from the assumption that your position is the only truthful position and therefore all rationale should lead to the same conclusion. This doesn’t follow in practice.
I have weighed the evidence and found that Creation has the strongest case in that it is most adequately able to explain all phenomena that we observe in the universe.
The case for evolution is overwhelming compared to the scant evidence in favor of creationism; this is including the reinterpretation of many evolutionary concepts within a creationist framework.
I believe this is a matter of prespective, as I would beg to differ. Afterall, the universe is our evidence and we are using the same evidence to put forward different world-views. Therefore, we do not need to “reinterpret evolutionary concepts”, and you may want to justify how that has been done.
However, you continue to rely on the inherent uncertainties in science to make your case, picking evidence where it fits with your preconceived notions and ignoring it or explaining it away when it doesn’t.
I make my case by starting from biblical principles and working my way up, making use of all available tools and avenues to reach my conclusion. This isn’t simply a position from a negative stance, many people have this misconception but if they investigated deeper they would see this is not the case.
I certainly agree with you that this is a battle of competing world-views. But given that you (and other creationists) are attempting to borrow principles from the opposing world-view to satisfy your own seems disingenuous to your own cause.
This made me chuckle, because you see the principles upon which science is based on only make sense in a universe created by God. They cannot be justified otherwise. Other principles such as materialism, naturalism and empiricism don’t hold up to scrutiny. So that you indeed borrow from God’s universe to satisfy your own world-view seems disingenuous to your cause from where I’m standing.
For all knowledge begins with God and He alone makes knowledge possible. This is the point I’ve been trying to put across to people that playing the evidence game is useful but will not settle the debate.
I have asked repeatedly for people to justify the principles their world-view is based on and account for the fundemental things we assume that make knowledge (and indeed our world-views) possible and no one has been able to. Seeing as this is the foundation upon which their case is built and the lens through which evidence is interpreted, this would seem to cast doubt on all conclusions drawn from that world-view.
@228:
IN YOUR “WORLD” the principle and laws of science as we know it no longer apply.
Actually, it seems to me that only my world-view can actually account for the principles and laws of science. For indeed, in order to do science, the universe must have uniformity. It must have consistent laws of physics that do not arbitrarily change.
Our senses must basically be reliable so that we can observe this uniformity which allows us to make predictions and use probability. Our intelligent minds make use of logic in order to interpret what we observe, and logical is a universal constant.
In a universe which is the product of random mechanical processes, why should the universe be uniform? Why should our senses be reliable and why should logic be possible?
It seems plain to see that all of these things are possible and we use them all the time, and since evolutionary theories and materialism cannot account for these things, it makes sense to reject them because they do not even make knowledge and science possible.
The biblical God is able to account for all of these things. And note, they are all things we must take for granted before any acquisition of knowledge is possible, yet if we can’t even justify those principles in our world-view, how can we justify any theories we build from our world-view?
light no longer behaves as we observe it to
Are you not aware of the effects dispersive mediums have on waves and in particular, electromagnetic radiation? Do you not consider phenomenons such as refraction and diffusion? I am not picking things out of thin air, we can see from general human experiences that mediums affect how we perceive light.
interspecies mating no longer occur as we can observe it
I did not say interspecies amting does not occur. I said that you will not see say a cat and a dog mate to produce a Cog or a Dat. However, within feline kinds, species can and will interbreed.
plant growth , erosion, plate movement , no longer behave as we can observe it
I did not say they no longer behave as we observe them, I said that how we observe them now does not indicate how they would behave under special, catastrophic circumstances.
It seems logical it use something we know for certain to estimate something we do not know, instead of your argument that everything behaves radically differently before we were able to observe it in a short 6,000 years. Unlikely. There is no science behind this thought.
Yes it is logical to go based on what we know, however this is only if we can justify excluding other potential possibilities. It is entirely possible that there was a global flood. It is entirely possible that such an occurance would have affected the entire Earth in various ways. It is therefore plausible that certain things would behave differently but not so radically different that we cannot infer them and test similar mechanisms scientifically.
There is science behind this, but due to your philosophical bias, you will dismiss or ignore such science that is contrary to your world-view.
It is a common fallacy to say that those who have my position only have the uncertainties in science to go by. They forget that my world-view has never been refuted and that modern science is built on principles held by those who agreed with my world-view. It is not me borrowing from your world-view or from “science”, but it is the men who deny God who borrow from His principles and His knowledge in order to do science.
It has been nice debating with you
September 11th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Wow. You could ask Harrison Ford to where is the holy grail. he must have known it from the Indiana Jones flip. I believe he is the culprit to having it! Attack Hollywood everybody!
September 12th, 2009 at 9:46 am
4 gospel books, Matthew written by Matthew, Mark written by Mark, Luke written by Luke, and John written by John, no doubt on that. And there is no one most important part in the bible, they are equally important coz the whole bible is God’s breath. All of them have light and life
September 12th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
I have the holy grail. It is inscribed with one simple word on the bottom. “Heineken”
September 13th, 2009 at 2:00 am
@jfrater (182):
Jfrater, I’m not sure if you can see it ,but, there’s a black box over comment 179 of this list.
Do you know what that might be? It’s about the size of the ads on the top and bottom of the site?
Thank you.
September 13th, 2009 at 10:58 am
#234 Black Box over #179? I can’t see the black box and it is my post so either it has been removed, is special to you or has somehow been censored in such a way that the author is unaware of the censorship. I’m also interested in what you see. If what I write is getting censored, it would be good if someone let me know why so I could try and be more polite next time.
http://www.amazingword.com
Norm Patriquin
September 13th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Guys Guys. Just to clear this up. In Matthew 5:38-39 Jesus is referring to Hammurabi’s code of laws or whatever you call it. Matthew is the only place in the KJV where it even has the phrase “an eye for an eye”. And the Exodus pharaoh is Amenhotep II, Son of Thutmose III and father of Thutmose IV.
September 13th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Hello again, Stizzy.
“Do the other dating methods you cite depend on the same set of initial assumptions as other radiometric dating methods? If so, they are subject to the same potential flaws.”
That depends. Which assumptions do you find problematic?
“Comets are made of ice and dirt. We know they have long elliptical orbits. The tail of a comet we see is formed when they pass near the sun and the heat causes this material to evaporate. At every pass, a comet loses much of its material and some comets are obliterated in one pass. The average orbital cycle is a few hundred years and few comets would be able to last more than 100,000 in such conditions.
In order to explain this, scientists have evoked the hypothetical and unobservable Oort Cloud. Others refer to the Kuiper Belt, although the masses within the belt are far larger than comets.”
If this is true, it would be an interesting observation. Could you provide some sources on this?
As far as the Oort Cloud is concerned, I would agree that this is an example of scientists working within a paradigm, but again I must stress that all of the techniques we have for assessing the age of the earth and the cosmos have been repeatedly tested and have proven to be reliable. This reliability depends again on the principle of consilience I mentioned in my last post. The key idea is that, although all dating methods (radiometric and otherwise) have their margins of errors – contributed by phenonmena we are aware of, account for and can at least partially explain – each method that is able to corrborate with any of the other methods (according to its limitations) does. The results we get are close enough and consistent enough to demonstrate their individual accuracy.
“Could you give examples of how Creation Science fails to fill the same lines that evolutionary science does when it makes use of the same fields of study?”
If you mean, can I give you examples of observed phenomena that evolution can explain and that creationism cannot, then gladly. This is just a small taste. (My examples will all be biological, since that is the field I’m most experienced with.)
