afungusamongus

Well if you have read the Bible you might have come across quotes like... 2 Peter 1;16 You could have read the first three words in the Bible. In the beginning.. funny how this Religion that has no basis in fact predates a finite universe by what three thousand years. Some people received the Nobel prize for such a discovery. They should have just read their Bibles. Rather a radical claim for the time. (1000 odd years BC) Really not in tune with the views of the time. How would you explain these claims?

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=110025 For the part about religion. Is pop not just short for popular?

If anyone here actually read anything on the now defunct forums on Richard Dawkins website then you would know why Christian fear oppression. I have no doubt that nothing good would come if any of the pop atheist where given any actual power.

You say decades after event like we should not trust it then. Decades after the event is still very early in a historical context. If you cannot believe the first and second well attested accounts in the ancient world then their is a host of less well attested events that you would have to retroactively deny as well. Here is a good link for you http://debate.org.uk...qur/bibmanu.htm

Kinda ironic then that the Sunni and Shia do not have the same Hadith. Through the process of translating from one language to another, how likely is it that the Bible maintained it's original meaning entirely to how they were in Hebrew (as is the case with the Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament)? Why would translating a work make it less likely to be accurate? Bible translators go to great lengths to give us accurate Bibles. No the Bible does not change. Updating translations does not change the message. What could the scientific community possibly have to say about the historicity of the Bible. Why is their opinion on the Bible more important to you than New Testament scholars?

None of the above. The historical basis is also pretty convincing. If you really are such a champion for reason you should then and try and educate yourself to what Christianity claims. How does the eye witness testimony in the Bible factor into your lack of evidence.

The scientific method main limitation is that it is fulled with people who either through their own hubris or just a lack of knowledge refuse to believe the validity of other fields of study. Philosophy and Theology are the fields who bear the brunt of this prejudice. Not to mention some of the opinions of scientist towards things like Geology, Psychology and Engineering. This idea is purported in the popular conscience by such well known (although fictional) characters like Dr. Sheldon Cooper from Big Bang Theory and Doctor Temperance Brennan from the popular show Bones. The Cooper character famously called engineers the "Oompa-Lumpas" of science. He even went so bold as tell the Engineer character that his job is not worth doing. His feelings towards Geologist is equally demeaning calling them "Gravel Monkeys" and telling us all that "Geology is not a real science" Doctor Brennan on the other hand makes her disdain for Psychology equally clear. Telling us it is a soft science. These sentiments are echoed when a Japanese Anthropologist joins the her team for a episode. You may say that this is often done for comedic effect but it would not surprise me if these views where not echoed in real life.

I was told to read this in one of the other threads and thought I would write a response here so as not to derail that thread. Mods here seem to be put a emphasis on people staying on topic. Here is the link http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=affirmations&section=main What makes people think that certain Christians do not do the same? Why is this deplorable? Are Christians not allowed to posit reason for why the think the universe began? Why are Secular Humanist afforded the opportunity to posit theories but the religious folk who do the same efforts are now deemed deplorable. It can do good off course, but it can do great evil as well. Philosophical understanding can also contribute to the betterment of human life. Almost every field can do this. Hard to hear for those who have science as their only saviour but it remains true. The next few points I think Christians would think are admirable qualities and I think would be something a lot of Christians agree with. The question remains how do we attain what is morally excellent in this plural society? So the right to die with dignity would be a veiled way to promote euthanasia. Giving the right to doctors to take human life as long as the doctor has permission or the patient is ill enough. How would this count for those who strive for "moral excellence"? Does the exercising of reproductive freedom also include abortion? Then murder would only be bad if you get caught and have some consequence to your murder? Sounds morally excellent to me. Why would you think religious people do not do the same? This is a gross characterization of what religion really is.

This famous physicist would agree with the beginning part. Not with the created part off course that is hotly contested but the beginning part seems to be true. What is then so unreasonable for people to posit the hand of some supernatural agent as the basis of such a claim? How would you explain such a prediction? It was written in the Old Testament so what is that three thousand odd years ago? It certainly was not with regards to the thought about the cosmos at the time the accepted doctrine. You might disagree which is fine. It is after all just one hypothesis among many. I give it just as a rebuttal to those in this thread who claim that the Bible does not predict anything. http://www.hawking.o...ng-of-time.html

You may want to to read up on what Moral relativism means because pointing out that their are other atheist with another type of morality does not make it more absolute.

Just for reference I meant that this is not what Christians claim and I do not see how this is any bearing on what Atheist claim. The first part was a bunch of good questions, but this seems rather not what Christians claim and not very good at responding to what atheist claim Also it holds a incomplete view of what Christians hold faith to be. If anyone is interested we can discuss that in another thread. Also reviewing this part again hogwash may have been a bit strong.

