Religion vs. Science

[Banana Stomper]

Lets not divide the two, but combine them into a glorious manifestation of logic and faith. SCIENTOLOGY!!!

[areon]

For all of you western religion haters, why don't you go out and learn what religion really is? Okay I'll give you five minutes to google it...

Yeah couldn't find it? That's because in our language religion is just a grouping of so many beliefs that everyone loves to compare them. But can you compare buddhism with eugenics? Some of these are systems of control, but there are others that the sole purpose to follow them is to find inner peace.

Not all christians behave the same either, why do people look down on the amish when they have created utopia. They still work and farm the land, but they look out for their community and all pitch in for public projects like building houses. Yes their way of life is restrictive and because of this they have created sustainable populations that disprove all of Malthus' theories of human growth.

And yeah if you think science hasn't been used to justify actions, then look up that term eugenics or why we created the bomb.

[fishfleas]

In every human there is a inate desire to believe in something higher than us. Even the worst dictators in the world have believed in something higher. Some higher cause. The issues are what the people are believing in. It's when the people believe in something full of flaws that problems incure, and from that you have the radical spinoffs. One could argue that even believing in nothing is believing something.... Everyone at some point in their life makes the decision in what they believe, and sometimes they make that decision numerous times in their lives. Science and religion are not as seperate as people like to make it look. On a side note I'm not a scientologist and I do not agree with what they believe in. The problem with today's society in my opinion is that no one cares enough to REALLY explore the depths of what they believe. They accept everything typically and get a big mixing pot of beliefs and therefore don't really see the religions for what they truly are. People will say "That's cool you can believe whatever you like as long as it doesn't bother me." That may seem the nice way of handling things and no you shouldn't assault someone for believing the way you do, but you should know exactly what you believe and explore the depths of it's existance. Now in my opinion then you will start to realize how wrong alot of the religions in the world are. There truly is only one God. He sent his son to die on the cross for our sins and to save us all from our sinful lives. I don't believe that the Catholics have it right either.... however I do believe some Catholics are ok themselves. Muslims themselves are even based around jewish beliefs, and believe in Alah which is the same God that we believe in. Their biggest issue is that they take the Jewish text and combine it with the books that their "profit" mohammed taught. If you really get into the research on those texts they are filled with holes and failings. To this day the Bible is the most accurate and flawless book we have for any of the religions out there. The earliest documents that we have been able to uncover have been the dead sea scrolls, from an archeological find in the Middle East. Apon studying these documents we have discovered that the bible over thousands of years has had little to no error in the copying and duplicating process. Even today no one has been able to prove that anything within it is wrong. Even evolution itself cannot completely contradict the Bible. If you want to approach it in the way that you need historical facts then the Bible holds up to everything you can toss at it. If you want to through spiritual facts then the Bible again can withstand it. The issue is if you attack different religions. Say we look at Catholosism..... as someone mentioned earlier he didn't think it was right to sing and pray towards this crucifix with Jesus on it.... Well, that is because the Bible actually tells us NOT to do that. That is one of the many issues with the Catholic faith. If you want to attack say a pentacostals speaking in Tongues, well the Bible also tells us that that is wrong. This one is however a harder issue to argue at some times, because pentecostals use a few verses in the bible to justify their speaking in tongues. However when you look at the broader picture of what the Bible tells us and actually look into the older translations and the more original texts it becomes clear that speaking in tongues as the pentecostals portray it is not what Speaking in tongues is. Christianity is the only religion when you get to the heart of it that has withstood time itself, and there are reasons for that. There are some denominations in Christianity that have obscured and twisted what is true Christianity. The Mormons have added to the Bible with their book of Mormon, when the Bible warns anyone to add any more to it than what is already there. The Crusades is one example of a war being fought for "Christianity". I would argue though that this was when the Church had become corrupt and True christianity was being obscured by the Church. If you would take the time and read through the bible and even the other religions texts. I Firmly believe that you will see that the Bible is the only one that stands up to anything you can throw at it. The essence of Man is to believe in a God. God created man in his image, and because of that we know that we have a design and purpose. If anyone would like to discuss more on this with me personally feel free. I can understand why some of you may be tempted to believe in nothing. Especially with what the world has to show you. That is very sad in my eyes. If anyone would like to know more about this, please don't hesitate to pm me. God Bless.

