The Passion...

[Quicksilver]

Why did amino acids combine to form proteins that became the the build blocks of life?

peptide bonding

exactly, If god exist, than maybe he can explain how he made molecules, that are more intricate than we still can perceive. If you take enough calculus and physics, you may come to the same conclusion, that size goes to infinity in both ways. Might have to think about this one, it's more complicated the more you think about it. This is kind of one of the more solid theories. Lordy we could merely be in a matrix, that is more complex than you could ever imagine, maybe we dont even exist. only in a computer, just programs. Why, well shit, why in general. 

[Quicksilver]

throwing out some reading material

----------------------------------------------------------
Many people who adopt the label of agnostic reject the label of atheist — there is a common perception that agnosticism is a more "reasonable" position while atheism is more "dogmatic," ultimately indistinguishable from theism except in the details. Is this a valid position to take?

Unfortunately, no — agnostics may sincerely believe it and theists may sincerely reinforce it, but it relies upon more than one misunderstanding about both atheism and agnosticism. These misunderstandings are only exacerbated by continual social pressure and prejudice against atheism and atheists. People who are unafraid of stating that they indeed do not believe in any gods are still despised in many places, whereas "agnostic" is perceived as more respectable.

Atheists are thought to be closed-minded because they deny the existence of gods, whereas agnostics appear to be open-minded because they do not know for sure.

This is a mistake because atheists do not necessarily deny any gods and may indeed be an atheist because they do not know for sure — in other words, they may be an agnostic as well.

Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a "third way" between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.

It is also worth noting that there is a vicious double standard involved when theists claim that agnosticism is "better" than atheism because it is less dogmatic. If atheists are closed-minded because they are not agnostic, then so are theists. On the other hand, if theism can be open-minded then so can atheism.

In the end, the fact of the matter is a person isn't faced with the necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Quite the contrary, not only can a person be both, but it is in fact common for people to be both agnostics and atheists. An agnostic atheist won't claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label "god" exists or that such cannot exist, but they also don't actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist

[BBQ Platypus]

After taking a bit of time to cool off, I've decided to announce my intention to re-enter the fray.  Personally, I think that we aren't looking at this quite the right way.  There are many, many reasons why I believe it to be, for all practical purposes, impossible to prove God's existence to someone whose personal beliefs are dead-set against it.  Really, we shouldn't be offering a proof so much as a defense of our personal reasons for belief.   It's a bit too late for me to post my entire, fully thought-out opinion on this issue - it'll probably take me a while.  I should be able to post it tomorrow or Saturday.  Hopefully, I can help create a slightly better understanding (not a conversion, mind you, but an understanding) between the two sides of this debate.  In the meantime, I'm goin' to bed.

[Quicksilver]

you're speaking of the best color right?

well it's blue

[Reductio_ad_absurdum]

Here's the halftime recap. ATHEISTS: Prove to me something exists that, by its very nature, cannot be proven. RELIGION: We can't. We have faith! So prove YOU'RE right! ATHEISTS: Ha! We don't have to! We have the uncertainty principle! So you have to prove the unprovable...

That's not completely true, and I think you're missing the point. (As I think others have, so I'm not singling you out, Pakky

It's fine if you're religious, I'm not going to question that or mock you, or try to take that away. It seems like a lot of the pro-religion debate has focused on "well you can't prove the unprovable." But again, this is a logical fallacy. And I think what the religious side has heretofore failed to realize is, we've never said you CAN prove that there is no god, just as you can't prove that there isn't. That's not what the atheist argument is at all.

The way I see it, the main reference we have for anything related to ANY god - Oden, Zeus, Abraham or other - is literature. Whether it's a book, scrolls, some scratches on a cave - that's pretty much it. We can say "history" in general because we're all pretty sure someone called Jesus actually existed. That's not in question here. Some of the things could be historically accurate (we have ways of corroborating data these days) - but some of ti might not be. The idea of written history is interesting too, though - Penn and Teller made an interesting point when they said that Elvis, who was alive only FIFTY years ago, loved Peanut Butter & Banana sandwiches. But if you were to try and find his favorite recipe, depending on who you go to, you'll get varying reports, even though they are all for the same sandwich and the same person.

