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

[QUOTE="KcurtorMas"]

Nobody really knows, no matter how much discussion there is about it. If somebody claims their belief to be more logical, then they are naive. Live your life, and hope that when you die, all of your questions will be answered.

-Chimera-

I tihnk you're missing the point that Theokhoth made about making those kinds of categorical statements.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="magnax1"]

...... no, but it is not proven, especially evolution from one species to another. I really dont want to start an arguement about evolution.

They have proven they can change, but not from one species to another. All i have to say about all these theories and scientific beliefs is that at one point people believed "facts" like the world was the center of the universe and the world was flat, because they were people and didn't have the technology to prove otherwise. We are in the same place, most of these theories are without proof, like theories about black holes and alternate universes.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

But there is absoulutely no proof for alternate universes and many many other scientific theories, so it not more illogical, they both require faith without proof, they are both just as illogical

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="-Chimera-"]

[QUOTE="KcurtorMas"]

Nobody really knows, no matter how much discussion there is about it. If somebody claims their belief to be more logical, then they are naive. Live your life, and hope that when you die, all of your questions will be answered.

LJS9502_basic

I tihnk you're missing the point that Theokhoth made about making those kinds of categorical statements.

I didn't say he did. I never even hinted at anything of the sort. I'm talking about making statements that you can't prove (ie, saying that nobody knows).

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Than I will conclude with this.. Yes it has been, the science community has found enough evidence to make that suggestion.. It is the most logical from the data they have.. Evolution is widely accepted in the community as fact amassing more data and evidence than really any theory out there.. YOU don't think it has proven in your eyes.. But the science community seems to think otherwise.sSubZerOo

They have proven they can change, but not from one species to another. All i have to say about all these theories and scientific beliefs is that at one point people believed "facts" like the world was the center of the universe and the world was flat, because they were people and didn't have the technology to prove otherwise. We are in the same place, most of these theories are without proof, like theories about black holes and alternate universes.

Yes but they are just the same as theories about the world being flat, they have no evidence..... so i dont know what you are talking about having found enough evidence, they have none, and there general population is alot more important to the world than a bunch of scientists.

[QUOTE="KcurtorMas"]

Nobody really knows, no matter how much discussion there is about it. If somebody claims their belief to be more logical, then they are naive. Live your life, and hope that when you die, all of your questions will be answered.

-Chimera-

I tihnk you're missing the point that Theokhoth made about making those kinds of categorical statements.

I never read the pointyou are referring to. Does anybody actually come away from these threads with a better understanding of anything?

I didn't say he did. I never even hinted at anything of the sort. I'm talking about making statements that you can't prove (ie, saying that nobody knows).

-Chimera-

Sometimes it's fact that nobody knows.;)

[QUOTE="-Chimera-"]

[QUOTE="KcurtorMas"]

Nobody really knows, no matter how much discussion there is about it. If somebody claims their belief to be more logical, then they are naive. Live your life, and hope that when you die, all of your questions will be answered.

KcurtorMas

I tihnk you're missing the point that Theokhoth made about making those kinds of categorical statements.

I never read the pointyou are referring to. Does anybody actually come away from these threads with a better understanding of anything?

No, everyone just comes away thinking they are the ones who are right.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]But scientific theory is just the understanding humans have. Thus it's not infallible.

LJS9502_basic

I had made a post earlier a few months in which I explained how I see science. Not that in every new theory we should be like "omg the answer is found".

There are certain things that come to mind when I compare the two: science is willing to evolve and learn from its mistakes.

