0

>When I was at school learning from our schoolmaster, he always stressed that mankind's brain was not big enough to understand all the mysteries of our religion, which was in this case Roman Catholicism. I think there was a lot of truth in what he said and even as we think we are becoming smarter we are finding the more we learn, the more questions remain unanswered.

This statement just drips of intellectual cowardice. Not only does it discourage the inquisitive and intellectual, but it does injustice to our immense collective mental capacity. With enough intelligence (e.g collective brain power), most problems can be solved.

0

First of all, thank you very much for reviving my favorite thread! :)

A distinguished in one of our National newspapers stated he did not know the answers. But he was convinced it could not happen by chance. He posed a scenario whereby if you follow the chance theory, if it were possible to throw up into the air sufficient quantities of all sorts of RAW materials, that if it was done often enough we would eventually end up with the Taj Mahal! When I was at school learning from our schoolmaster, he always stressed that mankind's brain was not big enough to understand all the mysteries of our religion, which was in this case Roman Catholicism. I think there was a lot of truth in what he said and even as we think we are becoming smarter we are finding the more we learn, the more questions remain unanswered.

That is by far the worst reasons ever for believing in god. That's just like saying, "Hmm.. I have no idea how this works, thus it must be because of a supreme being." Such an argument is ignorant. I agree that science doesn't answer all the questions we want it to, but I am not going to just assume that because we cannot answer everything then it must be the result of god's doing. Throughout history, humans have simply used god as an explanation for the unexplained (rain, other planets, earthquakes, fire, etc.). However, as science and technology has advances it has also forced religion to evolve. As we discover more, less remains within the scope of god and religion.

0

First of all, thank you very much for reviving my favorite thread! :)
That is by far the worst reasons ever for believing in god. That's just like saying, "Hmm.. I have no idea how this works, thus it must be because of a supreme being." Such an argument is ignorant. I agree that science doesn't answer all the questions we want it to, but I am not going to just assume that because we cannot answer everything then it must be the result of god's doing. Throughout history, humans have simply used god as an explanation for the unexplained (rain, other planets, earthquakes, fire, etc.). However, as science and technology has advances it has also forced religion to evolve. As we discover more, less remains within the scope of god and religion.

I don't think that this is the reason that he believes in God but it is more a compliment to the faith that he already has.

While i think science has advanced significantly along with our better understanding of things i do not think that has done anything to disprove the existence of a God.

0

.. and if you think about it.. That our lives on this planet are coincidental.. it is reasonable to believe so. I mean, look at the entire existence of time and space. The Universe is expanding infinitely, and it is reasonable to believe that ONE planet within one small galaxy has been able to sustain life for a small fraction of time since the Big Bang.

Not only that, but think of it this way: What if there was no god. What would happen? Is it possible that such a society that we have now could exist?
Here is the thought experiment (Dave, you might recognize this ;-))

Assume, that there is no god.. no supreme being. Humans have evolved, and exist without purpose. However, they don't know much about the world. So, would this not be true of their thought process:

They subconsciously refuse to believe in a life without purpose. Some propose that there are many gods.. These gods help explain certain natural phenomena like rain, thunder, lightning, fire, wind, etc. When humans don't understand something then we naturally try to find something that explains it. This is how polytheism evolved from the beginning... Humans invented gods, and religion in order to explain certain phenomena.. and thus, have a purpose in the Universe. Eventually, as science uncovered these truths.. religion would be forced to evolve. First into monotheism, and eventually into what it is today.

0

Or perhap the whole reason that people want to believe in a superior being is that there actually is such a being and its in our nature to search for him.

Science does nothing to disprove the existence of a God it simple gives us a better understanding of the things that have been put into place by God.

0

It should also be noted that religion was distorted from its original purpose (A lazy explaination) to something wholly more sinister.

0

Science does nothing to disprove the existence of a God it simple gives us a better understanding of the things that have been put into place by God.

Though religion does nothing to prove the existence of a god either. Saying that a god must have created it just because we don't understand something's origin does not make it so.

0

Though religion does nothing to prove the existence of a god either. Saying that a god must have created it just because we don't understand something's origin does not make it so.