- DNA transposons
- the heredity of endogenous retroviruses
- molecular and morphological vestigal structures
- frequency of redundant pseudogenes
- atavisms
- similarities in embryonic ontology
- anatomical and molecular parahomology
- suboptimality and redundancy of traits
- consilience of independent phylogenic trees (nested hierarchy of traits that correspond to organisms living in the corresponing generations, independently verified)
The list goes on. The are dozens, hundreds and in many cases thousands of observed examples of each of these phenomena that support the evolutionary framework with greater consistency and greater positive confirmation than a creationist framework. My point is, evolutionary theory penetrates levels of reduction with such consistency and predictive reliability – and above all, simplicity – and is supported by such an immensely wide-range of phenomena that it is infinitely superior to creation science in providing a coherent and consilient explanatory framework.
Of course, the real problem with creation science is not that it can’t eventually develop hypotheses about these particular cases. It is, rather,that the chain of causal inference terminates far sooner and with greater frequency on on a greater number of phenomena than evolutionary science. Because evolutionary theory is so well-supported through the levels of reduction in biology, it is able to continually follow back a chain of inferences about newly discovered phenomena, leading to new questions, new research and new insights. The progress of investigation is only stopped by the limits of our technology and by the limits of the knowable universe. Should a creationist theory on, say, embryonic ontology exist, the chain of causal inferences that arise from it will continue only so far until a non-evolutionary approach can no longer explain the further patterns we see. At this point, the creationist can only shrug his or her shoulders and say, “Why is it like this? I guess God wanted it that way.” This means, either the knowable universe for a creationist is much smaller than for an evolutionist, or that the creationist is stopped by his or her own ignorance.
Why is this a problem? It’s a problem because there are observable patterns that reach beyond where the creationist can explain. This means there are explanations to be had about the natural world that the creationists believe don’t really exist. If this is the case, you can hardly call it science, creation or otherwise.
“No doubt, however, if the very founding principles of a paradigm do not hold weight (such as materialism, naturalism, emiricism) and they fail to account for several things that they take for granted (preconditions of intelligibility, laws of physics, laws of logic, complex specified information) which are in turn crucial to the reality the paradigm seeks to explain, should we not consider shifting the paradigm?”
Those are hefty accusations, my friend. You’re going to have to explain this is in greater detail if you expect me to take this seriously.
“The Bible specifies that creatures will reproduce according to their kinds and families. In other words, cats will reproduce according to the blue-print of a feline within their family. Therefore, this isn’t an arbitrary disctinction. We start from the biblical assumption and we can find that reality is consistent with it.”
I think you should take another look at your KJV. The link below should take you to a page highlighting the inconsistencies in the use of the hebrew word “miyn” (roughly translated to “kind”) in the old testament. I have cross referenced the quotes and their locations, so I can affirm these are the correct quotes, in context.
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/kind.html
As you’ll see, to equate biblical “kinds” with phylogenetic families is an arbitrary distinction. “Kind” as it appears in the bible references creatures at all levels of organization, from the subspecies level, all the way up to families. This discrepancy must be explained in order to justify why “kinds” represents families and not, say, genera or species.
My intution tells me that ultimately, you’ll have to revert back to the “Our intepretation of kinds is the only interpretation consistent with both the bible and creation science” explanation, or something very similar. I happen to find this philosophically acceptable, but remember that much of the creationist argument against evolution is a problem of how much of the evidence is treated as being “consistent” with evolution but not necessarily entailed by it. If this is your answer, then you are burdened to explain why consistency is an acceptable move in creationism but not science. Good luck with that.
“If there is none other like the platypus, it is logical to conclude that it is its own kind. You seem to misunderstand the definition of “kind”. Even if you have only one presentative of a kind, this does not make it impossible to define it biblically”
I think you have missed my point. In your above quote, you talk about cats. Cats constitute a kind with a particular essence. But how is it that you know what you are looking at is a cat? This might seem like a facile question, and your answer might be, “well, because it looks like a cat.” My response would be, “well how do you KNOW it looks like a cat.” It’s features, you would say. The eyes, the nose, the ears, the tail, the retractable claws…all features that I recognize other animals called “cats” have. This would mean that you recogniZe kinds by the conglomeration of the different physical features of particular organisms.
However, not all animals are as easy to identify as cats. Take, for instance, the red panda, a curious creature that shares significant physical features with bears, raccoons and weasels. Another example is the koala, which also has very similar characteristics to bears. Or the wombat, which looks very much like a marmot. Marsupials are a particularly interesting case that creation science seems at odds to explain. With the exception of bats, monotremes, wild dogs and introduced species, Australia’s mammal population is almost entirely populated by marsupials. These animals are drastically different in appearance from one another: the koala and wombat, as already mentioned, the kangaroo, the wallaby, the quoll, the planigale, the bandicoot, the marsupial mole, the sugar glider, the possum, etc. Yet they all share the very important feature of a fetal pouch. It seems you would be inclined to judge these animals all as representing different kinds; however, if you are doing this based on the physical form of the creatures, it seems that you would have to do this by purposely excluding a very relevant physical feature. This problem crops up over and over again when you look at the animal kingdom…certain animals bear a significant resemblance in form to a particular kind, yet share major physical features with other kinds of organisms. The distinction you place on this overall physical form, then, is arbitrary, inclusive of some features you find readily available and exclusive of others that don’t support your presumptions.
I sense that you might counter by explaining away these features as examples of convergent microevolution. Perhaps the hot and dry Australian landscape provided a selective pressure on the different kinds to reproduce using fetal pouches. If that is the case, because marsupials of different forms are so concentrated in australia, you would hard-pressed to explain why endemic species like the dingo does not have a pouch, or why introduced species like mice have not developed pouches. You would also have to explain what selective pressures could have been so great in the Americas to have produced the opposum, the only American marsupial, and why then, its placental counterparts have done so well in out-reproducing it. Furthermore, you would be pressed to explain why the genetics of australian marsupials more closely match one another than the supposed “kinds” they represent. I seem to recall a pillar of creation genetics is that genetic information (whatever that is supposed to be) is continually lost as species diverge within their kinds. The effect this would have is the channeling of particular kind-specific into species-specific genetic traits. By this reasoning, the marsupial mole should be more genetically similar to its placental counterparts. Instead, we find that the marsupial mole is far-removed genetically from true moles and is much more closely related to other australian marsupials.
You should see by now that not only is this idea of biblical “kinds” not nearly as straightforward as you would have us believe, but it produces serious practical considerations that the creation model would be at odds to answer. A major practical problem the view of biblical kinds faces is that, because you don’t believe in common ancestry, every transitional fossil and every unique animal ever found represents a different kind. Remember that your view is based on a book that states that Noah took two of every kind of animal (and seven of others). This means that Noah would have had to have literally tens of thousands of different kinds on board. Not even a boat 3 stories tall and 450 feet long could hold that many. And this number increases anytime you find a mosaic creature like the platypus and the red panda! Talk about foundational problems.
“Recent findings have shown that decay rates can and do change. These findings have been published in scientific journals and magazines to my knowledge and so it shouldn’t be hard to find the data. That said, you definition of “good evidence” could be subjective and therefore arbitrary. What constitutes good evidence may depend on the individuals philosophical bias.”
