What would it take?

Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
What would it take?

 This is a serious question thats serves two purposes for me but before I reveal my purpose please tell me; What would it take for you to believe in Christ?

If they found Noahs Ark and could prove it, if you saw someone healed (not on a Benny Hinn show), if you had a near death experience. What would it take. Please no smart ass asnwers, because this is an honest question.


Yiab
Posts: 73
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
A reasonable semantic

A reasonable semantic explanation for what people are talking about with this stuff coupled with some epistemological grounding and an ontology which is at least consistent.

While I suppose christian ontology has a case that can be argued towards its consistency, I have never seen any moves towards any semantic analysis of terms and phrases in use, nor any epistemological justification for any stated or presumed beliefs within it.

 

Just so you know, I have had what some people might call a "near death experience" and it did absolutely nothing to what I think of christian theology - I've always thought it was incomprehensible gibberish.

Noah's ark would say nothing at all about Jesus, but it might go a ways to restoring my faith in the honesty of the authors of the old testament.

Someone being healed would never work for me, there are just too many ways to fake it.

Honestly, all I need is a good intellectual argument, nothing more. 


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
I would say read the book a

I would say read the book a Case for Faith by Lee Strobel a former Athiest.

Also as far as someone being healed. I am speaking about someone you know well and know what they have blindness, paralysis(sp), cancer ect. And you see it healed first hand not on TV or anything. Something that was not a fake for sure.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
The fact is, the claim is

The fact is, the claim is extraordinary, so the proof would also have to be.

1. A spontaneous regrowing limb when someone prayed to Jesus would be impressive.  Cancer sometimes goes into remission... limbs don't regrow on their own.  In other words, a REAL miraculous healing would go a long way.

2. The discovery of an ancient text that really was 100% accurate, and predicted, say, the name and address of everyone living in Wichita three years from today.  I'm not being flippant here.  Dragons, fire from heaven, all that shit?  Not real prophecy.  Prophecy would be something like "Next year on April 21, at 3:30 PM, seventy four people will be miraculously saved from a boating disaster on Lake Eerie when a Coast Guard officer forgets his watch and happens to glance at the computer screen and see a blip on the automated camera."

3. An explanation as to why God, who wants us to believe in him, made it so the only way to believe in him is to believe that the illogical is logical.... that wouldn't hurt....  Although that still wouldn't prove Jesus... it would just explain part of the paradox.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Oh, please don't kid

Oh, please don't kid yourself.  Lee Strobel's book is the worst of some of the really bad attempts at apologetics I've read.

Don't think we're uninformed.  Just about everyone here has read more apologetics than you have.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
 I would assume you would

 I would assume you would love the first chapter of  THe case for faith.

But you bring up a good point in my eyes. There is no amount explanation by experts who have spent their entire lives studying the Bible could give to convince some of you. Even though they are much more educated on the issue and could refute any thing you bring up you would not accept it, because you dont want to. I am not one of these people because I am not that educated.

There are prophecy in the Bible that Jesus predicted that did happen, like the Romans destroying Isreal if you accept it.


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: But you

Colby R wrote:

But you bring up a good point in my eyes. There is no amount explanation by experts who have spent their entire lives studying the Bible could give to convince some of you. Even though they are much more educated on the issue and could refute any thing you bring up you would not accept it, because you dont want to. I am not one of these people because I am not that educated.

There are prophecy in the Bible that Jesus predicted that did happen, like the Romans destroying Isreal if you accept it.

This is a cop out.  You have not offered the proof necessary to believe and then you turn it around on the non-believers by basically saying you've given definitive proof but that the non-believers refuse to see or accept it. 

In order to prove something exists, it must have the ability to be disproven.  I am not a scientist but I know in communication research, this is called falsifiability, or null hypothesis.  It's based on a scientific quantitative research model.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Interesting that you seem

Interesting that you seem to know how educated we all are.

What might surprise you is that the reason most of us are atheists is that we HAVE studied the bible... intensely.  Not only that, we double checked it against known science, history, archaeology, and logic.  The verdict?  It's contradictory, illogical, unscientific, and unsupported by contemporary evidence.

Maybe you should stop reading Strobel and investigate some college textbooks.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1209
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
I provided details of what I

I provided details of what I consider a reasonable test here. Mind you, this would just be for the preliminary test, and not the actual.

 When and if you respond to this, please consider providing what it would take for you to believe in Allah or Siva or any other god out there, as well as what it would take for you to conclude that there is no god whatsoever

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: This is a

Colby R wrote:

This is a serious question thats serves two purposes for me but before I reveal my purpose please tell me; What would it take for you to believe in Christ?

If they found Noahs Ark and could prove it, if you saw someone healed (not on a Benny Hinn show), if you had a near death experience. What would it take. Please no smart ass asnwers, because this is an honest question.

Colby,

We had this discussion on another thread, but I thought I would re-state it here since it is on topic.

If I could see regeneration of limbs after no medical care and it could be proven there were no other biological reasons for it, i.e. mutated genes causing this regeneration. That would be a good start. Mainly it would pique my interest, and I would study more closely information regarding this anomaly. 


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Yiab wrote: Noah's ark

Yiab wrote:

Noah's ark would say nothing at all about Jesus, but it might go a ways to restoring my faith in the honesty of the authors of the old testament.

Which authors?  Just the one who wrote the Noah's Ark story?

Also, if they "found" Noah's Ark, it still wouldn't explain the impossibility of the story.  In fact, it would make me wonder if the ark was left by an earlier society and the Bible story was written as an explanation.  It would make me wonder a lot of things.  My first inclination would be to find a natural explanation rather than a supernatural one.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
I have a simple answer:

I have a simple answer: Outrageous claims require outrageous proof. So far, that outrageous proof is lacking. It would have to be something really good.

