That does sound awfully like trying to weasel out of it, in front of an audience which has many members who can assuredly pull apart this "evidence" :-)
No, I have lots of evidence. It's just that this happened on another forum and went on for a few weeks, and nobody really got anything out of it. But, if I must, I will present my key points:
1. The age of the Earth
A. The Earth's magnetic field has been steadily decreasing at a constant rate that has been carefully measured since the 1800s. Extrapolating backwards to find the original strength, we find that past 10000 years ago, it would have been strong enough to melt the planet.
B. The Earth has also been growing farther away from the Sun with each orbit. Again, extrapolation shows that, at the current rate of decay, the Earth would have touched the Sun less than 100000000 years ago.
C. Several fossilized trees have been found that extend through multiple strata. If the strata were laid down over millions, if not billions, of years, then how come the trees hadn't rotted?
2. Evolution
A. For macroevolution to work, beneficial mutations must occur. These are so rare that, shockingly, they have never been found. For one species to gradually change into another, mutations must affect the same allele in the same way several times. There is hardly any possiblity of that happening.
B. Mutations never add genetic data - they only remove it. If I saved the Sinclair logo in a lossy compression format, sent it to a friend, had him open, save, and send it, etc, it would never "evolve" into a picture of a Spectrum. The most likely terminal scenario would be the transformation of the logo into a gray rectange, with a few specks of color.
C. Assuming that the basic foundation of macroevolution - natural selection/survival of the fittest - is true, how come there isn't simply one species of life - the fittest?
3. Morality/humanity
A. If we got here through "survival of the fittest", then how come we feel a need to protect each other from harm? After all, it can't be an instinct to preserve the species as a whole, as that would be the opposite of natural selection's basic process. If you saw a possum, lying dead on the road, you wouldn't even look twice as you drove past. What if it had been a person?
B. Humans are the only species known to possess genuine emotions, such as sadness, joy, creativity, etc. These would hardly have been of any assistance to our ancestors - in fact, they would probably have been a hindrance.
C. Humans are also the only species that can produce abstract art like music and abstract paintings. Elephants, the only species that comes close to our skill, are only good at painting landscapes - they not only have to see them, but have to be guided by human instructors. Elephants, by nature, do not paint landscapes - or anything else, for that matter. Humans are also the only species that shows an appreciation for consonant notes and music as opposed to random sounds. Not only would these qualities have been frivolous to our ancestors, but they are also mentioned in several texts as having been created by the gods for their own enjoyment - if there is a god at all, it seems likely that music would have been his/her invention.
It's funny that you should mention that. Did you know that bacteria resistant to modern antibiotics were found in the frozen bodies of several explorers to the South Pole? In other words, they already had the ability to resist antibiotics coded into their genomes.
white moths which turned black when the air was fouled by the Industrial Revolution and then back to white again when pollution was brought under control
Did you know that both black and white moths existed before the Industrial Revolution? Again, this is hardly evidence for macroevolution.
A. The Earth's magnetic field has been steadily decreasing at a constant rate that has been carefully measured since the 1800s. Extrapolating backwards to find the original strength, we find that past 10000 years ago, it would have been strong enough to melt the planet.
Extrapolating 200 years of data on a body that has existed for over 4bn years is hardly evidence! It's conjecture, not evidence.
The actual hard evidence is that the magnetic field varies not only strength but polarity over geological timespans.
B. The Earth has also been growing farther away from the Sun with each orbit. Again, extrapolation shows that, at the current rate of decay, the Earth would have touched the Sun less than 100000000 years ago.
Citation please!
And I bet it won't be scientific. Because in actuality, the Earth's orbit moves out by one micrometre per year (due to tidal interactions between Earth/Sun). So that's 1 metre per million years. Or 4 kilometres in the last 4 billion years. The Sun's only been main sequence for 5 billion years. Since we're 150 million kilometres from the Sun, 4km is lost in the noise.
We also move away slowly due to the Sun losing mass (nuclear reaction turning mass to energy). However, that effect is such that over a period of 10 billion years (the estimated total lifespan of the Sun from start to finish) we will move out 150,000km due to that effect. That still doesn't put us touching the Sun only 100M years ago, given that we are 150 million km from the Sun.
C. Several fossilized trees have been found that extend through multiple strata. If the strata were laid down over millions, if not billions, of years, then how come the trees hadn't rotted?
Because the fossilization process prevented them from rotting. This is basic primary school science.
A. For macroevolution to work, beneficial mutations must occur. These are so rare that, shockingly, they have never been found.
They have been found over and over and over again, mostly observed in microorganisms (because they have very fast lifecycles, which allows us to observe this within our own lifetimes).
For one species to gradually change into another, mutations must affect the same allele in the same way several times. There is hardly any possiblity of that happening.
But over billions of years, it's a certainty. Your faulty understanding of the age of the planet results in the faulty understanding of just how long life has been around on this planet. Over a few thousand years, you're hardly going to observe any changes in a general population of multicellular life forms. But over billions of years, it's an inevitability.
B. Mutations never add genetic data - they only remove it.
Says who?
C. Assuming that the basic foundation of macroevolution - natural selection/survival of the fittest - is true, how come there isn't simply one species of life - the fittest?
Because multiple species, and survival of the fittest are not mutually exclusive.
A. If we got here through "survival of the fittest", then how come we feel a need to protect each other from harm? After all, it can't be an instinct to preserve the species as a whole, as that would be the opposite of natural selection's basic process.
Why is preserving the species against natural selection's basic processes? In a social animal, the survival of the individual is enhanced by the survival of the group. This is entirely compatible with the survival of the fittest (which, incidentally, can apply to groups just as well as individuals).
B. Humans are the only species known to possess genuine emotions, such as sadness, joy, creativity, etc. These would hardly have been of any assistance to our ancestors - in fact, they would probably have been a hindrance.
Why?
In any case, survival of the fittest does not imply perfection. Good enough is, well, good enough.
None of the things you list are evidence of anything, they aren't theory, they don't even qualify as hypothesis; at best they are conjecture driven by superstition.
No, I have lots of evidence. It's just that this happened on another forum and went on for a few weeks, and nobody really got anything out of it. But, if I must, I will present my key points:
1. The age of the Earth
A. The Earth's magnetic field has been steadily decreasing at a constant rate that has been carefully measured since the 1800s. Extrapolating backwards to find the original strength, we find that past 10000 years ago, it would have been strong enough to melt the planet.
B. The Earth has also been growing farther away from the Sun with each orbit. Again, extrapolation shows that, at the current rate of decay, the Earth would have touched the Sun less than 100000000 years ago.
I've been gradually posting less and less on comp.sys.sinclair. But if we extrapolate my posting habits back fifteen years, we find that I would originally have been posting one hundred articles every day.
C. Assuming that the basic foundation of macroevolution - natural selection/survival of the fittest - is true, how come there isn't simply one species of life - the fittest?
Because the environment changes, and thus the qualities required to be fittest change. Also, the fittest doesn't necessarily slaughter all the other species.
A. If we got here through "survival of the fittest", then how come we feel a need to protect each other from harm? After all, it can't be an instinct to preserve the species as a whole, as that would be the opposite of natural selection's basic process. If you saw a possum, lying dead on the road, you wouldn't even look twice as you drove past. What if it had been a person?
Funnily enough, morals are not universal. Some people would care about that dead possum. Some people would not care if it were a dead person.
Also, why can't evolution allow an instinct for protection of your own species, exactly? Or for life in general?
