A wide-ranging study on American religious life found that the Roman Catholic population has been shifting out o of the Northeast to the Southwest, the percentage of Christians in the nation has declined and more people say they have no religion at all.
Fifteen percent of respondents said they had no religion, an increase from 14.2 percent in 2001 and 8.2 percent in 1990, according to the American Religious Identification Survey.
Northern New England surpassed the Pacific Northwest as the least religious region, with Vermont reporting the highest share of those claiming no religion, at 34 percent. Still, the study found that the numbers of Americans with no religion rose in every state.
"No other religious bloc has kept such a pace in every state," the study's authors said.
In the Northeast, self-identified Catholics made up 36 percent of adults last year, down from 43 percent in 1990. At the same time, however, Catholics grew to about one-third of the adult population in California and Texas, and one-quarter of Floridians, largely due to Latino immigration, according to the research.
Nationally, Catholics remain the largest religious group, with 57 million people saying they belong to the church. The tradition gained 11 million followers since 1990, but its share of the population fell by about a percentage point to 25 percent.
Christians who aren't Catholic also are a declining segment of the country.
In 2008, Christians comprised 76 percent of U.S. adults, compared to about 77 percent in 2001 and about 86 percent in 1990. Researchers said the dwindling ranks of mainline Protestants, including Methodists, Lutherans and Episcopalians, largely explains the shift. Over the last seven years, mainline Protestants dropped from just over 17 percent to 12.9 percent of the population.
The report from The Program on Public Values at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., surveyed 54,461 adults in English or Spanish from February through November of last year. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 0.5 percentage points. The findings are part of a series of studies on American religion by the program that will later look more closely at reasons behind the trends.
The current survey, being released Monday, found traditional organized religion playing less of a role in many lives. Thirty percent of married couples did not have a religious wedding ceremony and 27 percent of respondents said they did not want a religious funeral.
About 12 percent of Americans believe in a higher power but not the personal God at the core of monotheistic faiths. And, since 1990, a slightly greater share of respondents — 1.2 percent — said they were part of new religious movements, including Scientology, Wicca and Santeria.
The study also found signs of a growing influence of churches that either don't belong to a denomination or play down their membership in a religious group.
Respondents who called themselves "non-denominational Christian" grew from 0.1 percent in 1990 to 3.5 percent last year. Congregations that most often use the term are megachurches considered "seeker sensitive." They use rock style music and less structured prayer to attract people who don't usually attend church. Researchers also found a small increase in those who prefer being called evangelical or born-again, rather than claim membership in a denomination.
Evangelical or born-again Americans make up 34 percent of all American adults and 45 percent of all Christians and Catholics, the study found. Researchers found that 18 percent of Catholics consider themselves born-again or evangelical, and nearly 39 percent of mainline Protestants prefer those labels. Many mainline Protestant groups are riven by conflict over how they should interpret what the Bible says about gay relationships, salvation and other issues.
The percentage of Pentecostals remained mostly steady since 1990 at 3.5 percent, a surprising finding considering the dramatic spread of the tradition worldwide. Pentecostals are known for a spirited form of Christianity that includes speaking in tongues and a belief in modern-day miracles.
Mormon numbers also held steady over the period at 1.4 percent of the population, while the number of Jews who described themselves as religiously observant continued to drop, from 1.8 percent in 1990 to 1.2 percent, or 2.7 million people, last year. Researchers plan a broader survey on people who consider themselves culturally Jewish but aren't religious.
The study found that the percentage of Americans who identified themselves as Muslim grew to 0.6 percent of the population, while growth in Eastern religions such as Buddhism slightly slowed.
A question for you that popped into my twisted head. Take your intelligent design theories. Now since before there was a belief in one a lot of cultures believed in many gods each having their own area of expertise. So why could your theory of creation not have been done by a team of Gods? What steers you towards just one?
I would not characterize my argument as "intelligent design" since the phrase is generally used to describe those who deny the role of evolution.
Without getting too much into my own personal beliefs, I am more of what one might call a Deist. I do not take the Genesis story literally and I do not deny the role of evolution in creation. In fact, I am more awe of God's creation when I consider that he created this universe and then set it into motion, leaving it to operate without God's (the original source of the universe) need for tinkering. It operates according to immutable laws of mathematics and is self-changing (evolution).
To me, such a story of creation is much more awe-inspiring, but then again, I may be wrong. But I can live with that.
okeegator wrote: AvaL wrote: Things we know about Jesus:
Birth signaled by a star: Jesus, Horus, Krishna, Buddha Was accompanied by wise men and/or angels: Jesus, Horus, Krishna, Buddha Was Born on the 25th of December: Jesus, Horus, Krishna, Buddha, as well as many others, it is a very popular day for Gods to be born. Was born of a virgin: Jesus, Horus, Krishna, Buddha, as well as many others, also a popular story. Disappeared at a young age, and returned to preaching in early 30s: Jesus, Horus Performed miracles: Jesus, Horus, Krishna, Buddha Walked on water: Jesus, Buddha, Horus Died on a cross: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Krishna Buried for 3 days: Jesus, Horus Resurrected from the dead: Jesus, Horus, Krishna Buddha
source?
There are several books, which is where I first got this information, but I'll find some online that make it quick and easy.
If you ever see a program on tv or a book on ancient egypt, or early african history, or anything like that, you should watch/read. I took a class in middle school on mythology, and then continued with early african history in high school and college. A lot about civilization and the beginnings of things can be learned. Also, CGC posted really great videos in this thread previously that explain the original post about the connections between all these gods, and how there are a lot more.
