REPLY TO: why become an atheist? [Archive]

gilligan8503

11-23-2002, 12:25 PM

i am agnostic not atheist, but its close enough for close minded people to understand:

bottom line is, the bible was written by MAN, not god

i think the bible is a great book, its teachings are great but so are just about EVERY other religion

back in the ice age, the humans of this earth had no doubt that this earth was controlled by the rain god, the sun god, the moon god, etc.

back in ancient greece, we had no doubt that the gods were zeus, aphridite, ares, etc.

now, we have no doubt that we are ruled by a being called "God".

we as humans on this earth are stupid, stupid in the way that we know not of what is going on aorund us. religion was made so that we humans would not feel frightened and alone in this universe. people cannot grasp that after we die, we rot in the ground. we cannot even imagine non existence.

i used to be a christian, but when i was 12, i realized i was only talking to myself and began to research. i found out many things and if you want to contine this discussion, my aim account is: gilligan8503

do not let media or anyone else telly ou what to believe. QUESTION YOURSELF AND YOUR RELIGION. do not be afraid. suck it up and live your life as best you can.

keating305

11-23-2002, 12:45 PM

WOW, do I agree with you!! It's unfortunate that well-meaning Christians feel that they have to prosletyize on a forum that has nothing whatsoever to do with religon.
There IS a God; however, doesn't seem to be a little irreverent to assume that A. God WANTS us to worship him, and B. That the revealed method of worship (if He DOES want us to worship Him) involves sanctioned killing of non-believers (defined as someone who doesn't believe EXACTLY the way you do) IMHO, this is a very personal subject; I also realize that some Christian sects require members to "Spread the Good News"; well, I for one, don't choose to believe the way they do, and it offends me that these people won't accept that I'll risk ever-lasting damnation rather than accept their beliefs; I DO accept that risk; as does the greater portion of humanity, the non-Christians. Speaking for the majority of humans on the planet, DROP IT!!
BTW, gilligan; nice post!

pcghost

11-23-2002, 03:28 PM

Alright Who dug up the Frith thread. Hasn't he been gone for months??

One cannot truely be an athiest, as even one who claims to not believe in a higher power doesn't have the evidense to prove it, therefore they don't know, and should be concidered an agnostic.

I will remain agnostic till some higher power (not man) proves me wrong..:)

edit: Enter Christian fundementalists, stage right, to flam the hell out of us for our blasphemy. :D

gilligan8503

11-23-2002, 05:06 PM

i disagree, being an athiest is possible.
being an athiest is just as possible as being a christian, jew, hinduist, etc.

atheists dont believe in a higher power with no proof to back it up.

religious people do believe in a higher power with no proof to back it up.

they are opposites.

agnostic means:
"you dont know"
"not sure" or
"maybe there is a higher power, maybe not"
"we dont know"

agnostic is a little more realisic than athiesm or a religion; we dont know, and we should tell other people that we DO know. no one knows and shouldnt use the bible (or other) to back up for proof. that isnt proof.

agnostics are the only ones who realize there is no proof.

pcghost

11-23-2002, 05:25 PM

good point. I hadn't thought of it in that way. I recind my previous statement as I have been enlightened. Thanks..
Ok, I also change my vote. I am now an athiest.
If I don't have to prove it what the hell.. I'm in.
:D

CMonster

11-23-2002, 06:31 PM

It's unfortunate that well-meaning Christians feel that they have to proselytize on a forum that has nothing whatsoever to do with religon.

In defense of "well-meaning Christians," such forums are often the place for well-meaning atheists and agnostics to express their point of view and "proselytize" their belief systems -is equal time and OpenMind a one way street now?

Furthermore, if a God exists who is indeed over, beyond, and outside of the whole of the universe, then there is nothing in existence that is not in some way connected to him -including said forums; moreover, if the Christian position on the existence of said GOD is correct, then it behooves the faithful to exercise their perceived duty to this Deity.

...so sod off! ...all you butt scratching, pimple squeezing, scab picking, pencil-neck geeks!

and knock off all that wan-kan-tanki!

Ulixes

11-23-2002, 06:53 PM

Athiest means literally "without god". It contrasts all the other theisms and is defined in relation to them. This is an oversight. The theists have dominated culture and thereby define the rules of argument. The judeo-christian tradition doesn't ask of polytheists 'why?' because they view it as natural to worship even if they're condemned by doing so. They understand the world in the same way; they have a similar metaphysic.

There is no way for them to relate to an atheist. She understands the theist because it is their world, their arguments are everywhere and so she asks nothing of them; they ask why. It's not her job to explain anything. Human beings are unitary organisms. She makes an assertion of ignorance on the part of the theist.

She might ask why the theist observes the world through a simmering haze of metaphysical dread, but she won't, because she doesn't care.

Don't defend atheism. It's a rigged argument. We're unitary; they're "with god."

raz0rblade

11-23-2002, 06:59 PM

finally found the right word :D im now agnostic :) now if i knew how to pronounce it ;) ....

undef

11-23-2002, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by gilligan8503
i am agnostic not atheist, but its close enough for close minded people to understand:

bottom line is, the bible was written by MAN, not god

so is any manual. the bible is just that: a manual for people to follow or live their life by. though, the bible was written by men, those men were inspired by God. They did not wake up one day and decided to write a book. you have the freedom to not follow what it says.

thread_killer

11-23-2002, 07:02 PM

Now if I just knew how to pronounce it

just like it is spelled. ag-naws-tik :D

BaVinic

11-23-2002, 07:15 PM

I do not beleive that "GOD" is a being, but more of a state of mind, faith if you will. We as Humans ( which btw: means Sub Man) have a need to believe in a higher power, an all mighty being, other wise, why are we here?

I do not see anything wrong with that belief, I choose not to believe it myself, but do not challange those who do, just as long as it does not cause harm to anyone.

But in the world today, people are being killed for that Faith, no matter what the form, Christ, God, Alah etc. and that causes me problems.

Having Faith is not a bad thing, and in some cases helps alot of people, but if believing in a "God" is going to get you killed, then I would re-think my possition.

Flame me if you will, but I find it hard to believe, that if there were a "GOD" he would allow his children be killed, abused and molested. or that he would allow his "Followers" to die for him, I thought that was what the Christian's Jesus was for?

Believe if you must, in a GOD, but also believe that the God you seek, is in side you. Have faith, but understand that faith will not stop a bullet, faith will not stop a bomber and faith will not feed and cloth you and your children. Only man can do that.

there, my 02 cents worth.

Flame away

:-)

BaVinic

Elijah

11-23-2002, 08:34 PM

not another one of these threads :( isn't this supposed to be a linux forum site? there are proper sites for this.

BaVinic

11-23-2002, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by Elijah
not another one of these threads :( isn't this supposed to be a linux forum site? there are proper sites for this.

Actually this forum is "OFF TOPIC > /dev/random, and to quote the tagline from this forum:

"Man does not live on Linux alone. Come inside to shoot the breeze, rant, and just generally sound off about whatever."

so I guess this is the proper place for this.

Hey, if you don't like a thread, do what I do, ignore it and move on to something else. :D

:-)

BaVinic

janet loves bill

11-23-2002, 10:14 PM

Over the centuries human beings have not treated each other very well. this is especially true concerning religion. The ancient roman's used to feed christians to the lions just because of their belief's. not very nice huh? and now we are witnesses to almost the same thing in the middle east. Arabs and Jews have been at each others throats for what .....thousands of years, and there is no peaceful end in sight. sad, really sad that human's continue to treat each other like crap. Well enough of my rant..next customer please :confused:

RonaldRaygun

11-23-2002, 11:46 PM

gilligan8503 i agree with you totally. Im agnostic and proud of it.
agnostics are the only ones who realize there is no proof.
very true

Penrich

11-24-2002, 12:07 AM

I'm an atheist, not an agnostic. I believe that there is no God. I do not feel obligated to prove the absence of something that is not there. That cannot be done. The onous is on those who claim the fantastic to prove that it is so. The more fantastic the claim, the more definitive the proof should be.

Corollary: most of us probably do not believe in ghosts. We can say without fear of reprimand: "I do not believe in ghosts". We are not told: "Well, prove there are no ghosts". We are not epected to sit on a fence and say "well, maybe, maybe not". We may say it with conviction.

And as to the original thread... I did not chose to be an atheist, I evolved this way.

gilligan8503

11-24-2002, 02:07 AM

ill try to reply to as many posts as possible:

undef:
you are right, this is a great book, and i agree to most things mentioned in the bible. just because i dont truly believe in god, doesnt mean i cant see wisdom in the bible. i consider the bible a great piece of literature and should be studied for its teachings, believe or not.

bavinic and janet:
ah the most asked question pertaining to religion "if he loves us so, why does he kill us"
from a religious standpoint:
1earth could be a test for heaven
2earth could be hell
3death is just the entry to heaven; its a good thing
people kill for strange reasons, in your case, they kill because they think that they are "righter" than the other; religion shouldnt be an issue in war, for if it becomes one, everyone that fights in this war will become a hypocrite.

sorry about othe rposts, so tired :P

BaudBandit

11-24-2002, 02:35 AM

I subscribe to the big bang theory, but I belive there is something out there: My reason are because atoms and other stuff(Too tired to think) had to make the elements that help create us, then something had to make the atoms and so on, then something had to make the stuff that made the atoms and so on. I could go on forever but it has to be created by something and that something had to make that other something. Its an infinite loop. I have my own theory on what happens after death, albeit it is a wild theory. Basicilly we all know a blackhole is the most powerful force in the universe and no one know what happens after you reach the singularity, Which is where all laws of physics get broke down. Here comes the wildness. maybe our life force, soul whatever it is is sucked towards the blackhole spit out in some other time as something different. its wild but fun. There is more to my theory but it would get long in the tooth. I think religion is pointless and even more pointless to talk about because we won't know till we are dead. I'm open to any theory but I don't belive it until I have proof.

williamwbishop

11-24-2002, 06:53 AM

Not really an athiest. Not really a theist, unless you count my membership to the church of PIU. They need a category for " just don't really give a damn".;)

mindless666

11-24-2002, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by thread_killer
just like it is spelled. ag-naws-tik :D

are you sure it is ag-naws-tik?? Everyone I ever hear say it usually use ag-nah-stik...

mindless666

11-24-2002, 10:01 AM

Maybe we should just create our own religious cult... The Church of Linux...

Ulixes

11-24-2002, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by mindless666
are you sure it is ag-naws-tik?? Everyone I ever hear say it usually use ag-nah-stik...

They pronounce it incorrectly. Check a dictionary.

Ulixes

11-24-2002, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by gilligan8503

you are right, this is a great book, and i agree to most things mentioned in the bible. just because i dont truly believe in god, doesnt mean i cant see wisdom in the bible. i consider the bible a great piece of literature and should be studied for its teachings, believe or not.

Some of the translations are written beautifully but strictly regards to the narrative, the Bible is so-so. I find those inspired by the Bible (i.e. Kierkegaard, Bach) much more compelling than those that were 'inspired' by God to write it.

Also, the Bible contains a very basic ethics that there is nothing wrong with, such as not killing people and treating others with kindness. It shouldn't be studied any more than any good ethical system. Actually, the Bible is filled with ancient prejudices that in many ways confuses the core message. If one doesn't approach it with the intent to analyse it, being critical when necessary, the Bible is a detriment.

mindless666

11-24-2002, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Ulixes
They pronounce it incorrectly. Check a dictionary.

Interesting maybe I will.... It is probably just dialectal differences...

mindless666

11-24-2002, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by mindless666
Interesting maybe I will.... It is probably just dialectal differences...

wow.. it looks like a overlooked the in- in incorrectly now what I wrote is not applicable to the current situation...

b_usa

11-24-2002, 01:13 PM

You are all missing the point by talking about "proof". If God gave us proof of his existence, what would be the point? If Im going to give you an extraordinary gift, Im going to ask you to at least pick up the gift and open it. So faith in itself is the religion. It's a selfish idea to think God should have to "prove it".

PS In my opinion there is plenty of proof that God exists.
a.The infinite size of the universe.
b.The beauty and complexity of nature
c.Mans sense of love and compassion

These are just a few things, but if you look around you, we are literally an island oasis in a sea of blackness. I think that God is evodent in the sheer size and complexity and magnificence of the universe.

Stween

11-24-2002, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by BaVinic
Flame me if you will, but I find it hard to believe, that if there were a "GOD" he would allow his children be killed, abused and molested. or that he would allow his "Followers" to die for him, I thought that was what the Christian's Jesus was for?

I think the idea is that you should not feel too much remorse for those who die, for they have joined God in the kingdom of heaven. All those who suffer through this world have something to look forward to in the next.

My humble opinion of this is that this sort of belief is merely a kneejerk reaction of human brought on by the human fear of dying. Everything seems happier if you think that you have something better to look forward to.

Now I have no problem if that's what people want to believe. At any rate, it's a nice idea.

I personally don't think it could be true though. I'd like to think that when I die I'm going to a better place, but I find it difficult to believe in any sort of afterlife.

Stween

11-24-2002, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by b_usa
PS In my opinion there is plenty of proof that God exists.
a.The infinite size of the universe.
b.The beauty and complexity of nature
c.Mans sense of love and compassion

I'm not going to argue with you if that's what you want to believe, but here's my opinion on those:

a) We don't really know how big the universe is. Any attempts to guess it's size are just that - a guess. It's incomprehensibily big, that's for sure, and we can't even begin to imagine how big it is, so putting a number on it is somehow futile.

b) Nature is a lot of simple ideas working together to achieve a greater goal (think small unix commands with piping and redirection). The larger picture makes thing look complex, but dig down and things are simply a bunch of chemicals reactions. The beauty of nature is something else : it's a mixture of the predictable on a small scale mixed with the unpredictable on a larger scale. What I'm thinking of here is things like fractals that can generate the basis for how a tree or a leaf is formed, but beyond that no real method to the scattering of trees across a rolling countryside. Beauty is, of course, in the eye of the beholder.

c) The sense of love and compassion would be driven into us by various instinctual impulses to mate, and several other subconcious needs to form alliances (friendships) with others of similar mind. Move it along another step and you see that it's those alliances that cause war. The simple 'survival of the fittest' philosiphy that drives us and other animals is that which creates our sense of competition, and is also that which leads us to fight with each other when dispute arises.

There are arguments and counterarguments for each standpoint.

windoze killa

11-24-2002, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by BaudBandit
I subscribe to the big bang theory, but I belive there is something out there: My reason are because atoms and other stuff(Too tired to think) had to make the elements that help create us, then something had to make the atoms and so on, then something had to make the stuff that made the atoms and so on. I could go on forever but it has to be created by something and that something had to make that other something. Its an infinite loop. I have my own theory on what happens after death, albeit it is a wild theory. Basicilly we all know a blackhole is the most powerful force in the universe and no one know what happens after you reach the singularity, Which is where all laws of physics get broke down. Here comes the wildness. maybe our life force, soul whatever it is is sucked towards the blackhole spit out in some other time as something different. its wild but fun. There is more to my theory but it would get long in the tooth. I think religion is pointless and even more pointless to talk about because we won't know till we are dead. I'm open to any theory but I don't belive it until I have proof.