As you should know, the burden of proof is on theists, not atheists. 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
It would take the same thing

It would take the same thing that I seem to require to believe in anything. What does it take for you to believe that dogs exist? It would take the same thing for me to believe a god exists. I do not decide to believe in dogs based on whether or not I desire them to exist, or because of a lack of evidence for their non-existence. Dogs, gods, both must meet the burden of believability before I can believe in them.  They need evidence of existence, they need to be accessible to examination in some manner, they must exist in the form of a concept that my brain can comprehend, simple things like that.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Yiab
Posts: 73
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori wrote: Yiab

Iruka Naminori wrote:
Yiab wrote:

Noah's ark would say nothing at all about Jesus, but it might go a ways to restoring my faith in the honesty of the authors of the old testament.

Which authors? Just the one who wrote the Noah's Ark story?

Also, if they "found" Noah's Ark, it still wouldn't explain the impossibility of the story. In fact, it would make me wonder if the ark was left by an earlier society and the Bible story was written as an explanation. It would make me wonder a lot of things. My first inclination would be to find a natural explanation rather than a supernatural one.

 

Yeah, I know. I don't even try to look at the old testament as accurate. The way I see it is as a primitive attempt at a history book - the ancient hebrews recorded things as they saw them and as they believed them to have happened. Naturally their understanding of events was filtered through their beliefs about the nature of reality and their own identities. In this sense, I think that every story in the old testament is probably either a recording of an actual event (probably generations after it happened) or a recording of a myth which was passed down orally beforehand. In the case of Noah's ark, I have heard that it is basically the story of a sumerian king who survived an extreme flooding of the euphrates by commandeering a boat and filling it with livestock - a real story, but having nothing to do with the ancestry of the Jews. If evidence was found that another small group of people survived that flood in a similar way and their descendants later came to call themselves "Jews", it would be a little less dishonest than the current status of things.


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote:  I would

Colby R wrote:

 I would assume you would love the first chapter of  THe case for faith.

But you bring up a good point in my eyes. There is no amount explanation by experts who have spent their entire lives studying the Bible could give to convince some of you. Even though they are much more educated on the issue and could refute any thing you bring up you would not accept it, because you dont want to. I am not one of these people because I am not that educated.

There are prophecy in the Bible that Jesus predicted that did happen, like the Romans destroying Isreal if you accept it.

Prophecy proves nothing. Anyone can predict anything. If it happens we can call it prophecy. If it doesn't, we can call it prophecy that will happen but hasn't yet.

When you say we don't believe because we don't want to, you are INSULTING us.

What if I say: There is no god. No matter what we say, you'll believe because you want to.

This, then, demonstrates one of the things I hate about religion. It makes people disgustingly self-important without them realizing it. It makes them insulting and belittling and dehumanizing to others without them realizing it. It destroys your natural human ability to empathize, to put yourself in the shoes of other people (exactly as you have failed to do here).

In short, it makes you into a psychopath...and you don't even notice!


Lynette1977
Lynette1977's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-06
User is offlineOffline
The burden of proof rests on those claiming Christ existed

First of all, I'd like to start off by saying that "Noah's Ark" does not exist. Here's a little history lesson on where this phrase came from. When I'm done, I will post a link to a movie you should watch that details this and several other things within it.

The idea of "Noah's Ark" does not belong to Christistianity. During floods in ancient times the nile would overflow and bring forth new life and crops. There was a deep connection to the stars and astrology and when the area around Egypt flooded it was called the archa-noa which means "Wet Moon." The "Wet Moon" is because the water pooled in the shape of a cresent like the moon appeared. The story of Noah's Ark did not come from a man named Noah.

Secondly, because the idea of a magnificent creator was imaginatively designed in the minds of human beings (every book ever written was written by humans who claimed imaginative ideas...noone can ever prove them correct) so it is not up to humans to prove that those men were correct or not. It is those of us who have learned through observations that nothing in this world or universe leads us to believe that there is something such as that made up by imaginative humans. The same could be said for all 3600 other gods or more than were invented. Your god is not unique to any other gods ever invented, and if anything, less creative in comparison. Those who know of history, science and through their own research that this human invention called "god(s)" does not exist and many of us were forced or coherced into religions from a young age and while it might be a misconception that those who no longer believe in the religion because of our knowledge, any anger held is more on feeling duped and lied to. I can't speak for everyone but when I learned the facts on where these ideas came from and how, I felt betrayed by the human race. Now, as humans freed from those chains of illogical thought, I know I for one am much more at peace knowing the REAL truth and facts than I ever was chained to a religious ideology.

Third, the burden of proof would not rest on non-believers proving that your god is true or false based on verifiable evidence. By verifiable evidence I do not mean ad hoc claims such as banana's fit man's hand = proof God exists. (An answer used only for the purpose of being the solution) However, these arguments are, at best, the only arguments that I have ever heard. Philosophy, excuses or if n = x then x = god arguments and creative suggestion are the basis for virtually every religious ideology. It would be the responsibility of the individual making the claim of a creator to provide verifiable proof of such. Again, none exists.

Lastly, here is the movie that I think you should take time to watch. It's very in-depth and I think it really could help explain to you questions that you yourself might have at one point had about where religion came from.

The Naked Truth

Flemming Rose: “When [christians] say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission….”


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Nice post,

Nice post, Lynette1977...also love the quote in your signature.  Smiling


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
kmisho wrote:

kmisho wrote:

This, then, demonstrates one of the things I hate about religion. It makes people disgustingly self-important without them realizing it. It makes them insulting and belittling and dehumanizing to others without them realizing it.

One of my music profs is a fundy. He would be such a good man without the religion, but with it he has done some rather harmful things. His oldest son escaped religion and was put through hell because of it. I sometimes wonder if he will have anything to do with "dear old dad" in the future. "Dear old dad" let him down big time by indoctrinating all the kids into fundy Christianity.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: What would

Colby R wrote:


What would it take for you to believe in Christ?


My question (for the purpose of clarification) is to what extent are you asking me to believe in Christ?

