#12: Good and Evil

[Heavenly Spoon]

I'm sure that spoon is going to bash this one around...

As for good and evil, try reading the Bible. It gives a pretty good idea of what good is, and what evil is. Let's for the sake of argument say that God doesn't exist. You STILL can't deny that the basic idea's of what's good and what's evil presented in the Bible are pretty good. If a person would actually live his or her life as the Bible tells, then by pretty much anyone's standards they would be living a good life. The same can be said about most peaceful religions. Before anyone says anything, people very often do very evil things in the name of religion. They're not actually doing what their religion tells them they should do, but rather changing their religion to justify what they want to do.

I hope you don't mean the old testament, because homophobia, slavery, incest, misogyny and even murder don't seem that "good" to me...
But then again, I can probably find verses in the new testament which seem just as evil. But of course I'm misinterpreting those, or you have to leave those out, right?
Well, in that case, if I have to read a book and then have to find out myself what the good and what the bad parts are, why bother?
I also think a book which contradicts modern day science and claims "truth" is evil in itself, as it's stopping progress of our society.
(BTW, I haven't read the entire Bible, but I've read parts of it, and I have to say, I'm seriously unimpressed)

Here's an idea, DarthPika, THINK FOR YOURSELF. Why base your ideas of good and evil on some book out of the Bronze/Iron age? If you can't decide for yourself what's morally justified or not, there's something honestly wrong with you ._.

And any religious book can be misinterpreted, and that's what happens when you base your morals not on reason but on a book. If everyone were raised morally, open-minded and with respect for his fellow human being, instead of using a book, then "by pretty much anyone's standards they would be living a good life".

 

[Fridge]

^I hadn't posted yet -_-. I don't need bashing during part of a discussion I'm not part of thanks.

EDITS: Read yer post, sorry too

 

[Heavenly Spoon]

I said Fridge? ._.

I'm sorry, I have no idea why I did that...

Did you ever claim you based your morals on the Bible? Because you seem so offended.

And again, sorry ._.

 

[Fridge]

Oh sorry spoon. I thought you were targeting me because we have had arguments about the bible and such in the past, so I thoguht you were bringing me into this.

Sorry on my part too. I'll delete all that stuff .

 

[Lucario_aura_wielder]

good and evil are decied upon one`s actions thats my take on it.

 

[Medaforcer]

"Good" and "evil" are so subjective. It's all just from the individual point of view and how someone was raised.

Honestly, there isn't really such a thing as good and evil. One person's evil is another man's good.

 

[gyrasion]

to me your good until you do something so outragously cruel or disgusting/sick.

 

[~Magma King~]

Eating faeces is disgusting but is that really evil?

Good and evil are merely what people sense are right and wrong. While most things are obvious, just think. Murdering somebody is considered evil. But people are getting murdered all the time in places like Afghanistan and we're encouraging it. Is that good or evil?

 

[Dark Marc]

It's just a option in life on how you want to treat people, respect things etc.

Or it can be used to describe what someone is in genral.

 

[Palmer]

I'm sure that spoon is going to bash this one around...

As for good and evil, try reading the Bible. It gives a pretty good idea of what good is, and what evil is. Let's for the sake of argument say that God doesn't exist. You STILL can't deny that the basic idea's of what's good and what's evil presented in the Bible are pretty good. If a person would actually live his or her life as the Bible tells, then by pretty much anyone's standards they would be living a good life. The same can be said about most peaceful religions. Before anyone says anything, people very often do very evil things in the name of religion. They're not actually doing what their religion tells them they should do, but rather changing their religion to justify what they want to do.

I hope you don't mean the old testament, because homophobia, slavery, incest, misogyny and even murder don't seem that "good" to me...
But then again, I can probably find verses in the new testament which seem just as evil. But of course I'm misinterpreting those, or you have to leave those out, right?
Well, in that case, if I have to read a book and then have to find out myself what the good and what the bad parts are, why bother?
I also think a book which contradicts modern day science and claims "truth" is evil in itself, as it's stopping progress of our society.
(BTW, I haven't read the entire Bible, but I've read parts of it, and I have to say, I'm seriously unimpressed)

Here's an idea, DarthPika, THINK FOR YOURSELF. Why base your ideas of good and evil on some book out of the Bronze/Iron age? If you can't decide for yourself what's morally justified or not, there's something honestly wrong with you ._.

And any religious book can be misinterpreted, and that's what happens when you base your morals not on reason but on a book. If everyone were raised morally, open-minded and with respect for his fellow human being, instead of using a book, then "by pretty much anyone's standards they would be living a good life".

Oh lovely, a relatively interesting topic. I wonder what kind of banters I'll get for today? Though I am a pastor's kid, I'll just put the Biblical references aside since there's no point in using them for those who don't believe in this ingeniously and flawlessly written 'some book out of the Bronze/Iron age'. No, don't even try to disprove its perfection by pointing out verses that seemingly contradict each other when they are completely taken in the wrong context. There are no errors, and I'm prepared to renounce any 'plot holes' that you may throw at me.

Certainly, even the most primitive of indigenous tribes have a sense of good and evil. Most primitive in a sense that they're at the bottom of society; the kind that's still developing its tradition and culture. Because of man's 'nature', a completely undeveloped tribe will find something to worship, be it anything from a mountain, to a twig - that's without the influence of other tribes who already worship something. This is due to the prevalent fact that man as a whole wants to have a purpose to live and not just to die eventually - we tend to want to deny that we have no purpose, and for some, religion is clearly something worth living for. That's not saying that religion is a necessity since I'm well aware that a lot of people don't need it. To be safe, I'll call it a 'selective want'.

