[Mithras]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
God tucked you into bed and read you "Goodnight Moon" too?

No no, it's the other way round. His parents led genocidal rampages, told him fanciful stories about creation, and performed astounding miracles that no one can document.

[ebuddy]

I'm not sure why such a cerebral topic of discussion has to immediately degrade to commentary; "stupid", "naive", and "insecure". Ironically, it seems to come from those who don't believe as is usually the case. I wonder what it is that makes you more educated. Is it the 'ever-changing', flawed and contradictory sciences of man, you understand so little about that would have you blindly believe in it's tenets? What is it you know that takes you to such a higher intellectual plane? Perhaps in the least, the moral compass you use, void of Biblical principle or other religious dogma, is not effective enough for you to engage topical discussion without first trying to drag others down. In the meantime, I hope you realize just how insecure that truly makes you appear. On to the topic at hand...

There are those who believe for different reasons and in varying degrees.

Some believe because they were raised to believe and have not challenged the belief.

Others were raised to believe, challenged the thought then disbelieved.

Some were raised to believe, eventually disbelieved until an equal or opposite force or event made them believe again.

Some were raised not to believe or practice any belief, then an event sparked the thought that made them pursue the deeper questions in life and then believed.

Others were raised not to believe, never challenged the thought and continued not to believe.

Most, while saying they believe find the very belief in itself to be inconvenient and do not practice the tenets of the belief. This is where the degree of faith comes into play. Those that have more faith, generally practice it with more effort and fervor.

In short, people on either side of the philosophical sphere will see what they want to see, believe what they want to believe, and practice either to equal degree of faith in, or faith against. No amount of evidence is good enough for many. Those honestly seeking answers will generally find them. It is no shock to me that while most Americans believe, Christianity is a movement that continues to spread like wild-fire abroad.

Me personally? I was raised to believe. I then disbelieved hearing others say things like; "the Bible is chalk-full of contradictions", "man cannot be an effective witness to anything because he will always interject personal beliefs/life-experiences.", "we came to be by purely natural phenomena and there is no God." Having at that time, been placed in environments to hear the above arguments refuted by knowledgeable Christians, began a quest of proving and disproving on my own. I found many interesting and little known facts and the more I swayed back toward belief, the more was revealed to me. I then began studying the actual Hebrew words for what was said in the Pentateuch, then learned more about the actual composition of the Bible, how it came to be, how when taking God out of the equation; historically accurate it was, then looking at it's prophecy and seeing how it had been fulfilled in those times and today. I find in most cases, when one is seeking answers in earnest, they can find them in this doctrine. When one disbelieves, reading the Bible in order to only have knowledge of it while remaining closed-minded, the concepts discussed in the Bible become a source of accountability, wrath, conviction, and hatred. However, one who is truly on a quest will find the exact opposite; Hope, forgiveness, Grace, Peace, Love, and Faith.

Someone mentioned the God gene. There are several instances in which the Bible discusses our having literally been created to Praise.
�Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created� Revelation 4:11.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by BLAZE_MkIV:
People believe in god plural, singular or strawberry because someone they trust told them they should.
If you were never told about religeon then you wouldn't believe.

I sincerely disagree. How did the first religions emerge then? And why did every people around the world develop religions, albeit different ones? I think it's just something that happens no matter what. People are built for it.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I'm not sure why such a cerebral topic of discussion has to immediately degrade to commentary; "stupid", "naive", and "insecure". Ironically, it seems to come from those who don't believe as is usually the case.

Good grief, please tell me you're kidding. I called them insecure because they wanted to degrade the topic of discussion into a believers-vs.-nonbelievers shouting match. So I'm not sure how you could say that my reaction to this is what degraded the thread. I, one of the aforementioned "those who don't believe," am quite interested in the original topic of discussion � unlike the people I was arguing against, who were quite interested in shutting it down.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I sincerely disagree. How did the first religions emerge then? And why did every people around the world develop religions, albeit different ones? I think it's just something that happens no matter what. People are built for it.

There may be a "God" gene, as some have put it, but people are mainly just built with a certain level of curiosity and need to have things explained. How did the first religions emerge?

Some possibilities:
1. Person finally thinks up answers to some mystery or many mysteries about the creation of the universe with an elaborate god story -- convinces others to follow certain rules to be "saved."
2. Drugged-out person sincerely believes he has seen a vision of a god or gods.
3. Sick/hallucinating/delusional person convinces others of visions.
4. Person experiences near-death sensation of something more.
etc.

People were more apt to believe these things before science developed as much as it has today. Science still has a way to go before convincing the majority, though.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Good grief, please tell me you're kidding. I called them insecure because they wanted to degrade the topic of discussion into a believers-vs.-nonbelievers shouting match. So I'm not sure how you could say that my reaction to this is what degraded the thread. I, one of the aforementioned "those who don't believe," am quite interested in the original topic of discussion � unlike the people I was arguing against, who were quite interested in shutting it down.

The topic was illogical and degraded to start with - the original question dismisses any answers that don't include "the believers are delusional".
I mean, how can one discuss a "God gene" whilst assuming that there's no God to have put that gene there in the first place?

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
People were more apt to believe these things before science developed as much as it has today. Science still has a way to go before convincing the majority, though.

But why has religion and science have to be "enemies"? Would it be wrong for a scientist to believe? Would it be wrong for a atheist to study theology?

These two don't have to be at odds with each other. Actually the two have nothing to do with each other. You(not you personally) cannot disprove God and hence you can't scientifically say he doesn't exist. Also you(again not you personally) should never use religion to explain scientific matters(anti-evolution and all that BS).

I quite frankly don't see why the two should be so against each other.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
But why has religion and science have to be "enemies"?

They don't have to be, but usually are because of certain fundamental differences that the church is sometimes stubborn to acknowledge (at first, at least) -- like the heliocentric universe...oh, and evolution.

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
Would it be wrong for a scientist to believe? Would it be wrong for a atheist to study theology?