Interesting theory. But a bit flawed. Its not that I can disprove it or anything but you stated that you subscribe to the big bang theory (as I do), but then you say later on that your "life force/soul" is sucked towards..... If you don't believe that a supernatural being created the universe then how can you believe that we have a supernatural life force or soul? I feel this is a bit contradictory.

Also to all those trying to get a straight answer out of Christians about why doesn't God prove himself or why does he let people kill each other you are wasting your time. The answers will all ways be "he doesn't have to, he is the almighty" and "he is testing our faith". Personally I think this is a cop out but they can not be blamed as that is what they are taught/brain washed. (What is that noise I hear?? I think it is the sound of an ignighting "flame" thrower.)

b_usa

11-24-2002, 05:41 PM

a) We don't really know how big the universe is. Any attempts to guess it's size are just that - a guess. It's incomprehensibily big, that's for sure, and we can't even begin to imagine how big it is, so putting a number on it is somehow futile.

OK, but what then is outside of the universe? Why do those chemicals behave that way? There is so much about our world that we cannot even comprehend. Regardless of what you think, nature is mind numbingly complex. What is beyond the atom? What is beyond that? What is gravity? Why are the laws of physics defied in some places in the universe? If you truly believe that all life is is a series of chemical reactions, explain what causes those chemical reactions... I dont mean Hydrogen + Oxygen = H2O, but why do the molecules behave the way they do? Why do the electrons behave the way they do? We only know what we can observe... There is no end to the processes of the universe. They go on and on, and at the end, is God.

Stween

11-24-2002, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by b_usa
OK, but what then is outside of the universe? We don't know, nobody's ever got that far. Why do those chemicals behave that way? There is so much about our world that we cannot even comprehend. Regardless of what you think, nature is mind numbingly complex. What is beyond the atom? What is beyond that? What is gravity? Why are the laws of physics defied in some places in the universe? If you truly believe that all life is is a series of chemical reactions, explain what causes those chemical reactions... I dont mean Hydrogen + Oxygen = H2O, but why do the molecules behave the way they do? Why do the electrons behave the way they do? We only know what we can observe... There is no end to the processes of the universe. They go on and on, and at the end, is God.

Well, protons neutrons and electrons are within the atom. Within neutrons and protons are quarks and gluons. What is beyond them someone will figure out one day.

The laws of physics aren't defied anywhere in the universe. Only our understanding of them is, because we have a relatively small playground to test those laws in.

Chemical reactions happen because of simple attractions between atoms to form an equilibrium.

Why do electrons and protons behave how they do? Well (beyond the fact I'm not qualified to *really* say why), you have to draw the line somewhere. Somewhere, you have to say "that's how it is, that's how things work". And that's how they work. Sure, there are loads of things we don't know, but there'll be loads more things we do know in 100 years time, even more than that in another 100 years.

saturn-vk

11-24-2002, 07:42 PM

a wise man once said that anyone can be a god, as long as there are people that believe it.

Penrich

11-25-2002, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by b_usa
You are all missing the point by talking about "proof". If God gave us proof of his existence, what would be the point? If Im going to give you an extraordinary gift, Im going to ask you to at least pick up the gift and open it. So faith in itself is the religion. It's a selfish idea to think God should have to "prove it".
So what exactly do you mean here? That we are to take religion purely on faith? What is faith? How does one come about faith? And why should we not expect proof? You expect me to prove evolution (and then you say "God planted it there to make it look that way"), but expect that i should take something as completely unbelieveable as an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being on faith? An all knowing, all powerful, ever present being who lets infants die of cancer? Oh yes - Gods design is not for us to know. Nice easy cop out, again.
PS In my opinion there is plenty of proof that God exists.
a.The infinite size of the universe.
b.The beauty and complexity of nature
c.Mans sense of love and compassion
Proof of the fact that by some miniscule chance the big bang (or whatever) happened, then life happened, from whence we evolved. IMHO.

These are just a few things, but if you look around you, we are literally an island oasis in a sea of blackness. I think that God is evodent in the sheer size and complexity and magnificence of the universe.
An island oasis --- by this do you mean that we are the only life in the universe? If so, you must indeed know more than me, or be willing to take huge amounts on faith. Personally, I'd say there is a good chance there is life elsewhere - we just haven't found it yet. (Or it hasn't found us...).

Live is bloody marvelous, in all its complexity, intricacy and the sheer fact that it even works half as well as it does. I would say its a miracle, but that word has certain unwanted connotations. I decided to study biochemistry because I wanted to know how life works. I didn't want to read any more fairy stories.

Penrich

11-25-2002, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by b_usa
OK, but what then is outside of the universe? Why do those chemicals behave that way? There is so much about our world that we cannot even comprehend. Regardless of what you think, nature is mind numbingly complex. What is beyond the atom? What is beyond that? What is gravity? Why are the laws of physics defied in some places in the universe? If you truly believe that all life is is a series of chemical reactions, explain what causes those chemical reactions... I dont mean Hydrogen + Oxygen = H2O, but why do the molecules behave the way they do? Why do the electrons behave the way they do? We only know what we can observe... There is no end to the processes of the universe. They go on and on, and at the end, is God.
Why? Because they do.

or

Why? Because God made them do it.

To my mind, the first answer is orders of magnitude simpler than the second. Occram's razor: the simplest theory is probably true. Ergo, I do not see any need to invoke the God card.

williamwbishop

11-25-2002, 03:11 AM

I'm suprised that there are no other PIU members here...I would have expected more based on the high geek ratio. Oh well, later.:D

gilligan8503

02-04-2003, 12:58 AM

hi again, back from a windows hiatus and decided to dig up this post (havent had enough religious debate in school).

well ive come to say after reading the rest of the posts, what is faith? i beilieve faith is but one's hope in something else's existence. HOPE. thats exactly what it is. hope is great to have and one should hold on to it dearly; not to be afraid of dying must be a burden off one's shoulders. ignorance is bliss.

Obrion

02-04-2003, 01:17 AM

no way !!! THERE IS A GOD

http://www.111brookeburke.com/images/pics/long/24.jpg

this proves it..

end of story....

and besides we all know Alanis Morriset is god anyway.....:D

williamwbishop

02-04-2003, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by Obrion
no way !!! THERE IS A GOD

http://www.111brookeburke.com/images/pics/long/24.jpg

this proves it..

end of story....

and besides we all know Alanis Morriset is god anyway.....:D

That merely proves that evolution occasionally peaks.;) If there were a god, every woman would look like that, and we wouldn't have the need of these pesky appendixes. Oh wait, we don't need them, they are just a holdover from our animal days.

knute

02-04-2003, 03:04 AM

jROFLMAO

There is one little tiny thing that you forgot in your arguments regarding this evolution process, and the tendancy towards the increasing complexity that evolution propounds.

Entropy -- <theory> A measure of the disorder of a system. Systems tend to go from a state of order (low entropy) to a state of maximum disorder (high entropy).

What has previously been proposed is in direct violation of that law of thermodynamics.

williamwbishop

02-04-2003, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by knute
jROFLMAO

There is one little tiny thing that you forgot in your arguments regarding this evolution process, and the tendancy towards the increasing complexity that evolution propounds.

Entropy -- <theory> A measure of the disorder of a system. Systems tend to go from a state of order (low entropy) to a state of maximum disorder (high entropy).

What has previously been proposed is in direct violation of that law of thermodynamics.

Ah, but are you sure the height of evolution is to make her more streamlined for purposes of swimming, etc...or is it to make her the pinnacle of desirability by the male of the species, culminating in superior selection of the species and propagation.

Tempus77

02-04-2003, 03:18 AM

hmmm........for those of u who believe that the bible offers valuable teachings.......try the readings of Buddhism, which in my opinion are far better and non-biased than most of the other existing religions today.

williamwbishop

02-04-2003, 03:37 AM

Originally posted by Tempus77
hmmm........for those of u who believe that the bible offers valuable teachings.......try the readings of Buddhism, which in my opinion are far better and non-biased than most of the other existing religions today.

And much less violent.;) Not a lot of buddhists out there burning people or shooting those who believe differently. No beheadings at the behest of the buddhists.

Tempus77

02-04-2003, 03:50 AM

And much less violent. Not a lot of buddhists out there burning people or shooting those who believe differently. No beheadings at the behest of the buddhists.

Absolutely!!

anyway, i hardly care for what other people believe in, they can believe in anything they want..........just don't come preaching to me and trying to convert me, by telling me BS like how i would suffer in hell if i would not convert........is that how "benevolent" christianity is? so "benevolent" that their god will banish non-believers to hell?

besides, if i don't really believe in what christianity preaches, then i can't really believe that i will go to hell simply because i'm a non-believer right? :p Especially, since it's just another one of those BS stuff being preached.

carlywarly

02-04-2003, 04:12 AM

Originally posted by knute
jROFLMAO

There is one little tiny thing that you forgot in your arguments regarding this evolution process, and the tendancy towards the increasing complexity that evolution propounds.

Entropy -- <theory> A measure of the disorder of a system. Systems tend to go from a state of order (low entropy) to a state of maximum disorder (high entropy).

What has previously been proposed is in direct violation of that law of thermodynamics.

Which Law of thermodynamics are you talking about? The Second Law is the one usually used incorrectly by creationists to argue against evolution. I won't go into the delicious irony of using one scientific law (that suits you) to argue against another (that does not). The simple point is that the whole of the second law begins with a very important phrase - "IN A CLOSED SYSTEM..." Now, I assume you know what a closed system is. The earth is not a closed system. Therefore you cannot use this law.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

ashayh

02-04-2003, 04:38 AM

I'm not sure where I heard this. but theres a story that goes like this.
More than a hundred years ago, pocket watches used to be really complex beasts, with dozens of moving parts crammed together in an impossibly small case.. I'm sure u know this..such watches are a amazing even now, in those days they were unearthly..

Well there were these two chaps, good friends who always argued about the existance of god etc etc...one was an atheist, one wasnt.

The believer got a beautifull watch as a gift made by a master european craftsman. His atheist friend came over to visit him one evening and he noticed the watch. he picked it up and couldnt stop raving abouts its beauty, craftsmanship ect..

He asked :
Atheist : It dosent say on the watch who made.Only your name and your Uncles (uncle gifted the watah)name is etched. So who made it ?
Believer : No one.
Atheist : What ? Nice one, now tell me who made.
Believer : I told you no one.. why is that so difficult for you ro undersand ?
<more arguments follow>
Atheist : How preposterous my dear man ! You want me to believe that this amazing work of art simply popped out of no where or fell from the sky ?
Believer : Then why do you believe that this universe, this nature around us and man came from nowhere and no one made them ?

Silent Bob

02-04-2003, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by ashayh
I'm not sure where I heard this. but theres a story that goes like this.
More than a hundred years ago, pocket watches used to be really complex beasts, with dozens of moving parts crammed together in an impossibly small case.. I'm sure u know this..such watches are a amazing even now, in those days they were unearthly..

Well there were these two chaps, good friends who always argued about the existance of god etc etc...one was an atheist, one wasnt.

The believer got a beautifull watch as a gift made by a master european craftsman. His atheist friend came over to visit him one evening and he noticed the watch. he picked it up and couldnt stop raving abouts its beauty, craftsmanship ect..

He asked :
Atheist : It dosent say on the watch who made.Only your name and your Uncles (uncle gifted the watah)name is etched. So who made it ?
Believer : No one.
Atheist : What ? Nice one, now tell me who made.
Believer : I told you no one.. why is that so difficult for you ro undersand ?
<more arguments follow>
Atheist : How preposterous my dear man ! You want me to believe that this amazing work of art simply popped out of no where or fell from the sky ?
Believer : Then why do you believe that this universe, this nature around us and man came from nowhere and no one made them ?

So where did God (take your pick which one) come from?

Was he/her/it created by someone or are we just supposed to believe that God came from nowhere and no-one made him/her/it?

Tempus77

02-04-2003, 04:55 AM

Was he/her/it created by someone or are we just supposed to believe that God came from nowhere and no-one made him/her/it?

damn.......u beat me to it. :p

nevertheless, it's a good one, Silent Bob. :D

carlywarly

02-04-2003, 05:03 AM

It's a poor analogy. Both of these objects are unquestionably manufactured, from basic raw materials, by one person, in a short time. This bears no resemblance to the universe, or life. It requires some sort of faith to believe that either was manufactured by some entity. In addition, we can still see and measure the laws and forces that produced and shaped (and still shape) the universe and life. There is no need for a designer or manufacturer.

ashayh

02-04-2003, 05:15 AM

Poor naologies are all most staunch believers i know can com eup with..

Whats more complex ? the watch or the watch maker ?
Surely the watch maker didnt make himself ?

Replace watch with man..

Whats more complex ? Man or god "?

Surely god didnt make himself ?

Then why are we expexted to believe this ?

A number of post have been made on how "good" certain religous books are.. how they teach things like love thy neighbour
etc etc etc..
A lot of this is common sense... I LOT of people never read the bible(or hindu/buddhist/muslim texts for that matter) and turn out to be perfectly normal, civil people..

I grew up in an atheist family, most of my relatives are atheist(our kind are very rare in india). We are perfectly normal, civil people(I hope!)
But who cares ?! I dont belive in allah or god, so 2 billion people includin bin laden think i shall go to hell, NO MATTER what i do on earth.
Yes, I think christians/hindus who take so many pains to show their self righteousness are up there with bin laden.
If tey could be made to change their mind, the world can only become better...

gilligan8503

02-04-2003, 08:27 AM

"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws."

not my words, but i hope this clears up the thermodynamics argument.

knute

02-04-2003, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by carlywarly
Which Law of thermodynamics are you talking about? The Second Law is the one usually used incorrectly by creationists to argue against evolution. I won't go into the delicious irony of using one scientific law (that suits you) to argue against another (that does not). The simple point is that the whole of the second law begins with a very important phrase - "IN A CLOSED SYSTEM..." Now, I assume you know what a closed system is. The earth is not a closed system. Therefore you cannot use this law.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

That all depends upon the scale of the closed system. The question was raised about what's outside the universe, which implies that to a certain extent, the universe is a closed system, therefore that law would apply.

williamwbishop

02-04-2003, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by knute
That all depends upon the scale of the closed system. The question was raised about what's outside the universe, which implies that to a certain extent, the universe is a closed system, therefore that law would apply.

The universe as a system, closed or open...is unknown. The earth is not. We KNOW it is not a closed system, as we derive energy from an external source in addition to the ones internal(geothermal). Thus, you don't know if it applies or not.