As for the other lowly tribes who already have a sense of religion, they make sets of rules and laws based on their instinct, which makes you come to wonder - why do so many isolated individual tribes have very similar sets of laws? Ignoring the peripherals, the most prevalent rules are similar, if not exactly the same. Murder, robbery, adultery and harassment are almost always punishable by death or exile. Probability is out of the question - a perception of good and bad aren't there by chance.

A concept of good and bad is primarily affected by 'The two Ns', nature, and nurture. At a young age, a toddler's discernment of good and bad is still pretty underdeveloped but fear of the parent scolding it will not only scare the baby into not doing that 'bad' thing, but it will also realize that the parents are scolding the baby because it's wrong in their standards and ergo is bad.

Generally, man has a basic intuition that tells him that he could suffer consequences by doing something that he'd consider bad by nature, but not necessarily religiously - guilt. Even some atheists feel some guilt when they commit homicide, not because they broke the law, but because they're aware that they took away another form of cognitive human life. Then there's also the fear of getting sentenced to death or imprisonment.

All in all, we can say that man has a natural sense of good and bad, which can also be altered by his upbringing and society's ever-changing influence. Hope this wraps it up. Feel free to share your thoughts.[/firstpostinawhile]

 

[Heavenly Spoon]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A book which can be interpreted as flawless doesn't necessarily hold absolute truth. I'd expect at least some accurate scientific facts in a book written by God. Instead, we find stories of creation, men surviving in fish, global floods, bats being classified as birds, and so on. Yet we find no mention of relativity, evolution, chemistry, genetics, cosmology, gravity, whatever. Nothing at all. You'd think a guideline by God would at least contain SOME knowledge of the planet, some form of scientific data unknown to men at the time. The book, instead, is according to what the people at that time believed...
BTW, I can write a flawless book, doesn't make it right.

About the fact that most tribes worship something, there's a reason for that. 1st of all, we personify everything. Just as a basic example, everything with 2 eyes and a mouth is identified as a face to us (""). We also tend to image things which aren't there, and with good reason. If we hear something, and imagine a predator, we'd waste energy running away, but if there really was a predator there, we'd have lived. If we don't run, and there is a predator there, we're dead. So imagining there's something when there might be nothing is part of human nature, it's genetically favourable. I could go more in depth, if you really want me to...
2nd of all, we want answers. Not too long ago, we didn't know what caused lightning, hurricanes, rain, snow, earthquakes, and so on, so of course these things were terrifying. Now, all you need is 1 person who claims he knows what causes these, be it spirits, gods, fairies, monsters, and so on. Not only does this give an answer, it also makes you think you can do something about it (praying, sacrifice, rituals, ...).
Of course, there's more reasons why people believe in deities and the likes, like the need for comfort, hope for an afterlife, fear, indoctrination, social pressure, and so on. But I'm not going to discuss everything now ._.

The basic laws within societies were explained in a previous posts. A group of animals where murder is accepted just goes extinct. Lying makes language useful, and therefore also jeopardizes the survivability of the group. Everything else which is beneficial for the individual but negative to the group is also something which usually won't be selected for.

I don't necessarily disagree with anything else you said. But just for the record: in general, atheists commit less murder (although I think poverty has a large influence on both murder rates and religion, so I'm not necessarily saying there's a connection), and I think most atheist feel guilt. Being atheist doesn't make you a psychopath...
So seriously, don't use words like "even" and "some" in this context, it shows great prejudice.

 

[Ka$h Money]

IMO I think Good and Evil is an instinct within a 'normal' human being. This slight knowledge of remorse, guilt and so on is refined until Adulthood.

Now Your parents are the most obvious influence as to whether you have a good understanding of what is good and evil. If someone has a bad upbringing naturally it won't have a good awareness of what good and evil is. You can also include any human influence as peer pressure, well anything can change your perspective with the right reasoning.

Now I believe that religion has a fairly good portrayal of Good and bad IN those days. Now it is hard to go accordance with them thus a change is needed from your own point of view.

Also another factor that dictates whether something is good and bad is knowledge, intelligience and judgement. I could say for someone to kill a person who plots to murder many is good but on the other hand you may say it isn't. So everything has to be analysed into context and how this Day and age has become

 

[Mrs. Aforcer]

Oh lovely, a relatively interesting topic. I wonder what kind of banters I'll get for today? Though I am a pastor's kid, I'll just put the Biblical references aside since there's no point in using them for those who don't believe in this ingeniously and flawlessly written 'some book out of the Bronze/Iron age'. No, don't even try to disprove its perfection by pointing out verses that seemingly contradict each other when they are completely taken in the wrong context. There are no errors, and I'm prepared to renounce any 'plot holes' that you may throw at me.

If you're not willing to admit that contradictions and "plot holes" in your Holy Book are a flaw, there's really no reason to argue with you over your beliefs, because really, in the end, "blind faith" and "blind ignorance" are no different from each other.

I mean, it's like saying "Can you tell me one reason this dinner tastes bad without saying it tastes bad?" It's a catch-22 created to guard your beliefs from logical attack.

