Logic dictates that there is a God!

[warmonger1981]

Quantum physics proves universe is a hologram. Case closed its all an illusion.

[notyou2]

Logic dictates that there is a God!

You can not know God by logic, it requires faith.

I asked this question in another thread, but I doubt it will be answered, so I will shoot 2 believers with 1 bullet

Adam and Eve and 4 human blood types. Go ahead I would like to hear your biblical explanation

Even if there was a biblical explanation for something that was more science based than faith based, I am pretty sure you wouldn't believe it anyway since I am gathering you do not believe anything in the Bible.

My view on all of this is that the Bible was not written to explain nor justify the existence of God but to provide a message about salvation and inspiration. When I listen to passages from the Bible, I don't try to figure out why God didn't create both the animals and Adam and Eve on the fifth day, then rest on both the sixth and the seventh day. Even though that's what I would have done because I like my two day weekends.

Nor do I believe that Adam and Eve were simply two humans that are essentially at the top of the family tree of all of humankind. I think the purpose of the story is that man and woman came to existence. How they came to existence is much less important than the fact that they do exist and even more important is that within their existence, they are to do good for others like them.

Too many people try to explain science and the Bible as if they need to be two distinct separate things. To me one is more about explaining why things are here and the other is more about what to do while you are here. I understand why people want to know more about if/how/when/why we evolved from a lesser species. I also understand why people want to grow the faith in their lives. I don't understand why both sides are so argumentative as to why they are definitely correct and the other side is wrong. People are not all-knowing. We never will be. It is simply who we are. With that said, if there is a higher power, he could give all the proof he wanted to get us to believe whatever he felt was correct. Much like how I can convince a young child that I actually pulled a quarter out from behind their ear. Who's to say all this scientific data is not just one giant illusion laid out by an intelligent designer. I do not personally believe that but I wouldn't ridicule someone who did either because it's as good of explanation as it all came out of nowhere, whether big bang or God.

So basically you are saying read the bible for it's moral teachings and wisdom, and don't take it literally. THAT, I can agree with, and I think you are correct in your interpretation. I respect you for this. However, there are many that view the bible differently than you and use it to force their interpretations on others. Creationism in public schools is the most obvious example. I have no respect for these people. They are selfish and self centered as well as closed minded.

[GoranZ]

Logic dictates that there is a God!

You can not know God by logic, it requires faith.

I asked this question in another thread, but I doubt it will be answered, so I will shoot 2 believers with 1 bullet

Adam and Eve and 4 human blood types. Go ahead I would like to hear your biblical explanation

Even if there was a biblical explanation for something that was more science based than faith based, I am pretty sure you wouldn't believe it anyway since I am gathering you do not believe anything in the Bible.

You are wrong... Gigantic flood in Noah's time was real event, that happened but it wasn't global as it is belied by creationist. Once upon a time Black Sea was inland lake, but the sea rise and which created large large flood... The problem for those people was that the world that they knew for their whole life was all gone under water. For them the flood was global, that's why the story in the bible is for global flood. I think that you wont find follower of science that would try to dispute local flood during Noah's time.

My view on all of this is that the Bible was not written to explain nor justify the existence of God but to provide a message about salvation and inspiration. When I listen to passages from the Bible, I don't try to figure out why God didn't create both the animals and Adam and Eve on the fifth day, then rest on both the sixth and the seventh day. Even though that's what I would have done because I like my two day weekends.

Nor do I believe that Adam and Eve were simply two humans that are essentially at the top of the family tree of all of humankind. I think the purpose of the story is that man and woman came to existence. How they came to existence is much less important than the fact that they do exist and even more important is that within their existence, they are to do good for others like them.

You aether believe in the whole package or you dont... there is no middle or picking parts that you believe in.
If you believe in things that can not be explained by science, and you agree with those things that can then in reality you are not a believer... You are more like us with one difference that we have empty space(unknown that needs to be discovered) in the places where you find explanations from the bible.

Too many people try to explain science and the Bible as if they need to be two distinct separate things. To me one is more about explaining why things are here and the other is more about what to do while you are here. I understand why people want to know more about if/how/when/why we evolved from a lesser species. I also understand why people want to grow the faith in their lives. I don't understand why both sides are so argumentative as to why they are definitely correct and the other side is wrong. People are not all-knowing. We never will be. It is simply who we are. With that said, if there is a higher power, he could give all the proof he wanted to get us to believe whatever he felt was correct. Much like how I can convince a young child that I actually pulled a quarter out from behind their ear. Who's to say all this scientific data is not just one giant illusion laid out by an intelligent designer. I do not personally believe that but I wouldn't ridicule someone who did either because it's as good of explanation as it all came out of nowhere, whether big bang or God.

Desire for exploration, discovery is embedded in human genes, and since bible is limiting those desires, it doesn't have any chance on long term survival. That is only if it doesn't survive like a story like the story for Santa

[patrickaa317]

Logic dictates that there is a God!

You can not know God by logic, it requires faith.

I asked this question in another thread, but I doubt it will be answered, so I will shoot 2 believers with 1 bullet

Adam and Eve and 4 human blood types. Go ahead I would like to hear your biblical explanation

Even if there was a biblical explanation for something that was more science based than faith based, I am pretty sure you wouldn't believe it anyway since I am gathering you do not believe anything in the Bible.

My view on all of this is that the Bible was not written to explain nor justify the existence of God but to provide a message about salvation and inspiration. When I listen to passages from the Bible, I don't try to figure out why God didn't create both the animals and Adam and Eve on the fifth day, then rest on both the sixth and the seventh day. Even though that's what I would have done because I like my two day weekends.