Depends on what religion and aspects of that religion the scientist believed in. And of course people can enjoy the study of a subject they don't necessarily believe in. Some people love Greek mythology; that doesn't mean they believe in Zeus and Hercules.

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
These two don't have to be at odds with each other. Actually the two have nothing to do with each other. You(not you personally) cannot disprove God and hence you can't scientifically say he doesn't exist. Also you(again not you personally) should never use religion to explain scientific matters(anti-evolution and all that BS).

Well, they do have to do with each other. Many religions have anecdotes and myths to explain what were mysteries of the universe. Some of these have since been clarified with scientific evidence.

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
I quite frankly don't see why the two should be so against each other.

Fair enough, but people will continue to fight over them.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
The topic was illogical and degraded to start with - the original question dismisses any answers that don't include "the believers are delusional".
I mean, how can one discuss a "God gene" whilst assuming that there's no God to have put that gene there in the first place?

I didn't dismiss those answers - I explicitly acknowledged that they might be true in my post. But I wanted a place for those of who don't believe in God to talk about theories of why people would be religious. So if you believe in God and think that's the explanation for human religiosity, you're welcome not to participate in the thread - I'm sure there are plenty of other ones that might catch your fancy.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BRussell:
But I wanted a place for those of who don't believe in God to talk about theories of why people would be religious . . .

OK - I wasn't sure what you were getting at either, but if that's the case:

Humans want to understand things - cause and effect and all that. They also have powerful imaginations, albeit with a limited frame of reference. They're also insecure - nature gave us little in the way of natural defenses. Combine those three things in a cruel and capricious world and you have the makings of a major motion picture starring God and or gods in the form an old bearded guy - or supernatural animal figures - who create the world with a sweep of the hand and/or make it rain and/or comfort us and/or give us cancer because we were BAD little boys and girls and didn't pray or dance or worship properly. Luckily, we've advanced to the point where we know that rain, for example, is just a coincidental natural phenomenon, but many people still cling to the notion that supernatural beings are responsible for our blessings and/or predicaments. I suppose there might be a gene involved, but if there is, I didn't get one.

That'll be ten dollars.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I didn't dismiss those answers - I explicitly acknowledged that they might be true in my post. But I wanted a place for those of who don't believe in God to talk about theories of why people would be religious.

and by appearances, debase them for it. I'm not saying you, specifically, are doing this. But it does seem to be the pattern on this forum, when this topic comes up (again, and again, and again...)

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
They don't have to be, but usually are because of certain fundamental differences that the church is sometimes stubborn to acknowledge (at first, at least) -- like the heliocentric universe...oh, and evolution.

So let me get this straight, they'd get along just fine as long as the 'fundies' fall in goose-step with scientific theories that offer more questions than answers and provide little observable evidence? And you wonder why they have become adversarial to one another. Look, both sides have become adversarial. It's not because of "fundamentalists" refusing to acknowledge scientific fact alone. You might know there are a great many scientists motivated by an opportunity to explain-away a deity. This is not new. You might also know that those believing in a deity may question the methods and conclusions of these men. Scrutiny of scientific method and conclusions are critical to the advancement of it. Otherwise, the lab is just another altar of faith. I might add; a great many adhering to it's tenets with as much apologetics, defensiveness and dogma as any religion to date.

[zerostar]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
scientific theories that offer more questions than answers and provide little observable evidence?

This old mantra again? You say this over and over, yet debates go ignored...

You might also know that those believing in a deity may question the methods and conclusions of these men.

You might want to acknowledge there is a motive behind their actions as well.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by zerostar:
This old mantra again? You say this over and over, yet debates go ignored...

How many pages of debates in which you fail to acknowledge the difference between micro and macro evolution do we have to endure before I meet your criteria of having acknowledged the debate? BTW, it's not an old mantra, it's a relatively new one and is gaining momentum. It uses the same evidence theory has been using for decades and proves just how imaginative one must be to assume it as irrefutable fact.

You might want to acknowledge there is a motive behind their actions as well.

I already have. This was the statement you obviously ignored; "Look, both sides have become adversarial." If I've ignored you, it's because you have shown an unwillingness to really read what it is I'm saying and have given me no reason to continue.

[zerostar]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
How many pages of debates in which you fail to acknowledge the difference between micro and macro evolution do we have to endure before I meet your criteria of having acknowledged the debate?

Sorry, there is no difference, I asked you to show me a mechanism that stops 'micro' from becoming 'macro'

It is not my intent to derail this thread any further, so that is all I will say.

If I've ignored you, it's because you have shown an unwillingness to really read what it is I'm saying and have given me no reason to continue.

My apologies, your posts are usually very long winded. I must have overlooked that part.

[tae667]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Only someone stupid and insecure would say such a thing.

I believe in God for the same reason I believe in my parents. It's not too difficult to understand.

Hello christian. Do you seriously believe that earth was created by God 3000 years ago and in seven days. If not you must confess that bible is heretic ****. Have a happy christmas with your middle age beliefs.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by tae667:
Hello christian. Do you seriously believe that earth was created by God 3000 years ago and in seven days. If not you must confess that bible is heretic ****. Have a happy christmas with your middle age beliefs.

If you're going to argue against, at least get your facts straight. It's six days. Stupid troll.

[deej5871]

Originally posted by tae667:
Hello christian. Do you seriously believe that earth was created by God 3000 years ago and in seven days. If not you must confess that bible is heretic ****. Have a happy christmas with your middle age beliefs.

Most people don't believe creation days were 24 hours long (among other problems for young earth creationists).

And young earth creationists believe the earth was created 6000 years ago, not 3000. Get your facts right if you're going to insult someone.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
So let me get this straight, they'd get along just fine as long as the 'fundies' fall in goose-step with scientific theories that offer more questions than answers and provide little observable evidence?

As opposed to the religious who offer answers with no evidence whatsoever...oh and don't you question them!

Originally posted by ebuddy:
You might know there are a great many scientists motivated by an opportunity to explain-away a deity.

