The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally

[Paulhoff]

I don't think it's in there, but so what? The Bible's not supposed to be an encyclopedia, and at least since Augustine's time Christianity generally hasn't regarded it as an authoritative source of information on things people are capable of learning about the natural world from experience. Fundamentalism changed that, of course, but fundamentalism is relatively new to Christianity.

Please, I don't know how many times I heard someone say, "It's all on the bible" and fundamentalism as an idea as been around for all religions from the start of each.

Possibly true, but again, so what? I'm not sure the size of the sun and moon is exactly "common knowledge to the masses" even now. And there are certainly plenty of other things that aren't, without being somehow un-Christian (or whatever your point was).

The masses are what keeps a religion going, without control over the masses a religion will died, keep them dumb and the religion will go on forever.

I don't watch Christian TV. Again, I'm not sure what that has to do with your suggestion that Christianity held the earth to be flat and so forth.

Please, I don't know what school you were going to, but in my history classes this was said so many times on how the church keep people in the dark about the nature of the world and universe.

Paul

 

[Taffer]

What is an emotion, and how could it be confirmed?

A very good question. One which, IMHO, is solveable through neuroscience.

I do not think that emotions - or thoughts for that matter - is something that magically separates humans from animals.

Me either. I don't think there is any barrier at all, but a continuum. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I don't think dogs have emotions. I think they do, but was simply commenting that I don't think there has been any actual scientific research into the topic.

The question is not whether animals have emotions because it is obvious that they have, but how complex are these emotions.

I'm not so sure how "obvious" it is. Many things often appear what they are not. That being said, we would first need to define what 'emotions' are, and find a way to detect them (for example, chemical and electrical changes in the brain in response to certain stimuli).

Dogs clearly have intelligence, though not anywhere close to humans, but a lot better than beetles. Dogs can also be more intelligent than human babies. If dogs cannot have emotions, can human babies?

This is honestly interesting. Are there any articles about this? I'd very much like to read further.

Most animals can show aggression. Is that not an emotion? Many animals are perhaps aggressive in a mechanical manner, both in how to get in the state of aggression and how to resolve it, but you can trace aggression back to very primitive animals. Emotions are not an either there or not there, but they can exist in a continuum from the most rudimentary state in primitive animals to well-developed form in mammals, and coupled with high intelligence in humans they become much more than a system to regulate interaction with social members or enemies.

I agree completely. The question would be, in that case, do animals, specifically in this example, dogs, have the level of emotions which are often placed upon them? This is really what I'm getting at. Does a dog 'love' its owner, or is it simply a survival tactic?

Again, my personal view is the same as yours, not if but how much emotion dogs have. I honestly be very interested to read any papers on this subject.

ETA: Perhaps I haven't been very clear in the previous few posts. When I'm speaking of emotions in dogs, I'm specifically referring to what is often considered 'higher' emotions, rather then the oft named 'primitive' emotions.

 

[Taffer]

You little shiot head!
She wasn't my woman and I moved to a different town 50 miles away and lost contact a month before the last event happened.
So now you think you can judge me, rubber duck boy?
She had her own family that had control and lost it.
You need to look in a mirror and see what is in possession of you.

You twisted my words into your perverse little rationalizations.

You make me sick.

 

[Belz...]

Good point Moochie, conceiveable when you do the math and understand the physics and how the Lord created and had the power to do so..

The physics of god ?

And design was created by the DESIGNER not by the luck and chance of athiestic dogma of nothingness.

You are deliberatly ignoring my points on this. What are you affraid of ?

 

[Belz...]

Foster, you're IN one now if you open up your mind, because there is nothing hidden that shall not be revealed if you OPEN up your eyes.

Well, that IS what we do. And we see nothing remotely ressembling what you claim is true.

 

[Belz...]

You can look into person’s eyes and know if they have the light of the world or the light of god in them.

Just like people I know "can" look at people and "see" their auras. All you have to do is believe, and you shall see. Just be careful what you believe in.

Me ? I'll just pick reality. Thanks.

One of my friends was murdered by a black-eyed demon just the other day.

Was he summoned or did he open a portal ?

She had the light, he still didn't.

He killed her because he wasn't a christian ? Well, I guess all those killers who ARE christians are just following the will of God, right ?

We had to separate ourselves from both of them, for many reasons mostly because you can be taken down with them.

YOU ABANDONED HER ???? Who's the demon, now ?

 

[The Atheist]

A very good question. One which, IMHO, is solveable through neuroscience.