[max is gr8]

In every human there is a inate desire to believe in something higher than us. Even the worst dictators in the world have believed in something higher. Some higher cause. The issues are what the people are believing in. It's when the people believe in something full of flaws that problems incure, and from that you have the radical spinoffs.

One could argue that even believing in nothing is believing something.... Everyone at some point in their life makes the decision in what they believe, and sometimes they make that decision numerous times in their lives.
Science and religion are not as seperate as people like to make it look. On a side note I'm not a scientologist and I do not agree with what they believe in. The problem with today's society in my opinion is that no one cares enough to REALLY explore the depths of what they believe.
They accept everything typically and get a big mixing pot of beliefs and therefore don't really see the religions for what they truly are. People will say "That's cool you can believe whatever you like as long as it doesn't bother me."

That may seem the nice way of handling things and no you shouldn't assault someone for believing the way you do, but you should know exactly what you believe and explore the depths of it's existance.

Now in my opinion then you will start to realize how wrong alot of the religions in the world are. There truly is only one God. He sent his son to die on the cross for our sins and to save us all from our sinful lives. I don't believe that the Catholics have it right either.... however I do believe some Catholics are ok themselves.

Muslims themselves are even based around jewish beliefs, and believe in Alah which is the same God that we believe in. Their biggest issue is that they take the Jewish text and combine it with the books that their "profit" mohammed taught. If you really get into the research on those texts they are filled with holes and failings.

To this day the Bible is the most accurate and flawless book we have for any of the religions out there. The earliest documents that we have been able to uncover have been the dead sea scrolls, from an archeological find in the Middle East.

Apon studying these documents we have discovered that the bible over thousands of years has had little to no error in the copying and duplicating process. Even today no one has been able to prove that anything within it is wrong. Even evolution itself cannot completely contradict the Bible. If you want to approach it in the way that you need historical facts then the Bible holds up to everything you can toss at it.

If you want to through spiritual facts then the Bible again can withstand it. The issue is if you attack different religions. Say we look at Catholosism..... as someone mentioned earlier he didn't think it was right to sing and pray towards this crucifix with Jesus on it.... Well, that is because the Bible actually tells us NOT to do that. That is one of the many issues with the Catholic faith.

If you want to attack say a pentacostals speaking in Tongues, well the Bible also tells us that that is wrong. This one is however a harder issue to argue at some times, because pentecostals use a few verses in the bible to justify their speaking in tongues. However when you look at the broader picture of what the Bible tells us and actually look into the older translations and the more original texts it becomes clear that speaking in tongues as the pentecostals portray it is not what Speaking in tongues is. Christianity is the only religion when you get to the heart of it that has withstood time itself, and there are reasons for that. There are some denominations in Christianity that have obscured and twisted what is true Christianity.

The Mormons have added to the Bible with their book of Mormon, when the Bible warns anyone to add any more to it than what is already there. The Crusades is one example of a war being fought for "Christianity". I would argue though that this was when the Church had become corrupt and True christianity was being obscured by the Church. If you would take the time and read through the bible and even the other religions texts. I Firmly believe that you will see that the Bible is the only one that stands up to anything you can throw at it.

The essence of Man is to believe in a God. God created man in his image, and because of that we know that we have a design and purpose. If anyone would like to discuss more on this with me personally feel free. I can understand why some of you may be tempted to believe in nothing. Especially with what the world has to show you. That is very sad in my eyes. If anyone would like to know more about this, please don't hesitate to pm me. God Bless.

I just paragraphed it I don't have A clue whether I have paragraphed in the right place but I think I will find it easier to read with the paragraphs in

[fishfleas]

lol.... yeah once I get going I tend to just go.... I didn't claim to be the best at Grammar.... Maybe Cahoots can help me at that....lol....

[johnnyrotten]

Thinking of that- where is cahoots? She hasn't been on all day, has she?

