About religion...

[f.sciarrillo]

Kieth, I look at it this way. The bible is a very confusing book, it is interpreted a number of different ways, and a lot of people do not understand it.

As for evidence - Archeologist are finding things all the time that make the bible fact. You ever watch the Naked Archeologist?

The Exodus is where the Jewish Holiday Passover comes from. They still celebrate that today?

Egyptian history is find the exodus to be true.

http://creation.com/egyptian-history-an ... fect-match

[bassist_25]

As for science:
Science functions on assumptions (i.e. Everything has a natural, explainable cause, carbon 14 decays at a fixed rate). And builds on the good faith of previous science. First year chemistry students are not expected to measure the atomic weight of every element, but they do calculations by "blindly believing" in the periodic table. Faith functions of assumptions, too, just different ones (maybe we can't explain everything, there is a loving God)

I don't know if I buy that analogy. You're trying to compare having spiritual faith that something exists without direct evidence with science, which is a system of empirical observation that attempts to answer falsifiable questions by testing null hypotheses. True, there are some axiomatic assumptions that are used to build theoretical models - for example, many economic models are built on the axiom that people will act rational - but scientists do try their best to establish axioms that are true in many cases. And while I do have some post-modernist tendencies, I never found the extreme post-modernist stance all that functional. I rather like the existence of medicine based on the understanding of biology and chemistry and the engineering based on the understanding of physics that puts roofs over our heads.

The same goes for astronomy; the amount of data that we actually receive is incredibly small. Yet many people quickly accept and believe what scientists tell us.

Unfortunately, that's a problem with people's ignorance about science rather than science itself. The lay public is informed about scientific findings from the mainstream media, not peer-reviewed journals and professional conferences. Don't confuse what scientists tell us and what journalists reporting on science are telling us.

Evolution is being taught in schools as a "scientific fact", while evolutionists have failed to answer any real questions about their theory. (irreducible complexities, sexual reproduction, origin, tremendous gaps in the 'fossil record')

Few theories are completely holistic. Many lay people want reductionist explanations for complex phenomena and then shout from the roof tops when they don't get reductionism. I haven't been in a high school biology class in years, but from what I remember of the biology classes I had in high school and college, the only things reported on evolution were what had been generally agreed upon by the scientific community. There is still much to learn. I haven't meet anyone who does scientific research for a living who thinks the world is reductionist or tries to push a reductionist agenda.

Think about the number of "scientific" advances that have changed dramatically throughout recorded history: The earth is the center of the universe; the earth is flat; bloodletting is necessary to heal a wound; leeches draw out infection; 4 out of 5 doctors smoke Camel cigarettes.

Were all of those advances based on systematic empiricism of the scientific method or, instead, deductive and inductive reasoning that had originated from a flawed premise?

Now think about this: The bible has withstood much stricter scrutiny for a longer time than "science" and has remained comparatively unchanged (even considering translations and edits). What does that tell you?

It tells me that The Bible has remained unchanged because society and culture has legimitized it as a holy text. Science has changed because it's a dynamic field of inquiry that grows and changes as theories are refined, technology improves, and scientific philosophy further develops.

And for Satan, I think that if you believe in God, than you must acknowlege Satan, or evil, or whatever. You can't have North without South.

...if your theological beliefs are interwined with your ethical and moral beliefs. It's possible to have beliefs about the spiritual and metaphysical world and a moral code without the two being contingent upon each other. Eastern thinking doesn't necessarily deal in absolute dichotomies such as "good" and "evil." Many polytheistic relgions don't have totally "good" and "bad" gods.

[f.sciarrillo]

Paul, the science is nothing but theory. They have no proof to back any of it up. Once they show me the creature between ape and man I will take the science more seriously lol ..

[bassist_25]

Paul, the science is nothing but theory.

Psych major, right? Do you know what a theory is? Next to a law, a theory is pretty good. You're not paying attention to your research methods professors again, Frank.

They have no proof to back any of it up.

No such thing as proof in science. Data supports a hypothesis - or more precisely data leads an investigator to either reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject a null hypothesis.

Once they show me the creature between ape and man I will take the science more seriously lol ..

Study some physical anthropology and learn about about all of the hominids. It's a lot more complex than Ape -----> Homo Sapien.

[f.sciarrillo]

But the theory still doesn't make it completely true. Hypothesis? Yes, fact? No.

[bassist_25]

But the theory still doesn't make it completely true. Hypothesis? Yes, fact? No.

A theory is a testable framework built from previously collected data that explains a scientific phenomenon. Nothing more, nothing less.

