The fun thing is there is no way at all to scientifically prove the specific way things began or didn't begin at all. Macro Evolution itself is just a theory, meaning there is no real scientific evidence to back it up. I think that's the thing that bothers me most when people promoting science say creation can't be taught in school because it has no scientific basis, well neither does macro evolution. The evolutionists are just pushing their own form of fiction on the masses. The sad thing is that people years from now will realize that they aren't being brainwashed by religion but by "scientists." But anyway, as a Christian, I believe not only digging deeper to discover what my faith is about, but also digging deeper into the beliefs of the rest of the world, so I can understand why I don't believe what others do.

Written by Guest on 15.10.2009 at 06:10

The fun thing is there is no way at all to scientifically prove the specific way things began or didn't begin at all. Macro Evolution itself is just a theory, meaning there is no real scientific evidence to back it up. I think that's the thing that bothers me most when people promoting science say creation can't be taught in school because it has no scientific basis, well neither does macro evolution. The evolutionists are just pushing their own form of fiction on the masses. The sad thing is that people years from now will realize that they aren't being brainwashed by religion but by "scientists." But anyway, as a Christian, I believe not only digging deeper to discover what my faith is about, but also digging deeper into the beliefs of the rest of the world, so I can understand why I don't believe what others do.

Well, you have to admit that the common thought of evolution has much more logic than the creation story.
I'm not going to compare them both now, because you're probably familiar with them.
And yes, it is indeed a theory, but there are still many questions about where life originally came from.
So you can put your faith in that direction, instead of thinking the whole evolution theory is bollocks.

What many Christians should ask themselves is: (for their own sake)
Why do I disagree with the evolution theory? What's wrong with it?
Does my life really change that much if I also think evolution makes a bit more sense?
If I allow those thoughts in my mind, I can still be a Christian, or wouldn't I?
Do I really need to agree with every single word written in the Bible to be a Christian?
And if I don't agree with every single word, but still find a lot of meaning in most of what's in the Bible, is it really that bad that I can't call myself a Christian? (It's just a name, you know)

And talking about teaching creation in school; It always saddens me that creationists talk this way and want their story to be taught in school.
But isn't that a little arrogant? There are millions of stories in many other religions about how the earth came into being or was created.
What makes their stories less valuable and less important than the creation story? Is theirs just nonsense? If so, then how did you come to that conclusion?
Why not also teach children at school how Hinduism and the Islam thinks the world is created?
I'd suggest a little equality here.
But if they all were being taught at school, that would be quite a load of stuff for kids to take in, and also way too much than they would need.

What many Christians should ask themselves is: (for their own sake)
Why do I disagree with the evolution theory?
I don't disagree with it, it's part of the whole but doesn't explain everything that happens, exists or gives a significant enough view of the realities within this one.

What's wrong with it?
See above....

Does my life really change that much if I also think evolution makes a bit more sense?
No

If I allow those thoughts in my mind, I can still be a Christian, or wouldn't I?
Yes, free will is an integral part of what Christ taught. If it makes sense to you then roll with it till it shows out to say otherwise. Dogma, not God suggests otherwise.

Do I really need to agree with every single word written in the Bible to be a Christian?
No, the bible is individualized messages told in a huge framework. It's taken out of line enough as it is by everyone esles saying "The bible says" but no one ever says "the bible tells me that...."

And if I don't agree with every single word, but still find a lot of meaning in most of what's in the Bible, is it really that bad that I can't call myself a Christian? (It's just a name, you know)
More or less it's bad if you call yourself a christian to justify actions of intollerance, deceit and creating a divide between the self and mankind.

And talking about teaching creation in school; It always saddens me that creationists talk this way and want their story to be taught in school.But isn't that a little arrogant?
Yes, if you teach one creation idea you should teach all of them. Make it a cultural understanding not just a God centered reality.

There are millions of stories in many other religions about how the earth came into being or was created.
What makes their stories less valuable and less important than the creation story? Is theirs just nonsense? If so, then how did you come to that conclusion?
No, they all play into the whole of it all and oddly enough many creation myths do have a "nameless creation deity" (Egypt, The Yuroba based religions.....) the main thing here is the force that created the gods is actually god. The rest of the creation stories outside of Christianity can be put into play with the Christian one, no one decided to find the tie in.

Why not also teach children at school how Hinduism and the Islam thinks the world is created?
Because somone will say it's "indoctrination" based on what their church has said is "right" & "Wrong". In essence here the basis for this is dogmatic, not out of common sense or fainrness but more on the "If you beling to us then our way is the only 'right' one".

People don't seem to be able to seperate the "words of dead people" and what God is about. All too often there's some deal of people associating God and/or a deity with a religion as if that religion knows what it is talking about. In essence the problems occur due to people thinking "God likes religion". If that be the case then why are none of them "right"?