A great many scientists have agnostic "faith" of their own. I actually do not know (or have not heard of) a single scientist whose work is motivated by explaining that there is no such thing as God (links please, who the hell would be motivated by this?). Most are motivated by curiosity and the desire to explain the un-evidently explained.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Otherwise, the lab is just another altar of faith. I might add; a great many adhering to it's tenets with as much apologetics, defensiveness and dogma as any religion to date.

No matter how hard you try, you cannot compare the two so directly. Science is based on mathematics and reproducible evidence. Most religion is based on age-old, unprovable myth. The lab is hardly another altar of faith.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by deej5871:
Most people don't believe creation days were 24 hours long (among other problems for young earth creationists).

And young earth creationists believe the earth was created 6000 years ago, not 3000. Get your facts right if you're going to insult someone.

Does this matter? His point still stands whether it's 3000 or 6000 years. The Earth was made some 4.6 billion years ago, and the Universe is about 13.7 billion years old.

[deej5871]

Originally posted by itistoday:
Does this matter? His point still stands whether it's 3000 or 6000 years. The Earth was made some 4.6 billion years ago, and the Universe is about 13.7 billion years old.

How the hell does his point still stand? I said that most people don't interpret the bible that way (including Zimph, from what I've seen in these forums). I also had a link showing that the bible really doesn't have evidence for young earth theories. What point from his post still stands, seeing as how both his numbers have been corrected, and that I've shown how you can still believe in old-earth and not consider the bible "heretic ****"?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by deej5871:
How the hell does his point still stand? I said that most people don't interpret the bible that way (including Zimph, from what I've seen in these forums). I also had a link showing that the bible really doesn't have evidence for young earth theories. What point from his post still stands, seeing as how both his numbers have been corrected, and that I've shown how you can still believe in old-earth and not consider the bible "heretic ****"?

About half of Americans are young-earth creationists. I agree with you that the bible does not dictate young-earth creationism, nor anti-evolution beliefs more generally. But it seems that a lot of people do believe that.

[deej5871]

Originally posted by BRussell:
About half of Americans are young-earth creationists. I agree with you that the bible does not dictate young-earth creationism, nor anti-evolution beliefs more generally. But it seems that a lot of people do believe that.

Hmm.. I was about to say "no way is it that many" and then have some statistics to back me up. However it seems you're right. An article from the British Humanist Association described what Stephen Law said in a lecture: "He also thought that creationism was more of a threat than many realised, quoting alarming figures from the US that showed that the number of _ �young earth� creationists had grown to around half the population..." That's scary to me. I had no idea that that many people really believed that (although I think that maybe that guy's statistics were a little exaggerated for the purposes of his lecture; plus that's only in the US, not all the world's Christians).

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I believe in God for the same reason I believe in my parents. It's not too difficult to understand.

Your parents stopped angry spirits from throwing books around a room?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Xeo:
Your parents stopped angry spirits from throwing books around a room?

It's obvious that you've never been to one of my family reunions.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by zerostar:
Sorry, there is no difference, I asked you to show me a mechanism that stops 'micro' from becoming 'macro'

Ironically, you cannot adequately use what is known and observed to show me how micro can successfully beget macro, nor can you illustrate where macro starts. I asked you to show me the mechanism that can morph a fish to a cow in the manner of time it supposedly had, but you cannot. To be clear, this does not surprise me. No one can.

My apologies, your posts are usually very long winded. I must have overlooked that part.

If you can't follow my long-winded 5 sentence posts, perhaps it is best I spend my time bantering with those, more adept readers. While you'd likely expend 25-30 sentences yourself trying to explain an implausible mechanism of evolution for all species known and unknown. For you, it has in fact become a religion for which you'd use any excuse and forum to disseminate it.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
As opposed to the religious who offer answers with no evidence whatsoever...oh and don't you question them!

All the time my friend. Pastors, Rabbis, Priests, and hosts of Bible Studies and other scholars both theological and secular. All the time. Where your mistaken is alledging there is no evidence whatsoever. I'm going to return to you commentary that has been given me conversely in this discussion; you may know little about religion. Rather, there is quite a lot of evidence.

A great many scientists have agnostic "faith" of their own. I actually do not know (or have not heard of) a single scientist whose work is motivated by explaining that there is no such thing as God (links please, who the hell would be motivated by this?). Most are motivated by curiosity and the desire to explain the un-evidently explained.

Science as it is being understood currently is used exclusively by atheists in providing evidence against a deity. What they fail to do is read biographies on many scientists and what the evidence is illustrating to them personally.
Darwin and Chandrasekhar are two such examples you had requested, but more important than their work is how, where, and when it is published and by whom. Look on any atheist site and tell me if the two aren't attempting to walk hand in hand. This is not the scientists themselves necessarily, but how science is being manipulated.

No matter how hard you try, you cannot compare the two so directly.

I have, countless times using scientific evidence, conclusions made by the very scientists involved in the research, and copy-pasting their commentary on what is being done with their work.

Science is based on mathematics and reproducible evidence.

Theories are often comprised of what is not observed based on mechanisms. Even in cases where the mechanisms are woefully inadequate, the task becomes disproving them. You'll often hear people say; "show me why micro evolution stops and where." Well, no one knows for sure just yet, but it doesn't stop the 'faithful' from making leaps of conjecture and speculation. Afterall, it's fun to do. I've heard folks tell me new bacteria have been created. When called to task and from reading the research and conclusion they've created absolutely nothing and in many cases have not even begun the test/controls. In other cases they've taken known bacteria, removed genes and called it a new bacteria. They use evidence of morphism in nature when the classifications of them are in the same species because of exceedingly similar gene structure. There is no fossile evidence of gradual morphism, no evidence of capitulation theories, and virtually no effective undebateable examples of transitionals, yet this does not stop the 'faithful' from attempting to convince me these things are fact. I see a failure of the faithful to acknowledge the difference between macro and micro evolution while the scientific community is holding conferences of thousands of scientists debating this very concept. I am convinced, no other more debateable facet of science has been propped up with as much fervor as has the theory of evolution. Undying faith is placed in this community of mankind that has been duped by imaginative artist drawings of embryos, chimeras, and other fossile hoaxes. Why? Becaue they wanted the evidence to support thier view. Afterall, scientists are human too.

