The Theism/Atheism Discussion

[Achilles]

In the spirit of reciprocity, maybe we can let science progress a little farther to answer this.

Absolutely. I'll happily go whereever the evidence leads. In the absense of evidence though, I'll exercise my duty to remain skeptical.

 

Quantum mechanics has broken down our notion of what matter is -- individual particles are now mere possibilities described by Heisenberg and Schrödinger equations. Yet when make observations, the possibility of different states suddenly collapse to either "yes" or "no". We cannot separate ourselves from our world of actuality. Maybe science will determine eventually what causes the collapse of the potential into the actual.

Show off...

 

I think this type of discussion speaks to a level of specificity that I generally don't concern myself with (remember, I'm just a layperson). It interests me and I think it's worthwhile, but it almost seems like a red herring in regards to atheism.

 

Do believe that if a tree falls in the forest with no one around... no wait let me rephrase the question. Do you believe that a tree actually exists if no one is around or does it only exist in potentiality? (variation of "Schrödinger's cat")

 

I believe it exists because the universe itself is aware.

I too believe that the tree is there, but for a different reason: I find no evidence to support the argument that the tree must be observed in order to exist. It's more likely that I don't find this evidence because I truthfully haven't looked for it rather than because it doesn't exist.

 

To use an analogy of my own, I don't compare this existence to the existence of video game characters where modules and the items within them only spawn when called. I don't believe that a transcendent player exists in a particular module when my character is not it in.

 

I believe that when I go to work, my apartment is still here and vice versa.

 

If I'm misrepresenting your argument as solipsism and introducing a strawman, I apologize.

 

I'll use an analogy. This rock in my hand seems separate from me. Yet I know that the matter in this rock is really just tightly bound energy whose probabilities have given rise to the properties of solidity, shape, etc. The energies in the rock are the same as elsewhere throughout the universe, only in different proportions and configurations. So in that sense, I'm not different from that rock. Now, in the same way, my consciousness could be analogous to the rock (don't laugh at how dense I am!). So while my consciousness seems quite entrenched with boundaries drawn around it that I call my Self, it could be that the same fundamental forces that shape my consciousness are also dispersed throughout the universe. In that sense, my Self is not different from the Cosmic Self.

That's a very interesting philosophical argument. I'm not sure how we would be able to test that empirically.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the hypothesis is patently false, but I would be "atheistic" towards that because there is no emperical evidence for it. Occam's razor still tells me that individual consciousness as a natural biproduct of complex, localized biochemical reactions is the best answer...at least for now

 

I was merely offering the possibility that maybe atheistic outlooks in academia are not as damning as people seem to think but rather have a good side to them.

I think I misread your post. My apologies.

 

I used religious morality due to mainly that most morals are based in religion.

I still disagree with this though

[Jae Onasi]

Quantum mechanics has broken down our notion of what matter is -- individual particles are now mere possibilities described by Heisenberg and Schrödinger equations. Yet when make observations, the possibility of different states suddenly collapse to either "yes" or "no". We cannot separate ourselves from our world of actuality. Maybe science will determine eventually what causes the collapse of the potential into the actual.

Show off...

 

I think this type of discussion speaks to a level of specificity that I generally don't concern myself with (remember, I'm just a layperson). It interests me and I think it's worthwhile, but it almost seems like a red herring in regards to atheism.

 

I don't know that it's a red herring in regards to atheism--one of the questions that is unanswered by atheism is the original cause of the universe, and that very much involves physics. What locked all that potential energy into that singularity that existed just prior to the Big Bang, and where did it come from? What caused it to explode the universe into being?

[Samuel Dravis]

"Just prior," to the Big Bang, "before time," etc. To us, something that is caused always comes after what caused it - but if there's no time, then it's hard to figure out what "caused" anything, if indeed it did. Does asking a question that relies on time even make sense in this context?

[Achilles]

I'll concede Jae's point and agree with Samuel Dravis'.

 

Time cannot exist before it has been created, therefore the question (as it was presented) falls flat. Because we currently lack the sophistication to offer a scientific explanation is true and to be expected (it took us about 199,940 years to harness nuclear power after all).

 

Acknowledging this does not mean that God wins the debate by default (after all it could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster). What it does mean is that we don't know.

 

Some people choose to give the point to God anyway. People like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins would argue that these people are being intellectually dishonest (albeit not necessarily intentionally so). The first reason why is that there isn't any evidence and one has to purposely maneuver around this fact to get to their view. The second is that one has to ignore the fact that a creator God is undeniably more complex and therefore exponentially more improbable than the thing is believed to have created.

 

So even though science doesn't have the answer, logic and reasoning can tell us that the answer being some supernatural being is safely within the category of impossibility. It will remain there until some evidence shows us otherwise.

[Ambrose]

I think you may be operating on the assumption that there's some sort of time limit in effect. At no point does the Bible mention consent.

 

After the man has gone to her "as a husband" he can set he free, but only if he is unhappy with her. She can ask to go free, but only if he is unhappy with her.

 

The Bible could tell him to wait a year, but so long as it's not consensual, it's rape. Doesn't even matter if she puts up a fight, it's rape.

 

In that case, rape has been a normal part of daily life for millenia. Arranged marriage has been a simple fact of life basically until the later 1800s, and still continues today in many countries. One of my best friends' grandparents were married in an arranged marriage (they're Indian).

 

In fact, the marriage of Mary and Joseph was an arranged marriage, unless I'm much mistaken.

 

As Americans, we tend to operate under a very different culture from that of the past millenia. I daresay that this culture has been quite the contributing factor in our outlook on things. Let's face it- if you lived about a thousand years ago, you really wouldn't have a problem with arranged marriage.

 

I personally don't like the idea of arranged marriage either, and fortunately neither do most people. Which is why it doesn't happen any more. I don't think God demanded that the victorious Israelites MUST marry the captive women; therefore, since we now have a more modern outlook on things, we are certainly not obliged nor obligated to marry female captives of a conquered country.

 

In any event, the fact is this- we are products of our time. Outlooks on women have obviously changed. You may think that arranged marriage is wrong, and in the modern world, where women are well-educated and quite capable of thinking for themselves, I would totally agree with you. Arranged marriage (very much like marrying captive women against their wills) just wouldn't work in this century. Which is why it doesn't happen anymore, save in less modern areas of the world.