[SMITH197]

school i would assume...but then again, i'm at school right now...


i hope she's ok...

[johnnyrotten]

Oh right you don't have today off, do you? Unlucky

[Hoff]

In every human there is a inate desire to believe in something higher than us

Not everyone believes in something higher, so that kind of discoutns that fact of yours.

Science and religion are not as seperate as people like to make it look.

why?

Muslims themselves are even based around jewish beliefs, and believe in Alah which is the same God that we believe in. Their biggest issue is that they take the Jewish text and combine it with the books that their "profit" mohammed taught. If you really get into the research on those texts they are filled with holes and failings.

How is that different than the disciples writing the bible?

Say we look at Catholosism..... as someone mentioned earlier he didn't think it was right to sing and pray towards this crucifix with Jesus on it.... Well, that is because the Bible actually tells us NOT to do that. That is one of the many issues with the Catholic faith.

Catholics don't worship the crucifix. They worship what the crucifix represents. Crucifix representing Jesus and Jesus being the son of God.

Christianity is the only religion when you get to the heart of it that has withstood time itself, and there are reasons for that.

Jewish people were around long before Christianity. Looks like they with stood time too, and muslims have been around for awhile and so have many other religions.

I agree with some of the things that you say, somethings I don't, and some of the things I pointed out that you said just dont make sense.

[fishfleas]

In every human there is a inate desire to believe in something higher than us

Not everyone believes in something higher, so that kind of discoutns that fact of yours.

This could be a whole discussion in it's own, but it's been argued by Christians and by non-christians that humans have this inate desire to worship dieties. Even people that don't believe there is anything... they just have buried it deep within themselves.

Science and religion are not as seperate as people like to make it look.

why?

Science as we know it today. stemmed from Monks and othere religious groups who studied Nature to try to help others. From it's roots it's been tied to religion, as religions are strongly tied to nature. Example, Native Americans are a good example of how Nature strongly ties into what they believe. they beilieve animals have spirits, and such. That is one end of the spectrum. In Christianity, we believe that God is in everything we think see and hear. He is the creater of everything. Again, this could be a huge discussion too, but I hope that gives you a bit of an idea where that comes from.

Muslims themselves are even based around jewish beliefs, and believe in Alah which is the same God that we believe in. Their biggest issue is that they take the Jewish text and combine it with the books that their "profit" mohammed taught. If you really get into the research on those texts they are filled with holes and failings.

How is that different than the disciples writing the bible?

The Disciples didn't write the whole Bible. The actual disciples of Jesus only wrote a very small portion of it. To help prove the accurateness and correctness of the Bible you have to look at the Old Testiment Thoroughly. Did you know that Science has proven the existance of a world wide flood? Did you know that Science has proven that a strip of the Red Sea was at one point dry while the surrounding parts were not... and Science has no explanation as to how that happened. The Bible has given us answers to alot of questions that Science brings forth. The accuracy of the Bible in context to history is uncanny. Each time someone tries to argue something wrong in the Bible, they are never able to really come up with a good argument on why the Bible is wrong. With the other books that go along with say Muslims and Buddhists there are many holes and discrepencies in what they believe. The thing is most people don't spend the time to look through the books or are even educated enough to read the books themselves.

Say we look at Catholosism..... as someone mentioned earlier he didn't think it was right to sing and pray towards this crucifix with Jesus on it.... Well, that is because the Bible actually tells us NOT to do that. That is one of the many issues with the Catholic faith.

Catholics don't worship the crucifix. They worship what the crucifix represents. Crucifix representing Jesus and Jesus being the son of God.

yet they pray to Mary, and graven images of Jesus or the saints. The Bible is actually very clear that we should not do that. This could be a huge discussion again, if you want to break it down.

Christianity is the only religion when you get to the heart of it that has withstood time itself, and there are reasons for that.

Jewish people were around long before Christianity. Looks like they with stood time too, and muslims have been around for awhile and so have many other religions.