Birth signaled by a star: Jesus, Horus, Krishna, Buddha Was accompanied by wise men and/or angels: Jesus, Horus, Krishna, Buddha Was Born on the 25th of December: Jesus, Horus, Krishna, Buddha, as well as many others, it is a very popular day for Gods to be born. Was born of a virgin: Jesus, Horus, Krishna, Buddha, as well as many others, also a popular story. Disappeared at a young age, and returned to preaching in early 30s: Jesus, Horus Performed miracles: Jesus, Horus, Krishna, Buddha Walked on water: Jesus, Buddha, Horus Died on a cross: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Krishna Buried for 3 days: Jesus, Horus Resurrected from the dead: Jesus, Horus, Krishna Buddha
squatlow wrote: 4string wrote:
but where he has been, before 2000 BC and since?.......
and yet another question that bothers me.... what about those people that came before "Adam & Eve"? According to Biblical time-line, Adam and Eve walked the Earth around 3 to 4 thousand BC ..... well what about those people/tribes that were here before then? Were they shot straight off to Hell because there was no "God" as we have been taught ??
These are the Biblical passages usually used to respond to questions about those who were not around/not aware:
Romans 1: 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
In other words, the complexties of creation are evidence of God's "eternal power and divine nature".
Romans 2: 12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
In other words, those who have not heard of the Gospel/God's plan for man, will be judged according to their consciences - every man knows what is right/wrong.
Last edited on Fri Mar 6th, 2009 03:03 am by okeegator
squatlow wrote: 4string wrote: ............ So why could your theory of creation not have been done by a team of Gods? What steers you towards just one?.........
this is the same question that was brought to my thoughts when it finally dawned on me the following wording: why plural; "us", "our", ....? And I do not believe it was an old boo-boo in translation....
Genesis 1:26-28 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
The predominant Christian argument is that the plurality is evidence of the Trinity in the Bible.
A question for you that popped into my twisted head. Take your intelligent design theories. Now since before there was a belief in one a lot of cultures believed in many gods each having their own area of expertise. So why could your theory of creation not have been done by a team of Gods? What steers you towards just one?
I would not characterize my argument as "intelligent design" since the phrase is generally used to describe those who deny the role of evolution.
Without getting too much into my own personal beliefs, I am more of what one might call a Deist. I do not take the Genesis story literally and I do not deny the role of evolution in creation. In fact, I am more awe of God's creation when I consider that he created this universe and then set it into motion, leaving it to operate without God's (the original source of the universe) need for tinkering. It operates according to immutable laws of mathematics and is self-changing (evolution).
To me, such a story of creation is much more awe-inspiring, but then again, I may be wrong. But I can live with that.
Okeegator in color!
Last edited on Fri Mar 6th, 2009 03:38 am by okeegator
Birth signaled by a star: Jesus, Horus, Krishna, Buddha Was accompanied by wise men and/or angels: Jesus, Horus, Krishna, Buddha Was Born on the 25th of December: Jesus, Horus, Krishna, Buddha, as well as many others, it is a very popular day for Gods to be born. Was born of a virgin: Jesus, Horus, Krishna, Buddha, as well as many others, also a popular story. Disappeared at a young age, and returned to preaching in early 30s: Jesus, Horus Performed miracles: Jesus, Horus, Krishna, Buddha Walked on water: Jesus, Buddha, Horus Died on a cross: Jesus, Buddha, Horus, Krishna Buried for 3 days: Jesus, Horus Resurrected from the dead: Jesus, Horus, Krishna Buddha
squatlow wrote: 4string wrote: ............ So why could your theory of creation not have been done by a team of Gods? What steers you towards just one?.........
this is the same question that was brought to my thoughts when it finally dawned on me the following wording: why plural; "us", "our", ....? And I do not believe it was an old boo-boo in translation....
Genesis 1:26-28 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
GOD is singular. God did not reside alone he has always had the Heavenly Host. (Gods Angels)
Most probably when it states that God said "let us make man," it referred to God speaking to the Angels
squatlow wrote: 4string wrote:
but where he has been, before 2000 BC and since?.......
and yet another question that bothers me.... what about those people that came before "Adam & Eve"? According to Biblical time-line, Adam and Eve walked the Earth around 3 to 4 thousand BC ..... well what about those people/tribes that were here before then? Were they shot straight off to Hell because there was no "God" as we have been taught ??
And what about their Gods who seem to have the same story line of Jesus??
4string wrote:
but where he has been, before 2000 BC and since?.......
and yet another question that bothers me.... what about those people that came before "Adam & Eve"? According to Biblical time-line, Adam and Eve walked the Earth around 3 to 4 thousand BC ..... well what about those people/tribes that were here before then? Were they shot straight off to Hell because there was no "God" as we have been taught ??
4string wrote: He would usually only talk to one person at a time, or so that person would claim. Can't thing of any time he made a Public Address
If you read the 4 Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John you will read that almost every time Jesus stopped to speak there was most always a group of persons already there or one soon gathered. Word spread in advance of his arrival.
One of my favorites is from Matthew Chapter 14 when Jesus spoke to the multitude of people and he healed their sick. It was at this gathering that Jesus took the five loaves of bread and two fish and blessed them. He then broke the loaves and instructed his disciples to go among the people and see that all were fed.
There was about 5000 men and also women and children in attendance that day.
All were fed and there were 12 baskets filled with fragments remaining.
Now a non-believer will say horse pucky...couldn't possibly be done. But as a believer in the wonders of miracles I know it can and I believe it did.
That is Faith. It sustains me when I am in need and gives me strength when I am weak. My Faith has brought me through the tough times and given me Hope for better days ahead.
Everyone of us relies on something or someone...even if it is only your own inner strength.
4string wrote: ............ So why could your theory of creation not have been done by a team of Gods? What steers you towards just one?.........
this is the same question that was brought to my thoughts when it finally dawned on me the following wording: why plural; "us", "our", ....? And I do not believe it was an old boo-boo in translation....
