is this is ur way of thinking?.......i hope not!

Going to agree with LS here. The attitude of not being able to have a joke is the actuall problem which is causing these riots in the first place (oh ironey...)

That and the fact we've tried sensible discussion and it just resulted in "yeah well god changed the rules"

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

You could say the same about scientific argument. When something doesn't fit into the theory, the theory gets reworked until it fits.

An example? The evolutionary theory of Darwin says that life is a struggle of the species for survival - they fight to preserve the species. Hence Darwin's book is entitled On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Now, when a new male lion takes over the pride he does not only chase the old leader away (or kill him), he will also try to kill the offspring of the old leader. If life was just about "preservation of the species" this would be completely unnecessary. It shows that Darwin was completely wrong here when thinking that animals would only serve the purpose to keep their species alive. Did evolutionists accept this argument and said "Yo, Darwin's crap, let's go home and do something worthwhile?" No, they simply changed the theory to make it fit again. (Dawkins = the "selfish gene".

Now this theory is under attack again and needs to be revised. As you can see, science does also change the rules every time you come up with in argument. This is not a problem of religion alone, I guess it's within human nature trying to defend in what you believe with all means.

In fact the way for example astrophysics work is way more hilarious. They keep inventing grey matter, black matter, anti matter and all sort of weird stuff they never can prove just to keep their models of the universe working and every time someone shows them they are wrong (like recently people seemed to find out that dark matter is impossible) they pull another rabbit out of the hat. This is not much better then bringing God into the game.

There are many, many, many other examples.

---

REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2006 08:19PM by Vader.

But i didnt talk about that, so whilst it applies to that, it doesnt apply to this convo. Im addressing the contradictions made, and then denied by Fongu, and his only answer is "god changed the rules". Well im sorry, but thats a contradiction.

And as i said, science attempts (important word there) to prove its theorys by using facts. Whilst these facts may not be avalible right now, there is always some proper reason on why the theory came about. If it can be proved (or disproved) later when the technology becomes avalible to do so. But relgion does not do this. Its a fear based faith which basicly says "belive what we say, or your going to hell". This differs massivly from beliving in science.

Fear based control method to keep control of the masses and to explain things which science at the time could not explain. Nothing more.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

I am sorry to shatter your illusions, but the scientific community is full of fear based control methods.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

Such as that when i die i'll go to hell and suffer for all eternity if i dont belive in a book written by a random thousands of years ago? BUT, if i murder someone, thats ok, god will forgive me if i ask?

Not that that actually matters because thats not what was being discussed IMO This origionally stemed from relgion based hatrid acts and why they happen. IMO, this thread proves how blinded people can be from "faith" and beliving what they are told which is why we have the burning of flags over a cartoon which was never actually published, and the origional which was published some 6 months ago and was ignored.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2006 10:11PM by DaveEllis.

No, but that you won't be able to make a career and get accepted in the world of science if you don't believe in a book written by a random professor who happens to be accepetd by the majority. It's basically the same as you claim it is with religion. You either follow the guru or get stoned to death by those who call you a heretic. 99% of all people who talk about science have no other choice as to believe what they have been told since they don't understand a word of it themselves (me included, I just realized how hopelessly lost I have been after trying to read an article on "positive pre-quarks spinning with a left-hand screw motion".

---

REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS

But that still doesnt change whats being discussed. Relgion causes hate through the blind faith of some people to belive, without question, everything they are told. This causes some people to become almost stuck up about what they belive, not only challenge someone who opposes them, but go to extreme lengths to even cause harm to them, and anyone who agrees with the opposition.

Relgion has caused countless wars over thousands of thousands of years, and even in smaller areas is still causing huge problems (Northen Ireland and Glasgow for example). Yet it is nothing more than stories which defies almost all logic, which gullable people belive. This thread IMO proves that, some of the stuff is so dam funny i couldnt even reply to it.

Best bit is, if relgion didnt exsist and then someone tried to start it now, it would be laughed at. Just think if we had no relgion and someone turned up, called himself Jesus, declared himself the son of God, which created us all and controls everything. Imagine someone walked up to you in the street and told you tha. You'd laugh in there face. Yet, despite that, peope belive it because they have been told to

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2006 10:20PM by DaveEllis.