Their point was, historical accuracy is questionable for dealing with someone who was around so RECENTLY - who's to say that the historical accounts of something 2000 years ago is any more or any less accurate?

Historical errancy aside, since the literature is all we have to go on (or at least, all there was at the beginning) - the process of the atheist's conclusion goes something like this:

Well, who wrote the Bible? It's widely recognized that it was written by people, divinely inspired by God. So there's the possibility of it having the human error factor. Not to mention, that the versions we have now have been translated by kings who had their own political agenda, and then retranslated.

We can look at the scrolls too, right? Or the original translations that are pre-monarch (King James)? Sure, why not. Well okay then - if the original documents are divinely inspired, then they must be right about everything. But then, as we discover more and more things the Bible (or other works) are wrong about, slowly the degrees of certainty begin to chip away. Someone decided that the Bible claims earth is 6000-10,000 years old? But we have carbon dating, several methods of it, that all conclude the earth to be much, much. much older than that. The bible tells us the moon is a source of light (it reflects the sun's), tells us the earth is flat and has four corners (Isaiah 11:11) ... if it's wrong about these things, what else could it be wrong about?

There are inconsistencies in many of the lineage and things that took place in the bible. There are passages about not being able to touch a woman while she's menstruating, stoning unruly children, etc etc as has been mentioned before in this debate - I won't recap them all because there are too many. In today's society we know these things are wrong. So, why would they be placed in a book that is either written or inspired by god? Since he's god and all, wouldn't he foresee the problem that a civilized person might see in these things?

If these texts were written by humans and not a deity, then they would not be the sacred texts everyone claims to be, correct? It almost seems to me that there are many religious followers who already believe this to be true. How many times after 9/11 or the Katrina disaster did we hear about gays being punished, or the city being wiped clean because of its debauchery? It seems inconsistent that a god who preaches such love would somehow spawn followers that preach such hatred and bigotry.

I can overlook the errors in the bible, or the idea that SOME parts of the bible are meant to be allegorical, while others (such as the stars really being lights on the "firmament") are to be taken as literal truth. Maybe my problem is with many of the people who preach the wrong things and attribute it to their religion. I'm not saying that all atheists are moral, some of them aren't - and I'm not saying that religious people are immoral, even though there have been a lot of horrendous deeds done in the name of Christianity, or in the name of Allah. Salem Witch Trials, the Crusades, 9/11... every civil war in the Middle East has been caused because of different religious sects arguing over who the sacred strip of land belongs to. Does that sound like something any loving god would approve of?

Okay so this was kind of a long, winding diatribe, not so much a "progress of thought" as a stream of consciousness. But while some may say, "There was god in the man who gave out shoes to the people running away from the terrorist acts of 9/11" - the atheists will say "Why? That's not satisfying to me on an intellectual level, and to me is not viable evidence to the existence of god. Please show me more."

That's really it. Pak-man said that atheists demand that others prove the unprovable, but I said that's not true. And it's not. If an atheist were to pick up a rock, and on the underside it said, "Made by God," then they would be proven wrong forever and would most likely shut up about the whole issue. But when one thing proves to be wrong in the bible, and then another thing, and another, and we learn that the "ultimate author" is god? It puts the entire concept on very shaky ground for me.

Mind if I take a crack at answering this?

On the Scriptures being changed, how long has the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence been in existance?  How many copies upon copies have been made, and how many translations?  If the US lasts for a thousand years, will it change?  There is a possibility, but it isn't very high.  People try to protect and be as accurate as possible with what they consider to be "sacred".    Its actually in the Bibles favor that multiple translations occured, because the abuse by power-hungry men couldn't corrupt all of them.  The Torah was translated into Greek creating the "Septuagent", this then would be used by the Early Christians as they started to compile the stories of Christ and letters of the Apostles.  These were then translated into Latin because of the Latin/Greek divide.  This would continue into the Fall of Rome with the Catholic Church having Latin translations and the Byzantine Empire and Greek Orthodoxy having the Greek translation.  Such an early divide in translations thus makes the possibility of a total corruption very vast.

Using that logic, Torgo, we should throw out "The Republic" by Plato as a source of Philosophy since it has been copied, translated, and so must be miscopied, mistranslated, and just corrupted by politics.  I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work that way.  The "possibility" of corruption doesn't void a document, but actual tangible proof that it was corrupted entirely.  There might be I don't know, but I find it funny that it is still being taught if there is.   Science changes itself when theories are found to be incorrect, and so does Theology.  Now I'm gonna say this right now as my opinion, but this doesn't hold up with Judaism and Islam because one missed the boat and the other built the house on sand.  To me, Christianity explains everything my rational mind thinks of.

Again with the tired "stoning of rebellious children" and all of the legalism of the Old Testament, you know that was what Christ came to change?  To understand what he meant when he said that he "wasn't going to change the law, but fulfill the law", one must first understand what it means to fulfill a law.   To fulfill a law means that the law giver basically pays for the law out of pocket you can say; to fulfill a tax, the Government pays the tax for the tax payer.  God can't contradict his laws (even though man corrupted them on their own), but He can pay for the penalty himself.  He did that by sacrificing Christ.  How much Christ did this is apparent even with the simplification (though not changing) the ten commandments into two, "You shall love the Lord with all your body, mind, and spirit" and "Love your neighbor as yourself".  That stoning of the rebellious child was fulfilled when Christ said, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone."  On Homosexuality, Paul fulfilled the switch over from the OT to the NT by stating that it was evil because it led to death.  The Mosaic laws became legalistic because they forgot God while keeping the law.  Christians are unfortunately doing the same.

Love your God with all your heart, body, and spirit
Love your neighbor as yourself

That is the core of all moral living to me, you can't love the Lord if you don't love even your enemies and the ugly, and you can't effectively love your neighbor if you hate God.  By hating God, you hate the true "self".

EDIT:  I have no problem with the teaching of evolution, but I do have a problem with the teaching of atheism that alot of times accompanies it.  The same separation of church and state also disqualifies atheism.  Science can exist without it, and atheism can exist without science as well.  If you gonna put that in, mind as well just put in God-centered evolution, there are on the same line but on opposite extremes.  To have one without the other goes against American liberty because students "have" to learn what is in the textbooks as Penn and Teller said.  Either both in those textbooks, or neither... I'm not paying for atheism.

I will reinterate: Atheism isn't Evolution, Atheism is an interpretation, God-centered evolution is also an interpretation, and if you do one you have to do the other.  I fully agree with that.

[torgosPizza]

Thank you for the level-headed r esponse, Reductio. It does clear up a lot as far as the "human side" of the bible goes. But then, what about the argument that the bible is infallible? Are we meant to take everything the book (not just the bible of course, the Quran can be held up to the same scrutiny) is written by a deity, or inspired by one, and therefore is the ultimate authority on everything?

However you still haven't addressed my concern with scientific accuracy and other issues that shouldn't exist due to the bible's inerrancy or divine inspiration. I understand that much of this was allegorical, but when you examine the language, doesn't it point to more of a narrow understanding of the world around them (the people who wrote it)?

Also, the reasoning of "Christ fulfilled prophecies and laws in the old testament" is much like saying that Harry Potter uses the knowledge he gained at Hogwart's in the next book. To me, it's circular reasoning, and it's difficult to say "You can answer the Bible with the Bible." I understand, much of it is allegorical, and even so, still does not make sense to me.

[torgosPizza]

Science changes itself when theories are found to be incorrect, and so does Theology. 

I wanted to make one additional point regarding this one of yours. Science is not about interpretation of old documents. It is the study of our world, yes, but it is based on evidence. The reason why theories and scientific hypotheses might change is because new evidence is introduced, and so the standing theories might not work. So, it's thrown out, and a new conclusion is reached that fits the new evidence.

Taking the same book that has existed for centuries and reinterpreting it to match a changing moral standard is not the same thing. We can change our laws by "amending" them, and regarding your point about the US Law documents, well - they were meant to be revised every 20 years or so, from what I understand. The framers expected things to change, and they could never have foreseen the Internet or Gulf War Part 2 The US Strikes Back.

In science, discourse is allowed. You can actually get BONUS points if you prove another scientist's theory wrong. But as soon as you start debating the accuracy of any religious documents, suddenly you're in a world where it couldn't possibly be wrong, because it's been held up as sacred for centuries, studied by scholars, etc etc. That's where science and religion (and law) differ.

[J-Proof]

In science, discourse is allowed. You can actually get BONUS points if you prove another scientist's theory wrong. But as soon as you start debating the accuracy of any religious documents, suddenly you're in a world where it couldn't possibly be wrong, because it's been held up as sacred for centuries, studied by scholars, etc etc. That's where science and religion (and law) differ.

Maybe back in the medieval period... SO many things about theology have "evolved" (no pun intended =P ). You REALLY have to study theology to see it

[Priest4hire]

Allow me to quote Siddhārtha Gautama:

"Do not accept anything simply because it is said to be revelation. Do not accept it merely because it is traditional. Do no accept anything that is hearsay. Do not accept it because it comes from sacred texts. Do not accept it on the grounds of pure logic or because it seems rational. Do not accept it because you agree with it after reflecting on it. Do not accept it on the grounds that the teacher is competent or simply because he is regarded as 'our teacher'."

Certainly he is a key religious figure and yet here he is espousing a rather skeptical teaching. Certainly not one that disallows any debate on the accuracy of religious documents. Quite the contrary. One reason why one should avoid such broad generalizations.

Personally I think the 'infallible bible' idea is more lazy than anything. Consider just how much thought and consideration it removes. Yet if anything slight variances in the New Testament gospels seem, to me, to improve their chances of being truthful. Were they identical in every detail that would suggest they all copied from a single source. The inaccuracies of things like the exact date of the death of Jesus suggest the vagaries of human memory and that they come from different sources. I see an understanding of the bible as a human attempt to understand the divine, with all the pros and cons of humanity, as far more interesting than some infallible text from god.

[J-Proof]

magnificently spoken, good sir!

As Isaiah was quoted yesterday -- we must sit and "reason" with the Lord. The infallible bible idea is usually used in reference to meaning/idea. The morals are all "infallible."

Anyway -- the New Testament does not really possess items hard to explain historically (with the exception of the story of Jesus), because the New testament is 90% letters from one disciple to the next.

It's the Old Testament people have more beef with -- such as the Noah's Ark example I used the other day. While people can say "How the heck would Noah fit two of /every/ creature in the world into that Ark? Well -- the more critically studied text actually shows that Noah was instructed to put two of every /clean/ animal from his "land" onto the barge -- which is only a handful of critters =)

Much is revealed that helps bring light to scripture through continued study. And of course, through questioning.

[torgosPizza]

Much is revealed that helps bring light to scripture through continued study. And of course, through questioning.

Okay, well what about not being able to touch a woman during her period because she is unclean?

What about the mentions of giants, unicorns and dragons seen in Isaiah, Deuteronomy, and Job?

Moses got water from a stone? How exactly does that work (since it's physically impossible)?

[J-Proof]

The first example of the cleanliness of women has a lot to do with the culture of the people at the time, as well as the lack of understanding people had as to the human anatomy. Touching a woman at all was considered a big deal back then, because it had certain social implications (bow chicka bow wow!) Then you throw in the menstrual cycle which was mysterious and also sacred (similar to how Native Americans view the cycle to be a sacred thing) -- "touching" and/or "petting" was inappropriate when a woman was on her period for obvious reasons...

As for giants, unicorns, and dragons -- the mention of the Nephilim in the Penteteuch (or Torah -- also the first five books of the old testament) -- is the only case where said creatures are intended to /not/ be figurative. The unicorns and dragons refer to visions Isaiah was trying to use to illustrate a point. Isaiah was one of the /most/ significant prohpets of the old Testament, and he was speaking to a /very/ ignorant people at this time. His illustrations were how he evangelized and were not intended to be physically literal (tho one could argue they are in fact spiritually literal).

As for the giants -- remains of large people /have/ been found. Back then, someone six feet tall was pretty big.... Remains of people larger than 6'5" have been found -- some are as tall as 7 feet. Now, the best way for the old testament writers to describe these people, who were larger than the norm, was to give them some sort of title to categorize them. We have called little people dwarves for a while now, and a hudnred years from now, from the writings of our journals, a less-educated person might think we had real-life fantasy species walking around.