I am aware of the evidence you cite. If you look closely at all the available evidence on the topic, though, there is no good – i.e. substantive, strong – evidence that decay rates have changed. If the publications you are citing are taken by themselves, it seems that the decay rates of certain kinds of isotopes may be effected by electromagnetic disturbances caused by solar activity. However, when you incorporate the other evidence, such as evidence we have from the function of certain kinds of isotope-powered spacecraft, you can make the conclusion AT BEST that there is SOME evidence in favor of changing decay rates for SOME kinds of isotopes. To go from this evidence to “the decay rate of C^14 has thus changed dramatically since the beginning” is a logical leap, not supported by the evidence. If this is what you call “good,” then its no wonder that creation science is as ragged as it is hair-brained.
The only way your argument will stand up is if it can be showed that the decay rate of carbon-14, uranium-lead and potassium-argon have or even can be changed. So far, despite many different independent studies and numerous replications, there is no evidence to suggest that any of these isotopes have ever decayed at a rate faster than we now observe. To make the conclusion otherwise is wishful thinking.
“And isn’t it fallacious to assume I haven’t done so simply because I have come to different conclusions from you? Because aren’t you starting from the assumption that your position is the only truthful position and therefore all rationale should lead to the same conclusion. This doesn’t follow in practice.
I have weighed the evidence and found that Creation has the strongest case in that it is most adequately able to explain all phenomena that we observe in the universe.”
As a matter of fact, I AM in this case starting from the idea that my position is the only truthful one. No less than you are doing, at any rate. However, the evidence is on my side, not yours. And if you do want to try to make a scientific case for creationism, then you must necessarily imply that the vast consilience between the sciences is an illusion, crafted by hundreds of thousands of people over a course of centuries, working independently of one another and displaying a wide-range of preconceptions and backgrounds. This is a tall order, and unless you are able to do this, then you haven’t a leg to stand on.
Yes, the evidence is that strong. Yes, the evidence is that conclusive. Yes, the evidence is that numerous. So that fact that you have come to a different conclusion is good evidence that you are being disingenuous to yourself when you say things like “I weigh all the evidence before making my decision.” Clearly you haven’t. Like most people, you have either failed to go out and fully research the depth that evolutionary science has (this is understandable…we have bills to pay, kids to feed, we can’t always be out at the library or with our nose in a scientific journal), or you have come across such evidence and attempted to ignore it or explain it away. Before you answer that science does this too, yes, you’re right. But science can afford to do so because it has so much evidence backing it up that not doing so would simply be ILLOGICAL.
“I believe this is a matter of prespective, as I would beg to differ. Afterall, the universe is our evidence and we are using the same evidence to put forward different world-views. Therefore, we do not need to “reinterpret evolutionary concepts”, and you may want to justify how that has been done.”
Perhaps we are using the same universe. But this is at odds with your “world-view” explanation. Perhaps creationists are investigating the natural world for signs of creation. But this is at odds with your “anti-naturalistic, anti-empirical” stance you hamfisted in one of your above quotes. I beg you to make sure your explanations are consistent with one another. Otherwise it just looks like your are grasping for straws, any straw will do, as long as it gives you a bit of ammo. Tell me I’m wrong. In any case, we are not using the same evidence, because you ignore so much of it.
Ahhh, yes, the reinterpretation of evolutionary concepts. I thought you’d never ask. I had the good fortune to attend the Creation Museum in Kentucky just this past summer, and its exhibits were rife with the reinterpretation of evolutionary concepts. One of my favorites is in a little room just past the explanation of flood geology. It is the room on natural selection.
According to the creation museum, natural selection is a real process, one that is consistent with the creationist world view but…get this…NOT the evolutionist world view. This is a serious reinterpretaion. The proof for this is given in the concept of “genetic information,” which apparently can only be lost as evolution proceeds. According to the creationist, only new genetic information can account for the increasing complexity of life forms. Now, setting aside for the moment that genetic “information” in science acts in a purely metaphorical sense, the creation museum presents no explanation of what genetic information means in this context. Perhaps there is a specific interpretation at work here afterall, though I am unaware of it. If it is, as I suspect, the lay-idea of information “coded” into the base-pairs that comprise the genetic material, then there are particular known mechanisms that provide this “added information” which are being ignored. I’m not sure. And I think the point is, creationists are not sure either. But to try to make their science seem as reasonable as possible in the face of the so-overwhelming-even-creationists-cannot-ignore-it evidence for microevolution, they must reform these EVOLUTIONARY concepts into creationist ones.
Suddenly, natural selection is not compatible with evolution? You can’t make this stuff up.
“I make my case by starting from biblical principles and working my way up, making use of all available tools and avenues to reach my conclusion. This isn’t simply a position from a negative stance, many people have this misconception but if they investigated deeper they would see this is not the case.”
Certainly it not an exclusively negative stance. But its most powerful arguments are its negative attacks on science: exploiting holes in the data, the lack of knowledge on particular subjects, and the kinks in the scientific process. And considering that if the creationist hypothesis were true, there should be abundant evidence of it, and moreover that the attempt to find this evidence has been much more difficult than it should be (given how much evidence there *should* be), we can at least say that the positive enterprise of creationism has had largely negative returns. I think under these circumstances, I’d be willing to say from a philosophical perspective that creationism is indeed a negative stance.
“This made me chuckle, because you see the principles upon which science is based on only make sense in a universe created by God. They cannot be justified otherwise. Other principles such as materialism, naturalism and empiricism don’t hold up to scrutiny. So that you indeed borrow from God’s universe to satisfy your own world-view seems disingenuous to your cause from where I’m standing.”
Now you’ve got me chuckling. Maybe you creationists were created as a separate kind from evolutionists; that would certainly go far towards explaining why we have such a difficult time understanding one another. I’ve got news for you, my friend. The creation science you keep referring to over and over is based on the materialistic components of design, the naturalistic exploration of evidence of design, and the empirical justification for a theory of design. The whole thrust of creation science is that it engages the natural world at the same level as evolutionary science, and comes to different conclusions. So, if you want your scientific justificiation for creationism, you’re going to have to embrace materialism, naturalism and empiricism, even if your naturalism is only methodological and not metaphysical.
Maybe I do borrow from God’s universe to satisfy my own. But the answer to the question of God’s existence is silent from the scientific perspective. And to try to exrapolate his existence (or the evidence for his existence) from the study of the natural world will only hurt your chances in the long-run. This goes double when you try to substitute your own pseudoscience to fill in the holes. Let me put it to you this way: I can be an evolutionist and still believe in God. You cannot still believe in God and be an evolutionist. So whose world-view suffers more from borrowing from the other?
“I have asked repeatedly for people to justify the principles their world-view is based on and account for the fundemental things we assume that make knowledge (and indeed our world-views) possible and no one has been able to. Seeing as this is the foundation upon which their case is built and the lens through which evidence is interpreted, this would seem to cast doubt on all conclusions drawn from that world-view.”
I hate to disagree with you, but it’s very hard to score a goal when you keep moving the posts around. I assume this is going back to your “materialism, naturalism, empiricism” thing you keep hammering on. Tell me, how would you like me to justify the principles on which science is built? Please let me know exactly which principles you’d like me to justify and what you would qualify as justification. That should stabilize the posts a little better for me. Just don’t chicken out and move them again once the ball is in the air.
Thanks again for sticking through this quagmire till the very end. I hope you’ve got a lot to think about.
September 13th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
the biggest mysteries I can think of for it are:
Is it true?
Which version is true if so?
September 14th, 2009 at 2:23 am
@SlickWilly (237):
I applaud your patience, but you might as well be banging your head against a brick wall mate.