It is clear. Christianity gives us clear guidelines on how to live. How do we define what right is if we don't have some transcendent law giver? That is the question. If you take a Nazi doctor like Joseph Mengele. He was a scientist just like many on this forum. He discarded ideas of Gods just like many scientist here also. He also was thinking he was doing what was right. I have even heard that some of his experiments where precursors to modern cancer treatments and that some of the things he did had some scientific merit. His blind quest for progress made him able to justify horrible actions. Should some human benefit alone be enough to justify the science we do?, or should we hold our scientist not just accountable for their actions but their consequences as well? Seeing as we are in the age of the atom bomb I think we need to be certain that the scientist now more than ever have a clear understanding of what is right objectively not just what they think is right. Who knows what horrors the future may entail if scientist are given the right to do as the please purely in the name of progress.

Some evidence of what... ?

condescending ? What's condescending about asking that. I'm sorry if that is how you feel I really did not mean it that way.

Something more in line with what Christians teach would be. The rest was just hogwash anyway.

Is this thread going to devolve into mindless Bible bashing? I'm just wondering so I can stay away.

It starts with a claim Physicist just recently found out is true. Any guesses what that may be?

What a little now it all you are. I would like to see you provide a single piece of evidence for such a claim. Hehehe we are all a bunch of mindless zombies following a herd mentality. At least Christians don't rely on snide remarks to win people over. Secular Humanism is the acknowledgment of the intrinsic worth of human life with the denial of the very sort of deity that makes such a claim possible. Methodological Naturalism tells us nothing of what should be. It only tells us what is. This coupled with a total denial of any consequence of anything we do on earth makes it possible for people to find in it the permission to do whatever they want. The National Socialist only has himself to convince that the life of Gypsies and Jews are worthless. The communist only has himself to convince that the those who criticize the government life is also worthless. The Secular Humanist also has only himself to convince that the unborn fetus life is also worthless. Under a naturalistic world view none of them is any more correct or wrong than the other. It is the very definition of moral relativism. When it comes to atheism and morality it truly is the blind leading the blind.

Consider this quote. It was a confidential message to the Gauleiter on June 9, 1941 written by Martin Bormann. Look at China for North Korea for clues of mass murder. What do you think those governments have in common? Last time I checked it was not Christians who where publicly executing people in tiananmen square.

Yeah he tells us so in Philippians 4:7. I have no idea what this means. A rose by any other name... Sounds like you are getting at a partially overlapping magisteria. Which is in reference to a certain Stephen Jay Gould and a view that made him famous. I think you are clasping at something that has value though. Science can indeed have a influence on religion. The refutation of a static universe has had a tremendous effect on religious thought in the last century. Also Biblical Archeology and what it tells us about what the ancient world was like is also very important for those who want to know in what type of world Jesus of Nazareth lived in. Also I think whether it be Christianity or other religions, religion needs to be valued by scientist for the moral framework it provides. It can in this way also have a profound effect on the science we do and the effect our work has on society. Just in closing I would just like to tell the OP that spelling God with a small letter is not just very condescending it is also very poor English. You might want to revise if you want to start threads in a religion forum with such a antagonizing tone.

Here is some interesting bible quotes I thought I would share with everyone Lets begin with the first three words in the Bible. In the beginning Funny how these writers knew the universe was finite around two and a half to three thousand years before modern cosmologist came to that conclusion. It is almost like it was inspired. Here is another interesting one Job 26:77 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. Predicting that the earth floats in what we now know as space. Something very out of ordinary for people of those ancient times to think. Here is a quote that many think eludes to the expansion of the universe. Isaiah 40 New International Version (NIV) 22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. This again was very unlike the believes of the times. The heavens at that time would not have looked like it was expanding and it was not the commonly accepted belief. Just a interesting thing I would want everyone to know.

People should not equate killing animals to killing human beings. My father has gone hunting often, but he has never showed any hints that he wants to kill a human being. They seem to me to be rather different moral questions. he question also remains for all you naturalist on which basis are you making these moral judgments about eating meat or killing human beings.

No victim until you break your skull on the road and bleed to death. Building owners have the right to refuse anyone access to their roofs. To go against that would make the owners victims of trespassing. Drugs ruin lives pal. Definitely many victims of drug use. Again no victim until you smash your skull into a thousand pieces on the dash and bleed to death. Where exactly is that illegal? Surely you can understand why its is reasonable to ask people to have sex in their homes. Not everyone wants to see naked people having sex on the streets.

Faith    [feyth] Show IPA noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. su·per·sti·tion    [soo-per-stish-uhn] Show IPA noun 1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like. 2. a system or collection of such beliefs. 3. a custom or act based on such a belief. 4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, especially in connection with religion. 5. any blindly accepted belief or notion. Christianity is the first and not the latter. The argument I gave in the OP is perfectly reasonable and uses current scientific knowledge in its first premise. So please I think my discourse can escape the Superstition moniker.

John Cuthber is really good at regurgitating atheist propaganda. Listen pal if you want to read or listen to Christians speaking about the evidences for their religion I can tell you their is a really good website called www.reasonablefaith.com It is runned by a well known apologist. You can find at that website well over a hundred podcasts from this well known aplogist where he speaks about all the evidence. The historical Jesus, Historicity of the Bible, Philosophical arguments. He responds to critiques and talks about debates he has had over the last few years. Really I do not want to call you ignorant as that would probably be flaiming, but you seem to have a flawed understanding of Christianity if you believe that. It goes to show that the Stuart Chase was indeed right when he said "For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible."