Moontanman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2aItuM1-J4

IC, god does not answer those questions for me. but science does. So if he intervened we wouldn't know? That seems rather convenient... That is an honest answer for sure. What I was asking had nothing to do with that, it's Jesus's support of slavery and his assertions about the old laws like stoning unruly children and his many referrals to the old testament in some of these he claims Genesis is true, this kills any possible divinity for Jesus, he supported slavery, one of the most immoral practices humans have ever come up with. He was in a unique position to do something about slavery but he didn't he supported it. He does make those claims, that ties him in with the OT, no way around it, he supported the same morality of the OLD testament. I also have to ask how was it a sacrifice if he came back? So you pretty much have no more evidence than any other theists has?

This is a major disconnect for me, what questions do you mean? But, any effects he has on reality should be testable but as far as can be tested there is no supernatural influence anywhere.... What about other more ancient writings about god or gods? How do they fit in, are they just as deserving of worship as yours? If you invalidate the OT doesn't leave the NT kind of twisting in the wind? Not to mention Jesus's own support of slavery and other extreme laws of the old testament? First of all the things you are linking to are highly disputed, second exactly what knowledge has been gained by any of this stuff? Don't make me read three novels to find out, what is specifically is this knowledge and can it be confirmed in any other way and of what use is this knowledge?

I have to ask, because I consider you to be one of the most reasonable theists on this forum, "Doesn't it bother you that your beliefs cannot be tested? Not to mention that this idea of non test ability is false... If you are a Christian, the book that guides your beliefs is not some subjective idea, it is the actual written words of God as dictated to humans. That book makes major assertions that are demonstrably false, do not these falsifications count? Sorry had to ask.... But what is a preference if not a belief? Or more correctly is that not the origin of belief? I bet I could organize a small group of people who would wholeheartedly agree with me, and possibly an even wider group of people who would agree some what but still claim to believe because they like to listen mostly to Heart and so on down, ultimately isn't this what religion really is, a fan club?

I have to disagree with this, i think it is possible to be less than objective in one part of your life and still be totally honest in other aspects. I personally believe that Ann and Nancy Wilson Rock Band Heart are the best entertainers on the planet, I will admit if pressed that others may not agree and in fact some might even assert that they are not even worthy of the name entertainers, but to me it is irrelevant, it is honestly what I believe. As long as I recognize and admit it's is my belief and don't feel the need to convince others my belief is absolute truth I see no problem with it.

I said I was sorry , sometimes i automatically assign religious and creationist with the same definitions. They are not the same thing, the fact is that most scientists are believers in some sort of god or gods, most scientists are Christian, with a smattering of Muslims and Hindus and other smaller religions. It was unfair of me to suggest that all theists are intellectually dishonest and again i apologize for it...

Jryan, where do you get your morality from? Is it objective morality or subjective morality? Something more than an assertion is needed to back this up. I think my point was justified, so far all you have done is cry and whine it's not fair to point out you are using inflated appeals to emotion instead of facts.....

Isn't the idea that "Nothing Exists" an oxymoron?

Can you name those other religions and give some examples of those powerful knowledge models?

I put some thought into my signature, part of it is two lines from an original poem i wrote, the rest is sayings from others....

So you admit that there are other gods than Jesus if you surrender your self to them? In some churches God or angels appearing to people is quite consistent and happens every Sunday, often more than one person claims to be able to see them... An intellectually honest theist, I guess we have different definitions of intellectually honest? I apologize for that remark, i know several theists on this forum that are intellectually honest within the bounds of their belief system, i should not have suggested all were intellectually dishonest.... How can we put that hypothesis to the test, the hypothesis is that there are so many conflicting ideas of god they have to be man made, how can that be tested? Quite the contrary, that was, in the not too distant past, what main stream Christianity said about evidence the bible was wrong in any way.

Colliding branes in a multi-dimensional bulk space is one idea, these branes would collide and rebound over trillions years in an never ending cycle, do you like that one better? Why would you say that? How does this relate to the expansion of the universe? Think about it, if everything has to have a creator like you are suggesting then the solar system had to have a creator, as did each individual planet, moon, comet, and asteroid, the reality is that natural processes allowed them to form, what can't that apply to the universe?

Eyes had already evolved far before humans did and we inherited those eyes from our ancestors, eyes did not originally evolve in humans and humans do not have the best eyes in the animal kingdom...