Nice answers.

Written by Ph0eNiX on 15.04.2010 at 17:11
The rest of the creation stories outside of Christianity can be put into play with the Christian one, no one decided to find the tie in.

So, the Christian God is the true source of all other gods from other religions?
I don't really understand what you said there so I might interpret it in a wrong way.
I don't really agree if that's what you're trying to say, how can you be so sure about that?

Quote:
Why not also teach children at school how Hinduism and the Islam thinks the world is created?
Because somone will say it's "indoctrination" based on what their church has said is "right" & "Wrong". In essence here the basis for this is dogmatic, not out of common sense or fainrness but more on the "If you beling to us then our way is the only 'right' one".

Yet, you say in some strange way that Christian creation should be taught in schools? How come that is not indoctrination and teaching about other creation stories from other religions is?

I don't think it's fair and I also think it's arrogant to claim that the way you think the Earth and the universe came into being should be taught to all other people.

Written by Twilight on 23.04.2010 at 13:00

Nice answers.

Written by Ph0eNiX on 15.04.2010 at 17:11
The rest of the creation stories outside of Christianity can be put into play with the Christian one, no one decided to find the tie in.

So, the Christian God is the true source of all other gods from other religions?
I don't really understand what you said there so I might interpret it in a wrong way.
I don't really agree if that's what you're trying to say, how can you be so sure about that?

Quote:
Why not also teach children at school how Hinduism and the Islam thinks the world is created?
Because somone will say it's "indoctrination" based on what their church has said is "right" & "Wrong". In essence here the basis for this is dogmatic, not out of common sense or fainrness but more on the "If you beling to us then our way is the only 'right' one".

Yet, you say in some strange way that Christian creation should be taught in schools? How come that is not indoctrination and teaching about other creation stories from other religions is?

I don't think it's fair and I also think it's arrogant to claim that the way you think the Earth and the universe came into being should be taught to all other people.

Okay 1st off sorry for taking forever on the response here... I was uber busy with finishing up certification and moving stuff. ALso I did just reread this and I did notice clarity issues with how i initially worded parts of this.

To answer your Questions.... (It all kicked off from this as I read thru so I'll roll thru from here)
So, the Christian God is the true source of all other gods from other religions?
More or less I was saying it can tie in with the rest because it is a creation story. You can teach them all and say this is the varrying religious point of view. Not necessarily trying to do anything else but expand creationism to cover everyone equally. Hell you can possibly put that into a geography or history class. Not necessarily tying in anything direct to Christianity. Like if someone does, it's cuz they thought there, not cuz it was taught there. In order to level out the indoctrination issue is about presentation in a fair light for everything individually. It's not just a counterbalance for all religion saying the other religion is "Wrong" but also to shed a light on aspects of a religion's mentality. I dont' see this as indoctrination, but more like a way of saying "okay this is what it's about" and leaving it there. For me if you wanna end the issue make it a display of "hey, here are the creation stories" not a sale line.

Forgive any lack of clarity there.

Written by Guest on 15.10.2009 at 06:10

The fun thing is there is no way at all to scientifically prove the specific way things began or didn't begin at all. Macro Evolution itself is just a theory, meaning there is no real scientific evidence to back it up. I think that's the thing that bothers me most when people promoting science say creation can't be taught in school because it has no scientific basis, well neither does macro evolution. The evolutionists are just pushing their own form of fiction on the masses. The sad thing is that people years from now will realize that they aren't being brainwashed by religion but by "scientists." But anyway, as a Christian, I believe not only digging deeper to discover what my faith is about, but also digging deeper into the beliefs of the rest of the world, so I can understand why I don't believe what others do.

I know this should really be in the evolution thread, but there are SO many problems with the above statement.

What creationist propaganda have you been reading that says there is no evidence for evolution? Do you not "believe" in quantum mechanics either? The REAL complete theory of evolution is just as complex as quantum mechanics, and has more evidence. Here is a brief overview of evidence for common descent:

1. Anatomical homology (patterns of biological constraints passed down)
2. Almost all organisms code RNA into proteins the same way. The other organisms (mitochondria, some bacteria and fungus) use slight variations. ALL organisms use the same coding for creating amino acid sequences.
3. Pseudogene mutations (shared errors). Example: all simians including humans share one pseudogene of inactivated L-gulonolactone oxidase, but the guinea pig has a different pseudogene indicating a different mutation.
4. Chromosome fusions. Example: the second human chromosome is a fusion of the extra chromosome chimps have with another, as shown by the telomere markers (which mark the end of a chromosome) being in the middle, showing the spot where the two chromosomes fused.
5. A great deal of our knowledge of developmental genes comes from evolutionary study of embryology. Knowledge which has produced visible results.
6. Retroviral insertions. Extremely rare and species specific.
7. Transitional fossils. Despite what you may have been told by creationists, they DO exist.
8. Convergence. The convergence of all these methods into the same evolutionary "tree." The evidence all points to the same place.