No not quite;

I don't suppose you have heard of "peer review", but this is probably the most important, scientific yardstick you can be measured by, after you have cleared the initial hurdles, like actually making a scientific discovery, preparing the material so it can be publish, making sense of it all and making sure that it has internal logical consistancy and so forth.

Basically, you submit your work in an article for various journals in your field, and they will either accept your article or they won't. A lot of power can be applied at this level, since it is a verdict from the editoral staff, and they usually have so much status that they seldom have to answer to anyone. Of course they cannot refuse those that are well established, but from those that are up and coming they can pick and choose.

After that there has to be reviewers... Now these are also from the same community, and they don't have to review your work. Actually most would rather not if it is someone they know, hence it has been more and more common that people review incognito.

Why? Fear. They fear tredding on the toes of the wrong people. They fear barring themselves from future research projects with them, or getting into a situation where those they have reviewed has to make a choice of whether or not scarce funds are to be allocated to their research project or to someone else. Often fields of research can be so specific, that there are basically only 5-10 people that are qualified to review articles, to have as research partners, and to head commities that grant funding.

Researchers that submit articles for peer review also have fears of their own. They make sure that they display, with buzzwords and concepts, that they have read and understood, and pay at least lip service, to established top brass in the field. They fear they won't be accepted for review. They fear they won't have reviewers if they do. They fear what the reviewers might say...

And this is the big hurdle in science... if you are peer reviewed, you are basically accepted and one of the gang. If you are peer reviewed, you will begin to be mention in a lot of "citation indexes", which is the standard that measures who is who in the scientific world. If you are cited, someone is using your work, and hence you must be good. More citations equals more status and equals more funding.

Status, recognition and funding is power... withholding or granting this social capital is control. Fearbased control.

A lot of what is accepted common sense and valid scientific fact started out being utterly rejected by the scientific community. With the right combination of sentences, you can with a subtle and swift stroke basically end a persons career in a peer review. It doesn't even have to be an attack on the validity of their research or results.

It is not the same as "when i die i'll go to hell if i dont belive in a book written by a random thousands of years ago" but - being cast out of the community you have dedicated your life to, ostracized from your colleges and wasting years upon years you have invested, can be a form of hell.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

Only a few religious fanatics have blind faith in what they have been told. Scientific discoveries have also led to a lot of violence and terror. What you said about religion could also be said about politics or economy. Should we abandom those two?

Yes, some of the stuff is so funny that it's not even worth replying to it.

You are still taking everything literal, which only the minority of religious people do. As long as we really take religion word for word and don't analize the underlying idea (which is actually far from defying all logic) the discussion will remain superficial.

Btw, when Einstein came up with his theory of relativity the united community of scientists laughed in his face as well, so again this is not religion only.

---

REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2006 10:36PM by Vader.

Lots of people start religions now and are certainly not laughed at. Many of them gain far more followers in their lifetime, than any of the established religions did while their prophets lived.

As for being stuck up about what they believe, not only challenge someone who opposes them, but go to extreme lengths to even cause harm to them, and anyone who agrees with the opposition, I see a lot of that in politics. There are certain methods that are outlawed, but there are still a hell of a lot of nasty tricks yet.

And lets not forget that the 3 largest conflicts in the history of humankind where wars (hot or cold), that had nothing to do with religion.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

Morbid, very enlightening. Very scary also. And yes, i agree, fear based control methods. Where the situation you described and relgion differ however, is who they control with it. The Peer Review you desecirbed keeps a specific group of people in order in there job (altho it will of course have effects immediatly outside it). Relgion on the other hand is a mass control in order to make people life there lives the way a certain person wants them to live it. Even Fongu said it himself, a christian must live his life for god, not for himself.