Most religion is based on age-old, unprovable myth. The lab is hardly another altar of faith.

For you, I dare say it may very well be. For me, it is not. I might also urge you to reconsider what you call "evidence". I find, most wanting to make statements like yours above, know very little about what religion does in fact say and how increasingly credible and accurate it has become especially in regards to archeology and history. We're just now uncovering these things and this advancement will quicken over time.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
All the time my friend. Pastors, Rabbis, Priests, and hosts of Bible Studies and other scholars both theological and secular. All the time. Where your mistaken is alledging there is no evidence whatsoever. I'm going to return to you commentary that has been given me conversely in this discussion; you may know little about religion. Rather, there is quite a lot of evidence.

I'm sorry, I overspoke. But please elaborate on the "evidence" you speak of. I've heard arguments about scientific evidence there was a flood, etc. (but does that mean Noah found two of every animal and fit it in his tiny ark?). I've heard arguments that Jesus existed (and he probably did, but was he the product of an immaculate conception? did he miraculously do the things he did?). I'm sure that many historical elements of the Bible -- the NT especially -- can be backed up with evidence, but all that does is show the Bible is something I've never argued it wasn't:

Historical embellishment.

All happy miracles are attributed to God and elaborated by the Bible's writers. Some events may have happened, but certainly not as they are described in the Bible. I'm even willing to accept that David & Goliath is a true story...but by "giant" they mean a 7-8 ft. tall man, while David was probably 5'something.

None of the general events the Bible claimed to have happened will prove there is a God.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Science as it is being understood currently is used exclusively by atheists in providing evidence against a deity. What they fail to do is read biographies on many scientists and what the evidence is illustrating to them personally.

This statement is a little vague. Are you saying that the whole of science is used, exclusively, in providing evidence against a deity? I hope not. If you're saying that atheists only use science in providing evidence against a deity...that makes a little more sense, but is nevertheless just as ignorant. First off, nothing in science provides evidence against the possibility of a deity (just as nothing in the bible provides absolute evidence for a deity). Science only provides evidence against older "science." Disproving that the earth is the center of the universe, disproving that flies spontaneously generate in dead bodies, etc...

Science hosts a variety of scientists. Some are atheists, but that rarely means their work involves the active attempt of disproving the possibility of a deity. Some are agnostic, realizing that science is complicated and that a deity is a possibility they won't rule out. Some are even -- gasp! -- religious. I don't see your point here.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Darwin and Chandrasekhar are two such examples you had requested, but more important than their work is how, where, and when it is published and by whom. Look on any atheist site and tell me if the two aren't attempting to walk hand in hand. This is not the scientists themselves necessarily, but how science is being manipulated.

"How science is being manipulated"...let me approach this, then. Science is not, first-and-foremost, being manipulated by atheists in an attempt to disprove the possibility of God (first: it cannot be done at this time, and may not be able to be done ever; foremost: science is used for a plentitude of reasons -- mostly various forms of engineering and healthcare). A select few atheists might be bitter and misanthropic enough to attempt to disprove the possibility of a deity, but I don't think this accounts for the majority.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I have, countless times using scientific evidence, conclusions made by the very scientists involved in the research, and copy-pasting their commentary on what is being done with their work.

Maybe I should rephrase: no matter how hard you try, you should not compare the two so directly if you wish to make a compelling or reasonable argument.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Theories are often comprised of what is not observed based on mechanisms. Even in cases where the mechanisms are woefully inadequate, the task becomes disproving them.

Science uses evidence of what happens and tries to explain why. "Why" is always a best-probable answer until a better one comes alone. Some things are subject to more revision than others.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
You'll often hear people say; "show me why micro evolution stops and where." Well, no one knows for sure just yet, but it doesn't stop the 'faithful' from making leaps of conjecture and speculation.

There's a slight difference in faith here. The scientist usually admits: I don't know if this is how it happens, but I think there's a good possibility and we're working on figuring it out.

The religious man, on the other hand, has another kind of faith: There is [definitely] a God.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Afterall, it's fun to do. I've heard folks tell me new bacteria have been created. When called to task and from reading the research and conclusion they've created absolutely nothing and in many cases have not even begun the test/controls. In other cases they've taken known bacteria, removed genes and called it a new bacteria. They use evidence of morphism in nature when the classifications of them are in the same species because of exceedingly similar gene structure. There is no fossile evidence of gradual morphism, no evidence of capitulation theories, and virtually no effective undebateable examples of transitionals, yet this does not stop the 'faithful' from attempting to convince me these things are fact.

Who are these folks who claim to make new bacteria and what does this have to do with anything? Please clarify your argument if this is another attempt to show me that scientists have just as much faith as the religious.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I see a failure of the faithful to acknowledge the difference between macro and micro evolution while the scientific community is holding conferences of thousands of scientists debating this very concept. I am convinced, no other more debateable facet of science has been propped up with as much fervor as has the theory of evolution. Undying faith is placed in this community of mankind that has been duped by imaginative artist drawings of embryos, chimeras, and other fossile hoaxes. Why? Becaue they wanted the evidence to support thier view. Afterall, scientists are human too.

They may want evidence to support their view, but if good evidence is presented that nullifies it, most scientists will concede; others will go back to the labs and try to reproduce or disprove it. But scientists like evolutionary biologists do lab studies to work on refining the theory; that doesn't mean that in refining the theory they are disproving the possibility of a Deity. It just means that one more thing in the Bible is wrong (or, as some of the religious will say, it was "misinterpretted").

Originally posted by ebuddy:
For you, I dare say it may very well be. For me, it is not. I might also urge you to reconsider what you call "evidence". I find, most wanting to make statements like yours above, know very little about what religion does in fact say and how increasingly credible and accurate it has become especially in regards to archeology and history. We're just now uncovering these things and this advancement will quicken over time.