Gravity, flight, planetary motion, electromagnetism, etc... are all theories. I guess that means we have no evidence for them. All our electronics really don't actually work and planes and birds don't actually fly.

There is no macro/micro evolution divide. Creationists made that up so they wouldn't have to come up with their own explanation for micro-organism evolution and other traits, which happen much quicker and much more easily observed. I'm an atheist, and I will HAPPILY insist that evolution and Christianity are COMPLETELY compatible, as long as you don't insist on being a complete biblical literalist.

Written by Guest on 15.10.2009 at 06:10

...as a Christian, I believe not only digging deeper to discover what my faith is about, but also digging deeper into the beliefs of the rest of the world, so I can understand why I don't believe what others do.

I agree with what Hrothdane said above but this tickled my funny bone. Don't you think you should hold off deciding what the absolute truth of existence and everything is after you've looked at everything? Otherwise you're making up your mind and choosing the first thing that comes along (ie: growing up in America and being encultured by Christians) and then deciding why you don't believe in anything else (ie: it's not Christianity). If you're going to claim that is some sort of "search" for truth, then that is a total fallacy and a personal condemnation of free thought and inquiry altogether.

And please, if you ever reply to this, answer my question first and don't just turn around and ask the same question. I understand and accept that we are all encultured into our society, but I am curious as to how you see it. I think you are a Christian because you have been encultured by a largely Christian society and I'm convinced that if you had been born in India or the Mid-East then you would be Hindu or Muslim, respectively. To me, it's very similar to language or customs. Whereas you may think you are a Christian because it is the truth.

Written by Clintagräm on 06.07.2010 at 01:25

Written by Hrothdane on 28.06.2010 at 18:03

...But anyway, as a Christian, I believe not only digging deeper to discover what my faith is about, but also digging deeper into the beliefs of the rest of the world, so I can understand why I don't believe what others do.

I agree with what Hrothdane said above but this tickled my funny bone. Don't you think you should hold off deciding what the absolute truth of existence and everything is after you've looked at everything? Otherwise you're making up your mind and choosing the first thing that comes along (ie: growing up in America and being encultured by Christians) and then deciding why you don't believe in anything else (ie: it's not Christianity). If you're going to claim that is some sort of "search" for truth, then that is a total fallacy and a personal condemnation of free thought and inquiry altogether.

And please, if you ever reply to this, answer my question first and don't just turn around and ask the same question. I understand and accept that we are all encultured into our society, but I am curious as to how you see it. I think you are a Christian because you have been encultured by a largely Christian society and I'm convinced that if you had been born in India or the Mid-East then you would be Hindu or Muslim, respectively. To me, it's very similar to language or customs. Whereas you may think you are a Christian because it is the truth.

no religion is all-bad.. and most certainly none is perfect ... so, to 'pick' a religion to believe in is an absolute hoax and a fallacy. you either believe in the COMMON GOOD in all religions or you dont.. but to believe a certain religion is somehow 'better' than others... this is just pointless... most (if not) all religions promote good morals; justice, peace, and love (then again they promote violence and killing and some other shit but nevermind that ) ... so, if someone is to 'pick' a religion, he/she'll simply overlook the 'bad stuff' in his religion of choice and point out the 'bad stuff' in other religions... so, what is more relevant is believing in 'morals' rather than religion ... if you have certain morals (let it be religious-based or not it doesnt matter) if you are a moral person then it wouldnt matter what religion you follow or even do not follow one at all .. wont make much difference... it would be just a 'label' .. like one's nationality for example. i'm an egyptian, he's an american, she's a christian, they're muslims, ...etc. labels, while if you believe in the core concepts of 'good' .. it wouldn't matter which religion you follow.. different religions are simply different 'versions' of the story behind these morals ... so, follow the core essence and leave the shallow shell ... follow the morals itself and nevermind the theatrics associated. hope i delivered my message clearly