Thats true. There is a certain level of faith that comes into it. Personally though i find it alot harder to believe in nothing rather then the existence of a God

0

Thats true. There is a certain level of faith that comes into it. Personally though i find it alot harder to believe in nothing rather then the existence of a God

Precisely. People would rather believe in a god than not. Hell, I'd like to believe the world has a purpose, and that I will live on forever too.. but, unlike you I recognize and accept the truth.

0

Precisely. People would rather believe in a god than not. Hell, I'd like to believe the world has a purpose, and that I will live on forever too.. but, unlike you I recognize and accept the truth.

It takes an equal amount of faith to believe in both things.

0

i thought you guys had gotten over it...

you'll never convince anyone of yourself to believe something that contradicts what they have believed for their whole lives...

0

i thought you guys had gotten over it...

you'll never convince anyone of yourself to believe something that contradicts what they have believed for their whole lives...

Meh someone resurected this thread and someone has to defend the light so i figured i would do some posting.

1

I found a dilemma that disproves life happening by chance:

In order for a cell to reproduce, a cell needs the blueprints (DNA) for building another cell, and it needs the device to read the blueprint and build the parts (ribosome).

Let's assume that one complete cell came together by random chance. It has DNA formed by random chance, and it has a ribosome.

It's the second cell that bothers me. There are two events that must exist together independently that don't make sense. Assuming the first cell got its ribosome through random chance, how did the second cell also get one.

Case 1: Assuming that the ribosome independently developed away from the DNA, how did the instructions for building a ribosome get recorded onto the DNA, so the second cell could have one?

Case 2: Assuming the plans for the ribosome were on the DNA before the cell came together, what was used to read the DNA so the first cell could have a ribosome?

This is sort of like making a compact disc recorder-player and a blank compact disc, and upon inserting the first blank compact disc into the recorder-player the first time, finding the blueprint for the recorder-player already recorded on the disc.

Votes + Comments
Good argument.
0

I found a dilemma that disproves life happening by chance: ...

No, you found a dilemma that you cannot explain. It does not disprove anything at all and it certainly does not prove a mystical third party was involved.

0

I found a dilemma that disproves life happening by chance:

In order for a cell to reproduce, a cell needs the blueprints (DNA) for building another cell, and it needs the device to read the blueprint and build the parts (ribosome).

Let's assume that one complete cell came together by random chance. It has DNA formed by random chance, and it has a ribosome.

It's the second cell that bothers me. There are two events that must exist together independently that don't make sense. Assuming the first cell got its ribosome through random chance, how did the second cell also get one.

Case 1: Assuming that the ribosome independently developed away from the DNA, how did the instructions for building a ribosome get recorded onto the DNA, so the second cell could have one?

Case 2: Assuming the plans for the ribosome were on the DNA before the cell came together, what was used to read the DNA so the first cell could have a ribosome?

This is sort of like making a compact disc recorder-player and a blank compact disc, and upon inserting the first blank compact disc into the recorder-player the first time, finding the blueprint for the recorder-player already recorded on the disc.

It's all explained in the Bible! Don't you read the good book?

1

>Incorrect. As I understand it, there is quite a bit of historical evidence outside of the bible that supports his existence.

Actually, there is no historical reference to Jesus outside of New Testament and the new testament was written by 4 men, none of whom were even born until about 50 years after Jesus died. This makes for a pretty tenuous connection to history. There are no contemporary historical records that mention Jesus during the 33 years of his life and no mention of him after his death. All of the major political figures in the New Testament are referenced in histories, local documents, census records and so on - people like Pontius Pilot, Harode, Caesar; religious groups like the Pharisees (ya gotta wonder at some of my spelling) and Zionists and so on but no mention of Jesus or his crucifiction.

Then there is the question of what about the gospels that were excised from the new testament. It was Irenius around the year 180 of the Common Era who declared the 4 gospels (no more, no less). There are other Gospels - Thomas', Judas', Mary Magdalene's, and the Gnostic gospels.

But all this means nothing, religion is based on belief not on facts or history.

