Do you believe in God ?

[Pelle]

I like the image of God jumping out through a door with a "Boo".

[BOF]

Because the gap between out intelligence and everything else on this earth is astounding. I believe we have a soul, and the capacity to ponder life itself, and the stars, and how everything works, that's the difference.

That's a hugely ignorant thing to say. We have absolutely no idea whether other creatures are able to "ponder life itself" etc. Until they are able to communicate to us in a way that we can understand properly (we're too thick to understand sonar for example) whether they can or not it is pure guesswork on our part. And at the risk of going back to the whole science v religion thing it is typical of religion and it's followers to assume one thing and close off to other possibilities whereas scientists are still trying to ascertain exactly how sentient and conscious animals are.

[TheDon]

But this is not scientific FACT. It is OPINION.

"Since the human-chimp split about 6 million years ago, chimpanzee genes can be said to have evolved more than human genes, a new study suggests."

I read the heading, I thought, utter nonsense. I read the first 2 lines, not only did it change the subject, as in it's just their "genes" that are supposedly more evolved, as the title would not lead you to think, but the article itself admits its not FACT. And the second paragraph it says it contradicts "conventional wisdom", that is to say it contradicts other study's.

You really are quite ignorant aren't you?

Firstly, do you understand what evolution is? Let me break it down for you, it's the process of change which occurs within the genes.

Guess how you measure evolution? You look at the amount of changed genes from one time period to the next.

If more genes have changed in one species than another, that species is MORE EVOLVED. That I'm afraid is pure concrete SCIENTIFIC FACT. There is no room for opinion there, if a higher percentage of one species genes have changed in comparison to anothers, it's more evolved. It doesn't mean the evolution is beneficial, or even effects anything, it could all be mutations in junk DNA, it just means it's more evolved.

Once again, just to make sure you get this simple fact, there is nothing else that can evolve, evolution is the evolution of genes, period, that is it. Evolution occurs when genes change.

"Conventional wisdom" = what everyone normally thinks. IT DOES NOT mean it contradicts other studies, else it would say "previous studies" conventional wisdom = what your every day joe on the street who hasn't really studied this believes.

Please do me a favour and spend just 10minutes reading about evolution so you can actually understand this rather than just posting misinformed rubbish that would take all of 30seconds to find out you're wrong.

[Brumerican]

It's funny really. A lot of people in the 'science versus religion' argument think they are arguing one side against the other. When they're not. Strictly speaking, neither side knows for sure. So what they're really arguing is each side's willingness to find out the truth. Science is trying to find out whereas religion isn't. And that's where my problem lies with religion. It is a totally closed mind.

If, after science has found all the answers, it turns out God is sitting behind a door ready to go 'Boo', the religious people will say 'told you so' despite never trying to find out for sure. Science will not have been proven wrong, it will have done exactly what science does. It finds answers. Science is not trying to disprove God. It is trying to prove one way or the other. It doesn't care either way, it. just. wants. answers. It's just that zealots on the atheism side use science as their hope to disprove God whereas zealots on the religion side stick their fingers in their ears and shout 'la la la' whenever something new turns up. Safe that they have the 'faith' card every time.

If, on the other hand, science finds that there definitely is no God, I somehow doubt religion will accept this conclusion because religion is, as I said, a closed book resistant to change.

I'll stick with the open minds thanks.

Couldn't agree more. What a lot of religious people fail to realise is that science doesnt have an agenda. It definitely isnt setting out to disprove god. It just so happens that as a result of science, the notion of god becomes less likely more and more as it advances.

[Jondaken]

Please do me a favour and spend just 10minutes reading about evolution so you can actually understand this rather than just posting misinformed rubbish that would take all of 30seconds to find out you're wrong.

I will. I have already looked into it a fair bit, but clearly not enough to sit and debate it.

[TheDon]

I'm out, you are contradicting yourself all over the place.

Just like the bible.

Oh come on, like the bible would do that!

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Wait, was that man was created first or animals were? I'm confused.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Errr, were man and woman created at the same time, or man first? I DON'T KNOW!

Wait, I'm just copy pasting someone elses work, so I guess this doesn't count as evidence.

[Brumerican]

Because the gap between out intelligence and everything else on this earth is astounding. I believe we have a soul, and the capacity to ponder life itself, and the stars, and how everything works, that's the difference.