Certainly, even the most primitive of indigenous tribes have a sense of good and evil. Most primitive in a sense that they're at the bottom of society; the kind that's still developing its tradition and culture. Because of man's 'nature', a completely undeveloped tribe will find something to worship, be it anything from a mountain, to a twig - that's without the influence of other tribes who already worship something. This is due to the prevalent fact that man as a whole wants to have a purpose to live and not just to die eventually - we tend to want to deny that we have no purpose, and for some, religion is clearly something worth living for. That's not saying that religion is a necessity since I'm well aware that a lot of people don't need it. To be safe, I'll call it a 'selective want'.

Because of man's 'nature', a completely undeveloped tribe will find something to worship, be it anything from a mountain, to a twig - that's without the influence of other tribes who already worship something.

Proof?

Honestly, this paragraph is so full of baseless claims that I don't know where to start. Just saying that it's man's nature to do something doesn't automatically mean it is. To make an analogy, I could say it's man's nature to just eat pizza, all the time, 24-7 -- but we all know it's not true. What makes your claim any more legitimate?

Also, yes, humans do seek a sense of purpose -- I can agree with you to that point -- but this doesn't mean that they'll go to religion to find that purpose. Religion is not the only form of purpose in the world, and by implying so, you're basically saying that all people that are not theists are directionless.

Which is wrong on so many levels

As for the other lowly tribes who already have a sense of religion, they make sets of rules and laws based on their instinct, which makes you come to wonder - why do so many isolated individual tribes have very similar sets of laws? Ignoring the peripherals, the most prevalent rules are similar, if not exactly the same. Murder, robbery, adultery and harassment are almost always punishable by death or exile. Probability is out of the question - a perception of good and bad aren't there by chance.

A lot of the basic "bads" you've listed here are Westernized "bads." Excluding the concept of murder and harassment, robbery and adultery are only wrong because of the Western concept of ownership and a self-centered reality. Adultery is especially a Westernized idea -- one stemming from the act of marriage. Adultery does not exist if marriage does not, really -- it all boils down to the notion of one "owning" their spouse, and like I said, the concept of ownership of people, ideas, and necessities is a very much Westernized idea.

And those concepts did not exist as long as you say it did. Older cultures and societies were more community- and social-centered. Robbery wasn't robbery, it was sharing and it was expected. Adultery didn't exist (especially very ancient cultures) because the concept of marriage hadn't even been created.

A concept of good and bad is primarily affected by 'The two Ns', nature, and nurture. At a young age, a toddler's discernment of good and bad is still pretty underdeveloped but fear of the parent scolding it will not only scare the baby into not doing that 'bad' thing, but it will also realize that the parents are scolding the baby because it's wrong in their standards and ergo is bad.

Wouldn't disagree with this so much, though it leaves me a little miffed as to why that whole discussion about religion and ancient cultures was necessary.

In fact, it almost seemed like you forced the concept of religion into your post -- it really wasn't needed to begin with. You just seemed to put it there for the sake of people knowing that you are religious.

Also, would you agree, then, that "bad" and "good" are subjective terms depending on your upbringing? Because that's the conclusion you seem to be leading to here in your claims.

Generally, man has a basic intuition that tells him that he could suffer consequences by doing something that he'd consider bad by nature, but not necessarily religiously - guilt. Even some atheists feel some guilt when they commit homicide, not because they broke the law, but because they're aware that they took away another form of cognitive human life. Then there's also the fear of getting sentenced to death or imprisonment.

I think all people regardless of their religious affiliations feel guilt upon killing another man. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Why must you inject religion into all these claims -- they'd be the same arguments without all your mentions of theism and God, and yet you still find ways to thread concepts of Christianity through your posts.

Your claims are fine without them. If anything, your forcing off theistic ideals into your arguments only make them less believable and harder to stomach.

All in all, we can say that man has a natural sense of good and bad, which can also be altered by his upbringing and society's ever-changing influence. Hope this wraps it up. Feel free to share your thoughts.[/firstpostinawhile]

I think this sentence alone is a good summary of everything you said. It doesn't have any unnecessary mentions of theism, it doesn't clutter your point up with baseless claims, and it's concise.

You should've just posted this.

 

[Palmer]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A book which can be interpreted as flawless doesn't necessarily hold absolute truth. I'd expect at least some accurate scientific facts in a book written by God. Instead, we find stories of creation, men surviving in fish, global floods, bats being classified as birds, and so on. Yet we find no mention of relativity, evolution, chemistry, genetics, cosmology, gravity, whatever. Nothing at all. You'd think a guideline by God would at least contain SOME knowledge of the planet, some form of scientific data unknown to men at the time. The book, instead, is according to what the people at that time believed...
BTW, I can write a flawless book, doesn't make it right.

I was hoping that it wouldn't come to having to prove the Book in a scientific perspective, 'cause it's such a chore. Good thing I have a copy of a similar post that I made long ago on a now-dead forum. So if you want evidence, you're getting lots of it. But before any of that, the reason why there aren't any scientific explanations in the Bible is because at that time they wouldn't understand the explanations anyway, so they leave the uninterpretable prophecies for the future generations to interpret (Daniel 12:4). There might not be any explanations (which is what modern science is for), but there are a bunch of facts stated. From here, I'll be citing Biblical references to tell you where I'm getting my insights. Oh, and the fact that you haven't read everything yet is what keeps you from seeing the entire picture.