September 14th, 2009 at 3:07 am
@archiealt (239): I am sick and tired of people assuming they have the answers. I mean, let’s face it, the only person here that does is me, and I’m not telling you.
Seriously though, Stizzy’s point of view is just as justified in a metaphysical way as Willy’s.
September 14th, 2009 at 7:16 am
@237:
Helloooo again
The assumptions I find problematic are:
1) The rate of decay (which we’ve talked about a lot so far)
2) The ratio of daughter to parent isotope (which we haven’t talked about as much and is what I was actually referring to in reference to C14, not the rate of decay)
Some sources on the comet bit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet#Physical_characteristics
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i3/comets.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i2/comets.asp
Do you say that Creation has failed to explain the examples you cite because it actually has failed or because you haven’t exhausted your search to see if anyone has noted and spoken about these examples?
I’m pretty sure in my studies I’ve come across sources that have addressed many of these issues although I will be interested to learn more about the ones I’m unfamiliar with. As an example of one I believe has been addressed is atavism. Atavisms could be due to certain traits becoming dominant or recessive in progressive generations. This article seems to touch on this:
http://creation.com/genetics-and-gods-natural-selection
The difference between things Creation hasn’t explained and things Evolution hasn’t explained is that what are generally cited by Creationists are principles that are fundamental. If they cannot be explained, everything else crumbles.
If atavism cannot be currently explained by Creation theories, the argument itself does not crumble.
Your notion of the “size of the knowable universe” isn’t drawn from the facts but from the philosophy as this isn’t something that has been empirically observed. That there could be a limit is hardly problematic for the overall creation argument as it cuts back on appealing to the unknown or invoking absolutely anything to explain phenomena. I would agree that if someone stops searching out of ignorance alone, this would be problematic.
It’s a problem because there are observable patterns that reach beyond where the creationist can explain. This means there are explanations to be had about the natural world that the creationists believe don’t really exist. If this is the case, you can hardly call it science, creation or otherwise.
I think you’re going to have to explain this more thoroughly. What observable patterns are beyond what creationists can explain?
If one believes in materalism, they believe that the material is all that exists.
If they believe in naturalism, they believe that all things can be explained by physical and natural processes.
If they believe in empiricism, they believe that all knowledge is gained through the senses.
One of the main reasons I would say these principles cannot account for preconditions of intelligibility, laws of physics, laws of logic, and complex specified information is that most of these things are not ulimately material entities.
Another is that we may be able to observe the effects these entities have on the material, but we do not observe the entities themselves.
Furthermore, these entities make knowledge itself possible.
Now, if a paradigm makes knowledge itself impossible, then any hypotheses built upon this paradigm could be considered void or unreliable, no matter how sound their logic.
If you take the implications of evolutionary theory to their full conclusion, you will find that its fundamental principles make knowledge impossible. This actually addresses a later point of yours. The reason you are able to believe in God and evolutionary theory is because you’re not being consistent. Evolutionary theory, in its entirety, does away with the need for God. If God is no longer a necessity there is no logical or rational reason to believe in or invoke him. In other words, surely he should be naturally selected against.
Actually, I mostly read the NKJV
but that’s not the point.
To imply that to associate biblical kinds with family or genus is arbitrary is to imply that there is no rational reason behind such an assumption. This is not the case.
May I direct you to the following:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-species.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0908.asp
I think you have missed my point. In your above quote, you talk about cats. Cats constitute a kind with a particular essence. But how is it that you know what you are looking at is a cat? This might seem like a facile question, and your answer might be, “well, because it looks like a cat.” My response would be, “well how do you KNOW it looks like a cat.” It’s features, you would say. The eyes, the nose, the ears, the tail, the retractable claws…all features that I recognize other animals called “cats” have. This would mean that you recogniZe kinds by the conglomeration of the different physical features of particular organisms.
Indeed I would agree that to go simply at face value, we could use the physical characteristics to define a creature. But I don’t think this is the only criteria we use. We may also use social characteristics, reproductive habits, diet, the way a creature moves, etc.
Yes, you may pick the eyes, nose, ears, tails and claws, however but there will be aspects of these elements that are specific to cat-like creatures, or arrangements that are specific to cat-like creatures.
Some creatures may not be easy to identify, but wouldn’t that depend on the system we use to identify them?
I don’t see how marsupials are a problem for Creation. The problem is that most of what you say following this is based on the assumption that “kinds” are determinde by appearance, yet biblically it is more so defined by the ability to reproduce. Also as already mentioned, this does not have to be the only criteria we can use for inference. Now, in instances of subspeciation, you may find that some within a kind are unable to reproduce, yet their ancestors were able to do so.
Furthermore, you would be pressed to explain why the genetics of australian marsupials more closely match one another than the supposed “kinds” they represent. I seem to recall a pillar of creation genetics is that genetic information (whatever that is supposed to be) is continually lost as species diverge within their kinds. The effect this would have is the channeling of particular kind-specific into species-specific genetic traits. By this reasoning, the marsupial mole should be more genetically similar to its placental counterparts. Instead, we find that the marsupial mole is far-removed genetically from true moles and is much more closely related to other australian marsupials.
I’m confused…if you are unaware of what is meant by “genetic information”, why do you tell me I would be pressed to explain why the genetics of australian marsupials more closely match one another than the supposed “kinds” they represent? Are you not here referring to matching genetic information?
A major practical problem the view of biblical kinds faces is that, because you don’t believe in common ancestry, every transitional fossil and every unique animal ever found represents a different kind.
This isn’t entirely true. I don’t believe that all creatures have a single common ancestor. This doesn’t mean I do not believe that all felines we see today have a common feline ancestor.
I kind of addressed your next point at the beginning. I didn’t say the rate of C14 decay has changed. I’m not sure if you read my previous posts, but when I brought up C14 decay, I said that one example of the problem with C14 is that diamonds that are meant to be in the billions range shouldn’t contain C14 due to their rate of decay, and yet they do.
You say that the evidence is “on your side”. Couldn’t this be considered a fallacy of reification?
Evidence isn’t on anyones “side”. Evidence is what it is. We formulate our arguments to explain this evidence independent of the evidence itself. The evidence doesn’t “say”, “speak”, or “point” to anything. We may draw inferences or deductions from evidence and conclude that these are more consistent with the evidnce, but it doesn’t hand them to us.
Whether an argument is true or false, the evidence still remains. The question therefore is, which argument best explains the evidence?
We could say that evidence is observed physically through the senses, but arguments are formulated in the mind. Would a vessel containing water tell us anything about what it is or if it has a purpose if we simply observed it without thinking about it? Would it have a “side” as it were?
…if you do want to try to make a scientific case for creationism, then you must necessarily imply that the vast consilience between the sciences is an illusion, crafted by hundreds of thousands of people over a course of centuries, working independently of one another and displaying a wide-range of preconceptions and backgrounds. This is a tall order, and unless you are able to do this, then you haven’t a leg to stand on.
Why must I necessarily imply this? The majority of (if not all) of our sciences weren’t founded on evolutionary principles. Many of them predate it. Most of our sciences, biology included, do not even need evolutionary theory in the day-to-day.
Yes, the evidence is that strong. Yes, the evidence is that conclusive. Yes, the evidence is that numerous. So that fact that you have come to a different conclusion is good evidence that you are being disingenuous to yourself when you say things like “I weigh all the evidence before making my decision.” Clearly you haven’t. Like most people, you have either failed to go out and fully research the depth that evolutionary science has (this is understandable…we have bills to pay, kids to feed, we can’t always be out at the library or with our nose in a scientific journal), or you have come across such evidence and attempted to ignore it or explain it away. Before you answer that science does this too, yes, you’re right. But science can afford to do so because it has so much evidence backing it up that not doing so would simply be ILLOGICAL.