These are just body's for our souls, spirit, w/e you want to call it. They do not go anywhere after we die.

And where is your evidence for this ?

You didnt post anything? You still looking for your evidence that confirms the existence of human souls and that our bodies are mere receptacles?

Saying that you believe it to be true doesnt mean anything. I could say I believe I have a unicorn and a leprechaun in my cupboard, but unless I prove it you would think I was crazy. Why is god any different to a unicorn or a leprechaun? There is ZERO evidence to suggest the existence of unicorns, leprechauns or gods, but not many people doubt that unicorns and leprechauns don't exist?

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof"

Christopher Hitchens

[Jondaken]

Because the gap between out intelligence and everything else on this earth is astounding. I believe we have a soul, and the capacity to ponder life itself, and the stars, and how everything works, that's the difference.

These are just body's for our souls, spirit, w/e you want to call it. They do not go anywhere after we die.

And where is your evidence for this ?

You didnt post anything? You still looking for your evidence that confirms the existence of human souls and that our bodies are mere receptacles?

Saying that you believe it to be true doesnt mean anything. I could say I believe I have a unicorn and a leprechaun in my cupboard, but unless I prove it you would think I was crazy. Why is god any different to a unicorn or a leprechaun? There is ZERO evidence to suggest the existence of unicorns, leprechauns or gods, but not many people doubt that unicorns and leprechauns don't exist?

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof"

Christopher Hitchens

I though you were on about "evidence"? Thats evidence to me. Why would a soulless spirit less sack of bones care if the stars shine, care if there was a God or not, care how this keyboard worked?

It's evidence to me, its part of the reason I'm a christian, its not evidence to you.

[Brumerican]

I'm out, you are contradicting yourself all over the place.

Just like the bible.

Oh come on, like the bible would do that!

Just for fun

God good to all, or just a few?

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

War or Peace?

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Who is the father of Joseph?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

The shape of the earth

ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Astronomical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from anyplace. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed.

Thats just a few. There are a lot, lot more.

[Brumerican]

Because the gap between out intelligence and everything else on this earth is astounding. I believe we have a soul, and the capacity to ponder life itself, and the stars, and how everything works, that's the difference.

These are just body's for our souls, spirit, w/e you want to call it. They do not go anywhere after we die.

And where is your evidence for this ?

You didnt post anything? You still looking for your evidence that confirms the existence of human souls and that our bodies are mere receptacles?

Saying that you believe it to be true doesnt mean anything. I could say I believe I have a unicorn and a leprechaun in my cupboard, but unless I prove it you would think I was crazy. Why is god any different to a unicorn or a leprechaun? There is ZERO evidence to suggest the existence of unicorns, leprechauns or gods, but not many people doubt that unicorns and leprechauns don't exist?

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof"

Christopher Hitchens

I though you were on about "evidence"? Thats evidence to me. Why would a soulless spirit less sack of bones care if the stars shine, care if there was a God or not, care how this keyboard worked?

It's evidence to me, its part of the reason I'm a christian, its not evidence to you.

Its not evidence though is it? Its a feeling you have.

[kurtsimonw]

A number of you DO NOT DISCUSS ....YOU DISMISS!!

This post is not intended to poke fun or anything, but there's 2 points I'd like to make on this quote.

1) If somebody walked upto me in the street and told me of talking snakes, people rising from the dead, etc. I would dismiss it immediately, I'd probably keep my distance from that person for good. We're not dismissing it because we just disagree with it, we dismiss it because it is quite unrealistic. I am sure if somebody came upto you proclaiming to be the son of an almighty being you'd dismiss it completely. Just because it's written in an old book doesn't give it anymore truth than if someone were to say it today.

2) I think people of faith, in general, are the dismissive ones, not those who question religion. If by saying God doesn't exist or that he never created the universe is dismissive, then that's exactly the same as people saying God does exist and that he created the universe.. you're just dismissing everything we believe in (or don't believe in).

Anyways, one question I do have, as my understanding of Chrstianity isn't all that good. When exactly was the bible supposedly written, or wstarted to be written? Who wrote it? How did they have the knowledge to know as far back as to the day that God created the first humans? As I say, I don't know much about it so I can't answer this myself, but I just can't believe that somebody would have known what went in in the very beginning.

I am in agreement with BOF. Science wans to prove it's right. Religion is happy with not being able to be proven wrong. I know which one I'm happier with.