B. Humans are the only species known to possess genuine emotions, such as sadness, joy, creativity, etc. These would hardly have been of any assistance to our ancestors - in fact, they would probably have been a hindrance.
The first bit simply isn't true. Anyone can tell if a dog's sad or happy or angry or whatever. Unless you claim that when a dog starts sulking that it's just pretending to have emotions? And that when animals use tools that they're just pretending to be creative?
The second bit - emotions are most likely an unavoidable side effect of something else that is beneficial.
I'm generally quite tolerant of the crap that many people post on these forums, but creationism does annoy me. Arguing against evolution is just like arguing that the Earth is flat - just blindly ignoring the patently obvious. Like Cornishdavey would, in fact.
B. Humans are the only species known to possess genuine emotions, such as sadness, joy, creativity, etc.
Bollocks on two counts -- (1) all cat and dog owners know from experience that these two species, at least, are quite emotive and (2) since when has creativity been an "emotion"? It may be guided by emotion, but it's an intellectual activity.
Did you know that both black and white moths existed before the Industrial Revolution?
Here, you're either missing or (perhaps more likely) deliberately ignoring my point; both kinds of moth indeed existed, but as I already said, the white ones were predominant -- black moths were much easier for predators to spot against the then-clean buildings, hence much less likely to pass on their genes to the next generation. Come the Industrial Revolution, and dirty air made for dirty buildings, so the white moths became the conspicuous ones, hence the black ones became predoninant (again, I already said this, albeit in lesser detail). Then came the Clean Air Acts, and buildings became clean again, and the white moths came back into their own. Even you should be able to understand this.
OK, I know evolution (supposedly) isn't in the Bible; neither is the Internet, but that doesn't stop fanatics using it to spout nonsense. Besides, who says evolution isn't in the Bible? ISTR Genesis, quite early on [before they did Wind and Wuthering? -- Ed] mentioning something about God calling upon the Earth to produce all plants and animals; who's to say he didn't do this by setting evolution in motion?
I never make misteaksmistrakesmisyaleserrurs — oh, sod it.
Nice BBC level-headed reporting in the News At Ten last night, starting the report by saying the ABofC thinks Britain should have Sharia Law, then cutting to scenes of flogging and an amputee, then only later clarifying that he was only referring to the beaurocratic side of Sharia law (divorce, finance, etc) - by which time any viewer had already been whipped up into a false frenzy which for many would be too much to suddenly shake off with a sudden gust of reality.
The important part was understated: all parties to any action under Sharia Law that's been proposed here in Britain would be entered into purely volountarily, and the agreed resolutions would then be backed up by British Law.
So, a divorce under Sharia Law would get recognised by the British legal system.
No one's going to get flogged or amputated, and nothing's going to happen to anyone unless they agree to it beforehand.
Well Western law is founded on Christian values but I get your meaning :)
Oh, I've no argument with many relgious values, but instead with the actual practises of religion, which very often contradict their own teachings.
Religion is faith and therefore has no proof.
Yes, and faith is meaningless. Having faith in something means that you have faith in something, and nothing more. Faith doesn't mean truth. Any number of men the world over believe that they are their children's natural fathers, any number of people believe that their spouses are faithful, any number of people have absolute faith in people they trust, and so on, and are wrong. Faith can be right, of course, but that's not caused by the act of faith, but by external influences (external to faith, I mean).
Our modern world has become so materialistic that it's easy to lose track of the distinction between the why and the how. Back in the 16th century or so our preferred lines of philosopohical thought changed from thought experiments ("how many angels fit on the head of a pin...") to experiential experiments ("when I double the pressure of a gas maintained at the same temperature, the volume is halved")
True, I'm not denying our lives are more materialistic now than formerly.
and it's gone so far in the materialistic direction that I think it's lost on many of us that the materialistic approach doesn't currently answer questions of the former approach (which religion tries to)
Religions claim to answer those questions, but they really just spout "facts" that have neither basis nor consistancy. Alright, so science will never prove the meaning of life, but then neither will any number of philosphers, and certainly not a corrupt buch of rich men who manipulate religion for their own gains.
(And I believe that science will never prove the meaning of life, or maybe even suspect it, since any meaning (if there is any) must have been born outside the physical laws that we are limited to. I could be wrong, but no-one can prove or disprove this).
For someone that doesn't believe, why would you assume God is a person, being or entity?
I don't, necessarily. But that's what the major religions expect us to believe, so it's that that I base my criticisms upon.
And what about the warning of following false gods/idols?
I don't see what you mean, in this context?
Numerous ancient writings from Sumerian, Hindu etc. (too many to list), depict their God or Gods as coming from heaven to earth (nephilim). Its either a great myth that propagated across all the continents in the same milleniums, thousands of years ago, or they're all false gods or great pretenders from outside our solar system. A Sumerian tablet supposedly has a story about giant gods that created the Adamic race genetically, combining neanderthal and themselves, to serve as slaves to mine Gold to repair the atmosphere of their planet. They also described every planet in our solar system, its orbital path and size/colour. Their planet was Nibiru (Planet X, actually a dead brown dwarf star), that was caught by our Sun's gravity millions of years ago in an eliptical orbit 90 degrees to our own, apparently this is where we inherited our moon from, the date 2012 keeps popping up, which is also the end of the cycle in the Mayan calendar, but us human slaves rarely pay attention or give creedance to ancient history without a royal stamp of approval. Some reckon this could be whats causing our solar system to be heating up now and it fits with some of the anomalies in the planets orbits that are being detected now, and a lot of theologians say this planet (brown dwarf) caused the great flood depicted in history the world over. If the orbit is 7200 years, it will pass us by once every 3600 years. I think a better way of dating its orbit is with more accurate dates of great global floods and/or global warming in history. One thing is certain, if planet x is ever validated, it gives even more weight to the Sumerian writings. So maybe it'll be about the time it will be taken seriously. The fact that when Pluto was first discovered by man it was in the exact orbit found in the Sumerian tablets isn't enough proof, I suppose more is needed. It must've already passed us thousands of times before. I find it pretty strange that the British Museum are apparently sitting on roughly 200,000 Sumerian tablets and cylinder seals taken from excavations in Kuwait, Iraq. Why not let the worlds experts in Sumerian Cuneform script translate them for us all?
I've never heard that before. What evidence is there that it's not just another conspiracy theory? I'm not calling you a liar, just asking for further reading.
And "flood depicted in history the world over"? Where, apart from the Bible is this depicted? A MAJOR event like that would not only be written about in every culture, but there would be factual traces of it all over the world, and it would be a common find amongst archeologists.
Personally, I believe that God isn't a being, but a field of energy that if it wasn't there nothing would exist. The zero point field is everywhere, in everything, all over the known universe, it is an invisible creator and the only true constant that can never change or be affected by other forces that we currently know of.
Actually, I tend to a similar view. I believe (well, feel would be a far better term) that if there is a creator, then it's a non-conscious (i.e. it's not conscious or sentient in our sense) force that acts to bring things together. Maybe a bit like evolution, only this force isn't just a principle (as Evolution is just a principle) but has definate existence, albeit probably in ways we could never understand with our physical laws.
I have no evidence to support this, no reasoning to explain this, and no real idea of any effects or abilities of this "force". And yes, I realise that by writing this I have painted myself to be as bad as those people I have criticised so often, those who blindly believe something that has no evidence to support it. So please note
a) This is not an absolute belief, it's only an "I think it's the most likely possibility, but I wouldn't bet a penny on it",
b) I believe this only until something that I consider to be more likely comes along,
c) I don't expect anyone else to believe it on my say so, since I realise that I can neither prove it nor even properly explain it (even to myself).