 

In the past, however, when women were more, for lack of a better word, docile (not to mention helpless), arranged marriage could easily work. I'd argue that most women would be more than pleased to be chosen as a man's wife, because the basic fact of the matter is that in those times women could NOT function on their own. That's historical fact.

 

So you have to think in an Old-Testament timeframe. It's probably accurate to say that being chosen to be an Israelite's wife would be a blessing to one of these captured virgins.

 

You may be right that in the one specific passage where we are told that they are not to be mistreated, the phrase might be taken to mean "don't rape them".

 

The book of Deuteronomy is all written by one person (Moses, I think). If you're arguing based on the continuity of the passage in regards to the rest of the Bible, I think you should rethink- would someone write "Capture and rape women to your bloody lustful heart's content" and then on the next page suggest that the captured women "not be mistreated"? Not likely.

 

Even conceding that point, it doesn't help the other cases where no mention of "not mistreating" women taken captive is made.

 

If it's said once, why can't we assume it's a uniform law throughout?

 

However it might also mean, "make sure they are fed, don't make them sleep in the rain, make sure you give them clean clothes" (which again, I believe is the common biblical context for "not mistreating" people. Not an expert. Could be wrong).

 

Do you honestly think the Bible is saying this: "Make sure they are fed, don't make them sleep in the rain, make sure you give them clean clothes... but sexually mistreat them all you like, I don't care."?

 

Assuming that it's not rape, you're correct. Assuming that it is, I consider it abhorent that the man isn't being punished for traumatizing a woman, rather soiling another man's property.

 

I'm not in the Bible-writer's head, so I don't know exactly why he worded it that way, but here's my assumption. There is no "thou shalt not rape" in the Bible. Then again, there is no "Thou shalt not look down thy neighbor's wife's shirt" either. Why? Because both fall under other commandments. The first is "Thou shalt not commit adultery", and the second one is under "thou shalt not covet they neighbor's wife". It's that simple- Moses took the 10 commandments quite seriously (given that he's the one who received them), and he's just connecting the crime to the appropriate commandment.

 

Alrighty, now for my talk about why the Old Testament is so much more violent than the new one.

 

First, the Old Testament...

 

God made his laws. He put humans on earth and expected them to uphold his laws. They didn't. The situation spiraled out of control, and evil consumed his creation. God saw this with dismay and seriously considered destroying the world because it had all seemed to turn against him. But He loved his creation so much that in spite of all of this, He would give humanity a second chance. He loaded Noah and the animals onto a boat and flooded the earth. Now we've got a clean slate, moving on to Old Testament part 2.

 

Years and years later things start to stagnate again. God's followers are now slaves to the pagan Egyptians, and are cruelly mistreated. He chats with Moses, and they are led out of Egypt. The Israelites become God's people. Yet there are those who hate God's people in the world, and those who openly hate or disdain God. God begs these people to repent, but they don't listen, and with a heavy heart, God and his people are led into countless wars.

 

This goes on for quite awhile, and God is getting discouraged. No matter what he does, it seems humanity will not listen to Him, and he is grieved every time he must exact punishment on those who do not uphold his laws (and oftentimes this punishment was death).

 

God decides he's had enough of mass killings and the like. Here's where Jesus comes in.

 

The New Testament:

 

To put an end to divine retribution, God selflessly comes to Earth as Jesus. We all know the story. Stricken with grief over the seemingly endless bloodshed, Jesus preaches peace and love to the world. At the end of His life, Jesus dies for us.

 

Here's where my basic theory emerges. Many Christians don't know the specifics of why Jesus had to die for us, aside from vague things like "to forgive our sins". So here's where I'm speculating.

 

Jesus died to suffer the punishments that all of humanity to come would incur upon themselves, so did he love us. Now that Jesus has died on the cross and suffered the punishment that we earned for ourselves, we do not have to die like the evil individuals in the Old Testament do. That's why Jesus preached nonviolence and loving one's neighbors; he knew that he would soon take humanity's need for divine killings away, so he prepared them for peace.

 

But now the matter arises of, "ok, Jesus died for me, now I get to go to heaven."

 

Uh... not necessarily. Jesus' death was a gift to humanity. A gift is something freely given and freely received, it is not imposed. It is up to us to accept that gift, and we do that by living out His word (a concept quite biblically supported) and loving Him.

 

So that's my spiel. The New Testament is far more peaceful because Jesus already suffered out of love for us the divine retribution that we deserve.

[Achilles]

In that case, rape has been a normal part of daily life for millenia. Arranged marriage has been a simple fact of life basically until the later 1800s, and still continues today in many countries.

You're assuming that this is an arranged marriage. I am not. Your introduction of arranged marriage is a strawman in regards to this discussion.

 

So you have to think in an Old-Testament timeframe. It's probably accurate to say that being chosen to be an Israelite's wife would be a blessing to one of these captured virgins.

Well then why wouldn't they go willingly? Why stipulate that they would need 30 days to mourn? Your argument doesn't seem to hold up in the context of the passage that we are discussing.

 

The book of Deuteronomy is all written by one person (Moses, I think). If you're arguing based on the continuity of the passage in regards to the rest of the Bible, I think you should rethink- would someone write "Capture and rape women to your bloody lustful heart's content" and then on the next page suggest that the captured women "not be mistreated"? Not likely.

I think you've captured the significance of bible contradictions. If this document is the inerrant word of God to be taken as his covenant unto us, then it should not contain instructions for rape, abducting women against their will, murder, slavery...or contradictions.

 

If it is not the inerrant word of God, but rather a collection of stories and fables passed down by the wisest men of the Bronze Age, then I have to wonder what all the fuss is about.

 

If it's said once, why can't we assume it's a uniform law throughout?

I suppose we can, but that knife cuts both ways. Are you sure this is a tack that you want to take?

 

Do you honestly think the Bible is saying this: "Make sure they are fed, don't make them sleep in the rain, make sure you give them clean clothes... but sexually mistreat them all you like, I don't care."?

This is an Appeal to Ridicule.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Based on my understanding of the Old Testament time frame, it's consistent. Remember this is the same book that says that you are not to be punished for beating your slaves unless you go too far and kill them. I think you might be looking at this in modern context and not the context it was written in.

