Well, I can't speak for other religions, but I would disagree in the case of Christianity. There are plenty of reasons to believe that much was written about Christianity for the authors of the gospels to not rely on oral tradition.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/stil21.html

In addition, there is the belief of divine inspiration of the scriptures, which also addresses the question of reliability.



You'd be surprised how little science can really prove - many parts of science are statistical rather than absolute in nature. Science is not a magical way of arriving at absolute truth, and I am surprised so many people treat it as such.

Frankly, "science" has become its own religion of sorts, with its believers worshiping it as truth and denying all other beliefs. Which, IMHO, is not a good way to treat science. My opinion is that science is not absolute, and I am not bound to believe everything it teaches - after all, it has been wrong before. It is also my opinion that asking questions and challenging long-held beliefs is beneficial to science - after all, much of our scientific progress has come from people willing to question the status quo.

In addition, there are many things that are not directly testable via the scientific method, such as the age of the Earth and the origin of species, so I would hesitate to label them as being true science. It's my opinion that science should deal with what is directly testable and observable - it's the testable and observable stuff that gives us our technology, inventions, and advances.

No it is not doing that, it is comign up with a plausible story of what could have happened given what we know about the world. I would say the very essence of religion is that it is fantastical/non-sensnsical. If it made sense we wouldn't call it religion.

Faith is belief in spite of reason.

I am perfectly willing t admit such speculations may be false, but they are infitely more likely to be true than the religions themselves, which are all pretty laughable.

As for the person who said they are all the same, well they just don't know anything about other religions then, there is NO way that claim is even remotely palatable. Aztecs and quakers? New guenia cannibal spirit eaters and bhuddists, greek polytheists and elightenment diests, yep all the same thing...

I found the beliefs and writings of Joseph Campbell in this arena to be very palatable.
Quote from Wikipedia referencing Joseph Campbell's The Masks of God -
"His massive four-volume work The Masks of God covers mythology from around the world, from ancient to modern. Where The Hero with a Thousand Faces focused on the commonality of mythology (the “elementary ideas”), the Masks of God books focus upon historical and cultural variations the monomyth takes on (the “folk ideas”). In other words, where The Hero with a Thousand Faces draws perhaps more from psychology, the Masks of God books draw more from anthropology and history. The four volumes of Masks of God are as follows: Primitive Mythology, Oriental Mythology, Occidental Myth, and Creative Mythology."

One of the surprising things I first learned when I first saw the Public Broadcasting airing of The Power of Myth, an interview with Joseph Campbell in collaboration with Bill Moyers, which took place at George Lucas' Skywalker Ranch (I immediately sent in a contribution of $200.00 to get it, 4 times what they were asking) ... anyway the thing that really got to me was that there were many, many, almost identical, ideas and myths mysteriously cropping up all over the world, in many different cultures, in many different guise (or disguise) ... and those cultures had never had any contact. I found that quite interesting. The differing peoples involved certainly didn't look the same on the outside, and I still wonder how they could be so similar on the inside.

Did you really just put homosexuality on the same level as child molestation, rape and torture?!?

Tsk. Tsk. Good catch! How did I miss that?

HUMOR ONLY   :
Oh! Wait! I want to be offensive too!
...Car thieves, extortionists, con artists and the mentally ill.
...floods, earthquakes, hurricanes and people of Spanish descent.
...Negroids, Mongoloids, and Caucasians.
...basketballs, baseballs, volley balls and meat balls.
...Men, women and children first!
END OF HUMOR. COMEDIC RELIEF HAS ENDED PLEASE CONTINUE THIS POST  . 

Actually, the age of the Earth is well known via radiometric dating. Now, before you mention that radiometric dating isn't a fact I'll remind you that the same theories that are used in radiometric dating are also the underpinnings for nuclear power reactors and nuclear weapons. Those quite certainly work. And, while there is uncertainty in radiometric dating, that is also quantified and the evaluations repeated ad nausium- testable and repeatable, which is the hallmark of the scientific method. Also, much of physics is mere statistics. We can’t really see an electron or high energy particles, you know (or at least not yet). You can imply what and where they are based on secondary characteristics and behaviors. So perhaps we should discount high energy physics as mere statistical fantasies? I’m sure the folks at Argonne, Fermilab, and CERN would be amused at that. Lastly, I’m much more likely to take this type of work – statistical or otherwise – as the basis for evaluating what is likely to be true than a Good Book that offers nothing more than poetry and supposition.

The origin of the species is also pretty quickly being evaluated via genetic tracking and looking for common ancestors. All of the creatures on the Earth (and some that are extinct) are lending their DNA to this analysis, which in aggregate very well may allow us to identify the DNA-based characteristics of the very first organisms that existed on Earth. The latest National Geographic touches on this subject, as do many other geneticists and biologists including the lightning rod Richard Dawkins.