Not so sure about that.

I'm involved in a few fascinating discussions with a PhD theoretical neuroscientist at Ship of Fools at the moment. He's an Aussie, so I have to make allowances, but he's a good bloke and has some very interesting stuff to say about where neuroscience is and what it appears to be showing us about how we think.

He's pretty adamant that he and his [mainly non-christian] buddies are certain that emotion cannot be explained physically.

I'm betting that he knows what he's talking about.

 

[Foster Zygote]

What is an emotion, and how could it be confirmed? I do not think that emotions - or thoughts for that matter - is something that magically separates humans from animals. The question is not whether animals have emotions because it is obvious that they have, but how complex are these emotions.

Dogs clearly have intelligence, though not anywhere close to humans, but a lot better than beetles. Dogs can also be more intelligent than human babies. If dogs cannot have emotions, can human babies?

Most animals can show aggression. Is that not an emotion? Many animals are perhaps aggressive in a mechanical manner, both in how to get in the state of aggression and how to resolve it, but you can trace aggression back to very primitive animals. Emotions are not an either there or not there, but they can exist in a continuum from the most rudimentary state in primitive animals to well-developed form in mammals, and coupled with high intelligence in humans they become much more than a system to regulate interaction with social members or enemies.

Weirdly enough, this very thing was running through my mind last night as I drifted off to sleep. If I'm not mistaken emotional experience in the human brain has been linked to activity in the limbic region. Most mammals have a well developed limbic region. Our human emotions are no doubt strongly influenced and complicated by the functions of our freakishly huge neocortex so I doubt very much that a dog or a cat or a bear experiences the world exactly the same way that humans do. But I don't think it's anthropomorphic to suggest that mammals at least experience the same sort of basic emotions that we do. In fact I think it sounds suspiciously anthropocentric to claim that only humans have sentience and emotion. I once saw a video in an anthropology class of a big male orangutan showing surprise. First the video showed some zoo baboons reacting to a plastic mirror mounted vertically in the ground. The monkeys, especially the males, became very agitated and aggressive toward the image and often tried to run around the mirror to confront the invader on the other side. When the Orangutan was given a similar mirror that he could hold in his hands he at first lowered his brows and looked at it very suspiciously, then he gazed at it intently for several seconds and suddenly had a moment of comprehension. He sat up straight, dropped his jaw, sucked in a breath and opened his eyes wide. After this he slowly began to move again, touching his face and feeling his big facial pads, curling his lips back to look at his teeth, sticking his tongue out and just generally examining and admiring himself. It was amazing to watch. It just seems counter intuitive to me, based on what I know of natural selection, to assume that there is some sudden acquisition of consciousness and that humans are the first to achieve this state. It seems more likely that there is a gradual slope of consciousness. I doubt very much that frogs and lizards have much, if any, self awareness and I'm virtually certain that insects are simply executing a complex program without any conscious awareness. But my various pets and that video of an orangutan being startled by the realization that he was seeing himself in a mirror are enough to make me seriously doubt claims that only humans are sentient.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

I thought we were talking about the bible. The link discusses why the bible is a mess. Have you even checked it out?

That's not my hair. That's my avatar's hair. I don't hope to look like that, I just like the picture since it is safer than using my own, and it does indicate to people what my gender is.


Since the bible has undeniably been revised over and over again, then why can't we revise it again now...

If there is a god, then it wants us to know about life. Evolution is blatantly observable, and could be included as part of the earth's history (that is closer to 6 billion years old than 6,000). Evolution certainly doesn't have to explain origins of life, but it could lay to rest all the squabbling about men and dinos.

Since it is a religious book, the IDers would be happy with including ID. God could make earth within 6 billion years. The first billion is the rock, the next the air and sky, then next microbes...then a few billion years later, when the rock is colonized by plants and animals, then poof, god could figure humans (in his loverly image) could tolerate the ecosystem and cause primates to evolve the human line.

Then the silly humans can still piss off god, and he can take away the paradise earth with an ice age in retaliation.

Hovind and Veith just need to put their heads together, and we'll have a fresh new bible, with hopefully less chauvenism. Course, they would have a lot of stories of us evil atheists leading people to become gay or something, but hey, it would be a wee bit better than trying to tell people the earth is only 6000 years old. Huh?


A bible rewrite at this point in time would be soooo cool.

Darn, eos, I thought the pic was a reasonable facsimile of yourself and showed that you were at least female. Wayyyyy toooo many frustrated male athiests here....