Most of this statement is subjective. It is your own opinion. As I said, and as you agreed, the debate is a world-view one as either of us can explain away contrary evidence in a way that is consistent with our world-view. You’re going down the same path other people have by focusing mostly on supposed “evidences” rather than the fundamentals. We cannot ignore the fundamentals.
Perhaps we are using the same universe. But this is at odds with your “world-view” explanation. Perhaps creationists are investigating the natural world for signs of creation. But this is at odds with your “anti-naturalistic, anti-empirical” stance you hamfisted in one of your above quotes. I beg you to make sure your explanations are consistent with one another. Otherwise it just looks like your are grasping for straws, any straw will do, as long as it gives you a bit of ammo. Tell me I’m wrong. In any case, we are not using the same evidence, because you ignore so much of it.
How is this at odds with the world-view stance or my personal stance? You’ll have to explain how I’ve been inconsistent more thoroughly if this is to be relevant.
As I’ve said, evidence isn’t being ignored. It is that evidence can be explained away. We all do it.
there are particular known mechanisms that provide this “added information” which are being ignored.
What is this mechanism and how is it producing new, creative, complex, specified information?
The thing is natural selection is a conclusion drawn from the facts. It is not a sole concept of evolutionary theory. Natural selection wasn’t birthed from evolutionary theory so it cannot belong solely to it. If it is referenced in relation to Creation, it is not reinterpreting or borrowing it. You didn’t actually explain how natural selection has been reinterpreted.
What has been reinterpreted is the misconception that natural selection can only be associated with evolutionary theory and that it is a key mechanism when in reality, it presents problems for common descent.
Do you disagree that mutations rearrange, duplicate or delete already existing genes?
Certainly it not an exclusively negative stance. But its most powerful arguments are its negative attacks on science: exploiting holes in the data, the lack of knowledge on particular subjects, and the kinks in the scientific process.
The problem is, if this is grounds to dismiss a theory, wouldn’t you have to do the same for evolutionary theory as it could be seen as a negative argument against a Creator?
The strongest arguments are the ones that hold up biblical creation as the best explanation for the universe. You could ignore references to evolutionary theory and still make the same cases, for example:
*DNA contains complex, specified information.
*This information can be defined as: “An encoded symbolic message conveying an expected action and intended purpose”
*In every context known to man, such complex, specified information is the product of an intelligent mind.
*The existence and assemblage of this information is consistent with logical thought.
*Logic is a universal constant, independent of physical matter.
*Information is also an entity indepdent of physical matter.
*Such entities, in relation to creation, would infer the existence of a being that is not subject to the physical universe.
*These are all attributes we can associate with the biblical God from whom all knowledge, wisdom and understanding comes and who created all things.
And considering that if the creationist hypothesis were true, there should be abundant evidence of it, and moreover that the attempt to find this evidence has been much more difficult than it should be (given how much evidence there *should* be), we can at least say that the positive enterprise of creationism has had largely negative returns. I think under these circumstances, I’d be willing to say from a philosophical perspective that creationism is indeed a negative stance.
Again I would say that this is subjective, especially when the case can be made that everything in the universe could be available as evidence, therefore it isn’t hard to find it and hasn’t been (indeed the Bible says this is so). So on what basis do you say this has been hard, considering many will dismiss evidence that is contrary to their world-view, or explain it away? It becomes a matter of perspective. One thinks it’s hard because one thinks that the evidence presented isn’t acceptable as evidence according to their own personal bias rather than the explaining power of the evidence and theory.
Now you’ve got me chuckling. Maybe you creationists were created as a separate kind from evolutionists; that would certainly go far towards explaining why we have such a difficult time understanding one another.
I would say this is due to contrasting world-views
people tend to talk past each other if they don’t acknowledge this.
I’ve got news for you, my friend. The creation science you keep referring to over and over is based on the materialistic components of design, the naturalistic exploration of evidence of design, and the empirical justification for a theory of design. The whole thrust of creation science is that it engages the natural world at the same level as evolutionary science, and comes to different conclusions. So, if you want your scientific justificiation for creationism, you’re going to have to embrace materialism, naturalism and empiricism, even if your naturalism is only methodological and not metaphysical.
Indeed creation science engages with the physical world(how could it not) however it does not hold that the material is all there is, that natural processes can explain all phenomena and that all knowledge is gained via the senses.
Creation science isn’t based on these assumptions. If it were, it would refute creation as these principles exclude a being that is non-physical and they exclude revelation from such a being. And of course you can apply methodological naturalism when dealing with say technological applications or the physics that govern gravity, however when you get to fundamental questions involving the origin of the universe (which Creation is about) it is entirely necessary to involve God.
But the answer to the question of God’s existence is silent from the scientific perspective. And to try to exrapolate his existence (or the evidence for his existence) from the study of the natural world will only hurt your chances in the long-run.
I would agree with everything except what is in brackets. You can extrapolate the evidence of His existence without hurting your chances quite easily.
This goes double when you try to substitute your own pseudoscience to fill in the holes.
Where has science been substituted with pseudoscience?
I can be an evolutionist and still believe in God. You cannot still believe in God and be an evolutionist. So whose world-view suffers more from borrowing from the other?
I believe I addressed this already, but to repeat, the only reason you are able to do this is because you aren’t consistent with your world-view and you don’t take evolutionary thought to its full conclusion. If you did, you would realise that it excludes God from the picture by making Him unnecessary.
Being inconsistent in such a way is what hurts your world-view more than mine, because if you come to this conclusion, you also find that the existence of knowledge and the possibility of it becomes problematic. And finally you find you have no ground to stand or build your view upon.
I hate to disagree with you, but it’s very hard to score a goal when you keep moving the posts around.
I believe you have to identify which “posts” you are referring to before you can accuse me of moving them.
Tell me, how would you like me to justify the principles on which science is built?
Explain how an evolutionary world-view, such as a basically random universe, can make sense of the existence of the preconditions of intelligibility (such as logical through, the senses, memory, a sense of morality), laws of logic, laws of physics, uniformity in the universe, mathematics and information.
what you would qualify as justification.
Explain how and why all of these have been produced in a random universe. If any of this is unclear, I’ll chock that up to my not explaining adequately, not “moving the goal posts”
Thanks again for your response
Respectfull, I have to admit that most of what you’ve said isn’t new to me so I can’t honestly say you’ve given me a lot to think about.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
I’d right something meaningful here, but whatever I write, I’ll have a dozen people telling me I’m wrong, and my ego is far too fragile for that kind of bombardment.
So I’ll just say that I enjoyed the list, enjoyed the well-thought-out-none-insulting comments- both for and against- and would love to see a Part 2 to this list.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I meant “write.” There goes any argument I have for my own intelligence.
September 15th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
give yourself a break woolhouse, if i know one thing for sure in life it is that no one is without flaw.
September 18th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
@archiealt (162)
You are sooo right! I can’t believe how ianz09 does not see it. Due to the mass amounts of proof you have provided in your responses, he should walk away from this petty belief in someone bigger than himself. He should believe in nothing just like you. Even better, he should go to others, that believe in something, and encourage them to believe in nothing as well!
