Science Or Signs

They do do that in the Middle East.

Yeah, Jesus' birthday isn't actually Dec. 25 you know. (Assuming he existed, of course) For some crazy reason, that's just when it's celebrated.

I think this year I'll celebrate my birthday March 24.

This is because when the Christians came from Rome to the northern parts of Europe, their missionaries were decapitated for trying to impose their relgion on the people there, who at the time had Aesir/Pagan religions.
But after a while one of them realized he had to try to sneak the religion into theirs, and thus he decided to ask them to also celebrate Jesus's birth during the midwinter feast in December.

And through doing this they (the catholic church) could implement piece after piece of the christian religion, over time.


But then don't even get me started on the Catholic church, in what I've researched about religions, of all the christian "doctrines" theirs is the most 'off' one, completely centered around breaking the 8th commandment.

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

How can you even say of yourself to be Atheist, but you celebrate the second greatest Christians' holiday?!

I could likewise say to very many Christians "How can you even say you're Christian, when you just pick and choose which rules you follow?". (Such as sex before marriage)

Because it's not a "rule to follow", it's just a plain sin.

Oh, it's in there. I would suggest reading it again then. In fact, I remember in school, one time at mass the priest's homoly was almost entirely about that. It (not surprisingly) didn't really make very much sense.

Yes, it IS in there. But on the other side, Christiants doesn't say to do what the Bible SAYS, but to do what it TEACHES.

And anyone dumb enough to use that argument about rock music should shoot themselves. Rock music being though of as the devil's music is just a stupid way of overprotective and fanatically religious parents trying to keep their kids from listening to what, at the time, was considered evil lyrics.

Comparing any music to devil, hell, etc. is stupid. You are totally right with that.

He says we're to try to keep from thinking impure thoughts. It's not possible for any person to not sin at any point in their life, but we're given the ability to resist any sin that tempts us. (When Saved)

I find it funny that was is and isn't considered a sin is always changing. Just like how the rules (especially in Catholocism) are always changed to work out better for them. So the Bible is supposed to tell us what is and isn't a sin, among other things of course, yet every so often, something gets changed.

Pretty much everything is a sin. =/ The rules are not being changed, it just becomes almost impossible to live a normal lives these days without even the slightest of sin. That's why there is confession: To regret your sins and get purified.

If this is God's word, how can someone possibly justify altering it?

Because there were, there are and there always will be people who want to manipulate others. Don't read the Bible's words, read its meaning. This would be the very easiest way. And that's the main reason why the Bible wasn't just read by anybody except priest in earlier times when people were not even taught to read. Uneducated people would not understand the meaning, maybe even take it completely literaly.

This mostly happens due to translations of translations of translations of translations of a dead language, though, so actually I'll retract my previous statement as there will never be any resolution going down that path.

Again, don't read the Bible's words, read its meaning.

Also, when we're saved we WANT to please God, THAT is the logical reasoning behind not sinning -- or attempting not to sin.

So as long as you have good intentions, and you have the desire to please God, that means it's ok to pick and choose which rules you follow? And that's your logic behind not having sex before marriage? Well, I suppose if you believe in God, then it would be slightly logical, but then how many Christians actually follow that rule? In fact, it isn't just a rule, it's one of the commandments. The point I was initially getting at, is it's hypocritical to say non Christians can't celebrate Christmas, because Christmas is a time for celebrating Jesus' birth, and celebrating your faith, when so many Christians only have faith just to for the sake of having it.

Good intentions are all that count. Even if they have no faith, they are Christians, they "are allowed" to celebrate Christmas, because it's part of their religion, regardless if they believe or not. Of course they shouldn't if they don't really believe.
Non-Christians on the other side have nothing to celebrate here. It's the "Birth of Jesus", nothing they believe in, it has not the meaning for them it is supposed to have. What do they have to celebrate then?! Something they don't believe in?!

And how is this on topic at all?

I have no idea. !_!

It's hard to debate intelligently when people throw the Bible into everything.