 

I'm not in the Bible-writer's head, so I don't know exactly why he worded it that way, but here's my assumption. There is no "thou shalt not rape" in the Bible. Then again, there is no "Thou shalt not look down thy neighbor's wife's shirt" either. Why? Because both fall under other commandments. The first is "Thou shalt not commit adultery", and the second one is under "thou shalt not covet they neighbor's wife". It's that simple- Moses took the 10 commandments quite seriously (given that he's the one who received them), and he's just connecting the crime to the appropriate commandment.

Please help me understand how "Thou shalt not commit adultery" translates into an admonishment of rape?

 

If he's not married and she's not married (technically, I suppose it doesn't matter if she is, under this specific commandment), then it isn't adultery. "Thou shalt not fornicate" would be much more specific to your argument, don't you think?

 

God decides he's had enough of mass killings and the like.

I'm assuming this was after 10 plagues? Also, why didn't God make a covenant with Egypt? Why were men allowed to worship other Gods if he had always been God and (at least some) men had knowledge of Him? Why is God so quick to punish Jews for the slightest infraction, yet he holds back on the Egyptians long enough to let them establish the most sophisticated civilization that existed up until that time?

 

Wow, that was a lot of questions. Sorry.

 

Here's where Jesus comes in.

Just so I'm clear:

In order to rectify the effects that came about because of _______'s evil (I'll have to wait for your response to my earlier question before I fill in the blank), God came to Earth in the form of a man named Jesus. He did this so that he could die to appease himself and forgive his creation for their sins, which are all the result of _______'s evil.

 

Am I with you so far?

 

EDIT: Whoops. Seem to have snipped myself. You had said, "They didn't. The situation spiraled out of control, and evil consumed his creation", to which I replied, "Who created evil?". This didn't make it over for some reason, but it was further up when I responded to it the first time

 

That's why Jesus preached nonviolence and loving one's neighbors; he knew that he would soon take humanity's need for divine killings away, so he prepared them for peace.

Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Jesus did not come to cancel out the old law.

 

Mt 10:14-15 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

This doesn't seem consistent with the idea that God came down a Jesus to change his ways.

 

Mt 10:20-22 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

This doesn't sound like peace.

 

Mt 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

This clearly is not an appeal to peace, as you stated.

 

Mt 11:21-24 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

Nor is this.

 

There's five, just from the first book of the NT.

 

The NT might be less violent than the OT (a fact I never doubted), but not every book is the Beatitudes either.

[Ambrose]

You're assuming that this is an arranged marriage. I am not. Your introduction of arranged marriage is a strawman in regards to this discussion.

 

In arranged marriage, the daughter had no say in who she married. Very much like the circumstances here. It is therefore perfectly relevant. If your definition of rape is marriage without the woman's approval, then arranged marriage is just at much rape as captive-marrying. And therefore the points I mentioned in my above post seem valid enough.

 

Well then why wouldn't they go willingly? Why stipulate that they would need 30 days to mourn? Your argument doesn't seem to hold up in the context of the passage that we are discussing.

 

It says that she shall: "mourn her father and mother a full month".

 

What are you getting at? My assumption is that, when a mother and father die in Israelite culture, there's supposed to be a month of mourning or something. Even if that's not some sort of tradition, I think Moses is speaking for her benefit. Basically, that entire passage is about her essentially becoming and Israelite ("shedding the clothes of her captivity", etc). The mourning is just part of that... if your mother and father died, a month to yourself would doubtlessly be nice.

 

I think you need to stop assuming that the authors of the Bible were totally and utterly malicious. The month of mourning was obviously for the woman's benefit, and I don't see how you could argue otherwise.

 

I think you've captured the significance of bible contradictions. If this document is the inerrant word of God to be taken as his covenant unto us, then it should not contain instructions for rape, abducting women against their will, murder, slavery...or contradictions.

 

If it is not the inerrant word of God, but rather a collection of stories and fables passed down by the wisest men of the Bronze Age, then I have to wonder what all the fuss is about.

 

See, I as a Catholic don't believe that the Bible is the entire of God. That's why we have a Church, to have the laws that the bible doesn't specifically mention, but was passed down through oral tradition (condemnation of rape, obviously, was one of these traditions).

 

And adultery does cover rape, but I'll explain that when I get home.

[Achilles]

In arranged marriage, the daughter had no say in who she married.

This is still a strawman. I never brought up arranged marriage, sir. You did. It seems to me that you are determined to view abduction and imprisonment (slavery) as "arranged marriage" although I've raised several points to argue to the contrary.

 

I think some perfectly understandable biases are going to prohibit our progress on point, so we should just agree to disagree and move on.

 

I think you need to stop assuming that the authors of the Bible were totally and utterly malicious.

I don't assume that at all. There are some wonderful parts of the Bible that aren't malicious.

 

But we cannot ignore the parts that are. And rather than subscribe to systematic "mental gymnastics" in an effort to reconcile the parts that were written by people in-tune with the brutality and barbarism of the times, we should just accept the Bible for what it appears to be rather than what it says it is.

 

See, I as a Catholic don't believe that the Bible is the entire of God. That's why we have a Church, to have the laws that the bible doesn't specifically mention, but was passed down through oral tradition (condemnation of rape, obviously, was one of these traditions).

Did you intend to write "the entire word of God"? If so, then you do accept that the Bible is, at least, the partial word of God?

 

Having a committee responsible for bylaws is not a strong argument for omniscience, in my opinion.

 

And adultery does cover rape, but I'll explain that when I get home.

I look forward to reading the rest of your response to my earlier message.

 

Take care.

[Ambrose]

This is still a strawman. I never brought up arranged marriage, sir. You did. It seems to me that you are determined to view abduction and imprisonment (slavery) as "arranged marriage" although I've raised several points to argue to the contrary.

 

I don't believe so. I think you simply said that marriage without consent was rape. And the woman had just as little say in an arranged marriage as she would as a captive. The line drawn between the two is perfectly clear to me.

 

And rather than subscribe to systematic "mental gymnastics" in an effort to reconcile the parts that were written by people in-tune with the brutality and barbarism of the times, we should just accept the Bible for what it appears to be rather than what it says it is.

 

Mental gymnastics? I'm looking at it from a historical perspective, and no more. Male domination in society was considered totally moral until the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There is no implication in the Bible that arranged marriages MUST be made- but it is allowed because it is what worked best with the times. Women were helpless on their own, so being married was far more of a blessing than a curse. A married woman was far better off than a captive, single woman. I don't see why you don't see a soldier's marriage to a captive as an act of mercy toward said captive.