Nor do I believe that Adam and Eve were simply two humans that are essentially at the top of the family tree of all of humankind. I think the purpose of the story is that man and woman came to existence. How they came to existence is much less important than the fact that they do exist and even more important is that within their existence, they are to do good for others like them.

Too many people try to explain science and the Bible as if they need to be two distinct separate things. To me one is more about explaining why things are here and the other is more about what to do while you are here. I understand why people want to know more about if/how/when/why we evolved from a lesser species. I also understand why people want to grow the faith in their lives. I don't understand why both sides are so argumentative as to why they are definitely correct and the other side is wrong. People are not all-knowing. We never will be. It is simply who we are. With that said, if there is a higher power, he could give all the proof he wanted to get us to believe whatever he felt was correct. Much like how I can convince a young child that I actually pulled a quarter out from behind their ear. Who's to say all this scientific data is not just one giant illusion laid out by an intelligent designer. I do not personally believe that but I wouldn't ridicule someone who did either because it's as good of explanation as it all came out of nowhere, whether big bang or God.

So basically you are saying read the bible for it's moral teachings and wisdom, and don't take it literally. THAT, I can agree with, and I think you are correct in your interpretation. I respect you for this. However, there are many that view the bible differently than you and use it to force their interpretations on others. Creationism in public schools is the most obvious example. I have no respect for these people. They are selfish and self centered as well as closed minded.

I agree that many people interpret the bible differently. I don't think anyone truly understands, nor could ever understand, the Bible in completeness. God's concept of it was complex to begin with, then man interpreted it, translated it, decided which books should be removed from it, etc.

With that said, there are plenty of people in both the creationism side as well as the science side that are selfish and closed minded. I wouldn't disagree about Creationism and public schools as far as being the definitive source of the start of existence, the schools should touch on what the religions truly mean rather than discounting them all together. Again, that could never happen due to all the different flavors that exist. But teaching some of the parables and the history of the religion would not be a bad thing. i.e. How did Christianity start? What happened that Luther broke off? etc. If they can spend a few weeks talking about art history, they should be able to afford some time to talk about religion history.

[notyou2]

Logic dictates that there is a God!

You can not know God by logic, it requires faith.

I asked this question in another thread, but I doubt it will be answered, so I will shoot 2 believers with 1 bullet

Adam and Eve and 4 human blood types. Go ahead I would like to hear your biblical explanation

Even if there was a biblical explanation for something that was more science based than faith based, I am pretty sure you wouldn't believe it anyway since I am gathering you do not believe anything in the Bible.

My view on all of this is that the Bible was not written to explain nor justify the existence of God but to provide a message about salvation and inspiration. When I listen to passages from the Bible, I don't try to figure out why God didn't create both the animals and Adam and Eve on the fifth day, then rest on both the sixth and the seventh day. Even though that's what I would have done because I like my two day weekends.

Nor do I believe that Adam and Eve were simply two humans that are essentially at the top of the family tree of all of humankind. I think the purpose of the story is that man and woman came to existence. How they came to existence is much less important than the fact that they do exist and even more important is that within their existence, they are to do good for others like them.

Too many people try to explain science and the Bible as if they need to be two distinct separate things. To me one is more about explaining why things are here and the other is more about what to do while you are here. I understand why people want to know more about if/how/when/why we evolved from a lesser species. I also understand why people want to grow the faith in their lives. I don't understand why both sides are so argumentative as to why they are definitely correct and the other side is wrong. People are not all-knowing. We never will be. It is simply who we are. With that said, if there is a higher power, he could give all the proof he wanted to get us to believe whatever he felt was correct. Much like how I can convince a young child that I actually pulled a quarter out from behind their ear. Who's to say all this scientific data is not just one giant illusion laid out by an intelligent designer. I do not personally believe that but I wouldn't ridicule someone who did either because it's as good of explanation as it all came out of nowhere, whether big bang or God.

So basically you are saying read the bible for it's moral teachings and wisdom, and don't take it literally. THAT, I can agree with, and I think you are correct in your interpretation. I respect you for this. However, there are many that view the bible differently than you and use it to force their interpretations on others. Creationism in public schools is the most obvious example. I have no respect for these people. They are selfish and self centered as well as closed minded.

I agree that many people interpret the bible differently. I don't think anyone truly understands, nor could ever understand, the Bible in completeness. God's concept of it was complex to begin with, then man interpreted it, translated it, decided which books should be removed from it, etc.

With that said, there are plenty of people in both the creationism side as well as the science side that are selfish and closed minded. I wouldn't disagree about Creationism and public schools as far as being the definitive source of the start of existence, the schools should touch on what the religions truly mean rather than discounting them all together. Again, that could never happen due to all the different flavors that exist. But teaching some of the parables and the history of the religion would not be a bad thing. i.e. How did Christianity start? What happened that Luther broke off? etc. If they can spend a few weeks talking about art history, they should be able to afford some time to talk about religion history.

That's what Sunday school is for, or catechism. Why should others have to learn your religion in public school?

[patrickaa317]

Logic dictates that there is a God!

You can not know God by logic, it requires faith.

I asked this question in another thread, but I doubt it will be answered, so I will shoot 2 believers with 1 bullet

Adam and Eve and 4 human blood types. Go ahead I would like to hear your biblical explanation

Even if there was a biblical explanation for something that was more science based than faith based, I am pretty sure you wouldn't believe it anyway since I am gathering you do not believe anything in the Bible.