Religion is not. Or at least not as much. I will try to dig out my post because I think I had expressed myself clearlier that time and I am bored now. :P

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="magnax1"]

They have proven they can change, but not from one species to another. All i have to say about all these theories and scientific beliefs is that at one point people believed "facts" like the world was the center of the universe and the world was flat, because they were people and didn't have the technology to prove otherwise. We are in the same place, most of these theories are without proof, like theories about black holes and alternate universes.

magnax1

Yes but they are just the same as theories about the world being flat, they have no evidence..... so i dont know what you are talking about having found enough evidence, they have none, and there general population is alot more important to the world than a bunch of scientists.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="magnax1"]

They have proven they can change, but not from one species to another. All i have to say about all these theories and scientific beliefs is that at one point people believed "facts" like the world was the center of the universe and the world was flat, because they were people and didn't have the technology to prove otherwise. We are in the same place, most of these theories are without proof, like theories about black holes and alternate universes.

Yes but they are just the same as theories about the world being flat, they have no evidence..... so i dont know what you are talking about having found enough evidence, they have none, and there general population is alot more important to the world than a bunch of scientists.

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] They are not "beliefs" they have found enough evidence under the scientific method with no contridcitory evidence to see it as fact. Those "facts" are accepted in the science community, the most critical community out there.. BumFluff122

Yes but they are just the same as theories about the world being flat, they have no evidence..... so i dont know what you are talking about having found enough evidence, they have none, and there general population is alot more important to the world than a bunch of scientists.

..... I said i was tlkaing about theories of black holes and alternate universes, not evolution.

But science does not evolve with the thought in mind "oh well lets go and debunk god now" or "haha lets debunk the hilarious stuff in Genesis".

I had made a post earlier a few months in which I explained how I see science. Not that in every new theory we should be like "omg the answer is found".

There are certain things that come to mind when I compare the two: science is willing to evolve and learn from its mistakes.

Religion is not. Or at least not as much. I will try to dig out my post because I think I had expressed myself clearlier that time and I am bored now. :P

Teenaged

Religion evolves as well. You are assuming everyone that follows the Bible believes it's literal. It is not. Science does not negate the message and only those that don't understand how to read the Bible will not be able to reconcile the two.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

Yes but they are just the same as theories about the world being flat, they have no evidence..... so i dont know what you are talking about having found enough evidence, they have none, and there general population is alot more important to the world than a bunch of scientists.

..... I said i was tlkaing about theories of black holes and alternate universes, not evolution.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

Yes but they are just the same as theories about the world being flat, they have no evidence..... so i dont know what you are talking about having found enough evidence, they have none, and there general population is alot more important to the world than a bunch of scientists.

magnax1

..... I said i was tlkaing about theories of black holes and alternate universes, not evolution.

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]They have so much evidence for evolution even the last 3 popes have attempted to get their followers to believe in it.

sSubZerOo

..... I said i was tlkaing about theories of black holes and alternate universes, not evolution.

I was talking about theories of what they do, and how they are made, they are all just educated guesses.

[QUOTE="-Chimera-"]

[QUOTE="KcurtorMas"]

Nobody really knows, no matter how much discussion there is about it. If somebody claims their belief to be more logical, then they are naive. Live your life, and hope that when you die, all of your questions will be answered.

KcurtorMas

I tihnk you're missing the point that Theokhoth made about making those kinds of categorical statements.

I never read the pointyou are referring to. Does anybody actually come away from these threads with a better understanding of anything?

The point he made is that saying that nobody knows in a categorical sense implies that you know enough about what every person that has existed has believed in or not believed in, and that you are able to make an objective assessment of their outlook and say whether it's right or wrong. If that were the case, then you might as well say that you know the answer, in which case your statement is self-defeating from the start. Saying that nobody knows implies that you have the authority to deem everybody wrong, even though you probably don't know what everyone believes in or if they believe anything at all. So then you can only say that it's nothing more than your stance, not so much a fact.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="magnax1"]

..... I said i was tlkaing about theories of black holes and alternate universes, not evolution.

I was talking about theories of what they do, and how they are made, they are all just educated guesses.

The point he made is that saying that nobody knows in a categorical sense implies that you know enough about what every person that has existed has believed in or not believed in, and that you are able to make an objective assessment of their outlook and say whether it's right or wrong. If that were the case, then you might as well say that you know the answer, in which case your statement is self-defeating from the start. Saying that nobody knows implies that you have the authority to deem everybody wrong, even though you probably don't know what everyone believes in or if they believe anything at all. So then you can only say that it's nothing more than your stance, not so much a fact.