To believe he was a historical person that actually existed?
I would need integral documentation of his life and existence that is not considered allegorical and is not highly suspected of being a fabrication and/or interpolation. ALL evidence I have reviewed thus far have rendered nothing greater than this. To this end - I dismiss the notion that Christ was ever a historical person that genuinly existed.

To believe that he was crucified?
Again, integral documentation of such.

To believe he was resurrected?
From here on we must break the bounds over into the supernatural. To believe such an occurrance was anything more than theater - I would have to have God proven to me alongside this.

To believe he is God?
Emperical proof of the existence of God alongside integral extroverted resonance of said being's obvious existence would have to be apparent. Said being would have to openly (and personally - as opposed to by proxy) have to declare that Christ was the said being in human flesh.

These things are simply basic remedies for filtering deception from truth.

As far as reality stands - Jesus Christ is no more real of a God, man, or messiah as any preceeding Messiah.

For all reasons I have ever been given to believe in Christ - I could ALWAYS apply them to Prometheus, Osiris, Horus, Attis, Mithras, Hesus, or Dionysos.

In order to show no bias one way or another - and to be intellectually honest with myself - I would have to either grant ALL or NONE of these gods the status of being my personal messiah. Christ is no different and no more real than any of them.

I chose to reguard them ALL as the myths they clearly are.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10537
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
I'm not sure what it would

I'm not sure what it would take. I know a few fire balls and lighning bolts wouldn't nearly cover it. And such evidence wouldn't be able to be seen just by me either. The whole species would have to witness and review the evidence, whatever it may be.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Are you familiar with the

Are you familiar with the book The Pagan Christ? This book is not written by a nutcase, an idiot, or a conspiracy theorist. It was written by a theologian and religious professor whose job is to train ministers.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Colby, We discussed this on

Colby,

We discussed this on another thread but I would love to hear a more in depth explanation of what it would take for you NOT to believe. 


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
What Yiam said...From my

What Yiab said...
From my understanding of what Christianity claims, evidence is impossible as the entire account is incoherent. They'd have to have an explanation that made sense of the claims of Christianity.

Iruka Naminori wrote:
Lynette1977... love the quote in your signature. Smiling

Me too.
I think that many people misunderstand what 'respect' really is.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Lynette1977

Lynette1977 wrote:

[...]

Lastly, here is the movie that I think you should take time to watch. It's very in-depth and I think it really could help explain to you questions that you yourself might have at one point had about where religion came from.

The Naked Truth


Interesting movie. I'd like to find out more about how their conclusions were derived. Toward the end, it seems as though Bill Jenkins is advocating intelligent design is deist terms. In the context, I wonder what he means by "spirit."


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: This is a

Colby R wrote:
This is a serious question thats serves two purposes for me but before I reveal my purpose please tell me; What would it take for you to believe in Christ?

Direct divine neuron reconfiguration. Other then that, I don't know of anything. (That's not sarcasm)

I think it might be possible to convince me to believe in god with solid proof. But Christ, I think, is outside of what I could believe in, at least in Christian theological terms. I can't accept that I owe anything to a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent creator who will send me to hell if he doesn't like how he created me. If god is insane, I'll put my trust in the devil.

But I find it pretty unlikely that anyone could prove that god exists anyway.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
What would it take? You

What would it take? You asked that seriously didn't you? Should you not already know the answer to this question? No matter the question about existence the answer is always PROOF.

 

PROOF, you know the thing that proves something exists. Science does not try to prove something does not exist, if you tryed to do that you would never prove yourself. An example would be you cannot exceed 100% to get free energy. Of course trying to prove it does not exist you can't. To try and prove something exists, although similiar to the same way to prove it does exist requires you try to find a reason it does not work. To prove it does exist, for this topic you would have to try and exceed 100%, every scientist would try, different methods etc. If no one can find a reason for it not working, in this case they found out friction, you can't get a surplus, it is always below 100% etc. They would have to do that same. NEVER tell a scienctist, or an atheist to prove to you god does not exist, because he already has?

 

WAHHHHHHHHHH? You may say, however you should already know why god was proven not to exist. If you can't prove something exists, it doesn't. There is no proof for god, and that is the proof that absolutlly states he does not exist. Of course with the advancement of science we could possible change the decession, however for god, it's going to stay the same way.

 

Now, why don't you tell me the reason you believe? Proof? Nope, already proven to not exist, how about faith? Can you really have faith in something proven to not exist? Does that make sense? You want to believe, we don't. When they find even the SMALLEST evidence for god, I will consider it more. Until then he does not exist, and if you can't prove he does, you just proved he doesn't. 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


Lynette1977
Lynette1977's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-06
User is offlineOffline
You know, that last bit was

You know, that last bit was a little hard to follow. But I think it may have been a last ditch ploy to say hey, you don't need religion to be a spiritual human being... because of the details that it goes into I didn't feel that it was advocating intelligent design (I could be entirely wrong) or religion but I didn't do any digging yet on it. I was impressed by the focus on addressing religion in general. I wish they'd do this more often other than on the discovery channel and actually make a big deal of it to educate people.

Flemming Rose: “When [christians] say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission….”


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Ok i havent been able to

Ok i havent been able to access the site for a few days and it will take me a while to get to everyone.

I want to say first of all I dont think anyone here in uninteligent or ignorant, but I would highly doubt that your education on the Bible and the critisisms of the Bible are on par with someone from the Princeton theological dept. Thats not a slam its most likely just reality, but I am sure that some of you are. Also how did you study the Bible was it to find what was wrong?

Second, please dont dismiss any of the examples I gave. I know that all of it is void in most of your minds anyway but I would like to know what it would take not what it wont take.

Now to why I believe. I believe because I have seen evidences in my own life that validate my faith. I have studied the Bible and while not everything makes perfect sense, the most important parts do make great sense to me. I find the Bible to be very accurate in regards to Archeology and the amount of ancient manuscripts we have verifies the accuracy of the New Testemant, especially when compared to other ancient documents.