Jews or the Isrealites are God's Chosen People. This is a very good topic of discussion. Has God disregarded the Jews now that they haven't accepted Christ as the Messiah? or does he still listen and touch his chosen people who live their lives still as if the messiah hadn't come yet? That is a very good discussion indeed. Jews I don't believe will get to heaven unfortunately unless they end up accepting Christ as their savior. Jesus says "The only way to the Father is through me".

Christianity is the relationship with God that the Jews were meant to have, and did have in the Old Testament.

Muslims declare that Muhammed was their "messiah" however... They have taken the Old Testament prophecies and twisted them to try to proclaim someone of their own linage as the Messiah. The faults are numerous in their arguments. The most glaring issue is the prophecy saying that the Messiah would be a direct decendant of King David. The Muslim and Arab nation is actually decendants of Arbraham's illegitemate son....I'm bad with names but I believe it was Ishmael. i don't have an old testament with me or I'ld look it up for you.... I can get back with you on that. Point being if we would sit down and really disect the Quran it's full of holes and issues.

I agree with some of the things that you say, somethings I don't, and some of the things I pointed out that you said just dont make
sense.

I appreciate your input. I don't mind discussing this with you. I'm not trying to push this on anyone if anyone would want to know more about it they can PM me about it. God Bless.

[lackattack]

I appreciate your input. Smile I don't mind discussing this with you. I'm not trying to push this on anyone if anyone would want to know more about it they can PM me about it. God Bless.

Should we nominate fishfleas for Conquer Club Chaplain ??? Somebody's gotta be our spiritual leader and I'm too busy coding...

[areyouincahoots]

I appreciate your input. Smile I don't mind discussing this with you. I'm not trying to push this on anyone if anyone would want to know more about it they can PM me about it. God Bless.

Should we nominate fishfleas for Conquer Club Chaplain ??? Somebody's gotta be our spiritual leader and I'm too busy coding...

lol...

[areyouincahoots]

Thinking of that- where is cahoots? She hasn't been on all day, has she?

lol...sorry. I was at work..

school i would assume...but then again, i'm at school right now...


i hope she's ok...

I'm out of school now...WOOHOO! Friday was my last day.

[fishfleas]

I appreciate your input. Smile I don't mind discussing this with you. I'm not trying to push this on anyone if anyone would want to know more about it they can PM me about it. God Bless.

Should we nominate fishfleas for Conquer Club Chaplain ??? Somebody's gotta be our spiritual leader and I'm too busy coding...

lol.... I'm soo honored? Do I get a cool medal of some kind?

[PaperPlunger]

i'm not gonna start writing in this.. DAMN! because once i get real into it, after like 4th post... I'm going to try t get my opinion across and nothing will stop me. hehe

[areyouincahoots]

yeah...i'm not even going to start either...if i get started, i'll likely only get mad from there...

[qeee1]

Yes their way of life is restrictive and because of this they have created sustainable populations that disprove all of Malthus' theories of human growth.

I've never agreed with Malthus' theories, given I generally espouse Godwin's outlook on life and those two were basically rivals back then. What's the relevance of all this again, I dunno. Oh yeah, I don't Malthus' work is very scientific, as it assumes things that in my mind aren't true. And judging by the Amish example that's right. Just I hate Malthus, thought I'd get it out.

In every human there is a inate desire to believe in something higher than us

Not everyone believes in something higher, so that kind of discoutns that fact of yours.

This could be a whole discussion in it's own, but it's been argued by Christians and by non-christians that humans have this inate desire to worship dieties. Even people that don't believe there is anything... they just have buried it deep within themselves.

Hmm... I disagree. There's an innate desire to understand where you came from maybe, or an innate desire to see your actions as meaningful, but I disagree that the desire itself is to believe in something higher. I find that last line particularly offensive.

Science and religion are not as seperate as people like to make it look.

why?

Science as we know it today. stemmed from Monks and othere religious groups who studied Nature to try to help others. From it's roots it's been tied to religion, as religions are strongly tied to nature. Example, Native Americans are a good example of how Nature strongly ties into what they believe. they beilieve animals have spirits, and such. That is one end of the spectrum. In Christianity, we believe that God is in everything we think see and hear. He is the creater of everything. Again, this could be a huge discussion too, but I hope that gives you a bit of an idea where that comes from.