Now if religions would admit those three points, then I'd have far more respect for them.
Appoligies if I've upset anyone, but since my Dad died on Christmas morning,
I'm so sorry mate. I know something of how you feel. My grandmother, a wonderful person (much better than me) died on Christmas morning nearly a decade ago. She had cancer, and we knew she was near the end, and so the whole family was going to go on Christmas day, as it would be her last. Instead, she passed away early morning, and I never got to say goodbye.
I'd have given ten years of my life for her to have lived just one more day.
But that's just the point, the Lord is revealed to mankind and has been for all eternity. For those that find enlightenment after cleansing themselves of negative emotions, thoughts, deeds etc the curtain is drawn back and what they encounter is so divine, so unmistakable and intricately tied together that they feel they at heightened moments connected to God, that they are in his presence.
The fact is that those who don't want to believe do not usually get to this point, and those that find cannot but hope to put into any words that would sway an unbeliever.
Is this serious, or sarcasm? You're basically saying that only those who believe, believe? The word of God would be absolute and unmistakable, and totally obvious even to the worst sinners or the most closed minded fools. The fact that anyone can doubt the Bible proves that the Bible is doubtable, and therefore not divinely perfect. The same goes for any other "Words of God" (which usually contradict each other).
Just because you haven't found evidence doesn't make the idea of God impossible
True, and I don't think that God's existence is impossible. I think that athiests are as closed minded as those who follow religion. I am an agnostic, meaning that I don't claim to know if there is a God or gods.
However, I do think that if God exists then he doesn't take care of his creations. And I don't see how anyone can intelligently dispute that.
I believe the same, but then it's such a shame that what Science should be proving should otherwise be used to discount a Creator, even when that very Science shows such a magical and strange world.
True. Science (and even just our eyes or ears) shows us such wonders, but we tend to ignore the beauty and wonder of it all.
I'm not one given to public outbursts of foul language, but the Archbishop of Canterbury can fuck right off.
I don't like bad languag (especially since it's so overused nowadays), but I have to say that that one sentence of your makes more sense than all of the "official" responses to the Archbishop's words put together.
In "years and years of looking", I have found plenty of evidence against the idea of macroevolution - but I won't turn this thread into a debate by posting it. Maybe we could argue via PM.
Even if you could prove that evolution was wrong, that wouldn't prove that God existed. Evolution is just one theory, albeit a very popular and researched one, but even if you could prove that all sciences, such as evolution, mathematics, electronics were all wrong, that wouldn't make one atom of proof that God exists. And God and evolution are not mutually exclusive, God might have made the world and us via radiation, mutation, evolution etc.
And even if the theory of evolution is full of flaws, then so what? It's just a theory, and a theory is never set in stone, but is revised when improvements are discovered. Yet the religious people say "this is so", and expect us to believe it unquestioningly. Yet they provide no proof at all. A scientist will offer you proof of evolution, and he will admit that there are gaps in the theory. He'll explain why he believes in the theory, and will listen to you, and if you can suggest a better reason or explanation for something then he'll consider it. A religious man will offer you no proof, and will not listen to criticism of his beliefs, and will not change his beliefs no matter how many flaws you point out.
Well, Jesus did about 2000 years ago.
Assuming he did exist. And assuming he was the son of God. And even if he did exist, was divine, and did come down to Earth, that's no proof today, as he's long gone.
Tell me, where's Jesus now? People are starving to death, getting blown up in wars, children the world over are suffering unimaginable abuse. People are murdering other people, sometimes in the name of God. Those who claim to follow God's word are living in luxury, whilst the preach poverty and watch countless millions die in squalor. Disease is rampant across the world, as is intolerance and evil. So where's the all compassionate Jesus, eh? And why doesn't Jesus come to me now, eh, and show me that he exists. Better yet, why didn't His Perfectness help my Grandmother when she was ill? Or twenty years earlier when my Grandfather was ill. Why didn't super-Jesus step in in the crusades, and stop them? Or why, when Jesus cured the ten lepers, did he not irradicate leperasy totally? Why didn't he remove all diseases and all evil fully? In fact, why did old God/Allah/Jeovah etc allow evil and suffering at all?
If God exists, then He has no sense of responsibility.
The way I see it, there's no way that his followers would have gladly accepted imprisonment and even martyrdom if he hadn't really done everything that the Bible says that he did.
Charles Manson? Adolph Hitler? Look at the fever they generated, and the loyalty of some of their followers. And anyway, how do you know that the disciples acted as the Bible says they did?
The Christians started as a small group of people on the edge of the Mediterranean, who were persecuted relentlessly by the Roman empire, but, for some reason, people today worship God instead of Jupiter. How could such a small movement survive and grow for so long if it wasn't based on at least some truth? It's not like people didn't convert by choice.
Money and power, that's how the Church grew. Especially with the (frankly brilliant, from a business point of view) way that the Church claimed that they could absolve sins on the sinner's deathbed, so that the sinner got a free pass in Heaven, but the sinner should sign all of his propery to the Church. Why do you think that the Catholic church has Confession, where you confess your sins and the priest absolves you? Do you really think that any man has the right to absolve another's sins? Surely only God can do that. But the Catholic Church said that they could, and it made them a Fortune.
Please tell me why the earliest known Biblical manuscripts differ only in handwriting from their more recent counterparts.
Prove that.
1) I've heard from educated people that there are many books that have been edited out altogether, to say nothing of the changes introduced along the way.
2) How can you say there have been no changes? At the very least, you must admist that the Bible has been translated, or do you believe that the Bible was written in English? And no translation is ever perfect, even with the best will in the world. And those who support the Bible have a vested interest in making it support their own words and claims.
Come on, they're books. Do you really think that we'd even need them if the truth was already in us? Besides, they were written down by humans, which would remove any trace of divinity that they could have possessed.
If the Divine Truth were already inside us, then we'd know and recognise it instantly, as it would be undeniable to any of us.
What religion teaches that? None that I've encountered.
Try looking into Christianity sometime. Jesus was dirt poor, and preached that money and worldly goods were worthless, and only spiritual wealth and the love of God and his children was important.
And I've never seen a religion yet that taught contrary to that. Though they often practise quite the opposite.
And Jesus said "It's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into Heaven". Which to me means that no rich man can get into Heaven. Or do you think that camels can somehow shrink themselves down to less than a millimeter.
And yes, I've heard it said that it's not to be taken literally, or that the "eye of a needle" means something different, or whatever, but that's disproving that Jesus said it at all, as surely Jesus' words would be unambivalent and unmistakable for all time?
"So often", huh? Care to provide a recent and relevant example?
I can't provide a modern example (I don't follow politics, money or business), but before you accuse me of speaking without evidence, let me just say that in the past religion has always been used to feather the nests of the leaders, and since human nature has not changed, then I see no reason to suspect that this has changed. Tell me, has the Vatican sold it's priceless works of arts, it's countless jewels and precious artifacts, it's vast arrays of fine furnitures and other possessions, and given the money to feed the third world and to house the homeless?
No. And when Osama Bin Laden told the people (I'd love to type something else there but I'll keep it clean) who were going to suicide fly into the twin towers that they'd receive eternal paradise and a bunch of virgins in Heaven for their service to God, do you think that Bin Laden was struggling to find money to pay for his next pair of shoes? Of course not, he's amulti-millionaire even taking into account the money known to be his. And it's rumoured that some people made a fortune on the stock exchange because of 9/11, so what's the betting that Bin Laden and co had a flutter on there?