It is a mistake to say science offers absolutes (like religion does). Science is about the weight of evidence as evaluated by the scientific method. It does not claim to be perfect, but it does work and is largely self correcting. Theories and hypotheses are discarded when shown to be incorrect or incomplete.

I’d also politely disagree that the scientific method is a religion. After all, it offers proof – such as it is – and at its core cares not on whit about religion (since religion can’t be proven or disproven, so why bother?) or other untestable belief systems. You can touch it. Feel it. You can test it yourself if you like. Its mere theories are the core of our technological society. That is a pretty strong affirmation.

Hydro

I agree with some of your points but disagree with others. I contend that logical aggression is not sacrifice. The Leopard defending the cubs from the bear is doing so to protect the genetic material with no true recognition of the danger, and no sapient expectation of loss. The Leopard's aggression is preprogramed and cannot be controlled. The bear will likely look for easier spoils. Should the bear injure the leopard, she will escape and leave the cubs to their fate. The leopard would also be unable to overcome fear of fire to save her cubs. I would be satisfied with the verifiable citing of a specific species, other than humans, in whom this behaviour is a norm. You'll find it is only available to the highest orders, mimicking humanity in animals such as elephants, primates, whales and dolphins.

I really think that some of the concepts we can grasp separate us and demonstrate to us that we are made "in the image of God."

(insert the Douglas Adams argument, that I am sure you're tired of reading in my posts since I've used it twice here) *COUGH*jointhehitchikersofthegalaxyempire*COUGH*

Final rebutal on my part (on this), Hydro, unless you call me a stinky jerk. I hope you come up with something good!  

Religion it's really all about what you give your time and heart to. Some people religion is worshiping the Almighty Dollar. They could go to church every Sunday, sing some hymns, even give a little in the offering plate but his walk outside of church tells of his true god. If this man cheats and steals everyone he can in business during the weekdays would you be convinced this man was a Christian who loves God?
Actions often speak of the god one follows a lot more than one's words.

"Going to church no more makes you a Christian than sleeping in your garage makes you a car."
--Garrison Keiler

i attended a lecture and posed a question to the lecturer about the difference between science and religion. in his view, the biggest difference between the two is that religion tends to be incorrigible, whereas science is by its nature... corrigible.

science isn't in the business of claiming truth. yes, science is about finding truth, but part of the scientific principal is that we might not be able to discern truth, so we proceed believing the most seemingly accurate theory until a better one comes along.

i'm not sure if i agree. i used to place the central difference on science's empiricism (focusing on measuring preceptible reality to discern its laws, rather than proceeding on assumption and apperant truth). but religions and religious ideologues are often enough empirical after a fashion. the buddha, for example, set out to find release from suffering: it's said that he lived as a prince, then as a beggar and ascetic. it was only after surveying a many possible paths and observing himself and others along the way that he developed his "theories" of the arya-dharma (the four noble truths) and pratityasamutpada (codependant origination). from what i understand it's believed jesus disappeared for several years (like 10 or so?) of his early adult life; i don't think it's too difficult to imagine him doing a lot of soul searching during this time(messiah or not).

i think the biggest difference is what happens afterwards: the ideas get intot he hands of religious institutions, and they want things to stay the same because as long as they do, religious-institutional leaders remain in power. religions do innovate, but these innovations tend to form new demoninations or whole new religions: yet more division and nepotism. i think the same thing happens in science, yes, but at such an accelerated rate that individuals can see it happen in their own lifetimes. what was the last time there was a major innovation in christianity? the reformation? maybe mormonism in the U.S.?

there are certainly theologians who investigate questions, and who don't believe they've uncovered an eternal truth (or enough of it), but on the popular level religious followers tend to believe they believe eternal truths. profession scientists usually don't believe they've uncovered any eternal truths, but rather developed principles that are 'good enough for the purpose at hand.' but lay-people tend to fall prey to a common fallacy: reification.

reification is to treat a concept, idea or theory as if it were a real thing. 'the masses,' as it were, don't often appriciate the subtle difference between a useful concept and a concrete object. 'society' and 'the mind' are concepts. we can't directly prove their existence, no matter how obvious they seem. reification isn't always obvious, either.

and to an extent, what laypeople believe does determine the course of both religious and scientific institutions, but herein lies the major difference if there is one. churches retain power and profit by remaining the same; their appeal to the masses comes from claiming some universal and absolute truth (which isn't to say those truths aren't universal or absolute: that's beside the point).

scientific institutions bring themselves power and profit, by contrast, through innovation. people 'believe' in sceince because it innovates and discoveres the new. by belief i mean 'expend personal resources and support to the effect of helping the scientific institution continue to exist.' among private research companies, profit comes from new technologies, medicines, etc, and at the university it comes from new ideas and concepts in addition to new technologies and medicines.