 

Did you intend to write "the entire word of God"? If so, then you do accept that the Bible is, at least, the partial word of God?

 

Yes I did, sorry for the typo.

 

then it should not contain instructions for rape, abducting women against their will, murder, slavery

 

You'll find that the stance on slavery is uniform throughout the Bible. It is not condemned, but rather, occurred under quite different circumstances than it did in America. Once again we have our cultural bias which repulses us, this time on the word of "slavery".

 

You'll find that in most of the Bible it is insisted upon that slaves be treated well and fairly, and released after a certain time of service (6 years, if I'm not mistaken).

 

I think you might be looking at this in modern context and not the context it was written in.

 

It seems that the feeling is mutual, lol

 

Please help me understand how "Thou shalt not commit adultery" translates into an admonishment of rape?

 

If he's not married and she's not married (technically, I suppose it doesn't matter if she is, under this specific commandment), then it isn't adultery. "Thou shalt not fornicate" would be much more specific to your argument, don't you think?

 

Jesus says that one can commit adultery "in his heart" by looking at a woman with lust. Marriage is not mentioned. That said, I think that the biblical understanding of adultery is that it basically just entails extramarital sex.

 

I'm assuming this was after 10 plagues?

 

This is right before Jesus comes to the earth.

 

Also, why didn't God make a covenant with Egypt?

 

The Egyptians were pagans who refused to believe in Him and follow His instructions even after several miracles and plagues.

 

Why were men allowed to worship other Gods if he had always been God and (at least some) men had knowledge of Him?

 

What do you mean why were they "allowed" to? The can because they're human and have the capability to sin. They were often punished for it by being killed.

 

Why is God so quick to punish Jews for the slightest infraction, yet he holds back on the Egyptians long enough to let them establish the most sophisticated civilization that existed up until that time?

 

I personally don't know, but I'll put forward a theory. It could be because the Israelites were the people who believed in Him; his people, and thus they could be held to much higher scrutiny.

 

"Who created evil?"

 

That's like asking who created darkness. Look at it that way. God created light... but the absence of light is thus present. Light is good, dark is evil. Evil is the absence of good.

 

In order to rectify the effects that came about because of _______'s evil (I'll have to wait for your response to my earlier question before I fill in the blank), God came to Earth in the form of a man named Jesus. He did this so that he could die to appease himself and forgive his creation for their sins, which are all the result of _______'s evil.

 

Perhaps better phrased:

 

In order to rectify the effects that came about because of humanity's sin, God came to Earth in the form of a man named Jesus. He did this so that he could die to suffer the punishment which justly belonged to His people.

 

Jesus did not come to cancel out the old law.

 

No, he came to take the punishments for infractions of the old law.

 

This doesn't seem consistent with the idea that God came down a Jesus to change his ways.

 

God's not changing His ways, like I said. He's suffering the punishment due for us.

 

This doesn't sound like peace.

 

But it's not God inflicting punishment. It's persecution being inflicted upon Jesus' followers. It's believers"taking up their cross" (Mt. 16:24, Mt 10:38)) and following Jesus' path of sacrifice for others.

 

Mt 10:34

 

Seems to me that this entire passage is Jesus saying that just because he's here, the world isn't going to be all fine and dandy. Faith will be a trial- all who wish to attain salvation will not have an easy path. They will have to "take up their cross". (Mt 10:38).

 

Obviously Jesus is correctly stating that being a Christian in the years ahead of the apostles isn't going to be easy.

 

Mt 11:21-24 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

 

He is describing what will happen to those who reject God on the day of judgment. That is very consistent with the NT and the OT. Acceptance of God and Jesus' sacrifice is said time and time again to be of utmost importance.

[Achilles]

I don't believe so. I think you simply said that marriage without consent was rape. And the woman had just as little say in an arranged marriage as she would as a captive. The line drawn between the two is perfectly clear to me.

No, sir, I believe I said that sex without consent was rape. I did not intend to communicate anything other than that.

 

Mental gymnastics? I'm looking at it from a historical perspective, and no more. Male domination in society was considered totally moral until the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There is no implication in the Bible that arranged marriages MUST be made- but it is allowed because it is what worked best with the times. Women were helpless on their own, so being married was far more of a blessing than a curse. A married woman was far better off than a captive, single woman. I don't see why you don't see a soldier's marriage to a captive as an act of mercy toward said captive.

I think your assumptions are true within the context of Western civilizations at the time. There are plenty of examples of matriarchial societies that existed prior to Judaism and Christianity. Societies in which women were equal, if not superior to men. Don't take my word for it. Research it yourself.

 

Slavery is slavery and rape is rape. Our attitudes may have changed over the centuries to reflect the values of the times, but the acts themselves have not changed.

 

Yes I did, sorry for the typo.

It's no problem. I just wanted to make sure that I had the correct context

 

You'll find that the stance on slavery is uniform throughout the Bible. It is not condemned, but rather, occurred under quite different circumstances than it did in America. Once again we have our cultural bias which repulses us, this time on the word of "slavery".

 

You'll find that in most of the Bible it is insisted upon that slaves be treated well and fairly, and released after a certain time of service (6 years, if I'm not mistaken).

Exodus 21:2 If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.

 

These instructions are specific to Hebrew slaves, not slaves of other nations.

 

Unfortuanately, this same "out" isn't available to women, as shown in Exodus 21:7:

 

If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.

As for the treatment of slaves:

 

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Exodus 21:20-21

 

I'm sure you'll want to point out that this was the OT, but the NT tells us:

 

That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

Luke 12:47-48

 

Jesus says that one can commit adultery "in his heart" by looking at a woman with lust. Marriage is not mentioned. That said, I think that the biblical understanding of adultery is that it basically just entails extramarital sex.

You've more than adequetely argued your case for adultery, however your case for rape appears untouched. Please let me know what I'm missing here.

 

This is right before Jesus comes to the earth.

I know. Just trying to provide context for your timeline

 

The Egyptians were pagans who refused to believe in Him and follow His instructions even after several miracles and plagues.

<snip>

What do you mean why were they "allowed" to? The can because they're human and have the capability to sin. They were often punished for it by being killed.

<snip>

I personally don't know, but I'll put forward a theory. It could be because the Israelites were the people who believed in Him; his people, and thus they could be held to much higher scrutiny.