-Chimera-

I was talking about theories of what they do, and how they are made, they are all just educated guesses.

magnax1

[QUOTE="-Chimera-"]

I didn't say he did. I never even hinted at anything of the sort. I'm talking about making statements that you can't prove (ie, saying that nobody knows).

LJS9502_basic

Sometimes it's fact that nobody knows.;)

I'm not saying that anybody at any point in time had such knowledge, and I myself think that nobody knows. I'm just saying that I don't think you can prove either stance on the issue.

[QUOTE="-Chimera-"]

The point he made is that saying that nobody knows in a categorical sense implies that you know enough about what every person that has existed has believed in or not believed in, and that you are able to make an objective assessment of their outlook and say whether it's right or wrong. If that were the case, then you might as well say that you know the answer, in which case your statement is self-defeating from the start. Saying that nobody knows implies that you have the authority to deem everybody wrong, even though you probably don't know what everyone believes in or if they believe anything at all. So then you can only say that it's nothing more than your stance, not so much a fact.

LJS9502_basic

Prove it.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="-Chimera-"]

I didn't say he did. I never even hinted at anything of the sort. I'm talking about making statements that you can't prove (ie, saying that nobody knows).

-Chimera-

Sometimes it's fact that nobody knows.;)

I'm not saying that anybody at any point in time had such knowledge, and I myself think that nobody knows. I'm just saying that I don't think you can prove either stance on the issue.

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] We have proof of blackholes.. They emite xrays.. And have found systems that are under the influence of a black hole.. I honestly hope you don't think black holes are a made up thing.sSubZerOo

I was talking about theories of what they do, and how they are made, they are all just educated guesses.

We know they suck up everything but beyond that it is just a guess, because we dont have enough evidence to prove because we havent seen enough of one. The rest is mostly done through computer simulations and mathematics, but cannot be proven.

[QUOTE="-Chimera-"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]In a case like that I'd say nobody knows so unless Theo can produce someone that knows then he can't contradict him. And far as I have heard no one has come back to life with the answers.

Sometimes it's fact that nobody knows.;)

LJS9502_basic

I'm not saying that anybody at any point in time had such knowledge, and I myself think that nobody knows. I'm just saying that I don't think you can prove either stance on the issue.

Again, prove it.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="-Chimera-"]

I'm not saying that anybody at any point in time had such knowledge, and I myself think that nobody knows. I'm just saying that I don't think you can prove either stance on the issue.

-Chimera-

Again, prove it.

I can prove it, nobody knows if nobody knows that anyone knows, because we arent the people who know, so we cant know, thusly nobody knows.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="-Chimera-"]

I'm not saying that anybody at any point in time had such knowledge, and I myself think that nobody knows. I'm just saying that I don't think you can prove either stance on the issue.

-Chimera-

Again, prove it.

http://www.evilbible.com/

I always knew the bible contained violent content, but after looking at everything closely, I now know I can no longer consider myself a Christian.

Its not just about the violent content too. I always ask myself questions, like, who are Christians to decide that they're right, and they're the only right religion? Then I realized its the same for other religions, they all say the same thing. I realized its completely arbitrary, most of the time, you preach what you were born into.

So I ask you, why are you religious? If you were and aren't, give me a description like I did.

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

"In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12)

That right there, to me, is pretty much the essence of what it means to be a Christian. I follow Jesus not because I am afraid of hell or anything like that, but because I know through personal experience that the closer one's life gets to the one that Jesus followed, the happier one becomes. If anything I do on Earth puts me in favor with God, that will be a side benefit, not the ultimate purpose behind such actions.