[dundeevilla]

I'm out, you are contradicting yourself all over the place.

This is possibly the most ironic post ever written in VT's history.

[Brumerican]

I'm out, you are contradicting yourself all over the place.

This is possibly the most ironic post ever written in VT's history.

Without a doubt. Some people have zero self awareness.

[TrentVilla]

A number of you DO NOT DISCUSS ....YOU DISMISS!!

To be fair Julie you have been dismissive of some of the points against religion, Its what happens when people discuss a subject like this from an entrenched view point.

You are every bit as entrenched in your views as those who take the opposite view point on the science v religion debate.

[Brumerican]

Jondaken, this is 4 minutes long and hopefully should be of some benefit to you.

[Santa_Rosa]

My answers are now likened to a sketch off Billy Connolly wanking! That's the final straw..

I didn't mean to cause offence Julie. I thought it was a light hearted way of poking fun at the concept of God caring about insignificant things. I think it's also quite a good comment on how religion and the concept of sin, confession and making people feel guilty for responding to natural urges is a ridiculous notion, invented to make the masses behave in such a way so that the church can control them.

The point about being busy enough with Bosnia was also relevant IMO. People being killed in the name of religion in the same way as they have for centuries. My god is better than your god. If that's an example of how people who beleive in God behave then you can keep it.

As for dismissing and not discussing, I've lost count of the amount of times a reasonable point has been made or question been posed by dundeevilla, TheDon or Brumerican (TheDon's point on the original couple and brumerican's 'orb' question are two examples) only to be ignored .

[mjmooney]

Why would a soulless spirit less sack of bones care if the stars shine, care if there was a God or not, care how this keyboard worked?

Because curiosity was evolutionarily advantageous.

We are hardwired to look for cause-and-effect (even where doing so makes no sense).What you call a "soul", I call a "mind" (i.e. consciousness, which is a function of the workings of our physical brains). The terminology hardly matters.

The non-sequitur is the assumption that because we have a sense of wonder and concepts such as good, evil, truth and beauty, they must have been put there by some mystical super-being. Occam's razor applies - the simpler explanation will suffice.

Why are we here? Well where ELSE would we be?

[Jondaken]

I'm out, you are contradicting yourself all over the place.

Just like the bible.

Oh come on, like the bible would do that!

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Wait, was that man was created first or animals were? I'm confused.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Errr, were man and woman created at the same time, or man first? I DON'T KNOW!

Wait, I'm just copy pasting someone elses work, so I guess this doesn't count as evidence.

Just saw this post.

The 1st one you quoted is when God did indeed make animals that live on land. The second was when he brought them to the man. He did not make them twice duh! Some translations got it wrong, or missed words out. There should be the word "had" in there, indicating past tense. Something along the lines of "And Gotd had created every beast of the earth, and brought them to Adam". At work atm but I'll maybe find a direct quote later if you're interested.

As for the 3rd and 4th quotes, there can be too many conotations of the 3rd quote for it to be clear that what is meant is that he created female humans there and then.

As for the jelousy one I noticed a few days ago, It's hard to explain online... but basically there are two types of jelousy. Example one; Someone has a scarf you want and that creates ill feelings towards them. Example two; Someone smiles a lot and you wished you could smile jsut as much. The second one is not a sin. You need to put words in context and understand them before making judgements on what they mean.

Remember, the Bible was not writen in English, so translations can be off the mark. But yes, it can be a very confusing book at the best of times.

And I'll watch that 4 min clip later tonight Brum!

Sorry for any faults my arguement has had here btw, I'm not perfect, not even close.

PS. Was not me who bumbed the thread!

[Gringo]

The People Want Their Opiate

Religious Alliance

But today's poll for the launch of the BBC Faith Diary suggests that people don't want a secularist wipeout of religion in Britain.

Almost two-thirds of those questioned said the law "should respect and be influenced by UK religious values", and a similar proportion agreed that "religion has an important role to play in public life".

A significantly greater proportion of the Muslims and Hindus polled (albeit in relatively small numbers) supported a strong role in public life for the UK's essentially Christian traditional religious values.

The findings illustrate the growing alliance between people of different faith groups against the rolling back of religion in general in the public arena.

[TheDon]

I'd say that survey just shows that people see religion as having a moral basis, and that people think that laws should reflect similar morals.