Its not that the laws have been proven wrong, it is that they have a chance of being proven wrong. As long as they can be wrong they are not 100% true. By true it means it has been true in testing up to that point. For specific examples you may want to ask Nitrous.
Ok, I see what you are getting at, but the only way I can seem to think that such laws can be flawed/disproven (is disproven really not a word?) is if one were to visit another planet that is very different from Earth. EDIT: Yes, I agree that they may not be 100% true, but I'm just focusing on Earth. But yeah, that would mean we would have to come up with new rules if we ever encountered such a planet. If, however, such a well-established rule could be disproved on Earth, then I would give up believing in everything except for math. That better not happen, because math is pretty boring.
I agree it fits the scenario at this moment in time and in the past. The universe is constantly fluctuating, however, and science can never be certain. We must make the assumption that gravity is acting the way it did yesterday when we run our experiments. Its a philosophy problem.
Alright, time I put some input, seeing as I started following this discussion about a week ago, and have read every post to it's entirety, while only posting once: Where to start... Well, first, let's establish that I'm arguing for Atheism. Somebody (forgive me for being too lazy to go back and pinpoint who) said that God and the afterlife where a product of man's imagination. We've had people imagine crazy things all throughout mankind's history, in the form of stories, movies, etc. Who's to say God wasn't one of the earliest of these? After all, ancient civilizations used a higher being as a way of explaining worldly events, such as draught and good crop seasons. But we know what causes these things now. So what more use is an explanation of, frankly, supernatural and unrealistic nature. The afterlife, in my belief, was simply a story spun in man's fear of death, or want to keep living. There are so many descriptions of what the afterlife might be like, and yet, nobody conscious can really know what it is like. It's comparable to a land conceptualized in a dream. As far as I'm concerned, when you die, you die. As for all these people who supposedly "spoke" to God, whether directly or indirectly, how do we know that they weren't mentally ill? Mental illness wasn't understood until somewhat recently, so people around these speakers, or the speakers themselves, didn't know what to think of it. It could have been schizophrenia, but with no way to explain the voices, they could have easily just pinned it on God, like many of the other "supernatural" things in those times. And now that medication has been developed for mental illness, and really, just recently in general, we don't see as many major prophets around, do we? The church has taken advantage in people's faith in the past. When Martin Luther was challenging the church, they were saying people could buy papers that would let their relatives skip purgatory. Obviously, all of this was just a scam. That's just wrong, but people were willing to believe it, because supposedly people of the church have been chosen to be the religious leaders as far as mankind goes. Also, somebody said that God's and religious belief's images have been shrinking as time has passed and discoveries have been made. People were so sure that God had created the universe to revolve around the Earth, and then when astronomers who had made substantial observations came and challenged this, it was, not to say without a fight, eventually accepted as true. The same happened with Darwin and evolution, though a bit less widely accepted. So God's "creation of mankind and all other creatures as they are now" became less believed as well. I can't think of any more examples at this particular moment, but you get the point. So, these were ideas so widely accepted by believers, that were supposedly true as far as "God" and The Bible were concerned, that were crushed by scientific evidence. Sounds a bit like something imaginary and made-up being disproven (I swear that's a word) bit by bit to me. It was just a matter of time before you realized that magical things weren't possible and thus Santa Claus wasn't real. That's pretty much all I have to say for now...
Actually, that's not quite what happened. You are probably referring to Johann Tetzel, who's aggressive campaign of raising money for the construction project of St. Peter's Basilica caught the eye of one Fr. Martin Luther (who cite's Tetzel in his theses, #28). However, almost a hundred years before Luther made a stand, Pope Boniface IX condemned the forgiving of sins for a price. The difference in argument from Boniface to Luther? Boniface IX directly attacked the liturgical abuses. However, Luther misunderstood the role of indulgences (not just the wrongful sales but their very existence) and split from the Church as a result. At the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, liturgical abuses concerning indulgences were addressed, and for a time, it was good. However, unauthorized people began creating and selling their own "indulgences" (such as Tetzel), overstepping and twisting Catholic doctrine. Indulgences as a whole were done away with at the Council of Trent in 1563 because the idea had gotten too out of hand. As a last note, concerning history, Galileo's ever controversial writing Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, in which he discussed the idea of heliocentrism, saw it's largest support from Pope Urban VIII himself. I don't want to sound rude. Sorry if I do. I'm grateful for your opinions and objections though!
Wasn't Galileo eventually placed on house arrest for the remainder of his life? Taken from Wikipedia. They didn't burn him at the stake but still. They did not allow its publication because it undermined certain scriptures in the bible, which undermined the church itself. We see this reflected in modern times with the evolution/ID controversy. Evolution doesn't fit with the bible so they propose an alternative theory to get it out of the schools or at least undermined, if the church had more power I have no doubt evolution would not be taught. There was another astronomer who was burned at the stake, Giordano Bruno, for his astronomic discoveries/views.