General Facts

1. First and foremost, the location of the Garden of Eden can be found by correlating it with history. Mesopotamia is the cradle of civilization as we all know, and since Mesopotamia encompasses the land between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers (which are also where the Garden of Eden is since Tigris and Euphrates stretch out from it) it would be sensible to say that the Garden of Eden (where man was created) is the cradle of civilization because man came to existence there (cf. Genesis 2:14).
   
2. The Ten Plagues of Egypt can scientifically be explained.
   
3. Originally, animals weren't meant to be eaten but to be ruled like beast of burden (Genesis 1:26). We were meant to eat plants (Genesis 3:18) which explains why we have a herbivorous set of teeth and also why plants are a lot more conventional than animals for food (You can just pluck 'em out of a tree to eat without the need to cook). Thanks to the flood though, vegetation became scarce and they began to lose nutritional value which is why we now eat animals for Protein, fats, and other nutrients that plants no longer sufficiently provide (Genesis 9:3).

Paleontology

1. Dinosaurs are referred to in several Bible books, but the book of Job in particular describes two of them, here, and here. All their characteristics and traits are those of particular dinosaurs, they couldn't have been mistaken for anything else; the brachiosaurus and kronosaurus respectively.

Astronomy

1. The Bible frequently refers to the great number of stars in the heavens (Genesis 22:17, Jeremiah 33:22) when only about 3000 are visible to the naked eye. We have seen estimates of 10^21 stars - which is a lot of stars. (The number of grains of sand on the earth's seashores is estimated to be 10^25. As scientists discover more stars, wouldn't it be interesting to discover that these two numbers match?) We see 3000 or so, but the Bible says that there are heaps more.
2. The Bible also says that each star is unique (1 Corinthians 15:41). All stars look alike to the naked eye. Even when seen through a telescope, they seem to be just points of light. Again, I'm awestruck by how this Book is ahead of its time.
3. The Bible describes the precision of movement in the universe (Jeremiah 31:35-36). It's amazing how the tidal forces of the moon and how the sun's warmth are mentioned in an era where people think that they're only good for providing light. And how their misplacement would cause global death.
4. The Bible also describes the suspension of the Earth in space (Job 26:7). It's funny how this was said when people couldn't even tell the difference between the sky and space back then.

Meteorology

1. The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere (Ecclesiastes 1:6).
2. The Book includes some principles of fluid dynamics (Job 28:25). The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world's hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.

Biology

1. The book of Leviticus (written prior to 1400 BC) describes the value of blood. The blood carries water and nourishment to every cell, maintains the body's temperature, and removes the waste material of the body's cells (Leviticus 17:11). The blood also carries oxygen from the lungs throughout the body. In 1616, William Harvey discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life - confirming what the Bible revealed 3,000 years earlier.
2. The Bible describes biogenesis (the development of living organisms from other living organisms) and the stability of each kind of living organism (Genesis 1:11-12, Genesis 1:21, Genesis 1:25).
   
   The phrase "after its kind" or "after their kind" occurs repeatedly, stressing the reproductive integrity of each kind of animal and plant. Today we know this occurs because all of these reproductive systems are programmed by their genetic codes.
3. The Bible describes the chemical nature of flesh.
4. It is a proven fact that a person's mental and spiritual health is strongly correlated with physical health. The Bible revealed this to us with these statements (and others) written by King Solomon about 950 BC. (Proverbs 12:4, Proverbs 14:30, Proverbs 15:30, Proverbs 16:24, Proverbs 17:22)

Anthropology

1. We have cave paintings and other evidence that people inhabited caves. The Bible also describes cave men (Job 30:5-6). Note that these were not ape-men, but descendants of those who scattered from Babel. They were driven from the community by those tribes who competed successfully for the more desirable regions of the earth. Then for some reason they deteriorated mentally, physically, and spiritually. Check your local slums for modern-day comparison.

Hydrology

1. The Bible includes reasonably complete descriptions of the hydrologic cycle (Psalm 135:7, Jeremiah 10:13). In these verses you can see several phases of the hydrologic cycle - the worldwide processes of evaporation, translation aloft by atmospheric circulation, condensation with electrical discharges, and precipitation. Job 36:27-29 is a simple passage with remarkable scientific insight. The drops of water which eventually pour down as rain first become vapor and then condense to tiny liquid water droplets in the clouds. These finally coalesce into drops large enough to overcome the updrafts that suspend them in the air.
2. The Bible describes the recirculation of water (Ecclesiastes 1:7, Isaiah 55:10).
3. It refers to the surprising amount of water that can be held as condensation in clouds (Job 26:8, Job 37:11).
4. Hydrothermal vents are described in two books of the Bible written before 1400BC - more than 3,000 years before their discovery by science (Genesis 7:11, Job 38:16).

Geology

1. The Book describes the Earth's crust (along with a comment on astronomy - Jeremiah 31:37). Although some scientists claim that they have now measured the size of the universe, it is interesting to note that every human attempt to drill through the earth's crust to the plastic mantle beneath has, thus far, ended in failure.
2. The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical (Isaiah 40:22). The word translated "circle" here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated "circuit," or "compass" (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched - not something that is flat or square.
   
   The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested that the earth might be a sphere in his book On the Heavens.
   
   This brings up an important historical note related to this topic. Many people are aware of the conflict between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Pope, Paul V. After publishing A Dialogue on the Two Principal Systems of the World, Galileo was summoned to Rome, where he was forced to renounce his findings. (At that time, "theologians" of the Roman Catholic Church maintained that the Earth was the center of the universe, and to assert otherwise was deemed heretical.)
   
