Rag Land

Hmm... Have heard something like that before, but the evidence didn't really hold water. I'll see if I can find this new book, though.

On the topic, you may also want to check out the Bible. ;)

Also, see if you can send some massages over here, like by telegraph or something.
 

What is this Bible of which you speak?

Also, here is your massage...how is it...is that too hard...just relax into it. Ok that'll be $60.
 

Well, I hate to interject with my non-Christian sentiments, but the story of redemption through a resurrected God was pretty old by the time Jesus got around. The Egyptians had Osiris, and the Persians had a similar story involving Norooz, and so did the Indians. Islam also has it, by the way.

Notice these stories all take place during the springtime, which is usually when the Earth was coming back to life after the winter, and the crops could be planted again. Every ancient culture has some sort of resurrection-springtime story, and it's not tough to see why. Such an event was crucial to the survival of these agrarian societies, and they had to have some explanation for this annual cycle of renewal. So slowly their myths evolved to serve such a purpose.

I wouldn't really say that's a coverup, either. That's common knowledge in anthropology.

As for Jesus himself not being real - well, that's really the only explanation once you deny his divinity.

On a side note, there's an interesting book somewhere by a professor at UT that discusses how Jesus was never considered born from a virgin while Christianity stayed in Judea. His lineage back to King David was enough for the Jews to accept him as a messiah. Only when Christianity reached the Greeks, who couldn't understand the idea of a God who wasn't the child of another God, was the religion changed to incorporate it.

That's also when Jesus began to adopt his current Nordic depiction you see every day. Side-by-side comparisons show him identical to ancient depictions of Apollo.

So, in conclusion, LIES!
 

Well, Islam came about four hundred years later, so that one doesn't really work. As for the rest of them, there is a fundamental difference. The reason for each of the other "Gods" dying and being resurrected was never to save humanity. Osiris was killed by another God (and although he did become the ruler of the underworld, he didn't do it to save mankind, especially from sin), so was Mithras (who was also a divinity from Persian mythology) and Dyonisus was killed in the winter and reborn in the Spring. As for celebrating the 25th as Jesus' birthday (as it is the winter solstice and also the birthday of many of these other figures) it was simply a way of choosing a day that was familiar with the pagans to make the transition easier. Jesus was obviously not born in the middle of the winter, but it made the changeover simpler to use an existing holiday to celebrate.

As for the look of Jesus, it was most likely another attempt to make the shift over simpler to the pagans. Showing a short, Jewish man as the savior of mankind wouldn't really resonate with the Nordic and European cultures the way a tall, toned, Scandinavian would. It was simply artistic licence to give a picture that would give the unbelievers a better grasp on the story of Jesus in their infantile belief.

So, as I have proved, all of your assumptions are in error or simplistic and you might be smarter if you read the Bible more. I'm just saying...
 

Oh no he di-in't! Shut down by reference to your own Persian mythology, eh, Zhubin? Boo-yah! I bet you feel pretty silly now, praying to Mithras all these years.
 

Psh! Be careful you guys don't cut yourself on all these straw men you're building.

The point is not that the other societies had the exact same story. If you're looking for another civilization that had a messiah named Jebus who walked around Kansas and died on the gallows for our sins, then no, Christianity is wholly unique.

The point is that the themes are all there. A murdered and resurrected god mirroring the rebirth of the world in the springtime is what's essential. The "savior of humanity" theme is also there - the arrival of spring and the ability to plant crops was essential to a civilization's survival. But it's not even necessary to the story - early people merely needed an explanation for why the earth became green again every year, and what better way to describe the death and rebirth of the world than through the gods?

Note also the increasing powers given to God as societies develop. Earlier societies had sun gods and moon gods and all sorts of gods, because they had specific needs that depended on specific things. As societies grew more complex, gods grew more powerful and began to merge. Naturally the powers of these gods would grow from "brings warmth and life back to earth for believer" to "brings eternal life to believers." (On a side note, as societies grew from polytheism to monotheism, many of them went through stages where one god became ruler of other gods. You can see remnants of this in the Old Testament, where God is called "king of gods" and such).

I mentioned Islam earlier only to note how other religions continued to borrow the theme after Christianity. And I didn't say anything at all about Christmas. BUT, as long as you bring it up, if a religion borrows and assimilates for such fundamental issues as the birth of its savior, surely it could have borrowed and cobbled together its original story, eh?

If you ask me, considering that legend and mythology transformed a Celtic tribal chief into King Arthur in one thousand years, twice that time and half the historical accuracy could surely make a messiah out of an executed political rebel, or a popular populist preacher, or some combination of the two.
 

I think the real question here is does Tom Cruise really know more about psychiatry than Matt Lauer?

~Brian
 

Actually the timing of Jesus' death, while in the Springtime, was not specifically done to echo the rebirth of the land. It was done at Jewish passover celebrated for their sacrificial deliverance from the Egyptians. Jesus dying at passover therefore transformed the celebratory day from the redemption from the Egyptians to the redemption of mankind. And yes, I know you will say that passover is celebrated in the Spring for the planting season, but the origination of it was escape from Egypt which has nothing to do with the rebirth of the land. In fact, other than similar time, there are no similarities at all.

As for God describing himself as King of Gods, it was a way to explain to the Jews in their spiritiual infancy his place in the Universe. He knew He was the only one, but the societies of that day and age, as you have rightly pointed out, had many gods for many things and God had to work through this belief (ie having Elijah challenge the priests of Baal to perfom miracles) to bring His people around to the realization that there was no God but him period.

Finally, unlike almost all other civilizations, Judaism had one God from the get go and this was also different in, unlike the Greeks and others, this God was perfect.

So, while there may be similarities, the differences, when looked at from someone with a rational mind (try it, Zhubin, you might actually like it) are more than great enough to show that Judaism and Christianity are more than unique...because they are the truth...and you smell...
 

Actually, Chris, if one holds strictly to non-Biblical historical records, the Exodus involved far less Hebrews than suggested (a few thousand rather than a million), and they crossed a marshy region north of the Red Sea (negating the need to part any waters); thus, the entire "escape from Egypt" story, like the rest of the Old Testament, was meant to be symbolic and therefore the timing of the event could very well have been changed over the years in order to fit the Spring rebirth tradition.

Then again, if you accept that premise, you've got no debate with Christianity OR Judaism--they're just wrong, end of story. You can't deny the fundamental reality of a belief system and still try to win its followers over on the smaller points.

In reference to my first paragraph, one must consider that one of the only other contemporary civilizations to record the Hebrew Exodus was the Egyptians, and historically, people who lose aren't exactly inclined to objectively note their losses.

Let me also add, in response to Zhubin's last post, that association does not imply causation. Just because other folks had the reborn-savior idea (as well as, in fact, a whole host of other ideas from the Bible we haven't mentioned yet) first, doesn't in and of itself invalidate Christianity.

Furthermore, couldn't it be that certain conceptual frameworks have been impressed in the minds of mankind, even in the world around us (i.e. changing of seasons, rebirth, etc.), on purpose, to point us in the right direction? Call it the fingerprint of God, intelligent design, or even just order in chaos.

My point is simply this: if one accepts the premise that what the Bible says is true, even if just for the sake of argument, it provides a context for a complete reexamination--not just of a moral code or the history of a people--but of life, the universe, and everything (explicit reference fully intended).
 

Well...sure, Joe, but that holds true for every other religious text in the world, too. Heck, it holds true for atheism. Whose perspective on life, the universe, and everything wouldn't be drastically reexamined upon learning that there is no God?

I agree with you that just because Christianity wasn't the first to come up with the story doesn't mean it's false. And I like the idea that certain themes are divinely imprinted and reinforced (although I wince at the phrase "intelligent design"...you know why). But Occam's Razor, you know? It just seems to me more likely (not to mention more provable) that people make up stories to explain life and the world, and liberally borrow from other stories when doing so.

The same thing applies to Christopher's comments. The slow but steady evolution of religious beliefs, which has already been documented, seems more likely than an unprovable (and highly convenient!) explanation that this happened to be the way God chose to reveal Himself to people who weren't mature enough for the full truth.

And I don't think that Judaism had one God from the get go. Like I said, the Old Testament still contains remnants of polytheism, and Judaism itself grew out of the typical pagan religions of the Babylon area. Nor did Judaism have the only perfect God. The Persians had a perfect and benevolent God, who was also constantly waging war with the devil.
 

Let me also say, on a side note, that I really enjoy these far-too-infrequent discussions we have, especially now that they're in blogland, and I hope you guys do, too. Written debate is especially enjoyable, as it brings out the issues in dispute more quickly and into sharper relief, and I like how it allows the opposing sides to be more reflective and measured in their responses. And I always like reading your opinions, Joe. For whatever reason, you tend to disengage from debates, which is a real loss to any discussion, whereas Christopher and I are the type to jump into ferocious arguments regardless of whether we know what it is we're talking about.

My point here is that, and no offense to you, Brian, but there's no need to barge into a discussion with a joke. I wish people wouldn't equate debate with an atmosphere of anger and tension, in quick need of defusing humor. And in any event it comes across as very condescending, as though people who discuss controversial issues are unable to put it in perspective and need a reminder to keep it light.

We're all good friends having a good chat about our respective opinions, so let us chat it out until we get tired of it.
 

My bad, considering some of the posts before mine I didn't know it was outside the realm to make a random comment. It wasn't meant in the context of everything else to try and condescend or act like it was getting out of hand. I just naturally assumed since the mood was lighthearted I wouldn't be required to post a serious dissertation about the history of religion in defense or offense (as it may be) of the reality of Jesus since you and Chris were basically handling it. If I interpret you correctly I am to assume that unless I have some contributing material to the discussion that I should just lurk, fair enough. In some cases (such as my own) sometimes we don’t have any real opinion on the matter so just hit and run. As with anything the context you take it in creates your perception, so my apologies if it came off as some attempt to “diffuse” an argument, because you are right it’s not an argument it’s a debate.

~Brian
 

Oh, then my mistake, Brian. I guess I'm a bit on edge about these things, since I rarely see a discussion where something like what I described doesn't happen. I read too much into your post - sorry! Joke away!
 

Well, as you have pointed out, the main thing that we all have to look at is if we believe there is a God or there isn't. To believe that there isn't would totally support the belief that all human religions and beliefs are simply a way to describe the natural world and that the way in which the ideas and, in fact, the very Gods themselves evolved was no more complicated than the way in which an animal evolves to changing eco-conditions (which I know, Zhubin, isn't a "simple" concept...that's for another time)

However, to believe (and it is not so far fetched a belief, quite stronly supported by quite a bit of scientific evidence or lack thereof) that there is a God then moves all of the happenstances to certainty. Just as we work with children at a certain level to explain certain things until they are old and mature enough to have better, deeper answers, so the beauty of the "guided evolution" of the Jewish and Christian belief system shows God working with His people at a very definite pace to slowly bring them from the beliefs of the rest of the world to the true belief system.

Finally, as for Joe's comment about certain thoughts and beliefs uniquely imprinted in humanity, Zhubin you and I have talked many times about this. For you and I to have such a similar belief structure about many moral ideals despite such polar religious views points to a shared conscience of humnanity. Now, if we are simply evolved protein strands, this shared consciousness of right and wrong would have had no reason for evolving. Therefore, it strongly points to a Divine plan and then the story of Jesus being aroind in spirit for a while is totally believable.

Oh and the Persians stole their beliefs from the Jews...I can prove it...
 

I'm going to make a related hit and run this time, in some sections of anthropological history it assumed that people came from one nomadish type group during pangea. A lot of anthropologists have argued that we all came from Africa and spread out to create culture over time, developing our inherit outword traits that we often try and label people with (black, white, ect) as an evolutionary defense. Anyway, this would initially support the idea that similar belief systems spread from a central base, to evolve over time as the plates split up and populations became isolated. However, this isn't necessarily proof of anything other than to say some believe we all came from the same gene pool any way. Significant only if you accept that at some point we all started off with similar religious beliefs. Technological advanccement would spread and interweave the different evolved religious beliefs (particularly war advancement, early colonialism/conquering was particularly adept at forcing religious conversion). But, that doesn't mean that the conquered didn't necessarily contribute something in the way of culture to the religious ideals of their new masters.

~Brian
 

I like the color blue.
-Graham
 

Graham, was your post a joke on the exchange Brian and I had, or did you actually do what I was just bitching about?

Christopher: well, again, if you accept God's existence as a premise, then of course anything is possible. The question is whether shared belief systems is itself evidence of God's existence.

And I strongly disagree with you that there's no evolutionary reason for us to develop similar moral codes. Societies could not come into existence without codes that prohibit murder, theft, and the like. Note also that this isn't biological evolution we're talking about, but social evolution. Societies that did not develop these codes collapsed, and humans learned from experienced that there are certain elements absolutely necessary for mutual survival. Over time, these elements became codified into religious commandments and legal codes.

And Brian's right in that cultures and societies share and assimilate each other's moral codes as they interact. Even still, though, once we satisfy those elements necessary for societal survival, moral codes greatly diverge. Other societies consider slavery matter-of-fact, as they do cannibalism, keeping women in the house, etc.

If anything, this points to no divinely inspired moral code at all, just a bunch of humans stumbling around trying to figure out the best rules to live by.
 

I suppose what I find strange about the argument in the first place is, can you really prove or disprove the existence of a person that existed such an incredibly long time ago in terms of human years? I mean stories shift and change as each new person hears it and passes it on, sort of like the telephone game effect (you know where you start with a phrase and whisper it around in a circle, and almost every time it's never the same at the end). This isn't to mention that the original translators could have written anything they liked and we'd never know the difference...back in the first translations of the Bible it's not like everyone could read and write. Also, the winners usually write history, and while the Bible is mostly a conduct book, for all intents and purposes it's also a historical piece, and what I mean by that is how do we know that cultures which assimilated or conquered people in control of Biblical text didn’t change things?

I guess what I'm saying is that it is completely plausible that Jesus is the creation from an evolution of stories passed along to different people and eventually chronicled. On the other hand you have to find a way to account for the disciples writing sections about their travels with him, and to me you'd almost have to just call it fake or made up for that argument to pan out. I believe in Jesus, if for no other reason than the embodiment of his actions really represents self-sacrifice and compassion for others. To me whether or not he actually existed seems like a moot point, but I’m getting metaphysical.

~Brian
P.S. Graham, I'm a green man myself.
 

Zhubin... I just like the color blue. I haven't read all the comments yet but I thought I would throw in two cents (or two bits for all you English folk out there).

Brian... Green is a nice color but it reminds me of money and then it reminds me that I have no money and that makes me sad...or I guess you could say it makes me blue...
-Graham
 

Zhubin, I couldn't disagree with you more strongly. The reason for this is our sentient nature. First of all, that we are aware of our own mortality and can even question this stuff shows how completely different we are from any other thing on earth (unless you think animals are sentient beings and then we have a whole other tangent.) This difference makes no sense from an evolutionary stand point. There is no reason for self-sacrifice, nobility, and other cherished ideals when there is no gain. Nowhere in the animal kingdom would you see the strong in the herd of deer stop and battle the lions so the old and young can escape. When animals do defend, it is only so that the species propogates, but there is no inherent putting others above oneself.

Doesn't this VERY strongly point to a marked difference between us and all other creatures and isn't that difference a higher path and calling than our basic natures? And since there is no evolutionary reason for it (there is no reason to keep the old, infirm, or sickly alive...if anything they pollute the gene pool or are a strain on needed resources for more productive members) then there must be a reason apart from "natural" evolution to explain this shared humanity.

Now, as to some civilizations practicing canibalism, murder, etc. these are all eventually phased out as the society and civilization grows, but justice, equality, and other nobler ideals become more important as a society grows more and more enlightened. Doesn't this prove that there is a higher truth that we get closer to as we become more enlightened, a truth that is from something other than ourselves?
 

I hope you all don't mind if I jump in, but I can't help my self. This is all very interesting.

Chris, when you say that an animal defends itself only to propogate the species, it's a common misconception. Animals will sacrifice themselves in the hope of their family members surviving, not the broad category of their species. To use a famous analogy, for instance, if I were with my three brothers walking down a path, and I saw a monster, but knew my brothers didn't see it, I'd jump in the way. I'd know my death would prevent their deaths, and thus, since brothers share 50% of my genes, 150% of my genes would survive. Animals work to ensure their own kins' survival, not their species. Which does make a difference in treating a sick mother, for instance. An animal would not simply kill its sick mother so that the species would benefit. In fact, it wouldn't kill it at all, only attempt to defend it, so that its own genes would survive. So yes, from a species point of view, a sick or old member would not be productive or beneficial. But evolution does not work from a species standpoint, it works from an individuals standpoint. And to an individual from that family, it would do no good to simply let a brother or father die. That being said, I think there is an inherent caring for family members

As for justice, equality, and other nobles ideas not being present until society becomes more enlightened. If you look at the basic principles of surivial you can see a progression that leads to these ideals:

As it was previously mentioned, natural selection is about the individual and the individual is about propogating its own genes--both in itself and its family members. So if I want to ensure that my family's genes survive, I'd look for opportunities or situations that would give us the best chances. One of those chances might be forming a tribe or hunting pack with your family. Because this would not only increase our ability to catch food, but our ability to defend each other as well. As time goes on, more families join, as each looks for an avenue to ensure their own family's surivial. Fairness, justice, etc. are born out of these alliances because no family would want to begin a conflict with another family, for conflicts bring war; war brings destruction; destruction risks your own family's lives, which is your fundamental goal all along. Thus, these ideas aren't achieved through enlightenment, but as a means of avoidance. They occur as a result of a progression away from risking the death of kin and genes.

Now, I'm not saying that noble ideals such as equality and justice are strictly a result of individuals looking to survive. But they are born from survival, and once survival no longer was the dominant mindset of humans, the ideals were discovered from an intellectual standpoint.
 

Let me just add on to my Ivy-League-bound brother's brilliant comments:

Christopher, you're throwing around "justice" and "equality" as though they were monolithic concepts to which everybody agrees. But what justice, equality, nobility, and all those ideals actually mean is the subject of tremendous controversy and violence, from the beginning of recorded history up to now. Hell, the War on Terror is largely a battle over two civilizations' definition of justice. And even societies as close as America and Britain have different definitions of equality, and whether it applies to wealth or politics or whatever.

Once the fundamental elements necessary to keep a civilization alive - no murder, no theft, etc. - are kept in, you see wide divergences as to what justice and equality mean. Again, this point to no divine law at all.
 

First of all I would like to formally welcome Bobak to our discussion and to Rag Land...it is good to have you here and to find that the Parang intellect is alive and well in all its members...misguided maybe, but still present (zing!)

Now, as to what you said Bobak, that further proves my point. If it is an individual/family survival versus the species survival then there would be no need for a stranger to push a random child out of the street and be hit by a bus, or a survivor of a plane crash going back in to pull as many people from the wreckage as possible and risking their own life in the process. Indeed, by what you said, we should look at it as a blessing when members of our species who are not related are killed or taken out of competition for spreading our genetic material. Yet, all throughout human history, the stories that we value and revere deal with self-sacrifice for others not deserving it (ie strangers vs. family)

Also, I can agree with families joining together and establishing communities to protect their genetic material, but that doesn't explain why we as a society don't choose mates as animals do. In previous eras of humana history, especially when mates were chosen, they were often chosen for reasons that mirrored the choices of animals (ie strength, power, virility). But as we evolve as a civilization we begin to choose mates by less tangible and less helpful reasons to the spread and dominance of genetic material than would prove helpful. We are attracted to and look for things in other people that often have no or detrimental influence on spreading one's genetic material. This goes against the basic laws of reproduction in nature and strongly points to a higher nature that is not found in the strictly "natural" world.