Written by Zombie on 06.07.2010 at 02:53

no religion is all-bad.. and most certainly none is perfect ... so, to 'pick' a religion to believe in is an absolute hoax and a fallacy. you either believe in the COMMON GOOD in all religions or you dont.. but to believe a certain religion is somehow 'better' than others... this is just pointless... most (if not) all religions promote good morals; justice, peace, and love (then again they promote violence and killing and some other shit but nevermind that ) ... so, if someone is to 'pick' a religion, he/she'll simply overlook the 'bad stuff' in his religion of choice and point out the 'bad stuff' in other religions... so, what is more relevant is believing in 'morals' rather than religion ... if you have certain morals (let it be religious-based or not it doesnt matter) if you are a moral person then it wouldnt matter what religion you follow or even do not follow one at all .. wont make much difference... it would be just a 'label' .. like one's nationality for example. i'm an egyptian, he's an american, she's a christian, they're muslims, ...etc. labels, while if you believe in the core concepts of 'good' .. it wouldn't matter which religion you follow.. different religions are simply different 'versions' of the story behind these morals ... so, follow the core essence and leave the shallow shell ... follow the morals itself and nevermind the theatrics associated. hope i delivered my message clearly

You did, very well said! I just don't understand why people have to keep the baggage of religion. You see, if it was just morals as you claimed, then there would be no need for any myths or anything supernatural. Unless of course people need those things to believe in morals. But then again, I don't really understand that notion either. If you're only good because god commands it, then I wouldn't think you're very good at all.

I guess it all extends beyond just what we can discuss on a forum. Something that extends thousands, if not millions of years of both cultural and physical evolution and thousands of miles around the globe. Something that I am humble enough to realize I will never fully comprehend, nor do I claim to know the absolute truth of (unlike many other people in this world).

I think that myths are quite simple and complicated at the same time. Simple for what they serve as -a purpose- but more difficult if applied more layers, explanations etc.
The most interesting about that theme is how such stories manage to be successful. The more "acceptable" a myth becomes, it ends to become not only successful, but also ..solid truth and reality -ultimate goal-. I think that it's a bit tricky but sometimes we cannot define & comprehend rationally/clearly such things. And i feel that's because the lack of information we have mostly (til now?), you know partially informed and such. I see this is how these things work, for example use a pattern of a myth and maybe you can create your own religion-if you organize it, there you go -in the business Or you can create your own stories (eating some mushrooms maybe, or drink alcohol, -combine it with fasting- it's an old recipe after all) e.g superman is a myth -and a good one- but it was made quite recent who knows in the future what will happen

Written by treptolemus on 18.07.2010 at 19:22

... I see this is how these things work, for example use a pattern of a myth and maybe you can create your own religion-if you organize it, there you go -in the business Or you can create your own stories (eating some mushrooms maybe, or drink alcohol, -combine it with fastening- it's an old recipe after all) e.g superman is a myth -and a good one- but it was made quite recent who knows in the future what will happen

Exactly what L. Ron Hubbard did with $cientology ... turned his science fiction novel 'dianetics' into a religion for profit !

Written by Dane Train on 11.06.2009 at 23:31

Written by akatana on 11.06.2009 at 09:45

The day that your story turns into: I lost my arm and then I prayed and it grew back, then I will believe in a god. That would be miraculous. Fever dropping is not a miraculous healing. I don't want to sound rude, but I see a real danger in this kind of attitude, namely that people think that praying can solve their medical problems(I am not talking about your situation, you were about to go to the emergency room). But a lot of people died this way, even more saddening is that a lot of innocent children also died because of the faith of their parents. On a more lighter note, whenever I hear of such a story, I think of an alternative interpretation of the whole god-intervenes-in-your-life-thingy: For me a church with a lightning-rod is the very definition of lack of faith

So how do you explain that my 104°F temperature dropping back to normal within a couple of minutes at the exact same time people laid hands on me and prayed?

That's quite simple, false attribution on your part, though I'd ask for proof of said event too in a formal setting.
And absolutely, even religion now has been influenced by things we call mythology, imo all existing, and extinct religions are mythology.

Written by Yasmine on 28.03.2011 at 03:49

Written by Dane Train on 11.06.2009 at 23:31

Written by akatana on 11.06.2009 at 09:45

The day that your story turns into: I lost my arm and then I prayed and it grew back, then I will believe in a god. That would be miraculous. Fever dropping is not a miraculous healing. I don't want to sound rude, but I see a real danger in this kind of attitude, namely that people think that praying can solve their medical problems(I am not talking about your situation, you were about to go to the emergency room). But a lot of people died this way, even more saddening is that a lot of innocent children also died because of the faith of their parents. On a more lighter note, whenever I hear of such a story, I think of an alternative interpretation of the whole god-intervenes-in-your-life-thingy: For me a church with a lightning-rod is the very definition of lack of faith

So how do you explain that my 104°F temperature dropping back to normal within a couple of minutes at the exact same time people laid hands on me and prayed?

That's quite simple, false attribution on your part, though I'd ask for proof of said event too in a formal setting.
And absolutely, even religion now has been influenced by things we call mythology, imo all existing, and extinct religions are mythology.