A. If we got here through "survival of the fittest", then how come we feel a need to protect each other from harm? After all, it can't be an instinct to preserve the species as a whole, as that would be the opposite of natural selection's basic process. If you saw a possum, lying dead on the road, you wouldn't even look twice as you drove past. What if it had been a person?"
Actually, I have felt sad when I saw a dead cat by the road. I've never seen a possum alive or dead (I'm in England), but I'd feel sad if I saw a dead one, as I do like and empathise with animals. Though I would feel worse if it was a dead human.
And why should "survival of the fittest" prevent us from thinking of the good of the whole?
And in the book, the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, regarding the part where a whale dies, Douglas Adams (the author) received letters of complaints, and he later said that he believed that if it was a human who'd died then probably no-one would complained. Come to that, in the game Carmageddon 2, I had no objection to running over humans in my car, but I never ran over the dogs.
B. Humans are the only species known to possess genuine emotions, such as sadness, joy, creativity, etc. These would hardly have been of any assistance to our ancestors - in fact, they would probably have been a hindrance.
Humans are certainly not the only species with emotions. I have five cats, and they do have genuine emotions. As do dogs. I know a woman who's spent time looking after dolphins and she tells me that they can be very moody (which I didn't think, I'd assumed that since they were so intelligent that they'd be above our failings!).
I've also heard that horses, camels and some tropical birds have emotions. Maybe all complex enough creatures have emotions (so maybe not insects or fish, I have no idea), but I know from my own experience that dogs and cats can feel contentment, curiosity, love, anger, fear and dislike. They also dream sometimes.
C. Humans are also the only species that can produce abstract art like music and abstract paintings. Elephants, the only species that comes close to our skill, are only good at painting landscapes - they not only have to see them, but have to be guided by human instructors. Elephants, by nature, do not paint landscapes - or anything else, for that matter. Humans are also the only species that shows an appreciation for consonant notes and music as opposed to random sounds. Not only would these qualities have been frivolous to our ancestors, but they are also mentioned in several texts as having been created by the gods for their own enjoyment - if there is a god at all, it seems likely that music would have been his/her invention.
I don't know about creating art (can Elephants really create anything worth calling "art"?) but I do know that both dogs and some birds can recognise and respond to music, even without being trained to, and this is from personal experiece. I've never seen a cat respond to music, but that doesn't mean that they don't.
Well, Jesus did about 2000 years ago. The way I see it, there's no way that his followers would have gladly accepted imprisonment and even martyrdom if he hadn't really done everything that the Bible says that he did. The Christians started as a small group of people on the edge of the Mediterranean, who were persecuted relentlessly by the Roman empire, but, for some reason, people today worship God instead of Jupiter. How could such a small movement survive and grow for so long if it wasn't based on at least some truth? It's not like people didn't convert by choice.
The Romans were extremely superstitious people. In the fourth century, shortly before a crucial battle, one of the claimants to the Imperial title had a dream/had a vision (no one seems to know for sure) he didn't understand but thought might be relevant. He described the dream and one of his servants, a Christian, told him that it meant the god of the Christians had favoured him. This claimant was a pagan but he was troubled by the dream; if he painted a christian symbol on his shields as his Christian servant insisted he was defying Jupiter and risked his wrath. On the other hand, if the Christian god was stronger than Jupiter then it might allow him to win. In the end he painted the Christian symbol and won the battle. To a superstitious Roman this could only mean one thing: the god of the Christians was stronger than the old pagan gods.
The claimant was Constantine who made Christianity the Roman state religion. The superstitious Romans saw that a man who had used a christian symbol had triumphed and could only interpret it as Constantine had. This, not people discovering some sort of "inner truth", was how Christianity triumphed over the old pagan gods in a manner of decades. The idea that Constantine had simply won the battle through superior tactics/troops didn't come into the superstitious Roman mentality. It's something historians often overlook but they put just about everything down to pleasing the gods and fate (it's for this reason that ancient Romans used astrology and the like so much). From a historical perspective, if Constantine hadn't had his dream or hadn't had close Christian advisors then he'd have probably sacrificed to Jupiter, won the battle and things would have gone on as normal.
It's also worth noting that Constantine romanised Christianity. Constantine appeared to read the Christian god in a very Roman way: ie that he had pleased him through devotion and his god had rewarded him with power. He did not become monk-like. He continued to fight battles and kill people like previous Roman emperors did but changed pagan rituals to Christian ones. Whilst the Roman empire became Christian, christianity itself fused with Roman values. The idea of a Christian emperor or a christian army or a single, unified christian church with a heirarchy pretty much begun in the fourth century.
Try looking into Christianity sometime. Jesus was dirt poor, and preached that money and worldly goods were worthless, and only spiritual wealth and the love of God and his children was important.
And I've never seen a religion yet that taught contrary to that. Though they often practise quite the opposite.
And Jesus said "It's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into Heaven". Which to me means that no rich man can get into Heaven. Or do you think that camels can somehow shrink themselves down to less than a millimeter.
And yes, I've heard it said that it's not to be taken literally, or that the "eye of a needle" means something different, or whatever, but that's disproving that Jesus said it at all, as surely Jesus' words would be unambivalent and unmistakable for all time?
Exactly. Christs words seem pretty straight-up to me and they certainly were to many early Christians who shunned worldy riches. The "re-interpretation" thing came later when the Christian world became rich and people wanted to believe that Jesus hadn't really meant it. Given that they got over "thou shalt not kill" so quickly it didn't take much effort for a theologian to decide "actually, this isn't what Christ meant at all, my wealthy brothers and sisters..."
I've never heard that before. What evidence is there that it's not just another conspiracy theory? I'm not calling you a liar, just asking for further reading.
And "flood depicted in history the world over"? Where, apart from the Bible is this depicted? A MAJOR event like that would not only be written about in every culture, but there would be factual traces of it all over the world, and it would be a common find amongst archeologists.
The History channel had a show on this a couple of weeks back. They mentioned several different regions/cultures having "experienced" the same, i.e. a devastating flood.
Problem was that the written/carved/hewn-out-of-rock evidence was put down on their different mediums at different times, several hundred or thousand years apart.
That might indicate that these cultures did experience floods but years and years apart. Or on the other hand they might have experienced the same flood at the same time but not been able to write about it until long time later when they were able to transfer the oral stories into writing.
Tell me, where's Jesus now? People are starving to death, getting blown up in wars, children the world over are suffering unimaginable abuse. People are murdering other people, sometimes in the name of God. Those who claim to follow God's word are living in luxury, whilst the preach poverty and watch countless millions die in squalor. Disease is rampant across the world, as is intolerance and evil. So where's the all compassionate Jesus, eh? And why doesn't Jesus come to me now, eh, and show me that he exists. Better yet, why didn't His Perfectness help my Grandmother when she was ill? Or twenty years earlier when my Grandfather was ill. Why didn't super-Jesus step in in the crusades, and stop them? Or why, when Jesus cured the ten lepers, did he not irradicate leperasy totally? Why didn't he remove all diseases and all evil fully? In fact, why did old God/Allah/Jeovah etc allow evil and suffering at all?
If God exists, then He has no sense of responsibility.
OR his sense of responsibility is so great and just that he is willing to grant us completely free will and thought and he allows us to run around causing all sort of havoc because that is what we wanted to experiment with, i.e. free will.
I paraphrase heavily and put together different sections into one whole here but according to the Bible wasn't it Satan who said "Hey buddy, they're just following you because you made them that way and not because they do it out of their own free will (gettit, pun intended)" So god said, "Ok, I'll step back and they can exercise their Free Will(TM) but there will come a day when they will each be judged according to their own acts, hmmm, let's call it Judgment Day(TM)."