What would be enough evidence to support the theory of evolution? If you're waiting around for a controlled study where scientists take a colony of bacteria and end up with complex, multicellular organisms, I think you're going to be disappointed. If you had dived into the peer-reviewed and scientific literature and concluded that the theory of evolution is bunk, then I could dig that. But I think there's a different reason why you have a dog in this race.

[f.sciarrillo]

But the theory still doesn't make it completely true. Hypothesis? Yes, fact? No.

A theory is a testable framework built from previously collected data that explains a scientific phenomenon. Nothing more, nothing less.

What would be enough evidence to support the theory of evolution? If you're waiting around for a controlled study where scientists take a colony of bacteria and end up with complex, multicellular organisms, I think you're going to be disappointed. If you had dived into the peer-reviewed and scientific literature and concluded that the theory of evolution is bunk, then I could dig that. But I think there's a different reason why you have a dog in this race.

I just have a hard time believing that we evolved from fish that turned into apes, then man that are able to do the thing we do while the other animals are unable to. I did some googling and there is nothing coming up about the species between ape and man. There has to be something to prove it. I mean you have all these steps that they claim to be there and they show them, but that step is missing, why is that?

And yes, I am a psych major. I love every minute of it. The fact that it is all based on theory is what, I think, makes it better. I am also a creationist. Do you think there is a conflict there? lol

[bassist_25]

I just have a hard time believing that we evolved from fish that turned into apes, then man. And are able to do the thing we do while the other animals are unable to.

But why do you have a hard time believing it?

I did some googling and there is nothing coming up about the species between ape and man. There has to be something to prove it. I mean you have all these steps that they claim to be there and they show them, but that step is missing, why is that?

That's why I'm encouraging you to dive into the peer reviewed literature. Google's just going to give you a very shallow overview. Look at the lit reviews. Read the methodology sections. Go find the sources the authors cite.

And yes, I am a psych major. I love every minute of it. The fact that it is all based on theory is what, I think, makes it better.

What do you mean "it is all based on theory"? Just about all science - whether positivist or antipositivist, physical science or social science - contains theory. I keep getting the vibe that you're using the word "theory" the same way the lay person uses the word "theory."

I am also a creationist. Do you think there is a conflict there? lol

No, the belief that a higher being created the world does not necessarily contradict the assumtion that observable and causal relationships exist in the world.

[KeithReynolds]

Frank, you cant cite places that have bias or agendas to provide facts. Same with all the foxnews and msnbc stuff.
That religious site SAYS its there, but if you look in Egypt's ACTUAL history, its not there at ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.
Id believe a country's historical record before Id believe an agenda filled website trying to tell me they have truth.

So, because there is a Jewish holiday.....the events they say to have taken place MUST be TRUTH right? No way dude.
People celebrate Jesus' birth on a pagan holiday he wasnt even born on. Thats just ONE example.

[f.sciarrillo]

Frank, you cant cite places that have bias or agendas to provide facts. Same with all the foxnews and msnbc stuff.
That religious site SAYS its there, but if you look in Egypt's ACTUAL history, its not there at ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.
Id believe a country's historical record before Id believe an agenda filled website trying to tell me they have truth.

So, because there is a Jewish holiday.....the events they say to have taken place MUST be TRUTH right? No way dude.
People celebrate Jesus' birth on a pagan holiday he wasnt even born on. Thats just ONE example.

That is where it gets tough Kieth. Mostly because the other side you see is bias as well. There is no real happy medium, it is something that you have to decide for yourself. Look at both sides and whatever side you think is right, go with it. You won't be thought of any lesser

As for December 25th. Jesus was said to have been born in June. They reason they chose Dec 25th was because it was at the same time as the other festivals. And it was easier to do it that way. You have to remember that back then people walked where ever they went. It took a long time to get to places, so when they went somewhere that was far they stayed for while. Since people traveled to one location at that same time around the same time of year, it would make sense to do it that way.

[KeithReynolds]

History isnt biased....its history.

[TheBMC]

Just posting so i can follow the topic.... a very interesting topic that I have been trying to investigate ... at this point i'm still researching and trying to somehow confirm or find truth in both science and/or religion. both sides are so easily debatable... thanks for this post Keith.

[f.sciarrillo]

History isnt biased....its history.