it might seem that they're at odds with eachother, but i don't think that has to be the case. modern religion tends to provide people with a kind of fulfilment science cannot. i think that's a good thing, because some Very Important Questions cannot be answered by science. most so-claimed "scientific" investigations into things such as the power of prayer, the mass-change of the body after death (supposedly representing the departure of the soul), etc., are usually far from being truly scientific. they don't fulfil criteria for falsifiability or reproducability, method is haphazard at best, no prior research on the subject is done, no tests are done for spuriousness...

and let's leave it there. social science often fails in some of these respects, too, but at least social scientists acknowledge these goals and try to fulfil them whenever they can.

but, too, religious explanations in many ways are being shown faulty. the earth positively is not 5,000 years old; it's much older. there are debates about the exact age that pop up, but it's agreed among scientists and even many christians (most, perhaps) that biblical history isn't accurate in that respect. true, the only things they have to disprove that history are, at their core, theoretical. however, validating biblical history would, for them at least, not require material evidence in support of that timeline, but also evidence that contradicts more conclusions reached by dozens of different methods and types of evidence.

should religion change? perhaps it's presumptuous for an atheistic agnostic such as myself to suggest an answer, but i think yes. don't throw out biblical history, but keep and and pass it on for what it is: a belief rooted in and important to cultural history that was important to our development into who we are, and that might provide important allegorical instruction, but that we no longer believe to be historically accurate.

and i think science should change too. scientists have a way of braketing out the connection of their work to other parts of human life. i personally feel some atheists should be more supportive of religious and spiritual people. we're all human, and no matter how little we might see eye-to-eye at times, none of us are stupid. we do the things we do, make the decisions we make, and believe the things we believe for reasons that i think are usually valid and good. if your beliefs lead you to a greater peak of compassion and love, patience and understanding, or peace and openness of mind and heart, it's a good thing. to be sure, there certainly are scientists who do reach out to religious organizations and individuals in an attempt to build a stronger common ground, and vice versa.

but part of the future also lies in lay people. human beings tend to deal poorly with change, and especially with something so foundationally important as cosmological and ethical belief, it doesn't come easily. but rapid change is characteristic not just of scientific settings, but capitalistic socieities in general. as Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto:



personally, i don't think this idea has to mean 'people will be forced to see that there is no god.' it parllels what i tried to outline above: traditional religious developed in a time when stasis was the means to retain power, whereas in modern society, power is retained through change (which needn't even represent improvement; just look at the fashion industry). rather than meaning 'we are forced to give up god,' i think this is really saying 'we will be forced to accept the traditional aphorism, God helps those who help themselves.'

in medival Europe, being Christian wasn't a choice. yes, you could chose to renounce god, but you didn't have to commit to accepting Him. you were presumed a god-fearing Christian as part and parcel of being presumed normal, and the human tendancy is that if others presume you to be something, it's probably true (since we learn to see ourselves through the reactions of others). you can see this reflected in English nominclature: Christian-ity vs. Buddh-ism, Juda-ism, Hindu-ism, Tao-ism and (the archaic form) Mohammedan-ism. In English the suffix -ity connotes a basic characteristic the same as the suffix -ness: individual-ity is the same thing as individual-ness, those characteristics that make a person or thing unique. -Ism, by contrast, connotes ideology, propoganda or belief: individual-ism is a more pervasive centrality of the individual in daily life. Christian-ity was a characteristic of a normal, healthy, rational and Good person, whereas all those other -isms were just ideology and propoganda. if it were level, we'd either be saying Christianism or Buddhity (etc.) (and Buddhity is just fun to say).

but in modern times, religion is always a choice: people in the west typically have full (if rarely accurate) awareness of other religions and beliefs, that they can chose to follow them if they accept the social consequences, and even when they chose to be traditional with a religion that's tradtional among their people, it's still most often constructed and understood in terms of personal choice (there are studies showing this, though it doesn't seem to be nearly as much the case outside of the U.S. and Europe; look up Richard Madsen if you're genuinely curious). this paradigm might also help explain the rise of fundimentalism across religions vz. increased awareness of the choices (and compormises) that are made with respect to traditions in particular religions.

i think that we'll "at last compelled to face with sober senses (our) real conditions of life, and (our) relations with (our) kind" because we're now living through the death rattles of our religions' previous incarnations. these institutions are attempting to cling to past ways based on violence, intellectual elitism, exclusivity, and fear. our societies are becomming global, and there's very little we can do to stop this. i think this will contribute to a trend towards both deism and transcendentalism.