"A myth is a religion which nobody believes in any more." I like that quote, although I've forgotten who it was that said it (think it might have been Lenin, but I'm not sure could also have been Richard Dawkins or somebody close to him).

Of course religion is influenced by mythology. Mythology was religion at some point. You think judaism started in Israel? Not a chance. It is believed to have originated in Mesopotamia (current Iraq) with the Sumerians and the Babylonians. You think Christmas is supposed to be in December? Think again. The romans put it in december because they couldn't get the pagans in the conquered lands up north to stop celebrating their pagan holidays.

Hell, we still celebrate Midsummer, only we have put a cross on top of the pole.

Myths are just existentially relevant stories whose intent is to teach something about humanity, the transcendent and the world. They're not "untrue accounts of history" like people on TV use the word. I think it's sad that our ability to think and communicate in terms of myths and symbols has degraded so. Myself included; I just don't feel the relevance of religious symbols and mythology. I understand it, from a perspective of knowledge, but I don't feel it.

Judaism most certainly started in Israel, by the way. Well, insofar as any authentic religion "starts" anywhere; it formed in Israel and among Babylionian diaspora, but what we would call modern Judaism only formed at around 70 CE after the destruction of the second temple and in a looser sense, after the destruction of the first temple. So most of the OT narratives don't actually talk about Jews in any sense of the word. But yeah, they're definetely mythology, stories with existential and theological aims.

Written by ForeverDarkWoods on 29.03.2011 at 13:46

Written by Yasmine on 28.03.2011 at 03:49

Written by Dane Train on 11.06.2009 at 23:31

Written by akatana on 11.06.2009 at 09:45

The day that your story turns into: I lost my arm and then I prayed and it grew back, then I will believe in a god. That would be miraculous. Fever dropping is not a miraculous healing. I don't want to sound rude, but I see a real danger in this kind of attitude, namely that people think that praying can solve their medical problems(I am not talking about your situation, you were about to go to the emergency room). But a lot of people died this way, even more saddening is that a lot of innocent children also died because of the faith of their parents. On a more lighter note, whenever I hear of such a story, I think of an alternative interpretation of the whole god-intervenes-in-your-life-thingy: For me a church with a lightning-rod is the very definition of lack of faith

So how do you explain that my 104°F temperature dropping back to normal within a couple of minutes at the exact same time people laid hands on me and prayed?

That's quite simple, false attribution on your part, though I'd ask for proof of said event too in a formal setting.
And absolutely, even religion now has been influenced by things we call mythology, imo all existing, and extinct religions are mythology.

"A myth is a religion which nobody believes in any more." I like that quote, although I've forgotten who it was that said it (think it might have been Lenin, but I'm not sure could also have been Richard Dawkins or somebody close to him).

Of course religion is influenced by mythology. Mythology was religion at some point. You think judaism started in Israel? Not a chance. It is believed to have originated in Mesopotamia (current Iraq) with the Sumerians and the Babylonians. You think Christmas is supposed to be in December? Think again. The romans put it in december because they couldn't get the pagans in the conquered lands up north to stop celebrating their pagan holidays.

Hell, we still celebrate Midsummer, only we have put a cross on top of the pole.

Right on! Sadly I've only had time to read the blind watchmaker myself.

Written by IronAngel on 29.03.2011 at 15:46

Myths are just existentially relevant stories whose intent is to teach something about humanity, the transcendent and the world. They're not "untrue accounts of history" like people on TV use the word. I think it's sad that our ability to think and communicate in terms of myths and symbols has degraded so. Myself included; I just don't feel the relevance of religious symbols and mythology. I understand it, from a perspective of knowledge, but I don't feel it.

Judaism most certainly started in Israel, by the way. Well, insofar as any authentic religion "starts" anywhere; it formed in Israel and among Babylionian diaspora, but what we would call modern Judaism only formed at around 70 CE after the destruction of the second temple and in a looser sense, after the destruction of the first temple. So most of the OT narratives don't actually talk about Jews in any sense of the word. But yeah, they're definetely mythology, stories with existential and theological aims.

What is today called judaism started in Israel, however:
* Abraham's wife was from Uruk, which was a Sumerian city believed to have been located in Iraq.
* Sodom and Gomorrah are believed to have been located in Iraq as well, or at least in association with the rivers Eufrat and Tigris.
* Much of the mythology of the old testament dates back to the Sumerians. The history of Noah's Ark is a good example, which is believed to have originated as a part of the Epic of Gilgamesh.
* If the old testament is to be examined, it is clear that the early jews worshipped Baal in some form, whom was a Babylonian/Sumerian god. The part about Moses renouncing Baal is not coincidental, there is a reason it's there. It has been proposed that it is some kind of illustration of the conflicting interests between the people dedicated to the old Sumerian/Babylonian god Baal and the followers of the god An/Anu (has been proposed to be the same god that is now called God, Jehova, Jahve or Allah).