And Zhubin, I will agree that justice, nobility, and the like are vague terms that have much room for individual interpretation, but what I was pointing out is that these ideals, different as they may be interpreted, are sought after by civilizations as they become enlightened. Thousands of years ago, the wants and desires of most civilizations were such that there was no need or want for such ideals, vague as they may be, and it is only through growth as intellectual and spiritual beings that we begin to want and need these things. It is similar to the fact that many Christian denominations fight against each other because they think the other is doing it all wrong, but they are actually fighting over who has the right interpretation of the same thing. And that we are looking for the same thing as we grow points towards a perfection that we subconsciously want to move towards. Which is the Divine. Go to church, Zhubin...go to church.
 

"but they are actually fighting over who has the right interpretation of the same thing."

That's true, but historically it appears relgious sects fought in order to gain power over the community. If you have all the power you can set the status quo. That almost gets it down to a level of fighting over who can maintain control over the population. I mean look at the historical significance of the Pope, especially the period where each country designated their own instead of following Rome and Italy. Moving towards some vague divine ideal doesn't seem to be supported historically, even today the denominations are fighting over who has the power to interpret society.

~Brian
 

Christopher, I think you may be misinterpreting what Bobak said. He's not saying that people today look at life from a get-my-genes-out-there perspective. It's that the idea of self-sacrifice for others grew from an evolutionary focus on survival. A man does not jump in front of a bus thinking "Now my seed is protected and will spread my genetic material!" He has, hopefully, a more selfless reason for it. But this selfless reason itself grew from the process Bobak was talking about.

You're also wrong to the extent that you think our arguments depend on humans explicitly following evolutionary commands. No one ever said that we choose our mates from a strictly genetic perspective. Evolution works in a timespan of millions of years - "love" as we know it has existed for maybe a thousand or two.

And I disagree that "throughout human history, the stories that we value and revere deal with self-sacrifice for others not deserving it." What are you talking about there? Human history has been one of constant warfare among families, then later cities, then later nations - essentially the alliances that Bobak was talking about. I suspect the stories you are thinking about actually revolve around people sacrificing themselves for a shared group (whether it be the family or the nation), against enemies seeking to destroy them.

Ultimately, this comes down to the same issue as before. You look at the evolution of widely-shared beliefs about justice and equality and see a subconscious desire implanted by a supernatural deity. I see the natural result of forty thousand years of civilizations offering, wrenching, and sharing with each other their learned ideas.

And, although I hate to say it, your theory is entirely unprovable. You point to the Constitution and say, "Look! God must have influenced that!" And that's as far as you can go; it's all circumstantial evidence. Whereas I point to reams of documents, artifacts and fossils showing where and how the founders got their democratic ideas from the Enlightenment, who got them from the Renaissance, who got them from the Arabs, who got them from the Persians, who got them from...

Well, it ends at the Persians. It all ends at the Persians.
 

But this is where we always get stuck and don't say you "hate to say my ideas are unprovable"...you love to say my ideas are unprovable. And you are also making the statement that because there are documents, fossils, etc. that YOU get your information from, then I just sat down and decided "ooh this would be fun to believe in". The problem with your argument is that an historical growth of democratic ideals and civilization in and of itself does not in any way disprove or even begin to touch the idea of a God. In fact, the growth, if anything, proves that there is an order and a design and that all your facts and figures that you say are the sole realm of the sceptic actually prove and weigh in just as much on the believer. You are, like most sceptics usually do, simplifying a belief in God to an unthinking, pie in the sky, discounting science, when that is not true at all.

