USA . . . war on the horrizon? The Sequel (Golden Rainbow)

I have created this thread in response to a rather extensive discussion that has made its predecessor grow far too long.

Although the title of this thread probably won't reflect the subject matter of the discussion, I have kept it to indicate its connection with the previous thread and because it is a subject title that should cause little controversy (as opposed to the discussion, which may).

The original discussion begins around about here in the old thread. I am continuing it here.

Hope that makes sense.

Three rather long posts coming up, which is why I've taken so long to respond. I hope you don't mind, but I've moved it to a new thread to reduce the amount of scrolling required!

Why the debate about God's relationship to Science is important

What I mean is, why does the debate of a God that created the universe vs evolution, the big bang theory and all of that good stuff seem to be mutually exclusive in most peoples' minds?

Ah! Yes, that makes more sense. I must admit that I have some sympathy with the argument that the Big Bang, evolution, etc., are merely tools used by a Creator God. It is certainly less anti-science than the extremists who insist that Genesis is literally true and the last thing I want is for people to decide that science (and rationalism) is not the best way of understanding our existence.

From my point of view, I get very frustrated with religious people wh

Archaeology and the Great Flood

I think the reason why we end up on opposite sides is simply because we must be interpreting the evidence differently, and God only knows why that is.

Indeed. My position is that there is no conclusive evidence for or against the existence of a God or Gods. In the absence of evidence, I leave a question mark (the area of ignorance that science seeks to fill eventually). You have filled that question mark with the Christian God based on your interpretation of the Bible which you sought to justify in your previous post. I will try to deal with your points one at a time.

They have found pieces of pottery throuhgout the Sinai Peninsula in the Judeo style.

Which proves that Jews produced pottery and lived on the Sinai Peninsula. It says nothing about the truth of their beliefs. That said, I assume you mention this more as an introduction to what follows, than evidenc

Moving the debate on

I think we could be here until the ends of the Earth discussing individual points about the validity of the scientific claims and interpretations in the Bible. I would like to move on to a slightly more general discussion on the same subject.

Yes, the Bible contains a number of accurate scientific ideas, as well as a number of vague ideas that can be interpreted in such a way as to be believable. However, it also contains a vast number of patently false scientific ideas, some of which were already known to be untrue at the time of writing.

The Flat Earth theory that I mentioned some while back, for example. The Ancient Greeks knew that the Earth was round (well, close to - it's an 'oblate spheroid', i.e., a slightly flattened sphere) so it is not unreasonable to assume that the idea would have spread to much of the Roman world by the time the New Testament was written. Why did the NT

I only made it through about 30% your post (TLDR syndrome here) but I thought I'd chyme in for the hell of it.

As for my beliefs, I believe in God. I'm really not too sure what/who god is, because I disagree with basically every established religion out there. Spirituality, or a belief that there IS something greater than us out there, is as much faith as you're going to get out of me.

I kid you not, I hold NOTHING in as much contempt as I do someone who quotes the bible in an argument in order to prove their point or someone who makes judgement on me because I don't blindly share their beliefs and customs.

Where science trumps religion is thus:

Science methodically attempts to theorize and prove based on cause-effect, mathematics etc. Religion largely takes old stories written thousands of years ago by men who usually had only their own interests in mind and present them as fact.

Zet, I read through all of your posts. I have not the time right now to give any arguments, point-by-point, like I have been. I will reply soon, in the next day or two. I have to get to the gym before they close and I have a school project to work on.

Hopefully by Sunday I can reply.

The only response I want to give for now is about this:

"LMAO!! That's actually TRUE?? See, I have great common sense. I made that up, because I thought of what happens to a glass of water when you dump it on the ground.

Be VERY wary of making things up when discussing philosophical and scientific points. There may be someone like me reading who can point out horrendous errors. You're very lucky you got away with it this time. The analogy with a glass of water is wrong - the water will drain away into the soil or cracks in the pavement, or it will evaporate. The expansion of the universe will eventually make it impossible for th

Ok, so I am not going to the gym. My sister-in-law ended up getting hurt, and my twin had to drive her to the hospital. Nothing serious, she was playing softball, and is the catcher. The batter swung the bat, slipped out of her hand, and caught her on the wrist. I guess there is a small hair-line fracture. I don't like to work out without him. It just isn't the same....

Anyway, I have time to make my response now.

First off: your entire first post. I do not have much to say except that, no matter what I say about proof/evidence for a God, will not sway your beliefs to mine, nor do I intend to try to do so. And your views and interpretations of the so-called "evidence" about God, will like-wise not sway me towards yours on the subject matter. We seem to be at completely opposite ends of the spectrum on that. And seems, like-wise, from your previous posts, that we are from opposite ends in our political views as well. But tha

My main issue with organised religion is that it tends encourage blind faith in some instances when it's not appropriate. Conflicts in religious beliefs have also been the cause of many of the worst atrocities ever conducted by mankind.

Does this make religion "evil?" No. It's the people acting in the name of religion that are the problem.

People should be willing to die for their beliefs, but not to kill for them.

Belief in itself is a beautiful thing. It can inspire hope, love and drive us in our darkest hour. But then religion and belief/faith do not have to be one and the same.