I've already addressed these things above; carry on.

[thunderous_funker]

Well, I thought the original intention of the thread was interesting but I'm not surprised at all to see it devolve into the usual pissing contest between the usual suspects.

On the original question of why humans are constantly searching for The Meaning of Life, the most interesting thing I've ever read on the subject is by Richard Rorty and can be read in its entirety here.

Questions such as �Does truth exist?� or �Do you believe in truth?� seem fatuous and pointless._ Everybody knows that the difference between true and false beliefs is as important as that between nourishing and poisonous foods. Moreover, one of the principal achievements of recent analytic philosophy is to have shown that the ability to wield the concept of �true belief� is a necessary condition for being a user of language, and thus for being a rational agent.

Nevertheless, the question �Do you believe in truth or are you one of those frivolous postmodernists?� is often the first one that journalists ask intellectuals whom they are assigned to interview._ That question now plays the role previously played by the question �Do you believe in God, or are you one of those dangerous atheists?�._ Literary types are frequently told that they do not love truth sufficiently. Such admonitions are delivered in the same tones in which their predecessors_ were reminded that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

Obviously, the sense of the word �truth� invoked by that question is not the everyday one._ Nobody is worried about a mere nominalization of the adjective �true�. The question �do you believe that truth exists?� is shorthand for something like �Do you think that there is a natural terminus to inquiry, a way things really are, and that understanding what that way is will tell us what to do with ourselves?�......

....Problems about what to do with ourselves, what purposes to serve, differ, in this respect, from scientific problems. A complete and final unified science, an harmoniously orchestrated assemblage of scientific theories none of which will ever need to be revised, is an intelligible goal._ Scientific inquiry could, conceivably, terminate._ So if a unified account of the causal relations between all spatio-temporal events were all that were meant by �truth�, even the most far-out postmodernist types would have no reason to doubt truth�s existence._ The existence of truth only becomes an issue when another sort of truth is in question.

I shall use the term �redemptive truth� for a set of beliefs which would end, once and for all, the process of reflection on what to do with ourselves._ Redemptive truth would not consist in theories about how things interact causally, but instead would fulfill the need that religion and philosophy have attempted to satisfy._ This is the need to fit everything�every thing, person, event, idea and poem --into a single context, a context which will somehow reveal itself as natural, destined, and unique._ It would be the only context that would matter for purposes of shaping our lives, because it would be the only one in which those lives appear as they truly are. To believe in redemptive truth is to believe that there is something that stands to human life as elementary physical particles stand to the four elements�something that is the reality behind the appearance, the one true description of what is going on, the final secret._

Hope that such a context can be found is one species of a larger genus. The larger genus is what Heidegger called the hope for authenticity�the hope to be one�s own person rather than merely the creation of one�s education or one�s environment.__ As Heidegger emphasized, to achieve authenticity in this sense is not necessarily to reject one�s past. It may instead be a matter of reinterpreting that past so as to make it more suitable for one�s own purposes. What matters is to have seen one or more alternatives to the purposes that most people take for granted,_ and to have chosen among these alternatives--thereby, in some measure, creating yourself. As Harold Bloom has recently reminded us, the point of reading a great many books is to become aware of a great number of alternative purposes, and the point of that is to become an autonomous self. Autonomy, in this un-Kantian and distinctively Bloomian sense, is pretty much the same thing as Heideggerian authenticity....

I side with Rorty. The reason we believe is "the hope for authenticity".

As for explaining this thread, Rorty also has a great article called "Religion as Conversation Stopper" that was published in Common Knowledge spring 1994.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
All the time my friend. Pastors, Rabbis, Priests, and hosts of Bible Studies and other scholars both theological and secular.

The reality is that, when it comes to evolution, the vast majority of those folks you list do not feel that science is somehow chipping away at their religion or perpetrating a fraud on the public, as you believe. They embrace science and see no incompatibility between it and their beliefs. I don't know of a single public statement by a major religion or religious denomination that claims that biological evolution is a fraud or inconsistent with their religion.

The anti-science approach that you represent, ebuddy, is not just fringe among atheistic Satan-spawned scientists, but it's also on the fringe of religious belief.

I always point this out when this issue comes up, but I think it's important that you not drive people away from religion by giving the impression that in order to be religious you have to be a flat-earther. You don't.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
On the original question of why humans are constantly searching for The Meaning of Life, the most interesting thing I've ever read on the subject is by Richard Rorty and can be read in its entirety here.

Thanks for the link. I've never heard of him, but after trying to read it (it was a little above me), my reaction is that there is a truth, but it's not primarily a scientific or factual one. There is empirical evidence and then there are values. Values can be unchanging, they can be absolute, but empirical evidence is always coming in and being updated. If you have an empirical approach, you have to be willing to change your mind. I think a lot of people don't like that. "Science is supposed to be objective, but now you're telling me that truth is always changing?" Empiricism isn't about truth, it's about evidence, and that's an important difference.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BRussell:
The anti-science approach that you represent, ebuddy, is not just fringe among atheistic Satan-spawned scientists, but it's also on the fringe of religious belief.

Not in the US, it isn't. In the US, that view is a majority view. Frightening, but true.

I want to talk more about the Rorty peice with you since you found it interesting, but I have to run to class so I'll respond later. I'm hopinig this thread lasts until this afternoon.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Not in the US, it isn't. In the US, that view is a majority view. Frightening, but true.

Yeah and in fact I posted earlier in this thread that young-earth creationism is the opinion of about half of Americans. I guess what I'm trying to say is that ebuddy and people like him have convinced a whole lot of grassroots Americans that biological evolution is a fraud and it is inconsistent with their religion. But the theologians and the leaders of their churches don't believe that. AFAIK, there aren't any public or official statements of religions or Christian denominations stating that. The statements that do exist typically say that God is the creator, but they otherwise completely accept the scientific approach. You don't have to be anti-evolution to be a Christian. It's not required by any Christian denomination, and all the statements by Christian denominations I've seen, including the Catholic Church and the mainstream Protestant denominations, explicitly reject the anti-evolution approach taken by ebuddy and others.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by BRussell:
It seems like a lot less than 96% of MacNNers believe in God (which is an interesting question in itself...) but at least if you're talking about Americans, belief in God is about as close as you can get to a universal belief. If you asked people if they believe in the existence of the sun and moon I bet you wouldn't get much higher than 96%.

