As I said earlier, from the people who claim it's impossible to prove that he exists.  If that statement is true, then it is, by definition, impossible to KNOW anything about him.

Poetry is nice, but it doesn't really have any place in a scientific argument.  What you're doing is trying to appeal to my emotions, which is generally a great idea in many debates, especially for the general public.  But it rarely works on hardcore science types, like me.   If you want to win me over, you should be trying to appeal to my sense of logic and empiricism.

People who are raised in a certain religious context will ascribe all earthly beauty to their particular religion.  That doesn't prove anything about that religion's validity.  It's also entirely possible to think that the Earth is a wonderful place, yet one without a supernatural creator.  I do quite like the Earth, at least most of it, but I don't think that has much to do with whether or not there's an invisible man floating around judging me.

The fact that you're assuming there is an Infinite Truth and that you know all about it sure doesn't make it sound like you're still searching for truth.

I'd say this comfort that comes with religion and the contentedness that comes with believing you've figured out the ultimate truth is exactly what stops people from being willing to consider the idea that they might be wrong.  The truth isn't always comfortable.  It's often cold, uncaring, and frightening.  Part of being an actual truth seeker is being willing to accept that.

GENERAL_ETHEN POSTS:

Not that it's important, but I'm a dudette!

What do you mean "shut up"? Isn't discussion what this forum is all about?

People are free not to read my comments!

As far as people having a choice as to their religious freedom...that's a half-truth. But once they discover that God has revealed a definite religion, then they are obliged to accept it and no other.

On the other hand, every one is born with a conscience and sense of moral obligation and right and wrong written on our heart. People are entitled to follow their own conscience even though their ideas might be mistaken...even in conscience they are obliged to live according to what they honestly deem to be right and good.

i think the more pressing scientific question at hand here is multipart:

1) I know why Australians are called "Aussies," but why are New Zealanders called "Kiwis?" Is it just because of the bird?
Their country isn't even the top producer of Kiwifruit.

2) Why do Aussies get mad when you call them Kiwis and vice versa?

3) Don't they both sound like run-away Brit, anyway?

No, you haven't. In fact it is obvious that you know very little about it.

For one thing, you never even knew of the Samaritan Torah, the tribe of Dan's version of the Tanakh, and the Karaites, all of whom are representatives of non-Rabbinic Judaism.

Plus you never understood the relationship of Rabbinic Judaism to the times when the Temple still stood. Heck, you didn't even know that the priest caste still exists.

You are simply not a good source when it comes to Judaism.

Whoever is interested in Judaism should ask a Jew, not you. It's that simple.

And whoever believes that the Judaism before Jesus was somehow totally different from any of today's variants of Judaism ignores the tribal history of Judaism, the schism between Samaria and Judaea, and thousands of years of history.

Yes.

I don't think they produce it at all, I think the fruit is from China and was just named after the bird so that people in the west would buy it, thinking it was from New Zealand.

That's because the Aussies' are named Bruce:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_p0CgPeyA

Yes.

well, if wikipedia means anything to anyone, which it doesn't to colleges,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwifruit

and i am glad there are 3 rules about "no poofters"

clears it up for everyone i think.

You are prone to ignoring the first exile when there also wasn't a Temple. Did Judaism "not exist" then either?

Heck, Judaism didn't even have a Temple when it started. Solomon built the Temple hundreds of years after the arrival of the Israelites in Canaan.

Leauki, the big problem with lula (and many other religious people btw.) is that she states her beliefs as fact.

i.e."Jesus died at the cross." Or "Judaism is like this and that." when it should read:"I believe that ..."

Granted, I don't always write i.e.:"IIRC String theory goes like this." instead of "String theory goes like this." but when someone who obviously has more knowledge of the facts, I accept that and review the facts to asses whether or not my initial statement was correct or not.

In the case of "J. died at the cross:" There is obviously no irrefutable evidence to back this story up or to disprove it atm. So to be honest one should always make statements concerning this story in the form of "I believe that..." or "I think that...".

Like I stated before: A grave was found not long ago that seems to hold the remnants of Jesus's whole family incuding his own, Mary Magdalene's and his son's. But since there is no irrefutable proof that it is really the grave of THIS Jesus, I say:"I think the whole story in the bible is a phoney."

Obviously there can be no doubt about that there was a highly inspirational philosophical and spiritual leader by his name at this time. But i.e. the phrase "He made a blind man see:" can also be interpreted in a way that he gave him knowledge. Because in a metaphorical sense giving someone knowledge is making him see.

Also turning water into wine can also easily be explained. Even at the end of a christian service the priest says something like:"This is my blood." when he reaches the goblet to the believers to drink.

When you bleed into a goblet of water the water turns red and looks like wine. So there is also a logical explanation of this phenomenon too.

I don't say that this is the ultimate truth but I do THINK that this could be what explains the corresponding parts of his story.