What would it take for me not to believe? It would take substantial evidence that contradicts the life of Christ. Like verifiable DNA of bones that are Jesus something like that.

Now I see a theme in the answers. You need something concrete, tangible almost. I have a question: What is star made of or a black hole and how do we know? We cant touch a star, we cant get near a black whole, we cant orbit a star because they are too far away. So how do we know for sure. I know some scientist look through telescopes and determine what they are, but can they know with certainty without actualy being able to touch them. Now I amnot a scientist but I have taken some science classes and these are things I have a problem with. Or Pluto isnt a Planet, since when.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: What would

Colby R wrote:

What would it take for me not to believe? It would take substantial evidence that contradicts the life of Christ. Like verifiable DNA of bones that are Jesus something like that.

Well, like I said we discussed this before and you made a similar statement. You know this is not possible, we would need to have a DNA sample from jesus(if he existed) to compare the DNA of the bones to. I would like to hear another example, something more plausible. 

When you ask for evidence for us to believe we can use miracles because god can supposedly do anything, and allegedly has performed miracles in the past. When I ask what it would take for you not to believe you need to give something that is actually achievable.


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: This is a

Colby R wrote:

This is a serious question thats serves two purposes for me but before I reveal my purpose please tell me; What would it take for you to believe in Christ?

If they found Noahs Ark and could prove it, if you saw someone healed (not on a Benny Hinn show), if you had a near death experience. What would it take. Please no smart ass asnwers, because this is an honest question.

Colby:

couple things here:

1. Noah: If you accept "young earth," then according to xian scholars, flood? around 2500 or so BC. But the facts are indisputable: just of the top of my head, cultures that existed with writing at the time somehow failed to notice their own destruction (Sumerian, Egyptian and Chinese). No flood, no gaps, no nothing.

2. Stories like this one, Lot, Job etc all have something in common. Goes like this: "Now in all the land God could find no one good except (insert person here). Sound like a fable? Not ONE person? that 5 yr old over there? Evil? Come on. Think about it. These stories were to be UNDERSTOOD as such and not literal truth. I wonder where people ever got that impression?

Once you begin researching these things, you learn a lot! Happy Hunting! Smile

 

 

 

 

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: Now I see a

Colby R wrote:

Now I see a theme in the answers. You need something concrete, tangible almost. I have a question: What is star made of or a black hole and how do we know? We cant touch a star, we cant get near a black whole, we cant orbit a star because they are too far away. So how do we know for sure. I know some scientist look through telescopes and determine what they are, but can they know with certainty without actualy being able to touch them. Now I amnot a scientist but I have taken some science classes and these are things I have a problem with. Or Pluto isnt a Planet, since when.

I can answer these questions (astrophysics graduate student), but I don't think you actually care. This seems to me to be the standard pathetic attempt to try to bring down science to the level of religion. Let me guess where you're going with this: you'll try to imply that since scientists can't know things "for sure", you can claim that they take things on "faith" too, so therefore god is as likely to be as real as the knowledge that stars are mosly hydrogen. Two comments on this pathetic line of thought:

 

Is that really the best you can do to defend your claim? To claim that scientists are as ridicolous as you are?

 

Why do you require scientists to know things "for sure", but at the same time you are happy to blindly believe an incoherent book which says that a man rose from the dead after three days, to save mankind from the wrath of himself, due to a system which he set up that way to begin with?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10537
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Colby R wrote: Ok i havent

Colby R wrote:
Ok i havent been able to access the site for a few days and it will take me a while to get to everyone.

I want to say first of all I dont think anyone here in uninteligent or ignorant, but I would highly doubt that your education on the Bible and the critisisms of the Bible are on par with someone from the Princeton theological dept. Thats not a slam its most likely just reality, but I am sure that some of you are. Also how did you study the Bible was it to find what was wrong?

I freely admit I've never studied the bible. What I know of it I've seen in short passages here and there or in claims by theists. But I knew at 5 years old there was a fundamental contradiction between the idea that the human race started with only two people, and the idea that incest is sinful. That was the first contradiction I knew of, and I figured it out when I was still learning how to read(and couldn't care less if there was a god or not either for that matter). If you want a full list, I suggest looking to Rook. He's gone to the trouble of compiling one, since he was actually once in training for priesthood.

Colby R wrote:
Second, please dont dismiss any of the examples I gave. I know that all of it is void in most of your minds anyway but I would like to know what it would take not what it wont take.

I'm pretty sure I did that. If not, you'll have to be more specific.

Colby R wrote:
Now to why I believe. I believe because I have seen evidences in my own life that validate my faith.

Like what?

Colby R wrote:
I have studied the Bible and while not everything makes perfect sense, the most important parts do make great sense to me.

A common christian error. The bible is offered as an absolute account of christianity. It is all accurate or it is not at all accurate as pertaining to a god. You can't cherry pick the bible anymore than you can cherry pick science.

Colby R wrote:
I find the Bible to be very accurate in regards to Archeology and the amount of ancient manuscripts we have verifies the accuracy of the New Testemant, especially when compared to other ancient documents.

Another thing to ask Rook about.

Colby R wrote:
What would it take for me not to believe? It would take substantial evidence that contradicts the life of Christ. Like verifiable DNA of bones that are Jesus something like that.

In otherwords, it is impossible. Since jesus appears to have never existed at all, there's no evidence to present.

Colby R wrote:
Now I see a theme in the answers. You need something concrete, tangible almost. I have a question: What is star made of or a black hole and how do we know?

A star is made of gas and fire. We know what gasses it's made of thanks to spectrometry. A black hole I can't help you with. Nobody knows for sure. Anyone who says otherwise is merely speculating.

Colby R wrote:
We cant touch a star,

In a sense we can. But if you were to try to it would burn you up. Yet you can still see it and feel it's heat. Do you disbelieve in your vision and sense of temperature?

Colby R wrote:
we cant get near a black whole,

And when we can we'll know more. That's the way science works. We can still see them though, indirectly at least.