So God opted not to keep the Egyptians in check even though he went to great pains to keep the Jewish tribes in line?

 

They aren't mentioned in the Bible, but since we're at it, how about the ancient Greeks? Japanese? Native Americans? In a world of his children, He only looked after one group? Considering that the book that argues for his existence came from this group of people doesn't seem a little suspicious to you?

 

This is what I meant by "mental gymnastics". All this convolution, easily explained away by, "we cannot know the mind of God", yet we can tell when he's using allegory and when he wants us to not literally interpret the text of His book. I don't think it fair or accurate to say that we can have it both ways.

 

That's like asking who created darkness. Look at it that way. God created light... but the absence of light is thus present. Light is good, dark is evil. Evil is the absence of good.

Ok, but who created the darkness? Who created evil? If you don't have the anwswer, that's ok. I don't expect you to. The questions are what's important.

 

If God transends all, then he made them. But why would he do that? And wouldn't that make Him ultimately responsible for the Fall? Why was Jesus punished so that God could forgive us for His mistake? If God didn't make them, then someone else must have. So something transcends God. Does anything else transcend that?

 

See where this goes?

 

Perhaps better phrased:

 

In order to rectify the effects that came about because of humanity's sin, God came to Earth in the form of a man named Jesus. He did this so that he could die to suffer the punishment which justly belonged to His people.

I suppose that is better, but who's authority are you speaking from? Not trying to be snide, just trying to point out that there is no single, clear understanding of Jesus decent to Earth or the nature of his sacrifice. This should be a problem for followers. Since you changed the context, my quotes no longer apply, therefore I won't be replying to the rest of your message.

 

Thank for reading.

[Achilles]

I wasn't sure if this belonged here or in the Playing God thread, but I thought it was worth sharing nonetheless:

 

Humorous YouTube clip

[Nancy Allen``]

Ah, Malcolm in the Middle. That was worth a chuckle, and in truth he is very close to how I think we should be, religion should be notwithstanding. Why should it matter if someone's Christian, Jew, Muslim or Atheist? Though if it did become a religion I'd be looking to make friends with those who are Jedi.

[Emperor Devon]

That was too funny, Achilles. That kid actually made some good points, too.

[Allronix]

I've no qualm with an athiest, so long as he does not prosletize on my doorstep as to how "foolish" I am for believing in many Gods when he believes in none. For instance, the militantly athiest mother of a dying relative who threw away the makeshift altar we made at her deathbed because she was vehemently offended by its presence and damn what her dying daughter thought.

 

In my political life, I run across many athiests. "No Gods, Mo Masters" is a common rallying chant for anarchists and radical socialists. I remember having to explain to a couple of rather nice ladies from Perth why I was a Socialist because of my Wiccan faith, and not despite it. They were incredulous, but didn't flip me guff over it.

[Nancy Allen``]

I've been dieing to say this, Scully from the X Files was asked by Doggett if she believes in aliens. This is her reply.

 

"You want me to go on record? I will go on record to say this; that I have seen things that I cannot explain. I have observed phenomena that I cannot deny. And that as a scientist and a serious person it is a badge of honor not to dismiss these things because someone thinks they're B.S."

 

Replace aliens with religion and that pretty much sums it up, even for a lot of people who arn't nessecarily religious.

[Achilles]

I think it's sufficient to say that many scientists have seen things that they were unable to explain. Real scientists however won't accept a hypothesis with absolutely no evidence as an explanation for said "thing". They leave the answer blank until they do have enough evidence to support an explanation that can be tested via the scientific method.

 

Going back to your example: How quickly would you be willing to substitute the word "aliens" for "God" when describing your religious beliefs?

 

"I believe that Aliens created the universe in 6 days".

"I believe that beauty of our world is evidence of Alien's eternal grace"

"I believe that Aliens watch over me and will be accept me into Heaven on Judgment Day".

 

These substitutions may seem mocking and absurd to followers of Western and Middle Eastern religions, however, as you can see, we've only substituted one word. And I would argue that aliens are far more probable (statistically speaking) than a supernatural creator.

[Nancy Allen``]

Was it aliens who did all the stuff God is meant to? I've never come across anything like that. Where are they now? If this is something that scientists believe then why haven't they been able to find them?

 

That's not to say I'm dismissive of the idea, let's go with it. Okay, aliens created the universe, Jesus was an alien, ect. First of all we need evidence to support this claim. Now, what type of aliens would have the form to do something like this? Anything like how we picture aliens to be? Martians? What aliens benevolent or otherwise in fiction could do this? What would their means be? Their motive? I'd sure like these aliens to come and look upon the fruits of their labours, such as it is, especially if they happen to be certain types of aliens.

[Achilles]

Was it aliens who did all the stuff God is meant to?

I suppose it's possible. There isn't any evidence that this is the case, however there isn't any evidence for God either. Per my earlier statement, aliens are more statistically probable than supernatural deities, so if I had to choose one over the other...

 

I've never come across anything like that.

IIRC, both Raeliens and Scientologists believe that life on Earth is a result of alien intervention.

 

Where are they now?

Dunno. Probably living on one of the estimated 62,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets that exist in our universe.

 

If this is something that scientists believe then why haven't they been able to find them?

Perhaps you heard of SETI?

 

That's not to say I'm dismissive of the idea, let's go with it. Okay, aliens created the universe, Jesus was an alien, ect.

Well, first, the idea that aliens created the universe is just as statistically improbable as the idea that God did. Second, we have no evidence for Jesus, therefore we'd have to find some before we could even begin to hypothesize that he was an alien.

 

First of all we need evidence to support this claim. Now, what type of aliens would have the form to do something like this?

Pretty advanced ones. The universe is 13.6 billion years old and the Earth is only about 4.5 billion years old. Any civilizations that exist further out than us are likely to be more technologically advanced. Furthermore, any civilizations that might exist out on the lip of the expanding universe are likely to have 9.1 billion years of technological advancement on us. Considering that less than 100 years separate us from the cusp of the atomic age, I think it's sufficed to say that even a few thousand years would be significant difference.

 

Anything like how we picture aliens to be? Martians?

Your guess is as good as mine. Unless you have some evidence for them and then your guess would be markedly better than mine

 

What aliens benevolent or otherwise in fiction could do this? What would their means be? Their motive? I'd sure like these aliens to come and look upon the fruits of their labours, such as it is, especially if they happen to be certain types of aliens.

