Why I'm not a Christian anymore. What about you?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Ah why did you edit your post? :( In the page it was bigger and when I quote you I get a smaller version. :evil:

Anyway, we have to see where those two are coming from. Maybe the reason why I see religion differently that you is that I dont rule out the possibility that religion may have no divine inspiration behind it; including scripture like the Bible.

Therefore if we c|assify science as merely human understanding, then religion might as well just be human imagination. Are those two comparable?

Even in the case of religion being divinely inspired then human imagination had a role in its formation. I just cant reject that. To me its not so hard to see the human interference in scripture. For example from all the Bible maybe just the teachings of Jesus were the only "divine material" in it. Maybe evn Genesis is an imaginative story divised by people. Its not necessarily an allegory given by god in a simple form.

Now the criticism on scientific theories being just based on imagination too then I just disagree. I cant explain (conveniently) but I dont think that the two can be judged as if they are the same in regards to credibility. Sure science is not infallible (of course not!), I just think that religion is not interested in making credible/accurate statements on things like the origin of the universe/species/man, because simply put, its not its main field.

LJS9502_basic

There exists what we shall call personal proof for want of a better word. Now if you don't have any I suppose it's hard to reconcile. But suffice it to say that those who question their beliefs and come to terms with them generally have a stronger belief set than someone who goes through the motions without making their beliefs personal. There are things that happen that defy explanation and no....they aren't imagination. Thus I said personal proof that would be meaningless to one without faith.

If you can't write a message down for posterity but believe that it's an important message....what do you do? You put the message in a story that will not be forgotten. The problem is no one studies the language of the Bible anymore and thus miss metaphor and symbolism that meant something when the stories were first told. Now you look at some print and scratch your head. That is because instead of the message you are getting hung up on language.

I never said science was imagination. I said it's value is only as good as the facts it's based on. We can be wrong. Nonetheless, science does not bother me as I understand what it attempts. Some theories do seem to be correct. That does not mean humans are correct about everything and we see with the scientific community requestioned past theories.

So either way when we see Genesis allegorically, you know that its words have a underlying message which may be what science may be able to find one day. I never said that science and religion are conflicting necessarily.

And somewhere here I have lost my course of thinking. :( I need a break.

Yeah I know. I wasnt referring to you, but generally some criticism I saw in that thread.

I have a problem with it because it seems ridiculous how something can come from nothing for no reason, it just happens.

enterawesome

Personal prrof is subjective though and honestly it doesnt aim in being objective right? I dont condemn it though, never did. I was just arguing on which of the two (religion - science) is more trustworthy.

So either way when we see Genesis allegorically, you know that its words have a underlying message which may be what science may be able to find one day. I never said that science and religion are conflicting necessarily.

And somewhere here I have lost my course of thinking. :( I need a break.

Yeah I know. I wasnt referring to you, but generally some criticism I saw in that thread.

Teenaged

The underlying message in Genesis is this....life came from God.

[QUOTE="-Chimera-"]

Are you not also doing the same by assuming that nobody knows the answer? Did you even read what I posted?

And I'm a skeptic, I don't have beliefs.

LJS9502_basic

But how do you have the authority to say that there is no answer to the questions that you used in your example? You're assuming that there is no answer, not necessarily proving it. Thus, it's your view that no one has it. Again, I'm not saying that anyone does, and I would agree that no one has the answer, but what I'm trying to say here is that you're still assuming that no one does.

And I didn't say anything about Theo having the authority to say that no one does know "the answer," or anything of the sort. I was just referring to a point that he made earlier on in the discussion.

As for your last example, no, I don't think I can categorically state that the world will exist tomorrow. I can't make a categorical statement such as that just as how I can't make a categorical statement that nobody has the answer (whatever it may be). More than likely nobody has an answer, but how can anyone have the authority to say that no one does or that someone does? I don't think anyone has that authority, hence it is assumed in the same manner.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="-Chimera-"]

Are you not also doing the same by assuming that nobody knows the answer? Did you even read what I posted?

And I'm a skeptic, I don't have beliefs.

-Chimera-

But how do you have the authority to say that there is no answer to the questions that you used in your example? You're assuming that there is no answer, not necessarily proving it. Thus, it's your view that no one has it. Again, I'm not saying that anyone does, and I would agree that no one has the answer, but what I'm trying to say here is that you're still assuming that no one does.

And I didn't say anything about Theo having the authority to say that no one does knows. I was just referring to a point that he made earlier on in the discussion.