Because there are 3 kinds of people:
- the ones obsessed with the Bible
- the ones obsessed with hating and dispiting the Bible (mostly ex-believers...)
- the ones who don't care
- the ones who don't care about enforcing their beliefs

The first two groups always have to get religious as soon as somebody says anything related to Bible, God, Jesus, etc.

The events in the Bible cannot be proven to actually have happened. No matter how much you believe in it, you have to admit that it cannot be proven. This doesn't necessarily mean none of the events ever happened, but since there is no proof, you cannot count it as fact. Without facts, a debate is turned into a pointless and petty argument, and therefore bringing the Bible into every point in every debate (except when necessary, of course) it makes it kind of hard to not feel like everyone's an idiot, becuase then you're just arguing about stuff nobody will be able to ever prove.

Of course they can't be proved, because most are metaphors. It's the "moral of the story", that's important. Why is a document, teaching some morality and respect pointless and petty? It's only pointless and petty to argue about it (just like you actually already said). Live and let live, lol!

Those aren't facts, those are guidelines on how they think you should live your life.

They are not "guidelines" and they are not from "them". That's why there is a faculty of theology: Everybody would just read the Bible as a "factual document" instead of reading between the lines how it is supposed to be "read". Morality wasn't invented by "them".

Yes Christians do put alot of what they believe in the words we say. But then again you cannot explain everything by science nor does the bible say much about science. The bible teaches you how to live your life.

Note before you read through: book in question: the god delusion: download here.

http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-09-26

I'm having a difficult time responding to that critique. Mostly I don't understand much of what the author is saying. He seems more content on criticizing Richard's character and not the content of his book. Unfortunately for Richard (and if you watch his videos and read his interviews on his website) he acknowledges he loses a lot of his readers because of his delivery. The same can be said of Sam Harris and a lesser extent Dan Dennett.

If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could.

Phenomenology is an interesting philosophy but it doesn't prove the existence of God. Neither does the geopolitics of South Asia.(?) Chapter 3 in TGD is devoted to the philosophy of religion and I think he makes some strong points. Richard also talks about phenomena under the heading: The Argument From Personal Experience so I don't understand the point of this comment. (Well I do understand, it's a pot shot at Richard. Terry mentioned something about straw men in his article).

Dawkins considers that all faith is blind faith… children are brought up to believe unquestioningly... For mainstream Christianity, reason, argument and honest doubt have always played an integral role in belief. (Where… is Dawkins’s own critique of science…)?

Is this really the case? Do religious families all gather at the dinner table and have an open, reasoned argument about faith and the existence of God? I don’t doubt, doubt has always played an integral role in belief and however people reconcile their faith it, I am almost certain, is not through reason and inquiry. The film, Jesus Camp seems to suggest this.

Science is by definition, when it is working properly, the study and inquiry of… I don’t see a critique of God in the Bible and why should there be? Why should Richard write 400 pages about his views of religion and then provide another 400 pages about why he might be wrong. That’s silly. That book has already been written, it’s called, The Dawkins Delusion.

This, not some super-manufacturing, is what is traditionally meant by the claim that God is Creator. He is what sustains all things in being by his love;

This is a problem of language. If we exist because of God's love then I suppose we have to concede God's existence because we know what it is to love. And this is a circular argument in a similar way as this is:

A: Why do you believe God created the universe?
T: Because the Bible says he did.
A: Why do you believe the Bible?
T: Because it's the word of God.
A: Why do you believe it's the word of God?
T: Because the Bible says it is.

Creationism: The religious doctrine that the world was created by a divine being, or that it owes its present form to divine agency. This term is frequently used to refer to the fundamentalist idea that the world was created in exactly the way the Bible says it was…stuff and more stuff. The Philosopher’s Dictionary, 3rd Edition by Robert M. Martin.

No mention of love. If we're going to talk about God, then we need to make sure we're talking about the same sort of God otherwise we're just fumbling over semantics and definitions.

I have more I could say but this quote war form generally makes for a boring read. If anyone is really interested I could take a few more points in the same fashion and respond to it but I'll stop at this for now.