Genesis 1:26-28 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
A question for you that popped into my twisted head. Take your intelligent design theories. Now since before there was a belief in one a lot of cultures believed in many gods each having their own area of expertise. So why could your theory of creation not have been done by a team of Gods? What steers you towards just one?
Pixi. wrote: That's a good question. Where is he? How odd that he walked around, talking to people, doing miracles, etc. back in the day, and now he's no where in sight. What gives?
He would usually only talk to one person at a time, or so that person would claim. Can't thing of any time he made a Public Address
That's a good question. Where is he? How odd that he walked around, talking to people, doing miracles, etc. back in the day, and now he's no where in sight. What gives?
Firefly1958 wrote: 4string wrote: okeegator wrote: 4string wrote: So instead of trying to find a real truth you just fall back on God. We can't explaine it so it had to be God. That is what started religion to begin with ignorance, and is how religion has flurished. The oringinal sin is eating from the tree of knowledge.
I don't "fall back on God" since I see nature as proof of his existence.
We obviously will continue to repeat our same arguments over and over. At least we can say that we kept it civil, eh?
I try to remain civil I also knew it would end with us agreeing to disagree that it would come to a Mexican stand off at some point because you or I can't not prove what took place billions of years ago for if we could we would probably not be where we are But I do respect your opinions,, may not believe them and it was a good discussion.
But did you notice none of the other faithful piped in? You put aside the Bible and came up with original thought and to a point logical theroy which was alittle away from the main stream, but could be atleast possible, but it was not shall we say "By the Book" So the faithful that fill this forum stayed away.None of them have offered any answers to my questions.... Just my take on it.
Your question was ,where did God come from? No one knows.Why argue over that.Not an argument a discussion, and not where he came from that I know he came from Man. but where he has been, before 2000 BC and since?
4string wrote: okeegator wrote: 4string wrote: So instead of trying to find a real truth you just fall back on God. We can't explaine it so it had to be God. That is what started religion to begin with ignorance, and is how religion has flurished. The oringinal sin is eating from the tree of knowledge.
I don't "fall back on God" since I see nature as proof of his existence.
We obviously will continue to repeat our same arguments over and over. At least we can say that we kept it civil, eh?
I try to remain civil I also knew it would end with us agreeing to disagree that it would come to a Mexican stand off at some point because you or I can't not prove what took place billions of years ago for if we could we would probably not be where we are But I do respect your opinions,, may not believe them and it was a good discussion.
But did you notice none of the other faithful piped in? You put aside the Bible and came up with original thought and to a point logical theroy which was alittle away from the main stream, but could be atleast possible, but it was not shall we say "By the Book" So the faithful that fill this forum stayed away.None of them have offered any answers to my questions.... Just my take on it.
Your question was ,where did God come from? No one knows.Why argue over that.
Last edited on Thu Mar 5th, 2009 01:29 pm by Firefly1958
okeegator wrote: 4string wrote: So instead of trying to find a real truth you just fall back on God. We can't explaine it so it had to be God. That is what started religion to begin with ignorance, and is how religion has flurished. The oringinal sin is eating from the tree of knowledge.
I don't "fall back on God" since I see nature as proof of his existence.
We obviously will continue to repeat our same arguments over and over. At least we can say that we kept it civil, eh?
I try to remain civil I also knew it would end with us agreeing to disagree that it would come to a Mexican stand off at some point because you or I can't not prove what took place billions of years ago for if we could we would probably not be where we are But I do respect your opinions,, may not believe them and it was a good discussion.
But did you notice none of the other faithful piped in? You put aside the Bible and came up with original thought and to a point logical theroy which was alittle away from the main stream, but could be atleast possible, but it was not shall we say "By the Book" So the faithful that fill this forum stayed away.None of them have offered any answers to my questions.... Just my take on it.
Last edited on Wed Mar 4th, 2009 10:42 pm by 4string
4string wrote: So instead of trying to find a real truth you just fall back on God. We can't explaine it so it had to be God. That is what started religion to begin with ignorance, and is how religion has flurished. The oringinal sin is eating from the tree of knowledge.
I don't "fall back on God" since I see nature as proof of his existence.
We obviously will continue to repeat our same arguments over and over. At least we can say that we kept it civil, eh?
AvaL wrote: 4string wrote: Acid Rayne wrote: This is true... They also stole the life of Jesus from Krishna. Both born on Dec 25th. to a virgin, both preformed healing. both were resurected after death. The one God faith has done nothing but taken bits and pieces of other previous religions to make there own. Not that any of these religions were any more real then thay are.
I think there are 7-12 different religious figures all with the same story. One being Horus, a figure in ancient Egyption "mythology". There is a chart here:
4string wrote: Acid Rayne wrote: This is true... They also stole the life of Jesus from Krishna. Both born on Dec 25th. to a virgin, both preformed healing. both were resurected after death. The one God faith has done nothing but taken bits and pieces of other previous religions to make there own. Not that any of these religions were any more real then thay are.