Science came from many different sources and to tie it exclusively to monks is offensive. What you're saying is that from a christian point of view science and religion are tied because God is in everything and is therefore in science. However you're arguing from within your religious assumptions, so basically you're assuming from the start what you aim to argue as being true.

Muslims themselves are even based around jewish beliefs, and believe in Alah which is the same God that we believe in. Their biggest issue is that they take the Jewish text and combine it with the books that their "profit" mohammed taught. If you really get into the research on those texts they are filled with holes and failings.

How is that different than the disciples writing the bible?

The Disciples didn't write the whole Bible. The actual disciples of Jesus only wrote a very small portion of it. To help prove the accurateness and correctness of the Bible you have to look at the Old Testiment Thoroughly. Did you know that Science has proven the existance of a world wide flood? Did you know that Science has proven that a strip of the Red Sea was at one point dry while the surrounding parts were not... and Science has no explanation as to how that happened. The Bible has given us answers to alot of questions that Science brings forth. The accuracy of the Bible in context to history is uncanny. Each time someone tries to argue something wrong in the Bible, they are never able to really come up with a good argument on why the Bible is wrong. With the other books that go along with say Muslims and Buddhists there are many holes and discrepencies in what they believe. The thing is most people don't spend the time to look through the books or are even educated enough to read the books themselves.

There are a lot of discrepencies in the bible, from numbers of people changing and not adding up, to different order/happenings of things in the 4 gospels, to, my personal favourite where a circle has 30m circumferance and 10m diameter, implying that pi is 3. There are people defending these discrepencies saying things like: exact numbers don't matter it's the teaching that's important, and other such excuses. You have such people offering excuses for each of the other major religious texts also. Science has not proven the bible to be true. It perhaps has shown some coincidences, though I'm rather dubious about the red sea thing... given I've never even heard of it, and find it hard to work out exactly how they could prove such a thing.

Say we look at Catholosism..... as someone mentioned earlier he didn't think it was right to sing and pray towards this crucifix with Jesus on it.... Well, that is because the Bible actually tells us NOT to do that. That is one of the many issues with the Catholic faith.

Catholics don't worship the crucifix. They worship what the crucifix represents. Crucifix representing Jesus and Jesus being the son of God.

yet they pray to Mary, and graven images of Jesus or the saints. The Bible is actually very clear that we should not do that. This could be a huge discussion again, if you want to break it down.

It's debatable whether they worship the images themselves or what they represent... but it doesn't really bother me. Why they worship them at all seems of more relevance to me.

Christianity is the only religion when you get to the heart of it that has withstood time itself, and there are reasons for that.

Jewish people were around long before Christianity. Looks like they with stood time too, and muslims have been around for awhile and so have many other religions.

Jews or the Isrealites are God's Chosen People. This is a very good topic of discussion. Has God disregarded the Jews now that they haven't accepted Christ as the Messiah? or does he still listen and touch his chosen people who live their lives still as if the messiah hadn't come yet? That is a very good discussion indeed. Jews I don't believe will get to heaven unfortunately unless they end up accepting Christ as their savior. Jesus says "The only way to the Father is through me".

Christianity is the relationship with God that the Jews were meant to have, and did have in the Old Testament.

That added nothing constructive to the argument. Your initial point was that the fact that Christianity had lasted showed it was the true religion or whatever. Then Hoff said other religions have been around just as long, then you said well according to my beliefs they're not as valid. Once again you're arguing from within your belief system and in fact assuming the thing you're setting out to prove. Hoff's point still stands.

Muslims declare that Muhammed was their "messiah" however... They have taken the Old Testament prophecies and twisted them to try to proclaim someone of their own linage as the Messiah. The faults are numerous in their arguments. The most glaring issue is the prophecy saying that the Messiah would be a direct decendant of King David. The Muslim and Arab nation is actually decendants of Arbraham's illegitemate son....I'm bad with names but I believe it was Ishmael. i don't have an old testament with me or I'ld look it up for you.... I can get back with you on that. Point being if we would sit down and really disect the Quran it's full of holes and issues.

