Silkroad Online Forums

You all die in the end \\\

faith or no faith
god or no god

i see no benefit other then self righteous cock suckers who want to continue a ignorant tradition so society can grant them as Good and obedient
your a lap puppy to society being feed consumer waste and PEOPLE love it *sigh*

**** hope And Faith

its Only then when you can be free and actually enjoy life

One major thing that is a sign that there is nothing after death is that we reproduce, You know what NVM
build your own prison i dont really care anymore

Pardon the long post.

There were two posts that caught my interest:

• There is no proof (of your beliefs)...
• Alternate stories of Creation (for want of a better word)

Why do people of faith fold when they are told there is no proof? Let me ask, for instance and for example, did Shakespeare exist? If challenged to "prove it" could we agree that his works proved his existence? There is a single fact that remains the very most provable event in all of mankind's history (if we accept proof, that is): The Resurrection of Christ Jesus.

Proof of his resurrection begins with the people who were eyewitnesses and lived with him. The fact they many of them would later die for their testimony rather than deny the truth must add credibility. This single fact is the most documented fact known to man. Add to this that these events were spoken of and anticipated thousands of years prior to their taking place (I don't want to flood this page with scriptural quotes, it's easy enough to find these), and the "body of evidence" and proof only grows.

The antagonist above doesn't stop with saying that Christianity has no basis and consequently no proof (a form of circular logic) but he goes even further and states all religious beliefs are irrational and without basis. These statements are offered without even so much as a shred of proof. Was this supposed to be a complete example of rational thinking or maybe there is more?

My apologies are offered to any true empirical rationalist out there, I can only imagine this isn't your best effort.



Regarding alternative theories of Creation, the "Big Bang" theory isn't held in as much esteem as it used to be. Scientists used to think that stars were created from "space dust" and that black holes were formed from collapsed stars. This gave rise to the "expanding / contracting" theories that were widely publicized. Current understanding has been "upgraded" because we are starting to understand that the galaxies and black holes formed together and are interdependent on each other. Kinda makes you wonder, right? What would happen if current scientific thought accepted this "newer" theory of the origins of the universe. I can almost see Carl Sagan spinning in his grave.

For more information please see: Galaxies and black holes: You can't have one without the other





The 62nd General Assembly of the United Nations has designated 2009 as the International Year of Astronomy. I would expect much more information to be made publicly available soon.

Have you ever read shakespeare? Your analogy is completely wrong and it's closer to saying that the reasoning we have regarding the existance of Shakespeare would mean that there once existed people who wrote the Bible - which is true, it didn't magically appear. Feeding off this you're saying that Jesus' story is true because it's documented, using that reasoning you're indirectly claiming that the fairies in midsummer night's dream have existed.

The New Testament was undoubtedly proven to have been written long after Jesus' death - even the church acknowledges this and replies with "divine inspiration", affrming that the Bible has been written by 3rd and 4th hand accounts. The only denominations that have not acknowledged this are the fanatical fundamental evangelicals that would have no place in a discussion because their stubborned views on the infallibility of the Bible are too inflexible to talk about anything logically without coming to the conclusion that "Jesus exists because the Bible says so and the Bible is infallible".

You also go on to say that this has to be true because there were Christian Martyrs who would rather die than deny the truth. I guess Christians are just special, and the thousands of Muslim suicide bombers are just ignorant of the real Lord despite their will to die rather than deny the truth.

The existence of Jesus is proven in Roman documentation. His ressurection is not. Whether or not you want to believe in "divinely inspired" scriptures full of contradictions and stories sharing immense similarities with traditional religious tellings in the fertile crescent is your choice. I am not trying to convert you, I could care less whether or not you believe in Jesus. What I do care about is your failure to see that proving that any God or that any religious denomination has it right is impossible as it rests in faith. Have faith in your God but don't try pass off that faith as proven fact.

If you want to be a good member of your denomination, don't seek to scientifically prove the existence of your God, you shouldn't have to, just have faith and leave the rest of us in peace.

Ahhh, yes, dom I have read Shakespeare. You assert that because I mentioned that William Shakespeare exists and it can be proven from his works (because I have NEVER seen him) that I imply that fairies exist. Does this really deserve a reply? Okay, consider what our courts regard as proof. Eyewitness accounts are valid.