I think there are 7-12 different religious figures all with the same story. One being Horus, a figure in ancient Egyption "mythology". There is a chart here:
Acid Rayne wrote: This is true... They also stole the life of Jesus from Krishna. Both born on Dec 25th. to a virgin, both preformed healing. both were resurected after death. The one God faith has done nothing but taken bits and pieces of other previous religions to make there own. Not that any of these religions were any more real then thay are.
okeegator wrote: 4string wrote: It's very simple - with mathematics. Laws are predictable because they are measurable (with math) - there is an underlying logic because there is an underlying pattern. Correct?Correct but still dose not mean it was created by a being.Hmmm....so the universe has design but it does not have a designer? I didn't say it had "design" Laws for lack of a better word yes Because of these laws of mathmatics, and physics that we speak of just because they exsist dose not mean they were created, it just means they are there.And they have always been there? Then you have no reason to criticize those who believe that God has always been there. It is the same argument except we see the patterns in nature and recognize that they could not have happened purely by accident. How could the rationality that governs the universe happen by mere chance? Sorry, but I refuse to accept such a leap of "faith". Not chance natural occurance. Nothing you have pointed out shows they were created. It is not faith when one discribes something they can see or touch or calculate. faith is beliving in some thing that dose not exsist. Except the Bilble says it to be true and the bible is the word of God, are you saying then that you doubt the Bible to be fact, or just part of it? Well then where dose the Bible become fact, and where is it fabble? The Bible does not verify the story of Jonah as being true or a parable. It simply tells the story. So the bible is just stories of fiction, but it is the Bible that says there is a God. That this God created the Universe.( Why a whole universe for just one planet of beings?) So if you do not believe the Bible then where is the basis for there even being a God when the belief originated from the Bible? I look at it and conclude he dose not. That with such naturally occurring laws that everything formed on its own. Because of these laws there was no choice for it to do anything else.But what's interesting is that you accept that these laws always existed and yet you refuse to accept that there might have been an original cause. No I believe these laws are the cause. Dose there have to be a start and an end, and if there was a cause why by some all knowing all seeing super being? You have only one real point " that because there are laws of nature that some one had to make the laws" I say those laws naturally exsist, and were not created.By chance? Yeah right. By magic? Please! No they would conclude that the laws of nature are just that natural.They would also conclude that laws must be created - rules and rationality don't occur just by happenstance. They also requier evidence more over than logic. They have also already ruled against inteligent design.And I credit you for not falling back on the Bible. Which is a compleat work of fiction that has some actual events ( most of them exagerated) as a back drop. But you have not shown me that it is due to the work of a creator that the laws of nature exsist. You have just shown that natural occurances will happen naturally. There being laws of nature in no way means they were created. So you can not prove the exsistance of any God/Gods/Creator. And I admit I can not disprove their exsistance. But that burden is not mine, the burden always lies with proving some thing exsist.I don't accept your framing of the argument as "the burden of proof is on me". Because, as I and others see it, nature is the proof of a God/Creator. We see the beauty and design of all things - plants, animals, weather, physics/gravity, the symbiosis of all of these things, the human mind, etc. - and conclude most assuredly that such things could not have happened by chance. We see the burden of proof lying with those who cannot explain the origins of this universe other than to say it was an accident. So instead of trying to find a real truth you just fall back on God. We can't explaine it so it had to be God. That is what started religion to begin with ignorance, and is how religion has flurished. The oringinal sin is eating from the tree of knowledge.You have accused me of not answering your questions. But I am the one who originally had the questions that have not been answered. If God has always exsisted, and is the cause of all creation including Adam, and Eve Then why in the billions of years the Earth, and the universe before it, has been here. Humans in our evolved form of today, being here for about 10000 of those years, did no one knew of the God before 4000 years ago?6000 years of many different Gods all differing from reagion to reagion before some one came up with the idea" lets just have one" Even then the native americans never heard of this God till it was brought over in the 1600s This is an historical fact.If the was an All Powerful creator then would not his presents have been known by all? It shows that God did not create man, but that man created God.
Last edited on Wed Mar 4th, 2009 03:50 pm by 4string
4string wrote: It's very simple - with mathematics. Laws are predictable because they are measurable (with math) - there is an underlying logic because there is an underlying pattern. Correct?Correct but still dose not mean it was created by a being.Hmmm....so the universe has design but it does not have a designer? Because of these laws of mathmatics, and physics that we speak of just because they exsist dose not mean they were created, it just means they are there.And they have always been there? Then you have no reason to criticize those who believe that God has always been there. It is the same argument except we see the patterns in nature and recognize that they could not have happened purely by accident. How could the rationality that governs the universe happen by mere chance? Sorry, but I refuse to accept such a leap of "faith". Except the Bilble says it to be true and the bible is the word of God, are you saying then that you doubt the Bible to be fact, or just part of it? Well then where dose the Bible become fact, and where is it fabble? The Bible does not verify the story of Jonah as being true or a parable. It simply tells the story.I look at it and conclude he dose not. That with such naturally occurring laws that everything formed on its own. Because of these laws there was no choice for it to do anything else.But what's interesting is that you accept that these laws always existed and yet you refuse to accept that there might have been an original cause. You have only one real point " that because there are laws of nature that some one had to make the laws" I say those laws naturally exsist, and were not created.By chance? Yeah right. No they would conclude that the laws of nature are just that natural.They would also conclude that laws must be created - rules and rationality don't occur just by happenstance.And I credit you for not falling back on the Bible. Which is a compleat work of fiction that has some actual events ( most of them exagerated) as a back drop. But you have not shown me that it is due to the work of a creator that the laws of nature exsist. You have just shown that natural occurances will happen naturally. There being laws of nature in no way means they were created. So you can not prove the exsistance of any God/Gods/Creator. And I admit I can not disprove their exsistance. But that burden is not mine, the burden always lies with proving some thing exsist.I don't accept your framing of the argument as "the burden of proof is on me". Because, as I and others see it, nature is the proof of a God/Creator. We see the beauty and design of all things - plants, animals, weather, physics/gravity, the symbiosis of all of these things, the human mind, etc. - and conclude most assuredly that such things could not have happened by chance. We see the burden of proof lying with those who cannot explain the origins of this universe other than to say it was an accident.