You are wrong... Gigantic flood in Noah's time was real event, that happened but it wasn't global as it is belied by creationist. Once upon a time Black Sea was inland lake, but the sea rise and which created large large flood... The problem for those people was that the world that they knew for their whole life was all gone under water. For them the flood was global, that's why the story in the bible is for global flood. I think that you wont find follower of science that would try to dispute local flood during Noah's time.

My view on all of this is that the Bible was not written to explain nor justify the existence of God but to provide a message about salvation and inspiration. When I listen to passages from the Bible, I don't try to figure out why God didn't create both the animals and Adam and Eve on the fifth day, then rest on both the sixth and the seventh day. Even though that's what I would have done because I like my two day weekends.

Nor do I believe that Adam and Eve were simply two humans that are essentially at the top of the family tree of all of humankind. I think the purpose of the story is that man and woman came to existence. How they came to existence is much less important than the fact that they do exist and even more important is that within their existence, they are to do good for others like them.

You aether believe in the whole package or you dont... there is no middle or picking parts that you believe in.
If you believe in things that can not be explained by science, and you agree with those things that can then in reality you are not a believer... You are more like us with one difference that we have empty space(unknown that needs to be discovered) in the places where you find explanations from the bible.

Too many people try to explain science and the Bible as if they need to be two distinct separate things. To me one is more about explaining why things are here and the other is more about what to do while you are here. I understand why people want to know more about if/how/when/why we evolved from a lesser species. I also understand why people want to grow the faith in their lives. I don't understand why both sides are so argumentative as to why they are definitely correct and the other side is wrong. People are not all-knowing. We never will be. It is simply who we are. With that said, if there is a higher power, he could give all the proof he wanted to get us to believe whatever he felt was correct. Much like how I can convince a young child that I actually pulled a quarter out from behind their ear. Who's to say all this scientific data is not just one giant illusion laid out by an intelligent designer. I do not personally believe that but I wouldn't ridicule someone who did either because it's as good of explanation as it all came out of nowhere, whether big bang or God.

Desire for exploration, discovery is embedded in human genes, and since bible is limiting those desires, it doesn't have any chance on long term survival. That is only if it doesn't survive like a story like the story for Santa

Not wrong, the flood and blood types are two different things. The flood is a historical event (local,global, whatever) captured in the Bible, the different blood types that exist is not anywhere in the book. You are trying to disprove a book that should be used for moral guidence using facts that exist in a scientific world.

Can you explain scientifically how 4 blood types came to be from nothing? Exactly at what point from when there was nothing, to when something formed out of nothing, to today did each of the four blood types come into existence? I'll give you a hint, you are indicating this happened at sometime pre-human because you are implying that at no point, could a new blood type just show up in a group of people such as things like blue eyes, skin tone, or other things that have definite genetic traits that have been proven to occur in a subset of the entire human population. (I get this implication because you are saying that if by some chance, the world did start with Adam & Eve, that in no way we could have four blood types because you are looking for a biblical explanation though the bible never once mentions blood type).

Frankly, I really don't care if you think I'm a believer or not. You are also the same person that called me dumb in a different thread after you misread the conversation. Don't take that personal, I'm just being blunt and honest.

The bible has not limited desires for exploration and discovery to this point. Many famous scientists were religious people yet made contributions to science.

[patrickaa317]

You can not know God by logic, it requires faith.

I asked this question in another thread, but I doubt it will be answered, so I will shoot 2 believers with 1 bullet

Adam and Eve and 4 human blood types. Go ahead I would like to hear your biblical explanation

Even if there was a biblical explanation for something that was more science based than faith based, I am pretty sure you wouldn't believe it anyway since I am gathering you do not believe anything in the Bible.

My view on all of this is that the Bible was not written to explain nor justify the existence of God but to provide a message about salvation and inspiration. When I listen to passages from the Bible, I don't try to figure out why God didn't create both the animals and Adam and Eve on the fifth day, then rest on both the sixth and the seventh day. Even though that's what I would have done because I like my two day weekends.

Nor do I believe that Adam and Eve were simply two humans that are essentially at the top of the family tree of all of humankind. I think the purpose of the story is that man and woman came to existence. How they came to existence is much less important than the fact that they do exist and even more important is that within their existence, they are to do good for others like them.

Too many people try to explain science and the Bible as if they need to be two distinct separate things. To me one is more about explaining why things are here and the other is more about what to do while you are here. I understand why people want to know more about if/how/when/why we evolved from a lesser species. I also understand why people want to grow the faith in their lives. I don't understand why both sides are so argumentative as to why they are definitely correct and the other side is wrong. People are not all-knowing. We never will be. It is simply who we are. With that said, if there is a higher power, he could give all the proof he wanted to get us to believe whatever he felt was correct. Much like how I can convince a young child that I actually pulled a quarter out from behind their ear. Who's to say all this scientific data is not just one giant illusion laid out by an intelligent designer. I do not personally believe that but I wouldn't ridicule someone who did either because it's as good of explanation as it all came out of nowhere, whether big bang or God.

So basically you are saying read the bible for it's moral teachings and wisdom, and don't take it literally. THAT, I can agree with, and I think you are correct in your interpretation. I respect you for this. However, there are many that view the bible differently than you and use it to force their interpretations on others. Creationism in public schools is the most obvious example. I have no respect for these people. They are selfish and self centered as well as closed minded.

I agree that many people interpret the bible differently. I don't think anyone truly understands, nor could ever understand, the Bible in completeness. God's concept of it was complex to begin with, then man interpreted it, translated it, decided which books should be removed from it, etc.