Col. Panic

02-04-2003, 01:36 PM

Two things:

The earth isn't a closed system, so the 2nd Law doesn't apply: Tell me something, what does the sun's energy do to your house? Your car? Your skin? What does the energy from a fire do to a building? Yes, the earth is an open system, but energy by itself only serves to bring about change in a system. The natural direction of that change will always follow Time's Arrow, moving toward the most probable, "random" state. Energy by itself does a much better job of breaking things rather than making things. The building blocks of life are no more likely to form themselves into a reproducing structure through the random application of energy than boards, pipes and wire will form themselves into an appartment building during a windstorm.

Order forms spontaneously all the time (snowflakes, sand dunes, etc): Okay, do we ever find 5, 7, or 8-sided snowflakes? Hexagonal salt crystals? Of course not. In these examples, it is a required result of the "program" or pattern in the molecules themselves. That is why each example is so universally common. The complexity of life has no comparable "program" that makes it naturally happen, so it is totally unrelated to these examples.

And I'm rather surprised that we haven't had to argue about time making the impossible possible, the possible probable, and the probable certain yet. :rolleyes: ;)

williamwbishop

02-04-2003, 01:49 PM

carlywarly

02-04-2003, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Col. Panic
Two things:

The earth isn't a closed system, so the 2nd Law doesn't apply: Tell me something, what does the sun's energy do to your house? Your car? Your skin? What does the energy from a fire do to a building? Yes, the earth is an open system, but energy by itself only serves to bring about change in a system. The natural direction of that change will always follow Time's Arrow, moving toward the most probable, "random" state. Energy by itself does a much better job of breaking things rather than making things. The building blocks of life are no more likely to form themselves into a reproducing structure through the random application of energy than boards, pipes and wire will form themselves into an appartment building during a windstorm.

Order forms spontaneously all the time (snowflakes, sand dunes, etc): Okay, do we ever find 5, 7, or 8-sided snowflakes? Hexagonal salt crystals? Of course not. In these examples, it is a required result of the "program" or pattern in the molecules themselves. That is why each example is so universally common. The complexity of life has no comparable "program" that makes it naturally happen, so it is totally unrelated to these examples.

And I'm rather surprised that we haven't had to argue about time making the impossible possible, the possible probable, and the probable certain yet. :rolleyes: ;)

Please! Anecdotal stuff about what you think energy does is completely irrelevant. We were discussing thermodynamics and if the 2nd law applies to the earth. As you have accepted, it does not.

As for complexity coming from simplicity, take the sun itself. It fuses simple atoms of hydrogen together to form more complex helium nuclei. Complexity from simplicity.

Chemically, compounds are far more stable than elements. Consequently, elements tend to produce compounds. Complexity from simplity, again.

You have also made multiple assumptions in your post about "Time's arrow" - whatever that is, and the analogy about the building being formed from a windstorm is particularly silly. Let me explain why, if you don't already know. If you have a look at talkorigins.org you can read up about abiogenesis. It might surprise you. Once you've done that, consider this. The theory of evolution suggests that evolutionary change comes about by random mutations etc producing a subtly different organism. If this alteration has added survival value, this changed organism will become more widespread. If not, it dies out. These changes are tiny and subtle. they take time, and above all, they are cumulative. The idea of producing a complex object from components in a storm is so unrelated as to be laughable.

Penrich

02-04-2003, 02:06 PM

Col. Panic

02-04-2003, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by carlywarly
The theory of evolution suggests that evolutionary change comes about by random mutations etc producing a subtly different organism. If this alteration has added survival value, this changed organism will become more widespread. If not, it dies out. These changes are tiny and subtle. they take time, and above all, they are cumulative. The idea of producing a complex object from components in a storm is so unrelated as to be laughable.

Thanks for your reply... Perhaps I should have clarified something: In regards to the building analogy, I was referring to the origins of life, not the evolution of it. I am aware that evolutionary theory is based on small changes over time, and I'll certainly acknowledge that to an extent, it does hold true, but in the analogy, I was more concerned with how matter arranged itself in such a way that it made a creation capable of going out, getting its own building materials, and replicating itself, simply through the addition of randomly-applied energy.

At any rate, I'm reading the link supplied on the 2nd law, evolution, and probability, and will go looking for the abiogenisis article shortly. Thanks.

emus

02-04-2003, 04:06 PM

Theory of Evolution:

Under environmental stress, in order to survive, creatures need to adapt. This of course explains why horseshoe crabs still look the same as they are found in fossilized records, because in the myriad of years there was never any "evolutionary pressure" to evolve. Ancient landmasses in the mean time have turned into the continents as we know them today. Certainly the oceans and beaches remainded calm, hence horseshoe crabs are still the same.

Let us now consider a more a more recent example:

Specimen 1: Frog
Specimen 2: Princess

The frog was a prince once. Evolutionary circumstances in the form of a science savvy lady under the so called punctuated equilibrium principle caused the prince to assume an amphibian form. For quite some time he lived like the horseshoe crabs, but alas, he was to feel evolution one more time. He met a princess and felt an immense evolutionary urge to evolve once again. As we all know, he became a human. Now it was almost perfect save for a mutated gene. Beware, the right combination will make some of our progeny amphibious again.

Penrich

02-04-2003, 04:16 PM

You forgot cockroaches, mosquitoes, sharks, crocodiles etc etc... All virtually unchanged because they fit a niche that has not changed.

Glad to see you fully understand evolutioniary theory :rolleyes:

emus

02-04-2003, 04:22 PM

You didn't like my story Penrich? As you wish, just substitute the variable x for horseshoe crabs; x can now be cockroaches, mosquitoes, sharks, crocodiles etc.

Penrich

02-04-2003, 04:30 PM

If you want fairy tales, how about the one that starts "On the first day, God created..."

emus

02-04-2003, 04:41 PM

I don't believe that in 24 hours there suddenly was earth etc, but I do believe in a higher being. Now, that being said, let us once again turn our attention to the theory of evolution.

This should be enlightening.

From prehistoric tiger to Seussian cat::)

Edit: Feeling any pressure to evolve yet?

Penrich

02-04-2003, 05:05 PM

I dunno - my Seussian Cat in the Hat evolved into a Debian swirl...

emus

02-04-2003, 05:16 PM

Fair enough, I think one day I'll evolve into a debian user too.

carlywarly

02-04-2003, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by emus
I don't believe that in 24 hours there suddenly was earth etc, but I do believe in a higher being. Now, that being said, let us once again turn our attention to the theory of evolution.

This should be enlightening.

From prehistoric tiger to Seussian cat::)

Edit: Feeling any pressure to evolve yet?

No, tell us your complete explanation of the fossil record, all those extinct animals and plants and the fossils of prehistoric humans. I'm really looking forward to it.

Penrich

02-04-2003, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by carlywarly
No, tell us your complete explanation of the fossil record, all those extinct animals and plants and the fossils of prehistoric humans. I'm really looking forward to it. Oh - there was actually a question in that post of emus? I missed it! Maybe emus will evolve into someone who can read www.talkorigins.org ...

emus

02-05-2003, 03:51 PM

Speciation is considered the change in the genetic material that gives rise to new favorable types better adapted to the environment. In order to get a new species, over time many such random mutations need to occur.

Take two so called evolutionary related species x and y. Our x species starts to undergo random mutations over time until it becomes y. With a certainty we can say that x existed because we have a fossil record of x. We are also sure that y existed because of a similar fossil record. Sedimentary analysis indicates that x is a lot older than y; however, there is a distinct anatomical similarity between x and y. That would mean x is the precursor and y is a form at a later time in evolution.
This is where the difficulty starts. Evolutionists play a game of connect the dots. If it looks similar, it must be related. Too bad that genetic analysis is just undoing what Darwin proposed. Historic data is being corrected over and over again. Phylogenetic trees are being continually rearranged. Now there is a need for the punctuated equilibrium principle to explain the lack of transitionary forms halfway between x and y. That's exactly how the frog becomes a prince. If x and y are the two specimens being studied, logically according to evolution, an extremely great number of transitional forms between x and y need to exist. According to probabilty, wouldn't it dictate that we find more transitional forms? Show me half ape half man. The hunt for the missing link goes on.

Penrich

02-05-2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by emus
Speciation is considered the change in the genetic material that gives rise to new favorable types better adapted to the environment. In order to get a new species, over time many such random mutations need to occur.

Take two so called evolutionary related species x and y. Our x species starts to undergo random mutations over time until it becomes y. With a certainty we can say that x existed because we have a fossil record of x. We are also sure that y existed because of a similar fossil record. Sedimentary analysis indicates that x is a lot older than y; however, there is a distinct anatomical similarity between x and y. That would mean x is the precursor and y is a form at a later time in evolution.
This is where the difficulty starts. Evolutionists play a game of connect the dots. If it looks similar, it must be related. Too bad that genetic analysis is just undoing what Darwin proposed. Historic data is being corrected over and over again. Phylogenetic trees are being continually rearranged. Now there is a need for the punctuated equilibrium principle to explain the lack of transitionary forms halfway between x and y. That's exactly how the frog becomes a prince. If x and y are the two specimens being studied, logically according to evolution, an extremely great number of transitional forms between x and y need to exist. According to probabilty, wouldn't it dictate that we find more transitional forms? Show me half ape half man. The hunt for the missing link goes on.
Now - if we had a fossil of every single species, perfectly preserved, that would be very nice. What would please you - a perfect male and female fossil from each species, say every one thousand years? Would be fantastic if we had DNA from all those fossils too. The we would be able to create an "true" phylogentic tree. In the meantime we do the best we can.

Where is your evidence that counters what we do know from from the fossil record? Other than your absurd frog/prince thing - I've got no idea what you are talking about there. Lack of a fossil is not evidence against the thousands of tons of fossils that have been found. Please give a specific example of where the fossil record is WRONG (Note: not missing, but which you can prove to be wrong).

Note - if lack of evidence were sufficient proof against an idea, where do you think a Creator/God would stand?

windoze killa

02-05-2003, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by emus
Fair enough, I think one day I'll evolve into a debian user too.

Thats devolution not evolution. :-)

carlywarly

02-05-2003, 05:07 PM

carlywarly

02-05-2003, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by emus
Speciation is considered the change in the genetic material that gives rise to new favorable types better adapted to the environment. In order to get a new species, over time many such random mutations need to occur.

Take two so called evolutionary related species x and y. Our x species starts to undergo random mutations over time until it becomes y. With a certainty we can say that x existed because we have a fossil record of x. We are also sure that y existed because of a similar fossil record. Sedimentary analysis indicates that x is a lot older than y; however, there is a distinct anatomical similarity between x and y. That would mean x is the precursor and y is a form at a later time in evolution.
This is where the difficulty starts. Evolutionists play a game of connect the dots. If it looks similar, it must be related. Too bad that genetic analysis is just undoing what Darwin proposed. Historic data is being corrected over and over again. Phylogenetic trees are being continually rearranged. Now there is a need for the punctuated equilibrium principle to explain the lack of transitionary forms halfway between x and y. That's exactly how the frog becomes a prince. If x and y are the two specimens being studied, logically according to evolution, an extremely great number of transitional forms between x and y need to exist. According to probabilty, wouldn't it dictate that we find more transitional forms? Show me half ape half man. The hunt for the missing link goes on.

Ah, another fallacy - the almost legendary missing link. There isn't one. The premise is false. See if you can work out why. If you can't, post and I'll tell you.:)

emus

02-05-2003, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Penrich
Now - if we had a fossil of every single species, perfectly preserved, that would be very nice. What would please you - a perfect male and female fossil from each species, say every one thousand years? Would be fantastic if we had DNA from all those fossils too. The we would be able to create an "true" phylogentic tree. In the meantime we do the best we can.

Where is your evidence that counters what we do know from from the fossil record? Other than your absurd frog/prince thing - I've got no idea what you are talking about there. Lack of a fossil is not evidence against the thousands of tons of fossils that have been found. Please give a specific example of where the fossil record is WRONG (Note: not missing, but which you can prove to be wrong).

Note - if lack of evidence were sufficient proof against an idea, where do you think a Creator/God would stand?

I'm not trying to discredit the fossil record that does indeed exist, but the lack of transitionary forms that evolution is so fond of, this is what is lacking.

emus

02-05-2003, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by carlywarly
Ah, another fallacy - the almost legendary missing link. There isn't one. The premise is false. See if you can work out why. If you can't, post and I'll tell you.:) 3

Alright, transitionary forms if you like that word better.

carlywarly

02-05-2003, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by emus
3

Alright, transitionary forms if you like that word better.

I suppose I'll have to explain. Evolutionary theory does not suggest that humans evolved from apes. It suggests that we have a common ancestor. Therefore the concept of a transitional form between apes and humans is a non-sequitur.

I'm still waiting for you lovely theory that explains it all better than evolution. I love this anticipation. I do hope it will last.:)

Fingel

02-05-2003, 07:17 PM

isnt this just a ripoff of the
"why religion" thread?

linuxgeek

02-05-2003, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by Silent Bob
So where did God (take your pick which one) come from?

Was he/her/it created by someone or are we just supposed to believe that God came from nowhere and no-one made him/her/it?

God has always existed. God created time and therefore is not bound by its laws. It's like this. you make a table. You can see both ends of the table. You are not bound by this table you can walk around it, on top of it, and away from it. The same thing holds true with god. He is not bound by time or any scientific laws because he created him.

That's why it says in the bible he is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and end. He had no beginning, he has always existed. I know this is hard to comprehend, because it's human to doubt things we can't explain.

linuxgeek

02-05-2003, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by carlywarly

I'm still waiting for you lovely theory that explains it all better than evolution. I love this anticipation. I do hope it will last.:)

Intelligent design is the best theory i have ever heard. Maybe you should learn a little about it....

Strogian

02-05-2003, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by linuxgeek
God has always existed. God created time and therefore is not bound by its laws. It's like this. you make a table. You can see both ends of the table. You are not bound by this table you can walk around it, on top of it, and away from it. The same thing holds true with god. He is not bound by time or any scientific laws because he created him.

That's why it says in the bible he is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and end. He had no beginning, he has always existed. I know this is hard to comprehend, because it's human to doubt things we can't explain.

Nevertheless, that theory is also (quite likely) man-made. It's not any more true than any other unproven theory out there. That theory is easy to grasp (or to even create it) if you do not truly think about it, but if you actually try and figure out what it means, you will fail. (or I will, at least ;)) Your table analogy does not work because we make tables, and there are many of us. Are you suggesting that universes are as common as tables, and gods are as commonplace as humans?

There are plenty of (usually modern ;)) scientific theories that (IMHO) are similar to that. Just a bunch of words strung together that is "interesting" and "thought-provoking" on the surface, but once your thought has actually been "provoked," you realize it doesn't make sense. ;)

Note that I'm not arguing for or against evolution/creationism, I'm just pointing out what I see as flaws in that particular post. There's always the possibility that I just don't get it, but I have to assume that's not the case. :)

linuxgeek

02-05-2003, 11:59 PM

Tempus77

02-06-2003, 12:18 AM

so, if there truly is just one god (i'm not even sure if there is any), what makes u so sure it's the Christian one?