Colby R wrote:
we cant orbit a star because they are too far away.

What are you talking about? We're orbitting a star right now. It's name is Sol. Take a look up during daytime hours and you'll see it.

Colby R wrote:
So how do we know for sure.

Now you know.

Colby R wrote:
I know some scientist look through telescopes and determine what they are, but can they know with certainty without actualy being able to touch them.

Not true. You don't have to touch hydrogen to see that it's hydrogen. Since when have you put your hands on oxygen? I never have, but I can look at it and see it's effects. I could touch it, but that would cause damage to me, so I won't.

Colby R wrote:
Now I amnot a scientist but I have taken some science classes and these are things I have a problem with. Or Pluto isnt a Planet, since when.

Since they redefined the word planet. Under the old definition Pluto still qualifies. I'm sure it won't be the last time either.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: This is a

Colby R wrote:

 This is a serious question thats serves two purposes for me but before I reveal my purpose please tell me; What would it take for you to believe in Christ?

If they found Noahs Ark and could prove it, if you saw someone healed (not on a Benny Hinn show), if you had a near death experience. What would it take. Please no smart ass asnwers, because this is an honest question.

Your turn:  This question has already been asked by zarathustra but it deserves an answer...

What would it take for you to believe in Allah ?

Perhaps a woman healed of ovarian cancer right in front of your eyes at a Mosque faith healing service, maybe....

What would it take for you to believe in Scientology ? 

Perhaps, archaelogical evidence of extraterrestrial life forms having visited earth ?

If a group of Mormons produced the actual "seer stones" given to Joseph Smith by an angel, would you believe Mormons possess the only real truth about ..."god"? 

These are honest questions and they deserve an answer.

If the answer(s) is/are no....why not ? 

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: This is a

Colby R wrote:

This is a serious question thats serves two purposes for me but before I reveal my purpose please tell me; What would it take for you to believe in Christ?

If they found Noahs Ark and could prove it, if you saw someone healed (not on a Benny Hinn show), if you had a near death experience. What would it take. Please no smart ass asnwers, because this is an honest question.

 For me to believe in Christ or the christian religion I would have to see scientifically viable proof that was undeniably christian and could not possibly have anything to do with any other religion.

The Noah's Ark suggestion you put there is one of the more ludicrous examples you could have used as there is no way it would be even remotely possible to get one of every land going animal on board the boat to save them, let alone enough to keep the species going.  The ark if it exists would just be a rather sizable boat and I'm very dubious as to whether it could be unanimously proved that it was Noah's as opposed to anybody else’s.

Seeing someone healed would have to be medically studied very closely by reputable doctors that hold no prior bias, and even to this very day people make recoveries completely against the odds.

Near death experiences are nothing more than hallucinations or dreams caused by other things going on in ones body at the time.

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Colby R wrote: Ok i havent

Colby R wrote:

Ok i havent been able to access the site for a few days and it will take me a while to get to everyone.

I want to say first of all I dont think anyone here in uninteligent or ignorant, but I would highly doubt that your education on the Bible and the critisisms of the Bible are on par with someone from the Princeton theological dept. Thats not a slam its most likely just reality, but I am sure that some of you are. Also how did you study the Bible was it to find what was wrong?

Second, please dont dismiss any of the examples I gave. I know that all of it is void in most of your minds anyway but I would like to know what it would take not what it wont take.

Now to why I believe. I believe because I have seen evidences in my own life that validate my faith. I have studied the Bible and while not everything makes perfect sense, the most important parts do make great sense to me. I find the Bible to be very accurate in regards to Archeology and the amount of ancient manuscripts we have verifies the accuracy of the New Testemant, especially when compared to other ancient documents.

What would it take for me not to believe? It would take substantial evidence that contradicts the life of Christ. Like verifiable DNA of bones that are Jesus something like that.

Now I see a theme in the answers. You need something concrete, tangible almost. I have a question: What is star made of or a black hole and how do we know? We cant touch a star, we cant get near a black whole, we cant orbit a star because they are too far away. So how do we know for sure. I know some scientist look through telescopes and determine what they are, but can they know with certainty without actualy being able to touch them. Now I amnot a scientist but I have taken some science classes and these are things I have a problem with. Or Pluto isnt a Planet, since when.

How do you know what a star is made of? Other then the admiting light, spectronmy, heat that it puts out, solar winds, what hydrogen fusion does. Other then those I guess we don't know.

We can't touch a sun? Actually, we can, we can already recreate the sun on our planet. It's called fusion, all the sun is, is basically a big ball of fusion. At the core of the sun hydrogen is heated so hot it fuses into helium, releasing massive ammounts of energy to fuel the sun and everything else.

We are experimenting with fusion now, for awhile now. Problem is to create fusion usually requires heat, and a fuck load of it, say 10 million K - 100 million K. Or around 10 million C to 100 million C. Of course we can not contain these tempetures with any known element, although it is still safe, and produces enough energy to run our planet on basically anything we can fuse. There is enough power in a glass of water, to power your whole city for a year. Thats how much energy fusion outputs. We try to contain it in a magnetic field, however it mostly failed as of now. China is experimenting with the first completing man made sun that is self sustaining, they had no luck yet.

 

As for a black whole, how do we know what it's made of? Well, we can't use light of spectromy. But black holes spue out x-ray jets, and studing those we know how a black hole works. When matter goes into the event horizon it heats up so fast it releases X-Ray jets that are so powerful they excape the event horizon, before the matter is crushed into the middle. Whats the answer for that their made of? Well there made of matter, any matter that is crushed so far down it creates a object of such high mass and gravity. It's like having a gold ball with the mass of a sun. We don't know the actual size of a black hole, many scientists belief it's on the brink of non-existence or it may depend on how much matter is present. Since if you take a planet, and crush it down you can only get it so small. However you meant how is a black hole started, easy answer.