You later tell me essentially to abandon science and be a good member of my denomination.


Contrary to your assertion, the empty tomb account in the gospel of Mark is based upon a source that originated within seven years of the event it narrates. This places the evidence for the empty tomb too early to be legendary.

What denominations are you speaking of specifically? Or maybe I did not read your assertion correctly? Did you really say that Matthew, Mark, Luke or John were liars when they said they personally knew Jesus? They wrote about him and the evidence of this is astounding when compared to the number of physical evidences of our dear Shakespeare.

When you mention that we can prove that Jesus was alive and did exist you say this can be proven by ROMAN writings. If you are referring to Josephus as your 'historical source', I would have to correct you. Flavius Josephus was in fact a Pharisee (who held many self-serving and many absolutely false beliefs) He is the 'Roman' responsible for most 'historical' (read - non biblical) writings and he only later went to the Roman camp.

What is notable about the "myth" of the resurrection of Jesus is that it was not denied. If it began early in the church (it did), and had no real basis in history whatsoever (it does), it is difficult to see how it could have been propagated for any length of time — let alone become the foundation of the church.

Why are there no early writings denying this 'myth'? The Jewish leaders for sure would have written against this myth. The presence of eyewitnesses mitigates against such an interpretation. The disciples themselves did not even believe in the resurrection of Jesus until they actually saw Him.

I'm simply confused by this, honestly. I can't speak for anybody but myself but think that Muslims are right in their beliefs regarding the existence of God.

There was another thing you said that confused me. About rights and religion.
Respectfully though, I'd reply if I knew what you meant. I can only guess that you are comfortable with your thought that you have 'people of faith' properly pigeonholed and resent any attempt to discount your sensibilities. My general assertion is that eventually science, specifically the study of our universe, and religion (if it is true) will naturally resolve any appearance of difference they currently have. But maybe I'm wrong about that, who knows?

Personally I've been seeing religion lately as a very selfish and narrow explanation of the universe. Sure some good might come from it, like morals and such, but at the root it's a grand fairytale. I believe it's beyond man's perception to know what's responsible for creation. Before everything, something had to happen, could be God, could be something nobody has even thought of yet. Nobody will EVER know, unless you're dead, then you probably know.

I might say this in a different way, having a divergent view. The Scientific Method has four (4) steps, the first of which is Observation. The most common mistake in attempting to implement the Scientific Method is trying to explain a phenomenon without it being testable. There are numerous examples of this, dating from early Greek philosophers to present day.

Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. I would agree that both sides fail in this and am constantly astounded at the argument.
**Grandpa smirks and laughs at himself as he considers his words**


__________________________________________
CITATIONS ANNOTATIONS and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Introduction to the Scientific Method

I admit right now that i didn't read the whole thread, way too much flaming even on the first page.

So i will simply post my opinion.

I believe everyone should have the right to chose. There is no "right and wrong" answer. In the end we should believe in what makes up happy. In this life if everyone can find a lifestyle which brings them joy, i see no harm in it. Granted they live by laws and all that.

So simply put, atheist, Christianity, karma, faith in any outside force.. it doesn't matter.. Lets all find what we think makes us happy and lets all live by it. Lets not say that each other opinions are wrong, but instead let other people believe in what they do.. even if it isnt the way you like to live your life.

Lol @ the evolution theory thing again..okay...as far as i understand this whole theory it was like this:

big fat rock ---big bang--> Earth and other planets ---amino acids theory or whatever----> life....i think that sums it up right?