I am about to turn this into a thread about Boobies lol

"The Exodus Decoded" is the other thing I found. I saw the tv show this was based on. Simcha Jacobovici is the hose of Naked Archeologist. The show was produced by James Cameron. I know that probably means nothing, but if you saw the show you would get the gist of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus_Decoded

You can watch the show at the link below.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9418537170#

[KeithReynolds]

No Frank, the reason they CHOSE dec 25 because it was a pagan holiday. The church was new, so they figured a good way to get converts was to use alot of the same days and traditions. It made converting easier. Doing research will show you what they "borrowed".

Religions had been doing that forever at that time anyway, so it wasnt unheard of to do.

Again frank, lets not talk about tv shows putting out real truth. They have an agenda. Alot of the claims on that show were assumptions and theories. even the wiki page says that! read it dude!


Look at REAL Egyptian history...not shows done by the Titanic director.
Look for things that dont say "theory" or "suggests". Thats not truth. Just opinion.

[f.sciarrillo]

No Frank, the reason they CHOSE dec 25 because it was a pagan holiday. The church was new, so they figured a good way to get converts was to use alot of the same days and traditions. It made converting easier. Doing research will show you what they "borrowed".

Religions had been doing that forever at that time anyway, so it wasnt unheard of to do.

Again frank, lets not talk about tv shows putting out real truth. They have an agenda. Alot of the claims on that show were assumptions and theories. even the wiki page says that! read it dude!

I did read it, and I never said it was based on fact. I was trying to show you what was hopefully a non bias source to look at.

This is a dead debate dude. Nothing is going to change what you think and nothing is going to change what I think, We will be rebutting each other for a month, so lets just agree to disagree?

[KeithReynolds]

I totally agree dude.


Anyone else OTHER than Frank wanna chime in??


Allthough I am curious why this would be a dead debate , yet youd fight tooth and nail for politics.

[KeithReynolds]

Have you ever read "On the Genealogy of Morals" by Nietzsche, Kieth? He's one that truly questioned the conventional definitions of good and evil and came up with very interesting conclusions.

No I havent...ill check it out!!! Thanks for the suggestion.

[ToonaRockGuy]

Stop it Jeff, that's annoying, LOL...

Okay, I read this whole thread, and I have an observation. I am actually very proud of Frank, Keith, Paul, Jeff, and Tony for making this a very civilized thread. One of the cardinal rules I've learned since the advent of teh internetz is that politics and religion are two things to just stay away from, cause all they do is cause online fights.

That said...

I'mma toss in my two cents.

Something that I don't advertise a lot is the fact that my father is a (now retired) minister, so unless there are other "PK's" here, I've probably been to church more than most people here. I've seen it all, and heard it all. And as I've gotten older (nearing 42 now), I've been able to come up with my own theories and beliefs.

Do I believe in God? Yes.

Do I pray? Yes.

Do I go to church? No. Haven't been on a regular basis since I left home for the US Navy back in 1986.

My belief is that I have no problem with God. I believe in Him and try to live a decent life so that I can go to Heaven when I die.

Do I question my faith? Constantly. A person that has faith without questioning it is defeating the whole purpose of having faith.

All that said (and hopefully making sense), do I have religion? NO.

Faith and religion are two different things, and the inherent problem with religion is that it's forever doomed to fail. It's my belief that the inherent problem with religion is You. That's right, you. And what I mean by "You" is two words: HUMAN INTERPRETATION. Every religion (Catholic, Methodist, Southern Baptist, Hinduists, American Baptist, Islamists, Church Of God, Jewish, Bhuddist, Taoist, Lutheran, Scientologist, and so on) can be boiled down purely and simply into one small, simple ideal:

BE GOOD TO EACH OTHER.

Yet people debate, people argue, fights begin, wars are fought and people are killed because of the human interpretation of religion.

For example, my brother (also a Baptist) got married in California years ago. He married a Catholic woman, sweet as can be. He had to be married in a Catholic Mass. Why? Because if he wasn't, then in the eyes of the Catholic Church, his wife and he would be living in sin and not married. Which makes me naturally ask, "What the hell makes the Catholic religion determine who is married and who is not?".

No church is better than the other. No church is right, and no church is wrong. If people need a building to go into to share their religion and their faith with one another, more power to them. I personally don't. I go to services on Easter and Christmas when I can to make my wife happy, but I am uncomfortable the whole time. Someone said it earlier in this thread, I can't remember if it was Frank or Paul, but to me, people that go to church to get answers to their faith lack the fortitude to find out the answers on their own. If you have a Bible, the answers you seek are right there. It's just up to you how you interpret them.

