My Religion Post

Just read it, its funny actually

I think that Science is more important than religion.
To me, religion is lazy. It doesn't question what's around us. Sure, it questions character and value, but that's not everything. In order to advance in this world, and this universe, science is more important.

I really haven't heard of Christianity curing a disease. But science has.

You must not heard of Jesus then. You know, the son of God. The man that cured lepers. I dont think science ever found an effective cure for leprosy. He also fed thousands people with 5 loaves of bread and 2 small fish. Even with all our scientific advancements, after 3 years, we seem to have a problem feeding and providing shelter for Katrina victims. And finally, Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. But he wasnt done there. He rose from the dead three days after his own death. I dont think science can top that one.

yeah it can top it, because science can actually provide evidence of what it has and hasn't done. that stuff you just named is useless unless you accept the story as true to begin with. i don't think you have any hard evidence of a leper being cured, other than a story thats really old.


old stories aren't necessarily facts.

You're right an old story told by one source isn't reliable. But an old story told by hundreds of people is. The recordings read in the Bible were written by Jesus's disciples, but there are other recordings from ordinary citizens that witnessed Jesus's miracles. Just because its old doesnt mean it isnt true.

what ordinary citizens? i've never heard of there being any non christian mention of jesus except for writings from historians like Josephus which have been identified as not really his writing but later add ins by someone else trying to make up proof for jesus.

i think like every non christian writing of him i've ever heard of has been disproved.

i mean many people make a believable case that jesus didn't exist as a historical figure at all. i'm not saying i necessarily side with that, but i don't believe there are any non christian mentions of him that aren't under serious fraud question.

there are pieces that refer to generic "christ" terms which meant messiah but not necessarily jesus christ.



it does become really strange that roman history fiends didn't record accounts of him when it was all going on .

What do you mean no records in roman history? Where do you think the book of Romans came from? No, Im serious. Its not a rhetorical question. I can give you recordings from an ordinary, non christian, Roman citizen.

Also, for all we know, Jesus could've been the leader a cult that eventually became a religion. You say that he's cured all these diseases, and that he's real because millions of people have told his story. So is Snow White real, because that story has been read and told countless number of times.

I side with science because there is proof. To me, there is no proof of Jesus. Jim Jones is a better cult leader than Jesus, because I've actually seen proof that he was real. Sure, he hasn't had as much impact as Jesus, but I have proof he was there.

And also, the Bible . We don't even know who wrote it . Again, sounds very cult like to me . Science can probably prove that this is fake, but because of special interest and the fear of anarchy, and the fact that man needs to cling to spiritual things, have prevented this.

are you trying to tell me that you think the book of romans was written by roman citizens?

The tale of Snow White was told by and written by one man. There are no other recordings or witnesses of Snow White, so you only have one man's word. The story of Jesus Christ was written and told by several men. But for kicks, we'll say one man wrote the story. You have other forms of documentation other than the Bible that witnessed Jesus and his miracles. So the reason why the tale of Snow White will always remain a tale is because no one was around when she ate that apple.

Still sounds like a cult. Just because a lot of people know about him and his "miracles" doesn't make him real. The fact that people where there to see his miracles .. they could've been lying, to aid him because they thought he was their messiah.

I admit, the reference to Snow White was dumb, but the fact still remains. It's all a story. He didn't cure things with magic. And there is no proof that he did. Science is truth.

Im saying the book of Romans was written by Saint Paul. A roman citizen. Before, he was known as Saul of Tarsus. He used to persecute jews and people who followed Jesus as blasphemers.

i don't understand why you think that is a source that is believable??? you acted like you had tons of accounts from ordinary non involved non christian roman citizens and then you cite paul as an example of that.

i mean paul didn't know personally or see jesus you know? he doesn't claim to see jesus on earth at all i don't think. so once again we're going with i guess hearsay as proof. we aren't talking about eye witness evidence, of course. not a first hand acount...

i don't even really know what to say to it though because i can't comprehend why you're citing paul as a non christian source. we've just gone back around in a circle where you're citing stuff in the bible as evidence of the bible.

bullshit A S S HOLE!; name one f**king scholastically undisputed documentation of jesus christ within the first century. you can't do it, moron.

p.s. don't even think you're going to get away with antiquities.

You're right. Antiquities further prove the belief, not the existence of, religious figures.

You're saying I cant find undisputed documentation? Ok. I cant. But can you find me undisputed evidence of, lets say, global warming. If you can do that, I'll admit that science is more importan than religion. And if I find undisputed documentation about God or Jesus, would you admit religion is more important than science?

you're a f**king idiot. global warming is scientifically UNDISPUTED. the only real discussion concerning the warming of the earth is to what degree temperatures are rising and by what exact causes.

in the scholastic and history sciences there is not a single document, not even biblical, which supports a historical jesus beyond any shadow of a reasonable doubt. the case just can't be made scientifically.

Can't forget the overwhelming amount of scientists saying that global warming is not man-made. There's them, versus the media/government. Given their background, and my personal bias, I am going to have to go and agree with the scientists.