After reading your post, i do now agree, science is not obviously the full truth and does have certain control measures, most likely based on fear. But IMO this differs massivly from the relgious one, especailly the christian one.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

Posted by: Morbid (IP Logged)
Date: February 13, 2006 10:35PM

Lots of people start religions now and are certainly not laughed at. Many of them gain far more followers in their lifetime, than any of the established religions did while their prophets lived.

that is because we already have relgion. It is nothing new, just another relgion to add to the current list of thousands. Not that most of these new relgions are actually relgions, more than people just pissing about. Jedi for example. But imagine there was NO relgion. No relgion at all, and then someone came along and declared one. How funny would it be? On a scale of 1 to 10, around 9.9 IMO. You simply could not have the stories of water into wine and the parting of the seas now days because too much is explained by science which will rubbish the story and people will laugh. Relgion survives because it started at a time where science could not explain the stories, so humans created it either as control, or to explain things they could not otherwise explain.

But, you make another good point. People start relgions all the time...but surely, for a proper relgion to start (ignoring crap like Jedi, thats just stupid on a whole new level), it has to have some base? So, for example, we'll take a chrisitan based relgion, where god has written a book and/or told a person what to do/say. But...surely if god has now done this, it makes christianity out of date, and useless, as god now wants the new one to be worshipped? That is of course just using the christian based relgion, and wont apply to 99% of them, so i use it as an example. Basicly, what i mean with this point is, who says its true? Other than the ONE man who started it all? And what makes it more true than every other relgion? Or is it once again, blind belief, with no form of proofin any way? That is gullable, no other word for it.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

With all due respect, I would call fongu a rare case of a Christian fundametalist. As he said, he comes form a Baptist/Calvinist movement, so he does most definitely not speak for the official Christian Churches (which are far more moderate). The Catholic Church would probably even regard him as an apostate or even heretic and most Protestant Churches would go so far as to call his branch a "religious sect". It's not fair to judge the diversity of Christian believes by the extreme statements of him.

---

REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS

Thanks dude, much apprieciated... I like the fact that the 3 years I have spent being a part of running my Uni, having all those "WTF?!?" moments have not been in vain

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

It's not fair to judge the diversity of Christian believes by the extreme statements of him.

also true, and a fair point. But i have to sya i learnt alot about the basics of christianity in this thread (despite having it forced upon me in school, something i'll mention in a moment), and that has come from Fongu. His thoughts posted here are very extreamist IMO, but even when these are toned down, the whole idea is just completel daft to me and defies logical thinking

Another point i should have made earlier but forgot is the theory of evolution. The church is protesting agaisnt the theory of evolution being tought in schools because it is nothing more than a theory and christianity is the one true faith. Well that sickkens me tbh and shows once again, the control measure side of relgion in attempting, to effectivly brainwash at a young age to remove the choice the person has. My daughter will certainly not be forced to attend church and can make the relgion choice herself. If any chritisn even begins to think they have the right to teach my daughter there relgion as fact, and disallow others they will find a fight on there hands

Altho i do feel im about to go out of my depth when you (morbid) and vader come up with some funky stuff that makes my brain implode :P

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2006 10:53PM by DaveEllis.

DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The church is
> protesting agaisnt the theory of evolution being
> tought in schools because it is nothing more than
> a theory and christianity is the one true faith.
> Well that sickkens me tbh and shows once again,
> the control measure side of relgion in attempting,
> to effectivly brainwash at a young age to remove
> the choice the person has. My daughter will
> certainly not be forced to attend church and can
> make the relgion choice herself.

um no, that's creationists, not the church. To be honest science doesn't disprove religion at all. You seem very hateful towards it all, I just hope you won't instill this in your daughter too, as like you say, it is for her to decide.

The main thing here about this topic which I see people doing is; don't cricise from the outside, it just makes things worse and shows up your ignorance. Also, don't assume you are right/know everything.

H E L L O

um no, that's creationists, not the church.

My local church is agaisnt it, as is the Dundee one. Secondly, that does not actually matter because the origional point stands. Relgious nuts claiming there rlegion as fact and refusing other theories, with perhaps more base than there faith to be taught to kids to have there choice

To be honest science doesn't disprove religion at all.

Please re-read almost any post in this thread and then explain how parting a sea is scientificly possible by a man. Several people have said that science does not contradict relgion, but yet, nobody has answered this point with an answer other than "God makes the rules to preformed a miracle", which does contradict science.