With that said, there are plenty of people in both the creationism side as well as the science side that are selfish and closed minded. I wouldn't disagree about Creationism and public schools as far as being the definitive source of the start of existence, the schools should touch on what the religions truly mean rather than discounting them all together. Again, that could never happen due to all the different flavors that exist. But teaching some of the parables and the history of the religion would not be a bad thing. i.e. How did Christianity start? What happened that Luther broke off? etc. If they can spend a few weeks talking about art history, they should be able to afford some time to talk about religion history.

That's what Sunday school is for, or catechism. Why should others have to learn your religion in public school?

I never said just my religion.

And note, there is a difference between religion and religion history..

Plus Sunday school, or catechism is more about learning the bible stories (i.e. the religion) not the religion history.

[patrickaa317]

I asked this question in another thread, but I doubt it will be answered, so I will shoot 2 believers with 1 bullet

Adam and Eve and 4 human blood types. Go ahead I would like to hear your biblical explanation

Even if there was a biblical explanation for something that was more science based than faith based, I am pretty sure you wouldn't believe it anyway since I am gathering you do not believe anything in the Bible.

My view on all of this is that the Bible was not written to explain nor justify the existence of God but to provide a message about salvation and inspiration. When I listen to passages from the Bible, I don't try to figure out why God didn't create both the animals and Adam and Eve on the fifth day, then rest on both the sixth and the seventh day. Even though that's what I would have done because I like my two day weekends.

Nor do I believe that Adam and Eve were simply two humans that are essentially at the top of the family tree of all of humankind. I think the purpose of the story is that man and woman came to existence. How they came to existence is much less important than the fact that they do exist and even more important is that within their existence, they are to do good for others like them.

Too many people try to explain science and the Bible as if they need to be two distinct separate things. To me one is more about explaining why things are here and the other is more about what to do while you are here. I understand why people want to know more about if/how/when/why we evolved from a lesser species. I also understand why people want to grow the faith in their lives. I don't understand why both sides are so argumentative as to why they are definitely correct and the other side is wrong. People are not all-knowing. We never will be. It is simply who we are. With that said, if there is a higher power, he could give all the proof he wanted to get us to believe whatever he felt was correct. Much like how I can convince a young child that I actually pulled a quarter out from behind their ear. Who's to say all this scientific data is not just one giant illusion laid out by an intelligent designer. I do not personally believe that but I wouldn't ridicule someone who did either because it's as good of explanation as it all came out of nowhere, whether big bang or God.

So basically you are saying read the bible for it's moral teachings and wisdom, and don't take it literally. THAT, I can agree with, and I think you are correct in your interpretation. I respect you for this. However, there are many that view the bible differently than you and use it to force their interpretations on others. Creationism in public schools is the most obvious example. I have no respect for these people. They are selfish and self centered as well as closed minded.

I agree that many people interpret the bible differently. I don't think anyone truly understands, nor could ever understand, the Bible in completeness. God's concept of it was complex to begin with, then man interpreted it, translated it, decided which books should be removed from it, etc.

With that said, there are plenty of people in both the creationism side as well as the science side that are selfish and closed minded. I wouldn't disagree about Creationism and public schools as far as being the definitive source of the start of existence, the schools should touch on what the religions truly mean rather than discounting them all together. Again, that could never happen due to all the different flavors that exist. But teaching some of the parables and the history of the religion would not be a bad thing. i.e. How did Christianity start? What happened that Luther broke off? etc. If they can spend a few weeks talking about art history, they should be able to afford some time to talk about religion history.

That's what Sunday school is for, or catechism. Why should others have to learn your religion in public school?

I never said just my religion.

And note, there is a difference between religion and religion history..

Plus Sunday school, or catechism is more about learning the bible stories (i.e. the religion) not the religion history.

I see now that I did say "say teaching some of the parables..." I was thinking more making people aware of some of the stories that exist but not necessarily trying to justify whether they are scientifically valid or not. Just give understanding of who people like Moses, Noah, Jesus, Muhammed, Buddha, Shiva were and why they are important people in their respective religions.

[GoranZ]

Logic dictates that there is a God!

You can not know God by logic, it requires faith.

I asked this question in another thread, but I doubt it will be answered, so I will shoot 2 believers with 1 bullet

Adam and Eve and 4 human blood types. Go ahead I would like to hear your biblical explanation

Even if there was a biblical explanation for something that was more science based than faith based, I am pretty sure you wouldn't believe it anyway since I am gathering you do not believe anything in the Bible.

You are wrong... Gigantic flood in Noah's time was real event, that happened but it wasn't global as it is belied by creationist. Once upon a time Black Sea was inland lake, but the sea rise and which created large large flood... The problem for those people was that the world that they knew for their whole life was all gone under water. For them the flood was global, that's why the story in the bible is for global flood. I think that you wont find follower of science that would try to dispute local flood during Noah's time.

My view on all of this is that the Bible was not written to explain nor justify the existence of God but to provide a message about salvation and inspiration. When I listen to passages from the Bible, I don't try to figure out why God didn't create both the animals and Adam and Eve on the fifth day, then rest on both the sixth and the seventh day. Even though that's what I would have done because I like my two day weekends.

Nor do I believe that Adam and Eve were simply two humans that are essentially at the top of the family tree of all of humankind. I think the purpose of the story is that man and woman came to existence. How they came to existence is much less important than the fact that they do exist and even more important is that within their existence, they are to do good for others like them.

You aether believe in the whole package or you dont... there is no middle or picking parts that you believe in.
If you believe in things that can not be explained by science, and you agree with those things that can then in reality you are not a believer... You are more like us with one difference that we have empty space(unknown that needs to be discovered) in the places where you find explanations from the bible.