You have it down sooo well! ALL of the facts you have provided are so concrete. From what you have written, I can see there is clearly no God. You can’t see Him so thats proof enough. Of course you can’t see gravity, or the wind, but you have proof that they exsist. You also have proof of where those things come from. Like EXACTLY where. How it all started. You have succesfully disproven God.
And then, of course the insults! I love how you insult his intelligance because he believes something you don’t believe. You have used a method that has been extremely effective for years. Ridicule ALWAYS yeilds possitive results, so I want you to know that I appreciate your use of it. The way you TELL him what HE should not teach to HIS children? Amazing.
All in all, you are sooo the smartest guy I have ever read! I hope you teach in schools, give confrences, or have a book you have written. You have confirmed my belief. Thank you
And by the way, Mr. Archiealt. “Can you not see the ludicrousness of this. Accuse me of not hearing logic, whilst also claiming that you believe in something which no body will ever be able to disprove, what?” “Nobody” is one word, not two.
September 19th, 2009 at 3:57 am
@ADII (245):
‘You can’t see Him so thats proof enough. Of course you can’t see gravity, or the wind, but you have proof that they exsist.’
Somebody who uses this as an argument, this ridiculously flawed logic, should really think twice before throwing in their two cents.
September 19th, 2009 at 5:26 am
@archiealt (246):
Why? You have told evryone on this list to NOT belive this logic, but you have yet to tell ANYBODY why? If your “why” is just because YOU think it makes no sense, then maybe YOU should think twice before throwing in you two (now six) cents.
I can’t believe because YOU think it’s illogical? Well you can’t eat vegetables because I don’t think they are good. See how much sense that makes? Thats logic at work for ya huh?
September 19th, 2009 at 7:27 am
The Hindu mythology has something very similar to Noah’s Ark. Only the name of the person is supposed to be Manu or something and its not really God that warns him, its a fish, a big fish, a big fish with horns. And its not a punishment for anything but just heavy rain, really heavy rain apparently. Wierd huh.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
@ADII (247): I like you. You make me happy.
September 20th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
@ADII (247):
‘I can’t believe because YOU think it’s illogical?’
Listen kid you can believe whatever you want, but that doesn’t make it correct. You could honestly believe whatever you want, but that does not mean people have to respect your beliefs.
My reasons for people not believing in God are not just that ‘i think it’s illogical’. I think people shouldn’t believe in God because of the, quite frankly, staggering amount of evidence which suggest the contrary. That’s my ‘why’, and i’m pretty sure i’ve mentioned it before.
I fail to see why you are so upset by this?
September 21st, 2009 at 12:07 am
@archiealt (250):
Upset? Me? Naw dude this is fun for me
I absolutley enjoy proving to people that they can’t disprove the exsitance of God. Yes, you have mentioned the “staggering amount of evidence” that prove He doesn’t exsist. Thanks to you, I am very aware that there is a STAGGERING amount of evidence. So? Mr. archiealt? Where is this evidence? You have so much of it right? You said yourself, you have sooo much evidence piled sooo high that it staggers. That means that by now, you should have no problem giving me one, single, SOLID piece of evidence right? Ya know what nevermind. I understand your problem. You can’t give me one single piece of evidence from your pile. It’s staggering already. So maybe giving me a piece of your STAGGERING pile of evidence will cause it to fall down.
Didn’t say you have to respect my belief. Didn’t say I can prove my belief because, like ianz09, I WILLINGLY admit that I can’t. My God doesn’t need me to defend Him. He is very capable of doing that all by Himself, if He chooses to. My goal was never to prove God exsists. My mission WAS to prove that you, and not just you,
, I can consider that mission accomplished. Now, I’m sure you’ll retort with comments insulting my intelect, or calling me foolish, or some other off topic insults. If not here on listverse, then to yourself, and to your friends. That’s ok
I would be a little insecure if I were hiding behind a STAGGERING pile too.
Mr. Archiealt, but the entire world, can’t prove He doesn’t. That WAS my mission, and based on your last four cents,
September 21st, 2009 at 12:21 am
@ianz09 (249):
Thankyou for having the balls to stand up for what you believe in. Not many would have done what you did, and for that I am truly greatful. It’s nice to know that I am not alone. Not so much to KNOW, but more to SEE that I am not alone. So again, thankyou.
September 21st, 2009 at 5:09 am
@ADII (251):
Where to begin….
First of all,
‘I absolutley enjoy proving to people that they can’t disprove the exsitance of God’
Despite what you may think you are not the first person to throw that argument in to the equation. It’s a very old argument and although i’m sure you thrill in telling it to anybody who will listen, as if you are shedding some great new light on the problem, you are not. Anybody who has ever contemplated the existed of a God is very aware of this point, and has come to terms with the fact that it holds no water whatsoever. I’m sure you see it as the be all and end all, but trust me kid, you’ve got along way to go.
I’ve said this before but, please Google ‘Russel’s Teapot’
Of course we cannot disprove the existence of God, but that is not an argument for his existence. That is what’s know as ‘The argument from ignorance’, and i’m afraid to say that it doesn’t stand up. It is a logical fallacy.
You have to understand that the burden of proof lies on your doorstep.
Again, i could try and explain all this to you, but you could save us both the trouble and just look up ‘Russel’s Teapot’. Then get back to me.
Secondly, when it comes to me giving evidence against the legitimacy of religion, lets start with this;
Dinosaurs, discuss?
As a last point, you have no idea how much it infuriates me that people like yourself are always asking to be shown the evidence to disprove your beliefs. How about you stop blindly shouting out what you’ve been told for two seconds, and actually take the time to question your own beliefs. Because guess what, mummy and daddy just might be wrong. I’ve read your side of the argument (The Bible) how about you have the common fucking decency to read mine. I know religion is against the practice of asking questions, but just try it, you might learn something.
September 21st, 2009 at 5:20 am
@253:
An argument from ignorance would be to say:
“If you can’t prove God doesn’t exist, he does exist”
or
“If you can’t prove that evolution isn’t true, it is true”
Saying that someone cannot prove God’s existence (as ADII has done) isn’t making an argument, it’s simply making a statement that many people overlook. They go on as if God most absolutely doesn’t exist, and that is that. Any argument otherwise is irrelevant rubbish. When they are reminded of what they are doing, they tell the person they are arguing from ignorance.
As for dinosaurs, didn’t we discuss dinosaurs before I don’t believe you adequately answered my points or refuted them on that topic. Shouldn’t you make sure you have done so before you challenge someone else?
Also, dinosaurs in and of themselves say nothing about the legitimacy of religion as a whole, therefore I think you should be more specific, otherwise you severely weaken your entire point.
How much of the Bible have you actually read by the way?
September 21st, 2009 at 6:39 am
@Stizzy (254):
Stizzy my friend, i’m done with you. Your beliefs about the age of the Earth and all of that nonsense goes beyond what i can rationally discuss without resorting to exasperated name calling. You believe what you want to believe friend, and you can make as many points as you like, but to me you will always be that crazy guy, or gal, who thinks the world is six thousands years old, and who believes Genesis to be an historical account.
September 21st, 2009 at 1:32 pm
@255:
So should I then take it (as I proposed from the outset of our dialogue) that you don’t actually have a logically justifiable, rational argument or objection to my position? I mean you’ve practically admitted it yourself that you cannot discuss this without resorting to name calling (which is not a rational way to debate) which in turn calls into question whether your position is justifiable and whether you can critique anyone else about their logic or rationality.