If.... what a word... If frogs had wings they wouldn't bust their little slimy asses every time they jump.... there is no reason to assume the Universe is "crafted" give me some evidence of this craftsmanship.... It's quite possible that the universe we see is the only way a space/time expansion can take place and no other possibility can happen, or it could be that we just happen to be in a space/time expansion that allows intelligent life and since we cannot see or detect any other space time it just looks crafted, we just don't know.... No, I am saying "I/We don't know" right now that is the most honest answer science can give, we know there was a universal expansion and that the energy of this expansion coalesced into the universe we see today, even that is disputed in some circles, Appolinaria, at one time, quite recently actually, a couple hundred years or so ago, lightning was totally inexplicable, no one could say where it came from and it was assumed to be the wrath of god. Then lightning rods were invented and suddenly the wrath of god could be stymied, many religious people refused to believe this but the fact that churches were more often hit than any other building was a bit of an embarrassment to the church and eventually it was accepted that lightning was a natural phenomena. Just because we cannot at this time explain the origin of the universe says nothing about god, or a creator or anything else other than space/time seems to have expanded about 13.7 billion years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if this explanation was over turned at some point but right now it's all we really have. Saying God done it is no better than saying lightning bolts are being thrown by god, so far we can say that if there is a god his influence is so small as to be immeasurable or that he works in naturalistic ways that follow the laws of the universe and this makes it look like he has no effect but no effect is ever seen no matter how fast a spin you put on it....

I am totally unaware of anything in the "Gita" that is more believable in asserting the existence of the supernatural than any other religious book but I admit I have never read it and I do not plan to do so unless some evidence of it's divine nature is produced. So far the bits and pieces I have read indicate it is no better than any other religious text... The Indian writings about flying weapons of war and visiting the moon are interesting but clearly just fiction...

People hallucinate all the time, religion has been shown to bring about these hallucination in people who believe strongly enough but the god they see or see evidence of is always the god they are worshiping whether it is Yahweh or Allah, or Krishna or Anubis, this indicates to me that god is in their mind and when god answers you are talking to your self. As far as i know no new knowledge has ever come from religion. No it wouldn't, god like experiences can indeed be induced by magnetic fields applied to the correct portion of the brain, this is dismissed out of hand by believers if in no other way than saying it is a trick of Satan. I disagree, if indeed there was only one religion or if all religions said the same thing you would have a point but the plethora of religions, nearly all of them contradicting each other is pretty good evidence they are all man made, especially since they seem to be composed of the beliefs and morals of the time period they were made up in. I wouldn't say it is absolute proof but it is a working hypothesis. I think you are being exceedingly naive about that, the teaching of Christianity actually says that evidence that contradicts god must be ignored and not believed.

I would like to know why there has to be an "interpretation" why can't the words speak for themselves, this idea that scripture must be "interpreted" is one of the major flaws in religion, once you are convinced that someone else has to tell you what they "actually" say as opposed to what they really say the train is hopelessly derailed. It reminds me of that Jackass Kent Hovind and his idea that to read the Bible you have to have on your "biblical" glasses to really see what it means. It's nonsensical NetSplitter, jesus in several passages tells slaves to obey their masters and to work as though they were working for god, slavery! if anyone was ever in a position to send a message that Slavery was bad Jesus was it and he failed to do anything but support slavery. Yes, I've heard all the apologetic arguments that say it wasn't the slavery we think of but the bible says other wise, it is even indicated that the slavery of woman was sexual slavery. For some reason apologists always dismiss each thing that looks bad and go someplace else to show something good but wait, this is god, why should god promote things like rape, aggressive wars, pillage and plunder, genocide, murder of infants and adults sexual slavery of women, these thing totally negate the idea of the god in the bible being omni benevolent, he obviously is not. And how do the good things he does negate the horrific things he does or demands others do? If I was a multi billionaire that gave away billions of dollars to help the poor and disadvantaged would that negate the the horror of me having three woman chained in my basement for use as sexual slaves? Of course not, but God and his fan club get passes on nearly everything. Then you have Noah's Ark, a sillier tale i have never heard told as truth, i can trivially falsify the flood, but believers always ignore the absolute evidence it couldn't have happened and try to make up silly horse feathers to get around the impossibilities. As I said earlier or maybe in another thread, religion is real, there are at least two dozen churches with in 10 miles of me, god on the other hand is iffy at best and the Bible is pure MBE on a shingle. Why would you assume the cause is God? The honest answer is we don't know not god did it...