You seem very hateful towards it all

Nope, i once again urge you to re-read the thread. I have injected some common sense and logic from the non relgious side. Just like Fongu has told me it is the truth, i have told him its not the truth.

I just hope you won't instill this in your daughter too, as like you say, it is for her to decide.

So you read the post, understand the post, then tell me what i posted...?

Also, don't assume you are right/know everything.

Man...you REALLY havent read ANY of this thread have you? ESPECAILLY the last couple of pages with me/morbid/vader have you?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2006 11:40PM by DaveEllis.

DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To be honest science doesn't disprove religion at
> all.
>
> Please re-read almost any post in this thread and
> then explain how parting a sea is scientificly
> possible by a man. Several people have said that
> science does not contradict relgion, but yet,
> nobody has answered this point with an answer
> other than "God makes the rules to preformed a
> miracle", which does contradict science.

You do realise that a lot of the bible is not meant to be taken literally? Some bits are poetrylike, some are stories to explain things, etc etc. Whether or not this happened I do not know. The fact that you are using it as an arguement just shows that you are basing your points on one small point of view, and on ignorance. Think outside the box

Also, don't assume you are right/know everything.

Man...you REALLY havent read ANY of this thread have you? ESPECAILLY the last couple of pages with me/morbid/vader have you?

Out of context again here - I was reffering to the general replies as a whole. No need to get all pissy about it.

About the hatred part, it's more bad wording on my part. I should have said intolerant or something. It's because of your strong use of language and general tone of your messages. Fair enough, you can easily deny it but it does appear that you have strong views. I'm just saying, try to look at it from other people's point of view, to see why they think what they think. It's only a point for conflict if you make it so yourself.

H E L L O

quote:

Please re-read almost any post in this thread and then explain how parting a sea is scientificly possible by a man.


The Bible doesn't say a man parted the sea - it was God.

Also, Vader - I would not say fongu is a fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination. Ok, some elements of Calvinism aren't necessarily mainstream, mainly when it comes down to salvation, but I'd hardly call his views particularly radical, and certainly not heretical. Furthermore, the Baptist church can hardly be said to be fundamentalist - Southern Baptists perhaps, but not your standard Baptist Church. Yes, they're rather evangelical, but that doesn't make them heretical. Evangelicals simply believe more rigidly in the authority of the Bible and hold it less metaphorically*.

*Obviously, some of the Bible is metaphorical, like parables.

[Website]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2006 11:54PM by Ferrari_Fuhrer.

You do realise that a lot of the bible is not meant to be taken literally? Some bits are poetrylike, some are stories to explain things, etc etc. Whether or not this happened I do not know. The fact that you are using it as an arguement just shows that you are basing your points on one small point of view, and on ignorance. Think outside the box

We tried that, and Fongu, the one arguing the christian side of things disagreed with that and said it was literal in the case we were talking about

About the hatred part, it's more bad wording on my part. I should have said intolerant or something. It's because of your strong use of language and general tone of your messages.

I always use this language, relgion discussion, game discussion, coca cola discussion. It does not mean im angry, or pissed off, or stoned, in doesnt mean anything.

My last post was a bit more annoyed because we had progressed past the point of "well god changes the rules, so im right cos god does what he wants" and gotten onto a more intelligent conversion, but now it seems the thread will be dragged back there and we will go through it again before we can discuss it properly.

The Bible doesn't say a man parted the sea - it was God.

Once again, that doesnt actually matter if you read the thread. It was stated, as fact, by Fongu that the bible does not contradict science. Science says parting of the seas like described is not possible. Therefore, no matter how it is done, it is a contradiction.

Also, whats the point in saying "dont read the bible word for word, look for the hidden meaning". Sorry, but that doesnt work. Not only does the bible change alot in every translation, but we're meant to not take it literaly and then think of abstract meanings for it? Well if each person actually thinks about it, we will all have totally different meanings, meaning christianity should not exsist as everyones interpretation of the bible will be completly different as they find there own meanings in it. Which, once again shows people belive what they are told to belive in relgion, rather than thinking for themselves. If they did think for themselves and find there own meanings from the bible, they would not be christians. They belive other peoples intepretations of the bible because they are told that is the truth, often in schools.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com