Too many people try to explain science and the Bible as if they need to be two distinct separate things. To me one is more about explaining why things are here and the other is more about what to do while you are here. I understand why people want to know more about if/how/when/why we evolved from a lesser species. I also understand why people want to grow the faith in their lives. I don't understand why both sides are so argumentative as to why they are definitely correct and the other side is wrong. People are not all-knowing. We never will be. It is simply who we are. With that said, if there is a higher power, he could give all the proof he wanted to get us to believe whatever he felt was correct. Much like how I can convince a young child that I actually pulled a quarter out from behind their ear. Who's to say all this scientific data is not just one giant illusion laid out by an intelligent designer. I do not personally believe that but I wouldn't ridicule someone who did either because it's as good of explanation as it all came out of nowhere, whether big bang or God.

Desire for exploration, discovery is embedded in human genes, and since bible is limiting those desires, it doesn't have any chance on long term survival. That is only if it doesn't survive like a story like the story for Santa

Not wrong, the flood and blood types are two different things. The flood is a historical event (local,global, whatever) captured in the Bible, the different blood types that exist is not anywhere in the book. You are trying to disprove a book that should be used for moral guidence using facts that exist in a scientific world.

Bible used for moral guidance? No way... RL example: Almost all communist countries(with forbidden religion) that turned into capitalism experience increase of crime and decrease of of moral values. So in reality the bible(or other holly book) is not helping at all, probably it is deteriorating the situation with moral values in one society.

Can you explain scientifically how 4 blood types came to be from nothing? Exactly at what point from when there was nothing, to when something formed out of nothing, to today did each of the four blood types come into existence? I'll give you a hint, you are indicating this happened at sometime pre-human because you are implying that at no point, could a new blood type just show up in a group of people such as things like blue eyes, skin tone, or other things that have definite genetic traits that have been proven to occur in a subset of the entire human population. (I get this implication because you are saying that if by some chance, the world did start with Adam & Eve, that in no way we could have four blood types because you are looking for a biblical explanation though the bible never once mentions blood type).

Read it all here: Blood groups and the history of peoples
Blood types were discovered much later then the creation of the bible, so using that as starting point severely undermines multiple stories in the bible.

Frankly, I really don't care if you think I'm a believer or not. You are also the same person that called me dumb in a different thread after you misread the conversation. Don't take that personal, I'm just being blunt and honest.

The bible has not limited desires for exploration and discovery to this point. Many famous scientists were religious people yet made contributions to science.

Currently defenders of the bible are outgunned, outmaneuvered and outplayed by the defenders of the science. And that situation will continue to deteriorate for the defenders of the bible until there is no one left. You guys are not educated for coexistence which will be the cause of your extermination. You simply ask for that fate.

[natty dread]

With that said, there are plenty of people in both the creationism side as well as the science side that are selfish and closed minded. I wouldn't disagree about Creationism and public schools as far as being the definitive source of the start of existence, the schools should touch on what the religions truly mean rather than discounting them all together. Again, that could never happen due to all the different flavors that exist. But teaching some of the parables and the history of the religion would not be a bad thing. i.e. How did Christianity start? What happened that Luther broke off? etc. If they can spend a few weeks talking about art history, they should be able to afford some time to talk about religion history.

Well, funny thing about that.

When I was a kid (not sure how much this still applies today), in Finnish schools there was religion class for those who are religious (ie. officially belong to the state-sponsored official church(tm)), and those who didn't officially subscribe to any religion (like me), would go to an alternate class, where instead of religion, we were taught philosophy and shit.

So, majority of kids got to learn about jesus and things they'd already get to hear about in church, and that's called "education" and affects your grades... which is total bullshit, religion shouldn't be taught in schools in such a way, like it's an actual science or something. Whereas, the minority who were brought up non-religious, were taught not only about philosophy and such, but also the basic belief systems of all major religions, and also some history about how the religions and philosophies and such were born and affected each other...

Personally, I think everyone should be put in that second class rather than get state-sponsored religious indoctrination in the one place where it shouldn't belong. I don't subscribe to any religion, but I think it'd actually be a good idea to teach kids about all religions, about all the different (and conflicting) beliefs, so that even kids who are raised by hardcore fundies get exposed to other ways of thinking - they get to see that the religious views they're fed aren't the only ones, and that can maybe spark some critical thought in them, so they don't just follow the religion of their parents blindly.

[patrickaa317]

You can not know God by logic, it requires faith.

I asked this question in another thread, but I doubt it will be answered, so I will shoot 2 believers with 1 bullet

Adam and Eve and 4 human blood types. Go ahead I would like to hear your biblical explanation

Even if there was a biblical explanation for something that was more science based than faith based, I am pretty sure you wouldn't believe it anyway since I am gathering you do not believe anything in the Bible.

You are wrong... Gigantic flood in Noah's time was real event, that happened but it wasn't global as it is belied by creationist. Once upon a time Black Sea was inland lake, but the sea rise and which created large large flood... The problem for those people was that the world that they knew for their whole life was all gone under water. For them the flood was global, that's why the story in the bible is for global flood. I think that you wont find follower of science that would try to dispute local flood during Noah's time.

My view on all of this is that the Bible was not written to explain nor justify the existence of God but to provide a message about salvation and inspiration. When I listen to passages from the Bible, I don't try to figure out why God didn't create both the animals and Adam and Eve on the fifth day, then rest on both the sixth and the seventh day. Even though that's what I would have done because I like my two day weekends.

Nor do I believe that Adam and Eve were simply two humans that are essentially at the top of the family tree of all of humankind. I think the purpose of the story is that man and woman came to existence. How they came to existence is much less important than the fact that they do exist and even more important is that within their existence, they are to do good for others like them.