I personally believe that as long as i lead my life in an upright manner, with honesty and sincerity.........there is no need for the belief in GOD............because that belief is fostered by man......its "stories" or history or whatever u call it, is written by man........and yeah yeah i know, some of u will say that they were inspired or instructed by GOD to write the bible............but how certain are u? who can back that claim up with real evidence, or even any shred of evidence? Falling back on the claim that GOD is bigger than anything and defies all logic and does not need evidence to prove, is not going to convince anyone.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Penrich

02-06-2003, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by Fingel
isnt this just a ripoff of the
"why religion" thread? Actually this one started a month before the Why religion, but then died, and then was ressurected... Maybe some nice new mod could combine them??? ;)

Penrich

02-06-2003, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by linuxgeek
I'm saying there is just one god, but it is just as easy actually easier for him to make a universe as it would be for us to make a table. It's a perfect analogy for what it is for god. There is only one god. There is no other way to explain where god came from. He has always existed. It is not a man made theory. This is a quote. Jesus said "I am the Alpha and Omega" Which means the beginning and end. He is the beginning. There was nothing before him. He is eternal. I know it is hard for people to comprehend this, because it defys our basic logic. But again, god doesn't have to be logical, he's god. He created logic, and as i said, he can defy it. Do you actually use this argument to try and convince people to believe in God? Try reading your quote out loud and listen to how foolish it sounds! "The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible."

Tempus77

02-06-2003, 01:13 AM

Do you actually use this argument to try and convince people to believe in God? Try reading your quote out loud and listen to how foolish it sounds! "The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible."

why do i always get beaten to what i have to say? :(

Penrich

02-06-2003, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by Tempus77
why do i always get beaten to what i have to say? :( You gotta be fast round here ;)

williamwbishop

02-06-2003, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by Penrich
Do you actually use this argument to try and convince people to believe in God? Try reading your quote out loud and listen to how foolish it sounds! "The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible."

But hey, circular logic must be so much fun, why else would people do it so frequently?;)

I am god, because I say I am. Disprove it. After all, I wrote it down, so it must be true.

carlywarly

02-06-2003, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by linuxgeek
Intelligent design is the best theory i have ever heard. Maybe you should learn a little about it....

How does this theory explain all the extinctions and evolutionary dead ends that we see in the fossil record? Also, where does this theory originate? What is the scientific evidence for this theory?

linuxgeek

02-06-2003, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Penrich
Do you actually use this argument to try and convince people to believe in God? Try reading your quote out loud and listen to how foolish it sounds! "The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible."

Umm..... I said that in response to him saying my example was bad. The other one was my argument.......

linuxgeek

02-06-2003, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by carlywarly
How does this theory explain all the extinctions and evolutionary dead ends that we see in the fossil record? Also, where does this theory originate? What is the scientific evidence for this theory?

Actually all the "evolutionary dead ends" are better explained by a theory like this. Things like that do not point at evolution. They point more towards creationism. If you think about it. Many many many years ago there were a greater variety of animals around than there are now. But with all these animals "evolving" shouldn't there be more of a variety now than there was then? That's what evolution would dictate, but there isn't.

so, if there truly is just one god (i'm not even sure if there is any), what makes u so sure it's the Christian one?

Because christians worship the same god that the Jews do. And that religion is the oldest surviving religion. Also many things predicted in the bible have come true. Like the Jews being returned to their homeland back in the 50's and such.

gilligan8503

02-06-2003, 08:28 AM

I'm saying there is just one god, but it is just as easy actually easier for him to make a universe as it would be for us to make a table. It's a perfect analogy for what it is for god. There is only one god. There is no other way to explain where god came from. He has always existed. It is not a man made theory. This is a quote. Jesus said "I am the Alpha and Omega" Which means the beginning and end. He is the beginning. There was nothing before him. He is eternal. I know it is hard for people to comprehend this, because it defys our basic logic. But again, god doesn't have to be logical, he's god. He created logic, and as i said, he can defy it.

you seem to be very confused; you wish to believe so much you are making up stuff. let me tell you, the bible was written by man. the truth of the matter is, during the creation of the bible; there was thought to be a group of men that sat around and wrote the bible. also deciding on what or what not will be in the bible. every word is written by man. do you really think if there was a god who wrote "through" these men; would god say that gays go to hell? or if you lie (which is a sin)you go to hell (it is only human nature to lie)?

i dont know why in this day and age, people truly believe in the existance of God in the bible. im not saying there os no higher power, for i believe there might be a chanse (you never know). but to take a book written by men and take it word for word is blasphemous. im sure deep down, all religious people are hypocrites and truly dont believe in god. its just so hard to believe. man created god to not feel so alone in the universe, as with every other god. death is also hard for us to comprehend, so we create a heaven (i cant even comprehend death, death is my only fear; but you have no fear, because you will go to either heaven or hell; hell is better than nonexistance i think). then man looks at all the evil people in the world and creates hell to scare them good (instincts dont always work like that). anyways, im just rambling.

go on and defend your piece of literature with your "proof".

linuxgeek

02-06-2003, 08:39 AM

Actually the bible was written across several thousand years which gets rid of your theory that a bunch of men just sat around. The bible was written by men. I'm not denying that. But it talks about times that the men who wrote it were not alive to see. Like genesis. It was written after the fact, but it is a very complete book. It has a lot of information in it. I don't see any other reason for the author to have been able to describe it so flawlessly unless god was using him to write it.

Now as for calling me a hypocrit. NO... I have no doubt in my mind that there is a god. I have had doubts in the past, everyone does, but i as of right now have no doubts that God is the one true God.

linuxgeek

02-06-2003, 08:43 AM

And actually non-existence is better than hell. You cannot imagine the torture of hell. The true definition of hell is the complete seperation from God. It's not someplace you want to be. The bible does give some descrpitions of it, i don't really know them so i can't really give you examples. I could get some if you guys want them.

Now as for calling the bible just a book. There are many many many profecy's in the bible that have come true. It was predicted to the DAY when Jesus would enter this one city. There have been wars predicted in the bible. And many others.

williamwbishop

02-06-2003, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by linuxgeek
Actually all the "evolutionary dead ends" are better explained by a theory like this. Things like that do not point at evolution. They point more towards creationism. If you think about it. Many many many years ago there were a greater variety of animals around than there are now. But with all these animals "evolving" shouldn't there be more of a variety now than there was then? That's what evolution would dictate, but there isn't.

Because christians worship the same god that the Jews do. And that religion is the oldest surviving religion. Also many things predicted in the bible have come true. Like the Jews being returned to their homeland back in the 50's and such.

That is not the oldest surviving religion by a long shot. And it's easy to make prophecies come true, especially when you write them after they have already happened.;)

williamwbishop

02-06-2003, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by linuxgeek
And actually non-existence is better than hell. You cannot imagine the torture of hell. The true definition of hell is the complete seperation from God. It's not someplace you want to be. The bible does give some descrpitions of it, i don't really know them so i can't really give you examples. I could get some if you guys want them.

Now as for calling the bible just a book. There are many many many profecy's in the bible that have come true. It was predicted to the DAY when Jesus would enter this one city. There have been wars predicted in the bible. And many others.

Please provide these fulfilled prophecies, original verse and it's fulfillment(note: obvious trap, but hey you are the one trying to trip into it.)

williamwbishop

02-06-2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by linuxgeek
Actually the bible was written across several thousand years which gets rid of your theory that a bunch of men just sat around. The bible was written by men

The part about it being written by men you got at least. The bible was written accross hundreds of years, btw, not thousands. It's main writing times are 350 b.c-100 b.c and from 75ad to 400 ad(note the dates on the last ones, tell me what that would indicate to you.) It was later reassembled into it's present form in Trent, circa 1400 where they decided what books would be included and what were to be thrown out. That is 500 odd years ago for those who can't add. The church uses the qumram scrolls to base the belief that the old testament was little changed over several hundred years, and that the churches version reflects the original. Unfortunately, out of the 200+ scrolls that were found, only 1 was true to the church form with high percentage. At least be honest, someone might read what you write without the skepticism that we that know you show.;)

williamwbishop

02-06-2003, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by linuxgeek
And actually non-existence is better than hell. You cannot imagine the torture of hell. The true definition of hell is the complete seperation from God. It's not someplace you want to be. The bible does give some descrpitions of it, i don't really know them so i can't really give you examples. I could get some if you guys want them.

Now as for calling the bible just a book. There are many many many profecy's in the bible that have come true. It was predicted to the DAY when Jesus would enter this one city. There have been wars predicted in the bible. And many others.

Please provide any information you may have on hell from the old testament(or sheol as we that know the hebrew version call it).
.
.
.
Freshmeat, good for the tummy. Forks ready guys!

timbobagginsii

02-06-2003, 09:05 AM

Um, Sheol is the Place of the Dead, commonly translated as The Grave. On one occassion it is said that Samuel was called back from this place (somewhere in either Samuel(probably the second book) or 1st Kings). That and it's a place you go down to(nemerous references in the Psalms).
And that seems to be it.
Apart from the Genesis bit about 'unto dust ye shall return' which seems to indicate that once you're dead that's it.

On a seperate note:
Biblical dating of the NT as late as WWB suggests is by no means unanimous - Robinson, I think, puts the latest book to be written around AD90, just about in the life span of eye witnesses.
I'm sure, but haven't got sources to back it up, that some scholars must agree with him.

williamwbishop

02-06-2003, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by timbobagginsii
Um, Sheol is the Place of the Dead, commonly translated as The Grave. On one occassion it is said that Samuel was called back from this place (somewhere in either Samuel(probably the second book) or 1st Kings). That and it's a place you go down to(nemerous references in the Psalms).
And that seems to be it.
Apart from the Genesis bit about 'unto dust ye shall return' which seems to indicate that once you're dead that's it.

On a seperate note:
Biblical dating of the NT as late as WWB suggests is by no means unanimous - Robinson, I think, puts the latest book to be written around AD90, just about in the life span of eye witnesses.
I'm sure, but haven't got sources to back it up, that some scholars must agree with him.

Aye, but not many. The problem lies in cities. Some cities, that are well known through other historical resources, that are mentioned in some of the books were not created until up to 300 years A.D., hence the time frame that is commonly accepted by archaeologists. As you can see, that would prove to be a sticking point. Welcome back Tim, are you well?

williamwbishop

02-06-2003, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by williamwbishop
Aye, but not many. The problem lies in cities. Some cities, that are well known through other historical resources, that are mentioned in some of the books were not created until up to 300 years A.D., hence the time frame that is commonly accepted by archaeologists. As you can see, that would prove to be a sticking point. Welcome back Tim, are you well?

But that also seems to be a sticking point with the old testament as well. Remember our delving into some of the cities supposedly destroyed by the israel, that were not even in existance at the time, that had been long before abandoned, or destroyed? The problems are minor, but if you take linuxgeeks approach, that it is an infallible document that is true in every regard, then your walls are already crumbling under the weight of evidence before you even get started.

timbobagginsii

02-06-2003, 09:19 AM

Thanks.
Doing better.
And just throwing a little spice into the mix. Can't have you cynics having your way all the time, can we?

williamwbishop

02-06-2003, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by timbobagginsii
Thanks.
Doing better.
And just throwing a little spice into the mix. Can't have you cynics having your way all the time, can we?

It should always be even, but you know be better than that by now I suspect.;)

Silent Bob

02-06-2003, 12:50 PM

carlywarly

02-06-2003, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by linuxgeek
Actually all the "evolutionary dead ends" are better explained by a theory like this. Things like that do not point at evolution. They point more towards creationism. If you think about it. Many many many years ago there were a greater variety of animals around than there are now. But with all these animals "evolving" shouldn't there be more of a variety now than there was then? That's what evolution would dictate, but there isn't.

The word "lame" comes to mind here. That's all you have? I don't understand how this points to creationism. Perhaps you could explain a little bit more. I would have thought that if there were an intelligent designer, there would be no mistakes, no extinctions. Obviously, I must be wrong. You can explain how I am wrong, I hope.

Perhaps you could also explain were this theory comes from. If it is a valid scientific theory, the hypothesis would come from empirical observations. Maybe you could tell me how.

williamwbishop

02-06-2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by carlywarly
The word "lame" comes to mind here. That's all you have? I don't understand how this points to creationism. Perhaps you could explain a little bit more. I would have thought that if there were an intelligent designer, there would be no mistakes, no extinctions. Obviously, I must be wrong. You can explain how I am wrong, I hope.

Perhaps you could also explain were this theory comes from. If it is a valid scientific theory, the hypothesis would come from empirical observations. Maybe you could tell me how.

There must have been a creative genius at work, I mean, after all, why else would we get the pesky appendix? Or different colored hair and skin. I mean, surely....he must have gotten bored and decided to have a little fun by giving us the means of separating ourselves easily. Why have a peaceful, interwoven community, when you can have all those neat hatreds that come with differentiation;)

In all seriousness, if there was a guiding intelligence, then I cry foul. No more liquor before creation. The platypus, I rest my case.

mrussel1

02-06-2003, 01:53 PM

I don't understand how it's possible to believe that the Bible is a loving God's blueprint on how to live. Imagine for the moment that you have never heard of the Bible, and someone hands you a copy, and says, "This is a message from God. Read it, get to know the guy, and be sure to live by what he says in here."

First, I would feak out at the sheer size of the thing. Next, I would make sure I got the Oxford Study Bible, so I could have all those thousands of footnotes to actually understand it. And finally, I would spend the rest of my life trying to figure out what I was supposed to do about it. Which commandments to follow? Can I eat a ham sandwich or not? Should I be a farmer, or a shepherd? Why isn't there a convenient "Index of what to do?"

An omnipotent God could make the Bible any way he wants it. And since failing to get the message will send you to eternal hellfire, you would think a loving God would make it dirt simple to understand.

Humans have created IQ tests that use simple geometric patterns rather than word questions, so as to remove any bias caused by cultural associations or differences in language ability. Surely an omnipotent, omniscient being would be more fair than giving us one set of archaic books? At the very least, you wouldn't think there would be such emphasis on particular historical events and the plight of one group of people.

timbobagginsii

02-06-2003, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by williamwbishop

In all seriousness, if there was a guiding intelligence, then I cry foul. No more liquor before creation. The platypus, I rest my case.
Hey! a sense of humour does not drunkeness prove.

The argument:
As to your previous point. God would have set it up so a wide variety of people before the fall and so the negative traits of seperationalism wouldn't have been present. Or something like that.
Also the Bible doesn't say Adam and Eve were the only people God made. It is assumed that He made many different types of everything else, why not man and woman? The story then concentrates on the two that buggered things up royally. Just a thought.

What I think:
It's not worth fighting about, however. I believe God created the world, I have no idea how he did it but tend towards the evoloutionary method, you believe that he probably didn't, nobody will convince anyone else. Just my tuppen'orth.