----------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT! If I may, I had to respond to a comment I found from another article.

Accordingly, Dawkins does not understand why social etiquette requires respect for those who believe in God.

I find this comment interesting mostly because it is simply not true. The fact is, Richard does respect people of faith. What he does not respect is how religion gets a free pass when it comes to criticism. Richard (and Sam Harris) are fed up that religion belongs to this untouchable niche. His view is that religion is (or should be) counted as a scientific hypothesis and like all hypotheses, it should undergo the scientific method. Remember, the Bible is making universal claims about the cosmos and those claims should be open to scrutiny no differently than a physicist’s claims would be. This idea however offends many people of faith and Richard is not afraid to eloquently say, more or less, “tough shit”! Respecting a person of faith is entirely separate then respecting a person’s faith. Nobody is obliged to respect a person’s belief that elves live in their basement. Also, Richard is not willing to accept that God is just too mysterious for us dumb humans to understand and so therefore we should not even bother to inquire about it. I suspect what upsets so many theologians is that they are being shaken out of their comfortable nest's of rational immunity they have enjoyed for so many years.

http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-09-26

Lol this whole post wasn't written by me

If God is an imnipotent being why should we think that his word is false. And if creation is not a Divine act of God then what else could it be evolution. Evolution has holes in its system of thought every where I think you should then tell me how you think the earth came to be.

The Earth came to be when the singularity that created the big back eruopted, thus causing said bang.  the universe was just dust for a really long time, then nebulas formed, and over time stars were born.  the gravitation pull then compressed the dust from the big bang into planets, and they now orbit the suns that were created.... Grade 9 science.

Yes, thats one theory.

A: Why do you believe God created the universe?
T: Because the Bible says he did.
A: Why do you believe the Bible?
T: Because it's the word of God.
A: Why do you believe it's the word of God?
T: Because the Bible says it is.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
That "T" guy is a muster example why everybody else thinks ALL Christians would be that way. His faith is not only blind, it's even unfounded. xD

But how did the matter get there in the first place

Same way God did, I guess!

Same way God did, I guess!

That's the thing. Scientific laws state that matter can not be created nor destroyed. (Naturally)

And no matter how long you look at a rock, it's not going to explode into a universe.

As I've said numerous times before, the only thing that makes sense is a supernatural being one outside of nature's laws (for He wrote them) as an intelligent creator.

You can't call it science if you can't explain it.

You can't claim that a diety creating everything is somehow less likely than nothing creating everything, for the reason that you feel the diety had to come from somewhere, when you don't know where the mass needed for your theory came from.

It's the same thing:
In the beginning god
In the beginning dust

What is it that makes dust more likely? Besides the fact that your mind can't encompass an omnipotent diety as a reality in the same way you can't comprehend something as being endless.

"SUPERNATURAL" is a flawed word, because it is used to describe things we can't explain. Once something becomes the norm, and we have a basic understanding of it, it is no longer supernatural, and becomes normal. Basically this whole thread is describing the "unexplained". Its a fun topic to chat about, but when you try to give reasons for things that you could obviously never understand at this point, it becomes irritating. You can't just "bible" something away, or say "aliens, man". The truth is, we just don't know yet. We probably never will, and if we do, I have a feeling all of the theories people bring up here will be pretty far off the mark.

Exactly. All we can do is to either to believe or just let it be.

That's the thing. Scientific laws state that matter can not be created nor destroyed. (Naturally)

And no matter how long you look at a rock, it's not going to explode into a universe.

As I've said numerous times before, the only thing that makes sense is a supernatural being one outside of nature's laws (for He wrote them) as an intelligent creator.

How can matter not be created nor destroyed?  Isn't that the whole idea behind e=mc2?  Also, that only applies to the elements we know of. 

How can matter not be created nor destroyed?  Isn't that the whole idea behind e=mc2?  Also, that only applies to the elements we know of. 

