Cameron documentary claims to have found Jesus' Tomb. Oh, and dead body too...

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Azure

There is none.

Now if you're the type of person who has to see things before you actually believe it, I guess Christianity isn't your type of religion.

There are many other religions that worship the sun, the moon, some idol in a dark room....perhaps they would better suit you if you demand evidence that whomever you worship exists.

Hey man, I'm not disagreeing with you. That's why it's called faith.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

If you ask me, many of those picketers are not taking that statement to heart and are probably hating the sinners just as much as the percieved sin. Picketing and verbally abusing and encouraging violence or discrimation in that manner can easily be "tossing the first stone". Remember free speech is a secular institution, there is no such thing in the Bible.

Aye, and I would say to you that those people who stand in picket lines, such as the Fred Phelps crowds, are hateful people, and they hate both the sin and the sinner.

But then again, I wouldn't call his church Christian either. But who am I to judge?

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Same question the other way around. What evidence is there that God does exist? I assume a lot of folks would say, look at the world around you, but is that really evidence of God? Is it evidence of the God that Christianity believes in?

Religion is a tool to comfort the idea of the unexplainable. Genesis and Revelations are a way to define finite time for existence because we viewed everything as finite in our existence. Depending on your perspective the universe, time, etc is finite or infinite. Dealing with infinity is mind bending sometimes.

I never claimed to have evidence God/Bible/Jesus etc did exist. I dont need it. The post clearly indicates that he/she must have some SCIENTIFIC evidence to the contrary that they dont exist.

As such it is up to him/her to provide the burden of proof.

If you say person X killed person Y you need evidence to prove that. You dont go around asking you need evidence it didnt happen.

MYK

[photon]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

since "science" clearly believes we came from monkeys (or an offshoot of such)

Oh, and that's not what "science" believes.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Perhaps if you'd read through the whole thread you'd noticed that both me and FF have said a true Christian should not hate homosexuals.

The misconception you're making is that if Christians hate homosexuality, and don't agree with gay marriage, they automatically hate homosexuals.

I've already read the whole thread; thanks!

Caramon said:

Interesting... Why is Gay marriage the scapegoat then?

I haven't heard anyone on here asking for marriages to be annulled because a M/F couple engages in Sodomy. That in itself is bias. The reason a lot of people have been accusing the "Christian" community of attacking gays is because their actions speak louder than words.

You said:

Don't you think it is their right to voice their opinion? Seems to me you want to take away their free speech because they disagree with you on something.

I'm just pointing out that you claimed (falsely) that his post was in favour of removing an opposition group's right of free speech, when he was doing nothing of the kind, that wasn't his implication or in what he said. Nice smear.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Sure, and everyone has a right to their beliefs. I think it strikes some people as funny/odd that one person would choose to believe in Cherubs, Seraphins, golden bugles, stars leading shepherds, virgin conception, transcendence, transmutation, eating the 'literal' body and blood of Christ (Catholics) every Sunday, etc, etc.

Outside of virgin conception, and eating the literal body and blood of Christ, which I don't believe anyways, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Golden Bugles? Never heard it mentioned in my church.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Absolutely I see a difference. In He planned it, it means that He made humans specifically to screw up in order to ensure that He'd have to do all this other stuff. In He planned for it, He made humans to be His companions, knowing our inherent flaws and taking them into consideration. He didn't plan them to happen, but He knew they would. That's what happens when you have free will.

I don't know what term you'd like me to use because obviously you're deliberately being obtuse here. Does it matter what I say when I say He created an easier method, a different way, whatever the heck you want to call it! It doesn't matter what the term is.

Are they His mistakes or are they ours? We don't have to be such royal screw ups. He didn't make the mistake. He gave us free will because He cared enough to do so, knowing that with it, we'd bring upon our own destruction, we'd have our own companionship and wouldn't need His anymore, and eventually, we'd turn our backs on Him.