Penrich

02-06-2003, 02:27 PM

Good points, mrussel1 ;) Let me add one more twist to your question though - suppose you were handed the Bible and the Quran, with no other information, and told to chose the correct one (assuming, just for the sake of this experiment, that one of them is correct)? Remember - you will burn for all enternity if you get it wrong...

Penrich

02-06-2003, 02:30 PM

Timbo, what are you doing here? I thought you were laying off religion threads ;) (or is this OK cos its an atheist thread?)

Penrich

02-06-2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by timbobagginsii
Hey! a sense of humour does not drunkeness prove.

The argument:
As to your previous point. God would have set it up so a wide variety of people before the fall and so the negative traits of seperationalism wouldn't have been present. Or something like that.
Also the Bible doesn't say Adam and Eve were the only people God made. It is assumed that He made many different types of everything else, why not man and woman? The story then concentrates on the two that buggered things up royally. Just a thought.

What I think:
It's not worth fighting about, however. I believe God created the world, I have no idea how he did it but tend towards the evoloutionary method, you believe that he probably didn't, nobody will convince anyone else. Just my tuppen'orth. A question here, if I may. I'm not sure exactly what the Bible says, but we seem to be forever told (by religous people, obviously) that all humans can be traced back to Adam and Eve. Don't all of the geaneologies in the Bible link everyone to them? Does it actually say that there were more people that that, or is this just an error of ommission?

timbobagginsii

02-06-2003, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Penrich
Timbo, what are you doing here? I thought you were laying off religion threads ;) (or is this OK cos its an atheist thread?)
I happen to think it to be an error of ommission. It's irrelevant anyway - after the flood wiped out everyone bar Noah and his sprogs and their wives the gene pool was reduced considerably.:)
Jesus's genealogy goes back through Noah, to Adam according to one gospel, but the other that mentions his birth at all only goes so far as Abraham.
I'm not sure if it actually says anywhere that all men are descended from Adam and Eve. But it does say that sin entered the world through one man (Adam) and was driven out by one man(Jesus).

I was meaning to leave off religion threads, but it seemed an oppurtunity for a hit and run was lying wide open. I took it and was proven wrong. That'll teach me.

linuxgeek

02-06-2003, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by williamwbishop
That is not the oldest surviving religion by a long shot. And it's easy to make prophecies come true, especially when you write them after they have already happened.;)

Considering they were written before, that's kinda hard... And actually Judeaism is the longest surviving religion. Sorry to burst your bubble.

linuxgeek

02-06-2003, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Penrich
A question here, if I may. I'm not sure exactly what the Bible says, but we seem to be forever told (by religous people, obviously) that all humans can be traced back to Adam and Eve. Don't all of the geaneologies in the Bible link everyone to them? Does it actually say that there were more people that that, or is this just an error of ommission?

Yes eveyone came from adam and eve. This actually can be proven. At least that all humans came from one female approximately 10,000 years ago. They traced DNA mutations back and were able to find this.

linuxgeek

02-06-2003, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by timbobagginsii
Also the Bible doesn't say Adam and Eve were the only people God made. It is assumed that He made many different types of everything else, why not man and woman? The story then concentrates on the two that buggered things up royally. Just a thought.

Actually it does. Adam was the only human at his time. He got lonely and so god created eve for him. They had children and so on and so fourth.

Penrich

02-06-2003, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by linuxgeek
Yes eveyone came from adam and eve. This actually can be proven. At least that all humans came from one female approximately 10,000 years ago. They traced DNA mutations back and were able to find this. PLEASE provide me with the reference for a published paper, in a peer-reviewed journal, that shows this. Don't worry, I have access to a Biomedical LIbrary, PubMed and InterLibrary Loan, so I can hold of virtually any scientific journal.

Penrich

02-06-2003, 07:35 PM

linuxgeek

02-06-2003, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by Penrich
PLEASE provide me with the reference for a published paper, in a peer-reviewed journal, that shows this. Don't worry, I have access to a Biomedical LIbrary, PubMed and InterLibrary Loan, so I can hold of virtually any scientific journal.

It was published in some evolution journal i beleive. I would have to do some researching to find it. If you really want it, i can try to find it in a few days, but im kinda busy to do it right now.

linuxgeek

02-06-2003, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Penrich
We had this already - look to the Guys in the Orange robes who accost people in airports...

/me is confused.........

gilligan8503

02-06-2003, 11:40 PM

let me rephrase what i stated earlier; i didnt mean to say "the bible was written in a room full of men" but "the multiple letters were compiled in a room full of men; these men picked what should and should not be included in the bible and then edited it" of course this sint saying that there is no god but that man tampered with the "evidence". i still stand by my agnosicism.

about "hell being worse than non-existence", i bed to differ. when in hell, although being "torchured", i can think, can realize who and what i am, where i am and can know i am "alive". non-existance is hard to grasp, its not like dreaming; its not like being unconsious and not like being a "vegitable".
this is time when i want to believe in reincarnation.

about everyone's dna being traced back to a single woman...this is "true". i alsdo read about this...we are all decendants from a single african woman. but this doesnt support either evolution or creation.

Penrich

02-07-2003, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by linuxgeek
/me is confused......... Hare Krishnas. The Lord Krsna is their God. Happens that their book was written about 1200 years before the Bible IIRC. That would make them older than Judao/Christian religions, wouldn't it? Seems to me that Christianity is a complete rip off of this religion anyway.

Penrich

02-07-2003, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by linuxgeek
It was published in some evolution journal i beleive. I would have to do some researching to find it. If you really want it, i can try to find it in a few days, but im kinda busy to do it right now. Please try, when you have time. Any clues to the title or authors would help me try find it on Medline.

<edit>?Something about "mitochondrial eve"? Hmmm let me go look</edit>

Penrich

02-07-2003, 12:53 AM

OK - I'm not at work, so I couldn't get to the original, but here is something on molecular eve that caught my eye:
Science 1995 Dec 22;270(5244):1930-6

The myth of Eve: molecular biology and human origins.

Ayala FJ.

University of California, Irvine, USA.

It has been proposed that modern humans descended from a single woman, the "mitochondrial Eve" who lived in Africa 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. The human immune system DRB1 genes are extremely polymorphic, with gene lineages that coalesce into an ancestor who lived around 60 million years ago, a time before the divergence of the apes from the Old World monkeys. The theory of gene coalescence suggests that, throughout the last 60 million years, human ancestral populations had an effective size of 100,000 individuals or greater. Molecular evolution data favor the African origin of modern humans, but the weight of the evidence is against a population bottleneck before their emergence. The mitochondrial Eve hypothesis emanates from a confusion between gene genealogies and individual genealogies.

PMID: 8533083 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

First - 100,000 years, not 10,000 which you pegged the age of the earth at from biblical sources in the other thread. Second, that was wrong anyway, and it should be more like 60 million years...

Let me guess what your answer will be...

...

...

...

Hmmm - methinks you will call the Intelligent Designer into play.

However, before you go there, I will denounce that card. This was your "evidence" for a single origin of human descent, being traced all the way back to Eve. So, if your evidence is wrong, then where does that leave poor Adam? He was 60 million years late for his date.

emetib

02-07-2003, 01:03 AM

is linuxgeek trying to double post? i think that we should report this to a moderator.

Penrich

02-07-2003, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by emetib
is linuxgeek trying to double post? i think that we should report this to a moderator. No - we just got TWO of these darn threads going. Its hard enough providing Jam and Biscuits for everyone in one thread, let alone two. I say combine them!

williamwbishop

02-07-2003, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by linuxgeek
Considering they were written before, that's kinda hard... And actually Judeaism is the longest surviving religion. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Oh, pray tell! Where, oh young rash child, where is your evidence? Please cite for me a single resource that proves that judaism predates zoraster, or any of the old religions. Hell, even krishna. Please show me evidence where judaism predates older religions that are still active. I'll be waiting with bated breath. I also think you might want to look into chinese history, there are several there that also fit the bill. Along with india, japan, russia and dare I say it....America.

williamwbishop

02-07-2003, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by linuxgeek
It was published in some evolution journal i beleive. I would have to do some researching to find it. If you really want it, i can try to find it in a few days, but im kinda busy to do it right now.

I think we will all be waiting. Don't forget....Because we won't.;)

williamwbishop

02-07-2003, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by gilligan8503
let me rephrase what i stated earlier; i didnt mean to say "the bible was written in a room full of men" but "the multiple letters were compiled in a room full of men; these men picked what should and should not be included in the bible and then edited it" of course this sint saying that there is no god but that man tampered with the "evidence". i still stand by my agnosicism.

about "hell being worse than non-existence", i bed to differ. when in hell, although being "torchured", i can think, can realize who and what i am, where i am and can know i am "alive". non-existance is hard to grasp, its not like dreaming; its not like being unconsious and not like being a "vegitable".
this is time when i want to believe in reincarnation.

about everyone's dna being traced back to a single woman...this is "true". i alsdo read about this...we are all decendants from a single african woman. but this doesnt support either evolution or creation.

No, you are thinking about the fossil of the african female (damn what did they name her, I forget? Lisa or betty or something like that iirc) that was dated back 3.5 million years. The journal published that she was human, as all DNA in current man was alike. That does not mean she was eve.People just read into the headline on the front of the journal without reading the article. A nice link if you get curious about historical man would be http://www.nyps.org/news-anthro.htm
It is a anthropology source that is bar none, probably the best site around. Back to the topic, that just means that she was human. They have found half a dozen hominids since, some older, some newer, but they are all telling. They are our ancestors. They are a step or two before us, but they are human. We humans have left several examples of our evolution, fossil records of some more "pronounced" changes over the eons.

edit: just saw pens reply with the mitocchonrial article, I hope that's not what he was talking about. That is not even what the article is saying, as you pointed out. When will people learn to stop reading the headlines and not read the articles?

williamwbishop

02-07-2003, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Penrich
Hare Krishnas. The Lord Krsna is their God. Happens that their book was written about 1200 years before the Bible IIRC. That would make them older than Judao/Christian religions, wouldn't it? Seems to me that Christianity is a complete rip off of this religion anyway.

1200 years is conservative, as both judaism and krishna, as were all abrahamic religions were offshoots of zoraster, which is still practiced today is some areas. All of these are infants though if you look at some of the chinese religions in outlaying areas(not buddhism, taoism, or hinduism mind you, those are not only newer, they are not even religions, but paths of life).

I am constantly in amazement how little linuxgeek knows about the world he lives in.

williamwbishop

02-07-2003, 07:37 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1108413.stm

And I think that link should show nicely, just how ridiculous was the supposition of the mitochondrial article was.

gilligan8503

02-07-2003, 08:34 AM

All of these are infants though if you look at some of the chinese religions in outlaying areas(not buddhism, taoism, or hinduism mind you, those are not only newer, they are not even religions, but paths of life).

actually, they are religions.
i know what you are referring to and yes i thought they were NOT religions also. i know for a fact that buddhism is a religion, most worship buddha, not just live their life by him.

linuxgeek

02-07-2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by williamwbishop
Oh, pray tell! Where, oh young rash child, where is your evidence? Please cite for me a single resource that proves that judaism predates zoraster, or any of the old religions. Hell, even krishna. Please show me evidence where judaism predates older religions that are still active. I'll be waiting with bated breath. I also think you might want to look into chinese history, there are several there that also fit the bill. Along with india, japan, russia and dare I say it....America.

Considering Judeaism was being practiced at babel, the oldest civilization, it would have to be the oldest. Besides i've never even heard of zoraster or krishna. They must not be very active anywhere around here.....

linuxgeek

02-07-2003, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by gilligan8503
actually, they are religions.
i know what you are referring to and yes i thought they were NOT religions also. i know for a fact that buddhism is a religion, most worship buddha, not just live their life by him.

Depending on which version of buddhism. Like zen buddhism worship him, but other branches just follow the teachings.

linuxgeek

02-07-2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by williamwbishop
1200 years is conservative, as both judaism and krishna, as were all abrahamic religions were offshoots of zoraster, which is still practiced today is some areas. All of these are infants though if you look at some of the chinese religions in outlaying areas(not buddhism, taoism, or hinduism mind you, those are not only newer, they are not even religions, but paths of life).

I am constantly in amazement how little linuxgeek knows about the world he lives in.

And where's your proof they are offshoots? I can't wait to see this one.

Penrich

02-07-2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by linuxgeek
Considering Judeaism was being practiced at babel, the oldest civilization, it would have to be the oldest. Besides i've never even heard of zoraster or krishna. They must not be very active anywhere around here..... Just because you have never heard of something, does not mean it isn't real! Ignorance is no excuse.

Edit - and your evidence for Babel being the oldest civilization would be...

carlywarly

02-07-2003, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by linuxgeek
Considering Judeaism was being practiced at babel, the oldest civilization, it would have to be the oldest. Besides i've never even heard of zoraster or krishna. They must not be very active anywhere around here.....

How about animalism? Would you consider it to be a religion? It dates from the paleolithic age - before you believe the earth was even created, so you can't get much older than that can you?;)

williamwbishop

02-07-2003, 11:35 AM

linuxgeek

02-07-2003, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by emetib
is linuxgeek trying to double post? i think that we should report this to a moderator.

I didn't start this thread bud.

linuxgeek

02-07-2003, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by carlywarly
How about animalism? Would you consider it to be a religion? It dates from the paleolithic age - before you believe the earth was even created, so you can't get much older than that can you?;)

Considering i don't think that earth was created at this time, then no, i don't think that it happened.

linuxgeek

02-07-2003, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Penrich
Just because you have never heard of something, does not mean it isn't real! Ignorance is no excuse.

Edit - and your evidence for Babel being the oldest civilization would be...

That's what we learned in history class. Not that i'm saying that public education is very useful, but hey it's good enough for something like that. But as far as i know that's the oldest civilization that has been discovered.

Then give me info on them, where they were practiced, when, and who practiced it.

Penrich

02-07-2003, 07:55 PM

williamwbishop

02-08-2003, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by linuxgeek
That's what we learned in history class. Not that i'm saying that public education is very useful, but hey it's good enough for something like that. But as far as i know that's the oldest civilization that has been discovered.

Then give me info on them, where they were practiced, when, and who practiced it.

Are you kidding? Number one, babel is not a true entity. Even the fundies are trying to pass the tower off as a ziggurat because they have no evidence at all. The town did not even exist. Babylon did, but it's archaeoglogical record differs widely from that of the bible. How do you expect to make it through life if you accept whatever B.S. you hear as defacto? Please read a little before you post, as almost every post you enter has wild conjecture and more than a little taste of ignorance. You want old for the middle east, you are going to be looking at Ur. You want old, in comparison to the world? China. You seriously need to study some history.

williamwbishop

02-08-2003, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Penrich
Did you not study cavemen at all? Stone age man, bronze age, iron age... What exactly did they teach you in History?