No true Scotsman dude, he is the embodiment of that fallacy...

As for slavery i have been discussing that someplace else today, Exodus 21: 2-6 Leviticus 24: 39-46 Luke 12: 42-48 1Peter 2: 42-48 Ephesians 6: 5-9 1Timothy 6: 1-2 Exodus 21: 7-11 Exodus 21: 20-21 Genesis 9:25 The misogyny contained in some of these passages is disgusting, women are less than humans and even less than male slaves, some of the passages strongly suggest that female slavery is also generally accepted to be sexual slavery as well... I'd be glad to discuss these texts anytime, I'll leave the others to INow... I'm not sure what you are trying to assert with this, but it suggests that Indian culture was far more advanced than Abrahamic culture several thousand years before the Abrahamic culture existed... I see no evidence of anything supernatural here... Well peace for everyone who agrees with the party line at least....

I read the major part of the four gospels until i remembered you gave a link to the info earlier in the thread.... http://www.evilbible.com/what_would_jesus_do.htm But Mathew 5 verse 17 pretty much kills any assertion that what Jesus would do is what we in modern times would consider moral. Jesus asserts he is in agreement with the morals of the old testament. In other words kill adulterers, homosexuals, unruly children..... Of course... well except for those pesky demands to kill non believers, rape their woman and children and kill their livestock. I'm not familiar with the non abrahamic versions of religion, if that doesn't apply to their writing then i would appreciate being schooled on that. Ok, now for those assertions i think we really need some evidence... I have to admit i do know some people I would be afraid of if not for religion, according to them rape and pillage would be the first thing they did if they were sure there was no god... Now this sounds vaguely like a late night Infomercial, I'm not sure what you're getting at but it sounds like it will be $19.95 plus shipping and handling....

No true Scotsman? No I've also seen a UFO, I've seen a couple of ghosts and heard voices many times, your assertion makes no sense, i survived because i am a trained open water scuba diver, the mammalian diving response and determination, god had nothing to do with it, if it had been god why didn't he prevent the accident to begin with? If there is a hell then god is not only a psychopath he is demonstrably unjust, the same punishment for all crimes is totally unjust.... You seriously need to actually read the bible dude.... Horse Feathers, what a cop out....

I'm not ignoring you NetSplitter, I'm getting read to go to dinner and a really good discussion of the things that Jesus said that we would consider immoral is quite large and will take some time. Mostly the slavery issue is my current interest but I will, if no one else does, get back to you on this in as much detail as i can.

I was raised as fundamentalist Christian, I really had no other choice. Reading the bible cover to cover several times (as opposed to reading in tiny bits picked out by the pastor) convinced me that if it was real then God was a psychopath and the actual nonsense passed off as reality just made it impossible to believe. The lack of any evidence what so ever to support anything supernatural pretty much spelled the death of all other god concepts as well... But the neo-pagans are pretty cool, naked ceremonies and all that sort... but in the end I came to realize there are no gods...

I would be interested to read your interpretation of these passages.... Please feel free to tell us what they really mean....