deism is the belief that god or some omnipotent cosmic force created the earth (or universe) and did/does nothing more than that. he doesn't interfere. many of America's founders were deists. since the big bang theory has gained so much momentum, I can imagine this form of belief becoming stronger in the coming years.

one variation i've seem more is that god as the ultimate science. some posters here have even said such, that god laid down the physical principles we discover through science and works miracles through those (as we call them) natural laws.

transcendentalism is the idea that certain truths and values transcend particular religions and are more or less universal. this is the foundational philosophy of the Unitarian-Universalist church, though it dates to the European Romanic period.

of course, to individuals who consider themselves 'true believers', the idea of engineering religion is appaling. i don't think it has to be that conscious: the violent and archaic aspects of relgion might die off as an unintentional matter of their development.

however, i think fundamentalisms are another offshot of this process: think of it like divergent evolution. the 'mutation' occurs because something about our global social environment lends to it. the fate of fundamentalisms will depend on how global societies continue to develop: if the enviornment favors fundamentalist traits... we're screwed. but if we can create a social environment that's more befitting spiritual expressions of love and fraternity, i think they'll die off as a matter of natural course.

what those factors that'll influence the development of our cultures and relgions, i'll leave you to speculate on. i think i've already pontificated enough.

edit: one more point. modern science developed as a Christian endeavor. the enlightenment philosophies that gave rise to science originally had to do with discerning the nature of god and his creation. to uncover better truths about reality was to bring human beings closer to an understanding of god. it was from this open-eyed approach that western society began to widely question the existence of god. just some food for thought.

anyway, sorry for such long posts.

How to express this ... and I don't mean to critisize or try to change the meaning of what was expressed at all. I urge all to re-read the original post to get the correct context that goes with the quote.

When I read this post, my thoughts immediately went to my memories of other peoples I have known ("four-legged" and "winged") that demonstrated love, compassion, a sense of continuing to try to 'break through' the (incomprehensible to them) barriers I had in my mind ... in spite of my lack ... and I have to say on their behalf, that any and all failures to understand were mine, not theirs. Also, on their behalf, in comparison to the suffering the four-legged and winged peoples are subjected to, and have been for millenia because of 'our' ignorance, selfishness etc ... well, there isn't much that could happen to the Human race that would even begin to compare.

I've seen female horses CRY and attempt suicide when their first foal miscarried. I've seen big-ol-fat bears sitting on their butts, front paws on their knees, at night on the side of a mountain, staring up at the Moon. I've had ducks warn me of the approach of a dangerous animal, purposely flying a quarter-mile out of their original path to quack at me, in time for me to get ready.

I've been taught the meaning of patience and long-suffering love that 'ani-mals' (moving-bad-things?) express to me just because I was another creature on the same planet and they liked me ... I've seen a lot of things other people have not seen, or bothered to notice. I hope everyone will have more compassion in future, and try to understand better.   

It doesn't take more than about, oh, 3-4 brain cells to feel compassion, or love, or sadness, or fear ... "we" don't have a monopoly on that, either. Anyone who makes the mistake of 'objectivizing' another creature is, imho, not very bright after all. (sorry that slipped through, please don't take offense)

It's not the theories about radiometric dating that are in question; it's the initial starting conditions that are in question (ie, the initial mother/daughter ratio), as well as the assumption of uniformitarianism.



Which have often failed - there are many examples of objects that have been created or animals that have died only a few hours ago having a radiometric date of millions of years. I'd like to see all of the data for short periods of time, since they can be directly observed and measured.



I'm not saying that statistics should be completely discounted - just that it's not taken as absolute fact. In statistics, there exist outliers, and there are different levels of certainty. This is just the nature of statistics - there is nothing "wrong" or "bad" about it. That's just how it is.

It's when people start seeing "95% certain" as being identical to "100% truth" that I start to question their thinking.



In this case, I'd be questioning the exact position and velocity of an electron - and you'd find they would agree with me that knowing both at the same time is quite unreasonable .

The scientists themselves admit that they cannot know both the exact position and the exact velocity of an electron at the same time. This is one place where saying "I don't know" is okay and completely acceptable. This is in stark contrast to the age of the earth, which is claimed to be known despite uncertainties about it.



Can you quantify this likelyhood? Or did you invent it?



This view of genetics assumes the theory is true before the data is analyzed. Genetics itself doesn't say anything about common ancestry - it is assumed common ancestry is a fact before the genetics is even analyzed.

This is saying: "This is how things are based on the facts, assuming our theory is true in the first place."

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." --Sherlock Holmes, "A Scandal in Bohemia"



I have heard this many times, however I hesitate to believe it completely. This may true about some things, but not all: The process of elimination has been proven to be logically sound, and there exist other methods for arriving at a logically solid conclusion based on the data given - I do in fact believe that methods exist for showing absolute certainty. In addition, I am not completely discounting statistics - but it should be treated by its nature of uncertainty, and not taken as absolute fact.