And 2000 years ago the rules made perfect sense. Then we became overpopulated and started living in cities and we needed group worship just to have any kind of worship at all and we changed our own rules.

Why should God not take into consideration that time moves forward and with it, so does knowledge and language? As a matter of fact, He does, or He tried to knowing that we were dependant on the language written 2000 years ago when he started talking about drying up a river and a 100 million man army and the mark of the beast. Do you think they understood any of what they were writing? Does it make more sense now? Certainly. He knew the limitations of language at the time, and knew what the world would become. He wrote the Book of Revelation in a language that's 2000 years old. They didn't have words like technology and computer back then, so He worked with what He had in order to create something we can interpret in todays language. I'd say that's pretty good. He has given us a warning and told us to take heed. He has told us exactly what the signs are so we know when to prepare for His return. That's a pretty forgiving Father, no?

What I'm saying is this: God took into consideration that our desire for knowledge would lead us to different places over the course of time. As such, He also needed to implement change. He knew that humans would evolve and overpopulate the planet and develop technology etc. If there was no Jesus, and there were more Jews because of it, what would the world look like today with people burning all the animals that we now eat? Do you think He really didn't see that we would starve to death? So He said we can stop now. You need that to eat. (Again, just another example...) He HAS taken this into consideration which is why His rules change.

The god you describe sounds decidedly imperfect and a lot more obtuse than I am.

I'm not familiar with this "burning animals" business. What that all about and what was the point?

And do I think they understood any of what they were writing? Yes.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Even though we're way off-topic now... I have to say that your defense of polygamy is really just a band-aid solution to the root problem in today's society... namely, laziness, apathy, self-centeredness and entitlement.

I'm playing devil's advocate here... I don't agree with polygamy at all.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by photon

You cannot prove a negative (i.e. you cannot prove there is no God) so the burden of proof falls to the person who is proposing the existance of that thing. You can't go the other way, logically it does not work.

As for things like the global flood that covered the entire earth, there is lots of evidence that it never happened and little evidence that it did.




You can't be serious. You do know that men and women have the same number of ribs don't you?

Of course taking away evidnce that you've used to support your position won't make you reconsider your position, will it?

The problem is I believe the Bible and things I see around me happening are the proof I need. I NEVER STATED THAT I NEED SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. The OP of this rant indicated that all religion is BS if its not. I can provide proof, its not up to me to scientifically prove they exist, I never said I could or needed to. Its up to the person to said there is NO scientific evidence to prove it.

I gave the easiest example I could think if (male vs femal ribs). That is clear cut evidence and I have my "proof" for it. Now its up to the scientific community to come up with their proof to disprove it. Its not up to me to prove it scientifically because my belief is that is has nothing to do with evolution.

MYK

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Outside of virgin conception, and eating the literal body and blood of Christ, which I don't believe anyways, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Golden Bugles? Never heard it mentioned in my church.

You've never seen images/heard description of angelic hosts singing/playing trumpets? Huh... I guess you're not as immersed in the whole thing as I thought... I remember that stuff vividly from Christian school/church.

What I'm talking about is fantasy-type stuff that Christians believe in, like St. Peter waiting at pearly gates. This is easy stuff for a bright guy like you.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I was not the one who demanded evidence he DOESNT exist as the post clearly indicates (yellow stars for science, red icons for religion).

When you write a flame post and have nothing to back it up then its up to YOU to defend youself.

I NEVER said there is scientific proof God does exists, I believe it on faith and that is enough for me. Too many times people let stuff go on this forum and I will not let this go.

The post is clear flame bait to say that all religion is BS because it isnt based on science.

I have been baited and will not let this go until an answer is posted. When you are an adult and you say something like that you should have the morale fibre to at least back it up.

I dont post horses are puprle with no evidence to back it up. The poster never intended it to be a joke, there is no emoticon in his/her post.