So that may perhaps very conveniently explain all the suffering, mankind brought it upon themselves because they truly can not guide their own two legs, there will always be discord between people when alone in the wilderness.
All the flood myths were originally oral tradition passed down from generation to generation from the time that the sea level had risen by several hundred feet following the last ice age; and when the Black Sea basin was flooded by the rising waters of the Mediterranean breaching the area of the Bosphorus channel.
All the flood myths were originally oral tradition passed down from generation to generation from the time that the sea level had risen by several hundred feet following the last ice age; and when the Black Sea basin was flooded by the rising waters of the Mediterranean breaching the area of the Bosphorus channel.
The History channel show conveniently left out that theory. Interesting thing was that they did mention that South America, China and Australia (iIrc) had these oral stories of "a great flood". I say "interesting" because usually the flood stories center around the Mediterranean. The ice age global sea level thing explains things away very conveniently though.
nobody has said it should be introduced, it never will, its not the end of "britain", muslims arent taking over, its not a government idea to introduce it.
all the archbishop said was.........we should be creating a better tolerance between "us" and "them" and some bits of sharia law WOULD give them encouragement to integrate.
but as i said it never will. so people will you get off the muslim hysteria bandwagon.
Professional Mel-the-Bell Simulator................"So realistic, I found myself reaching for the Kleenex King-Size!" - Richard Darling
Yeah must admit i've read more about it and its not like they want to take over the UK with sharia law, just use it in some instances just like jews have their own community courts.
Think its a bit OTT as combined with a few crazy muslim fanatic views of 'we want a muslim state in the UK' people are panicking a bit too much.
Still think if anyone comes here they should live by our laws though, having different laws for different religions is asking for trouble again.
nobody has said it should be introduced, it never will, its not the end of "britain", muslims arent taking over, its not a government idea to introduce it.
all the archbishop said was.........we should be creating a better tolerance between "us" and "them" and some bits of sharia law WOULD give them encouragement to integrate.
but as i said it never will. so people will you get off the muslim hysteria bandwagon.
It's the Archbishop's way of phrasing it that we object to, as it's so open to misinterpretation. For someone in such a public position, he should really think his words through carefully.
OR his sense of responsibility is so great and just that he is willing to grant us completely free will and thought and he allows us to run around causing all sort of havoc because that is what we wanted to experiment with, i.e. free will.So that may perhaps very conveniently explain all the suffering, mankind brought it upon themselves because they truly can not guide their own two legs, there will always be discord between people when alone in the wilderness.
If that's so then firstly, God has no right to allow us to hurt ourselves and one another (would you stand by and let your children harm and kill each other?), and where do disease, natural disasters, famine etc fit into the whole "free will" thing? Those forms of suffering are not imposed on us by each other, so why do they exist? And if we have free will then why are we born in such very different circumstances (rich, poor, healthy, crippled or riddled with cancer, intelligent, stupid, pretty, ugly etc), despite "all men are born equal" being taught to us? We only have limited free will, or many people would have cured cancer, or saved their dying children, or done so many other things that were denied them.
And "flood depicted in history the world over"? Where, apart from the Bible is this depicted?
Hinduism has a flood story. There's a terrible flood. Manu survives, and we're all his descendants. Allegedly. Time for a linguistic aside. Hindi has two words for 'man': 'admi', and 'manav'. The first comes from Arabic, and means 'son of Adam'. The second comes from Sanskrit, and means 'descendant of Manu'. It's also where the English word 'man' comes from - one of those rare examples where the shared heritage of English and Hindi is visible.
True, and I don't think that God's existence is impossible. I think that athiests are as closed minded as those who follow religion. I am an agnostic, meaning that I don't claim to know if there is a God or gods.
Hard or weak atheism? A hard atheist would state that there is no god or gods. A weak atheist would say that there is no evidence for god(s), so the theory is not worth considering. Even Richard Dawkins considers himself one of the latter. He can't rule out the existence of a god, but considers it as unlikely as flying spaghetti monsters, and orbiting teapots.
Charles Manson? Adolph Hitler? Look at the fever they generated, and the loyalty of some of their followers. And anyway, how do you know that the disciples acted as the Bible says they did?
At school we had a good RE teacher who gave a good, unbiased, overview of various religions. Even Aztec Sun worship! In fact he told us that he considered Sun worship fairly sensible in comparison to many other beliefs. The Sun exists, and life (deep sea vent beasties excluded) doesn't work without it. He gave an interesting lesson on the subject: 'Messiah'. In it he demonstrated how Hitler could be seen as a Messiah. It was good to be made to think, but sadly he retired and was replaced by a Russian Orthodox priest.
It looks as though Lockett has replaced Cornishpasty and AY as the WoS Resident Nutcase! :D
If I'm the "resident nutcase", then there's no point in my answering any further arguments, or even remaining on this forum. I think that it would be best if I just left, and left everyone else to discuss other, more relevant topics. My leaving would improve this forum.
I'm sorry for running this thread into the ground.
If I'm the "resident nutcase", then there's no point in my answering any further arguments, or even remaining on this forum. I think that it would be best if I just left, and left everyone else to discuss other, more relevant topics. My leaving would improve this forum.
I'm sorry for running this thread into the ground.
Could my account be deleted?
Have you looked at all at any random WoS thread?
It's a given there will be fists flying. Just shake it off and continue to plod along here , your skin becomes slightly thicker and you might grow some hairs on your moles along the way. No need to go run off. Where would you go? Some C-64 forum, or something ;-)
If I'm the "resident nutcase", then there's no point in my answering any further arguments, or even remaining on this forum. I think that it would be best if I just left, and left everyone else to discuss other, more relevant topics. My leaving would improve this forum.
I'm sorry for running this thread into the ground.
Could my account be deleted?
No need to get your knickers in a twist! This is one of the tamer discussions in the history of these forums.
If I'm the "resident nutcase", then there's no point in my answering any further arguments, or even remaining on this forum. I think that it would be best if I just left, and left everyone else to discuss other, more relevant topics. My leaving would improve this forum.
I'm sorry for running this thread into the ground.
Could my account be deleted?
If you're going to bring up religion, you have to get used to turning the other cheek ;)
Comments
No, I have lots of evidence. It's just that this happened on another forum and went on for a few weeks, and nobody really got anything out of it. But, if I must, I will present my key points:
1. The age of the Earth
A. The Earth's magnetic field has been steadily decreasing at a constant rate that has been carefully measured since the 1800s. Extrapolating backwards to find the original strength, we find that past 10000 years ago, it would have been strong enough to melt the planet.
B. The Earth has also been growing farther away from the Sun with each orbit. Again, extrapolation shows that, at the current rate of decay, the Earth would have touched the Sun less than 100000000 years ago.
C. Several fossilized trees have been found that extend through multiple strata. If the strata were laid down over millions, if not billions, of years, then how come the trees hadn't rotted?
2. Evolution
A. For macroevolution to work, beneficial mutations must occur. These are so rare that, shockingly, they have never been found. For one species to gradually change into another, mutations must affect the same allele in the same way several times. There is hardly any possiblity of that happening.
B. Mutations never add genetic data - they only remove it. If I saved the Sinclair logo in a lossy compression format, sent it to a friend, had him open, save, and send it, etc, it would never "evolve" into a picture of a Spectrum. The most likely terminal scenario would be the transformation of the logo into a gray rectange, with a few specks of color.