I wont debate the whole process i'd just like to debate the beginning...who created that big fat rock that started the whole thing?..who gave it the energy to go boom?..thats even the simplest unexplained thing about that whole theory that i could think of atm...that theory has dozens of unexplained details..and i'm pretty sure there are lots of wrong points about what i just said as well...i would dedicate my whole day to it if i felt like wasting my time...but i kinda dont lol i wanna lvl up without plvl for once lol

Faith and Science imo actually complete each other...there cant be science without faith..i keep hearing stories about scientists who didnt believe in God now believing in him, and there cant be faith without science (or else it would be a pretty stupid form of faith)

I'm gonna tell you guys a couple of situations where faith actually worked out for me...lots of you are probably going to flame me or call me a BSer but i dont really care it happened exactly as i'm telling it. Okay...most of you probably know that Islam requires 5 prayers a day and stuff...one of these prayers the first prayer of the day can be done between 4/5am -> 11am...of course the earlier you pray the better but very few ppl pray it early in the morning they usually pray it right before the next prayer starts...i know this sounds like total BS to mostly everyone out there...but here is the thing..one day (at about 1am at night)..i was like 10 yrs old or something..i was talking with my mom and somehow the topic went in prayer's direction...and we talked about that first prayer...i told her how its extremely hard that anyone would simply wake up at 5am just to pray and i always did that prayer at around 11am/1pm, but she told me something that i thought was a total BS at the beginning..she exactly said to me the following: "If you really wanted to do the prayer, you'll wake up at the time, you'll just have to believe in it"..and i was like wtf?..oh well..i'll try.."Can you lend me ur alarm clock?".."Nah, you wont need it", she said..and i was like [o.O] i thought my mom went crazy i usually woke up at 2pm and i was a late sleeper i usually sleep at 2am in the summer and it was summer, however i agreed and went to sleep with the intention to pray that prayer at its exact time on the morning...no alarm clocks...no one to wake me up..nothing.
About 4 hours later, i woke up...nothing woke me up and i mean nothing...i just simply opened my eyes i swear to God i just simply opened my eyes..i wasnt even dreaming and woke up bec the dream ended no i just opened my eyes for no apparent reason..10 seconds later the mosque next to our house announced the morning prayer..

Another story: A friend of my brother used to have these really strange nighmares at night, everyday he has this nightmare...it was about some dolls in his house or some sh1t (yes..dolls can sometimes be freaky..see the movie Child's Play lol)...anyways he told him that the strangest thing ever happened to him..whenever he reads something from the Quran (a certain part..about 5 lines long) he cease to dream of anything..good or bad..or atleast he doesnt remember his dreams when he wakes up...and again i was like "Dude thats prolly all in his mind"...but i was convinced eventually to give it a shot...i memorized that part and whispered it before i sleep at night and said lets give it a try...i woke up in the morning with no memory whatsoever of my dreams...nothing...its like the whole time i was sleeping it was just black...so i said i should give it another try...and it worked again...one night i decided to sleep without saying it..i remembered my dreams once again..i tested it for a whole week one day i say it the other day i dont and so on..and i'm telling you its pretty creepy..i stopped saying it anyways cause i like my dreams lolz

Anyways...i'm sure someday these things will have a logical scientific explanation...but it was faith that triggered them..science just explained.

Go ahead flame me or whatever..but i personally am a friend of both faith and science.

After all like many ppl said you should just believe in what makes you happy..and i'd say i'm pretty much content.

Oh and a big magical man in the sky somewhere who can never been seen randomly created all life makes more sense? Even if he did make everything who made him?

The simplest single celled organisms evolved over huge periods of time. Mutations occur when they
asexually reproduce and spread throughout the population. Different mutations occur to create different species.

Makes more sense to me than big magical man.

JoshPoshMosh, although I understand that your post is "tongue in cheek" I cannot resist correcting you when you attempt to poke fun at the "big magical man". A very literal translation of one of His names is "The Altogether Other", meaning that He is completely, utterly different than a man, or for that matter, anything within man's experience. God is a spirit that fills all creation and then some but even that fails to "explain" Him. He spoke to us in rather simple ways.

Again, I do understand your attempt at humor though and thought it funny especially when you anthropomorphized the amoeba.

You didnt answer my question...you simply replied by another question attacking my opinion...you're kinda proving yourself wrong by doing that..i asked you a question about your theory..just answer it.

Anyways my point is...evolution theory does require faith..because it has some gaps that cannot be explained...so i can either choose:
[A] Evolution theory, pretty much build on assumptions (supported by experiments) but still assumptions, which requires faith...but people who believe in it say that evolution theory is based on science and not faith...while in fact evolution theory cant survive without faith.