   We could not find any place in the Bible that claims that the Earth is flat, or that it is the center of the universe. History shows that this conflict, which took place at the time of the Inquisition, was part of a power struggle. As a result, scientific and biblical knowledge became casualties - an effect we still feel to this day.

Physics

1. The Bible suggests the presence of nuclear processes like those we associate with nuclear weaponry. This is certainly not something that could have been explained in 67 AD using known scientific principles (when Peter wrote 2 Peter 3:10).
2. The television is a practical (if not always worthwhile ) device that uses electromagnetic waves (which transmit its video signal). The Bible contains passages that describe something like television - something that allows everyone on earth see a single event (Matthew 24:30, Revelation 11:9-11). (Note: Such passages typically refer to the end of time. It may not be long before all of us learn for sure whether the Bible is true or not.)

----------
Now that that's done, I'll be replying to the other stuff. Phew. The Book is flawless, that's for sure, and it's flawless in telling the truth as far as I know. Mrs.A, it's not 'blind faith' because I did mention that those verses only seemingly contradict each other and are taken in the wrong context. The truth is, they're completely unrelated to each other, or the other verse only applied to that time and place (Hebrews 8:13). The reason why the old testament is there is to signify God's new, exalted standards since The Holy Spirit now dwells in believers; they wouldn't have an excuse to disobey in the New Testament. Then again, you wouldn't understand a concept that you don't follow so ignore that.

Also, I'm not saying that 'all people that are not theists are directionless',

for some, religion is clearly something worth living for. That's not saying that religion is a necessity since I'm well aware that a lot of people don't need it.

That refers to you and Spoon. Others have a different way of finding a purpose, which isn't necessarily religion, it's just that religion is one of them. Marriage dates back to Biblical times, and it isn't a sense of 'self-centered ownership' (1 Corinthians 7:4) either because marriage is a mutual relationship that benefits the husband and his spouse. Immorality is a very religious aspect, so committing adultery would be committing immorality. Oh, and if you're talking about westernized marriages, I'll just ignore the rules since westernized marriages are meant for divorces anyway.

Well Spoon, I guess your entire post pretty much ruffles that little History Channel documentary that I watched a couple of years ago, and I'm glad that we agree with certain things, so pardon my desultory post. Using the words 'even' and 'some' was to emphasize that 'some' atheists don't have a sense of guilt, or at least try to hide it. This stems from the fact that two of my atheist acquaintances deny that they become guilty when doing something bad, maybe they've got a few loose screws. They've got their own claims and try to be as callous as they can, I'm actually glad that you two aren't even remotely like them. In fact, I have nothing against agnostics and atheists because we all have the right to choose what to believe, and with that, I choose to believe in the Christian God. I also thank you both for using the words "God" and "Holy Book" with capital letters, it vexes me when people don't. Now if you'll excuse me, I have other things to attend to, try to make your replies as concise as possible. [/gtg]

 

[Ka$h Money]

^ I am just going to let you know that everything you have quoted as Spoon has taught me could be anything, It doesn't have to be what you think it is. Its down to interpretation.

Also I am going to say that a Christian is more likely to do something bad compared to an Atheist. I have been observing this factor for a bit of time. If someone belongs to a religion and they hide from it they tend to do bad things to contradict there religion or to get back at it. They somehow get a sense of accomplishment or thrill to go against their religion whilst an Atheist won't. Everyone is the same on Earth and we are not categorised as different beings.

 

[Palmer]

^ I am just going to let you know that everything you have quoted as Spoon has taught me could be anything, It doesn't have to be what you think it is. Its down to interpretation.

Also I am going to say that a Christian is more likely to do something bad compared to an Atheist. I have been observing this factor for a bit of time. If someone belongs to a religion and they hide from it they tend to do bad things to contradict there religion or to get back at it. They somehow get a sense of accomplishment or thrill to go against their religion whilst an Atheist won't. Everyone is the same on Earth and we are not categorised as different beings.

And I saw that coming for some strange reason. So a bunch of those references can be interpreted in multiple ways, but the most of it is cold fact. More of it is objective than subjective, and I wouldn't post them otherwise. Heck the others are so down to Earth that they can't be interpreted in any other way, unless you continue to deny what's obviously correct (Deutoronomy 31:27, Psalm 81:12).

As for Christians doing more bad things, I'll have to agree with that. The atheists I've met don't have a standard of good and bad (or at least consider a smaller number of things good and bad), so nothing would be good and bad to them since nothing is wrong (this may not be the same for other atheists, but I'm citing a particular anecdote). Christians on the other hand claim to know what good and bad is from religious standards, therefore we can do lots of bad stuff; bad in the Christian perspective that is. Still, that would also mean that we'd be doing more good things, and again, good in the Christian perspective.

That's one way to look at it, but if you're using the religious standard of good and bad, and you claim that Christians have a tendency to do more bad things, where's your proof? We have a set of commandments that actually keep us from doing this and that, but most of the time they just happen to test our piety. Your point of comparison may actually be accurate, that more Christians do more 'bad' things than atheists but that's probably because of the fact that there are fewer Atheists than there are Christians. I'm not saying that Atheists do more bad things than Christians either; I just don't see the point in saying that Christians do more bad things, or that Atheists do more bad things, either way it isn't reasonable and chauvinistic at the same time.