As for your last example, no, I don't think I can categorically state that the world will exist tomorrow. I can't make a categorical statement such as that just as how I can't make a categorical statement that nobody has the answer (whatever it may be). More than likely nobody has an answer, but how can anyone have the authority to say that no one does or that someone does? I don't think anyone has that authority, hence it is assumed in the same manner.

[QUOTE="-Chimera-"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No. In each of those examples I gave there is no answer. Thus...no one has it. It doesn't matter if you have beliefs or not for the purpose of this discussion. You held up Theo as an authority on saying no one knows. But there are some things no one knows. For instance....can you state categorically that the world will exist tomorrow? No. More than likely it will. But no one KNOWS it will. We assume it.

LJS9502_basic

But how do you have the authority to say that there is no answer to the questions that you used in your example? You're assuming that there is no answer, not necessarily proving it. Thus, it's your view that no one has it. Again, I'm not saying that anyone does, and I would agree that no one has the answer, but what I'm trying to say here is that you're still assuming that no one does.

And I didn't say anything about Theo having the authority to say that no one does knows. I was just referring to a point that he made earlier on in the discussion.

As for your last example, no, I don't think I can categorically state that the world will exist tomorrow. I can't make a categorical statement such as that just as how I can't make a categorical statement that nobody has the answer (whatever it may be). More than likely nobody has an answer, but how can anyone have the authority to say that no one does or that someone does? I don't think anyone has that authority, hence it is assumed in the same manner.

I don't know if the answer exists, and I don't claim to have it. But I don't claim that no one has it, yet I don't claim that anyone does have it. That's my point: I'm not claiming anything here. You're claiming that nobody has the answer.

I don't know if the answer exists, and I don't claim to have it. But I don't claim that no one has it, yet I don't claim that anyone does have it. That's my point: I'm not claiming anything here. You're claiming that nobody has the answer.

-Chimera-

[QUOTE="-Chimera-"]

I don't know if the answer exists, and I don't claim to have it. But I don't claim that no one has it, yet I don't claim that anyone does have it. That's my point: I'm not claiming anything here. You're claiming that nobody has the answer.

LJS9502_basic

What's to say that it would be released, or that there wouldn't be any dissension on it if it were? You're assuming that it would be released.

I think you're the one making the cop out here.

[QUOTE="enterawesome"]I have a problem with it because it seems ridiculous how something can come from nothing for no reason, it just happens.

foxhound_fox

Christians are hyporcrites. It's because of sin. You aren't praying to Christians, you are praying to God. Read the book of Job, and you'll understand, suffering is just a part of free-will, which free-will is the burden of man, because in the beggining, we have failed to acknowledge God. We meaning our ancestors, and we inherit sin. (I am still unsure about that part, but it says so in the bible.)FastNorwegian

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

[QUOTE="enterawesome"]I have a problem with it because it seems ridiculous how something can come from nothing for no reason, it just happens.

enterawesome

[QUOTE="FastNorwegian"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Hypocrite is a strong word and a bit of a generalization. Anyway you inherit the human condition with it's faults...ie sin.

sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="FastNorwegian"] Yes, and hypocrite is strong, but since we are held to the Ten Commandments, the highest of standards, it's almost intended that we fail. Failing will show who's human and who isn't. That thats not the entire reason ;). Just making it short, because I gtg. :lol:LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Highest standard? God must have its standards really messed up.. Don't take lords name in vain or disrespect mother or father.. But slavery, child abuse, sexism, racism, rape, all ok.sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]In the NT could show me where?

[QUOTE="enterawesome"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
The big bang theory does not state "something came from nothing." It is obvious there was something before the big bang, because without something, there would continue to be nothing... for all eternity. You knew about the big bang being an expansion of space but you didn't know that it didn't come from nothing?

BumFluff122

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] talking about the 10 commandments.sSubZerOo

Then where did that small point come from? Was it just "there"? And suddenly expanded for no apparent reason? There is less logic involved with the theory then with Genesis (which I also don't believe, mind).

enterawesome

[QUOTE="enterawesome"]Then where did that small point come from? Was it just "there"? And suddenly expanded for no apparent reason? There is less logic involved with the theory then with Genesis (which I also don't believe, mind).

foxhound_fox

I know that, it attempts to prove how the universe as we know it came into existence in just a few minutes. Its not the purpose of the theory I'm arguing, its the basis on which its built.

enterawesome

In your opinion perhaps....