"If the old testament is to be examined, it is clear that the early jews worshipped Baal in some form, whom was a Babylonian/Sumerian god. The part about Moses renouncing Baal is not coincidental, there is a reason it's there. It has been proposed that it is some kind of illustration of the conflicting interests between the people dedicated to the old Sumerian/Babylonian god Baal and the followers of the god An/Anu (has been proposed to be the same god that is now called God, Jehova, Jahve or Allah). "

So it's representation maybe of both a sort of conflict and transition? (Not my area of education by any means lol)

"Sodom and Gomorrah are believed to have been located in Iraq as well, or at least in association with the rivers Eufrat and Tigris"

I think just maybe they might be waiting to find these cities for a long long long time to come.

Written by treptolemus on 18.07.2010 at 19:22

I think that myths are quite simple and complicated at the same time. Simple for what they serve as -a purpose- but more difficult if applied more layers, explanations etc.
The most interesting about that theme is how such stories manage to be successful. The more "acceptable" a myth becomes, it ends to become not only successful, but also ..solid truth and reality -ultimate goal-. I think that it's a bit tricky but sometimes we cannot define & comprehend rationally/clearly such things. And i feel that's because the lack of information we have mostly (til now?), you know partially informed and such. I see this is how these things work, for example use a pattern of a myth and maybe you can create your own religion-if you organize it, there you go -in the business Or you can create your own stories (eating some mushrooms maybe, or drink alcohol, -combine it with fasting- it's an old recipe after all) e.g superman is a myth -and a good one- but it was made quite recent who knows in the future what will happen

hahaha this is a good point but you know something it's just hard to live when you believe in a religion(any religion) and it's also hard to live without one that's why I made my own mix who knows maybe my combined religion will be the only religion after 1000 or 2000 years

Written by Yasmine on 28.03.2011 at 03:49

That's quite simple, false attribution on your part, though I'd ask for proof of said event too in a formal setting.

How do you figure it is false attribution? I am curious as to your reasoning on this manner. And as for proof, what sort of proof would you like?

Written by Dane Train on 30.03.2011 at 02:13

Written by Yasmine on 28.03.2011 at 03:49

That's quite simple, false attribution on your part, though I'd ask for proof of said event too in a formal setting.

How do you figure it is false attribution? I am curious as to your reasoning on this manner. And as for proof, what sort of proof would you like?

Well I figure it's a false attribution for many a reason. One we first need to prove that the deity, entity, etc that gave these people the powers to heal you do in fact exist to even give these powers. So, testable proof of said deity first. I assume your deity to be "Jesus", if so bring him to my door, we'd be happy to have you come have tea with us. 2ndly I can then ask/examine, etc. if your deity really did in fact give him the powers to heal you, then question the deity why he made you sick in the first place. See how that works? In many religions the religion created the issue then solves the issue in order to appear effective.

At any rate this is like the Flying Spaghetti Monster belief that lack of pirates causes disasters. It's a false correlation.

Written by Yasmine on 30.03.2011 at 02:31

Well I figure it's a false attribution for many a reason. One we first need to prove that the deity, entity, etc that gave these people the powers to heal you do in fact exist to even give these powers. So, testable proof of said deity first. I assume your deity to be "Jesus", if so bring him to my door, we'd be happy to have you come have tea with us. 2ndly I can then ask/examine, etc. if your deity really did in fact give him the powers to heal you, then question the deity why he made you sick in the first place. See how that works? In many religions the religion created the issue then solves the issue in order to appear effective.

I was really hoping for a rather intelligent conversation on the matter, not a rude and inane banter.

Written by Dane Train on 30.03.2011 at 02:40

Written by Yasmine on 30.03.2011 at 02:31

Well I figure it's a false attribution for many a reason. One we first need to prove that the deity, entity, etc that gave these people the powers to heal you do in fact exist to even give these powers. So, testable proof of said deity first. I assume your deity to be "Jesus", if so bring him to my door, we'd be happy to have you come have tea with us. 2ndly I can then ask/examine, etc. if your deity really did in fact give him the powers to heal you, then question the deity why he made you sick in the first place. See how that works? In many religions the religion created the issue then solves the issue in order to appear effective.

I was really hoping for a rather intelligent conversation on the matter, not a rude and inane banter.

Oh oh me tooooo, but I know better, so I expected an inferiority complex, and I got it. The only reason that's "banter" to you is becuse you can't provide me proof of you supersition. Now, I will be rude.

Written by Yasmine on 30.03.2011 at 02:48

Oh oh me tooooo, but I know better, so I expected an inferiority complex, and I got it. The only reason that's "banter" to you is becuse you can't provide me proof of you supersition. Now, I will be rude.