/me sighs

Also, for this particular scenario, a verse actually tells me not to delve into this too much (Matthew 7:6) but I admit that I couldn't help myself since defending my faith just runs through my veins. I find it amusing that this Book is quite accurate with praxes in Modern Society. Think whatever you want, and believe in whatever you want; believe that "there was nothing and then nothing happened to the nothing until the nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything. Then, out of nowhere, a bunch of the everything magically arranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned themselves into dinosaurs." for all I care. Now that I've stated my point, and since I'm certain that this won't go anywhere anyway, I'll be a Christian by obeying that particular verse and leave it here before we go off topic even further.[/overandout]

 

[Ka$h Money]

Well It is good to see you understand where I am coming from. Your beliefs in the bible's undeniable truth may be wrong. You could say that the Quran for instance is quite accurate with modern science but it is down to interpretation and believe it or not, the Quran seems to be more accurate (science wise) than the Bible.

Also if you give a an Atheist the same good/bad standards and the same to an average Christian you will see that there is good correlations from actions. It is human nature, you can't change it. Also about your crack at big bang and evolution, Spoon will come with Every single youtube video in his power to change your mind lol.

Be wary...

 

[Zyflair]

I refuse to argue about morals. For those of you that have read Nietzsche (Arceus, that guy's such a pain to read), then you know that Nietzsche believes that morals is a set of illusions that we bring into out world. For example, most people believe that lying is morally wrong, but in actuality, lying is an advantage. I follow morals myself because I wish to be socially accepted, but I know that somewhere in the heart of this, that it's all bunch of nonsense that civilization creates in order for order to exist.

Good and Evil may or may not exist, but I am sure that opposites exist. There is order and there is chaos; which one is good or evil is based on your perspective. Even pain and suffering is essential to our life, so you can't be deemed evil if you cause it... right?

What I'm just trying to say is that good and evil are merely vague terms. I don't care if they exist because we live on morals that blurs the line anyway.

 

[Heavenly Spoon]

General Facts

1. First and foremost, the location of the Garden of Eden can be found by correlating it with history. Mesopotamia is the cradle of civilization as we all know, and since Mesopotamia encompasses the land between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers (which are also where the Garden of Eden is since Tigris and Euphrates stretch out from it) it would be sensible to say that the Garden of Eden (where man was created) is the cradle of civilization because man came to existence there (cf. Genesis 2:14).
   
2. The Ten Plagues of Egypt can scientifically be explained.
   
3. Originally, animals weren't meant to be eaten but to be ruled like beast of burden (Genesis 1:26). We were meant to eat plants (Genesis 3:18) which explains why we have a herbivorous set of teeth and also why plants are a lot more conventional than animals for food (You can just pluck 'em out of a tree to eat without the need to cook). Thanks to the flood though, vegetation became scarce and they began to lose nutritional value which is why we now eat animals for Protein, fats, and other nutrients that plants no longer sufficiently provide (Genesis 9:3).

1. It's not hard to imagine Mesopotamia as a paradise on earth, the region was still a region of welfare at the time.
But you're quoting from the story of Adam and Eve, which is as nonsensical as possible. Not only does it contradict EVERYTHING in genetics, it also completely contradicts the theory of evolution. You can go claim the theory of evolution is wrong now, in which case there's little point in debating someone who things he can do science better than 99.8% of all biologists (nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution). However, if you accept the theory of evolution, then you have to admit that most of the story is either completely wrong, or you're going to interpret it with metaphors and what not until it looks nothing like the original text.
But why would you want it to look like the original text? It's the most nonsensical piece of fiction I've ever read. Talking snakes? Why would God even create a talking snake like that in his own funny little paradise? Why obey a talking snake? Why plant a tree in the middle of a garden only to say that those who live there can't eat of it? Do I have to go on?
2. Or maybe the plagues actually happened, and your book just claims credit? The book was written after the plagues...
And just because something can be scientifically explained doesn't mean it actually happened.
Also, Yahoo Answers as source? Seriously?
3. So no evolution for you? God creating the animals and the plants and all.
Why would food with less nutritious value survive anyway? Over the history, you'll find that fruits as we know them today are rather recent, and thanks to agriculture and selective breeding we made them quire a good source of food.

Paleontology

1. Dinosaurs are referred to in several Bible books, but the book of Job in particular describes two of them, here, and here. All their characteristics and traits are those of particular dinosaurs, they couldn't have been mistaken for anything else; the brachiosaurus and kronosaurus respectively.

Please tell me Ken Ham didn't give a speech at your school, that man is messed up ._.
The existence of dinosaurs alongside humans is contradicted by the fossil record (nope, sorry, the dinosaur/human footprints are hoaxes, and rather bad ones at that. Dinosaurs do not have the feet of Barney) and predictions by evolution (which I take it you don't believe in judging by your previous claims...).
The book might as well mention that we still have dinosaurs today, look outside, you'll see a few. Though, you might know them as birds, but whatever.
And have you ever seen the fossil record of dinosaurs? It's immense, especially considering what it takes for something to fossilize, if God only mentions 2, he's not really doing his job right...