The National Enquirer is the #1 paper in the U.S., 40% of Amrericans don't believe we landed on the moon, and we believe bacon is a diet food.

We're f*cking retards.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by BRussell:
There's no way to prove whether God really exists or not, so I'm just saying let's leave that aside for the purposes of this thread in order to ask why people would believe in God if God does not exist. It's sorta obvious why people would believe in God if God does really exist, so I'm wondering the other side of the question.

There is no way to prove anything anyway, because it is all part of a belief system. Imho, our hability to grasp reality for what it really is tampered not only by the substance we are made of, but also because of the belief system we have. God is pictured as a man. How can we believe in a God that is to our image when we are so frail? That only serves our narcissism and answers no question at all.

Without going to extremes like borrowing to sollipsism, we need to put order in our lives to be able to understand. But this is extremely difficult to achieve, for any judgement we have regarding the world and ourselves, we are changing with it. This happens at the microscopic level (action of neurotransmitters) as well as the macroscopic (brain structure). How can we even rely upon ourselves in such circumstances?

But does that deny the existence of a God?

Well, what do we mean by "God"?

It is my belief that as soon as we attempt to define God, even with an hypothetical definition, we limit the concept to smaller that it really is, therefore, cannot know it. So it is not only that we cannot prove there is a God; it is also that God is "unknowable" because we are just incapable of grasping what it really is.

For what it's worth, I was thinking about this partially because of the sermon I heard this morning in church. The question was whether people would believe in the messages of Jesus if there hadn't been angels and trumpets and booming voices from the heavens. He was weaving the fact that it's Superbowl day into the sermon, talking about how no one would pay any attention to a game like that unless it was hyped and advertised and built up like it is. His point was that we need a big attention-grabbing advertisement to believe in things, and he asked us to think about whether we would believe in Jesus' message if there was no church or angels or star or visions.

Excellent point: God is a lot of hype from the human domain. But it's existence remains elusive nevertheless. We will never know if there is one or not, and we are condemned to be ignorant and orphans.

That is unless we decide that we have the access to the Truth and deemed it sufficient to lead our lives.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Thanks for the link. I've never heard of him, but after trying to read it (it was a little above me), my reaction is that there is a truth, but it's not primarily a scientific or factual one. There is empirical evidence and then there are values. Values can be unchanging, they can be absolute, but empirical evidence is always coming in and being updated. If you have an empirical approach, you have to be willing to change your mind. I think a lot of people don't like that. "Science is supposed to be objective, but now you're telling me that truth is always changing?" Empiricism isn't about truth, it's about evidence, and that's an important difference.

To very crudely paraphrase Rorty, we should quite simply stop worrying about our search for "redemptive truth" and simply start talking about how we want to live.

To believe that somewhere out there is the real Reality, the ultimate context which will put everything in perspective and tell us what we're supposed to be doing with our lives is futile and counter-productive.

Instead, we should be recognize that all human truths--scientific and spiritual--are quite simply a collection of coping skills--narratives that we tell ourselves to give our efforts meaning.

And there's nothing wrong with that. Life is about finding a way to cope, to solve problems, to overcome obstacles and achieve contentment and happiness. It sholdn't be a question how closely our narrative (our feeble explaination of how things Should Be) resemplbes the One True Ahistorical Narrative because there isn't one.

Stop looking for The Ultimate Answer to Everything in the Universe because it probably doesn't exist and even if it does its probably something as unfathomable as "42" and won't solve our problems anyway.

Science, Religion and Philosophy have all attempted to tell us what the Ultimate Anwer is, the Way Things Really Are which is supposed to tell us what we're supposed to be doing with our lives. They have failed.

Rorty argues that perhaps we'd be better served to embrace Literature as the source of helpful narratives and useful ways of being instead. Because Literature isn't preoccupied with the telling the The Only Story that we must all emulate in order to find meaning, but rather exploring the almost limitless range of choices available to us. Through Literature we can expore the infinite variety of Human Choices and Ways of Being to find the context that works best for us in any given circumstance and context.

And our quest for Ways of Being and coping skills (of defining ourselves and our relation to things around us) won't end. It will be permanent quest and journey of exploration.

The Joy is in the Journey, not the destination.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by BRussell:
The reality is that, when it comes to evolution, the vast majority of those folks you list do not feel that science is somehow chipping away at their religion or perpetrating a fraud on the public, as you believe.

Wrong. Because they don't go into public venues and forums like these to espouse their opposition does not mean they somehow are divorced from an opinion on the matter.

They embrace science and see no incompatibility between it and their beliefs.

They embrace science, but often times have problems with the theory of evolution. The theory contains two aspects, one that is observable and one that is being debated daily on whether or not it's even plausible. There are a great many theologians that have problems with the theory of evolution as it's currently being disseminated, but it's a battle they've chosen not to fight. This does not mean they embrace it.

I don't know of a single public statement by a major religion or religious denomination that claims that biological evolution is a fraud or inconsistent with their religion.

This does not mean they embrace it. BTW, there are literally thousands of scientists who have embraced public venues to express their distaste for evolution theory, the problems with it, the suppositions made from less than conclusive evidence, and in many cases the manipulation of data to support a presupposition, methods, dating techniques, 'constants', etc...They have not been published in major scientific journals because they are seen as adversarial to science, just as you have claimed I am. Unfairly. I'm not sure what more evidence you need for me to establish that the theory of evolution has been elevated to philosophical plains and it's adherents fight with as much verile fervor as the Christian apologist.

The anti-science approach that you represent, ebuddy, is not just fringe among atheistic Satan-spawned scientists, but it's also on the fringe of religious belief.