All good questions. Maybe if we ever meet any of them, we can ask. Odds are though that they're too far ahead of us to even care how we turn out.

 

Even if only 0.000000000000001 of those planets I mentioned earlier have intelligent life on them, that means there are 6,250,000 civilization out there. And who know how many of those are more interesting than we are.

[Nancy Allen``]

As yes I'd much rather know some of the alien beings in Star Wars than some dumb human. Twi'leks, Sullistans and Ewoks, oh my.

 

Just how do they find out how old the universe is and all? I mean I know that they do it but the fact they can astounds me. And you're right, anything that is thousands of years ahead of us would be so technologically advanced we cannot comprehend it, unless they keep to the old ways, tradition and all, but in that case that would probably cancel out the idea of them surviving for so long as they would need to be able to adapt and find new ways to survive and advance and the like. Who or what created these ancient alien civilisations anyway?

 

If we look at the evidence of things like aliens, Roswell for example, or crop circles, both are considered hoaxes but serve as evidence of aliens. There's things such as the Stonehenge, or the Easter Island heads, that are meant to be both alien and religious symbols. And there's lots of stuff that's meant to be dedicated to religion, such as Mecca or Dome of the Rock, or Mount Olives where Jesus was crucified. Evidence? The closest I can think of is the supposed discovery of Noah's Ark, and all the expeditions for things like that other famous ark that Indiana Jones searched for as well as other religious artifacts such as the cup of Christ (I'm a Harrison Ford fan so I'm going with these). IRL Hitler searched for religious artifacts such as the Loginous spear, that the Roman soldier pierced Jesus with when he died on the cross. If there is evidence of religion being real then it would cancel out any thought of aliens being responsible.

 

Yeah, the search for aliens, I remember that. They made a couple of movies on it, Starman and, ugh, Species. Where did the theory that aliens were responsible for what Chrsitian God is given credit for come from though? Raeliens and Scientologists you say? Wouldn't scientists, some of them anyway, dismiss the idea of there being aliens? Anyway it sounds fascinating and well worth looking up.

[Achilles]

Just how do they find out how old the universe is and all? I mean I know that they do it but the fact they can astounds me.

This article isn't very technical, but I think it does help to explain how it is done.

 

And you're right, anything that is thousands of years ahead of us would be so technologically advanced we cannot comprehend it <snip>

Clarke's Third Law:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

 

Who or what created these ancient alien civilisations anyway?

Since we know that evolution is a natural process (some people claim that it is a supernatural process, however there is no evidence to support this hypothesis), we can assume that their civilizations started out the same as ours.

 

If we look at the evidence of things like aliens, Roswell for example, or crop circles, both are considered hoaxes but serve as evidence of aliens.

You're more generous than most.

I don't know that I would consider crop circles "evidence". Additionally, I'm not sure that Roswell is anything more than a conspiracy theory. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen, it just means that I haven't been convinced yet.

 

There's things such as the Stonehenge, or the Easter Island heads, that are meant to be both alien and religious symbols.

Stonehedge is believed to be a calendar. The purpose of easter island monoliths is unknown (probably to keep evil spirits out, similar to gargoyles, or the up swept corners on Japanese pagodas).

 

I'm not sure how aliens are hypothesized to be involved.

 

And there's lots of stuff that's meant to be dedicated to religion, such as Mecca or Dome of the Rock, or Mount Olives where Jesus was crucified. Evidence? The closest I can think of is the supposed discovery of Noah's Ark

I'm assuming that you're referring to this?

 

A few years ago, there was a great deal of buzz surrounding the discovery of a mysterious "face on mars" (Link). As the technology got better and more precise images were captured, it quickly became obvious that the "face" was the result of crappy photography (see pictures in above link).

 

As for the "discovery of Noah's ark", it seems to me that relatively quick and cheap fly-by in a helicopter would settle the matter pretty quickly. They use helicopters all the time to fly snowboarders and skiers to the top of extreme ski runs. Also, why are no wealthy Christian financiers stepping forward to fund an expedition? Perhaps such a "discovery" is better for their cause when it's thinly veiled in mystery? *shrugs*

 

and all the expeditions for things like that other famous ark that Indiana Jones searched for as well as other religious artifacts such as the cup of Christ (I'm a Harrison Ford fan so I'm going with these).

The Ark of the Covenant

The Holy Grail

 

IRL Hitler searched for religious artifacts such as the Loginous spear, that the Roman soldier pierced Jesus with when he died on the cross.

IIRC, Hitler was a complete loon. On a side note, I find it interesting that some people like to claim that Hitler was an atheist in an effort to show how evil atheists are. Contrary to this claim though, Hitler was a devout Catholic for most of his life. Eventually, his religiosity began to come into question, but this was well after he had established himself as Fuhrer. The fact that he did take such interest in religious artifacts seems to conflict with the claim that he was an atheist.

 

If there is evidence of religion being real then it would cancel out any thought of aliens being responsible.

I've used this example before with Jae, but I think it's appropriate so I'll use it again here:

 

If archaeologists in the future find evidence for F-16 jets, American Presidents, and an American national holiday celebrated on July 4th, would those things be evidence that the events that transpire in the movie Independence Day actually took place?

 

In other words, "evidence for religion" is going to have to be a lot more than showing that some poorly referenced people and events actually lived or took place (respectively).

 

Yeah, the search for aliens, I remember that. They made a couple of movies on it, Starman and, ugh, Species.

Don't forget Contact

 

Where did the theory that aliens were responsible for what Chrsitian God is given credit for come from though?

You'll have to asks the Raelienists and the Scientologists. I brought it up to point out how flimsy the "Scully argument" was.

 

Raeliens and Scientologists you say? Wouldn't scientists, some of them anyway, dismiss the idea of there being aliens?

Most legitimate scientists won't waste time with something that can't be proven with empirical evidence (supernatural deities, for instance). As for aliens, we have evidence that life exists in the universe and that it arises via natural processes (i.e. our existence). We also have evidence that other galaxies, suns, and planets exist. Therefore it's highly probable that other intelligent life forms exist in our universe. With all this evidence and support from statistical analysis, I'm not sure why empirical science would want to dismiss such an idea.

 

Now if you're referring to actual visits, abductions, etc, then I'd say we were talking about something else entirely.

 

Thanks.