Jesus said during his Sermon on the Mount that one may know people by their fruit. But, just as a grapevine will only bear grapes and a thistle will only bear thorns, so too will their respective seeds only bear either grapevines or thistles. So, in this respect, one may also know their seeds by their fruit - in other words, their moral grounding in life. It's for this reason that I would find it very hard to criticize a person's beliefs that lead the person to sincere love and generosity for his fellow man, and similarly, that I would find it very hard to accept a person's beliefs that lead the person to hatred and wrath towards his fellow man.

For that reason I can really only shake my head at the arguments over which is the "right" religion. As far as my reading of the Bible tells me, whomever is the one who treats others as he would wish to be treated, and who is generous without any expectation of repayment, and who acts at all times out of love for his fellow man is the one who is acting as God wants him to act. It is, ultimately, not about being right, but about doing right; what one knows is only useful as far as it enables him to better act in life.

And as for the Old Testament, its instructions came at a different point in time, a time at which the very survival of the Israelite people was threatened. Reading it as if it were all instructions for today is a rather anachronistic view of the text - something that many Christians, however, sadly do tend to do (but only when convenient).

GabuEx

Well said Gabuex. I totally agree.

Immaterial.

Religion evolves as well. You are assuming everyone that follows the Bible believes it's literal. It is not. Science does not negate the message and only those that don't understand how to read the Bible will not be able to reconcile the two.

LJS9502_basic

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

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

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

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

I am still a Christian and I don't see that changing any time soon.

[QUOTE="FastNorwegian"] Christians are hyporcrites. It's because of sin. You aren't praying to Christians, you are praying to God. Read the book of Job, and you'll understand, suffering is just a part of free-will, which free-will is the burden of man, because in the beggining, we have failed to acknowledge God. We meaning our ancestors, and we inherit sin. (I am still unsure about that part, but it says so in the bible.)LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="-Chimera-"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Sometimes it is a fact that nobody knows something.

LJS9502_basic

Again, prove it.

What's to say that someone knows and can comprehensively explain everything, but simply chooses not to? What's to say that someone at some point in time did in fact have an answer, and simply didn't understand the mechanics behind it? I'm not saying that someone at any given point in time in our history did know the answer, far from it in fact, but I'm saying that you can't necessarily discount everything just because dissensions on the subject exist.

If you're saying that nobody knows and proclaim it as fact, then surely that would mean that you would know enough about what people have believed in the past and what people believe today so that you could objectively assess those beliefs and categorize it as true or false. I doubt that you know every single belief or thought that has ever been conceived by human minds, and I even moreso doubt that you have any authority to say whether or not any of it is true enough such that they could or couldn't say that they know the answer.

Unless you somehow have the authority, the knowledge, and the ability to objectively assess every single belief, thought, or idea that has ever been created in human history, I don't see how you can say with absolute certainty that nobody has ever known the answer and pose that as a fact. Again, it's my opinon that nobody has known the answer, or will ever know the answer, but I'm not suggestic it's a fact. It's just my opinon and nothing more.

I guess I do believe in religion, because it makes more sense than an explosion making a perfect ecosystem with multiple beings that are compatible to reproduce. Just seems like a stretch to say that was all by rediculous chance. It's a little easier to have faith in something that explains the creation just as much, but gives me at least a minor reason to be here other than just, "Bam, i'm here, random explosion(or whatever), just got me here. Now lets wait to die."FastNorwegian

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

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

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

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

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

Teenaged

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

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

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

What's to say that someone knows and can comprehensively explain everything, but simply chooses not to? What's to say that someone at some point in time did in fact have an answer, and simply didn't understand the mechanics behind it? I'm not saying that someone at any given point in time in our history did know the answer, far from it in fact, but I'm saying that you can't necessarily discount everything just because dissensions on the subject exist.

If you're saying that nobody knows and proclaim it as fact, then surely that would mean that you would know enough about what people have believed in the past and what people believe today so that you could objectively assess those beliefs and categorize it as true or false. I doubt that you know every single belief or thought that has ever been conceived by human minds, and I even moreso doubt that you have any authority to say whether or not any of it is true enough such that they could or couldn't say that they know the answer.