You aether believe in the whole package or you dont... there is no middle or picking parts that you believe in.
If you believe in things that can not be explained by science, and you agree with those things that can then in reality you are not a believer... You are more like us with one difference that we have empty space(unknown that needs to be discovered) in the places where you find explanations from the bible.

Too many people try to explain science and the Bible as if they need to be two distinct separate things. To me one is more about explaining why things are here and the other is more about what to do while you are here. I understand why people want to know more about if/how/when/why we evolved from a lesser species. I also understand why people want to grow the faith in their lives. I don't understand why both sides are so argumentative as to why they are definitely correct and the other side is wrong. People are not all-knowing. We never will be. It is simply who we are. With that said, if there is a higher power, he could give all the proof he wanted to get us to believe whatever he felt was correct. Much like how I can convince a young child that I actually pulled a quarter out from behind their ear. Who's to say all this scientific data is not just one giant illusion laid out by an intelligent designer. I do not personally believe that but I wouldn't ridicule someone who did either because it's as good of explanation as it all came out of nowhere, whether big bang or God.

Desire for exploration, discovery is embedded in human genes, and since bible is limiting those desires, it doesn't have any chance on long term survival. That is only if it doesn't survive like a story like the story for Santa

Not wrong, the flood and blood types are two different things. The flood is a historical event (local,global, whatever) captured in the Bible, the different blood types that exist is not anywhere in the book. You are trying to disprove a book that should be used for moral guidence using facts that exist in a scientific world.

Bible used for moral guidance? No way... RL example: Almost all communist countries(with forbidden religion) that turned into capitalism experience increase of crime and decrease of of moral values. So in reality the bible(or other holly book) is not helping at all, probably it is deteriorating the situation with moral values in one society.

Can you explain scientifically how 4 blood types came to be from nothing? Exactly at what point from when there was nothing, to when something formed out of nothing, to today did each of the four blood types come into existence? I'll give you a hint, you are indicating this happened at sometime pre-human because you are implying that at no point, could a new blood type just show up in a group of people such as things like blue eyes, skin tone, or other things that have definite genetic traits that have been proven to occur in a subset of the entire human population. (I get this implication because you are saying that if by some chance, the world did start with Adam & Eve, that in no way we could have four blood types because you are looking for a biblical explanation though the bible never once mentions blood type).

Read it all here: Blood groups and the history of peoples
Blood types were discovered much later then the creation of the bible, so using that as starting point severely undermines multiple stories in the bible.

Frankly, I really don't care if you think I'm a believer or not. You are also the same person that called me dumb in a different thread after you misread the conversation. Don't take that personal, I'm just being blunt and honest.

The bible has not limited desires for exploration and discovery to this point. Many famous scientists were religious people yet made contributions to science.

Currently defenders of the bible are outgunned, outmaneuvered and outplayed by the defenders of the science. And that situation will continue to deteriorate for the defenders of the bible until there is no one left. You guys are not educated for coexistence which will be the cause of your extermination. You simply ask for that fate.

So the people that lived during the communist state where there was no religion allowed that showed an increase of crime upon switching to capitalism? These people were not exposed to religion the whole time in the communist state, correct? Or was everyone immediately religious once that conversion took place? Anyway, I digress, if you want to start talking about communism and capitalism, bring that over to another thread while slightly related they are also off topic from this conversation.

The answer lies not in the ancient nature of the mutations that produced the A and B genes, but rather in the discreet interactions that occurred between early man and his environment that were under the influence of his ABO blood group. These included the areas and climates he chose to inhabit, each with their unique populations of microbes and foods that he chose to catch or cultivate.

Your own link states that it is all based between early man and his environment, it does not define where "early man" originates. The question on blood types alone does not prove nor disprove any theories of how man came to be. Did you even read this before you posted it? It does not help your strawman out at all. As a reminder your original question was how can there be four blood types when Adam and Eve started without realizing that new blood types were formed based on early man and his environment regardless of how man originated.

Currently defenders of the bible are outgunned, outmaneuvered and outplayed by the defenders of the science. And that situation will continue to deteriorate for the defenders of the bible until there is no one left. You guys are not educated for coexistence which will be the cause of your extermination. You simply ask for that fate.

Why does this have to be an "us against you" situation? Everyone seems the two cannot exist together yet there is no plausible reason why they cannot exist together as they have done for many years. Well with the exception of people who are simply out to prove religions incorrect for whatever reason.

[patrickaa317]

With that said, there are plenty of people in both the creationism side as well as the science side that are selfish and closed minded. I wouldn't disagree about Creationism and public schools as far as being the definitive source of the start of existence, the schools should touch on what the religions truly mean rather than discounting them all together. Again, that could never happen due to all the different flavors that exist. But teaching some of the parables and the history of the religion would not be a bad thing. i.e. How did Christianity start? What happened that Luther broke off? etc. If they can spend a few weeks talking about art history, they should be able to afford some time to talk about religion history.

Well, funny thing about that.

When I was a kid (not sure how much this still applies today), in Finnish schools there was religion class for those who are religious (ie. officially belong to the state-sponsored official church(tm)), and those who didn't officially subscribe to any religion (like me), would go to an alternate class, where instead of religion, we were taught philosophy and shit.

So, majority of kids got to learn about jesus and things they'd already get to hear about in church, and that's called "education" and affects your grades... which is total bullshit, religion shouldn't be taught in schools in such a way, like it's an actual science or something. Whereas, the minority who were brought up non-religious, were taught not only about philosophy and such, but also the basic belief systems of all major religions, and also some history about how the religions and philosophies and such were born and affected each other...