[Nancy Allen``]

I'm not sure whether all these wild alien stories came before the scientific research of alien life, but as far as that type of evidence is concerned the best I know of is Grom Lake, which was discussed in another thread on aliens, and supposed alien footage where someone dressed as a Rodian. Now Area 51 I can believe is used for testing experimental aircraft. It might not be, I don't know, I'd like to know if there was aliens.

 

With the Scully arguement, what I'm saying is that, I know you don't but some do, just because some Atheist believes religion is BS those who follow it should not dismiss their faith. Jae, being religious and all, can probably tell you about this.

 

The diffirence between finding...you're thinking F-18 Hornets, the diffirence between finding those as evidence and finding something from hundreds of years ago is that for one Independance Day is obviously a made up story, with no basis of fact. The best evidence of this is Will Smith flying a fighter jet through a canyon. It's a staple to do this but you try and do that in real life and you'd have to be a stunt pilot, flying a stunt plane, if it can be done at all. For another the events in the film were meant to occur in 1996. The White House is still standing, so is New York and Los Angelas, Bill Clinton wasn't the President at the time, fiction. The story of Christ, the story of Christianity, Judism, Islam, Greek mythology, you pick'em, these are things that people say are true and they present evidence and testimony that they are true. People see things that they lay claim to religion, they believe their God does this or does that and from what is shown people buy it, intelligent people. I think the main diffirence is that one is meant to be true.

 

If Hitler was a devoted Christian he would have honestly believed that these artifacts existed and they would give him power. Remember the end to Raiders? The Ark is really meant to be able to do stuff like that, though that might be just tale so things like Indiana Jones can palm it off as the power of God or something. But there is another theory. The Nazis were leaving their symbols in archealogical dig sites and the like, things like the swastika in hyroglyphics and such. I'm not sure of the details, this is just from memory. I think the point of it was to establish Nazi dominance, probably to the point where people believed in Nazi prophecy because they sacriliged their acient writings and religions to twist it around to how Hitler wanted it. If Hitler had these religious artifacts that would be more cause for people to follow him, or something along those lines.

 

Hmmm, you raise a very good point. The Catholic church are meant to be the by far the richest people in the world. Why not use some of the money they are storing in God's house and make it work for them? Imagine the honor they would bring to their God by shattering all doubt and proving once and for all that this really happened? Though they were if not the biggest then one of the biggest opponents to The Da Vinci Code and I can't remember but wasn't some off shoot of them trying to keep the truth from coming out in the story? Maybe you're right, maybe some are afraid that there's nothing and don't want the truth from getting out.

[Achilles]

I'm not sure whether all these wild alien stories came before the scientific research of alien life, but as far as that type of evidence is concerned the best I know of is Grom Lake, which was discussed in another thread on aliens, and supposed alien footage where someone dressed as a Rodian. Now Area 51 I can believe is used for testing experimental aircraft. It might not be, I don't know, I'd like to know if there was aliens.

I'm sure you not the only one. Supposition, urban legends, and conspiracy theories are not the same thing as evidence though. All of that stuff could be true, but without some evidence, I have no reason to believe it. Keeping this on topic, the same logic is used in regards to God. He may be up there, but so far, I have no reason to give much credence to that story.

 

With the Scully arguement, what I'm saying is that, I know you don't but some do, just because some Atheist believes religion is BS those who follow it should not dismiss their faith. Jae, being religious and all, can probably tell you about this.

Please explain to me why faith should be viewed as a good thing.

 

The diffirence between finding...you're thinking F-18 Hornets, the diffirence between finding those as evidence and finding something from hundreds of years ago is that for one Independance Day is obviously a made up story, with no basis of fact.

How would archaeologists from the future know this? Maybe they've had contact with aliens and know that they exist? How would they know that it's a work of fiction and not a documentary about a primitive war that took place in the ancient world? We know that it is a made up story because we have context.

 

We assume to have context for Bible, but the truth is that we do not. People spend their entire adult lives studying the Bible and argue with other scholars over who's interpretation of events, etc are better than others. And this has been going on for thousands of years.

 

The point is that making references to Galilee, Pontius Pilate, Romans, Pharisees, etc doesn't make the NT historically accurate. In other words, you can't prove that the events described in the NT actually took place.

 

The best evidence of this is Will Smith flying a fighter jet through a canyon. It's a staple to do this but you try and do that in real life and you'd have to be a stunt pilot, flying a stunt plane, if it can be done at all.

Just like you or I aren't capable of walking on water, turning water into wine, or rising from the dead after three days.

 

For another the events in the film were meant to occur in 1996. The White House is still standing, so is New York and Los Angelas, Bill Clinton wasn't the President at the time, fiction.

A lot is lost in history. These things are common knowledge now, but would not be to people thousands of years in the future. What was the most popular book during 30 B.C. in ancient Rome? What toy did Mesopotamian children prefer to play with? What was the name of the first king of the Aztec Empire? Assuming that you have answers to any of these questions, how confident are you that your answer is 100% correct and isn't subject to change via new evidence?

 

The story of Christ, the story of Christianity, Judism, Islam, Greek mythology, you pick'em, these are things that people say are true and they present evidence and testimony that they are true.

Testimony is not the same thing as evidence. David Berkowitz offered testimony that his dog told him to kill people. Is this a strong case for the power of testimony?

 

If you have some evidence for any of these belief systems please share it with me. I have been unable to find any for any of them.

 

People see things that they lay claim to religion, they believe their God does this or does that and from what is shown people buy it, intelligent people. I think the main diffirence is that one is meant to be true.

True according to whom? Christians are convinced that Jews and Muslims have it all wrong. Jews say the same thing about Christians and Muslims. Muslims say the same thing about Jews and Christians. All three groups have holy books and religious scholars ready with "evidence" to show the other groups just how wrong they are. Which one is right? Or more to the point: Which one is true?

 

If Hitler was a devoted Christian he would have honestly believed that these artifacts existed and they would give him power. Remember the end to Raiders? The Ark is really meant to be able to do stuff like that, though that might be just tale so things like Indiana Jones can palm it off as the power of God or something. But there is another theory. The Nazis were leaving their symbols in archealogical dig sites and the like, things like the swastika in hyroglyphics and such. I'm not sure of the details, this is just from memory.