[B] God, not a mix of science and faith, just good old pure 100% faith....faith which is occasionally supported by science.

I asked you a question about your theory...just answer it...since your theory is based on explaining how this all happened it should be quite easy to answer my question..and i'll keep asking questions until you reach a dead end that you cant explain...while on the other hand if you ask me..i'll just simply say that i dont have to explain everything..i just have to believe in it. (which is much more comfortable for your brain by the way)

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

Have fun.

Yea so?

That doesnt change the subject...just an explanation of evolution which i've read a dozen times.

Sounds like a challenge…
Hmmm…. I like challenges, or was that “cheese”?
To reply to your WIKI quote, one first must understand the definition of a Genetic Population.

Regarding the mechanism of genetic change your WIKI article states there are three (3):
natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow.

Now for the hard part. Keep the definition of Genetic Population in mind as you read about the mechanics your WIKI presents for Evolution:

Alleles determine specific traits. You’ll remember from HS Biology a discussion about paired alleles even if they didn’t call them that. Paired alleles that are the same are called homozygous, those that are different are called heterozygous. In heterozygous pairings, one allele is usually dominant and the other recessive.

What is of note from your WIKI article is the statement, “gene flow is the transfer of genes within and between populations”. The article quoted fails to advance any solid theories about how your thoughtful amoeba produced plankton or other single celled animals or plants. Until Science stops avoiding the issue that is also addressed in Genesis by the words "after their kind", Evolution fails to satisfy my reasonable expectations.


Evolution, and more specifically the evolution of man, does have "gaps". I think what hootsh meant could be referred to as "the missing link". But in fact if we attempt to explain how all life (plant and animal) 'evolved' there is more than one "missing link".

When one stops to wonder about how the earth and all the plant life survived while the birds were waiting for their turn to evolve it staggers the mind, doesn’t it? Insects were around for millions (if not billions) of years with no natural predators. There was nothing to stop them from consuming all plants everywhere.

In similar fashion your WIKI article speaks of moths but fails to account for the symbiotic relationship between the Yucca plant and the Yucca moth. Both of these species are interdependent on each other for reproduction. Neither can exist without the other. SO... to use your previous "tongue in cheek" style, what happened? Presuming the plant "evolved" first did it wait around to reproduce until the moth evolved? Oh, maybe you believe (without any kind of proof whatsoever) that these two species "co-evolved"?

[EDIT: The 'Hopeful Yucca' thoughts]:

'PLANT': "Ohhhh, golly... I can't reproduce! What will become of me "
'PLANT': "My friends say I'm waiting for a 'hopeful monster' to evolve."
'PLANT': "I've lost my parthenogenesis (from the Greek παρθένος parthenos, "virgin", + γένεσις genesis, "creation") through hopeful mutation.
It worked for the hopeful amoebas, why not me?
'PLANT': "But of course I am waiting for a 'Hopeful Monster and its WIFE' - everybody knows that 'hopeful monsters' can't reproduce asexually, sheesh..."

I've actually heard of the term "co-evolution" before though. Scientists use it to describe the interdependent relationship between the origin of galaxies and black holes. I doubt it can be used to describe plant and moth evolution though.

~Grandpa

I assume Grandpa has read the whole thread. I don't have anything more to input but a site for everyone to chew on.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

Nuklear, thanks for the link! I spent the better part of this morning totally engrossed after considering only a couple of the ideas presented there. The sometimes fertile thing I call my mind appreciates this abundant source of information but I probably won't reply cohesively here because I noticed something.

The Market For Liberty is the .PDF version of the audio file in your sig.
I've downloaded it and read the first chapter. I trust you'll understand my mind IS like cheese.

Thanks again.

topic like these make me lol so hard sometimes.

Glad to be of help. I can always respect those so willing to learn.