Everything that is real is scientifically possible. As for the bible, its more 'try to find something that is right' than the other way round. Exodus 35:2- God demands that we kill everyone who wrks on the sabbath day. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 - God demans that we kill disobedient teenages. Leviticus 20:13- God demands the death of homosexuals Deuteronomy 22:13-21 - God demands that we kill girls who are not virgins when they marry. This is the book that you believe was written by an all loving god? You think an all loving God would write this? I don't think so. That stuff is insane! God wants us to murder each other because we work on the wrong day of the week? And this is the book you take advice from?! As for what has been proven to be wrong...where do i start... -God did not create the world in 6 days, 6,000 years ago, like the bible says. -There was never a worldwide flood that covered mount everest like the bible says/ -Jonah did not live inside a fish's stomach for 3 days like the bible says. -God did not create Adam form a handful of dust like the bible says. Those stories are all nonsense, why would an all knowing god write nonsense? Why didn't any of jesus' miricles in the bible leave behind any evidence whatsoever? Maybe, have you considered, that they did not happen? Since, saying they did not happen is highly locigal and pretty much proven.... Why did jesus want you do eat his body and drink his blood? Why would an all-powerful God want to do something that, in any other context, sounds like a disgusting, cannibalistic ritual? I have said this before, but a theists response to that will not make sense. But like i said, what if you assume that God is imaginary? What i just said makes perfect sense. Why is the bible a load of nonsense/disgusting things? Because God is imaginary, and the bible was written by ridicualous,ruthless men rather than any sory of loving being. Pretty obvious, if you think about. Just thought i'd clear that up.
Well I would say that's not true, either. There are a wealth of theistic evolutionists. However, I would tend to agree with the fact that the intellectual credibility of Christianity has been placed at risk due to the perceived naievety of non-Christian intellectual and scientific communities. No doubt, there are still many Christians continue to filter out scientific evidence and methods when the result sets fail to meet their pre-conceived notions on creation. However, like I said, this is an extreme. My real argument is that it seems like this discussion trails more along the line of far extremes, and shy's away from the middle. More so, the focus seems narrow on Christianity rather than theism as a whole. Is that simply because we come into contact with them more? For the purpose of whole hearted discussion, we should talk actual theism, rather than any one religion.
This is from the old testament. He wrote these kind of things to hold the community together and give them the ability to attend church. New testament means that Christians made a new covenant with god. Again, he wrote these things to hold the community together. Remember that this world was falling apart and heading into sin. New testament meant we took up a new covenant with god. New Testament=new covenant with god. New Testament=new covenant with god. 1st I would like to say you have no evidence with these following statements, but I'll just roll wid it. It never says it is 6000 years old! Also it doesn't say how long it is between verse 1 and verse 2 in the bible. Take a gander at this. Noah's Flood: Did It Really Happen? Actually, if it was a non-carnivorous fish it would be possible. Whenever he gets out it says "The weeds wrapped around my head". Carnivorous animals don't eat weeds. And non-carnivorous animals lack the enzymes to break a human down in just three days. Dust meaning nothingness. Oh no, he meant it in a metaphorical way. He meant he wanted us to rely on him.
I just want to say, new testament or not, most of those commands still are followed today, if not as violent. Homosexuality is still considered a sin by the church. The Sabbath is still viewed as a day not to work, etc... basically, god lowered the punishments a little for these "sins" but still kept them as sins. If someone wants to work on a Sunday, why not? Will they really go to hell or something? If two people love each other, despite gender or race or whatever, who is anyone to say they shouldn't be together in happiness?
That nothing has really changed just because of a new testament. So basically, you didn't really prove anything in what you said...
The 6,000 year date is set by the geneology given in Genesis and Luke(or Mark can't remember which). Do you actually believe the flood happened? I just want to be sure before I respond. So god ****ed up the first time and made new laws because as an omnipotent being he can be incorrect the first time and have the ability to change his mind. Righhhht.... But seriously, Jesus said the old testament laws still hold to "every jot and tittle" so that does not mean we can just throw the old testament laws out. Jesus said not to. If that made any sense I would punch you. Where is his oxygen supply? Can you name a fish that is large enough for a man to sit inside, or was he squeezed in real tight? If you knew anything about fish digestive systems you would realize that digestion occurs (mostly) in the esophagus and then moves to the stomach for further digestion. These areas are incredibly small compared to the proportions of a human body. It is ludicrous to think a human being would fit, be able to breath, or even maintain homeostasis long enough to listen to god. But let's assume the best for Jonah. A whale swallowed him. The oxygen they breath in does not go to the stomach, it goes to the lungs. Whales frequently dive for food and stay under for 5+ minutes. A humans lungs would burst and the pressure from the waters would give them a severe case of the bends, assuming the whale's insides didn't crush him when its chest cavity collapses to deal with the increased water pressure. There is an even greater flaw to this idea that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, whales are carnivorous. As the verses themselves point out, it was herbivore. So something can come from nothing? Damn. The Big Bang was dead on.