That's more constructive. I can't defend that not being that familiar with Muslim beliefs.

I agree with some of the things that you say, somethings I don't, and some of the things I pointed out that you said just dont make
sense.

I appreciate your input. I don't mind discussing this with you. I'm not trying to push this on anyone if anyone would want to know more about it they can PM me about it. God Bless.

I'm happy to continue discussing this on this thread but if you prefer we can discuss it via pm.

[Jucdor]

God, I would have so many things to do & yet I fail to suppress the urge to participate in something fun.

In every human there is a inate desire to believe in something higher than us. Even the worst dictators in the world have believed in something higher.

But have the best one done so as well?

Now in my opinion then you will start to realize how wrong alot of the religions in the world are. There truly is only one God. He sent his son to die on the cross for our sins and to save us all from our sinful lives. I don't believe that the Catholics have it right either.... however I do believe some Catholics are ok themselves. Muslims themselves are even based around jewish beliefs, and believe in Alah which is the same God that we believe in. Their biggest issue is that they take the Jewish text and combine it with the books that their "profit" mohammed taught. If you really get into the research on those texts they are filled with holes and failings. To this day the Bible is the most accurate and flawless book we have for any of the religions out there.

Oh come on. Koran & Bible share the historical parts so to that they're equally accurate (I don't take a stance how accurate that is though). When it comes to Mohammed, his deeds can be easily proven from other sources as he rose to an important position while he was still alive and that is why he's actions are well documented. Whereas Jesus is barely a historical person. Try to find sources where Jesus is mentioned and you'll surprise that there are only three of them. And on those brief texts you can only be sure that there were some sort of prophet, or three, in Middle East and one of them was called the Christ.

The earliest documents that we have been able to uncover have been the dead sea scrolls, from an archeological find in the Middle East. Apon studying these documents we have discovered that the bible over thousands of years has had little to no error in the copying and duplicating process. Even today no one has been able to prove that anything within it is wrong.

If we're talking about the Old Testament the difference between the time it is assumed to have been written & when the first copies are found is hundreds of years. There is no way we could know if it has changed during those centuries. If on the other hand we're talking about New Testament, that was assembled on the 4th century. And when I say assembled, I mean that bunch of priests & bishops on their gathering looked all the texts that had been written so far, checked which had consistantancy & threw away & later burned every text that contradicted to what they together had decided to be holy. It was a big issue, caused a lot of wars between catholic christians & gnostic christians.

And when you say no one has been able to prove that anything within it is wrong, you don't mean that literally. Because for instance let's take the birth of Jesus for instance. They had to goto the Jerusalem to be taxed & registered. Now that was a big process back then & it took years to complete such a task (if I remember right, it took a decade or so). There is no way they would've either A) needed to go right away when Mary was pregnant. Or B) every place to be full when they get there. In fact it was so great effort that the first time Sweden ever did such a thing was 17th century. And Sweden was a great power at the time.

Also Bible blackpaints Herodes too much. His childkilling probably, though not definitely, never happened and was probably only a slander.

Oh, and one more thing that troubles me a lot with religious people (even my best friend does that very often... and she's the most religious girl I've ever met (in Ethiopia at the moment)). First historical person in the world is Enmebaragesi. It is a bit difficult to place him on a time table as legends say that he was 900 years old, but he probably reigned Kish (in Middle East) around 25th century BC. And historical people even from that on aren't that many. We usually know what kingdoms existed, which was the greatest power at the time, but for instance there's an era between 1650-1430 BC that we know nothing about. We know there were probably a lot of wars, but that's pretty much it. Just thought I should mention this as it is sometimes troublesome when you know how little can be known for a fact from ancient times and then there's religious people who talk of Moses like he was a historical person. Belief isn't enough to make things facts. I mean we don't know who was the greatest Celt prophet at the time of the Christ, because there's none who would've made an impact big enough for people to have written about it. Thank god Jesus made an impact that at least someone wrote the few sentences about him, but the stories you read from the Bible are not facts. The same scientific methods should be used to religious events & people which are used to determine if something really happened, like if Babylonia existed or not.