okeegator wrote: squatlow wrote: AvaL wrote: ........ Certain people do not want to ask questions, or do not want others to ask questions. They don't want to see the "other" sides of stuff, or even just look into other religions - not to convert, but just to understand. That is the problem I have with most people. If you don't know what is out there, how can you be so secure in your own beliefs? Everyone should always ask questions, make sure they know WHAT they are believing in. If you do that and in the end you are still a Christian, then the more power to you. But if someone can't even question what you are putting so much faith into, then I see that as a problem. .... AMEN I do not understand why folks equate questioning with (edit) disbelief
It's okay to question.And it is ok to not believe a word of it.
okeegator wrote: 4string wrote: okeegator wrote: 4string wrote: okeegator wrote: 4string wrote: And so as an atheist you argue that these laws are by accident? Let me ask you, how are these laws (like gravity) measured? Not that educated so I can't answer.It's very simple - with mathematics. Laws are predictable because they are measurable (with math) - there is an underlying logic because there is an underlying pattern. Correct? Correct but still dose not mean it was created by a being.So then how did these laws come to exist? Because they do, they are messurable and proven, and always have, but again not because some God created them. (See above)Why is water in its liquid form wet? Because of the viscous properties of water - a predictable and measurable quality of water based on the pattern of molecules of which water consists. But you aren't demonstrating the existence of a unicorn. I can demonstrate the existence of a Creator by proving the existence of a design in nature. As you stated earlier, "there are laws of nature," ergo, there is design. And where there is a design, there must be a Designer. Just because there are what we call "laws" dose not prove they were designed it just proves they exsist. They do not show proof of any designer.Then how does this predictablility exist in nature? By accident? Because of these laws of mathmatics, and physics that we speak of just because they exsist dose not mean they were created, it just means they are there.I don't know but I find it unlikely. Ah there is doubtI believe that the story of Jonah and the whale could be a parable. I don't doubt its importance nor its lesson. Except the Bilble says it to be true and the bible is the word of God, are you saying then that you doubt the Bible to be fact, or just part of it? Well then where dose the Bible become fact, and where is it fabble?Yes I saw this some where too but it was reffering to the first of the spiecies of homosapian, but then there would have to be eveolution too for there to be races.If by the phrase "the evolution of the races" you mean "natural selection" then I agree. But isn't Evolution caused by natural selction? I saw one where they tried to explain the parting of the Red Sea. Tides, wind, the moon, and sun in just the right places or some thing. But funny its has never happened again.My understanding (in trying to remember my book) is that it could have been a volcanic eruption/earthquake. It never happened! PBS had a show on Nova that explained that the exodus never happened. Sure some slaves did excape but in small groups, and they did bring the One God religion with them. That's rather presumptuous, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised since you somehow "know" God does not exist. As well as you can "know" he dose. I'm using logic to describe the nature of the universe and its patterns/laws by which it is governed - I look at the evidence of such logic to conclude that God does exist. I look at it and conclude he dose not. That with such naturally occurring laws that everything formed on its own. Because of these laws there was no choice for it to do anything else.I just have more evidence to back me up, or maybe the lack of yours, either way. What evidence? You can hardly answer my questions. You have only one real point " that because there are laws of nature that some one had to make the laws" I say those laws naturally exsist, and were not created.I mean if you had to prove your case in court you couldn't, That God exists? If the court operates by pure logic then one could conclude the same as me - that there is a Creator. No they would conclude that the laws of nature are just that natural.The Bibles being written so long after the facts would be thrown out as hearsay, and they are your whole case.Have you seen me quote the Bible yet to debate with you? Nope. Because I can demonstrate the existence of a Creator without using the Bible - I can merely use "nature" as my evidence, something you have been incapable of doing. And I credit you for not falling back on the Bible. Which is a compleat work of fiction that has some actual events ( most of them exagerated) as a back drop. But you have not shown me that it is due to the work of a creator that the laws of nature exsist. You have just shown that natural occurances will happen naturally. There being laws of nature in no way means they were created. So you can not prove the exsistance of any God/Gods/Creator. And I admit I can not disprove their exsistance. But that burden is not mine, the burden always lies with proving some thing exsist.
squatlow wrote: You can not have true faith unless you believe it all. nowhere dose the Bible say anything about it being ok to inturprit what it says. It is the word of God there for it must too be perfect,,,One of the worst editing jobs ever. Dead Sea Scrolls 50 years since they were dicovered, still not published. Why? Why were they left out?
4string, how funny .... I was just reading about this very thing the other day
Not only the Dead Sea Scrolls ........ did you know in 312 AD Constantine began to eliminate any book of the "original bible" that he considered unacceptable to the new doctrines of his beliefs/of the church. At that time it was believed there were approximately 600 books. Through a series of eliminations over centuries, that amount was diminished to around 80 by 1380 AD, and then down to 66 through the Protestant Reformation; beginning 1517 AD to date ....... that is a lot of lost information
I have wondered this same thing for years and have concluded until I can learn to read Hebrew and learn as much as I can about the times and lives of those people attributed to documenting the Bible plus eye-ball those original documents myself .. I will remain concerned about the integrity of the translations.
Back in the 80's there was a book that became sort of popular with many who were involved in bible study groups. I had a copy and after reading it passed it on to be read and it I lost track of who had it over time... anyway it was titled "The Lost Books of The Bible." It can still be purchased. There is some information NOT found in the Bible found in homes today but for the most part I found it repetitious of what we have. (Just told by other people) The book has about the same number of books/chapters as the Bible we have today.
The book might be confusing to people who are not familiar with the Word we have today.
The Lost Books might be enlightening to some who need to find a little more knowledge or an answer.
I wasn't confused by it, and it didn't change my relationship with Christ. I enjoyed reading it. The Pastor at the church we attended was not pleased we were reading it. I think he was worried we would focus on those books and forget the text we used on a regular basis.