I don' think he was listening in class. He probably thinks all of the fossils and remnants of ancient man's life are things planted by satan.:rolleyes: He seems to have absolutely no concept of history, geography, science or any other academic pursuit. I think he literally thinks the bible is an infallible piece "God" created work. I think, furthermore, that we waste our time with him. :(

williamwbishop

02-09-2003, 04:07 AM

bump, religion on top....

gilligan8503

02-09-2003, 11:52 AM

linuxgeek now falls into the catagory i place other people such as flat-earthers (still believe the earth is flat).

maybe i over-looked it or his answer was so blunt i couldnt figure it out but, why do you believe the earth is so young? you are surrounded by facts and yet you push those away and pull closer your beloved god. be "open-minded". i dispise close-minded people and wish them all to be dragged in the middle of the street and shot.

the only reason i can think of that would lead you to believe the earth was so young is the "salt in the ocean" theory. if you dont even know what that is, back up your "young earth".

gilligan8503

02-09-2003, 11:54 AM

by the way, linuxgeek lives in the united states (as me) and trust me, in the united states, you learn what the WANT you to learn.

this is my experience so i have studied things on my own. textbooks and teachers are overrated (expecially in the U.S. of A.).

Tempus77

02-10-2003, 01:17 AM

Are you kidding? Number one, babel is not a true entity. Even the fundies are trying to pass the tower off as a ziggurat because they have no evidence at all. The town did not even exist. Babylon did, but it's archaeoglogical record differs widely from that of the bible. How do you expect to make it through life if you accept whatever B.S. you hear as defacto? Please read a little before you post, as almost every post you enter has wild conjecture and more than a little taste of ignorance. You want old for the middle east, you are going to be looking at Ur. You want old, in comparison to the world? China. You seriously need to study some history.

williamwbishop, u're absolutely right.........China is the oldest civilisation on earth...........5000 years of history, i'm wondering how that works out??? :confused:

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by Tempus77
williamwbishop, u're absolutely right.........China is the oldest civilisation on earth...........5000 years of history, i'm wondering how that works out??? :confused:

Don't know the direction you are referring too, but yes china is something indeed. They had civilization, and writing, when most of the world was in wattle mud houses.

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 02:12 AM

Not many people even realize what china is. For 4,000 years, they have had dynasties, a rather complex social construct. They have had written history for at least that long, if not longer. IIRC the first dynasty, the xia was a bronze age civlization of epic proportions. Assuming they did not spring into creation and civilization with the first dyanasty(there is usually a period of time leading up to any construct of such a magnitude, we could easily estimate that their culture is at least 5500 years old(civiliziation) and that is not even counting the time before they had a broad communications base, when all that existed were small villages and the like(one must realize that cities like london did not simply come into being in an eyeblink, but rather that it was once a village, hundreds of years before it became a true city). To me, china is the ultimate history excavation. People don't realize how ahead of their time they were. They had a 12 month calendar 2000years before ours was constructed. They had working printing presses, gunpowder, ice cream, and many hundreds of other things....when most of the world were still in rude hunter gatherer or early farming constructs.

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 02:18 AM

An interesting thing occurred to me, while I was talking with one of our illustrious members in private. I asked him to name two religions, both of them are flaky as hell...to name these two religions that will one day be of the same size as christianity. One is brand new, it is a fledgling and more a joke than anything, but I tell you that one day people will truly believe such a thing. The other has been around only since the 70's but is already very strong, and very dangerous. I wanted him to tell me these two religions so that he would realize that you must be careful of religion, because the people who create them never believe in them, they create them for other reasons. I was wondering if anyone would like to take a stab at it. These are both western religions, there are many others that are newly made each year, but most fail. In their creation, we can watch christianity's birth, as well as the birth of every religion that now exists. You can see the reasoning behind creation. Well, anyway, on with the show. Take your guesses please.

Tempus77

02-10-2003, 02:18 AM

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by Tempus77
wow........i'm impressed.............is there any chinese blood in u by the way? :)

Chinese history has always intrigued me.......i've been reading it up for years..........

No, I am of scottish and american descent(if there ever was such a thing). But history is an amazing tool, it allows you to see the world now through the lens of the past.

timbobagginsii

02-10-2003, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by williamwbishop
An interesting thing occurred to me, while I was talking with one of our illustrious members in private. I asked him to name two religions, both of them are flaky as hell...to name these two religions that will one day be of the same size as christianity. One is brand new, it is a fledgling and more a joke than anything, but I tell you that one day people will truly believe such a thing. The other has been around only since the 70's but is already very strong, and very dangerous. I wanted him to tell me these two religions so that he would realize that you must be careful of religion, because the people who create them never believe in them, they create them for other reasons. I was wondering if anyone would like to take a stab at it. These are both western religions, there are many others that are newly made each year, but most fail. In their creation, we can watch christianity's birth, as well as the birth of every religion that now exists. You can see the reasoning behind creation. Well, anyway, on with the show. Take your guesses please.
The JWs or possibly the organised side of the New Age belief system for the flaky one. Scientology is the dangerously controlling one.

Tempus77

02-10-2003, 02:38 AM

yeah, i would say Scientology too......no idea about the other one though.........i guess in my part of the world, we don't get new religions very often.......:p

but i'd attended a Scientology session while studying in Australia, and i came away from that session thinking that it's a "religion" meant only for those who're financially capable and willing to spend on their religion...........and most of what Scientology stood for is pretty much common sense.........nothing new that isn't in the other religions.............i find it kinda silly anyway, how worshippers would pay hundreds for an "auditing" session........

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 02:41 AM

Good call on one Tim, Scientology is one. Created by a man, with the purpose of control. I will leave the other one up for discussion. It is relatively new in it's religion phase, but I should think those of you in the U.K should know it better than anyone. Welcome to the creation of religion 101. Our next class will be social metrics, a 200 level class.

timbobagginsii

02-10-2003, 02:44 AM

The other one: is it those guys who're cloning people left right and centre and claim that they're the offspring of yet more aliens?

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by timbobagginsii
The other one: is it those guys who're cloning people left right and centre and claim that they're the offspring of yet more aliens?

No, this one is so laughable you would think there is no way people would follow it.

timbobagginsii

02-10-2003, 02:47 AM

The Holy Revelation of David Icke?
Nothing we've made up here?
<Brain Melts>

ps your PM inbox is still full.
I've emailed you.

timbobagginsii

02-10-2003, 02:47 AM

Or are you talking about soccer?

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by timbobagginsii
The Holy Revelation of David Icke?
Nothing we've made up here?
<Brain Melts>

ps your PM inbox is still full.
I've emailed you.

I don't know how to get it any emptier. I wonder if it saves to a trash folder and just won't allow me to empty it. :(

Reading the email, will take me a bit, building a box too.

timbobagginsii

02-10-2003, 02:50 AM

Post in the forum bugs section.

And tell me the answer, dognabbit!

Tempus77

02-10-2003, 02:52 AM

The other one: is it those guys who're cloning people left right and centre and claim that they're the offspring of yet more aliens?

that's the Raelian Movement right? It's a religion???

Or are you talking about soccer?

Soccer's age old...........although there're probably tons of blokes in UK who think of it as a religion...........:p

timbobagginsii

02-10-2003, 02:55 AM

Yup, the Raelians were the group who I couldn't remember the name of. If it's not a religion already then it's working as hard as it can on it.

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 02:57 AM

Decent guesses, but this one is even further out there. This one is from a science fiction also(just like dyanetics). It is in it's infancy now, and it will take decades before it hits the point where scientology levels, but it will.

Tempus77

02-10-2003, 03:05 AM

wait, let me hazard a wild guess.......is it Eckankar, the religion of the light and sound of god??

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by Tempus77
wait, let me hazard a wild guess.......is it Eckankar, the religion of the light and sound of god??

No...I give. It's the jedi religion. If you can believe that.

timbobagginsii

02-10-2003, 03:06 AM

Oh, the census myth.

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by timbobagginsii
Oh, the census myth.

Aye it's a myth with the census, but the fact that there are people motivated to create this thing, necessitates that it will happen eventually.

Tempus77

02-10-2003, 03:10 AM

No...I give. It's the jedi religion. If you can believe that.

hahahaha....the wat?? is it for real? :p

timbobagginsii

02-10-2003, 03:13 AM

Back when the last census was taken, it buzzed round the internet that if a certain number of people put "Jedi" as their religion on their census forms then the government would have to recognise it as an official religion. Complete pish (note lack of rudery) of course, but the frightening thing is that that amount of folks actually did enter "Jedi" under the religion field.

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by Tempus77
hahahaha....the wat?? is it for real? :p

Yes, it is beginning. Here in the states it is a growing concern. I imagine in other areas it is worse still. I still remember the whole camelot thing of a few years ago. That was scary.

Tempus77

02-10-2003, 03:25 AM

erm.......ok...........fortunately, no such thing is happening in my part of the world. :D

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 03:32 AM

The point is that humans will find something that appeals to them and create a religion of it. They will do it and the subject can be totally silly(i.e. jedi, or dyanetics, or what have you) but when a hundred thousand people follow it, for some reason it doesn't seem as silly. How many million people follow the hubbard crap? And it is totally asinine! But if you look at the bible, or any other religious entity, if you look on them with a practiced eye, with no preconceptions...then you can see where they came from. You can see their infancy, their growing...you can see the life cycle of a religion. People give it credence because it's really old. Hubbards religion has been around less than half a century and already it is a force to be reckoned with. He did that by finding what made each of the popular religions appealing and combined all of those things into one religion. People are sheep you understand, and a lot of people feel the need to have something in common with others. Religion is an easy turnkey solution to that. You suddenly have a set of friends, family, beliefs, concerns, and a loving overseer, in one nice pretty package. Look at things, and see how they grow. Filter it with history, and then look around you.

Tempus77

02-10-2003, 03:40 AM

i agree........but religions such as Scientology.....it's not a religion possible for the average person.........u have to pay for this, and u have to pay for that...........it seems more like a therapy practice to me. And many of these new age religions popping up nowadays are just common sense.........their values and morals are drawn from the older faiths..........although i do not place my faith in any religion, if i had to pick one, i'd go for Buddhism any day.

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by Tempus77
i agree........but religions such as Scientology.....it's not a religion possible for the average person.........u have to pay for this, and u have to pay for that...........it seems more like a therapy practice to me. And many of these new age religions popping up nowadays are just common sense.........their values and morals are drawn from the older faiths..........although i do not place my faith in any religion, if i had to pick one, i'd go for Buddhism any day.

But what happens to scientology when they decide they want to now expand further, when they decide to do as the catholics? You have to realize that all religions start out their lives insular. But eventually, it grows to a size too large for the ones who would control it, and it becomes essentially public domain. For the catholics, it was when everyone could access the book and read it for themselves. True, this cost a lot of members who could now think for themselves, but it opened it up to the public. Gasoline on a fire. What happens when those who run the scientology scene grow old and die, when those who replace them decide to become altruistic, and give the religion to the world. I tell you that it will dominate. It is too appealing not to. Imagine it, the best of every religion, combined into a single religion. It is only monstrous to us now because we saw it's beginnings, because we know what they have done to protect their position and monies. But what about 3 generations from now, when it is no longer the cardinals in small rooms deciding how they should direct their members, but when there are rogue preachers of scientology? What will happen then. No one realizes the danger. No one sees the next catholic church coming. It takes centuries to properly raise a religion, and this one at an amount of time when the catholic church didn't even have a complete document to preach from!

Tempus77

02-10-2003, 04:06 AM

hmmm....i wouldn't actually say that it is the best of all religions combined into one.......looking at most of what Scientology stands for, its creator had obviously not considered asian religions when drafting up the values of Scientology..........i would say it's the best of western religions combined into one........not all religions.

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by Tempus77
hmmm....i wouldn't actually say that it is the best of all religions combined into one.......looking at most of what Scientology stands for, its creator had obviously not considered asian religions when drafting up the values of Scientology..........i would say it's the best of western religions combined into one........not all religions.

No, you will find zen buddhism and taoism included.

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 04:09 AM

Tempus77

02-10-2003, 04:16 AM

No, you will find zen buddhism and taoism included.

Zen buddhism is a spin-off of Buddhism itself..........and what about Shintoism? Taoism also exists in many various forms, and each has different values? Despite recent issues with Islam, it does contain some benevolent values? And what about Hinduism, and many more other asian religions i'm not aware of?

Also, u're wrong to say that it already has a strong influence. It is true that it has a growing influence in the US and several parts of Europe, but it is almost virtually unknown in Asia, and many other parts of the world.......some past efforts to bring Scientology into Asia have failed terribly...........how many Scientology churches are there in Asia? Hardly any.............there're many in Europe and US.........even a cruise ship as a church??!! (what kinda religion has that).

The closest Scientology church to where i live is situated in Sydney..........that is more than 5000 miles from where i live. :D

and i'm happy things are the way they are........Scientology should remain in Europe and in US. we're doing fine over in Asia and don't need another religion. :)

Tempus77

02-10-2003, 04:22 AM

But I made my point. It WILL grow to a world wide religion, in decades...not centuries or millenia. Anybody that this doens't scare is deluded. All religions are dangerous in the hands of groups, but this one to me has an underlying evil that should not be ignored. It is too easy to use for mis-deed.

I'm actually not too worried about this........as Scientology isn't really cut out for asians if u take a really close look at it, hence the reason why it's not popular in Asia and may never be. Asians will always remains asians (superstitious, stingy maybe??).......we have always felt the need to believe in gods, or make gods out of past legends............Scientology's lack of a visible godly figure and its underlying monetary motives will not attract asians to it.

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by Tempus77
I'm actually not too worried about this........as Scientology isn't really cut out for asians if u take a really close look at it, hence the reason why it's not popular in Asia and may never be. Asians will always remains asians (superstitious, stingy maybe??).......we have always felt the need to believe in gods, or make gods out of past legends............Scientology's lack of a visible godly figure and its underlying monetary motives will not attract asians to it.

No one thought catholicism would work in asia either. A single god? Shame put on sex, which is a perfectly natural thing? No divorce? One spouse(do they see the tai-tai as the wife, and what about the others)? No one thought it would catch on at all. But 300 years will make inroads where no one thought they could go.