You are correct. I can't provide you with any proof that you want. But really, do I need to? You seem to already have made up your mind before even getting to know me or what I have faith in. But for me, that incident is just one of many I have experienced that have helped to shape my belief and faith in a great many things.

Now if you are truly interested in understanding, or at least hearing about, my experiences I am more than willing to share them with you. Please just let me know if that fancies you.

Written by Dane Train on 30.03.2011 at 04:06

Written by Yasmine on 30.03.2011 at 02:48

Oh oh me tooooo, but I know better, so I expected an inferiority complex, and I got it. The only reason that's "banter" to you is becuse you can't provide me proof of you supersition. Now, I will be rude.

You are correct. I can't provide you with any proof that you want. But really, do I need to? You seem to already have made up your mind before even getting to know me or what I have faith in. But for me, that incident is just one of many I have experienced that have helped to shape my belief and faith in a great many things.

Now if you are truly interested in understanding, or at least hearing about, my experiences I am more than willing to share them with you. Please just let me know if that fancies you.

Okay, all good with me, that was the point of how I went about this, to make sure you know I don't accept faith as proof. Of course I have my position on religion, but don't say you. It's not personal I have devout friend, you might end up one of em. On that note I've not made up my mind about you at all, you've only posted 4 sentences to me. I may not believe what you believe, but I will lend an ear anytime, so post away.

Written by kokosho on 29.03.2011 at 23:44

Written by treptolemus on 18.07.2010 at 19:22

I think that myths are quite simple and complicated at the same time. Simple for what they serve as -a purpose- but more difficult if applied more layers, explanations etc.
The most interesting about that theme is how such stories manage to be successful. The more "acceptable" a myth becomes, it ends to become not only successful, but also ..solid truth and reality -ultimate goal-. I think that it's a bit tricky but sometimes we cannot define & comprehend rationally/clearly such things. And i feel that's because the lack of information we have mostly (til now?), you know partially informed and such. I see this is how these things work, for example use a pattern of a myth and maybe you can create your own religion-if you organize it, there you go -in the business Or you can create your own stories (eating some mushrooms maybe, or drink alcohol, -combine it with fasting- it's an old recipe after all) e.g superman is a myth -and a good one- but it was made quite recent who knows in the future what will happen

hahaha this is a good point but you know something it's just hard to live when you believe in a religion(any religion) and it's also hard to live without one that's why I made my own mix who knows maybe my combined religion will be the only religion after 1000 or 2000 years

well, just saw your quote
"it's just hard to live when you......"
Many people think likewise, and -from what i observe- especially young people. I can discuss this endlessly , using examples or try to use some philosophy here, you know- an effort to make it easier.... but you know what? I try to understand this in a way of "maturing & growing up process". It works for me at least... A part of our lives, take it, struggle to make it personal, leave it behind completely or whatever. As you say "my own mix" -it's extremely personal after all.
My questions and personal research is -now on- why these things happened, how, when (time periods), what they serve, are they any good? , are there any drawbacks, who are using these things and, of course why, what has happened to our conscience (and the collective one) and many other details. Details that scholars are providing, with combined research in many respective fields. It's like a detective research and a quite interesting approach. More like a religiology hint/approach, if that word is a valid one in English. (It exists in my lang though)
As for the myths & mythologiess from various places, always a favourite thing to keep us and our imagination occupied.

Written by treptolemus on 08.04.2011 at 03:14

Written by kokosho on 29.03.2011 at 23:44

Written by treptolemus on 18.07.2010 at 19:22

well, just saw your quote
"it's just hard to live when you......"
Many people think likewise, and -from what i observe- especially young people. I can discuss this endlessly , using examples or try to use some philosophy here, you know- an effort to make it easier.... but you know what? I try to understand this in a way of "maturing & growing up process". It works for me at least... A part of our lives, take it, struggle to make it personal, leave it behind completely or whatever. As you say "my own mix" -it's extremely personal after all.
My questions and personal research is -now on- why these things happened, how, when (time periods), what they serve, are they any good? , are there any drawbacks, who are using these things and, of course why, what has happened to our conscience (and the collective one) and many other details. Details that scholars are providing, with combined research in many respective fields. It's like a detective research and a quite interesting approach. More like a religiology hint/approach, if that word is a valid one in English. (It exists in my lang though)
As for the myths & mythologiess from various places, always a favourite thing to keep us and our imagination occupied.