AvaL wrote:
I've always believed that too. Certain people do not want to ask questions, or do not want others to ask questions. They don't want to see the "other" sides of stuff, or even just look into other religions - not to convert, but just to understand. That is the problem I have with most people. If you don't know what is out there, how can you be so secure in your own beliefs? Everyone should always ask questions, make sure they know WHAT they are believing in. If you do that and in the end you are still a Christian, then the more power to you. But if someone can't even question what you are putting so much faith into, then I see that as a problem. You'll have to tell us what you think when you watch it, its pretty good.
squatlow wrote: AvaL wrote: ........ Certain people do not want to ask questions, or do not want others to ask questions. They don't want to see the "other" sides of stuff, or even just look into other religions - not to convert, but just to understand. That is the problem I have with most people. If you don't know what is out there, how can you be so secure in your own beliefs? Everyone should always ask questions, make sure they know WHAT they are believing in. If you do that and in the end you are still a Christian, then the more power to you. But if someone can't even question what you are putting so much faith into, then I see that as a problem. .... AMEN I do not understand why folks equate questioning with (edit) disbelief
AvaL wrote: ........ Certain people do not want to ask questions, or do not want others to ask questions. They don't want to see the "other" sides of stuff, or even just look into other religions - not to convert, but just to understand. That is the problem I have with most people. If you don't know what is out there, how can you be so secure in your own beliefs? Everyone should always ask questions, make sure they know WHAT they are believing in. If you do that and in the end you are still a Christian, then the more power to you. But if someone can't even question what you are putting so much faith into, then I see that as a problem. .... AMEN I do not understand why folks equate questioning with (edit) disbelief
Last edited on Sat Feb 28th, 2009 08:48 pm by squatlow
squatlow wrote: You can not have true faith unless you believe it all. nowhere dose the Bible say anything about it being ok to inturprit what it says. It is the word of God there for it must too be perfect,,,One of the worst editing jobs ever. Dead Sea Scrolls 50 years since they were dicovered, still not published. Why? Why were they left out?
4string, how funny .... I was just reading about this very thing the other day
Not only the Dead Sea Scrolls ........ did you know in 312 AD Constantine began to eliminate any book of the "original bible" that he considered unacceptable to the new doctrines of his beliefs/of the church. At that time it was believed there were approximately 600 books. Through a series of eliminations over centuries, that amount was diminished to around 80 by 1380 AD, and then down to 66 through the Protestant Reformation; beginning 1517 AD to date ....... that is a lot of lost information
I have wondered this same thing for years and have concluded until I can learn to read Hebrew and learn as much as I can about the times and lives of those people attributed to documenting the Bible plus eye-ball those original documents myself .. I will remain concerned about the integrity of the translations.
Dont forget all the documents the Vatican keeps locked away!
4string wrote: okeegator wrote: 4string wrote: okeegator wrote: 4string wrote: And so as an atheist you argue that these laws are by accident? Let me ask you, how are these laws (like gravity) measured? Not that educated so I can't answer.It's very simple - with mathematics. Laws are predictable because they are measurable (with math) - there is an underlying logic because there is an underlying pattern. Correct?So then how did these laws come to exist? Because they do, they are messurable and proven, and always have, but again not because some God created them. (See above)Why is water in its liquid form wet? Because of the viscous properties of water - a predictable and measurable quality of water based on the pattern of molecules of which water consists. But you aren't demonstrating the existence of a unicorn. I can demonstrate the existence of a Creator by proving the existence of a design in nature. As you stated earlier, "there are laws of nature," ergo, there is design. And where there is a design, there must be a Designer. Just because there are what we call "laws" dose not prove they were designed it just proves they exsist. They do not show proof of any designer.Then how does this predictablility exist in nature? By accident? I don't know but I find it unlikely. Ah there is doubtI believe that the story of Jonah and the whale could be a parable. I don't doubt its importance nor its lesson.Yes I saw this some where too but it was reffering to the first of the spiecies of homosapian, but then there would have to be eveolution too for there to be races.If by the phrase "the evolution of the races" you mean "natural selection" then I agree.I saw one where they tried to explain the parting of the Red Sea. Tides, wind, the moon, and sun in just the right places or some thing. But funny its has never happened again.My understanding (in trying to remember my book) is that it could have been a volcanic eruption/earthquake. That's rather presumptuous, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised since you somehow "know" God does not exist. As well as you can "know" he dose. I'm using logic to describe the nature of the universe and its patterns/laws by which it is governed - I look at the evidence of such logic to conclude that God does exist.I just have more evidence to back me up, or maybe the lack of yours, either way. What evidence? You can hardly answer my questions. I mean if you had to prove your case in court you couldn't, That God exists? If the court operates by pure logic then one could conclude the same as me - that there is a Creator.The Bibles being written so long after the facts would be thrown out as hearsay, and they are your whole case.Have you seen me quote the Bible yet to debate with you? Nope. Because I can demonstrate the existence of a Creator without using the Bible - I can merely use "nature" as my evidence, something you have been incapable of doing.
You can not have true faith unless you believe it all. nowhere dose the Bible say anything about it being ok to inturprit what it says. It is the word of God there for it must too be perfect,,,One of the worst editing jobs ever. Dead Sea Scrolls 50 years since they were dicovered, still not published. Why? Why were they left out?
4string, how funny .... I was just reading about this very thing the other day
Not only the Dead Sea Scrolls ........ did you know in 312 AD Constantine began to eliminate any book of the "original bible" that he considered unacceptable to the new doctrines of his beliefs/of the church. At that time it was believed there were approximately 600 books. Through a series of eliminations over centuries, that amount was diminished to around 80 by 1380 AD, and then down to 66 through the Protestant Reformation; beginning 1517 AD to date ....... that is a lot of lost information
I have wondered this same thing for years and have concluded until I can learn to read Hebrew and learn as much as I can about the times and lives of those people attributed to documenting the Bible plus eye-ball those original documents myself .. I will remain concerned about the integrity of the translations.
okeegator wrote: 4string wrote: okeegator wrote: 4string wrote: AvaL wrote: 4string wrote: I watched Riligulous last night. Bill Mahar got alot of the same nonanswers, and just blank stares when there was no answer I always have.