Therefore, one is left wondering whether anything you say about my beliefs being nonsense or crazy is relevant seeing as you cannot actually logically justify your ascertation adequately either way.
Guess nothing else really needs to be said
I just ask that you bear this in mind before you debate anyone else on this subject.
God bless.
September 21st, 2009 at 4:03 pm
@Stizzy (256):
Fucking hell Stizzy, i’ve never wished harm on anyone as much as i do you. God i hope you get cholera.
If you believe the world to be 6000 years old, then explain coral you self righteous prick. Or the fact that we can see stars that are tens of thousands of light years away, or tress that date back longer than six thousand years? In fact, explain EVERYTHING. Explain how all of what we know about the Earth, Ice ages, dinosaurs, meteors hitting it, fossils, mount everest, Hawaii and all the other things that we know could only be produced over thousands of years is all rubbish? Explain why 99.99% of the scientists, historians, geographers, and every other type of intellect are all wrong in their beliefs about the world and you are correct? Does that not seem strange to you, if your evidence was so strong then why the fuck is it only religious nuts like yourself who believe it? Your delusional, your delusional, and whats more your a cunt.
September 21st, 2009 at 4:19 pm
@archiealt (257): Whatever argument or debate you wanted to make just went out the window with that last post. You are losing whatever credibility you had when you post something so…vulgar.
I agree with most of what you are saying in regards to a logical argument. He twists whatever you post to meet his own agenda and there is nothing you can do or say that will change his mind. Same with you. Nothing he can say will change your mind either.
I have tried to point out the same logical argument but he cannot see what you and I do. I gave up. He thinks this is a win, but it’s actually a draw as I know I can have a better debate with my cat.
September 21st, 2009 at 4:53 pm
@oouchan (258):
The ‘God Bless’ tipped me over the edge.
Up until then i felt annoyance and exasperation at Stizzy but it was under control. That ‘God bless’ really did break the camels back. I apologies but there are times when vulgarity is needed. Stizzy deserves nothing less than vulgarity, it takes a certain sort of person to throw in a ‘God bless’ at the end of a post like that, and those people can feel no sense of injustice if they are subject to a torrent of abuse. Your 100% right that it does nothing to help my argument, but at this point i’m almost beyond caring. My patience isn’t what it could be, but does Stizzys pious, self righteous, holier-than-thou tone of voice not make you want to scream?
Again, my apologies but ‘God bless’…. honestly, red rag to a bull.
September 21st, 2009 at 6:09 pm
@archiealt (259): I understand. I feel the same way when someone says “I’ll pray for you.” Makes me feel like I need to take a bath or something.
September 21st, 2009 at 6:35 pm
@archiealt (259): alrite dude, i know we’ve locked horns, but i mean this, no hostility. im not a christian talking to u rite now, just another internet user.
i understand your frustration. if i just didnt move on anything, then tossed in a “god bless”, i wouldnt blame u for being pissed off. its essentially just a big middle finger. you are clearly as devout an atheist as i a christian, and i never tried to budge u off of that. your beliefs are firm, or u wouldnt fight so damned hard. but understand, all the mindless swearing undermines your argument. even if you and stizzy were debating on which was better, star wars or star trek, regardless of what argument u put forth to support your favorite sci-fi franchise, ur credibility would be tossed out the window with a simple “star XXXX is better than star YYYY, you rat-fucking asshole dick!”
so honestly, i agree with u. idt that he thru that in there as a good tiding, but more likely a big fat single-finger salute. obviously, we knew how u took it.
but like oouchan said, you lost credibility with all the vulgarity. i know it probly sucks hearing it from me, cuz we locked horns for a while, but honestly, im not insulting or fueling the fire. but more people are going to respect your say over his if you are mature, becuz he already made himself look bad with his little God Bless
sting at the end of his comment, very immature and poorly executed. that would be like me and u having a long, clear coversation about how i was a democrat and u were a republican (for example), and u ended with a smile, a wave, and a cheerful “dont forget to vote republican!” as if i hadnt made it clear that i was NOT a republican.
ur right man. he was being stubborn and thru in a sting he knew would piss u off. it also made him look bad, so if u wouldve responded in a dignified manner, you wouldve undermined him. ur a smart dude, i gather, so u shouldnt cancel that out with immature dialogue, like stizzy did.
and for the record, im fully aware that the earth is billions of years old, that evolution is a very real thing, and that bigots utilize religion as an excuse to kill and mame and discriminate. like i said, me and u would probly agree on a lot. dont bite my head off, i know i am not the person u would like to hear from, but im also taking ur side
September 21st, 2009 at 9:50 pm
@Stizzy (256):
“God bless”
When trying to get a non christian to see your point in a debate as amazing as this one has been, this is a GREAT way to lose them and lose them fast. If this is what you are going to bring to the discussion, please stay out of it. This makes you look bad and the other guy angry and unreceptive.
September 21st, 2009 at 10:09 pm
@ianz09 (261):
&
@ADII (262):
I take my hat off for the both of you. Nice comments.
@archiealt (259): And because I can’t help myself…May the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster bless you with his noodly apendage.
RAmen
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:18 am
@archiealt (253):
As for you, Mr. archiealt…maybe you should have left your pile to stagger because giving me a piece of your “evidence” has just caused it to fall. That’s very nice of you to refer me to ‘Russel’s Teapot.’ You have proven the age of the earth, the vastness of the universe, and that dinosaurs and other now extict creatures roamed the earth. I will put that with the other science books I acquired in highschool. LOL I know that stuff already
But it’s always nice to have a new source.
Now that we have that out of the way, can you please provide my proof that God does not, absolutely cannot exsist? My point was never to prove that God exsists, but to say that you, nor anybody else, can prove He doesn’t. Please try to keep up. You have done nothing but prove me right.
“I’ve read your side of the argument (The Bible) how about you have the common fucking decency to read mine.”
It’s nice to know that I’m in your head. This is the first time in this entire debate that you have swore. This tells a psychology major, such as myself, that you have hit the wall. You know I’m right, but you don’t want me to be. You seem like a smart guy, so you see that I have shut you down at every turn, and it drives you nuts. Your use of profantiy here, and here first, tells me that you have nowhere else to go, nothing else to say. That’s good. This means you are at least thinking about what I have said. Not bad for a kid huh?
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:24 am
Alright guys, whether you accept it or not, I have not at any time tried to be nasty or give anyone the middle finger. So, I sincerely apologise for any offence I have caused and for acting in a way that is unhelpful to the debate.
Poor way to phrase it for the sake civility? I’ll concede that.
However, if I may, in my defence I have to question the hostility directed towards someone who says “God bless”.
Whether that person agrees that God exists or not, they should understand that from my perspective, I am wishing them good will and all the best. Now, if this is my intention, can you really fault me for it? And is it not presumptuous and unfair to assume that I meant it in a derogatory way? Why such a comment would be so inflammatory to one who considers such a point of view as mine to be ridiculous is perplexing to me.
I don’t believe in Santa but if someone says to me “Hope he brings you something great for crimbo this year!” I’m hardly going to foam at the mouth
especially if that person sincerely believes Santa will bring me something. They’re perfectly entitled to believe so and say so. I’m perfectly entitled to wish a blessing on another whether they are hostile to my position or not.
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:20 am
@ADII (264):
I’t seems you’ve missed the point. I understand that you think you’re ‘winning’ this particular verbal joust, but if this is going to work at all, i’m afraid you’re obligated to read my responses, because at the moment you are merely repeating yourself.