In addition, every time a statistic is given, I'd much rather see the raw data for myself rather than the conclusion. I'm personally of the mindset that agrees with the Sherlock Holmes quote I gave earlier - I'd like to see the data before I form a theory, rather than afterwards.



The theories about the origins of species are largely incomplete, but are modified when new data is found rather than discarded. I find this to be in conflict with your statement about theories and hypotheses being discarded.



The scientific method itself is not a religion. It's the treatment of science as an absolute form of truth by many people that I find religious.



At the moment of this writing, there are many forms of Christianity: Orthodoxy, Catholicism, a lot of protestant branches including Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, and so on. It seems that Christianity itself is subject to change. Whether or not change is desirable is, however, a different story: As a religion, we never claimed to have the same role as science does, and therefore we don't try to force the same rules of science into our religion.

IMHO, science explores what is testable - and religion explores what is not testable. Both have their place in our society and their own set of rules to fit their nature.

Then we are back to my original post.

It was mankind's fear and scientific ignorance that led them to fabricate Gods and religion in the first place.

Religious stories were then passed on from generation to generation by word of mouth. The facts were probably embellished or distorted many times along the way. Different societies, religious leaders and conquerers, may have distorted them to satisfy their own goals be it financial or political. Today we have many different religions with conflicting views! Its not a wonder that more and more of us chose not to believe in any of them. After all if all the religions can't agree on the basics facts of faith and God, then the laws of probability prevail.

A nice story with no basis in facts, statistics, or any other sort of scientific methodology. This is a prime example of abusing science to make it into a religion.



Writing was established long before Christianity - in addition to the Bible, there are numerous records of events during that period of time.

Glenn Miller, author of the website "A Christian Thinktank," has a compilation of books that deal with the events surrounding the period of time around the birth of Christianity:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/bookrex.html

Being that writing was established long before the New Testament was made, and being that Jesus knew many literate people (a tax collector, many religious leaders), I would say it is very unlikely that Christianity could be included as one of the religions based largely upon oral tradition, as they likely had plenty of writings at the time.



Do you have evidence of this?



So? Do you have a point? How much research have you done to conclude that there is no way to resolve this problem?

By the way, did you know that most cities referred to in the Bible are or were confirmed to be real cities, and that there are many archaeological artifacts and writings that relate to biblical events?

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology

I can't speak for other religions, but I do believe that Christianity was never a purely oral religion for any significant length of time.



Perhaps it's because many people would rather do some research than inventing stories about how the religions were created.



-These laws of probability apply equally to naturalistic explanations as well - and you have yet to prove otherwise.

-You are assuming all religions are equal - even though you've probably barely studied them at all.

You are totally discounting the possibility that falsehoods can be valuable and sometimes between two apparent falsehoods can be found a truth that at first seemed paradoxical. Just because you don't believe that a certain person may have made water into wine or spoke to an angel does not mean that the story has no value whatsoever. You also make a massive assumption that fear and ignorance is the only driving force in religious belief. Do you really think religion would have been around in so many forms if it all boiled down to fear and ignorance? The theory of probability is also just a theory, it is possible that something that was not probable will occur and that once it occurs it may occur differently ever single time or never occur again. Improbable does not mean impossible.
P.S Dystopic for Emperor!

Ref: the first sentence of this quote. I might point out, respectfully, LightVader, that there was probably a lot of the need for companionship, warmth, Justice, and emotional security mixed in with the fear and ignorance. Ref: the remainder, you said it so much better than I could have.



Ah-YAAH! [fist in the air]
dystopic for Emperor, and LightVader for First Counselor!

There's an attention-getting post ... something about 'anyone cared enough to share the truth about heaven and hell' I just happened to come across it when checking new posts ... funny, I kind of thought that's what we were doing in here. {sigh}

What if: The second coming of Jesus really referred to was the new age that follows, when we have all applied ourselves to really try to accomplish what he hoped for, when we really understand (and not just go to church on sunday and then cheat people on monday)? My take on it is to follow some rules for behavior. Compassion, honesty, strength, courage, intellect, and responsibility. My ideas do not include repeating some old worn-out population-control stuff over and over, but in trying to make it happen in reality. But then, we all do what we can.

IMHO then Jesus will have finally conquered - in spite of the politicians, grafters, liars, and those who crucified him just for speaking his opinions ... and in spite of all those who have twisted his words to suit themselves (probably starting about 30 seconds after he left).

Forgive me for going off on another of my tangents, if you would, everyone.   
Sometimes I think I come across as a little too strange for a lot of people, and I regret that - but I do not have a problem with facing Jesus right this second, in fact I would welcome it more than you can possibly imagine. Does that sound so far fetched?