When a sun creates fusion, it fuses it's material into the next element. Some suns are not made of hydrogen, all we know about a sun is it is a ball of fusion, but for the heat our sun makes the only thing being fused now must be hydrogen, we combine that with other evidence to see it's actually hydrogen. Now the higher the element the higher the tempeture to fuse it. say from hydrogen to helium it takes 10 million degrees. From helium to carbon however it takes 100 million C. The first few millieseconds a sun starts fusing iron it dies. Because iron is different, the other elements that were fusing before iron do not absorb energy. They feed the rest of the sun with their energy they output. However onces iron starts it absorb energy, and then shoots the tempeture up a unmeasurable ammount, so much heat that every element known is fused in an instant, the mass becomes so large that it either creates a supernova explosion or colapses in on itself creating a black hole. For an example, gold can only come from a supernova explosion, thats why it is rare in our universe. So whats a black hole made of? Everything.

 

Also fusion does not create harmful radioactive material, fision does. Fision is the same process used for nucelear bombs. It does not release nearly as much as fusion, about 1/10th.  It also creates radioactive material.

 

Evidence in the bible? Did you ever read it? Obvisouly not if you think it makes sense, or that any of it was proven. You basically admited it was real.

 

Do you have a brain? Seriously this is not an insult. Because if you do, our brain can trick us into believing something is not there. I know even today, I don't believe in anything supernatural, but when i'm at home alone I have the lights on usually, i see stuff in the corner of my eye, hear stuff some times. OMG MUST BE GHOSTS RIGHT? Well, no. It's your mind imagining something. Heck, i'm so used to it I know when i'm in a dream, when usually you shouldn't. I can think through in a dream and realize that this is not possible, so much be a dream. Then I tailer the dream to what I want. Also a fun fact, do you know you usually have a dream every 10 miniutes? In that dream it may seem like an hour or day. If you ever had a full night dream it would seem like a long time, say a year, some people had these before including me. Now we have on average maybe 20 dreams a night. You usually only remember one. 

 

If I want to believe in something, it becomes real in my mind, no matter what. Although an atheist uses his mind more rational and can distingush between reality and imagination. If i'm an atheist and hear a voice, I know it's prolly the pipes or furance, or something else, I can rationalize what it is. If I see something go past me, or in the corner of my eye, I know it's not there, it could of actually of been a dust partical in my eye, on it, or going past it. A larger partical of course. However I must admit something. Until I was 13 I was a Christian, I actually believed Jesus was talking to me. Although I knew it was not real, my mind created those talks, it was more me asking myself what would Jesus do and answering myself.  I knew it was not real, even at the time but I denied the fact it was my imagination.

 

Now before you say I was led astray, or lost, or something else. I chose to stop believing, simply because their was no proof. No, not science, no not evolution. I did not know what evolution was. However I did read and understand scientific books(my favorite book was "steven hawking's: Universe" which I read in grade 6 for the first time) though I did not take them into consideration for faith or belief it was not till later. I did not need someone stating facts. Actually I went looking for them. I asked myself, is their really any proof? My parents say their is, so maybe I should look. To this date I found none. Of course I found false proof, which Christians usually accept as proof, even though proven to be false. No I refused to be suckered in by false claims, I would research those to to see if they held any fact. I found nothing overall. I guess I was more inclined to come to atheism because I would be what you would call smart. Even though I know I do not know everything, or claim to.

 

When I was in grade 1, doctor said I had A.D.D. pretty common in todays youth. I took 2 different pills(none of which were ritalin) till grade 5. I gained control over myself, even thoughstill today I still have effects of it but I can control without medication(such as playing with things that should hold no interest). In grade 3 they put me in resource, I must be dumb right? Well, they thought so for one whole year. The resource teacher knew their was something different. I never suffered from being lower in intelligence. In fact when she gave the IQ test I scored 128. Of course I was taken out then, since the only reason I was their was because I was lazy. I went through school being lazy still in doing work of course. It never interested me, 50% in enough to pass. Even though I fully understood all the concepts and how to do stuff I never passed in one project. I always got 50-60 though. I always got 90-100% on tests, thats true even today, although I have become more responsibly when it comes to doing my work. I'm 17 today, just getting out of high school this year. Going back next year for another trade, since i'm in the IT program this year. I have claimed to myself no matter how comforting, no matter how much I would want to believe, no matter how much others believe or point fun, I will never believe something without evidence.  Sound reasonable right? Idea of a god is comforting, idea of a god does not bring any point into your life but it is comfortable. However holds no evidence. I can speak on your behalf because I was once a theist, until I got rid of the mind desease.

 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Colby R, you have without

Colby R, you have without doubt the worst understanding of scientific induction I have ever seen. The premise of science is built around objective observation and explanation. We do not need to be able to touch a star to validate, and use logic and science and experimentation and other concepts that may be alien to you, to verify what we can observe. Ever study spetroscopy or gaseous kinetics?

Now I see a theme in the answers. You need something concrete, tangible almost. I have a question: What is star made of or a black hole and how do we know? We cant touch a star, we cant get near a black whole, we cant orbit a star because they are too far away. So how do we know for sure. I know some scientist look through telescopes and determine what they are, but can they know with certainty without actualy being able to touch them. Now I amnot a scientist but I have taken some science classes and these are things I have a problem with. Or Pluto isnt a Planet, since when.

Tangibility means it can be verified, moreover, there is a stream of evidence, the concepts are falsifiable, the Occams Razor priniciple is applied in conjection with the scientific method. I am not so unreasonable that I would require Jesus to appear before me and scream in my fucking ear for me to accept.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote: Colby R

KSMB wrote:
Colby R wrote:

Now I see a theme in the answers. You need something concrete, tangible almost. I have a question: What is star made of or a black hole and how do we know? We cant touch a star, we cant get near a black whole, we cant orbit a star because they are too far away. So how do we know for sure. I know some scientist look through telescopes and determine what they are, but can they know with certainty without actualy being able to touch them. Now I amnot a scientist but I have taken some science classes and these are things I have a problem with. Or Pluto isnt a Planet, since when.