Votes + Comments
Good point :)
0

If a God of Love created us, why do people die? Where do they go? Why does He allow so much abuse? If creation is true I think we are so disconnected from the fact of it that our conceptualisation of it is so poor that it is impossible to arrive at any logical understanding of it (that is why religion creates so many problems)........ Sam

0

> If a God of Love created us, why do people die?
So that everyone sitting in heaven or hell gets a chance to crap on this brave new world. You don't plan on keeping all the fun to yourself, do you? ;P

0

the new testament was written by 4 men, none of whom were even born until about 50 years after Jesus died.

Perhaps you should research before you start talking (or writing...:P) let me see... two of the 4 gospels were written by His apostles, John and Mathew, and the other two were written by historians, people who did research about Jesus, so don't start talking about things you don't know... they can make you look stupid...

Then there is the question of what about the gospels that were excised from the new testament. It was Irenius around the year 180 of the Common Era who declared the 4 gospels (no more, no less). There are other Gospels - Thomas', Judas', Mary Magdalene's, and the Gnostic gospels.

Awwww... come on... you're not going to put all "DaVinci Code" on us, right? plz consider writing facts from trustable sources... go study a little bit and then you can check out tjis thread again... whaddaya say?

If a God of Love created us, why do people die? Where do they go?

Because to reach "infinity", something must be perfect... let me remind you, there's nothing like perfection...

Why does He allow so much abuse?

Awww... so romantic...

That's why we have a soul, a conscience... that's why we are free to do what we want to do... God gave us free will, so we decided by ourselves to go back to him... it's up to us to make the right choices... If not, he wouldn't have created us at all...

0

Perhaps you should research before you start talking (or writing...:P) let me see... two of the 4 gospels were written by His apostles, John and Mathew, and the other two were written by historians, people who did research about Jesus, so don't start talking about things you don't know... they can make you look stupid...

Wow, talk about looking stupid - sigh, yep they were the dates for when the books were written; Mark wrote his 50 to 70 years after JCs birth, Matt 50 to 100 years after birth, Luke 50 to 100 years after, and John 80 to 100 years. I was doing a quick refresher and mistook dates of authorship for life spans <somewhere in my head I knew at least one of them should have been contemporaneous from when I believed this stuff> Nothing was written during or immediately after his death. Matt, Mark, and Luke, when listed side by side are nearly identical to each other (called Synoptic Gospels); some believe that they cribbed from each other but others say that they cribbed from a no longer extant Gospel of Thomas (the ranges are because various historians differ on when the Gospels were written).

Awwww... come on... you're not going to put all "DaVinci Code" on us, right? plz consider writing facts from trustable sources... go study a little bit and then you can check out tjis thread again... whaddaya say?

DaVinci Code?? Hunh? You will have to explain this comment so I know what to discuss. You will have to let me know what you consider as a trustable source so we have a common entry point for discussion. By the by - I have not read DaVinci Code, not seen the movie and don't intend to do either. I have read many histories of religion.

Because to reach "infinity", something must be perfect... let me remind you, there's nothing like perfection...

Ooh, infinity, I love this subject - but first we have to decide which infinity we are talking about. Aleph Null infinities are the cardinal number infinities. (if an infinitely large hotel is full and an infinitly large bus pulls up with an infinite # of guests how to you accomodate them? simply move all the guests in odd numbered rooms to even numbered rooms then put the guests in the odd numbered rooms - dang that is an old joke and man were the bell hops pissed). The myster of Aleph Null infinities is that aleph-null + 1 = aleph-null ; aleph-null + aleph-null = aleph-null and aleph-null * aleph-null = aleph-null

Awww... so romantic...

Aren't infinities just! aleph-nul infinities are actually a subset of aleph-one which is all the points on a line and/or all the points on a Cartesian surface -- I must apologize here I haven't looked at my infinity stuff since Rudy Rucker wrote Infinity and the Mind (which I highly recommend as a readable introto math) and to be honest, I have adhd and fly off into all sorts of tangents <ooh, look! bright shiney things!>.

That's why we have a soul, a conscience... that's why we are free to do what we want to do... God gave us free will, so we decided by ourselves to go back to him... it's up to us to make the right choices... If not, he wouldn't have created us at all...