Unless you somehow have the authority, the knowledge, and the ability to objectively assess every single belief, thought, or idea that has ever been created in human history, I don't see how you can say with absolute certainty that nobody has ever known the answer and pose that as a fact. Again, it's my opinon that nobody has known the answer, or will ever know the answer, but I'm not suggestic it's a fact. It's just my opinon and nothing more.

-Chimera-

Belief =/= fact.

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

[QUOTE="FastNorwegian"]I guess I do believe in religion, because it makes more sense than an explosion making a perfect ecosystem with multiple beings that are compatible to reproduce. Just seems like a stretch to say that was all by rediculous chance. It's a little easier to have faith in something that explains the creation just as much, but gives me at least a minor reason to be here other than just, "Bam, i'm here, random explosion(or whatever), just got me here. Now lets wait to die."foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="-Chimera-"]

What's to say that someone knows and can comprehensively explain everything, but simply chooses not to? What's to say that someone at some point in time did in fact have an answer, and simply didn't understand the mechanics behind it? I'm not saying that someone at any given point in time in our history did know the answer, far from it in fact, but I'm saying that you can't necessarily discount everything just because dissensions on the subject exist.

If you're saying that nobody knows and proclaim it as fact, then surely that would mean that you would know enough about what people have believed in the past and what people believe today so that you could objectively assess those beliefs and categorize it as true or false. I doubt that you know every single belief or thought that has ever been conceived by human minds, and I even moreso doubt that you have any authority to say whether or not any of it is true enough such that they could or couldn't say that they know the answer.

Unless you somehow have the authority, the knowledge, and the ability to objectively assess every single belief, thought, or idea that has ever been created in human history, I don't see how you can say with absolute certainty that nobody has ever known the answer and pose that as a fact. Again, it's my opinion that nobody has known the answer, or will ever know the answer, but I'm not suggesting it's a fact. It's just my opinion and nothing more.

LJS9502_basic

Belief =/= fact.

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

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

The big bang was a sudden rapid expansion of a ton of particles all condensed into something the size of a pinhead. How did it expand? Where did those particles come from? Thats the problem I have with said theory.

enterawesome

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

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

-Chimera-

What's to say that someone knows and can comprehensively explain everything, but simply chooses not to?-Chimera-

A human cannot understand and explain everything, because a human cannot (a) hold that much information within their brain, (b) see and understand beyond the human senses and most importantly (c) use language to explain a lot of things. Nobody on this planet could explain what a colour looks like without either using an example or describing it with the usage of other colours.

What's to say that someone at some point in time did in fact have an answer, and simply didn't understand the mechanics behind it?-Chimera-

Then they didn't know "the" answer. "An" answer is subjective, "the" answer is definite. And being able to understand the answer is the most important part of it - otherwise they are regurgitating a response they were previously told.

If you're saying that nobody knows and proclaim it as fact, then surely that would mean that you would know enough about what people have believed in the past and what people believe today so that you could objectively assess those beliefs and categorize it as true or false. I doubt that you know every single belief or thought that has ever been conceived by human minds, and I even moreso doubt that you have any authority to say whether or not any of it is true enough such that they could or couldn't say that they know the answer.-Chimera-

Beyond what I've already said, I'll just quote one of my favourite TV shows - If this is the answer, what is the question?

[QUOTE="enterawesome"]The big bang was a sudden rapid expansion of a ton of particles all condensed into something the size of a pinhead. How did it expand? Where did those particles come from? Thats the problem I have with said theory.

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]so basically you go to an anti-christian site that takes out of context bible verses to try to make Christianity look bad and then fail to talk to anybody like a pastor or someone with any sort of credibility that'll actually know what they're talking about.Silenthps

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

[QUOTE="enterawesome"]The big bang was a sudden rapid expansion of a ton of particles all condensed into something the size of a pinhead. How did it expand? Where did those particles come from? Thats the problem I have with said theory.

enterawesome