I can answer these questions (astrophysics graduate student), but I don't think you actually care. This seems to me to be the standard pathetic attempt to try to bring down science to the level of religion. Let me guess where you're going with this: you'll try to imply that since scientists can't know things "for sure", you can claim that they take things on "faith" too, so therefore god is as likely to be as real as the knowledge that stars are mosly hydrogen. Two comments on this pathetic line of thought:

 

Is that really the best you can do to defend your claim? To claim that scientists are as ridicolous as you are?

 

Why do you require scientists to know things "for sure", but at the same time you are happy to blindly believe an incoherent book which says that a man rose from the dead after three days, to save mankind from the wrath of himself, due to a system which he set up that way to begin with?

So were you going to answer the question or just pretend to know what my intent in asking it was. I do care what the answer is if you have good one. I am not saying that you believe by faith but I am trying to understand why the belief in the science, when there is no tangible or verifiable evidence (that I know of). So please dont read into the questions, if you have an answer then share it. We can have a "rational" discussion about these things, without trying to insult one another.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
but I am trying to

but I am trying to understand why the belief in the science, when there is no tangible or verifiable evidence (that I know of)

It would be the "that I know of" part that would indicate you are defeating your own argument by admitting an argumentum ad ignorantium. I don't understand is not an argument. Have you ever studied astrophysics, biology (my field), chemistry, paneontology, quantum mechanics bla bla bla.  I would suggest you study scientific induction. Your arguments, which you supplement by pointing out yourself that you don't know what you are talking about, will not be taken seriously here.

This forum has chemists and astrophysicists who can answer your questions. As a biologist, I can of course answer your biology questions. Until then I must go. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Colby R

BGH wrote:
Colby R wrote:

What would it take for me not to believe? It would take substantial evidence that contradicts the life of Christ. Like verifiable DNA of bones that are Jesus something like that.

Well, like I said we discussed this before and you made a similar statement. You know this is not possible, we would need to have a DNA sample from jesus(if he existed) to compare the DNA of the bones to. I would like to hear another example, something more plausible.

When you ask for evidence for us to believe we can use miracles because god can supposedly do anything, and allegedly has performed miracles in the past. When I ask what it would take for you not to believe you need to give something that is actually achievable.

Care to repsond? 


Lynette1977
Lynette1977's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-06
User is offlineOffline
No more hypotheticals

Colby, several people have posted very good and in-depth answers to your questions but you choose only to reply to the ones who get a little irritated. You have to understand, people have answered theist hypotheticals a thousand and one times. Don't come into the boards for the sole purpose of asking why you should "become" an atheist only so you can say that belief in science is just as bad as belief in god(s) - end of argument. Are you really intent on understanding facts or just looking to irritate people and pose circular arguments? Please be courteous and read through others' posts thoroughly and respond accordingly. You say "So please dont read into the questions" but yet you're the one posing them. Either you want answers or you do not. If you're just looking to prove people wrong with a hypothetical, I'm afraid you're in the wrong place.

If you have a genuine question, please ask it. But please refrain from "hypotheticals" ...let's stick to the facts.

As far as what everyone has tried to point out, you're suggesting that science proves nothing just because you say it does or because from the way you're comprehending it, it doesn't make sense. Your argument is a tired one: "If x is not solid in a manner in which I can comprehend then that must mean that x proves the existence of a god(s)." Science is unbiased in that it is what it is and if it is wrong it will change. If you choose to say that you know that the facts show something but you still don't believe it and therefore this means there must be a god(s) then that's a choice you make on your own and it has no validity to the rest of us. However, for many people simply because science can not explain something in the manner that someone not skilled or versed on a particular topic can understand does not mean that it is not a fact. As well, this does not mean that simply because something can not be explained in a manner satisfactory to your liking that we as humans should fill in the blanks with an unseen, unpresentable, unprovable deity invented by humans claiming to be the one and only truth. Yet another tired subject done over by about 300 groups of people over the course of mankind. Because this is the way many human minds work, this is the prime reason why over 3600 gods have been invented. Now that we have science, there is absolutely no reason to believe these magical man-made deities to be true but not everyone chooses to understand this.

And as far as scholars of the biblical nature...there are scholars on virtually every philosophy...there are even scholars on fairies and unicorns...but that doesn't make them scholars in science. Just because science can't explain it the way you need it to doesn't mean we should invent stories to fill in the blanks or that they are not factual.

Flemming Rose: “When [christians] say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission….”


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Ok so some of you have given

Ok so some of you have given answers to my star question and very good ones thats great. You have also noticed that I do have a limited knowledge about science and I admit it was never my best subject. THe way my mind works I guess doesnt fit with science. When you tell me how you determine what a star is, I cant help but think in my mind that the universe is limitless from what we know and when something is 4 lightyears away that there may be other gases present that illuminate the same as our known gases. I know this is the wrong way to view things but its just how my mind works. But I am not discounting your answers, I appreciate the knowledge.


Lynette1977
Lynette1977's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-06
User is offlineOffline
But Colby, that's the

But Colby, that's the wonderful thing! Your mind DOES work the ways ours does. It brings tears to my eyes when something just clicks and someone finally understands something you're trying to teach them. Some of us just have that love of learning and teaching, I guess. You've just proven to me that your mind DOES work in that manner and that's something to celebrate! Science is in depth but if you're really interested in learning more about it the people here will not try to make you feel stupid (they might get irritated but that's about it)...they really enjoy telling other people about the exciting things they know. And many will be the first to tell you that the idea of a limitless galaxy or what's at the end of a black hole or how stars and planets are still coming and going is baffling...our minds might not understand it in mathematical terms but we still understand it to be a fact. The concept of space and time and light ... I agree with you at times it is hard to understand but please don't think that because our minds haven't yet grasped a particular concept should mean that humans who have not the first clue about them can or should. You've admitted you don't understand them but should someone who calls themselves a bible scholar admit they don't either but claim that their answer is the only TRUTH? You could probably agree with me in saying they aren't either. Knowledge is an ongoing process.