Aren't beliefs a wonderful thing!

0

Maybe I should start selling tickets to heaven. I think there are enough fools who would buy one.

0

Maybe I should start selling tickets to heaven. I think there are enough fools who would buy one.

Old idea... haven't you ever heard of revivals? 700 Club? ANY televangelist?

0

Old idea... haven't you ever heard of revivals? 700 Club? ANY televangelist?

Thanks for pointing this out! I reallize I would have competition! Most likely need different angle, maybe deluxe package with guarantee to enter through the first class pearly gate.

0

>Incorrect. As I understand it, there is quite a bit of historical evidence outside of the bible that supports his existence.

Actually, there is no historical reference to Jesus outside of New Testament and the new testament was written by 4 men, none of whom were even born until about 50 years after Jesus died. This makes for a pretty tenuous connection to history. There are no contemporary historical records that mention Jesus during the 33 years of his life and no mention of him after his death. All of the major political figures in the New Testament are referenced in histories, local documents, census records and so on - people like Pontius Pilot, Harode, Caesar; religious groups like the Pharisees (ya gotta wonder at some of my spelling) and Zionists and so on but no mention of Jesus or his crucifiction.

Then there is the question of what about the gospels that were excised from the new testament. It was Irenius around the year 180 of the Common Era who declared the 4 gospels (no more, no less). There are other Gospels - Thomas', Judas', Mary Magdalene's, and the Gnostic gospels.

But all this means nothing, religion is based on belief not on facts or history.

The Gospels were written by four men not the new testament.

Actually just because Jesus is big today and almost anyone can tell you who he is does not mean that he would have been that big in the day. You have to remember that most of the leaders at the time would go out of their way to be remembered. Jesus Diddn't. Not only that but the leaders would have had anything to accomplish this at their disposal. Jesus diddn't.

Jesus' record is the gospel. They were all taken from historical texts. Your reference of the other Gospels are yet further proof of his existence especially when it comes to things like the book of Judas which was only discovered in the last couple of years. A historical text.

People seem to think that just because it has made its way into the Bible means that its historical value is somehow cancelled out. It's not. Any mention Jesus will ever get is in texts and personally i don't know what other evidence you would want or could have of this sort of thing.

If a God of Love created us, why do people die? Where do they go? Why does He allow so much abuse? If creation is true I think we are so disconnected from the fact of it that our conceptualisation of it is so poor that it is impossible to arrive at any logical understanding of it (that is why religion creates so many problems)........ Sam

God gave us the chance not to die. To not feel pain. To not go through all these things and we fucked it up.

Religion causes problems because people use it as an excuse to cause problems. Most of the problems based around religion.

0

Thanks for pointing this out! I reallize I would have competition! Most likely need different angle, maybe deluxe package with guarantee to enter through the first class pearly gate.

I might even throw in free toaster! The 700 Club does not do that, it only gives out tax deduction!

0


The Gospels were written by four men not the new testament.

Well, Duh!

Actually just because Jesus is big today and almost anyone can tell you who he is does not mean that he would have been that big in the day. You have to remember that most of the leaders at the time would go out of their way to be remembered. Jesus Diddn't. Not only that but the leaders would have had anything to accomplish this at their disposal. Jesus diddn't.

I am not sure what you want to say here

Jesus' record is the gospel. They were all taken from historical texts. Your reference of the other Gospels are yet further proof of his existence especially when it comes to things like the book of Judas which was only discovered in the last couple of years. A historical text.

If you tell a story and all your friends tell the same story and then later someone comes along and says "see this is historical fact cuz see he said this and all these other people said the same thing" - this does not prove anything. What you need is a copy of the census at the time; a signature for a bar tab; some little thing that says this man passed this way. The book of Judas is sort of like one of your friends going off and telling the story just a little differently - it is not independent corraboration.

People seem to think that just because it has made its way into the Bible means that its historical value is somehow cancelled out. It's not. Any mention Jesus will ever get is in texts and personally i don't know what other evidence you would want or could have of this sort of thing.