Does their negativity repel women that much, that there are no women HERE at all.

I mean, Here am I trying to flirt with you, and you may be a guy...

Scheesh, you athiests are unliberated and behind times.

As for 6,000 years do the math..

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/6000yearsofEarthshistory.html

But you won;t fully understand this unless seeing the whole scope of the past and future

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/ProphecyTimeLines.html

 

[Tanstaafl]

Try to keep up, DJJ, EOS already told you she's female.

 

[volatile]

As for 6,000 years do the math..

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/6000yearsofEarthshistory.html

You expect us to "do the math" based on figures from a site which says:

"[SIZE=-1]And besides, there is absolutely no evidence of anything prehistoric"

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]as if it was the most obvious thing in the world?
[/SIZE]

 

[Foster Zygote]

Not so sure about that.

I'm involved in a few fascinating discussions with a PhD theoretical neuroscientist at Ship of Fools at the moment. He's an Aussie, so I have to make allowances, but he's a good bloke and has some very interesting stuff to say about where neuroscience is and what it appears to be showing us about how we think.

He's pretty adamant that he and his [mainly non-christian] buddies are certain that emotion cannot be explained physically.

I'm betting that he knows what he's talking about.

If it can't be explained physically, i.e. naturally, then is it supernatural? I'm just highly suspicious of any claim that anything is beyond explanation. Something may lie beyond our current ability to investigate effectively but that doesn't preclude future understanding based on as yet undiscovered information. It just sounds too much like the claim that we would never be able to know what the stars were made of.

 

[volatile]

Also:

[SIZE=-1]Secondly a day has always been the same as obviously the Earth's rotation hasn't changed since the Lord created it, and the plants wouldn't have survived millions and billions of years without a sun as indicated in Genesis.

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]How's about that for the most absurd piece of circular reasoning you ever heard?
[/SIZE]

 

[Miss Anthrope]

We have not been on the forum for that long, so how can we know each other that long when I met you only on the forum and nowhere else.

Paul

Whoa, this thread has gotten positively creepy since I left it. Good natured of you to smile about it, though, PH.

 

[Belz...]

Darn, eos, I thought the pic was a reasonable facsimile of yourself and showed that you were at least female. Wayyyyy toooo many frustrated male athiests here....

Does their negativity repel women that much, that there are no women HERE at all.

I mean, Here am I trying to flirt with you, and you may be a guy...

Scheesh, you athiests are unliberated and behind times.

Do you have anything, besides insults ?

What does your lord say about beign not nice to other people ?

As for 6,000 years do the math..

Oh, my. If the bibble says it, it MUST be true!!

 

[Belz...]

I doubt very much that frogs and lizards have much, if any, self awareness and I'm virtually certain that insects are simply executing a complex program without any conscious awareness. But my various pets and that video of an orangutan being startled by the realization that he was seeing himself in a mirror are enough to make me seriously doubt claims that only humans are sentient.

I'd like to see that video...

 

[Tanstaafl]

Also:

[SIZE=-1]Secondly a day has always been the same as obviously the Earth's rotation hasn't changed since the Lord created it, and the plants wouldn't have survived millions and billions of years without a sun as indicated in Genesis.

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]How's about that for the most absurd piece of circular reasoning you ever heard?
[/SIZE]

If we had a drivel award, I would nominate it.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

.

Does their negativity repel women that much, that there are no women HERE at all.

I mean, Here am I trying to flirt with you, and you may be a guy...

Scheesh, you athiests are unliberated and behind times.

*Ahem*. I am a female Athiest. Since I find strong, sharp witted men very attractive, I've never met an athiest who wasn't at the very least intellectually sexy. Based on that, flirting with me would be futile. Anyway, I'm married and there's a waiting list for me at the swinger's club. I don't think they'd let you in.

 

[Moochie]

From reading this and other threads where "believers" wax lyrical, it is clear to me that they (true believers) will not and cannot answer challenges to their beliefs.

Instead, they either a) ignore such challenges; b) counter with erroneous quotes from the bible; or c) change the subject.

If this is the best they can offer, then I see religion, particularly Christianity, dying out within two or three generations.

M.

 

[ceo_esq]

Please, I don't know what school you were going to, but in my history classes this was said so many times on how the church keep people in the dark about the nature of the world and universe

Well, it's a thing commonly repeated and popularly believed, I'll grant you. I just don't have much basis for thinking it's very accurate.