Overwhelming? I'd like to see a cite for that claim.

How many scientists was it that supported the global warming legislation congress wanted to pass? About 600 or so. I couldn't tell you exactly how many (I'll look if you want me to), but a large percentage of them have turned around saying, in a nutshell, that global warming isn't as it was made out to be / congress made it out to be.

Also, http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462



That 31,000 compared to the previous 600, most of which changed their mind, seems pretty overwhelming to me. 15 times as many as participated with congress have doctoral degrees.

I suggest you verify the seriousness of your sources before quoting them. The Petition Project is highly biased, deceptive, and bases its "facts" on flawed data. You can read more about it here and here.

In a nutshell, the organization behind the Petition Project used a deceptive, unpublished journal article to trick some people into signing their petition. The journal article in question was from a publication known for its political and religious biases.

I'm sorry, I just looked for a quick citation. To be honest, if I wanted the more accurate information, I'd have to ask my dad, and I don't know if he's awake nor do I feel like bothering him at the moment.

Regardless of whether or not the organization behind the publication is deceptive, the amount of people signing it are real, and their opinions are as well.

Also, are you suggesting that congress didn't fabricate any of it's information, use unsupported facts, or present any bullshit of it's own? I've, from the start, been of the opinion that global warming is not man-made. I've taken oceanography, geology, climatology classes where professors only reinforced my opinions. I've watched as time goes by people going from the scare tactic thought of the earth being destroyed by humans to the natural cycle train of thought.

Shit I went afk for a while and forgot to finish this post. In short, too much work to find suitable evidence for you, but I promise you I can find it later.

Opinions aren't valid when they're based on deception and misinformation. At any rate, only 3697 of the signatures are by "scientists" in atmosphere, Earth, and environmental studies, and an even smaller percentage are from PhD's in those areas. So it's reasonable to be very skeptical of that data.

I'd trust the opinion of someone who went through school and learned about that, even if it's not their primary focal point, over someone who has a degree in pencil pushing.

Fallacy of false dilemma. The option isn't between some atmospheric scientists' opinions and that of "pencil pushers".

There's also a consensus among the vast majority of scientists that global warming is occurring, as noted in this pamphlet. Furthermore, as noted here, between 1993-2003, there were 928 climate-related papers published in peer-reviewed journals; 0% disputed the general consensus on global warming.

I'm not disputing global warming. My argument is that it's not man made. It was going to happen regardless of whether or not we were here.

Poor choice of words on my part, but the links also support the argument that global warming is indeed man-made and that this point is agreed upon by a majority of scientists who study in climate-related areas.

Fair enough. Let me get back with you on this later today

Kay double post, sorry :] More of a bump, tbh. Maybe some repeat information, I'll try to exclude it, I'm just formatting it in word and copying/pasting





Okay I know I posted about the petition project earlier, and I remember your response to it as well, but I’m going to post more about it lol.

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/...s_BY_State.html

That’s just the number, and I’m aware of what you said about only 10% of them~ being in the field of climatology. The other 90% all went to schools and got degrees in whatever assorted scientific field they chose. Those people all, while ins chool, picked up the habit of thinking like a scientist (so I would hope). There are plenty of raw facts, without bias, that people can use to form their own conclusion on the matter. I would trust a scientist’s train of thought and analysis of the situation over the New York Times and Al Gore. Speaking of Al Gore, William Gray, one of the top hurricane scientists on earth has several times challenged him to a debate over the matter, not once did Al Gore accept.

Here’s a link regarding William Gray - http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/20...0304113132.aspx
And another one - http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/jul/15/hur...s-global-warmi/

Also, if these numbers were tricked, do you have a citation? Was that link with whoever he was repeatedly saying “What a joke” it? Does the UN have no bias? The people who are acting as if Global Warming is the end of all humanity have no bias? The government/IPCC has no bias? I’m sure that the moment they found out that they’re wrong on any matter (not necessarily this one), they would turn around and tell people that they were wrong and refute all the information previously pushed on the masses.

Here are two more sites if you care to check them out, one has a long PDF file you can get to from it, but I don’t know if you want to read 61 pages.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=266711
http://www.uncommondescent.com/science/400...-senate-report/

Man I just realized that this post is going to look unstructured and random as hell, oh well, I get sidetracked a lot :] blame cbc

Oh and one last link - http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=22866

Hopefully you consider a few of the things I linked credible, if not I don’t know what to tell you. I don’t think either of us are going to change our stance on the matter, but I feel I’ve presented plenty of valid information to support my side of the argument. :]

i still have to read more into the whole petition project thing, i feel like it's sketchy...but i can't really back that up yet.

i didn't get the link that was just about how they wrote a book against it or something? i think i'll have to actually download the pdf and flip through it.

the uncommon descent one though...i really really really can't bring myself to take william dembski and company serious. i mean, i just can't take someone who doesn't even believe in evolution seriously when it comes to science matters.


so yeah this post is kinda useless lol. my position is the same as it was last time we had this debate and that's michael's opinion as well.to be fair though, like i said, i haven't read that much about it since like two years ago when i wrote my term paper on this. so i still have to catch up before i could really say my opinion is 100% still the same.