With ‘Russel’s Teapot’I was not trying to prove that God cannot exist, in fact if you read closely i actually said, ‘of course we can never disprove Gods existence’. My point is that, your point, is not even worth making. Like i said, just because something cannot be disproved, that does not give it credibility. I’m pretty sure thats one of the messages behind the whole ‘pastafarian’ movement. Again, i think you’ve missed the point.
So if we are going to have an actual debate over the existence of a God, then you have to stop bringing in the ‘you can never disprove his existence’ argument. It’s a nothing argument, and you’ve got to understand that it is worth nil poi on the field of debating.
Now…
‘It’s nice to know that I’m in your head. This is the first time in this entire debate that you have swore. This tells a psychology major, such as myself, that you have hit the wall. You know I’m right, but you don’t want me to be. You seem like a smart guy, so you see that I have shut you down at every turn, and it drives you nuts. Your use of profantiy here, and here first, tells me that you have nowhere else to go, nothing else to say. That’s good. This means you are at least thinking about what I have said. Not bad for a kid huh?’
O.K Holden, calm down. This whole paragraph starts with a profound misunderstanding of psychology, and gets progressively worse. By the end of it i’m wondering why you didn’t just go to the nearest rooftop and scream,
‘I’M AT THAT STAGE OF ADOLESCENCE WHERE I’M CERTAIN THAT I ALONE AM SMARTER THAN ANYBODY WHO HAS EVER LIVED. I GET TAUGHT SOMETHING ON A FRIDAY, AND AM THEN REPEATING IT TO MY FRIENDS ON SATURDAY AS IF IT WAS GOSPEL, WITHOUT EVER STOPPING TO QUESTION WHAT I’VE LEARNT, I EVEN BELIEVE I’M SMARTER THAN THOSE WHO TEACH ME! I AM THE CHOSEN ONE!’
…..It’s a wonderful stage. Honestly it is the most enjoyable part of adolescence, cherish it. However for the purposes of this debate, i suggest you put it to one side, it wont do you any favours.
Now, if you really want to talk about Gods and their existence, then your going to have to enlighten me with your profound views on the subject. What are you, latter day saint, Catholic, Jewish? Is the world 6 thousand years old or 6 billion? Do you believe in evolution? Is the Bible an allegory or an historical account, or, conveniently, a bit of both?
Just how much mumbo-jumbo do you believe?
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:56 am
@archiealt (266):
oooo….again with the insults?
We know what that means don’t we?
I’m done with you…it doesn’t matter what I say. Since it doesn’t matter, I won’t say anything. Take that as a win for you I guess
I surrender
September 22nd, 2009 at 7:41 am
@ADII (267):
There where no insults there my friend. The phrase, ‘Bit of more than you could chew’ comes to mind.
It seems you were just in the business of throwing about your ‘disprove God’ argument, without ever really giving it any thought. Monkey see….
When it comes to a real debate about religion, it seems you fall short somewhat.
Oh, and for future reference, sarcasm doesn’t work if you use it for a prolonged period time.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
@ADII
Meaning you’ve read a lot of books doesn’t mean you can insult people. You’re just an animated, worthless piece of meat who has some codes encrypted in the brain.
In fact, you’re just as “meaty” as all the other atheists here, who just came by random chance. Out of fucking nothing. Nothing actually made everything. That’s atheism for you. Scientifically speaking, atheists are just as absurd as believing in Santa Claus.
Ask Stephen Hawking, Newton, Einstein. They don’t want to be labeled as atheists because they’re very open to something beyond sight. And how the fuck did Maria Valtorta map the entire Holy Land first before the archeologists who’ve been actually been there ten years later.
But that’s just me.
September 26th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
“Out of fucking nothing. Nothing actually made everything” I Love it! It completely sums up the total randomness that I’ve learned to accept as life:)
September 26th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
@Joe (269): I think you meant archiealt, ADII is batting for the Christians
September 26th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
@LittleMissSunscreen
You’re a complete retard. All randomness comes from a cause, dumbass.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Hey, that Maria Valtorta person is really cool. How the heck did she know all of that before the archeologists?
Creepy.
The “Miracle of the Sun” is another weird phenomenon. Date and time of apparition predicted were precisely right.
I think atheists should have more digging up to do before they spew out bigoted comments.
September 27th, 2009 at 4:17 am
@jimboslice (272): Perhaps you should look up the word randomness? Oh, and maybe get a sense of humor.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:06 am
I believe in the Big Bang theory and it seems to me that there must have been some sort of being, probably beyond our comprehension that got the whole ball rolling.
September 30th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
And here’s something 4u all 2 chew on. I’m supposed 2 believe that an all knowing all seeing god went ahead & created his ultimate adversary.He willingly created someone that would try 2 take his throne and then eventually try 2 take the souls of his greatest creation-Us? He created mankind knowing that in a few short years He’d have 2 wipe us out with a flood? Sounds like someone trying 2 cover up some f-d up construction job 2 me.sounds like this so called perfect god is full of mistakes.believe me the bible is littered with em. So if god is full of mistakes like we are then who really made who? That’s a question 4 next time.but I think I made my point. There is NO god at all.none!! & if so he’s a sadists that gets off on the murder & rape of innocent kids. Oh that’s the devil! Wait? Who made that pure evil being? Oh yeah! God did. And why did he make him again? Anybody? Yeah that’s what I thought. Sorry bout spelling & errors & sorry 4 the length.
October 1st, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Personally, I do think that there is something that happened behind the scenes that kicked-off the beginning of the Universe. I don’t believe at all in the Bible; to me it’s a bunch of fairy tales. But, I think something threw the dice to get things started and then just kicked back and watched. I look around and I can’t help but think that there is so much that we just don’t know or understand about our “reality”.
November 28th, 2009 at 6:44 am
Ok, I give up. Where does it say that Jesus admits to a typo again? The New Testament wasn’t even written until After his death and resurrection.
December 5th, 2009 at 10:56 am
More like top 10 mysteries of the Judeo-Christian belief.
Great list, I hope those who don’t believe in these be less militant and more mature about it. The intelligent-comedian act getting tiresome.
December 16th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
I’s very possible that some of the items on this list did not exist at all. Many only were ever refered to in text and whether or not Jebus himself was real is debatable.
Noah’s Ark is definately nothing more than a story.
Not a bad list though.
December 27th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
(5) Haha good one man
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:47 am
what about the years of jesus’ life that aren’t accounted for in the bible shouldn’t that be on the list?
January 16th, 2010 at 10:35 am
@archiealt: you’re retarded
“You are all very silly people. Please go back to school.”
lolirony
“No. I am right, you are wrong. We can be as certain that there is no god as we can that the earth revolves around the sun.”
I would absolutely *love* to see this evidence. Any evidence.
“And to the person who said, and i’m paraphrasing here, ‘what evidence would atheists need to believe in god?’
Any. We would need any evidence. But there is none. There is no evidence to suggest any of the mumbo jumbo you believe in is even remotely true.”
You seem quite sure there is no God, why would you need evidence if you’re sure there isn’t a God? You’re a fucking retard.
I’m an atheist and even I don’t agree with your stupid, half-ass comments. Please, get educated on the subject of religion before you go off spouting random shit. Cool, you don’t like religion, you’re an atheist. Big. Fucking. Deal. You just want attention. I can see you’re also going through a rebellious stage and there isn’t any point in arguing with you.
January 21st, 2010 at 1:40 pm
according to a lt of experts the pharaoh during the time of the exodus would have been Ahmose I who ruled during the 1500bc.