Do you remember that piece in the Gospels that talks about the census and Joseph and Mary having to go - you'd think that if they walked all that way and then had a kid there would be some mention of it in the census. Do you remember the other part of the story where Herod killed all those male children? Don't you think that would have been mentioned among the crimes of Herod - I mean Herod was a pretty thoroughly nasty guy and many contemporaneous and later historians talk about the horrid things he did but even Josephus the Jewish historian did not mention the death of all those little kids. There are a few other things mentioned in the New Testamont/Gospels about JC that would have been pretty big news to anybody but it seems that only the people who already believe are the ones who mention him. Something along the lines of "sorry this letter is so short but anyway, I was on my way to Galilee the other day and you won't believe this but there was this dude (no not the Dude - some other dude) and he was walking on the lake - for sure, man he was walking on water" Or maybe some wine dealer would have mentioned the sales he lost because some dude at a wedding had better wine.

Historians rely on letters between near-iliterates, church/temple/mosque records, deeds of land, tax rolls all the llittle bits of bureauocracy that make up life to build their stories from.

God gave us the chance not to die. To not feel pain. To not go through all these things and we fucked it up.

Um, things that don't feel pain die pretty quickly because they don't notice little things like cuts, tree branches poking them, that sort of stuff.

Religion causes problems because people use it as an excuse to cause problems. Most of the problems based around religion.

Yeah, there is certainly no argument from me about this

0

I might even throw in free toaster! The 700 Club does not do that, it only gives out tax deduction!

The Catholic Church used to sell those tickets to heaven, and did very well until the Protestants came around and ruined it all! Of course they didn't offer a free toaster then. Looks like the sekts have started it up again. Seems to work without the toaster.

0

If you tell a story and all your friends tell the same story and then later someone comes along and says "see this is historical fact cuz see he said this and all these other people said the same thing" - this does not prove anything. What you need is a copy of the census at the time; a signature for a bar tab; some little thing that says this man passed this way. The book of Judas is sort of like one of your friends going off and telling the story just a little differently - it is not independent corraboration.

That would be the same as someone going and rewriting Harry Potter. You wouldn't do it. The only reason that these men would write down the same story is if they simply wanted their experiences told.

The book of Judas(if it is actually real) would of been written before he knew anything about his betrayal of Jesus or that he would kill him self.

Do you remember that piece in the Gospels that talks about the census and Joseph and Mary having to go - you'd think that if they walked all that way and then had a kid there would be some mention of it in the census. Do you remember the other part of the story where Herod killed all those male children? Don't you think that would have been mentioned among the crimes of Herod - I mean Herod was a pretty thoroughly nasty guy and many contemporaneous and later historians talk about the horrid things he did but even Josephus the Jewish historian did not mention the death of all those little kids. There are a few other things mentioned in the New Testamont/Gospels about JC that would have been pretty big news to anybody but it seems that only the people who already believe are the ones who mention him. Something along the lines of "sorry this letter is so short but anyway, I was on my way to Galilee the other day and you won't believe this but there was this dude (no not the Dude - some other dude) and he was walking on the lake - for sure, man he was walking on water" Or maybe some wine dealer would have mentioned the sales he lost because some dude at a wedding had better wine.

I think you actually need to do some proper research before you start ranting about all this stuff. The kind of evidence that you are looking for can not be found from later times let alone 2000 years ago. If the majority of letters from 200 years ago can not be found what makes you think that letters from 2000 years ago would have lasted. Not only that but the majority of the people did not know how to write back then and neither could they afford to pay other people to write out such letters for them.

Historians rely on letters between near-iliterates, church/temple/mosque records, deeds of land, tax rolls all the llittle bits of bureauocracy that make up life to build their stories from.

They rely on these things for more recent history. Not that far back. The majority of information gathered from that far back comes from things like ruins, engravings and other bits of old clay and stone. Things that last. What little they have found, things like the dead sea scrolls and other texts confirm alot of the texts in the bible.

Um, things that don't feel pain die pretty quickly because they don't notice little things like cuts, tree branches poking them, that sort of stuff.

There was no scrapes. There was no cuts. There was no burns. There was no death. Pain and feeling are separate things. They would have been able to feel things and touch things.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.