Ah, but here is some food for thought: If one feels the need to follow a religion, who is anyone to say that they shouldn't? Do you not want an end to proselytism? Or rather, is that what you are doing? (Not you specifically, but a general address.) As Nitrous puts it, atheism is not a philosophy but an answer to theism. With this in mind, do we not see the atheist evangelists in this topic, proselytizing? Again, food for thought. Not trying to razz on anyone's beliefs. Just playing devil's advocate. So to reiterate (as I am honestly interested in a whole-hearted response to this), what should it matter to the atheist that one considers their own God above others? What should it matter to the theist if one considers no God to be of any importance at all? -Oh yeah and the big bang? Catholic priest came up with that. lol
So you are saying that killing people because of thier sexuality, because they had sex before they got married,they worked on thw rong day, that holds the community together?! Thats...absurd. Whether it was dust, nothingness, or an orange he 'created' them from, the fact remians that he did not create them. How exactly can you deny evoloution? I thought they were pretty poor excuses on behalf of the bible. Its pretty obvious in my mind that an all knowing being did not write that. And someone said we are coming off the path a bit. Yes, we are. Anyone seen the film 'Donnie Darko?' Great film, kind of relates to the belief of god in some manner. Anyway, back to the beilf in god. The problem is, really, that it is plain beleif. Religion is to floored, full of stories, a 'God' is just one of them. Example- an afterlife. Whether you like it or not, it is an obivous fact that it is a story. No-on ecomes back form the dead and tells you, 'oh, there is an afterlife by the way.' Because a LIVING person sat down and made up a story. Example- Jesus' Miricles. They never happened. They left behing no evidence what-so-ever, and happened to be written in the old testiment - the flawed book rubbish. God, is just another one of theese stories. God explains nothing. Sure, its an excuse for how everything started, but something had to start god. And PLEASE don't say 'but god didn't need a creator,' that is the worst excuse i have ever heard.
The beliefs that you said people "still" believe only apply to some areas. Many Catholic people I know don't believe in those extremes; if they do, it would be because they were brought up that way, not because of the bible. That type of fundamentalism tends to occur more in the southern areas of America. (No? Yes?) So saying the "church" is against those things is not entirely true; there may be some who think that, but it really isn't something that people focus on in the bible. No one cares about sexual orientation or if you work on Sunday. Just remember: There are many sects within the Christian religion. Oh, and I know I'm starting to focus on Christianity again, but it's the only religion that I know well enough to debate with. Dom: Think of God as the name for whatever [science says] started the universe. God is like the finger that pushes dominos that end up making the universe. Here is a crappy diagram: "God" >/|||||||||
Jesus did want us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Jesus is present inside each and everyone of us through the Eucharist. John 6:53-54 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. The Eucharist is not simply a symbol of Jesus Christ. Jesus is truly and fully in the Eucharist. We do not eat bread and drink wine, we eat His flesh and drink His blood. We believe in full and complete transubstantiation.
Seriously do you not realize how dumb that sounds? So let me get it straight here... I have no life, because I do not follow Jesus Christ? And unlike all Christians I will die normally, whereas they will go on to forever, never dying because of this eternal life? Do you know anyone, ANYONE, who has eternal life? And not, "Yea, I do, and all christians do cause Jesus said so". That is the worst reason I've heard, possibly ever. You WILL die. And an afterlife, whether or not it actually exists, is not eternal life. Following a certain faith will not make you live "forever" while others like Atheists do not. Bread is not the flesh of jesus. It is a large grouped together polysaccharide of starch molecules, held together by many polysaccharides of simple sugars such as glucose, which are all chemically compounded together, thus creating the amount of starch neccessary. Then there is the yeast, which is a organism that helps the bread to rise, and finally, with cooking and what not, "Bread". Wine is alcholic grape juice, and grapes are made up of seeds which grew on a vine, were picked and MANMADE, like bread, into a drinkable liquid. Metaphorical or not, what you said just sounds dumb, unless you are someone who blindly follows a faith because A) they were raised to do so. Socrates one said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." Do not blindly follow something because you are told to. You have to think for yourself. or B) You are confused and need answers, yet they realistic, believable answers of Science are too confusing to be trusted by you, and thus you throw your beliefs to a greater made up entity so as to feel more accepted and better make sense of the world around you. Ancient societies like Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Japan and many others all did the same things. They did it because they didn't understand why sometimes the earth would shake, and quake, and so to make sense, invented gods to explain these natural disasters. Or why their crops died, or why someone got sick... They were made up, so that these confusing occurences and questions could be understood at a third grade level. That is what I have to say to those quotes from Jesus.
First off, you have no clue how I have been raised and why I believe what I believe. It is not in your power to judge that. Yes I was raised a Catholic, but I am 17 years old and certainly old enough to make my own decisions. By eternal life, He means that you will live forever in Heaven with him, not that you will remain on Earth forever and ever while Atheists die off. That is nowhere close to what He is saying. I just want to point out something. It is better to believe in Jesus than not to believe. Here is my reasoning behind this statement. If you believe, and God exists, then you gain everything. If you believe, and God exists, you gain nothing but lose nothing. If you do not believe God exists, but he does, you lose everything. If you do not believe God exists, and he doesn't, you gain nothing. I do not care what you believe, but that is what I believe.