Flemming Rose: “When [christians] say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission….”


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
BGH,   What would it take

BGH,

 

What would it take for me not to believe or to believe in another God. First I would never believe in another God. If something swayed my faith in Christianity I would just believe in nothing. As for me not to believe I realy cant think of anything. Other than what I said and perhaps if science found a way to mimick evolution into and create a creature. Like start with single cells have them merge into a multi cell and so on. It would have to be an expedited process of course because I dont have millions of years. I dont know if its possible but science is able to mimick nature in a lot of things.

Now let me say something. I am here asking these questions for knowledge. I am not here to change anyones mind or have my mind changed. I am not a brilliant person and if my conversation seems below some fo your IQ levels then please dont respond. My ignorance is not an excuse to justify my belief in Christ, I am being honest in saying that I am not a scholar and would like to hear your answers. I agree that I do need to take a few college level science classes instead of history classes. THe more education I have the better.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
And that is what I commended

And that is what I commended you about in the other thread, at least you are honest. That is all we ask here.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
So here are my thought so

So here are my thought so far.

As far as what it would take for any of you to believe I dont think it will happen our lifetime in the way you all have specified. THe only real chance at it in my opinion will be with the rapture and the second coming. Because if we are talking biblicaly we are not in an age where we see physical proofs anymore. I dont think that what many of you want as proof is irrational or obsurd, it just doesnt happen like that anymore. Perhaps some of you will believe for other reasons but lets stick to the establised criteria.

Secondly, I have never visited an Athiest web site or forum so it is an intersting enviroment to be in, especially when you are the minority. What I have brought away form this is that Theists and Athiests are very much alike in terms of our discussions. You all have a list of common Christian myths and arguments used, and they are all fallacy and obsurd statements. Well Christians have the same thing in regards to Athiests. As Christians we do get upset when Athiests misinterpret the Bible just like Athiests get upset when Christians use the 2nd law of thermoldynamics(sp) in the wrong scientific sense.

I have met many Dr.'s and scientist who are Christian and have found the balance for both. One of the men I know is working on a Dr's in biology and is a Christian and sees not issue between his faith and science. I believe there is a balance, not just one or the other. I believe that sciece and religion can work together once we quite trying to prove the other wrong.

Please tell me your thoughts and do you accept true scientist that also have faith?


Lynette1977
Lynette1977's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-06
User is offlineOffline
Colby, you said "Other than

Colby, you said "Other than what I said and perhaps if science found a way to mimick evolution into and create a creature." I have your answer.

 Scientists have actually been able to create a variety of new species just through simple experiments and they're discovering new species every day in their natural environments, as well. Heck, all you have to do is take a look at viruses to see that evolution does it's own thing. Remember the bird flu? That's evolution under a microscope!!! Here are a few articles on these topics but all you have to do is take a look around science journals to find these answers. If you have any interest in botony you'll find that there is an even more evident evolutionary chain and I found that even more interesting. People constantly look at animals but I tell them just to take a look at plant evolution if that makes it easier to understand. Once you see how plant evolution works it's so easy to see how animals have done the same. 

Simple experiment gives birth to new species

Evolution, Two Species Become One - Humans Encourage Evolution 

Picky Female Frogs Drive Evolution of New Species in less than 8,000 Years 

News Species at Science Daily 

I hope this helps answer your questions. 

 

Flemming Rose: “When [christians] say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission….”


Lynette1977
Lynette1977's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-06
User is offlineOffline
The appropriate question

The appropriate question here, Colby, is whether their scientific knowledge is altered by their biblical view. If they know that the earth is millions of years old yet they choose to believe the bible is right and science is not...then their entire knowledge comes into question. You can not alter scientific facts by using philosophy, that's not the way it works. Religion is tales and philosophy whereas science is based on provable or disprovable subjects and neither go hand in hand. If you've read my previous posts you will understand that simply because science can not answer it in the way an individual requires absolutely does not mean that religion can or should.

 Did you ever watch the movie I linked you to watch called The Naked Truth

Flemming Rose: “When [christians] say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission….”


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Lynette,  I see what you

Lynette,

 I see what you are saying and I left myself open to that. I must specify that it would take the creation of an animal, like a cat or another human. It would have to be from the begining to the end. I dont know if that is possible but thats probably what it would take. I am aware of the evolution of viruses but that is not enough in my mind.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Lynette1977 wrote: The

Lynette1977 wrote:

The appropriate question here, Colby, is whether their scientific knowledge is altered by their biblical view. If they know that the earth is millions of years old yet they choose to believe the bible is right and science is not...then their entire knowledge comes into question. You can not alter scientific facts by using philosophy, that's not the way it works. Religion is tales and philosophy whereas science is based on provable or disprovable subjects and neither go hand in hand. If you've read my previous posts you will understand that simply because science can not answer it in the way an individual requires absolutely does not mean that religion can or should.

 Did you ever watch the movie I linked you to watch called The Naked Truth

The people Iknow are very much scientist and believe the data they see. Also I dont see the reason why old earth cant be biblical. THe Bible never gives us a start date, it just says "In the Begining" thats it. There is no biblical proof of how old the earth is. So when Christians tell me that the earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old I have to disagree. First if you added up all the ages of the first biblical humans they would have lived well into the egyptian dynasty. We have to account for dinosuars and the Ice Ages. There are just too many things to claim a young earth. But there isnt any evidence to say that the age of the earth isnt biblical either.

I havent been able to view the video but I will do so.


Lynette1977
Lynette1977's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-06
User is offlineOffline
Colby, I don't understand.

Colby, I don't understand. Why is something with a lesser number of cells weaker in evidence to you?

Flemming Rose: “When [christians] say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission….”


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
I dont know why but it just

I dont know why but it just doesnt change my mind.