There's two things you can say to yourself with that belief : "if annihilation is the ultimate end, why do anything?", the alternative is "if annihilation is the ultimate end, why not do anything?". If you reject belief in an afterlife, then this current life is your single, only chance at existence, so you better make the most of it .
Funnily enough, I could ask the same question of you religious types. If you only get to the good stuff after this life, then why bother doing anything in it? (beyond whatever religious doctrines apply of course). Should you not all be monks?

Or they're realists. If I die, there is no longer any 'I' to have a problem. The feedback loop generated from my brain's attempt to process all of it's inputs, my sense of self and personality, will no longer exist. Even assuming there was an afterlife, what went into it would not be 'me' in any recognisable sense.

I could claim the reverse. What is it about your life which is so bad you need the promise of an eternal reward to continue?

As does religion, sport and pretty much anything else where two people have space to disagree. It's simple human nature, we dislike those who are different from ourselves.

To me, it seems boring, predictable and worthless. I'm more happy taking the good and the bad than I would be with the controlled and the mediocre. Variety is the spice of life as they say.

Not really. Apparently, I'll go to hell, which the bible describes as a place devoid of God. Given I've never believed in God in the first place, not having him around isn't really much of a problem.

No, I don't think anyone claims we were formed from energy. Although according to certain Quantum theories the entire universe consists of waves, which could be a type of energy, except we've not changed our state in that case.

Yes, and some people are so keen to get into the promised paradise they strap on explosives and take people along for the ride, which is abhorrent to me. It's the same thing with saying belief leads to a happy, positive life. Sometimes it does, sometimes you end up with a monster like Franco or the situation in Belfast. Such things aren't down to the belief of those involved, but how they have chosen to interpret and act on that belief.

Apologies for the double post, didn't want to create a single huge one.


True as far as the New Testament, however the Old Testament is based (pretty much copied directly) from the Jewish books, and they were in turn based on an older oral tradition. The New Testament itself dates from a century or so after Jesus, but that doesn't necessarily argue for it being a fabrication. It would be just as likely that it was compiled from original sources as the most important parts (hence why we don't hear much about Jesus' life as a construction worker, or have any kind of sacred tax return for Joseph & Son Carpenters)

Even a cursory examination of the Bible reveals several inconsistencies. Several books are provably altered (you can tell just by looking at the verse structure or continuity), and there are others where at least two authors were behind the book, and didn't necessarily agree with each other. There are also problems with the translation, for example the miracle of Jesus walking on water - in the original Greek, it could equally read that he was walking by the water, i.e. on the shore.
The problem is, if we accept that Jesus was real, then it would make sense that the book would be embellished. Jesus the miracle producing, all loving Son of God is a much better argument for a modification to an existing religion than Jesus the carpenter who happened to have some valuable insights on the nature of God. The fact that some of his miracles were similar or identical to those used in both preceeding and contemporary religions (enough to be considered a cliche or standard of that kind of work) would also support the theory that he's been the victim of a spin campaign. There's even evidence that Jesus as portrayed in the New Testament could actually be an amalgamation of several prophets who were around at the time.
Mind you, this doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus wasn't divine or even the son of God. His most important miracle (at least as far as I see it) was his return from death. That alone would be enough to confirm his divinity (and given the way death was percieved and used in the symbolism of the time, confirm his divine heritage). Whether the rest of the miracles he performed were real, embellishments or simply a corrupted version of something which actually happened is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to proving his divine origins (indeed, they could be seen as showing off!).
Bit of a tangent there It's a mistake to get into this kind of minutae though, the real importance of the Bible, in both testaments, is the message and the conversation regarding the nature of God, belief and the universe. It doesn't actually matter if Noah never actually existed, since the point of thst book is not to tell you about the life & times of Noah but the power and grace of the Almighty. Besides, the biblical authors themselves seem to be a bit confused about whether they're talking symbolism, parable, historical record or amusing anecdote. You can't expect their readership to do any better.

Yes, and many are provably false. Joshua's conquests for example, in which he attacks two cities which were deserted (for at least 200 years prior to his arrival) when he was there, one which didn't actually exist at the time and manages to defeat and Egyptian garrison without actually meeting the Egyptians living there at the time. All of which we know because the Egyptians happened to keep quite meticulous records regarding their state which conflict directly with what is recorded in the bible. Similarly, while some of the plagues of Egypt do agree with record, there's a number which didn't happen, or rather aren't mentioned by the Egyptian records. I can't see them not writing about something as notable as the death of all the eldest sons in the land, even if it's only in the tax record.