Personally, I think everyone should be put in that second class rather than get state-sponsored religious indoctrination in the one place where it shouldn't belong. I don't subscribe to any religion, but I think it'd actually be a good idea to teach kids about all religions, about all the different (and conflicting) beliefs, so that even kids who are raised by hardcore fundies get exposed to other ways of thinking - they get to see that the religious views they're fed aren't the only ones, and that can maybe spark some critical thought in them, so they don't just follow the religion of their parents blindly.

Interesting concept in the schools, thanks for sharing that a situation like that existed (or possibly exists?). Completely agree on kids being put in the second class, that's the exact concept I was thinking of. I'd just like to add that not only "so they don't just follow the religion of their parents blindly" but also "so they don't just follow the lack of religion of their parents blindly"

[natty dread]

Interesting concept in the schools, thanks for sharing that a situation like that existed (or possibly exists?). Completely agree on kids being put in the second class, that's the exact concept I was thinking of. I'd just like to add that not only "so they don't just follow the religion of their parents blindly" but also "so they don't just follow the lack of religion of their parents blindly"

Oh, sure. Nothing should be followed blindly, people should always be encouraged to think for themselves and make their own decisions. If you really think about it with your own brain and come to the conclusion that religion (any religion) is the answer for you, I'm totally fine with that. Most people have some kinds of beliefs, and most of those people manage to live their lives without using their religion as a tool for attempting to make everyone else miserable. It's only the hardcore fundies who really give religious people a bad name... but then there are also atheists who are huge assholes, so it's not like a black-and-white thing.

[GoranZ]

So the people that lived during the communist state where there was no religion allowed that showed an increase of crime upon switching to capitalism? These people were not exposed to religion the whole time in the communist state, correct? Or was everyone immediately religious once that conversion took place? Anyway, I digress, if you want to start talking about communism and capitalism, bring that over to another thread while slightly related they are also off topic from this conversation.

Communism is a system that proves that there is no need for religion in the modern world... Capitalism currently is tolerating religion since it it still bringing profit... once that is gone witch hunt would start.

The answer lies not in the ancient nature of the mutations that produced the A and B genes, but rather in the discreet interactions that occurred between early man and his environment that were under the influence of his ABO blood group. These included the areas and climates he chose to inhabit, each with their unique populations of microbes and foods that he chose to catch or cultivate.

Your own link states that it is all based between early man and his environment, it does not define where "early man" originates. The question on blood types alone does not prove nor disprove any theories of how man came to be. Did you even read this before you posted it? It does not help your strawman out at all. As a reminder your original question was how can there be four blood types when Adam and Eve started without realizing that new blood types were formed based on early man and his environment regardless of how man originated.

ABO blood system doesn't explain the origin of early human, I never said that it does... It only discloses how truthful are the biblical stories. Or you believe that there is God for things that can not be explained for now.

Currently defenders of the bible are outgunned, outmaneuvered and outplayed by the defenders of the science. And that situation will continue to deteriorate for the defenders of the bible until there is no one left. You guys are not educated for coexistence which will be the cause of your extermination. You simply ask for that fate.

Why does this have to be an "us against you" situation? Everyone seems the two cannot exist together yet there is no plausible reason why they cannot exist together as they have done for many years. Well with the exception of people who are simply out to prove religions incorrect for whatever reason.

Why does this have to be an "us against you" situation? Because that's the only language you guys understand... Generally Abraham religions are not tolerant toward other opinions... So its not us against you, its everyone against you(since that's the way you guys want).

[patrickaa317]

So the people that lived during the communist state where there was no religion allowed that showed an increase of crime upon switching to capitalism? These people were not exposed to religion the whole time in the communist state, correct? Or was everyone immediately religious once that conversion took place? Anyway, I digress, if you want to start talking about communism and capitalism, bring that over to another thread while slightly related they are also off topic from this conversation.

Communism is a system that proves that there is no need for religion in the modern world... Capitalism currently is tolerating religion since it it still bringing profit... once that is gone witch hunt would start.

The answer lies not in the ancient nature of the mutations that produced the A and B genes, but rather in the discreet interactions that occurred between early man and his environment that were under the influence of his ABO blood group. These included the areas and climates he chose to inhabit, each with their unique populations of microbes and foods that he chose to catch or cultivate.

Your own link states that it is all based between early man and his environment, it does not define where "early man" originates. The question on blood types alone does not prove nor disprove any theories of how man came to be. Did you even read this before you posted it? It does not help your strawman out at all. As a reminder your original question was how can there be four blood types when Adam and Eve started without realizing that new blood types were formed based on early man and his environment regardless of how man originated.

ABO blood system doesn't explain the origin of early human, I never said that it does... It only discloses how truthful are the biblical stories. Or you believe that there is God for things that can not be explained for now.

Currently defenders of the bible are outgunned, outmaneuvered and outplayed by the defenders of the science. And that situation will continue to deteriorate for the defenders of the bible until there is no one left. You guys are not educated for coexistence which will be the cause of your extermination. You simply ask for that fate.

Why does this have to be an "us against you" situation? Everyone seems the two cannot exist together yet there is no plausible reason why they cannot exist together as they have done for many years. Well with the exception of people who are simply out to prove religions incorrect for whatever reason.

Why does this have to be an "us against you" situation? Because that's the only language you guys understand... Generally Abraham religions are not tolerant toward other opinions... So its not us against you, its everyone against you(since that's the way you guys want).

With your support for communism, was the Berlin Wall built to keep people in Communist East Germany or out of it?