[fishfleas]

I only have a few minutes here Gee1 so I'm just going to reply to want I can remember off the top of my head without having to go back and forth.


You mentioned that there are discrepencies in the bible? You gave an example of some measurements.... could you provide some references to where that is located? I'm not saying it isn't there but having the references to where it is located would help me to hopefully show you were that train of thought is wrong. While it is true that the meaning behind it is the most important part of the Bible, I would think I could give you some kind of good explanation as to why this is the way it is.... assuming that the statement is true. (not saying it isn't)

As far as the reference to Monks, I did state other religious groups. I was merely giving one example that I was more familiar with off the top of my head. I agree it came from various sources and in my mind science itself has always been around, however what we term as modern science really began it's push with religious groups. Whether it be monks, or whoever else. If I need to I could probably dig up some more information on that for you.

Now you can say what you want about my comments about science being directly tied to religion. I still am not sure how my opinion as stated offended you, but if it did I'm sorry. I truly don't see how anyone can not see the pattern and plan that is so evident in Nature. Every part of Nature has it's purpose, whether that purpose is known yet or not. Science is still discovering why things are the way they are in Nature. Just the miracle of Birth itself is so complex that saying that it all was random and happened to all form at the exact random time, just is alot sillier of a notion than believing in a creator. Even if you don't believe in Christianity though, your particular religion would probably and most likely have some strong ties to science. Which in the general sense of this thread shows that Science and Religion are closely tied in together in varies ways.

Well I need to get going.... I'll be back tomorrow.... Take care guys...

[Jucdor]

And I know what someone is going to respond to my post so I'll counter it in advance.

The texts you see in the Bible don't stand a critical inspection. They weren't written when Jesus was alive, but a lot later. The first ones have some credibility as there were still some old people alive who had been children when Jesus was alive, but even that doesn't necessarily mean that they're automatically true. A story becomes a myth, a myth becomes a legend and so on. One of the basics of historical research methods are thinking about motives of the author. If a king writes about his conquest he'll probably lie to make himself look better. For instance there are Viking texts that say that they attacked Konstantinople with...ummm... was it 800 ships. And that is not to be taken seriously as such an attack would've left like half a Sweden deserted. So particularly the miracles you read in the Bible should sound an alarm. Is there a reason Jesus should be made look as good as possible? Hell yeah.

Another example. A Finnish national epoch was assemled by Elias Lönnrot in 19th century. The Epoch Kalevala is based on folklore songs & poems that were sang across Finnish lands. One of the main characters is Väinämöinen, a wizard of great wisdom & power. Now I want to believe that Kalevala, just like Gilgamesh or Iliad & Odysseia, is originally based on something that has actually happened. There probably was a man whose name was something like Väinämöinen and probably he was a powerful man, maybe a tribal king or something and he was so remarkable fellow that people started to sing songs about him that over the centuries just got a little out of hands. But does the fact that over thousands of miles people sang about Väinämöinen that he really took part in creating the world? No of course it doesn't.

[Jucdor]

As far as the reference to Monks, I did state other religious groups. I was merely giving one example that I was more familiar with off the top of my head. I agree it came from various sources and in my mind science itself has always been around, however what we term as modern science really began it's push with religious groups. Whether it be monks, or whoever else. If I need to I could probably dig up some more information on that for you.

I'm sorry, but this is just silly. I'd say that religious people have had two occasions when they've been the ones to advance science. The first ones were naturally astronomy. In ancient times it was important to know the skies if you wanted to know the ways of gods. But then again philosophy is said to be mother of all science & indeed philosophers were the ones that gave birth to critical science. Another occasion when religious people have been helpful is naturally the medievals, when ancient texts were preserved by monks. At the same time as they copied ancient philosopher's texts, they also studied plants & did invent many new tools which helped the peasant very much. However when critical science was again raising its head, it wasn't the religious people who were behind this. Thanks to Gutenberg, discovery of the new world, Luther & enlightened authors, science started to question the Biblical facts, but those who were there to bring the change, weren't religious people compared to the time. They were only religious enough to avoid been burned alive (and actually many of them still were burned).