Lol - did you see the trucker get mad and leave just because he was asking questions? I have relatives that do that. If they cant explain their own religion, there is a problem there.
Yes I did. He had no answers so he left, most religous people will do that. I have to give credit to Okeegator he will atleast discus it. Most believers will not even watch this DVD because when it come to this point of view they do not want to even hear it. Fearful that it might put some doubt in their faith. They will not let their kids learn or even look at the teaching of any other religion or lack there of. They would rather belive the impossible than listen to something that makes sence. When it makes too much sence they shake their heads, cover their ears, and run away. Now most of the other trukers stayed, but they did not have any answers.
Okeegator, Have you seen it? Would you watch it? I think you would you do not shy away from things just because you disagree with them. Don't watch it with kids there is some language, and ideas you might not want them picking up on.
I watch Bill Maher's show on occasion and was waiting for the movie to come out on DVD to watch it. I am secure enough in what I believe to watch it.
Many of those people he asks probably know what they believe but they don't know why. I think that this is the problem with most believers in a religion. They don't know why they believe it. When I started asking the why, I started feeling more secure in the what.
4string...I also look forward to your answers to my questions. The why is easy...They have been told this all their life. That and they want to believe,the Christians they want to live forever, the Islamics want to get laid, the Mormons want to rule a planet in the after life, the Hindues want a better life next time around. It is the greatest marketing scheam ever thought up, because you never have to deliver any goods.
The why is not easy for that very reason. People must get to the root of their beliefs. If the only reason they believe it is only because their parents did then their belief is superficial/not thought out.
I've always believed that too. Certain people do not want to ask questions, or do not want others to ask questions. They don't want to see the "other" sides of stuff, or even just look into other religions - not to convert, but just to understand. That is the problem I have with most people. If you don't know what is out there, how can you be so secure in your own beliefs? Everyone should always ask questions, make sure they know WHAT they are believing in. If you do that and in the end you are still a Christian, then the more power to you. But if someone can't even question what you are putting so much faith into, then I see that as a problem. You'll have to tell us what you think when you watch it, its pretty good.
4string wrote: okeegator wrote: 4string wrote: AvaL wrote: 4string wrote: I watched Riligulous last night. Bill Mahar got alot of the same nonanswers, and just blank stares when there was no answer I always have.
Lol - did you see the trucker get mad and leave just because he was asking questions? I have relatives that do that. If they cant explain their own religion, there is a problem there.
Yes I did. He had no answers so he left, most religous people will do that. I have to give credit to Okeegator he will atleast discus it. Most believers will not even watch this DVD because when it come to this point of view they do not want to even hear it. Fearful that it might put some doubt in their faith. They will not let their kids learn or even look at the teaching of any other religion or lack there of. They would rather belive the impossible than listen to something that makes sence. When it makes too much sence they shake their heads, cover their ears, and run away. Now most of the other trukers stayed, but they did not have any answers.
Okeegator, Have you seen it? Would you watch it? I think you would you do not shy away from things just because you disagree with them. Don't watch it with kids there is some language, and ideas you might not want them picking up on.
I watch Bill Maher's show on occasion and was waiting for the movie to come out on DVD to watch it. I am secure enough in what I believe to watch it.
Many of those people he asks probably know what they believe but they don't know why. I think that this is the problem with most believers in a religion. They don't know why they believe it. When I started asking the why, I started feeling more secure in the what.
4string...I also look forward to your answers to my questions. The why is easy...They have been told this all their life. That and they want to believe,the Christians they want to live forever, the Islamics want to get laid, the Mormons want to rule a planet in the after life, the Hindues want a better life next time around. It is the greatest marketing scheam ever thought up, because you never have to deliver any goods.
The why is not easy for that very reason. People must get to the root of their beliefs. If the only reason they believe it is only because their parents did then their belief is superficial/not thought out.
okeegator wrote: 4string wrote: AvaL wrote: 4string wrote: I watched Riligulous last night. Bill Mahar got alot of the same nonanswers, and just blank stares when there was no answer I always have.
Lol - did you see the trucker get mad and leave just because he was asking questions? I have relatives that do that. If they cant explain their own religion, there is a problem there.
Yes I did. He had no answers so he left, most religous people will do that. I have to give credit to Okeegator he will atleast discus it. Most believers will not even watch this DVD because when it come to this point of view they do not want to even hear it. Fearful that it might put some doubt in their faith. They will not let their kids learn or even look at the teaching of any other religion or lack there of. They would rather belive the impossible than listen to something that makes sence. When it makes too much sence they shake their heads, cover their ears, and run away. Now most of the other trukers stayed, but they did not have any answers.
Okeegator, Have you seen it? Would you watch it? I think you would you do not shy away from things just because you disagree with them. Don't watch it with kids there is some language, and ideas you might not want them picking up on.
I watch Bill Maher's show on occasion and was waiting for the movie to come out on DVD to watch it. I am secure enough in what I believe to watch it.
Many of those people he asks probably know what they believe but they don't know why. I think that this is the problem with most believers in a religion. They don't know why they believe it. When I started asking the why, I started feeling more secure in the what.