C. Assuming that the basic foundation of macroevolution - natural selection/survival of the fittest - is true, how come there isn't simply one species of life - the fittest?
3. Morality/humanity
A. If we got here through "survival of the fittest", then how come we feel a need to protect each other from harm? After all, it can't be an instinct to preserve the species as a whole, as that would be the opposite of natural selection's basic process. If you saw a possum, lying dead on the road, you wouldn't even look twice as you drove past. What if it had been a person?
B. Humans are the only species known to possess genuine emotions, such as sadness, joy, creativity, etc. These would hardly have been of any assistance to our ancestors - in fact, they would probably have been a hindrance.
C. Humans are also the only species that can produce abstract art like music and abstract paintings. Elephants, the only species that comes close to our skill, are only good at painting landscapes - they not only have to see them, but have to be guided by human instructors. Elephants, by nature, do not paint landscapes - or anything else, for that matter. Humans are also the only species that shows an appreciation for consonant notes and music as opposed to random sounds. Not only would these qualities have been frivolous to our ancestors, but they are also mentioned in several texts as having been created by the gods for their own enjoyment - if there is a god at all, it seems likely that music would have been his/her invention.
It's funny that you should mention that. Did you know that bacteria resistant to modern antibiotics were found in the frozen bodies of several explorers to the South Pole? In other words, they already had the ability to resist antibiotics coded into their genomes.
Did you know that both black and white moths existed before the Industrial Revolution? Again, this is hardly evidence for macroevolution.
Maybe they haven't been "overlooked", but have actually been dispelled.
Now, look at what you've made me do. You've forced me to hijack a thread.
Extrapolating 200 years of data on a body that has existed for over 4bn years is hardly evidence! It's conjecture, not evidence.
The actual hard evidence is that the magnetic field varies not only strength but polarity over geological timespans.
Citation please!
And I bet it won't be scientific. Because in actuality, the Earth's orbit moves out by one micrometre per year (due to tidal interactions between Earth/Sun). So that's 1 metre per million years. Or 4 kilometres in the last 4 billion years. The Sun's only been main sequence for 5 billion years. Since we're 150 million kilometres from the Sun, 4km is lost in the noise.
We also move away slowly due to the Sun losing mass (nuclear reaction turning mass to energy). However, that effect is such that over a period of 10 billion years (the estimated total lifespan of the Sun from start to finish) we will move out 150,000km due to that effect. That still doesn't put us touching the Sun only 100M years ago, given that we are 150 million km from the Sun.
Because the fossilization process prevented them from rotting. This is basic primary school science.
They have been found over and over and over again, mostly observed in microorganisms (because they have very fast lifecycles, which allows us to observe this within our own lifetimes).
But over billions of years, it's a certainty. Your faulty understanding of the age of the planet results in the faulty understanding of just how long life has been around on this planet. Over a few thousand years, you're hardly going to observe any changes in a general population of multicellular life forms. But over billions of years, it's an inevitability.
Says who?
Because multiple species, and survival of the fittest are not mutually exclusive.
Why is preserving the species against natural selection's basic processes? In a social animal, the survival of the individual is enhanced by the survival of the group. This is entirely compatible with the survival of the fittest (which, incidentally, can apply to groups just as well as individuals).
Why?
In any case, survival of the fittest does not imply perfection. Good enough is, well, good enough.
None of the things you list are evidence of anything, they aren't theory, they don't even qualify as hypothesis; at best they are conjecture driven by superstition.
I've been gradually posting less and less on comp.sys.sinclair. But if we extrapolate my posting habits back fifteen years, we find that I would originally have been posting one hundred articles every day.
Because the environment changes, and thus the qualities required to be fittest change. Also, the fittest doesn't necessarily slaughter all the other species.
Funnily enough, morals are not universal. Some people would care about that dead possum. Some people would not care if it were a dead person.
Also, why can't evolution allow an instinct for protection of your own species, exactly? Or for life in general?
The first bit simply isn't true. Anyone can tell if a dog's sad or happy or angry or whatever. Unless you claim that when a dog starts sulking that it's just pretending to have emotions? And that when animals use tools that they're just pretending to be creative?
The second bit - emotions are most likely an unavoidable side effect of something else that is beneficial.
EDIT: Beated, dammit! :)
misteaksmistrakesmisyaleserrurs— oh, sod it.Lockett, are you American by any chance?
Er, actually the word for 10^-6 metres is "micron" -- "micrometre" is too easily confused with "micrometer", which is a measuring instrument.
I agree with your post, however. :)
misteaksmistrakesmisyaleserrurs— oh, sod it.Bollocks on two counts -- (1) all cat and dog owners know from experience that these two species, at least, are quite emotive and (2) since when has creativity been an "emotion"? It may be guided by emotion, but it's an intellectual activity.
Again, all cat and dog owners know from experience that this is total bollocks; for instance, my cat loved Schubert's Unfinished Symphony.
Here, you're either missing or (perhaps more likely) deliberately ignoring my point; both kinds of moth indeed existed, but as I already said, the white ones were predominant -- black moths were much easier for predators to spot against the then-clean buildings, hence much less likely to pass on their genes to the next generation. Come the Industrial Revolution, and dirty air made for dirty buildings, so the white moths became the conspicuous ones, hence the black ones became predoninant (again, I already said this, albeit in lesser detail). Then came the Clean Air Acts, and buildings became clean again, and the white moths came back into their own. Even you should be able to understand this.
OK, I know evolution (supposedly) isn't in the Bible; neither is the Internet, but that doesn't stop fanatics using it to spout nonsense. Besides, who says evolution isn't in the Bible? ISTR Genesis, quite early on [before they did Wind and Wuthering? -- Ed] mentioning something about God calling upon the Earth to produce all plants and animals; who's to say he didn't do this by setting evolution in motion?
misteaksmistrakesmisyaleserrurs— oh, sod it.The important part was understated: all parties to any action under Sharia Law that's been proposed here in Britain would be entered into purely volountarily, and the agreed resolutions would then be backed up by British Law.
So, a divorce under Sharia Law would get recognised by the British legal system.
No one's going to get flogged or amputated, and nothing's going to happen to anyone unless they agree to it beforehand.
That's what I dislike about reality TV.
Yay, the world is a better place again!
misteaksmistrakesmisyaleserrurs— oh, sod it.Oh, I've no argument with many relgious values, but instead with the actual practises of religion, which very often contradict their own teachings.
Yes, and faith is meaningless. Having faith in something means that you have faith in something, and nothing more. Faith doesn't mean truth. Any number of men the world over believe that they are their children's natural fathers, any number of people believe that their spouses are faithful, any number of people have absolute faith in people they trust, and so on, and are wrong. Faith can be right, of course, but that's not caused by the act of faith, but by external influences (external to faith, I mean).
True, I'm not denying our lives are more materialistic now than formerly.
Religions claim to answer those questions, but they really just spout "facts" that have neither basis nor consistancy. Alright, so science will never prove the meaning of life, but then neither will any number of philosphers, and certainly not a corrupt buch of rich men who manipulate religion for their own gains.
(And I believe that science will never prove the meaning of life, or maybe even suspect it, since any meaning (if there is any) must have been born outside the physical laws that we are limited to. I could be wrong, but no-one can prove or disprove this).
I don't, necessarily. But that's what the major religions expect us to believe, so it's that that I base my criticisms upon.
I don't see what you mean, in this context?
I've never heard that before. What evidence is there that it's not just another conspiracy theory? I'm not calling you a liar, just asking for further reading.