Am I to be discouraged of discussing something for fear that you might view it as 'fringe'? Suffice it to say, I'm okay with the tag if it makes things simpler for you. I mean, if we are to exclude the rantings and works of the fringe, we'd have to challenge most of what we know from scientific advancement. Especially regarding the theory in question here.

I always point this out when this issue comes up, but I think it's important that you not drive people away from religion by giving the impression that in order to be religious you have to be a flat-earther. You don't.

Conversely, you should not drive people from good science by making them believe they should embrace bad science. In fact, you're taking good aspects of science and tainting them with dogma. What happens when you challenge the theory of evolution? The answer is religious persecution regardless of whether the nay-sayer is religious or not. I don't know why this is so hard for you to see. The very scientists involved in research and discovery aren't doing this, and neither should you. Flat earth? Are you trying to suggest that I believe in a flat earth? Certainly a well-versed Bible thumping fringe right Christian whacko like myself would know that the Bible speaks of the "circle of the earth". This is exactly the type of BS I'm talking about.

Tell me, do you believe in God?

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Flat earth? Are you trying to suggest that I believe in a flat earth? Certainly a well-versed Bible thumping fringe right Christian whacko like myself would know that the Bible speaks of the "circle of the earth". This is exactly the type of BS I'm talking about.

Tell me, do you believe in God?

Tell me. How do you exlain these verses then if the world is not flat?

Daniel 4:10-11

Thus [were] the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof [was] great

The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth


Matthew 4:8

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.



Just curious.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
I'm sorry, I overspoke. But please elaborate on the "evidence" you speak of. I've heard arguments about scientific evidence there was a flood, etc. (but does that mean Noah found two of every animal and fit it in his tiny ark?). I've heard arguments that Jesus existed (and he probably did, but was he the product of an immaculate conception? did he miraculously do the things he did?). I'm sure that many historical elements of the Bible -- the NT especially -- can be backed up with evidence, but all that does is show the Bible is something I've never argued it wasn't:
Historical embellishment.

Had you read the Bible, you might know it's a little deeper than 'happy miracles'. There are hundreds of OT prophecy fulfilled in Jesus' lifetime. There are compelling mysteries in the very words themselves, equating to extreme design. If you don't know, it's because you haven't involved yourself in it as I have. You might know the more you study a thing, the more of that thing is revealed to you. In short, it's possible no amount of evidence would quench your thirst.

All happy miracles are attributed to God and elaborated by the Bible's writers. Some events may have happened, but certainly not as they are described in the Bible. I'm even willing to accept that David & Goliath is a true story...but by "giant" they mean a 7-8 ft. tall man, while David was probably 5'something.

Well, if you live in a society of people averaging 5'2" and you encounter someone 8' tall, you may ascribe for them a name based on this abnormality. The words of the Bible are as they are. Man may romanticize them, but the more you learn of actual Hebrew literature, the easier these things become to understand.

None of the general events the Bible claimed to have happened will prove there is a God.

I know. No amount of evidence supporting intricate design, Biblical doctrine, and really no amount of evidence would suffice to you. Interestingly, the Bible talks about this also.

This statement is a little vague. Are you saying that the whole of science is used, exclusively, in providing evidence against a deity? I hope not. If you're saying that atheists only use science in providing evidence against a deity...that makes a little more sense, but is nevertheless just as ignorant.

How quick you are to throw around indictments of ignorance. If you could please take that "higher intellectual plain" dunce cap off your head, perhaps then we can embrace discussion. This is getting sickening. There are a great many men who know more about biological evolution than you or I, who have problems with how the information is disseminated. A scientist for example will not say we evolved from ape. However, you might. National Geographic will. School text books will. Time Magazine will. Dr. Seuss books will. Secondly, you'll not hear a scientist say they've created a new bacteria, but you might. National Geographic will. Time magazine will. This is what I'm talking about and it's just as plain and simple and clear as I can make it. The theory of evolution offers those who do not believe in a deity explanations for events having occurred by purely natural phenomena. Can you at least see this? I'm really hoping some of that intellectual prowess would come to the forefront here.

First off, nothing in science provides evidence against the possibility of a deity (just as nothing in the bible provides absolute evidence for a deity). Science only provides evidence against older "science." Disproving that the earth is the center of the universe, disproving that flies spontaneously generate in dead bodies, etc...

Which is a good thing.

Science hosts a variety of scientists. Some are atheists, but that rarely means their work involves the active attempt of disproving the possibility of a deity.

No, you're right. That's the job of the publishers.

Some are agnostic, realizing that science is complicated and that a deity is a possibility they won't rule out. Some are even -- gasp! -- religious. I don't see your point here.

Oh well, here's to hoping.

"How science is being manipulated"...let me approach this, then. Science is not, first-and-foremost, being manipulated by atheists in an attempt to disprove the possibility of God

No, but those quoting findings and publishing works do. You might know there is a lot of funding for scientific research. There is a goal to the research. While that goal may not be to disprove a God, they're certainly not going to be too quick to include information that challenges the plausibility of current theory.

(first: it cannot be done at this time, and may not be able to be done ever;

I may be a smidgen more optimistic than you.

foremost: science is used for a plentitude of reasons -- mostly various forms of engineering and healthcare). A select few atheists might be bitter and misanthropic enough to attempt to disprove the possibility of a deity, but I don't think this accounts for the majority.

No, but you might know it doesn't always take a majority to comprise a large voice.

Maybe I should rephrase: no matter how hard you try, you should not compare the two so directly if you wish to make a compelling or reasonable argument.

You are the gauge of what is compelling and reasonable? Pardon my scrutinous attitude if I don't leap to agreement with your points.

Science uses evidence of what happens and tries to explain why. "Why" is always a best-probable answer until a better one comes alone. Some things are subject to more revision than others.