4string...I also look forward to your answers to my questions. The why is easy...They have been told this all their life. That and they want to believe,the Christians they want to live forever, the Islamics want to get laid, the Mormons want to rule a planet in the after life, the Hindues want a better life next time around. It is the greatest marketing scheam ever thought up, because you never have to deliver any goods.
okeegator wrote: 4string wrote: okeegator wrote: 4string wrote: How does nature keep itself balanced? Balance requires rules by which all things operate. If you don't have rules then you have chaos. If you have chaos then you can't maintain balance (see how logic works?) I'm not a biologest or any type of scientist, there are laws of nature, laws of physics that do tell people more educated than me how these things work, and I'm sure there are plenty of theories, and some facts. And so as an atheist you argue that these laws are by accident? Let me ask you, how are these laws (like gravity) measured? Not that educated so I can't answer.Do you deny that there are patterns in nature? Not at all I just deny that these patterns are caused by an invisable God.So then how did these laws come to exist? Because they do, they are messurable and proven, and always have, but again not because some God created them. Why is water in its liquid form wet?So then demonstrate a unicorn ..... Few years back one of the circus's had a unicorn. It was a goat with one horn but they billed it as a unicorn. Did it make it a unicorn as most people think of a Unicorn being a horse with mystical powers? No. Matter of fact I bet most people felt cheated. Exspecting a unicorn and getting a misformed goat.But you aren't demonstrating the existence of a unicorn. I can demonstrate the existence of a Creator by proving the existence of a design in nature. As you stated earlier, "there are laws of nature," ergo, there is design. And where there is a design, there must be a Designer. Just because there are what we call "laws" dose not prove they were designed it just proves they exsist. They do not show proof of any designer.So you admit that science can't disprove God? And what is your common sense based on? Simple stubborness? No it is based on fact that no man could live in a whale for 3 days (oh sorry big fish). I don't know but I find it unlikely. Ah there is doubtThe entire population with all its diverse races of the earth could not have come from one couple, I seem to remember scientists showing that there was a common genetic "mother". I will find out more on this. Yes I saw this some where too but it was reffering to the first of the spiecies of homosapian, but then there would have to be eveolution too for there to be races.muchless twice, and many other imposibilities that the bible claimes could never of happened. These are things science can disprove. I had (can't find it) a book to had scientific explanations of many of the miracles/strange happenings in the Bible. I saw one where they tried to explain the parting of the Red Sea. Tides, wind, the moon, and sun in just the right places or some thing. But funny its has never happened again.You can not have true faith unless you believe it all. nowhere dose the Bible say anything about it being ok to inturprit what it says. It is the word of God there for it must too be perfect,,,One of the worst editing jobs ever. Dead Sea Scrolls 50 years since they were dicovered, still not published. Why? Why were they left out?Give me a link http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/history-of-religion.html This one is a good quick one but it makes the point. I'll check it out.I don't know who you are including with "we". There are still many religions out there that have numerous deities. Monotheism is not accepted by many in the world. Getting picky on little wording mistakes now are you, come on I expected better than that from you?You said "we"; And that is where a new debate begins - which one is right? Easy they are all wrong. That's rather presumptuous, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised since you somehow "know" God does not exist. As well as you can "know" he dose. I just have more evidence to back me up, or maybe the lack of yours, either way. I mean if you had to prove your case in court you couldn't, The Bibles being written so long after the facts would be thrown out as hearsay, and they are your whole case.
4string wrote: AvaL wrote: 4string wrote: I watched Riligulous last night. Bill Mahar got alot of the same nonanswers, and just blank stares when there was no answer I always have.
Lol - did you see the trucker get mad and leave just because he was asking questions? I have relatives that do that. If they cant explain their own religion, there is a problem there.
Yes I did. He had no answers so he left, most religous people will do that. I have to give credit to Okeegator he will atleast discus it. Most believers will not even watch this DVD because when it come to this point of view they do not want to even hear it. Fearful that it might put some doubt in their faith. They will not let their kids learn or even look at the teaching of any other religion or lack there of. They would rather belive the impossible than listen to something that makes sence. When it makes too much sence they shake their heads, cover their ears, and run away. Now most of the other trukers stayed, but they did not have any answers.
Okeegator, Have you seen it? Would you watch it? I think you would you do not shy away from things just because you disagree with them. Don't watch it with kids there is some language, and ideas you might not want them picking up on.
I watch Bill Maher's show on occasion and was waiting for the movie to come out on DVD to watch it. I am secure enough in what I believe to watch it.
Many of those people he asks probably know what they believe but they don't know why. I think that this is the problem with most believers in a religion. They don't know why they believe it. When I started asking the why, I started feeling more secure in the what.
4string...I also look forward to your answers to my questions.
Last edited on Sat Feb 28th, 2009 06:49 pm by okeegator
AvaL wrote: 4string wrote: I watched Riligulous last night. Bill Mahar got alot of the same nonanswers, and just blank stares when there was no answer I always have.
Lol - did you see the trucker get mad and leave just because he was asking questions? I have relatives that do that. If they cant explain their own religion, there is a problem there.
Yes I did. He had no answers so he left, most religous people will do that. I have to give credit to Okeegator he will atleast discus it. Most believers will not even watch this DVD because when it come to this point of view they do not want to even hear it. Fearful that it might put some doubt in their faith. They will not let their kids learn or even look at the teaching of any other religion or lack there of. They would rather belive the impossible than listen to something that makes sence. When it makes too much sence they shake their heads, cover their ears, and run away. Now most of the other trukers stayed, but they did not have any answers.
Okeegator, Have you seen it? Would you watch it? I think you would you do not shy away from things just because you disagree with them. Don't watch it with kids there is some language, and ideas you might not want them picking up on.
Last edited on Sat Feb 28th, 2009 06:37 pm by 4string
But I do respect your opinions,, may not believe them
and it was a good discussion.
I do not understand why folks equate questioning with (edit) disbelief