And "flood depicted in history the world over"? Where, apart from the Bible is this depicted? A MAJOR event like that would not only be written about in every culture, but there would be factual traces of it all over the world, and it would be a common find amongst archeologists.
Actually, I tend to a similar view. I believe (well, feel would be a far better term) that if there is a creator, then it's a non-conscious (i.e. it's not conscious or sentient in our sense) force that acts to bring things together. Maybe a bit like evolution, only this force isn't just a principle (as Evolution is just a principle) but has definate existence, albeit probably in ways we could never understand with our physical laws.
I have no evidence to support this, no reasoning to explain this, and no real idea of any effects or abilities of this "force". And yes, I realise that by writing this I have painted myself to be as bad as those people I have criticised so often, those who blindly believe something that has no evidence to support it. So please note
a) This is not an absolute belief, it's only an "I think it's the most likely possibility, but I wouldn't bet a penny on it",
b) I believe this only until something that I consider to be more likely comes along,
c) I don't expect anyone else to believe it on my say so, since I realise that I can neither prove it nor even properly explain it (even to myself).
Now if religions would admit those three points, then I'd have far more respect for them.
I'm so sorry mate. I know something of how you feel. My grandmother, a wonderful person (much better than me) died on Christmas morning nearly a decade ago. She had cancer, and we knew she was near the end, and so the whole family was going to go on Christmas day, as it would be her last. Instead, she passed away early morning, and I never got to say goodbye.
I'd have given ten years of my life for her to have lived just one more day.
Is this serious, or sarcasm? You're basically saying that only those who believe, believe? The word of God would be absolute and unmistakable, and totally obvious even to the worst sinners or the most closed minded fools. The fact that anyone can doubt the Bible proves that the Bible is doubtable, and therefore not divinely perfect. The same goes for any other "Words of God" (which usually contradict each other).
True, and I don't think that God's existence is impossible. I think that athiests are as closed minded as those who follow religion. I am an agnostic, meaning that I don't claim to know if there is a God or gods.
However, I do think that if God exists then he doesn't take care of his creations. And I don't see how anyone can intelligently dispute that.
True. Science (and even just our eyes or ears) shows us such wonders, but we tend to ignore the beauty and wonder of it all.
I don't like bad languag (especially since it's so overused nowadays), but I have to say that that one sentence of your makes more sense than all of the "official" responses to the Archbishop's words put together.
Even if you could prove that evolution was wrong, that wouldn't prove that God existed. Evolution is just one theory, albeit a very popular and researched one, but even if you could prove that all sciences, such as evolution, mathematics, electronics were all wrong, that wouldn't make one atom of proof that God exists. And God and evolution are not mutually exclusive, God might have made the world and us via radiation, mutation, evolution etc.
And even if the theory of evolution is full of flaws, then so what? It's just a theory, and a theory is never set in stone, but is revised when improvements are discovered. Yet the religious people say "this is so", and expect us to believe it unquestioningly. Yet they provide no proof at all. A scientist will offer you proof of evolution, and he will admit that there are gaps in the theory. He'll explain why he believes in the theory, and will listen to you, and if you can suggest a better reason or explanation for something then he'll consider it. A religious man will offer you no proof, and will not listen to criticism of his beliefs, and will not change his beliefs no matter how many flaws you point out.
Assuming he did exist. And assuming he was the son of God. And even if he did exist, was divine, and did come down to Earth, that's no proof today, as he's long gone.
Tell me, where's Jesus now? People are starving to death, getting blown up in wars, children the world over are suffering unimaginable abuse. People are murdering other people, sometimes in the name of God. Those who claim to follow God's word are living in luxury, whilst the preach poverty and watch countless millions die in squalor. Disease is rampant across the world, as is intolerance and evil. So where's the all compassionate Jesus, eh? And why doesn't Jesus come to me now, eh, and show me that he exists. Better yet, why didn't His Perfectness help my Grandmother when she was ill? Or twenty years earlier when my Grandfather was ill. Why didn't super-Jesus step in in the crusades, and stop them? Or why, when Jesus cured the ten lepers, did he not irradicate leperasy totally? Why didn't he remove all diseases and all evil fully? In fact, why did old God/Allah/Jeovah etc allow evil and suffering at all?
If God exists, then He has no sense of responsibility.
Charles Manson? Adolph Hitler? Look at the fever they generated, and the loyalty of some of their followers. And anyway, how do you know that the disciples acted as the Bible says they did?
Money and power, that's how the Church grew. Especially with the (frankly brilliant, from a business point of view) way that the Church claimed that they could absolve sins on the sinner's deathbed, so that the sinner got a free pass in Heaven, but the sinner should sign all of his propery to the Church. Why do you think that the Catholic church has Confession, where you confess your sins and the priest absolves you? Do you really think that any man has the right to absolve another's sins? Surely only God can do that. But the Catholic Church said that they could, and it made them a Fortune.
Prove that.
1) I've heard from educated people that there are many books that have been edited out altogether, to say nothing of the changes introduced along the way.
2) How can you say there have been no changes? At the very least, you must admist that the Bible has been translated, or do you believe that the Bible was written in English? And no translation is ever perfect, even with the best will in the world. And those who support the Bible have a vested interest in making it support their own words and claims.
If the Divine Truth were already inside us, then we'd know and recognise it instantly, as it would be undeniable to any of us.
(Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy)
Try looking into Christianity sometime. Jesus was dirt poor, and preached that money and worldly goods were worthless, and only spiritual wealth and the love of God and his children was important.
And I've never seen a religion yet that taught contrary to that. Though they often practise quite the opposite.
And Jesus said "It's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into Heaven". Which to me means that no rich man can get into Heaven. Or do you think that camels can somehow shrink themselves down to less than a millimeter.
And yes, I've heard it said that it's not to be taken literally, or that the "eye of a needle" means something different, or whatever, but that's disproving that Jesus said it at all, as surely Jesus' words would be unambivalent and unmistakable for all time?
I can't provide a modern example (I don't follow politics, money or business), but before you accuse me of speaking without evidence, let me just say that in the past religion has always been used to feather the nests of the leaders, and since human nature has not changed, then I see no reason to suspect that this has changed. Tell me, has the Vatican sold it's priceless works of arts, it's countless jewels and precious artifacts, it's vast arrays of fine furnitures and other possessions, and given the money to feed the third world and to house the homeless?
No. And when Osama Bin Laden told the people (I'd love to type something else there but I'll keep it clean) who were going to suicide fly into the twin towers that they'd receive eternal paradise and a bunch of virgins in Heaven for their service to God, do you think that Bin Laden was struggling to find money to pay for his next pair of shoes? Of course not, he's amulti-millionaire even taking into account the money known to be his. And it's rumoured that some people made a fortune on the stock exchange because of 9/11, so what's the betting that Bin Laden and co had a flutter on there?
Actually, I have felt sad when I saw a dead cat by the road. I've never seen a possum alive or dead (I'm in England), but I'd feel sad if I saw a dead one, as I do like and empathise with animals. Though I would feel worse if it was a dead human.
And why should "survival of the fittest" prevent us from thinking of the good of the whole?
And in the book, the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, regarding the part where a whale dies, Douglas Adams (the author) received letters of complaints, and he later said that he believed that if it was a human who'd died then probably no-one would complained. Come to that, in the game Carmageddon 2, I had no objection to running over humans in my car, but I never ran over the dogs.
Humans are certainly not the only species with emotions. I have five cats, and they do have genuine emotions. As do dogs. I know a woman who's spent time looking after dolphins and she tells me that they can be very moody (which I didn't think, I'd assumed that since they were so intelligent that they'd be above our failings!).