Historically, too often the "why" has been based on bogus artist drawings of embryos, chimeras, and other works of the greedy artisan in having successfully duped a society of men that once thought blood-letting was effective for aiding diarrhea. I've mentioned that I'm interested in continued scientific advancement. I do not jump on to the latest thought immediately and begin my journey of calling others ignorant and adversarial for not buying in. Then again, I may be a little more scientifically minded than you.

There's a slight difference in faith here. The scientist usually admits: I don't know if this is how it happens, but I think there's a good possibility and we're working on figuring it out.

Right. All the while National Geographic says IT IS SO! and Time Magazine says IT IS SO! No mention of it later when it is found to not be so.

The religious man, on the other hand, has another kind of faith: There is [definitely] a God.

From reading Stephen Hawking's works, you'd be hard-pressed in not believing there's a God. They won't say so implicitly because it is not in their field to say. Countless scientists discussing their fascination with what can only be described as immensely intricate design.

Who are these folks who claim to make new bacteria and what does this have to do with anything? Please clarify your argument if this is another attempt to show me that scientists have just as much faith as the religious.

A scientist may say; "there are compelling similarities between the chimpanzee and man." The faithful say; "Man came from Chimp!" A scientist may say; "we've found a bacteria that thrives in regions with little oxygen. We've removed it's toxic gene to make the bacteria an effective soldier for cancer relief." The faithful will say; "MAN CREATES NEW BACTERIA!!!" A scientist may say; "we've found Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, and Archeoraptor to be bogus hoaxes and therefore must discount our prior suppostion on the matter." The faithful say; *crickets chirping*.

They may want evidence to support their view, but if good evidence is presented that nullifies it, most scientists will concede; others will go back to the labs and try to reproduce or disprove it.

There is a point in many men's lives where money and affluence become more important than thier original positive intentions. You're at least intelligent enough to know that money can corrupt any good intention. This is not exclusive to religion and politics and has made it's way into the community of science. This is unfortunate.

[BoomStick]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
Tell me. How do you exlain these verses then if the world is not flat?

Daniel 4:10-11

Thus [were] the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof [was] great

The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth

Just curious.

Quote the whole passage first. NOWHERE does it claim the world id flat.

It was a vision to Daniel.

Dan 4:10 "These were the visions of my head while on my bed: I was looking, and behold, A tree in the midst of the earth, and its height was great.

Dan 4:11 The tree grew and became strong; its height reached to the heavens, and it could be seen to the ends of all the earth.

Dan 4:12 Its leaves were lovely, its fruit abundant, and in it was food for all. The beasts of the field found shade under it, the birds of the heavens dwelt in its branches, and all flesh was fed from it.

Dan 4:13 "I saw in the visions of my head while on my bed, and there was a watcher, a holy one, coming down from heaven.

Dan 4:14 He cried aloud and said thus: 'Chop down the tree and cut off its branches, strip off its leaves and scatter its fruit. Let the beasts get out from under it, and the birds from its branches.

Dan 4:15 Nevertheless leave the stump and roots in the earth, bound with a band of iron and bronze, in the tender grass of the field. let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let him graze with the beasts on the grass of the earth.

Dan 4:16 Let his heart be changed from that of a man, let him be given the heart of an animal, and let seven times pass over him.

Dan 4:17 'This decision is by the decree of the watchers, and the sentence by the word of the holy ones, in order that the living may know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, gives it to whomever He will, and sets over it the lowest of men.'

Dan 4:18 "This dream I, King Nebuchadnezzar, have seen. Now you, Belteshazzar, declare its interpretation, since all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known to me the interpretation; but you are able, for the Spirit of the Holy God is in you."

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by BoomStick:
Quote the whole passage first. NOWHERE does it claim the world id flat.

It was a vision to Daniel.

huh?

It was a vision to Daniel, given to him by God. Right?

And still. How do you explain it without the world being flat?

edit:

oh and you forgot the second one.

[ebuddy]

�Isa 40:22__ [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:�
There was no word for "sphere", only circle.

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
�Isa 40:22__ [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:�
There was no word for "sphere", only circle.

Could you explain the verses I referred to?

[bubblewrap]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
Tell me. How do you exlain these verses then if the world is not flat?

Daniel 4:10-11

Thus [were] the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof [was] great

The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth


Matthew 4:8

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.



Just curious.

They're seeing the curveture of the Earth.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
Could you explain the verses I referred to?

You mean the verses you site that say nothing of a flat earth??? The concept and description of "sphere" you might know were extremely foreign to these men. Daniel described a simplistic vision he was given to aid the King, not for advancement of science. Oh and btw; it worked.

What of the verse I quoted?

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
You mean the verses you site that say nothing of a flat earth??? The concept and description of "sphere" you might know were extremely foreign to these men. Daniel described a simplistic vision he was given to aid the King, not for advancement of science. Oh and btw; it worked.

What of the verse I quoted?

OK, if the world is not flat how could Jesus see "all the Kingdoms of earth" from the top of a mountain and how could you see that tree from the "end of the world"? It's a simple question.

And did you really say that? I thought the Bible was the word of God. Surely God would know how to describe the shape of the earth. Did men write the Bible or did God? Was it Divinely inspired or just written by men?

The verse you quoted.

It doesn't to me point to the earth being spherical(or even round). If anything it points to the earth being fixed in place with a "tent" over it. Meaning there is nothing under it(tents tend to need some footing) and that it would be night at all places on the earth at the same time. If not, could you please elaborate?

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
They're seeing the curveture of the Earth.

ummmm, tell me. How is a person placed (lets just say) on the North Pole supposed to see the South Pole of the earth? The verse said Jesus saw all the Kingdoms of the world.

[bubblewrap]

Metaphorically speaking.
Travel. They did travel 2000 years ago.

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
Metaphorically speaking.
Travel. They did travel 2000 years ago.

And how do you know when the Bible is speaking metaphorically and when not?

How do you know that the part about Creation isn't metaphorical but the part about the shape of the earth is?


And do you believe Jesus traveled around the whole world in 33 years(or however old he got)?

[BoomStick]

How do you know mohammad isn't the false prophet of satan the Bible speaks about?