Astronomy

1. The Bible frequently refers to the great number of stars in the heavens (Genesis 22:17, Jeremiah 33:22) when only about 3000 are visible to the naked eye. We have seen estimates of 10^21 stars - which is a lot of stars. (The number of grains of sand on the earth's seashores is estimated to be 10^25. As scientists discover more stars, wouldn't it be interesting to discover that these two numbers match?) We see 3000 or so, but the Bible says that there are heaps more.
2. The Bible also says that each star is unique (1 Corinthians 15:41). All stars look alike to the naked eye. Even when seen through a telescope, they seem to be just points of light. Again, I'm awestruck by how this Book is ahead of its time.
3. The Bible describes the precision of movement in the universe (Jeremiah 31:35-36). It's amazing how the tidal forces of the moon and how the sun's warmth are mentioned in an era where people think that they're only good for providing light. And how their misplacement would cause global death.
4. The Bible also describes the suspension of the Earth in space (Job 26:7). It's funny how this was said when people couldn't even tell the difference between the sky and space back then.

1. The easy answer would be "they can't count", but that'd be too easy.
1st quote, OMG genesis again... I'm not that good at understanding gibberish, but if you interpret that as "there's as many stars as sand on the seashores", be my guest.
2nd quote seems to refer to the inhabitants of heaven more than stars, actually
That's the problem with books of the time, way too poetic ._.
2. They're different "in glory"? I donno, I always have the idea some stars shine brighter. Especially if you see the planets and galaxies as stars. Why is the sun not mentioned as a star, though? It clearly is...
3. Your quote mentions God as wave-stirrer, you're one master interpreter ._.
I also fail to see the sun's warmth or the movement is space in your quote.
4. The Earth doesn't hang ._.
Thanks for again claiming a great number of scientists have no idea what they're doing. We are fully aware of how the formation of planets happens, nobody "hangs" them anywhere, they just form there.

Meteorology

1. The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere (Ecclesiastes 1:6).
2. The Book includes some principles of fluid dynamics (Job 28:25). The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world's hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.

1.I see no mention of the circulation of the atmosphere there. To me, that looks like someone describing the wind, and someone else interpreting his quote to mean what he wants it to mean, so it complements modern day science...
2. OR that means that wind applies power. He would've said "air" if he meant "air", no?

Biology

1. The book of Leviticus (written prior to 1400 BC) describes the value of blood. The blood carries water and nourishment to every cell, maintains the body's temperature, and removes the waste material of the body's cells (Leviticus 17:11). The blood also carries oxygen from the lungs throughout the body. In 1616, William Harvey discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life - confirming what the Bible revealed 3,000 years earlier.
2. The Bible describes biogenesis (the development of living organisms from other living organisms) and the stability of each kind of living organism (Genesis 1:11-12, Genesis 1:21, Genesis 1:25).
   
   The phrase "after its kind" or "after their kind" occurs repeatedly, stressing the reproductive integrity of each kind of animal and plant. Today we know this occurs because all of these reproductive systems are programmed by their genetic codes.
3. The Bible describes the chemical nature of flesh.
4. It is a proven fact that a person's mental and spiritual health is strongly correlated with physical health. The Bible revealed this to us with these statements (and others) written by King Solomon about 950 BC. (Proverbs 12:4, Proverbs 14:30, Proverbs 15:30, Proverbs 16:24, Proverbs 17:22)

1. Oh. My. God. He discovered that you can't live without blood? No way. Your quote contains no mention of anything you said besides the neccesity for blood circulation for life, which is pretty evident.
2. So creatures reproduce? Also, define "kind".
Are you saying that the bible contradicts evolution here? Because animals can eventually evolve to "other kinds". But still, you're going to have to give me a definition of kind 1st.
3. Very cute. No quote?
4. So Stephen Hawking is a terrible scientist?

Anthropology

1. We have cave paintings and other evidence that people inhabited caves. The Bible also describes cave men (Job 30:5-6). Note that these were not ape-men, but descendants of those who scattered from Babel. They were driven from the community by those tribes who competed successfully for the more desirable regions of the earth. Then for some reason they deteriorated mentally, physically, and spiritually. Check your local slums for modern-day comparison.

So ape-men don't exist?
Before you start ranting about piltdown man and nebraskaman, do some research 1st, 'kay? I know these 2 are part of like every creationist propaganda video, as if there are a) no other homonid fossils and b) scientists themselves didn't define them as hoaxes. Nebraskaman wasn't even scientific at all.

Hydrology

1. The Bible includes reasonably complete descriptions of the hydrologic cycle (Psalm 135:7, Jeremiah 10:13). In these verses you can see several phases of the hydrologic cycle - the worldwide processes of evaporation, translation aloft by atmospheric circulation, condensation with electrical discharges, and precipitation. Job 36:27-29 is a simple passage with remarkable scientific insight. The drops of water which eventually pour down as rain first become vapor and then condense to tiny liquid water droplets in the clouds. These finally coalesce into drops large enough to overcome the updrafts that suspend them in the air.
2. The Bible describes the recirculation of water (Ecclesiastes 1:7, Isaiah 55:10).
3. It refers to the surprising amount of water that can be held as condensation in clouds (Job 26:8, Job 37:11).
4. Hydrothermal vents are described in two books of the Bible written before 1400BC - more than 3,000 years before their discovery by science (Genesis 7:11, Job 38:16).