I've also heard that horses, camels and some tropical birds have emotions. Maybe all complex enough creatures have emotions (so maybe not insects or fish, I have no idea), but I know from my own experience that dogs and cats can feel contentment, curiosity, love, anger, fear and dislike. They also dream sometimes.
I don't know about creating art (can Elephants really create anything worth calling "art"?) but I do know that both dogs and some birds can recognise and respond to music, even without being trained to, and this is from personal experiece. I've never seen a cat respond to music, but that doesn't mean that they don't.
The Romans were extremely superstitious people. In the fourth century, shortly before a crucial battle, one of the claimants to the Imperial title had a dream/had a vision (no one seems to know for sure) he didn't understand but thought might be relevant. He described the dream and one of his servants, a Christian, told him that it meant the god of the Christians had favoured him. This claimant was a pagan but he was troubled by the dream; if he painted a christian symbol on his shields as his Christian servant insisted he was defying Jupiter and risked his wrath. On the other hand, if the Christian god was stronger than Jupiter then it might allow him to win. In the end he painted the Christian symbol and won the battle. To a superstitious Roman this could only mean one thing: the god of the Christians was stronger than the old pagan gods.
The claimant was Constantine who made Christianity the Roman state religion. The superstitious Romans saw that a man who had used a christian symbol had triumphed and could only interpret it as Constantine had. This, not people discovering some sort of "inner truth", was how Christianity triumphed over the old pagan gods in a manner of decades. The idea that Constantine had simply won the battle through superior tactics/troops didn't come into the superstitious Roman mentality. It's something historians often overlook but they put just about everything down to pleasing the gods and fate (it's for this reason that ancient Romans used astrology and the like so much). From a historical perspective, if Constantine hadn't had his dream or hadn't had close Christian advisors then he'd have probably sacrificed to Jupiter, won the battle and things would have gone on as normal.
It's also worth noting that Constantine romanised Christianity. Constantine appeared to read the Christian god in a very Roman way: ie that he had pleased him through devotion and his god had rewarded him with power. He did not become monk-like. He continued to fight battles and kill people like previous Roman emperors did but changed pagan rituals to Christian ones. Whilst the Roman empire became Christian, christianity itself fused with Roman values. The idea of a Christian emperor or a christian army or a single, unified christian church with a heirarchy pretty much begun in the fourth century.
Exactly. Christs words seem pretty straight-up to me and they certainly were to many early Christians who shunned worldy riches. The "re-interpretation" thing came later when the Christian world became rich and people wanted to believe that Jesus hadn't really meant it. Given that they got over "thou shalt not kill" so quickly it didn't take much effort for a theologian to decide "actually, this isn't what Christ meant at all, my wealthy brothers and sisters..."
The History channel had a show on this a couple of weeks back. They mentioned several different regions/cultures having "experienced" the same, i.e. a devastating flood.
Problem was that the written/carved/hewn-out-of-rock evidence was put down on their different mediums at different times, several hundred or thousand years apart.
That might indicate that these cultures did experience floods but years and years apart. Or on the other hand they might have experienced the same flood at the same time but not been able to write about it until long time later when they were able to transfer the oral stories into writing.
OR his sense of responsibility is so great and just that he is willing to grant us completely free will and thought and he allows us to run around causing all sort of havoc because that is what we wanted to experiment with, i.e. free will.
I paraphrase heavily and put together different sections into one whole here but according to the Bible wasn't it Satan who said "Hey buddy, they're just following you because you made them that way and not because they do it out of their own free will (gettit, pun intended)" So god said, "Ok, I'll step back and they can exercise their Free Will(TM) but there will come a day when they will each be judged according to their own acts, hmmm, let's call it Judgment Day(TM)."
So that may perhaps very conveniently explain all the suffering, mankind brought it upon themselves because they truly can not guide their own two legs, there will always be discord between people when alone in the wilderness.
/D.A mode off.
The History channel show conveniently left out that theory. Interesting thing was that they did mention that South America, China and Australia (iIrc) had these oral stories of "a great flood". I say "interesting" because usually the flood stories center around the Mediterranean. The ice age global sea level thing explains things away very conveniently though.
come on FFS
nobody has said it should be introduced, it never will, its not the end of "britain", muslims arent taking over, its not a government idea to introduce it.
all the archbishop said was.........we should be creating a better tolerance between "us" and "them" and some bits of sharia law WOULD give them encouragement to integrate.
but as i said it never will. so people will you get off the muslim hysteria bandwagon.
Think its a bit OTT as combined with a few crazy muslim fanatic views of 'we want a muslim state in the UK' people are panicking a bit too much.
Still think if anyone comes here they should live by our laws though, having different laws for different religions is asking for trouble again.
:lol: :lol:
It's the Archbishop's way of phrasing it that we object to, as it's so open to misinterpretation. For someone in such a public position, he should really think his words through carefully.
If that's so then firstly, God has no right to allow us to hurt ourselves and one another (would you stand by and let your children harm and kill each other?), and where do disease, natural disasters, famine etc fit into the whole "free will" thing? Those forms of suffering are not imposed on us by each other, so why do they exist? And if we have free will then why are we born in such very different circumstances (rich, poor, healthy, crippled or riddled with cancer, intelligent, stupid, pretty, ugly etc), despite "all men are born equal" being taught to us? We only have limited free will, or many people would have cured cancer, or saved their dying children, or done so many other things that were denied them.
[/quote]
What is it in the Sharia law that is different from the UK law?
You can stone your wife to death if she sits next to another man in Starbucks?
Hinduism has a flood story. There's a terrible flood. Manu survives, and we're all his descendants. Allegedly. Time for a linguistic aside. Hindi has two words for 'man': 'admi', and 'manav'. The first comes from Arabic, and means 'son of Adam'. The second comes from Sanskrit, and means 'descendant of Manu'. It's also where the English word 'man' comes from - one of those rare examples where the shared heritage of English and Hindi is visible.
Hard or weak atheism? A hard atheist would state that there is no god or gods. A weak atheist would say that there is no evidence for god(s), so the theory is not worth considering. Even Richard Dawkins considers himself one of the latter. He can't rule out the existence of a god, but considers it as unlikely as flying spaghetti monsters, and orbiting teapots.
At school we had a good RE teacher who gave a good, unbiased, overview of various religions. Even Aztec Sun worship! In fact he told us that he considered Sun worship fairly sensible in comparison to many other beliefs. The Sun exists, and life (deep sea vent beasties excluded) doesn't work without it. He gave an interesting lesson on the subject: 'Messiah'. In it he demonstrated how Hitler could be seen as a Messiah. It was good to be made to think, but sadly he retired and was replaced by a Russian Orthodox priest.
If I'm the "resident nutcase", then there's no point in my answering any further arguments, or even remaining on this forum. I think that it would be best if I just left, and left everyone else to discuss other, more relevant topics. My leaving would improve this forum.
I'm sorry for running this thread into the ground.
Could my account be deleted?
Have you looked at all at any random WoS thread?
It's a given there will be fists flying. Just shake it off and continue to plod along here , your skin becomes slightly thicker and you might grow some hairs on your moles along the way. No need to go run off. Where would you go? Some C-64 forum, or something ;-)
No need to get your knickers in a twist! This is one of the tamer discussions in the history of these forums.
Leave me out of this! Anyway, what would you know? You've only been here since January... ;)
If you're going to bring up religion, you have to get used to turning the other cheek ;)