There are facts in religion and there are beliefs.

I am not religious. I am what is considered "traditional" or "conservative" in Judaism. I go to a Reform synagogue. But I do believe in G-d and certain things about Him.

It is an undeniable fact that the Jewish people exist and have a law called the Torah (first of the three books of the Hebrew Bible) and a holy book called the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) that records Jewish history as seen by Jewish authorities at the time. It is a fact that Jewish law commands Jews to observe the Shabbat, to keep kosher (i.e. not eat pork etc.), and to love the country of Israel.

But it is faith or belief that those things are G-d's will. In truth they could just be laws made up by secular Jewish leaders.

That's one problem. I believe G-d inspired Jewish leaders to write the Torah and the Tanakh but I don't know that this is indeed so. I can live with that.

The other problem is that some religions, especially Christianity, claim universal truth for themselves. In Judaism it doesn't matter what other (non-Jewish) people believe. For all Judaism cares G-d might have sent other prophets to other people (some such are recorded in the Bible). I personally regard Zoroastrianism as true because it is mentioned in the Bible as such. For all I care G-d could also have sent a prophet named Muhammed to the Arabs. It doesn't matter to me whether He did with regards to my own faith.

And I can also accept that Christians have a Messiah named Jesus who was a Jew.

What I cannot accept is that my G-d has a literal "son" with a virgin. I don't care if other people believe it though.

But I have a problem with those same people telling me what my beliefs are, have to be, or that I have to accept their Messiah as mine (even though my beliefs are my Messiah are quite different from their beliefs about everybody's Messiah).

The point is that I can live with the fact that there are Hindus, Muslims, and Christians out there without worrying about them being "wrong". The son of G-d thing is a bit worrying (because they took my G-d for that). But maybe G-d wanted Indians to see Him in the form of Hindu gods or whatever. It doesn't matter to me. I find the history fascinating but it doesn't affect my beliefs.

And then there are the different Jewish tribes and their different versions of Jewish history.

The Jews (tribes of Juda, Benjamin, and Simeon) believe that the Temple is supposed to be in Jerusalem and that holy scripture consists of Torah (Instruction), Nevi'im (Prohets), and Ketuvim (Writings).

The Samaritans (tribes of Menasseh and Ephraim) believe that the Temple is supposed to be further north, in Samaria and that's where their Temple stood after the one kingdom split up. Their holy scripture is just the Torah with somewhat different text.

Ethiopian Jews (tribe of Dan) accept as holy the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) plus a few texts missing in the text non-Ethiopian Jews use.

It's not easy.

Plus the hole thing is written in ancient languages few Christians understand. So they often take the English translations as the literal word of G-d. Grand...

The Samaritan Torah is written in Samaritan Hebrew. The Tanakh is written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The Ethiopian Tanakh is written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Ge'ez (the liturgical language of Ethiopian Jews). I think it's utterly fascinating and the more I learn the more I find there is to learn. That's why I am suspicious of anyone who claims to have arrived at the truth. It seems to me that those people are still at the very early stages of learning scripture, in the early stages it still looks like it could all be understood.

My sentaments exactly! There are radical Christians out there just like there are radicals of other religions. Just don't put us all under one blanket.

So my friend just saw Atheist on my Facebook profile and we had a huge conversation about it on AIM and I think she doesn't want to be my friend anymore....

That's low...and quite pathetic...on her part...

-Phal

I will say her loss.  But who knows she might come around, but I really doubt it.

Haha thanks....yeah I'm gonna give her time....I won't see her for three months....SUMMER 09!!!!! so she'll have plenty of time to think...

Oh and +1!!

I just wanted to respond to this, and to the other person who said the "liberal blob of nothingness".  Science doesn't say that the universe came from a primordial goop, nor from a blob.  It didn't come from any sort of slime-like substance, or anything at all.  First, there was nothing - not "an amorphous blob of nothing".  No blob.  Just nothing.  Basically, you can say there was no actual space or time.  There was no "place" for something to be in, and no "time" for it to be at.  Just nothing.

Then, the big bang happened, and we had space, time, matter, energy, and all that great stuff.  (side note: I hesitate to even use the word "Then", because there actually wasn't any time before the big bang - the clock didn't start until the universe started.)

I think that's an important thing to understand.  Science doesn't replace God as a creator with a weird blob as a creator.  There was no creator.  Nothing existed before the big bang happened - no blob, no "nothingness", there was nothing there that came from anywhere, and there wasn't even anywhere for anything to be.

Man achieves sentience. Man cannot explain his surroundings or circumstance. So Man creates God to explain away all the things he doesn't understand.

So, God is not the creator of Man - Man is the creator of God.

An intelligent/knowledgeable Man would simply state he is not intelligent/knowledgeable enough to know why things are the way they are. Once Man accepts his own knowledge is limited, the search for further knowledge can begin.