"especially young people.."

well maybe I don't know but what I think religion isn't about science or supernatural things or anything what I mean is I don't find myself forced to believe in everything that my religion says to believe in God ,yet there are things that I do believe in them with or without a religion and it doesn't matter if god likes these things or not

I don't feel like I need some proof to make sure that god exists or something cuz if I asked for a proof the only proof that may satisfy me is seeing god and if I were a God I would prefer to be a bit mystical so maybe if I saw him I wouldn't believe in him cuz I would have a different idea now seeing him would be a proof that he's there but if seeing god is a common thing then I would say that if he was truly a God I shouldn't have seen him cuz he must be greater than that..so I don't know if I really want to see him cuz I might be disappointed
all these questions you've said are important and in my case many of them are still unanswered and I don't care about that cuz sooner or later there will be an answer a good one or at least I hope so look I'm not that person who strongly believe in God..etc. but what I think religion is matter of faith and I can't put my faith in science cuz science usually force you to believe in things 1+1=2 there isn't any other possibility while religion is full of possibilities sure people believe in science cuz they "know" it's true and they know it cuz there's a proof but there's not any proof that god exists that's why it is called faith

@kokosho
Religions surely do not have a scientific orientation, it's not their purpose, it is clear and simple. But science has the benefit to encompass all aspects of our lives, including that one. This does not mean we should always fight and choose a side -in our discussions- and try to defend it, it is boring i think. Also proof & the final beliefs is not the requested -direct- thing. (There is a long road in-between to be walked until we research the whole "building", maybe a personal one, for each and every one of us, with knowledge our major guide, and a clear mind). Another thing i want to mention is faith. For me it's a nice/beautiful word and a useful one. But i want to separate it from the "strict & dogmatic" for reasons that suit mostly my character. I try to avoid this, due to the sterility that is created, a constant stagnation, not beneficial at all. I see this as a duty, not as a "misleading reaction of evil that is everywhere and seeks out chances to plant me seeds of doubt" ?. On the other hand i try to be fair and think fair, search & find negative aspects -even the "scientific" ones.

Written by treptolemus on 10.04.2011 at 12:55

@kokosho
Religions surely do not have a scientific orientation, it's not their purpose, it is clear and simple. But science has the benefit to encompass all aspects of our lives, including that one. This does not mean we should always fight and choose a side -in our discussions- and try to defend it, it is boring i think. Also proof & the final beliefs is not the requested -direct- thing. (There is a long road in-between to be walked until we research the whole "building", maybe a personal one, for each and every one of us, with knowledge our major guide, and a clear mind). Another thing i want to mention is faith. For me it's a nice/beautiful word and a useful one. But i want to separate it from the "strict & dogmatic" for reasons that suit mostly my character. I try to avoid this, due to the sterility that is created, a constant stagnation, not beneficial at all. I see this as a duty, not as a "misleading reaction of evil that is everywhere and seeks out chances to plant me seeds of doubt" ?. On the other hand i try to be fair and think fair, search & find negative aspects -even the "scientific" ones.

well from what I see in Islam there are some scientific orientation.sure it is cuz it's a discussion not a fighting when I discuss something I want to know more about it and I want to know how different people look at things differently maybe change my thoughts and opinions so sure it's boring to get outta a discussion and you see that nothing is changed in you
when I said faith sure I didn't mean the strict and dogmatic dogmas are closer to rules than faith closer to the idea of 1+1=2 I know dogmas usually based on faith but since most people who have dogmas never try to find faith in the dogma they believe in,the dogma turned into some stupid rules that doesn't suit our lives and personalities
let me tell you something everyone thinks that he\she is trying to be fair and think fair.people who think that there's a god for example think that it's unfair to even say "what if god is not exist"and when you ask them if they thought about that they would say that they did and they found out that there is god and if you might say to them why they would say that it's unfair to believe that there's not and they truly believe that they're fair so I don't think I can say that I'm "trying" to think fair my mind tells me that I am but do I know that I'm fair with my thoughts?no I don't

Usually different points of view/opinions are personal adjustments we make, right? Anyway, I think that critical thinking has many levels, and is closely related to other things such as the environment that we grow up, our own families and friends, let's add the cultural stimulants -that's even more definitive, and many other minor factors. The levels (variety/interest) that someone can discuss upon such themes -and don't cross the little red line that he already has set for himself, you know it's a bit tricky here! Sometimes if we are not so liberal we name it taboo, and that is all. I'm referring here to the "absolute existent god or not/denial" that you said. Some can discuss, others may not be able to start. Some are happy and feel fulfillment with what they have found so far? Others are always on the move, more critical with that. However, the main problem, let's say between these two groups is always the same. That's why I think, in the age of reason is more fruitful to follow some free thinking. For? personal conclusions of course. An interesting sector is history of religions, a step to the right direction imo. The academic side/view, for those who find it interesting. At least for people who are not ultra devoted followers, and have time to read, why not. I think it's good.