It wasn't. Only the basis (Judaism) was oral. Christianity in particular had a different problem, that of too many books. Hence the council of Nicea to sort out precisely what was cannon and what wasn't.

you mean they are materialists . It's a materialistic beliefs than the mind and brain is the same and "I" is nothing but an illusion created by the brain. This argument is made as if the speaker is speaking outside of his/her brain.
So this argument itself shoots the one who making it in the foot. (what I call a "Barney Fife argument")

It's also provable with simple electromagnets. By inducing a magnetic field to interfere with the functioning of your frontal lobes, I can disconnect your sense of self from the body (it's actually a rather interesting experiment if you ever find yourself in a position to try it, it feels as if you're located a few feet away from your actual physical body, which is wierd. Even wierder when they begin changing the magnet positions, which in turn alters your percieved position). Alternatively, you can lobotomise or otherwise slice up the brain and alter the individuals personality, in certain cases you can even affect specific personality traits (presumably, if we could identify more specifically which areas of the brain were responsible for which functions, we could even customise individual personality traits with surgery, though that's a worrying prospect in many ways).
There's even a simpler method we use everyday which is to alter personality with chemicals, whether it's alcohol or valium. All of which argues that our sense of self, that which makes us what we are, is bound quite physically to the brain.

It would therefore follow that completely shutting down the brain, as occurs at the point of death, would terminate the sense of self altogether.

Some historical facts for you...

The philosophical basis of Christianity was first propounded by the Greek philosopher Plato who taught the mystery of the Christos to the Academy of Philosophy in Athens in the third century B.C.

Plato taught that the world of matter was under the control of a great spiritual principle—the Nous—which principle was also called Logos, or The Divine Mind or Word of God. When this principle manifested itself in the world, it was called virtue or goodness, or chrestos, from whence we get the name Christ.



Anthropologically, there have always been myths and legends of "saviors" - a suffering god. Osiris, god of ancient Egypt, died and was resurrected in a myth that may be as much as ten thousand years old. Tammuz was a mid-eastern god who died on the cross and was resurrected on the third day.

There was never any single individual who was the Jesus portrayed in the New Testament. The mythical Jesus is constructed of many elements from the religions of the Roman empire. Chief among these are: 1)Joshua ben Pandera, the second Messiah of the Zealot movement. The Gospel of Mark was likely built around his life story. 2) an itinerant Essene teacher who was killed during an All Fools’ Day celebration in Alexandria about 28 AD, and 3) the sacrificial hero of Middle-Eastern mythology.



It was a great idea of Dionysius "the Little" to date our era from the birth of the Saviour. Jesus Christ, the God-Man, the prophet, priest, and king of mankind, in fact, the centre and turning-point not only of chronology, but of all history, and the key to all its mysteries




Here is a list of all the different denominations of Christianity created since...

African Methodist Episcopal (1)
African Methodist Episcopal Zion (2)
African Orthodox Church (1)
American Baptist Churches USA (4)
Amish (24)
Anabaptist (4)
Anglican Catholic Church@
Anglican Church (136)
Antiochian Orthodox@
Armenian Evangelical Church (1)
Armenian Orthodox@
Assemblies of God (21)
Associated Gospel Churches of Canada@
Association of Vineyard Churches (5)
Baptist (150)
Baptist Bible Fellowship (2)
Branch Davidian (3)
Brethren in Christ (1)
Bruderhof Communities (11)
Byzantine Catholic Church@
Calvary Chapel (3)
Calvinist (5)
Catholic (1645)
Cell Church (14)
Celtic Orthodox@
Charismatic Episcopal Church (2)
Christadelphian (14)
Christian and Missionary Alliance (5)
Christian Churches of God (1)
Christian Identity (6)
Christian Reformed Church (4)
Christian Science (9)
Church of God (Anderson) (3)
Church of God (Cleveland) (4)
Church of God (Seventh Day) (1)
Church of God in Christ (2)
Church of God of Prophecy (1)
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (148)
Church of Scotland@
Church of South India (1)
Church of the Brethren (8)
Church of the Lutheran Brethren of America (2)
Church of the Nazarene (17)
Church of the New Jerusalem (4)
Church of the United Brethren in Christ (2)
Church Universal and Triumphant (3)
Churches of Christ (32)
Churches of God General Conference (5)
Congregational Christian Churches (3)
Coptic Orthodox@
Cumberland Presbyterian Church (1)
Disciples of Christ (13)
Episcopal Church@
Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church (4)
Evangelical Congregational Church (5)
Evangelical Covenant Church (1)
Evangelical Formosan Church (1)
Evangelical Free Church (3)
Evangelical Lutheran Church (31)
Evangelical Methodist Church (1)
Evangelical Presbyterian (1)
Family, The (aka Children of God) (9)
Fellowship of Christian Assemblies (1)
Fellowship of Grace Brethren (3)
Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (2)
Free Church of Scotland (4)
Free Methodist (6)
Free Presbyterian (2)
Free Will Baptist (4)
Gnostic@
Great Commission Association of Churches (2)