Bottom line for me: My relationship with God is mine, and nobody else's business. I don't need someone else telling me that I can't take Communion because I haven't taken Comfirmation classes or that I should believe in the King James version of the Bible and not the New International Version. And I'm damn sure not gonna blow myself up in a crowd because someone doesn't believe the way I do. God loves me the way I am, and I strive to be a good person.

Just my opinions, not looking for confrontation.

[bassist_25]

Frank, you cant cite places that have bias or agendas to provide facts.

It's possible to cite a source that has a bias, so as long as the method in which the conclusion is derived is sound. Think tanks often have an agenda, but many also produce excellent research. While the implementation of research may have has a positive spin, in my experience, much it is driven by a normative purpose.

With that said, I wouldn't cite an agenda-driven source, such as a think tank or advocacy group, without giving the other angles equal face time and deconstructing the arguments to deduce some sort of meaning from it all.

History isnt biased....its history.

History itself as a set of discreet events is not biased. However, history as a recollection of events is a social construction and, therefore, always has some sort of bias. That bias can be as benign as a person who is reporting history choosing to leave out certain events that he or she or the intended audience believe to not be important, or it can be extreme and revisionist, such as reporting that The Holocaust never happened.

[tornandfrayed]

...

[Larry]

Didn't the Sumerians believe that the Anunnaki created us by mating with primates in order to create a slave race for mining gold? I can't translate cuneiform, so I'm speaking second hand, of course.

[KeithReynolds]

Thats a theory and what they say on shows about ancient aliens.

Whether it really says that or not, would only be truly discovered if one could translate the Sumerian tablets. I cant, so I just take peoples word for it.
In the Sumerian story of creation, first man was called "Adamu" or "Adama". Sound familiar?!?!

Sumerian texts and tablets are FAR older than biblical texts. Somehow Sumerian texts survived time too! Divine?? Prob not, just the will by humans to preserve things.

The Sumerians were the first real civilization. Before this time, there were basically just tribes of people running around throwing spears.
Look into all the advances that happened for man in Sumerian times! Agriculture, writing, math, and even invention of the WHEEL!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer

[songsmith]

"The Exodus Decoded" is the other thing I found. I saw the tv show this was based on. Simcha Jacobovici is the hose of Naked Archeologist.

This made me LOL. Simcha Jacobovici is kind of a hose.
Seriously, he's a Velikovsky-an (sp). That's someone who attempts to square the small amount of evidence he has with Biblical record. It's a very easy thing to do. All it takes is... faith. The problem is, faith requires the suspension of disbelief, and science seeks PROOF. It's easy to see Christ as a historical figure, because you've been told that from before the time you could understand, your family and community wouldn't lie to you, and there've been 1700 years gone by and people still believe it.
But look for any historical EVIDENCE. No record of Jesus Christ exists during His supposed lifetime. The central figure in human history, and the only record of Him is from documents written by people who wished to maintain control, people who were also willing to use existing non- Christian rituals and "holy days" to help maintain that control. Many faiths have a worldwide-flood story, as evidenced by ancient pre-Christian texts, and some look at fish fossils in local rocks as evidence of Noah, but other religions see it as "proof" of their god, and science can explain how a fish carcass can be replaced by minerals over time, negating the need to turn it into some wondrous miracle. The only thing a Christian can hold onto in this discussion is his belief structure.
Religion does have merit. It provides a framework of morals that are helpful to humans to create order in the societal community. It provides an escape from human foibles and failings. It eases guilt for one's own transgressions against society. It helps placate the masses, making them more easily controlled. It provides an easy explanation for the complexities of the world and universe, when time spent pondering could be time spent working. Finally, religion eases our fear that life is finite and all-too-short. Humans are ego-driven, and few want to face the possibility that we will someday cease to exist.
I embrace that idea, and don't see the need for Heavenly Reward for good deeds done now. I try to be a good person so I can enjoy the here-and-now, and when I'm gone, perhaps my body will be replaced by minerals. Or maybe I'll just exist in the memories of the people whose lives I touched.

[homerski]

Finally, religion eases our fear that life is finite and all-too-short. Humans are ego-driven, and few want to face the possibility that we will someday cease to exist.
I embrace that idea, and don't see the need for Heavenly Reward for good deeds done now. I try to be a good person so I can enjoy the here-and-now, and when I'm gone, perhaps my body will be replaced by minerals. Or maybe I'll just exist in the memories of the people whose lives I touched.

Johnny, As is usual, my thoughts exactly...

JH

[songsmith]

Thanks, but I'm wondering why this thread is six feet wide on my monitor?