The water from a stone is a miracle. This is when God does something we cannot comprehend to help us see how great He is. This is an item taken on faith by those who choose to believe it, and honestly, that's all that can be said about it -- aside from the fact that it worked, or else the Hebrews would have gone back to Egypt as they threatened. Incorruptable Saints are an excellent example of the seemingly impossible happening -- it happened because all things in God are possible.

[msmpls]

As for the giants -- remains of large people /have/ been found. Back then, someone six feet tall was pretty big.... Remains of people larger than 6'5" have been found -- some are as tall as 7 feet. Now, the best way for the old testament writers to describe these people, who were larger than the norm, was to give them some sort of title to categorize them. We have called little people dwarves for a while now, and a hudnred years from now, from the writings of our journals, a less-educated person might think we had real-life fantasy species walking around.

I saw a great BBC documentary a few years ago around easter that examined a few of the previously (scientifically) unsubstantiated events in the Bible. The one that struck me as most facinating was a biological explaination of how David could have defeated the 'giant' Goliath with a single blow.

The reasoning that the psysiologists and endocrinologists assertained was that it was quite possible that Goliath could have suffered from an extremely rare endocrinological disease called acromegaly (literally: excessive growth of the extremities). Acromegaly causes the pituitary gland, located in the middle cranial fossa, to overproduce hGH, and therefore becoming a benign pituitary adenoma (tumor).

In our age of modern medicine, those who suffer from acromegaly (notably Andre the Giant among others) generally undergo hormone treatment to halt the overproduction of testosterone from the pituitary usually coupled with radiation treatment and even surgery. However, thousands of years ago these treatments would have been impossible.

One of the most dangerous symptoms of acromegaly (or any condition that causes hyperactive testosterone production) is the stress that it causes on the cardiovascular system. The increased pressure on the brain can be catastrophic if enough trauma is inflicted (which, the scientists argued, was the case when David delivered his deadly blow). It isn't reaching to say that the trauma he suffered was enough to cause an ischemic stroke; killing him instantly.

Pretty cool, huh?

[J-Proof]

Dude... sweet action =)....

tho scripture says david feleld goliath with the rock and that he then chopped his head off lol!

Awesome response yo =)

[Conor]

As for the giants -- remains of large people /have/ been found. Back then, someone six feet tall was pretty big.... Remains of people larger than 6'5" have been found -- some are as tall as 7 feet. Now, the best way for the old testament writers to describe these people, who were larger than the norm, was to give them some sort of title to categorize them. We have called little people dwarves for a while now, and a hudnred years from now, from the writings of our journals, a less-educated person might think we had real-life fantasy species walking around.

I saw a great BBC documentary a few years ago around easter that examined a few of the previously (scientifically) unsubstantiated events in the Bible. The one that struck me as most facinating was a biological explaination of how David could have defeated the 'giant' Goliath with a single blow.

The reasoning that the psysiologists and endocrinologists assertained was that it was quite possible that Goliath could have suffered from an extremely rare endocrinological disease called acromegaly (literally: excessive growth of the extremities). Acromegaly causes the pituitary gland, located in the middle cranial fossa, to overproduce hGH, and therefore becoming a benign pituitary adenoma (tumor).

In our age of modern medicine, those who suffer from acromegaly (notably Andre the Giant among others) generally undergo hormone treatment to halt the overproduction of testosterone from the pituitary usually coupled with radiation treatment and even surgery. However, thousands of years ago these treatments would have been impossible.

One of the most dangerous symptoms of acromegaly (or any condition that causes hyperactive testosterone production) is the stress that it causes on the cardiovascular system. The increased pressure on the brain can be catastrophic if enough trauma is inflicted (which, the scientists argued, was the case when David delivered his deadly blow). It isn't reaching to say that the trauma he suffered was enough to cause an ischemic stroke; killing him instantly.

Pretty cool, huh?

How come people are allowed to use science to confirm things that religion said happened, but when science flies in the face of what religion says, religion is all of a sudden off limits from what science can explain to us?