1. Was this knowledge not available at the time?
Anyhow, water vaporizes, easily observable. Rain falls from clouds? no way!
2. An observation even a child can make...
3. Funny, because I always figured clouds WERE water. To me, it seems like they think the clouds are some form of sack in which God places water.
4.Cute.
NOAH'S ARK? SERIOUSLY? I take back what I said about the Adam and Eve story, this is the silliest piece of fiction EVER.
Not only does this go against genetics COMPLETELY (but of course, you know better than biologists, right?), it's just... weird.
It's impossible to put every species of animal on a boat, anything below species means they must've evolved quite drastically and completely contradictory to any evidence. Survive for 3 weeks? On a boat? With predators? Who die if you don't feel them enough, BTW...
I actually have a funny video about Noah's ark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk1owD9y1hc
(the same guy also made one about the story of Adam and Eve if you want to see it)

Geology

1. The Book describes the Earth's crust (along with a comment on astronomy - Jeremiah 31:37). Although some scientists claim that they have now measured the size of the universe, it is interesting to note that every human attempt to drill through the earth's crust to the plastic mantle beneath has, thus far, ended in failure.
2. The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical (Isaiah 40:22). The word translated "circle" here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated "circuit," or "compass" (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched - not something that is flat or square.
   
   The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested that the earth might be a sphere in his book On the Heavens.
   
   This brings up an important historical note related to this topic. Many people are aware of the conflict between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Pope, Paul V. After publishing A Dialogue on the Two Principal Systems of the World, Galileo was summoned to Rome, where he was forced to renounce his findings. (At that time, "theologians" of the Roman Catholic Church maintained that the Earth was the center of the universe, and to assert otherwise was deemed heretical.)
   
   We could not find any place in the Bible that claims that the Earth is flat, or that it is the center of the universe. History shows that this conflict, which took place at the time of the Inquisition, was part of a power struggle. As a result, scientific and biblical knowledge became casualties - an effect we still feel to this day.

1. We can measure the size of the earth, the depth of the different layers, and so on. We've never reached the end of the universe either, so what you're claiming makes little sense...
2. Or it means circle. I mean, how else are you supposed to "sit above" it? You can't sit above a sphere, you'd be down for the other half... But I'm sorry, I forgot that I'm only supposed to interpret everything the way you want me to interpret it, sorry.
BTW, The Greek discovered that the Earth was spherical, they also knew the size of the Earth, stop lying (which is a sin, right?).

Physics

1. The Bible suggests the presence of nuclear processes like those we associate with nuclear weaponry. This is certainly not something that could have been explained in 67 AD using known scientific principles (when Peter wrote 2 Peter 3:10).
2. The television is a practical (if not always worthwhile ) device that uses electromagnetic waves (which transmit its video signal). The Bible contains passages that describe something like television - something that allows everyone on earth see a single event (Matthew 24:30, Revelation 11:9-11). (Note: Such passages typically refer to the end of time. It may not be long before all of us learn for sure whether the Bible is true or not.)

1. That seems like a massive out-of-context quote. And honestly, I can see that as a vulcano eruption ._. (the elements there probably referred to the 4 elements of alchemy)
2. You interpret that as TV? ._.
Also, it mentions tribes...
And "everyone", not everyone has a TV.

Now that that's done, I'll be replying to the other stuff. Phew. The Book is flawless, that's for sure, and it's flawless in telling the truth as far as I know. Mrs.A, it's not 'blind faith' because I did mention that those verses only seemingly contradict each other and are taken in the wrong context. The truth is, they're completely unrelated to each other, or the other verse only applied to that time and place (Hebrews 8:13). The reason why the old testament is there is to signify God's new, exalted standards since The Holy Spirit now dwells in believers; they wouldn't have an excuse to disobey in the New Testament. Then again, you wouldn't understand a concept that you don't follow so ignore that.

Also, I'm not saying that 'all people that are not theists are directionless',

for some, religion is clearly something worth living for. That's not saying that religion is a necessity since I'm well aware that a lot of people don't need it.

Well Spoon, I guess your entire post pretty much ruffles that little History Channel documentary that I watched a couple of years ago, and I'm glad that we agree with certain things, so pardon my desultory post. Using the words 'even' and 'some' was to emphasize that 'some' atheists don't have a sense of guilt, or at least try to hide it. This stems from the fact that two of my atheist acquaintances deny that they become guilty when doing something bad, maybe they've got a few loose screws. They've got their own claims and try to be as callous as they can, I'm actually glad that you two aren't even remotely like them. In fact, I have nothing against agnostics and atheists because we all have the right to choose what to believe, and with that, I choose to believe in the Christian God. I also thank you both for using the words "God" and "Holy Book" with capital letters, it vexes me when people don't. Now if you'll excuse me, I have other things to attend to, try to make your replies as concise as possible. [/gtg]

I never watch the history channel.
Guilt is an evolutionary advantage, tell them it's silly to deny it.
I use "God" when referring the the fictional person with the name, and "god" when I'm talking about a god. I guess I just respect language

Anyhow, I've tried to just respond the the Bible quotes, just because. There's way better arguments against religion in general than this.
Also, I invite you to check out: http://www.pokebeach.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=58095&pid=1183367#pid1183367
You might also want to check out one of the previous topics discussion ID.


And at Zyflair: societies automatically tend to form order, otherwise they wouldn't survive. Even if it's a set of illusions, it's a set of illusions which helps the society, and which was an evolutionary advantage.

 

[Ka$h Money]

Just to aid spoon, I will link you to a thread where me and spoon had a discussion where I lost he won and basically if you have any questions about evolution I am sure they are answered in here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg1fs6vp9Ok&feature=PlayList&p=DB23537556D7AADB&index=0&playnext=1