Dude, you're totally misunderstanding it. You're thinking in absolutes (e.g.) If it doesn't work 100% then it is based on faith. Science doesn't propose the answers 100% it gives a prediction of what will happen based off of the scientific method. It predicts patterns using simple observation followed by experimentation. I notice how you "atk" evolution, but by your logic every theory requires faith, its not really faith its more of. This will happen ~90% of the time given these conditions are met. You get it? Its like gravity is only applicable where there is appropriate density, but you can't debunk gravity by saying "oh there is no gravity in space", well space is a vacuum. Things science can't explain are called phenomenon. Every theory has holes, but the difference between science and religion is scientist are constantly trying to fill those holes while religion just leaves it all to faith. Just as the common assertion of what caused the universe (big bang[s]) or should i type 'multiverse' is currently questioned and put under much mathematical and theoretical scrutiny evolution is put under scrutiny and test to reinforce it.

Science doesn't propose all the answers, it gives one part [a solid foundation] and builds from there until it has a solid theory with little to no holes. The theory is then A]Further reinforced or B]Re-done until it predicts what happens 100% of the time, the Theory of Evolution only applies to life as we know it. All theories of science are subject to change and revision, Understand the fundamentals of Science and I assure you understanding theories like, evolution, will be a cake walk

Religion is just: This IS what happened there is no questioning it, we have no proof, we don't need proof, and we don't want proof. Proof will undermine the 'idea' (faith) that keeps our convictions together.

is religion not also trying to fill in those holes with its own assumptions?

T_____________T
Did you not just read Barotix's post? He basically explained the scientific method and you still don't get it? Science makes assumptions until it gets things as close to right as humanly possible. Those assumptions aren't faith, they themselves are based on previous knowledge.
Nice to see you didn't object to his quoted statement though.

See thats the thing, religion is all assumptions. The thinking pattern between a scientist and a basic Christian is different.

Absolutes VS Change.

Religious assumptions have no basis, and don't attempt to fill the holes. They, according to orthodox Christianity, have NO holes in their assumptions. Its fact because they have faith and because the "evidence" they're basing their faith on is infallible.

In Science everything is fallible and subject to review revisions and corrections. Scientific theories, as Granpa pointed out, are ever changing and moving forward towards one unified theory; granted its all theoretical. Religion doesn't allow change hence why Christianity hasn't really changed much (beyond the protestant reformation) for the last ~1700 years.

God is a great "Idea" where applicable.
Religion is a terrible Idea in most situations.
Science isn't an idea, but more of the nature of man: Curiosity.

I read most of these posts, but not all. but on the subject of the topic, I don't think faith or science should be taken lightly. Science can be proven right, but religion is very hard to prove wrong in most cases. Not sure if this pertains to the subject, but once we had a dog named damian(for those of you that don't know that's a spiritual dogs name) and when my brother was an infant and dying in his crib from an asthma attack, the dog somehow got into our house from his kennel outside, into my parents locked room and pushed them towards my brothers room. Freaked the sh1t out of me, but things like that make you believe in faith. No scientific explanation can explain it. Cause I personally ran to our door to open it so My dad could run out and to the car to go to the hospital, and the door was also still locked. No window or anything was open and our backdoor was blocked off. Depends on whether you trust your eyes or not. Or if you simply choose to ingore them. I personally believe in both Faith and Science. Cause they have both been proved IMO.

It's already known animals can sense things humans can't, or more accurately. The dog could've found another way in or you could've still been very sleepy and saw something different then was actually there, as you inferred. It's nice that you have your own personal experience but the fact is it can't be proven and neither can anyone else's experience. There's never been something paranormal scientifically tested.

Exactly. You can't prove faith with science, or science with faith. At the time you can't really prove em wrong that easy either.

No need to
Priest them selves know faith only exist in there mind
Ask them

You can't prove faith or any construct of religion wrong because it is considered infallible. Thats the advantage theist have over atheist and that is why I don't have discussions with them.

This Is religion: Observation ~> Hypothesis ~> Stead Fast Faith.
This Is Science: Observation ~> Hypothesis ~> Experiment ~> Conclusion ~> Does the conclusion contradict or reinforce the hypothesis, if not what does the conclusion point towards? ~> Thesis paper. ~> More test.

Greetings Barotix,
I wanted to try to prove a point and would ask you to pardon the rant. I didn't pick your posting on purpose; in all likelihood any response in this thread that contained the word "proof" and wasn't 'JC Friendly' would have been fine. You see, I'm fatigued by reading again and again the same ol' argument about Religious (or Christians) being unable to access or process what you call 'proof'.