Tempus77

02-10-2003, 04:50 AM

No one thought catholicism would work in asia either. A single god? Shame put on sex, which is a perfectly natural thing? No divorce? One spouse(do they see the tai-tai as the wife, and what about the others)? No one thought it would catch on at all. But 300 years will make inroads where no one thought they could go.

u made a good point......it might catch on, it might not.....who knows? we definitely won't be around then to find out. :p

Also, earth will have to be able to last 300 years first............right now, i'm not too optimistic about that............what with this planet fast running out of natural resources, and pollution is on the rise, etc etc etc..........

besides, Catholicism, although now widely accepted, is hardly as widespread as Buddhism, Taoism, Islam and Hinduism......thousands of years of evolution, and the roots of these religions stay firm. I would say that even a couple of hundreds of years from now, Scientology might be as widely accepted as Catholicism in Asia, but it will not topple the 4 main religions...........the people will not allow it. :)

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by Tempus77
u made a good point......it might catch on, it might not.....who knows? we definitely won't be around then to find out. :p

Also, earth will have to be able to last 300 years first............right now, i'm not too optimistic about that............what with this planet fast running out of natural resources, and pollution is on the rise, etc etc etc..........

besides, Catholicism, although now widely accepted, is hardly as widespread as Buddhism, Taoism, Islam and Hinduism......thousands of years of evolution, and the roots of these religions stay firm. I would say that even a couple of hundreds of years from now, Scientology might be as widely accepted as Catholicism in Asia, but it will not topple the 4 main religions...........the people will not allow it. :)

There was an old saying "How many buddhists does it take to burn a village", answer? "all of them, and still it will not be done". How many catholics does it take? "1, and he will laugh the whole time". I think it has multiple meanings, but I only get the surface one. My thought is that the western religions have a tendency to be greater than their numbers, by virtue of having a mass of people willing to do what to most is unthinkable. Give me 10 men who are willing to kill, versus a thousand that will not...That kind of thing.

Tempus77

02-10-2003, 05:05 AM

very true..........i'm an asian, and live amongst asians....and those were my thoughts as well as those of my parents and my friends.

I suppose it really boils down to race..........no matter how much closer the world becomes, how the barriers are broken between the races, ultimately, a person will do only what he/she is comfortable with........we accept what we grow up with, asian values, religions, etc.......hence Shintoism remains the no. 1 religion in Japan, and Taoism in Taiwan, etc etc.........asians are more receptive towards an asian religion simply because it is asian, and has asian values and roots, and more importantly, asian deities.............that is something no western religion will be able to compete with.

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by Tempus77
very true..........i'm an asian, and live amongst asians....and those were my thoughts as well as those of my parents and my friends.

I suppose it really boils down to race..........no matter how much closer the world becomes, how the barriers are broken between the races, ultimately, a person will do only what he/she is comfortable with........we accept what we grow up with, asian values, religions, etc.......hence Shintoism remains the no. 1 religion in Japan, and Taoism in Taiwan, etc etc.........asians are more receptive towards an asian religion simply because it is asian, and has asian values and roots, and more importantly, asian deities.............that is something no western religion will be able to compete with.

True, but if things were done differently Japan would be entirely catholic now if it weren't for the popes refusal for special dispensation for the divorce thing in the 1800's. It's rigid caste system of the time, would have converted the entire nation in a single generation. Fortunately for the world, such a people of fanatic ideals did not convert, but for that simple reason. Divorce, a perfectly reasonable thing, and quite civilized, is still forbidden in the catholic system. It only takes one rock in a river to change it's course. Count your blessings such a rock was not placed in your homelands river earlier, but don't count on it not falling in sometime during the future.

Tempus77

02-10-2003, 05:20 AM

hmmm.....i doubt it though, i live in Singapore, which is more liberal and far less superstitious than many of the other asian countries, and we have a huge mix of religions here...........Christianity and Catholicism are very widely popular here, especially amongst the young......but still, even some of the Christians and Catholics go to temples on special occasions.......how do u explain that? :)

divorce itself is not acceptable in Japan's society.......if a working professional divorces his wife, he is frowned upon by his company and his colleagues, and he may find that his corporate ladder in the company just got many more steps added..........I'm not sure about Catholicism not allowing divorces though.........

In Taiwan and China, it's worse........they're so religious that temples are literally littered everywhere........they have deities in the office where they pray to..........the police is a classic example, they pray to a diety by the name of "Guan Gong" before they leave their offices for any assignments.

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by Tempus77
hmmm.....i doubt it though, i live in Singapore, which is more liberal and far less superstitious than many of the other asian countries, and we have a huge mix of religions here...........Christianity and Catholicism are very widely popular here, especially amongst the young......but still, even some of the Christians and Catholics go to temples on special occasions.......how do u explain that? :)

divorce itself is not acceptable in Japan's society.......if a working professional divorces his wife, he is frowned upon by his company and his colleagues, and he may find that his corporate ladder in the company just got many more steps added..........I'm not sure about Catholicism not allowing divorces though.........

Catholicism does not allow divorce without the special dispensation from the holy church. Japan, did allow divorce, even going so far as to allow women to be the initiator. Of course this was 200 years ago, I do not know what social stigma is attached to it now. The emperor sent to rome for the vaticans approval at the behest of the daimyos, but it was not approved. While it is true that asian deities have always been and are still largely followed today, you have to recognize that the western religions have made terrible impacts on them in several asian countries. And this in only a couple hundred years. In these couple centuries, they have hacked away at deities that have been worshipped for millenia. It is not as impossible as you think, and I am saddened by your eventual loss of culture, which comes from conversion to another state religion. Perhaps singapore will stand apart from the western religions that seek to dominate. Who can know? Joss, bad or good is still joss. Perhaps asia will manage to hold out until all of this silliness of religious struggle is passed. I have hope for the chinese, they plan so far in advance, that all things are fads to them. In my experience, asian followers, while understanding that deities have their place, do not hold them above reproach and I have known many a chinese to laugh about their family god. I think most understand that it is superstition, while wanting to keep it as a comfort.

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 05:42 AM

Singapore you say? Is it as clean as I have heard? You hear very little about it in the world today, last big thing was the Fay kid who only got 6 lashes, when he should have gotten 60. I never understood them not wanting him to be punished. He stole, he vandalized like 20 cars, destroyed property. And the punishment was only 6 strokes? True it is painful, but when you commit a crime, you must expect some return on it. The media portrayed america as outraged, when everyone I know thought he got off far to lightly.

Tempus77

02-10-2003, 05:59 AM

Originally posted by williamwbishop
Catholicism does not allow divorce without the special dispensation from the holy church. Japan, did allow divorce, even going so far as to allow women to be the initiator. Of course this was 200 years ago, I do not know what social stigma is attached to it now. The emperor sent to rome for the vaticans approval at the behest of the daimyos, but it was not approved. While it is true that asian deities have always been and are still largely followed today, you have to recognize that the western religions have made terrible impacts on them in several asian countries. And this in only a couple hundred years. In these couple centuries, they have hacked away at deities that have been worshipped for millenia. It is not as impossible as you think, and I am saddened by your eventual loss of culture, which comes from conversion to another state religion. Perhaps singapore will stand apart from the western religions that seek to dominate. Who can know? Joss, bad or good is still joss. Perhaps asia will manage to hold out until all of this silliness of religious struggle is passed. I have hope for the chinese, they plan so far in advance, that all things are fads to them. In my experience, asian followers, while understanding that deities have their place, do not hold them above reproach and I have known many a chinese to laugh about their family god. I think most understand that it is superstition, while wanting to keep it as a comfort.

that is absolutely true..............you seem to know the chinese quite well.............my my, i do enjoy conversations with u......u're very much unlike many of the others in the JL community, who seem to lose their cool when others disagree with them, or resort to using crude or insulting tones.

I do pray to my family's choice of deities, more out of filial piety and responsibility to my family than for faith...........as do many of my friends....and we do laugh about it sometimes........but the good thing about asian deities is that, some of them were actually real living humans a couple of hundreds of years ago.....and their achievements and feats inspired many to worship them as gods.............now, that i can't say the same for Christianity or Catholicism.

Tempus77

02-10-2003, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by williamwbishop
Singapore you say? Is it as clean as I have heard? You hear very little about it in the world today, last big thing was the Fay kid who only got 6 lashes, when he should have gotten 60. I never understood them not wanting him to be punished. He stole, he vandalized like 20 cars, destroyed property. And the punishment was only 6 strokes? True it is painful, but when you commit a crime, you must expect some return on it. The media portrayed america as outraged, when everyone I know thought he got off far to lightly.

yes, it is very clean..........u'll very rarely see vandalized structures here.......and it is very popular with western tourists, especially the brits. the culture here is extremely diverse, and u can find all the races in the world here..........:p

yup........Fay actually got off lightly because there were protests by the US government on the Singapore government giving him any form of punishment..........US had then insisted that he should be punished back in US or something like that..........

mrBen

02-10-2003, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by Tempus77
.but the good thing about asian deities is that, some of them were actually real living humans a couple of hundreds of years ago.....and their achievements and feats inspired many to worship them as gods.............now, that i can't say the same for Christianity or Catholicism.

*cough* Jesus *cough*

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by Tempus77
yes, it is very clean..........u'll very rarely see vandalized structures here.......and it is very popular with western tourists, especially the brits. the culture here is extremely diverse, and u can find all the races in the world here..........:p

yup........Fay actually got off lightly because there were protests by the US government on the Singapore government giving him any form of punishment..........US had then insisted that he should be punished back in US or something like that..........

This I don't understand. The punishment was not that severe, considering what he did(and most americans were not told all of what he did and they still wanted him to get caned). I think most people thought it only fair that he receive such a punishment, and many thought that america could use more of it(which is true). But politicians? What are you going to do? They are disease brained fools for the most part. None would be great, or risk his place for anything, thus they support crap such as that. I think the institution of caning here in the states would definately help matters. The crime rate is out of control. Just outside our office cars get broken into on a weekly basis. We are not two miles from the police central station, or the jail. And our county is mild, in a mild state. We have a low crime rate compared to a lot of places. But nightly there is news of a shooting, or a hit and run, drug busts... While I do not want to see the institution of too rigid a punishment system(middle east) I would like to see some actual punishment doled out on occasion. But, what can you do? It is the times we live in.

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by mrBen
*cough* Jesus *cough*

*cough*krishna*cough*

He's speaking about real individuals, not fictitious characters. Great people, not dreams.

Tempus77

02-10-2003, 06:25 AM

This I don't understand. The punishment was not that severe, considering what he did(and most americans were not told all of what he did and they still wanted him to get caned). I think most people thought it only fair that he receive such a punishment, and many thought that america could use more of it(which is true). But politicians? What are you going to do? They are disease brained fools for the most part. None would be great, or risk his place for anything, thus they support crap such as that. I think the institution of caning here in the states would definately help matters. The crime rate is out of control. Just outside our office cars get broken into on a weekly basis. We are not two miles from the police central station, or the jail. And our county is mild, in a mild state. We have a low crime rate compared to a lot of places. But nightly there is news of a shooting, or a hit and run, drug busts... While I do not want to see the institution of too rigid a punishment system(middle east) I would like to see some actual punishment doled out on occasion. But, what can you do? It is the times we live in.

Yes, such are the times we live in...........here where i live, the crime rates are much much lower as compared to the US.....guns are outlawed here, which is a good thing............but then there're so many more restrictions as well...........Singapore is actually one of the most restricted countries...........but there're upsides of course.....such as low crime rates, etc.

Tempus77

02-10-2003, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by mrBen
*cough* Jesus *cough*

someone obviously didn't read my post properly before trying a tongue-in-cheek reply........:p

i was referring to people who actually lived........Taoist gods like "Guan Gong" and "Zhao Yun" who were the 2 greatest generals to have lived during China's era of the 3 warring states. Living people.........flesh and blood, proof of living, get it??

As for proof of Jesus, i don't even wanna start on it anymore.......it's a stale topic already.

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 06:37 AM

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 06:38 AM

So what is the story of singapore. How is your history? I would have to assume your climate to be near tropical(read hot and muggy), but what about the rest? What are your families like, your people. What is the makeup of your land?

Tempus77

02-10-2003, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by williamwbishop
So what is the story of singapore. How is your history? I would have to assume your climate to be near tropical(read hot and muggy), but what about the rest? What are your families like, your people. What is the makeup of your land?

small island (real small, even smaller than Hawaii), 4 million++ people..........the history of Singapore started in 1819, we only gained our independence some 30+ years ago.......real hot (read summer all year round)...........i'm of chinese descent. Singapore's population is extremely diverse and made up of many races......the chinese are the majority though, but the other major races are the malays, the indians, the caucasians....then there're minorities like the japanese, pakistanis, etc.......unlike most of the western countries, Singapore has many highrise buildings, and i mean MANY. it's how we make use of whatever scarce land we can afford.......oh, another thing: all Singaporean male citizens have to serve in the military for a compulsory period of 2 to 2.5 years depending on your academic qualifications. The enlistment usually takes place between the time when u're 18 to 20 years old..........I did 2.5 years in a highly confidential military unit, and am glad it's over and done with.

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by Tempus77
small island (real small, even smaller than Hawaii), 4 million++ people..........the history of Singapore started in 1819, we only gained our independence some 30+ years ago.......real hot (read summer all year round)...........i'm of chinese descent. Singapore's population is extremely diverse and made up of many races......the chinese are the majority though, but the other major races are the malays, the indians, the caucasians....then there're minorities like the japanese, pakistanis, etc.......unlike most of the western countries, Singapore has many highrise buildings, and i mean MANY. it's how we make use of whatever scarce land we can afford.......oh, another thing: all Singaporean male citizens have to serve in the military for a compulsory period of 2 to 2.5 years depending on your academic qualifications. The enlistment usually takes place between the time when u're 18 to 20 years old..........I did 2.5 years in a highly confidential military unit, and am glad it's over and done with.

Compulsory military is not as common as it once was, I only know of a handful of nations who still use it. Surprising.

mrBen

02-10-2003, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by Tempus77
someone obviously didn't read my post properly before trying a tongue-in-cheek reply........:p

i was referring to people who actually lived........Taoist gods like "Guan Gong" and "Zhao Yun" who were the 2 greatest generals to have lived during China's era of the 3 warring states. Living people.........flesh and blood, proof of living, get it??

As for proof of Jesus, i don't even wanna start on it anymore.......it's a stale topic already.

Sorry - hadn't read your tongue-in-cheek.

(Also haven't read serious historian who doubts that there was a person called Jesus who lived approx 2000 years ago, regardless of what you believe he was - but lets not go there - I don't have time to read all the previous posts, and you probably don't want to hear my $0.02)

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by mrBen
Sorry - hadn't read your tongue-in-cheek.

(Also haven't read serious historian who doubts that there was a person called Jesus who lived approx 2000 years ago, regardless of what you believe he was - but lets not go there - I don't have time to read all the previous posts, and you probably don't want to hear my $0.02)

I'd always like to hear differing opinons. The question is not whether or not yeshua al bin existed, but whether or not he lived the life ascribed to him in the new testament. Apologies, but his story is a rip off of the krishna who was concieved of a virgin woman by a holy spirit, where three wise men were led to his birth by a star, giving him gifts, whereupon they fled the tyrannical dictator who was having all infant males killed to avoid a prophecy, who grew up to be a teacher, perform many miracles and later to be exectuted and seen later to ascend into heaven. Story seems kind of familiar doesn't it?

mrBen

02-10-2003, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by williamwbishop
I'd always like to hear differing opinons. The question is not whether or not yeshua al bin existed, but whether or not he lived the life ascribed to him in the new testament. Apologies, but his story is a rip off of the krishna who was concieved of a virgin woman by a holy spirit, where three wise men were led to his birth by a star, giving him gifts, whereupon they fled the tyrannical dictator who was having all infant males killed to avoid a prophecy, who grew up to be a teacher, perform many miracles and later to be exectuted and seen later to ascend into heaven. Story seems kind of familiar doesn't it?