Greek Orthodox@
Hutterian Brethren (4)
Independent Fundamental Churches of America (1)
Indian Orthodox@
International Church of the Foursquare Gospel (3)
International Churches of Christ (7)
Jehovah's Witnesses (33)
Living Church of God (7)
Local Church (7)
Lutheran (39)
Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (18)
Mar Thoma Syrian Church (7)
Mennonite (26)
Messianic Judaism@
Methodist (19)
Moravian Church (3)
Nation of Yahweh (3)
New Frontiers International (1)
Old Catholic Church@
Orthodox (96)
Orthodox Church in America@
Orthodox Presbyterian (2)
Pentecostal (25)
Plymouth Brethren (4)
Presbyterian (71)
Presbyterian Church (USA) (17)
Presbyterian Church in America (10)
Primitive Baptist (3)
Protestant Reformed Church (11)
Reformed (14)
Reformed Baptist (8)
Reformed Church in America (4)
Reformed Church in the United States (3)
Reformed Churches of Australia@
Reformed Episcopal Church@
Reformed Presbyterian Church (6)
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (5)
Revival Centres International (4)
Romanian Orthodox@
Rosicrucian@
Russian Orthodox@
Serbian Orthodox@
Seventh Day Baptist (4)
Seventh-Day Adventist (51)
Shaker (12)
Society of Friends (42)
Southern Baptist Convention (14)
Spiritist (2)
Syrian Orthodox@
True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days (4)
Two-by-Twos (3)
Unification Church (12)
Unitarian-Universalism@
United Church of Canada@
United Church of Christ (14)
United Church of God (3)
United Free Church of Scotland@
United Methodist Church (108)
United Reformed Church (1)
Uniting Church in Australia@
Unity Church (3)
Unity Fellowship Church (2)
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (2)
Virtual Churches (13)
Waldensian Church (3)
Way International, The (4)
Web Directories (6)
Wesleyan (9)
Wesleyan Methodist@
Worldwide Church of God (4)

If you need more specific details, go to "Yahoo".


Point made.

Yes ElWhopO, many other human emotions were probably involved.

I'm an Athiest.Hi.
I don't really care about god or whatever. I just get on with my life regardless of wether he exists or not. Personally, I like the Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy definition to wether he exists or not and why we have no clue.

god states,"I refuse to prove that I exist, becouse proof denies faith and without faith, I am nothing."

It's a great movie by the way. I also get very bent out out of shape when very religious people get mad at me because I don't think the same way they do.

Oh. And for all you athiests (or anyone really) go to Evolvefish.com.

I have read all of the above posts and I have found it to be very interesting. Saying this, I would like to make a couple of statements regarding atheism.

First I would like to present a story. Many of you may have heard this but there may be some who haven't. And having seen many of the scientific posts on this forum I think you will find it interesting and understand the point I am trying to make.

Regarding our friend Sir Isaac Newton.


Sir Isaac Newton had a friend who, like himself, was a great scientist; but he was an infidel, while Newton was a devout Christian. They often discussed their views concerning God, as their mutual interest in science drew them much together. Newton had a skillful mechanic make him a replica of our solar system in miniature. In the center was a large gilded ball representing the sun, and revolving in proper order around this were small balls fixed on the ends of arms of varying lengths, representing Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. These bails were so geared together by cogs and belts as to move in perfect harmony when turned by a crank.

One day, as Newton sat reading in his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, his infidel friend stepped in. Scientist that he was, he recognized at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it, he slowly turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched the heavenly bodies all move with their relative speeds in their orbits. Standing off a few feet he exclaimed,

"My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?"

Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, "Nobody!"

Quickly turning to Newton, the infidel said, "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?"

Looking up now, Newton solemnly assured him that nobody made it, but that the aggregation of matter so much admired had just happened to assume the form it was in. But the astonished infidel replied with some heat, "You must think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I'd like to know who he is."

Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend's shoulder. "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much larger system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a design and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"


Now whether or not we say we are an atheist, Sir Isaac makes a valid point. And I know personally that many of the great scientists of the past not only believed in "God" but attributed their works to his influence.

Secondly: For anyone who has ever had the joy of sitting in a foxhole with bullets screaming around you would understand when I say the "There are no atheists in Foxholes." Because I have seen the hardest unbelievers fall to their knees and petition what ever deity they believe in when faced with such a situation.

So in reference to the original question. I believe that there truly may not be such a thing as an atheist. And it may be that none of the 25,000 Christian religions in America alone are right, or any other religions or beliefs for that matter, however, I do think that there is some higher entity than us and one day when we have grown up maybe we will get a chance to meet them.

Which is why we make games like GCII.