I do not believe that Science and Religion are mutually exclusive. They both clearly play an important part in the nature of the collective human psyche. There is even room for some overlap between the two.

The realm of science should be in helping us understand the world and universe arround us. The realm of religion s

Have any of you read Genesis in the original Hebrew? What you are disputing is the King James translation.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


The original Hebrew...

1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth -- 2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

Thus we have a beginning. Not a singular earth centered creation but the entire universe being created from a specific point. I think creation would be a loud process so Big Bang is as good a term as any.

It makes no mention of how long this planet existed waste and void. Or how long the creation actually took, 6 billion years is as good a number as any.


Th

Wow, very good posts, both of those.

Seems both you, Zeta, and Guru have finally found the middle ground in this long debate between me and Zeta.

I never really believed the KJV, the NIV, or any other versions after the KJV saying how God created the Earth in 7 days.

I was always trying to figure out, for myself, what "seven days" actually meant. The only real conclusion I was ever able to come up with is that whoever wrote those versions wanted to explain where we got the seven days in the week, and why the last day (whether it is saturday or sunday, depending on the culture) is reserved for worship time.

I never once believed, even during my Catholic School Indoctrination Days, that the Bible literally meant "seven days." Weird how on the one hand I had a science class being taught by a nun (Sister Demontfort...aka: Sister Demon Fart LOL) in which she taught Earth Science. Plate Tectoni

I'll let you know after I die.

I don't believe in the theological heaven and hell. But I believe in the soul. I believe that every living creature has one. But what happens to it when the body dies is anybody's guess.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Zeta its ok if you dont believe in the Creator...You just have not started looking yet.<!-/Quote-!>

I don't intend to start looking. If any all-powerful being wanted me to believe in them, they would have made me. If free will is truly something given by a God, then the fact that I don't believe in one suggests to me that that is the way they want it to be. If God does exist, he doesn't want my belief just yet.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I am only curious. Death is one of the greatest mysteries of all. One in which science will never be able to determine what happens in death.<!-/Quot

Science was created by man. Far too many theories and postulations to be truth. Truth is self evident and needs no further validation.

I am not disputing its value in creating products for commerce. But in its totality science has created far more problems for mankind than solutions.

Truth is self-evident, my ass.

Those are axioms, not truth. Which are still very dogmatic, but necessary.

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple."
- Oscar Wilde has spoken! Bow, heathens!

Three things cannot be long hidden: The Sun, The Moon, and Truth.

The Gospel of Buddha

Oscar Wilde > Buddha.

Pwned.

If truth were self-evident, then why did it take the Catholic Church until 1992 to accept the heliocentric nature of the solar system? (Sorry to pick on Catholocism, but is was the first that came to mind)

Some truths are self-evident. Many more are hidden and obscure. You have to look for them.

Science only creates problems in the wrong hands, like any tool in the untrained hand.

No, not all truths are self-evident, as zeta and JR have said.

Most people who believe in a god, believe also in an anti-god. That would be Satan's job.

The anti-god is pretty darn successful in hiding the truth form us mere mortals.

All truths ARE self-evident ONLY to God. But to us, they are not. Maybe they also are for those who have already died, but who knows?

So you DO believe in an afterlife, like souls and things? Where would they come from then, in a purely scientific sense I wonder.

Huh, that is kind of interesting...

You are confusing Religion and Faith.

The two are mutually exclusive topics.



Science creates a problem and then works to solve it. Its job security I suppose.

Your right. Catholicism is a religion. Christianity is a faith.

The difference:

Catholics have all these ritualistic ceremonies that seem to not mean anything to anybody.

Christianity does not go through all of that. Either you accept Jesus Christ as your savior, or you don't.

Christianity is a religion.

Faith is a universal human trait. It has no doctrines or dogma. It simply is.

Yeah, its biological.
It could only mean that, but the gene has been identified to support the claim, as if it wasn't enough.

And that's a kick on free will right in the kidneys, for future reference.

I see my point was missed. Quite sad really.

Not at all Zeta. I don't think we are looking at the same point in the conversation.

I was pointing out that any particular religion you can name is not Faith. All religion is a man created explanation of our existence. As such it is fallible and biased from a human centric point of view. Its acceptance of any other perceived truth would naturally be biased to protect its own perceived truths. Be it science, religion, or philosophy each path is equally reluctant to "share the spotlight" so to speak with the others. Each path requires faith but none are Faith.

Faith= belief in that which cannot be proven

Umm, Guru, Christianity IS a faith, not a religion.

I say Christianity, not Baptist, not Catholicism, not Protstantism, all of those are religions. TRUE Christianity...I mean the one in which you TRULY HAVE FAITH in Jesus Christ as being your Lord and Savior....THAT is Faith.

That is what Christianity is supposed to be all about. It is all about Jesus as Messiah. That is the fundamental difference between judaism and Islam.

The traditions are make religion, religion. I can also be the glue which binds the people of the same FAITH. They go hand-in-hand, really. But they are not the same, and are not to be confused with one another.

Where my faith, according to the definition used by Bob, comes from, is the fact that I have faith in Jesus Christ, that He can make all things better in the end.

That is the only faith I have. That is also the only faith that I need.

All that other stuff, such as the long deb