I'LL BE BACK TO THIS.

There is an extremely simple answer to this... it just depends on the person.

NO!

I think that science is more important. Not saying religion isn't. It's a great thing to have faith. I certainly do. But a lot of science is facts and pretty much keeps our world running. Religion isn't facts. It's all beliefs. We can't prove anything of religion unless we had God on TV talking. Also, a lot of religions are cults in my opinion. Religion also can make people obsessive and afraid to live there lives fully. But there both so important in different ways.

This is a very racy question. Please, no one send me pms bashing my beliefs.

My beliefs have changed tremendously over the past 3 years, so I'd might as well throw my two pennies out there...

I care not to believe in a supreme being, especially when I cannot prove that being's existence. I believe in science, but how the world came to be isn't a topic that keeps me up at night, and I damn sure won't be stressing myself out just to find some sort of documentation that gives me a warm and fuzzy about the 'big bang.' We're born; we live; we die; anything beyond that is currently out of my realm of comprehension. Live. I'll cross that bridge when I get to it and a book of fables, or fear of the unknown, won't change that.

Brando, what are your thoughts on Deism?

I have a great amount of respect for Deism. That isn't to say that I shit on all other religions, but Deism is the, "there is God, and if it happens, it happens," mindset that I've held for a while. As of now, I can't say that either believe in God, or that I don't; it's an issue of not caring about it particularly.

Nonetheless, if today's society had more visibility on Deism, then perhaps there would be less of an emphasis on organized religion, making people a little less (insert adjective here).

deism is the pansy-ass transitional period between religious theism and atheism; if someone is honest and sane it is only a temporary position, held tenuously (if at all).

No way. I'm neither atheist nor religiously theistic. If I do in fact turn to one later down the road, I'll let you know. I promise. Seriously.

Co-sign.

I lack a belief is a supreme being, but that doesn't mean I need to go around proclaiming that I'm an atheist.

Well, technically, if you don't believe in a god, you are an atheist.

But when did "identifying myself as an atheist" equate to "proclaiming that I'm an atheist"? For example, I'm an atheist; I'm not shy about admitting that fact should it come up in conversation, but I hardly think I'm trumpeting the fact that I don't believe in God, either.

it's amazing. my thread lasts for 4 years.

so you're a deist? cool... not!
it's just a position that is a teeny-tiny-bit-less ridiculous and unsubstantiated; you're still just about as unscientific as a f**king christian or a f**king scientologist or a f**king moron, whatever. it might have made sense to be a deist at the infancy of modern science, but... it's been a few centuries, you need to "man up." it's not okay ever to believe in a fairy tale man, even if that fairy tale man doesn't happen to be a man and he doesn't happen to get angry every time you wank yo dick.




you are an atheist.




word.

You need to calm down bro.

Good point.

What drove you, Nate or anyone else here to this point? Was it because you weren't raised in a religious household, or was it that you called religion on its bullshit? I'm curious. I know everyone has their reasons.

It's cool, I'd be lying if I said that post surprised me. You see, having completed school on time, being on track with my life, knowing I'm going somewhere, I'm a lot less cynical than our boy Nate.

I used to be really interested in religion. I didn't grow up in a terribly religious household, but we did go to church when I was young (although I haven't been regularly since I was 9). My freshman year of college, I became even more interested, going so far as to join a Bible study group. I think the real turning point came when I started studying other belief systems. Something didn't seem right in the fact that the Christian belief system is largely mutually incompatible with other religious systems. The idea that "Christians are right and everyone else is wrong" didn't seem correct. Furthermore, I couldn't believe that everyone who believed something else before Christ was wrong, too.

Anyway, long story short, the myriad forms of religious beliefs ultimately led me to the conclusion that no one is right. It's not really a very logical conclusion, and doesn't stand up to intense scrutiny, but it was the belief that I eventually developed.

i believe

religion = human invention
science = not human invention

I've felt that, as well as this thought:

If you're not a Christian, don't take Jesus as your savior, etc, blah blah blah, you're not going to go to Heaven? It doesn't matter if you lead a completely just/righteous life, do everything right, just lack faith. On the flip side, you can commit crimes, be a dick to people all your life, so long as you repent near the end and take Jesus into your heart and get into heaven? What if you were never introduced to Christianity, to religion? What if you were persecuted? What if you're of another faith? All of this is could be due to social upbringing and you could have little to no control over it, so because of that you won't go to heaven? Seems pretty lame to me, not at all like the God people preach about.

At the same time, I have no reason to disbelieve a higher being, maybe a god? Maybe something else. I don't know. I'm fully into science, etc, but what put the stuff necessary for the big bang into play? I guess I just like to believe that maybe there were something that started it for kicks, an explanation for things not yet explainable. *shrug.