[areon]

Fish mentioned the worldwide flooding. There are some theories that the straits of gibraltar at first blocked out the atlantic. So this meant that a lot of the mediterranean would be land and populated. Maybe it wasn't a world wide flood but a lot of people were displaced and heard the same news all around them and assumed it to be world wide.

Has anyone heard of the theory that atlantis actually did exist on an island near crete? I saw something where excavators were digging up a site that didn't match any cultures at the time it was dated. They then extrapolated a lot of data and brought it together into an interesting story. The island was named Thera but was a volcanic island. This made the land fertile and the people prospered. The problem was that the volcano erupted and they have geological data of a crater in the area that would've been created by an extraordinary amount of force or explosion. They coupled this with ice samples in greenland and the thousand year old redwood trees in california. The nature of these two objects preserve the history of the atmosphere. Anyway it is a pretty interesting idea and I forget the specifics on the eruption but I remember them saying that it would've covered the sky with dust temporarily. This is interesting because there are chinese records of such a thing happening to the sky at the time. If they found some more stuff about this then maybe promeatheus wasn't a greek god after all.

[Hoff]

Fish mentioned the worldwide flooding. There are some theories that the straits of gibraltar at first blocked out the atlantic. So this meant that a lot of the mediterranean would be land and populated. Maybe it wasn't a world wide flood but a lot of people were displaced and heard the same news all around them and assumed it to be world wide.

We just learned about how the straits of gibraltar blocked out hte atlanic in geology today. What a coincidence haha. But we learned that it was a couple millions of years ago when humans werent around. But it could have happened multiple times, i dont really know. But what a site it would have been to see the atlantic ocean pooring back into the mediterranean. That would totally chump niagra falls. haha

[freakshow]

My take on the whole religious debate. I think I've said this before but it needs to be said again.
I believe in Science because it can and has been wrong.
The founding principle of every religion is that it is the true religion and that all other religions are wrong, with science there is a method for intelligent debate between the two. In science rather than rely on blind faith evidence is provided. I honestly think with all the divisions we have in the world today religion is simply another unnessasary one, I don't want to control peoples minds but I am personaly moraly opposed to all religions.
I've heard it said that science can justify as many massacres as religion. I disagree. Certainly science has given us the ability to wield massive destructive power but if genetics has taught us anything we have more in common than we have diffrences. I know religions now-a-days preach tolorance, but consider the aztecs for a secound. They had just as much proof that there religion (which dictated the ritual slaughter of millions) was as correct as Christianity, so is there any reason to consider it a bad religion. Science may give us the tools to kill each other but the technology behind that same nuclear bomb provides a relively clear powersource to millions.
I don't pretend to know alot about Muslims but I do think I know more than your average Christian so here's how it works:
First there was Judism. Abraham the father of Judism had to sons (whose names I can't remember) his first son was given prosparity in the desert where a black stone that had come from the garden of eden was given him. His secound son was one of the inital prohiptes of Judism. Judism believes in a series of prophits that followed abraham. Christianity picks up from there and say that Jesus is the son of god, a god himself born of a motal.(this is likely not true and it's here that a certain historical accuracy pops up. Without the miricle of modern medicine it's impossible to have immaculate conception) Islam picks up from Judism and says that Christ was a mortal prophet of god. They also say that Mohammad was a prophet of god.
Ok if you know what your talking about and I screwed up than correct me.
Assuming God exists lets anylze him: 1. God is unforgiving, christians believe in original sin, that is god has not forgiven the inital sin of being curious in the garden of eden, this is odd as god says to christians turn the other cheek. 2. God has commited mass murder on what is termed Biblical porpotions, yet god says don't kill. 3. God is all powerful and with that power he created 3 religions promised them all the same "holyland" (which is in fact desert) and has allowed massive strife to arise in wars faught between those people.
In the end I don't think I want to worship such a contradictory and wicked god. If your up for it I won't stop you.

[Jolly Roger]

oops