Ah, but given the differing historians who confirm his life (not just his birth) - including Josephus the Roman historian, and the other Jewish guy whose name I forget - you can't seriously doubt that he was a real person?

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by mrBen
Ah, but given the differing historians who confirm his life (not just his birth) - including Josephus the Roman historian, and the other Jewish guy whose name I forget - you can't seriously doubt that he was a real person?

What did I say? Read it. The question is not whether or not yeshua al bin existed, but whether or not he lived the life ascribed to him in the new testament.

And read a little closer about the josephus record that the church USED to be proud of. it's a one liner, short. And it was added to in an obvious way 350 years later. The obvious truth is that no one bothered to stop writing dirty limmericks, or notes to their mistress, or letters to their families....No one bothered to indicate that they had been witness to such extraordinary things as are the stuff of the new testament. They wrote about their girlfriends tits, they wrote historical books about the region, they wrote dirty poems on alley walls, but they didn't write about such an earth shattering thing? Give over, somebody, probably many somebodies would have decided these events to be newsworthy and they would have published it. I do not doubt that yeshua lived, not many do. I don't doubt that he was a rebbe, but the son of god on earth, creator of numerous earth shaking miracles? Not a chance. Did I mention that krishna raised people from the dead? Why follow a copycat when you can follow the original?

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 07:50 AM

Get me a bigger spoon someone.;)

mrBen

02-10-2003, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by williamwbishop
Get me a bigger spoon someone.;)

Apologies for the misunderstanding. But you have also misunderstood me. I never made any statements about who Jesus was, what he did, merely that he was a figure who lived who has since had many people worship him for the things (they thought) he did.

Hand me my fork......

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by mrBen
Apologies for the misunderstanding. But you have also misunderstood me. I never made any statements about who Jesus was, what he did, merely that he was a figure who lived who has since had many people worship him for the things (they thought) he did.

Hand me my fork......

[Hands ben his fork]

Ah, apologies, a miscommunication.

mrBen

02-10-2003, 09:10 AM

Heh, no bother. Apology accepted :)

It reminds me why I usually stay out of these threads!

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by mrBen
Heh, no bother. Apology accepted :)

It reminds me why I usually stay out of these threads!

Never underestimate the joy of debate. Never hurts to jump right in, enjoy yourself. As to the miscommunication, it's always possible. Both myself and tempus saw it the same way, our mistake.

MB[DK]

02-10-2003, 09:48 AM

Why even debate it? Obviously there are no gods.

* Waddles over to join the atheist crowd*

timbobagginsii

02-10-2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by mrBen
you probably don't want to hear my $0.02)
I'd not mind hearing them.

Penrich

02-10-2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by MB[DK]
Why even debate it? Obviously there are no gods.

* Waddles over to join the atheist crowd* Even better - come join the IPU!!! All the benefits of being an atheist with an invisible friend thrown in, AND we have barbeques :D

mrBen

02-10-2003, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by timbobagginsii
I'd not mind hearing them.

:(

OK. This will (probably) be my last post on the matter.

Firstly, I don't believe anyone has ever been 'persuaded' into any faith. Faith is never based on intellectual persuasion, but more on experience and encounter.

I'm an honest-to-God (if you'll excuse the pun) Christian (evangelical/charismatic if you want to label me, but don't) and I do believe in all that Bible stuff. I believe it because of the encounter I've had with Jesus, not because of any persuasive arguments. I know I don't understand it all, and even with a Divinity degree (from a secular Uni, not a seminary) I have more questions than answers for people, but I know what I believe to be true. And if that were flimsy enough to be persuaded from, then it wouldn't be worth having. I know what God has done in my life, and I know the relationship I have with Him.

Do I believe that Christ is the only way to heaven? Yes. Do I care what you believe? Yes. Do I think I can persuade you to believe otherwise? No - that's God's job ;) Do I intend to flaunt my faith on posts like this? No. Do I intend my beliefs to be insulting to anyone? No - but I know they will be to some people.

I'm off home now. I'll be wearing my flameproofs :D

MB[DK]

02-10-2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by mrBen

I'm an honest-to-God (if you'll excuse the pun) Christian

But but you seem so nice.

:p

timbobagginsii

02-10-2003, 01:07 PM

Mr. Ben,
Thank you. You'll get no flames from me.

MB[DK]

02-10-2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Penrich
Even better - come join the IPU!!! All the benefits of being an atheist with an invisible friend thrown in, AND we have barbeques :D

ehhhmmm IPU?

I didn't read the entire thread, but I'm all for barBQ
:D

Penrich

02-10-2003, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by MB[DK]
ehhhmmm IPU?

I didn't read the entire thread, but I'm all for barBQ
:D

Heres a primer : http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm

We've been playing with this over in the Which Religion thread - round about post 700 onwards???

MB[DK]

02-10-2003, 01:37 PM

I must admit, IPU seems fairly plausible. Where do I sign up?

Penrich

02-10-2003, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by MB[DK]
I must admit, IPU seems fairly plausible. Where do I sign up?
As plausible as any other invisble friend...

Consider yourself signed up!

Current Members:

williamwbishop: High Bishop
timbobagginsii: Chief of the Executive Branch
emetib: Research and Picnics
penrich: Chief Bottle Washer (hey - someone has to clean up the mess after all these picnics) and Dean of Infectious Diseases (Religion) at the IPUU
ferreter: I forgot his title - lets Call hin Agitator-in-Chief
windoze killa: Head of the Upside down-right side up Brigade
null_logick: new recruit, brick-with-handle worshipper
fingel: junior member, Head of the IPU-youth
carlywarly: honorary member (he hasn't signed on the line yet...)
endorphoinejunkie: ditto???
gilligan: ditto???

Some others surely - come one, come all!

PS - appologies if I added any members by mistake, or left any out. Titles subject to change. Let this now become the official sign in sheet.

SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE IPU!

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by timbobagginsii
Mr. Ben,
Thank you. You'll get no flames from me.

Nor I. We tend to only flame those who deserve it by showing bad form. I deserve a flaming myself on occasion, when I get out of hand and break from my self imposed goal of being deliberate and calm. But, everyone has their weaknesses, and occasionally I fall down and get angry(which disappoints myself more than any other I suppose, as it is weakness). Sit with us, discuss the topic politely and rationally, and I promise you insights into ourselves, and insights into yourself for us. We not change each other one wit, but that's not really the goal. The game and all that. Please, feel free to join. Try not to make statements based on hearsay though, we tend to nail them pretty hard. Proof is always best, but we can accept faith also, as long as you know, and let us know that this is what you are operating from on said point.

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Penrich
As plausible as any other invisble friend...

Consider yourself signed up!

Current Members:

williamwbishop: High Bishop
timbobagginsii: Chief of the Executive Branch
emetib: Research and Picnics
penrich: Chief Bottle Washer (hey - someone has to clean up the mess after all these picnics) and Dean of Infectious Diseases (Religion) at the IPUU
ferreter: I forgot his title - lets Call hin Agitator-in-Chief
windoze killa: Head of the Upside down-right side up Brigade
null_logick: new recruit, brick-with-handle worshipper
fingel: junior member, Head of the IPU-youth
carlywarly: honorary member (he hasn't signed on the line yet...)
endorphoinejunkie: ditto???
gilligan: ditto???

Some others surely - come one, come all!

PS - appologies if I added any members by mistake, or left any out. Titles subject to change. Let this now become the official sign in sheet.

SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE IPU!

We should have thought to do this earlier, let's get all members to give us their "aye" on the matter.

timbobagginsii

02-10-2003, 02:05 PM

The One True Faith(tm) of The IPU!
It can be the new Jedi!

MB[DK]

02-10-2003, 02:10 PM

I sure hope I don't become anal-übergeek of IPU or something along those lines.

Some one with Gimp skills should create a sig..

Ahh finally joining a true religion, and on my birthday too, this has got to be a great year, now all I need is a mrs.
The way this year is turning out, I should have one by summer perhaps.

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by timbobagginsii
The One True Faith(tm) of The IPU!
It can be the new Jedi! \

Only less idiotic, no miticholrins(sp?) and geeky people dressed up as star wars actors standing in front of a theater for 2 weeks prior to a really bad movie release(I'm sorry, they've all been bad).

Penrich

02-10-2003, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by MB[DK]
I sure hope I don't become anal-übergeek of IPU or something along those lines.

Some one with Gimp skills should create a sig..

Ahh finally joining a true religion, and on my birthday too, this has got to be a great year, now all I need is a mrs.
The way this year is turning out, I should have one by summer perhaps.

http://www.icalledit.com/forums/images/smilies/birthday.gif

MB[DK]

02-10-2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by williamwbishop
\

Only less idiotic, no miticholrins(sp?) and geeky people dressed up as star wars actors standing in front of a theater for 2 weeks prior to a really bad movie release(I'm sorry, they've all been bad).

Besides Star Trek is so much more cool.

Did I actually say that?
:eek:

MB[DK]

02-10-2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Penrich
http://www.icalledit.com/forums/images/smilies/birthday.gif

Thank you.

carlywarly

02-10-2003, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Penrich
As plausible as any other invisble friend...

Consider yourself signed up!

Current Members:

williamwbishop: High Bishop
timbobagginsii: Chief of the Executive Branch
emetib: Research and Picnics
penrich: Chief Bottle Washer (hey - someone has to clean up the mess after all these picnics) and Dean of Infectious Diseases (Religion) at the IPUU
ferreter: I forgot his title - lets Call hin Agitator-in-Chief
windoze killa: Head of the Upside down-right side up Brigade
null_logick: new recruit, brick-with-handle worshipper
fingel: junior member, Head of the IPU-youth
carlywarly: honorary member (he hasn't signed on the line yet...)
endorphoinejunkie: ditto???
gilligan: ditto???

Some others surely - come one, come all!

PS - appologies if I added any members by mistake, or left any out. Titles subject to change. Let this now become the official sign in sheet.

SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE IPU!

I think I should be in charge of Creationism, Revisionism and Unintelligent Design, CRUD for short. :)

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by carlywarly
I think I should be in charge of Creationism, Revisionism and Unintelligent Design, CRUD for short. :)

Okay by me, you need to clear it with our information officer and our head of inquisition.

Penrich

02-10-2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by MB[DK]
I sure hope I don't become anal-übergeek of IPU or something along those lines.

Some one with Gimp skills should create a sig..

Ahh finally joining a true religion, and on my birthday too, this has got to be a great year, now all I need is a mrs.
The way this year is turning out, I should have one by summer perhaps.
The idea of a logo is definitely appealing... I do like the image over there on that IPU page

http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/herholy.gif

I tried to make it into an avatar, but it didn't work too well. 50x50 is just too small!

timbobagginsii

02-10-2003, 02:28 PM

CRUD sounds alright by me.
I think as the One True Faith we need our own logo though, not the one appropriated by those splitters. If only for complicated legal reasons.

MB[DK]

02-10-2003, 02:29 PM

uh uh how about Head attitude-adjuster of IPU.

Meaning I beat the crap out of those that don't join. In short I go crusade on their a*ses with a pointy stick as inspired by Monty Python.

And yeah the logo is a bit large. Something more creative.

timbobagginsii

02-10-2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by MB[DK]
uh uh how about Head attitude-adjuster of IPU.

Meaning I beat the crap out of those that don't join. In short I go crusade on their a*ses with a pointy stick as inspired by Monty Python.

And yeah the logo is a bit large. Something more creative.
Well as head of the Executive Branch, Crusades, Holy Wars and Jihads come under my jurisdiction. I see no problem with having a Head Wielder of The Pointy Stick.
Welcome aboard.

Penrich

02-10-2003, 02:39 PM

Not quite a pointy stick, but you are welcome to it...

http://www.icalledit.com/forums/images/smilies/poke2.gif

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 03:33 PM

Gentlemen, we have a growing concern. Congratulations.

Penrich

02-10-2003, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by williamwbishop
Gentlemen, we have a growing concern. Congratulations. Aye - I'm sure a growing number are getting concerned by us...

williamwbishop

02-10-2003, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Penrich
Aye - I'm sure a growing number are getting concerned by us...

Or possibly FOR us.;)

Gerald Cox

02-10-2003, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by timbobagginsii
I happen to think it to be an error of ommission. It's irrelevant anyway - after the flood wiped out everyone bar Noah and his sprogs and their wives the gene pool was reduced considerably.:)
Jesus's genealogy goes back through Noah, to Adam according to one gospel, but the other that mentions his birth at all only goes so far as Abraham.
I'm not sure if it actually says anywhere that all men are descended from Adam and Eve. But it does say that sin entered the world through one man (Adam) and was driven out by one man(Jesus).

Correction: Was forgiven by Jesus! Sin has not been driven out of the world. It is unfortunately still present, but Jesus forgives all sinners, past present, and future if they accept His forgiveness.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions and trode by atheists and agnostics patting each other on the back and complimenting each other's intellect." -- G. Cox, 2003

timbobagginsii

02-10-2003, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Gerald Cox
Correction: Was forgiven by Jesus! Sin has not been driven out of the world. It is unfortunately still present, but Jesus forgives all sinners, past present, and future if they accept His forgiveness.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions and trode by atheists and agnostics patting each other on the back and complimenting each other's intellect." -- G. Cox, 2003
Fair enough. Thanks for pulling me up on that.

Tempus77

02-10-2003, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by williamwbishop
Never underestimate the joy of debate. Never hurts to jump right in, enjoy yourself. As to the miscommunication, it's always possible. Both myself and tempus saw it the same way, our mistake.

Very right, mrBen, no harm in a debate as long as there're no verbal insults being hurled and everyone is in it for the joy of it. :)

Tempus77

02-10-2003, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by Penrich
As plausible as any other invisble friend...

Consider yourself signed up!

Current Members:

williamwbishop: High Bishop
timbobagginsii: Chief of the Executive Branch
emetib: Research and Picnics
penrich: Chief Bottle Washer (hey - someone has to clean up the mess after all these picnics) and Dean of Infectious Diseases (Religion) at the IPUU
ferreter: I forgot his title - lets Call hin Agitator-in-Chief
windoze killa: Head of the Upside down-right side up Brigade
null_logick: new recruit, brick-with-handle worshipper
fingel: junior member, Head of the IPU-youth
carlywarly: honorary member (he hasn't signed on the line yet...)
endorphoinejunkie: ditto???
gilligan: ditto???

Some others surely - come one, come all!

PS - appologies if I added any members by mistake, or left any out. Titles subject to change. Let this now become the official sign in sheet.

SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE IPU!

wow.........seems like a lot of fun. can i sign up too? :D