Nancy, Raiders of the Lost Ark is a movie

 

I think the point of it was to establish Nazi dominance, probably to the point where people believed in Nazi prophecy because they sacriliged their acient writings and religions to twist it around to how Hitler wanted it. If Hitler had these religious artifacts that would be more cause for people to follow him, or something along those lines.

I'd be more than happy to take a look at whatever historical documents that you have that would support your argument.

 

Imagine the honor they would bring to their God by shattering all doubt and proving once and for all that this really happened?

Without any evidence this would be very hard to do. Luckily for most religious people, the general sentiment is that science is a distraction and faith is what's important. Oddly though, whenever science is believed to support some religious belief or another, it is quickly embraced and paraded out for the skeptics (the aforementioned prayer research is one example of this).

[Samuel Dravis]

With the Scully arguement, what I'm saying is that, I know you don't but some do, just because some Atheist believes religion is BS those who follow it should not dismiss their faith. Jae, being religious and all, can probably tell you about this.

Sorry for intruding a bit here, but I'd like to agree with you. Just because someone else says you're wrong doesn't make them right. Of course, if you fail to explain your belief in rational terms, you can hardly expect people to think that your holding it is a rational act. They might call you out on it. Personally I don't know why you'd want to believe something irrationally if you knew it were so.

[Achilles]

^^^^

Quite right. Once again, Samuel Dravis puts something far more eloquently than I would.

[Nancy Allen``]

It goes against the guidelines a little but I'll put quotes below so you know exactly what I'm referring to.

 

Please explain to me why faith should be viewed as a good thing.

 

:whistles: That's one reason. Even if it isn't true.

 

How would archaeologists from the future know this? Maybe they've had contact with aliens and know that they exist? How would they know that it's a work of fiction and not a documentary about a primitive war that took place in the ancient world? We know that it is a made up story because we have context.

 

Because it was portrayed as fiction. By comparing records of the film's President to real life, they would know that he wasn't serving in 1996, Bill Clinton was. Actors such as Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum would be credited for the roles they played in the film, assuming we are keeping records and have the Internet in the future it'd just be a simple matter of looking it up.

 

We assume to have context for Bible, but the truth is that we do not. People spend their entire adult lives studying the Bible and argue with other scholars over who's interpretation of events, etc are better than others. And this has been going on for thousands of years.

 

Exactly, and for people to come out, this is for Samual as well, for people to come out and say 'ZOMGWTF THERE IZ NO GOD LOLZ!1!!11ONE!1!!11ELEVEN!1!!11 U R RETARDED FOR BELIEVING IN RELIGION LOLZ!1!!11ONE!1!!11ELEVEN!1!!11' is utter arrogance, and I know there is a world of diffirence between choosing not to believe in religion and slamming it with comments like this but the sad fact is people do beat people into the ground because they believe in religion, and they bring down their non belief by doing so.

 

A lot is lost in history. These things are common knowledge now, but would not be to people thousands of years in the future. What was the most popular book during 30 B.C. in ancient Rome? What toy did Mesopotamian children prefer to play with? What was the name of the first king of the Aztec Empire? Assuming that you have answers to any of these questions, how confident are you that your answer is 100% correct and isn't subject to change via new evidence?

 

It's interesting you point this out because lately I've been thinking about things we see on the Internet, TV and such, and how especially what you find on the Internet it tends to get criticised as not being creditble. Sure it's usually because someone doesn't agree with it but it does happen. And I'm getting to the point where I wouldn't trust any given source. So to answer your question, I can present whatever evidence of, say, the first king of the Aztec Empire, but there is the possibility of it being wrong. Like how Billy Cohen was going to be a Navy SEAL but turned out to be a Marine, I think.

 

Testimony is not the same thing as evidence. David Berkowitz offered testimony that his dog told him to kill people. Is this a strong case for the power of testimony?

 

Creditble testimony; the sort of thing Berkowitz went on with would likely put him in a mental institute, that he may have said that to get a lighter sentance is neither here nor there, is very important. I'll paint you a picture: say a police station is bombed, an officer and a member of the public is killed, the police investigate likely suspects while they gather evidence and find out it was semtex, one of the suspects asks if it was semtex used and says how an ex commando had stolen some to sell, on the strength of that testimony he is questioned and made to reveal who he sold it to, on the basis of that testimony they investigate the buyer and he admits to making a bomb out of the semtex and selling it, and another testimony reveals that the bomber was saying that he's been waiting years to pay back the police for putting him in jail, the police are able to arrest the bomber because they followed the testimonies until they found the evidence and the truth. In the case of religion however every time we follow the testimonies we find no evidence, so we keep plugging away until we do.

 

True according to whom? Christians are convinced that Jews and Muslims have it all wrong. Jews say the same thing about Christians and Muslims. Muslims say the same thing about Jews and Christians. All three groups have holy books and religious scholars ready with "evidence" to show the other groups just how wrong they are. Which one is right? Or more to the point: Which one is true?

 

My point of view? People who try and convince others that they are wrong regardless of what religion, if any, they follow, are afraid, they're afraid of losing followers, they're afraid of people believing in something they don't believe in and they're afraid that they may be wrong because they don't have the power of some mythical being, and the more they try and beat people down with their religion, or lack of it, the more scared they are. That's not a knock on people following their beliefs or nonbeliefs, or those who discuss them, it's those who go beyond the call of duty to push their beliefs on others.

 

Nancy, Raiders of the Lost Ark is a movie

 

I know that, but the Ark is meant to be able to do the sort of thing we saw in the film. It says in the Bible that anyone who approaches it will surely be put to death, and there's bits and pieces floating around on what it can do. Here's a couple of sites on the matter.

 

http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/207_ark1.shtml

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/ark.html

 

As for the other, Nazis recreating history in countries they invaded, this is from Medal of Honor. Manon, a member of the French Resistence who joins the OSS, one of her missions is putting a stop to it. That's where the thought came from, but it did happen. I think this covers it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_archaeology

 

 

 

Without any evidence this would be very hard to do. Luckily for most religious people, the general sentiment is that science is a distraction and faith is what's important. Oddly though, whenever science is believed to support some religious belief or another, it is quickly embraced and paraded out for the skeptics (the aforementioned prayer research is one example of this).

 

Ah, hypocracy. I thought science was meant to be evil. Why? Because it might reveal something those who believe in religion don't want to hear? If science could settle the matter once and for all you'd think deacons the world over would jump at the chance. They're not exactly queing up around the block.