The idea behind e=mc^2 is that mass can be converted into energy and vice-versa. Mass is not lost or gained in the transfer.

I recommend you do some reading on the subject before you claim something such as that.

I wasn't claiming it, I just wasn't sure. 

I wasn't claiming it, I just wasn't sure. 

M'kay. Just making sure.

I believe in some kind of a celestial influence, be it one God or many I'm not sure, but I also believe in chemistry and gravity (a.k.a. science) as well.

Yeah, I thought I was the only one. It's true I believe in science whole-heartedly, but sometimes I can't just resist the feeling that karma actually exsists and alters my destint in one way or another.

But how did the matter get there in the first place

You believe your god was just always there. Ditto.

That's the thing. Scientific laws state that matter can not be created nor destroyed. (Naturally)

And no matter how long you look at a rock, it's not going to explode into a universe.

Lol, uhhh, I think it's the word "matter" that put this whole thing off... It started with energy, not matter.

Matter can not be created nor destroyed, but it can be recycled.

You can't call it science if you can't explain it.

Congrats, there's the award winning posts we all love you for.

You can't claim that a diety creating everything is somehow less likely than nothing creating everything, for the reason that you feel the diety had to come from somewhere, when you don't know where the mass needed for your theory came from.

We have some idea... If energy cannot be destroyed, then it must have always existed.

What is it that makes dust more likely? Besides the fact that your mind can't encompass an omnipotent diety as a reality in the same way you can't comprehend something as being endless.

"Dust" being the beginning of the universe is more likely because it's the simplest explanation (Achems Razor)!
The statistical chances of an immortal, timeless god who was origin creating the universe, is slim to none compared the the idea that energy always existed and all existence came though a steady state of evolution (change).

And FYI comprehending something isn't just accepting it... It means to actually understand it, correctly.

The idea behind e=mc^2 is that mass can be converted into energy and vice-versa.

Energy being a simple start, also timeless, making your god unnecessary. All that you are doing is adding a step into the mixture.

If you can accept, and "comprehend" that your god has always existed, then why can't you comprehend that energy has always existed?

Yeah, I thought I was the only one. It's true I believe in science whole-heartedly, but sometimes I can't just resist the feeling that karma actually exsists and alters my destint in one way or another.

If you claim to be a person of science, the try thinking logically, I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just saying you should see if karma is actually evidential and not coincidental.

I think I have said this before, but I have yet to see something that truly strikes me as karma.  There are people that are nice their whole lives and end up starving on streetcorners, and then there are people that do nothing and have life right in their lap.  (Paris Hilton, for example.  Think she deserves what she has?  I don't.)

I was referring to comprehending rather than accepting it, obviously.
It's impossible for anyone to comprehend something that is endless, you can know it's endless, but that doesn't mean that you understand.

And energy is not more likely to exist than a diety of some sorts, since that is a completely relative observation, you are comparing energy rather than a diety existing more likely in relative to what you see as being plentiful, and being scarce today.

Logic is a waste of intelligence, logical thinking is done by the people walking that thin line between being above average and being an idiot.
If someone really wants to know more, then they first have to accept that they know nothing.

But people have always had this hubris of having to explain everything by pointing out the obvious.
Like chlorophyll being the ingredient in plants that makes them able to convert the sunlight into carbohydrates.
You can cut it down to nothing and you'll still be stuck with a million answers to "what", "when" and "how" but not a single answer to "why".

DS has pretty much covered it, and quite well. But, it's Ockham's* not Achem's.
also,

Logic is a waste of intelligence

Man, this explains so much about you.

also- asking 'why' is a conceited position. Asking "why" is having the idea that everything in the universe must have a purpose meaningful to humans. Also, why is the least important question of those thus presented, it doesn't matter so much WHY something happened as HOW.

Actually, its Occam's. Also, I too sort of believe in a "cosmic karma". Not just involving people who are rich getting shit on or whatever, but truly bad people. I mean, Paris Hilton may be stupid and spoiled, but I wouldn't say she's evil or anything. But then again, I don't know her.