Thanks

MYK

I thing religious people are doing themelves a deservice if they don't use their intelligence to analyze what they believe. But I do agree that faith is something that cannot be experienced intellectually. In fact, in my experience, they cannot co-exist. Nobody is trying to bait you or insult Christianity. There is no need to be so defensive. Kermitology has a point that atheism requires just as much a leap of faith intellectually as religion to accept that the universe is just as it is, a random, chaotic entity that is extraordinarily organized for something without any intelligent design. That may simply be a limitation of human vision.

Religious people, don't accept things without scrutinizing them with your god-given intelligence. Don't believe in something to the abandon of all rational thought because you can be easily decieved by human nature. What makes what you believe right and the majority of all other people wrong today and probably throughout history?

Atheists/Agnostics, don't accept that religion is patently false simply because there is no empircal evidence or proof of it's existence. Faith cannot be experienced intellectually. You cannot demand that religious people prove what they believe in. But you can question the things they believe in and whether or not they make any rational sense.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I'm playing devil's advocate here... I don't agree with polygamy at all.

I was sure you were, but even the idea of it, especially for that reason, is just dreadful.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

You've never seen images/heard description of angelic hosts singing/playing trumpets? Huh... I guess you're not as immersed in the whole thing as I thought... I remember that stuff vividly from Christian school/church.

And you get Golden Bugles from that?

Thats the stuff I was read as a bedtime story when I was a child.

What I'm talking about is fantasy-type stuff that Christians believe in, like St. Peter waiting at pearly gates. This is easy stuff for a bright guy like you.

Oh sure, I know all about the jokes with St. Peter waiting at the pearly gates. Doesn't mean I believe it.

Its humor.

[photon]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

The post clearly indicates that he/she must have some SCIENTIFIC evidence to the contrary that they dont exist.

As such it is up to him/her to provide the burden of proof.

If you say person X killed person Y you need evidence to prove that. You dont go around asking you need evidence it didnt happen.

MYK

That's not how it works.. It's impossible to prove God does not exist, correct? You could spend 10 lifetimes coming up with tons of research as to why God may not exist, but it still would never disprove it. That's placing an unreasonable burden.

Therefore one takes the position that until evidence is provided to the existance of God, one does not believe in God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_...ogical_fallacy)

Your example of x person killed y is opposite, you're proving a positive (that x person killed y), and then you describe exactly why it's a fallacy (you can't prove x didn't kill y). The default position is x didn't kill y because you can't prove a negative.

That's a bit simplistic because you can sometimes prove a negative, or have enough doubt around a negative to make the position highly unlikely, but that's the general idea.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by photon

Oh, and that's not what "science" believes.

I never mentioned monkey to compuer user eveolution.

I mean money to X to Y to Z to man evolution theory. I assume using Darwinian forces to guide evolution.

According to the BBC that theory still exists althought it has changed some what:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4991470.stm

What other theory is there that indicates man is not an offshoot (perhaps very distant) of a monkey?

MYK

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

You've never seen images/heard description of angelic hosts singing/playing trumpets? Huh... I guess you're not as immersed in the whole thing as I thought... I remember that stuff vividly from Christian school/church.

What I'm talking about is fantasy-type stuff that Christians believe in, like St. Peter waiting at pearly gates. This is easy stuff for a bright guy like you.

I'm no expert but that stuff usually falls under the culturally and socially created imagery that doesn't actually exist in the bible. Sure there are verses about trumpets and angels and heavenly hosts but there is no St. Peter at the gates. Nobody knows what happened to Peter after he had a vision about lots of good stuff to eat like lobster and pork. Yum Yum.

There is a lot of stuff Christians seem to take for granted that isn't actually stated explicitly in the bible. For instance, I've often heard Christians explaining the origin of evil and it generally goes that Satan was an archangel and him and his followers rebelled and then falling from grace into hell. However, none of that is actually in the bible and he's not even in Hell (which is also a matter of contention as to whether or not it exists or not outside of analogy). According to the Bible, Satan is on earth.