You said (I am ignoring the fact that you are using a straw man argument for the moment):
I thought that I'd use my favorite ploy (I didn't learn it in Thessalonica) and prove you right by offering this little tidbit of 'revelation' that may or may not be provable. I am pretty certain it is not provable today in any case.

Consider Light. And while you are doing so please understand that I will try not to patronize you and if I do it isn't directed at you and no offense is meant to you personally. Then consider darkness. Okay?

Now change your view and consider the exact same subject from a Christian's point of view. Let's set as a given that the Christian anticipates the widest audience possible, but this time let's apply the absurd assumption that Christians CAN'T HANDLE THE PROOF (I'm using my best Jack Nicholson voice here).

The only thing that could even remotely be called "proof" was a picture he stole from his neighbor's computer:

My point is: Saying that a people (no matter if it is based on race, gender, age, sexual orientation or religion) saying that they are incapable of reason or being able to understand a simple concept like "proof" is slanderous and perhaps bigoted. Right?

In conclusion:
This Is religion: Revelation from God ~> "Your servant listens, LORD ~> God speaks ~> Man listens but the information is immediately lost or garbled.
This Is Science: "god speaking TO MAN" ~> Scientist: "Huh?" ~> "god speaking TO MAN" ~> Scientist: "Huh?" ~> "god speaking TO MAN" "god speaking TO MAN" ~> Scientist: "Huh?" ~> "god speaking TO MAN" "god speaking TO MAN" ~> Scientist: "Huh?" ~> "god speaking TO MAN"

Cordially yours,
~Grandpa

PS. Regarding the statement, "I am pretty certain it is not provable today in any case."
I am CERTAIN that I can offer proof for this! And if you can not accept the fact that my own assertion regarding my own belief constitutes proof I am at a loss as to what to say to you.

~Granps

[EDIT]:
Thanks for listening so far, may I press my point at the risk of alienating you (I'll be nice)?

Premise: Another "unfair" aspect of this type of situation is that the table is tilted in one side's favor. Deliberate misquote of the more unfamiliar subject (the term 'unfamiliar' being determined by any reasonable sampling of the audience) is abundant and can either confuse or provoke the antagonist.

Hypothesis: I'll bet nobody can guess my answer because it is one only a Christian could think of and Christians will respect my request to refrain from guessing.

Test:

Spoiler!

Quoting God (if the Bible is true): "What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight."

I would predict that honest people would be able to admit that the hidden example above is:

• (A) A valid example and could be deemed credible
• (B) An invalid example and cannot be deemed credible

Spoiler!
(C)Neither of the above. It is a source of confusion, not a proof.

Thats assuming God is real and that everything related to Christian teachings is infallible. You don't need proof for God all you need is faith, proof isn't required and when the only fraction of proof is infallible why even bother discussing?

Its like this:
Atheist: God isn't real
Believer: You can't prove that
Atheist: according to rati...
Believer (Interuppts) the bible is the living word of God, thats proof enough for me.
Atheist: The bible is full of contradictions and plotholes
Believer: The bible is the written word of God therefore infallible, on the other hand science is very fallible.
Atheist:
Believer: (With a satisfied smirk at his/her small personal victory) HeHe, nothing to say now, eh?
Atheist:.... I'm going to make my own religion based on the matrix and you can't prove nor disprove its existence because it is based on faith and all the teachings the matrix has to offer are infallible therefore any contradictions are actually correct and any personal experiences that go contrary to my beliefs and convictions will be ignored.
Beliver:... Huh?
3rd Party: LoL... I see what you did there.

The end

Lets leave it at this, Religion has an obvious pattern to its reasoning. Ask any believer about their personal experience and it usually can be broken down as:

Observation (something weird happened) ~> Hypothesis (God did it therefore proof of God's existence) ~> Stronger faith (e.g.) Evidence (I'll preach the word of God and defend it even more fervently).

I have not been to one Christian church who didn't use influencing music to get its sheep to be "touched" by the holy spirit.