Your Author, Pamela R. Winnick, is a well known Christian Apologist, she is nothing if not a one of the many people who make money off the Christian apologist movement to have creationism taught in the classroom. The news letter her article is in is also a right wing christian rag that has no opinion other than the right wing christian position and and is in no way a real news source for anything other than right wing christian view points. Real data is obscured by propaganda and out right lies is their stock in trade. This article is a direct attempt to promote her book. Do mistakes get into class books, i would be amazed if they didn't, dishonestly using this to promote a book that promotes creationism as science is despicable... http://thomasnelson....mela__R_Winnick Yes, this is correct, if the fairy tale of the Christian bible was portrayed as the fairy tale it is there would be rioting in the streets, other beliefs not associated with powerful religious groups are safer to show how primitive man got it wrong, I see no claim that these "tales" were being told as the truth... I'm not sure why these things are considered wrong but the sneering attitude for the idea that religion is a myth speak volumes about the agenda of this so called new letter.... http://www.antievolution.org/events/pbsevo/wre_prw_20011129.html Again, I think that the inconsistencies in this paragraph by Winnick likely stem from haste in entering the message. I'm not sure how this information is supposed to bear upon the topic of discussion, though. I don't think that it's worth the time to puzzle out. Perhaps Winnick will attempt to clarify this point later. I see no signs of this "stifling" of "meaningful debate". The scientific literature on evolutionary biology is copious. Perhaps Winnick has a connotation of "meaningful debate" wherein the uninformed musings of people largely or almost completely ignorant of evolutionary biology are supposed to be accorded equal respect to the insights of those who have actually taken the time to do research in the field. The phrase, "scientific elite", is an artful rhetorical touch on Winnick's part. It is, however, pretty much an inversion of reality. The resistance which "intelligent design" conjectures encounter is not due to policy handed down from on high. Instead, the scientific proletariat can look at the claims made by the "intelligent design" proponents and quickly determine that there is a definite lack of substance there. "Intelligent design" proponents have been predicting the rapid demise of evolutionary biology as we know it, but like cultic claims of imminent apocalypse, it always seems that it is conveniently delayed. "Intelligent design" proponents like to promulgate conspiracy theories and utilize the "scientific elite" phrase to cover up their consistent failure to put forward arguments which convince scientists en masse of the correctness of their claims. They seem never to give any credence to the notion that a simpler explanation fits the facts far better: they are wrong, and one doesn't have to be a member of the "scientific elite" to figure it out. About that fellowship... let's have a look at what the Phillips Foundation says about it. Pamela Winnick Part-time Fellowship Project: "Examination of How Media and Established Scientists Treat the Subject of Evolution," analyzing why there seems to be little tolerance for teaching creationism in America. Pamela is a staff writer for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and previously worked as a staff writer for The Blade in Toledo, Ohio. She received a B.A. in English from the State University of New York at Buffalo, an M.A. in English from the University of Virginia and a J.D. from Columbia University. After practicing law for many years, Pamela decided to pursue a career in journalism, earning an M.S. in journalism from Columbia University in 1999. The Phillips Foundation clearly states that the fellowship is about exploring the lack of "tolerance" for "teaching creationism". It says nothing about "meaningful debate". This contradicts Winnick's claim that the Phillips Foundation takes "absolutely no position on the subject of evolution". Further, the content of the Phillips Foundation site gives no support to the claim by Winnick that the Phillips Foundation's only concern is promoting fair and balanced reporting. Consider, for instance, this page, which repeats the phrase, "liberal bias", throughout. Other pages which belie the stated goal of "objective journalism" include this page, which lists the projects picked out by the 1999 fellowship recipients. It's not just me who can see this, for this page on Contests and Scholarships: Free-Market Conservatism lists the fellowship program of the Phillips Foundation right at the top. I have not "mis-identified" Winnick's "purpose". I have done my homework and found substantial evidence that Winnick approaches her journalistic assignments concerning evolution with an axe to grind. This is, unfortunately, all too common in modern journalistic practice. At the time of Winnick's complaint, I didn't have my name directly on the page about the PBS "Evolution" series. Does that mean that I lacked the "courage" to "identify myself"? That hardly follows. Just as you won't find the name of the editor of a newspaper printed on each and every page, my name is not shown on every page of my "antievolution.org" domain. However, my name was listed under the "Site Information" section of the topics web page. Also, my name is listed as the owner of the "antievolution.org" domain. Any journalist with half a clue can run a WHOIS query and come up with that information. Whoever wants to claim that I "lack courage" for failing to identify myself should have the technical competence to have checked whether I had, indeed, failed to identify myself. A person with minimal technical competence would have easily found that I had identified myself. I find the allusion to McCarthy to be self-serving on Winnick's part. Certainly my pages don't lend credence to such an analogy. I link to the original writings of the people I criticize and I clearly give my reasons for criticizing them. I even provide fora for those who I criticize to utilize, as Pamela Winnick has done with the use of the Message Board here at antievolution.org. I don't see any good point of analogy to McCarthy in what I have done. However, I can make an argument that the use of misleading rhetoric apparent in Winnick's response is clearly reminiscent of "tailer-gunner Joe". The "intelligent design" proponents seem to have a propensity for making the sort of invidious comparisons that Winnick utilizes above. Whether it is evolutionary biologists being compared to the repressive former Soviet regime or to McCarthyites, it seems that the exploitation of cheap rhetoric takes precedence over doing the hard work of convincing the scientific community - not the "elite", whoever they might be - that "intelligent design" is anything more than a social and cultural program advancing antievolutionary views and antiscientific philosophy. Wesley