I still have no idea what your ABO strawman was for. It's like you were trying to find a gotcha moment but don't have one because the science on it does not prove nor disprove the theory of intelligent design...

Generally science is not tolerant towards other opinions. Look at how many people in the Global Warming Climate Change behave. "the debate is over" "most pressing thing in our generation" etc etc. ; yet in fact the debate is not fully over.

[AndyDufresne]

Generally science is not tolerant towards other opinions. Look at how many people in the Global Warming Climate Change behave. "the debate is over" "most pressing thing in our generation" etc etc. ; yet in fact the debate is not fully over.

The debate isn't over. This is correct. But the side without science seems to be talking to a wall in a dark room. Godspeed.


--Andy

[patrickaa317]

Generally science is not tolerant towards other opinions. Look at how many people in the Global Warming Climate Change behave. "the debate is over" "most pressing thing in our generation" etc etc. ; yet in fact the debate is not fully over.

The debate isn't over. This is correct. But the side without science seems to be talking to a wall in a dark room. Godspeed.


--Andy

I agree that it is actually much like talking to a wall!! That is exactly what I mean when I say science is not tolerant towards other opinions, either the opposing views are just ignored or mocked. It used to be that science was about proving/disproving, not about politics. Ok, from here we should probably create a new thread to discuss global warming if we want to continue that.

p.s. The room was dark to save carbon emissions.

[AndyDufresne]

I agree that it is actually much like talking to a wall!! That is exactly what I mean when I say science is not tolerant towards other opinions, either the opposing views are just ignored or mocked. It used to be that science was about proving/disproving, not about politics. .

--Andy

[warmonger1981]

Can someone explain to my something? If Jesus was God in the flesh, why would Jesus/God sacrifice himself to himself to ransom humanity from his sins? Seems illogical doesn't it? Why would Jesus/God not set up heaven on earth right then and there and not let 2000 more years of pain and suffering?

[2dimes]

Can someone explain to my something? If Jesus was God in the flesh, why would Jesus/God sacrifice himself to himself to ransom humanity from his sins? Seems illogical doesn't it? Why would Jesus/God not set up heaven on earth right then and there and not let 2000 more years of pain and suffering?

What are your thoughts on that concept warmonger1981? I think it could be false teaching intended to contain God and increase power to those in positions of certain churches trying to get others to believe it.

Yahushua is God to me but so is his father. Because of my sinful nature, I am much too far from the father to go directly to him, without my sometimes strained relationship with the son, who is the only valid priest in my opinion.

There are more questions about trying to contain the entirety of the Father into God the son. Here are a couple.

Who did he pray to? I believe if it was internal he would have taught it differently.

Why did he always tell stories about his father? Would they not be, "My mansion has many rooms. I'll set one up for you when I'm back there." Instead of, "My Father's mansion..."?

[isaiah40]

Can someone explain to my something? If Jesus was God in the flesh, why would Jesus/God sacrifice himself to himself to ransom humanity from his sins? Seems illogical doesn't it? Why would Jesus/God not set up heaven on earth right then and there and not let 2000 more years of pain and suffering?

Do you have children? If so, is this illogical? Would you run out into the street and push your son/daughter out of the path of an oncoming car, thereby possibly getting killed just so your son/daughter would live? I say that as a parent it is the logical thing to do. That is what Jesus did for us. He died for our sins so that we may live.

[2dimes]

Can someone explain to my something? If Jesus was God in the flesh, why would Jesus/God sacrifice himself to himself to ransom humanity from his sins? Seems illogical doesn't it?

Would you run out into the street and push your son/daughter out of the path of an oncoming car, thereby possibly getting killed just so your son/daughter would live?

No that's not logical. Instead of getting out of the moving vehicle I'm driving to push the kid out of it's way getting killed myself. I would use the horn to warn them. If that did not help I would use the brakes to stop the car or finally the wheel to steer around the kid.

A better analogy in my opinion is.

I set up an automated slaughter machine for sheep that can't be stopped. I then move to Australia for 30 years because I like Roos and it's the only place I can develop replacement bodies for people. People are morons so they keep going into the thing and getting killed. I send my son with the only key to shut the thing off. Unfortunately anyone using the key is maimed. But gets the only prototype permanent body I have currently. After he shuts off the machine there is an air ambulance waiting three days to bring him back to Australia to finish making permanent replacement bodies for everyone else.

[notyou2]

He's fucking god, you just vapourize the car and the driver. Sheesh.

[2dimes]

... you just vapourize the car and the driver. Sheesh.

Well that seems more logical to me also. But what about the first question about being both the driver and body checking hero? How does that work?

[patrickaa317]

Can someone explain to my something? If Jesus was God in the flesh, why would Jesus/God sacrifice himself to himself to ransom humanity from his sins? Seems illogical doesn't it?

Would you run out into the street and push your son/daughter out of the path of an oncoming car, thereby possibly getting killed just so your son/daughter would live?

No that's not logical. Instead of getting out of the moving vehicle I'm driving to push the kid out of it's way getting killed myself. I would use the horn to warn them. If that did not help I would use the brakes to stop the car or finally the wheel to steer around the kid.

A better analogy in my opinion is.

I set up an automated slaughter machine for sheep that can't be stopped. I then move to Australia for 30 years because I like Roos and it's the only place I can develop replacement bodies for people. People are morons so they keep going into the thing and getting killed. I send my son with the only key to shut the thing off. Unfortunately anyone using the key is maimed. But gets the only prototype permanent body I have currently. After he shuts off the machine there is an air ambulance waiting three days to bring him back to Australia to finish making permanent replacement bodies for everyone else.

I think you must have misread the post. You weren't supposed to be the driver in the car.