Another fun point is the name Lucificer (which actually means light-bringer in Latin, doesn't sound like a very super-evil name at all). That's actually a mistranslation of god of the "morning-star" from a verse by St. Jerome but people seem to have taken that name and imagery into common parlance and belief that it means "the devil" without even realizing it. Lucifer is actually a good name. There was a Bishop Lucifer once.

[photon]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

The problem is I believe the Bible and things I see around me happening are the proof I need. I NEVER STATED THAT I NEED SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. The OP of this rant indicated that all religion is BS if its not. I can provide proof, its not up to me to scientifically prove they exist, I never said I could or needed to. Its up to the person to said there is NO scientific evidence to prove it.

I gave the easiest example I could think if (male vs femal ribs). That is clear cut evidence and I have my "proof" for it. Now its up to the scientific community to come up with their proof to disprove it. Its not up to me to prove it scientifically because my belief is that is has nothing to do with evolution.

MYK

See my previous post. I'm not saying it's up to YOU to scientifically provide proof. But if someone takes the position that there is no God, then they have to either find proof or have proof shown to them that there is (if they want to take it on evidence, not faith).

If the person says there is no scientific evidence, the burden of proof again can't be on them; it is impossible to prove it. One would have to evaluate all scientific proof ever (again if they're trying to prove it by evidence).

And disproving your "evidence" against evolution is easy. Go find a male skeleton, and a female skeleton. Count the ribs. They are the same. EDIT: Disproven rather.

[photon]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I never mentioned monkey to compuer user eveolution.

I mean money to X to Y to Z to man evolution theory. I assume using Darwinian forces to guide evolution.

According to the BBC that theory still exists althought it has changed some what:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4991470.stm

What other theory is there that indicates man is not an offshoot (perhaps very distant) of a monkey?

MYK

Did you read the article? It says it in the first line. "Humans and chimpanzees may have split away from a common ancestor far more recently than was previously thought."

It's not monkey, x, y ,z, man.. it's a common ancestor where two groups of that ancestor diverged over time eventually becoming separate species. It's more like millions of shades of colours instead of red then green then blue then orange (if colours were "species").

How is it possible to argue against something when the very basics of that thing aren't understood?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

What other theory is there that indicates man is not an offshoot (perhaps very distant) of a monkey?

MYK

It's not the man is an offshoot of a monkey but that both have a common ancestor. Many Christians have reconciled that evolution is genuine and is a force of creation and that Genesis should not be taken literally. Would you agree to something like that? It's better than being closed minded or ignorant about the basics of a subject you are trying to argue against.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by photon

That's not how it works.. It's impossible to prove God does not exist, correct? You could spend 10 lifetimes coming up with tons of research as to why God may not exist, but it still would never disprove it. That's placing an unreasonable burden.

Therefore one takes the position that until evidence is provided to the existance of God, one does not believe in God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_...ogical_fallacy)

Your example of x person killed y is opposite, you're proving a positive (that x person killed y), and then you describe exactly why it's a fallacy (you can't prove x didn't kill y). The default position is x didn't kill y because you can't prove a negative.

That's a bit simplistic because you can sometimes prove a negative, or have enough doubt around a negative to make the position highly unlikely, but that's the general idea.

OK, the last time I will post this.

I MENTIONED THE WHOLE RIB THING (MALE VS FEMALE) AS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT COULD BE USED and now you can have actual proof and to use as a starting point to scientifically disprove the reason why.

I realize its impossible for me to prove it scientifically - I dont need to. Why do I prefer brunettes and dispise thongs - I cant prove why scientifically but I know thats what I believe

Its like I illuded to earlier, if I make a post that says horses are purple then its up to me to prove it, not for you to disprove it.

The op post inplied that all religion is BS because I assume science has disproved it. If that is the case then its up to the op to provide the evidence disproving it.

MYK