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]In your opinion perhaps....

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="enterawesome"]Then where did that small point come from? Was it just "there"? And suddenly expanded for no apparent reason? There is less logic involved with the theory then with Genesis (which I also don't believe, mind).

foxhound_fox

I don't have to prove your opinion statement wrong. It's still opinion.;)

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="enterawesome"]

I know that, it attempts to prove how the universe as we know it came into existence in just a few minutes. Its not the purpose of the theory I'm arguing, its the basis on which its built.

There just isn't any evidence to support it beside a few pictures of deep space representing an early universe. Its simply another possibility, and thats it.enterawesome

But my statement is supported by a vast array of observable evidence and scientifically supported ideas. It would only be an opinion if it didn't have any evidence to back it up.

foxhound_fox

The big bang doesn't attempt to explain what happened before it... that's the point. It could have been a past universe had contracted into that singular point and when it reached critical mass, it expanded. But we can never know... and how is Genesis more logical than the big bang theory? Genesis is a myth created for the purpose of teaching a moral lesson and has been misinterpreted as a literal historical account. The big bang theory is an attempt to logically explain all the currently observable evidence that the universe is expanding.foxhound_fox

Ugh... I know it doesn't try to explain what happened before, but thats entirely the point. There is hardly a stable basis for the theory. There was a point, it expanded. All I ask is how do you know it was a point, and where did the point come from? It could have been a past universe, but of that we have absolutely no evidence besides what we put together as possible.

enterawesome

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I don't have to prove your opinion statement wrong. It's still opinion.;)

foxhound_fox

Seems a bit vague...

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Seems a bit vague...

foxhound_fox

I read the post....and it was opinion. Which is fine to have but don't pass it off as fact. Your post was filled with qualifiers so to call it fact is odd to me.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="enterawesome"]Ugh... I know it doesn't try to explain what happened before, but thats entirely the point. There is hardly a stable basis for the theory. There was a point, it expanded. All I ask is how do you know it was a point, and where did the point come from? It could have been a past universe, but of that we have absolutely no evidence besides what we put together as possible.

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I read the post....and it was opinion. Which is fine to have but don't pass it off as fact. Your post was filled with qualifiers so to call it fact is odd to me.foxhound_fox

Evolution? What? I thought we were debating the Big Bang? And by the way, I believe in evolution... But you are right. We shouldn't care. Yes I believe in a deity who created the universe, but not humans directly, and watches over us, but it doesn't matter how we got here; what matters is what we do with the time we have, now. And unfortunately, I just wasted a lot of my time debating something unimportant. (yet not invalid to the discussion at hand)

enterawesome

Which makes it opinion.:)LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Which makes it opinion.:)foxhound_fox

Science doesn't work on opinions. It works on hypothesis.

Science doesn't work on opinions. It works on hypothesis.

BumFluff122

No. You were making up reasons etc which is opinion. You said Genesis was a myth to....I highlighted that. In addition, science has not come to a complete understanding as to the creation as there are several theories. Thus, opinion.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

Science doesn't work on opinions. It works on hypothesis.

LJS9502_basic

Science is not opinion, it is an explanation of the observable universe. foxhound_fox

Science can't explain emotions and why people fall in love.the_foreign_guy

well has i was growing up i didnt like some of the things the christan churches were doing

Touching little boyz

Killing people not to mention back in the old days the church used to kill manyyy manny people who were aganist them

the radicals in the south deff turned me off

not being able to have Sex before u were married that was a major turn off ... :I a little sex never hurted no one LOL

waking up at sunday moring to go to church i wanted to stay home and watch football ..... :I

there was some other stuff but bassically ornagized religon deff turned me off

and i know christans will say we are all not like that ok .... but still it just wasent for me

I "made up" an explanation for what came before to show that it could be anything and we don't know.

I said Genesis was a myth because it is, like any other religious text. There is no proof to say that it isn't.

The big bang is the most widely accepted theory about the formation of the universe. There are several theories, but only the big bang has stood up to the most criticism over the years. It is quickly becoming a very well-supported theory.

Science is not opinion, it is an explanation of the observable universe. Until you can offer a better explanation for the observable evidence we have, the current explanation stands.

foxhound_fox

Widely does not mean universally thus you choice of belief is your opinion. You didn't present facts. You stated an opinion. That is fine but accept it for what it is.

[QUOTE="the_foreign_guy"]Science can't explain emotions and why people fall in love.BumFluff122