Also, I did not misinterpret Bobak's argument. I was merely pointing out that there is no evolutionary reason for self-sacrifice or for that type of evolutionary behavior and that there would be no reason for self-sacrifice to evolve over the millenia. It serves no purpose and, were we animals, the animals that sacrificed themselves constantly for others would die out while those that protected their own genetic material wouldn't. I merely think your idea that ideals could form from evolution is simplistic.

I also don't think I am wrong about the basis of your argument. Without a divine inspiration or influence, there is no reason for anything on this world besides evolution and genetic mutations, etc. that cause the world to change and grow. In a world completely ruled by these laws, and in fact our being here at all being a cosmic mistake, you lose all credibility to say that ideals that serve no evolutionary survival purpose evolved from actions that did promote these thoughts.

Also, the stories I was talking about are the stories of heros in the mythology of most civilizations which, yes, would be for a nation but in the end couldn't the same be said for the survival of the human species whenever anyone saves another human...oh wait, Bobak said that doesn't happen in the animal kingdom so why should we be any different.

The crux of the whole matter is that you think I am merely drawing specious conclusions about the absolute need for a deity to explain why we have evolved in the way that we have and I think you are making specious jumps in reasoning as to the path evolution would take, even in reasoning beings, without some outside stimuli.

Joe, now that I have the Parang Brothers joining in, it would be a good time for you to join in as well. Then no unbeliever could stand in our way...Mwah ha ha...
 

I think that's an interesting point Zhubin brings up. There is no science or logical validity to an idea or theory when you can not falsify or prove it incorrect. It is one thing to say you believe in a divine being because you have a "relationship" with him/her. That is a personal matter that can not be debated or argued. The believer can always tell the non-believer that "you just don't understand"--it's a personal issue so that is completely valid. But once you attempt to explain the origins of the universe through the same notion "that it's beyond our comprehension," you cross the boundary. By saying God created this or that, you aren't offering any way of opposing that notion. I can't attempt to prove you wrong through any experiment because the idea has no logicial basis. It isn't a science or valid idea unless it can be falsified. One can though, for instance, attempt to prove evolution incorrect by setting up an experiment. Take a collection of bacteria and subject them to a strain of medicine, and if they do not adapt or evolve to better suit their environment then you have the chance of proving it wrong. But the idea that God created Man, for instance, is unchallengable--and as a result it has no merit, both scientifically and logically.

Religion and science once went hand in hand because religion attempted to explain the unknown, but once there became a definition of science--attemtping to explain and explore through logical reasoning--they split. Religion became a personal thing, still functioning as a means to connect with a higher being. But that's it; religion has no right to attempt to explain scientific related ideas because it relies on having the faith--that is, going beyond logical comprehension and just accepting. It is simply a waste of time to pose illogical theories and notions in world dictated by reasoning.
 

Okay, I was writing my last comment before Chris had posted the one before mine. So mine really isn't a reply to Chris's.
 

To reply to Chris's last comment:

"I was merely pointing out that there is no evolutionary reason for self-sacrifice or for that type of evolutionary behavior and that there would be no reason for self-sacrifice to evolve over the millenia. "

That is a horribly incorrect statement. Like I said before, self-sacrifice is inherent in all humans, from an evolutionary standpoint. I used the three brothers example, and how it would credit my genes survival if I died instead of them. From there you can argue that the self-sacrifice only exists to help genetically related organisms--in other words, families. But again, like I said before, a progression occurred once groups and tribes formed. Fairness and equality were born out of avoidance from war or conflict. Once survival was not a primary thought on humans, other notions evolved and developed. Primal survival notions began to dissolve and yield to more intelligent, civilized ones, like self-sacrifice for a nation; self-sacrifice for friends; self-sacrifice for strangers.


"Without a divine inspiration or influence, there is no reason for anything on this world besides evolution and genetic mutations, etc. that cause the world to change and grow."

I don't see how you can say that after you consider that progression from the paragraph above. Also, even going on that idea that you need divine intervention to create growth from a societal point doesn't work. You are arguing that humans could not have formed their civilizations and organized societies without some form of higher enlightenment or intervention. Otherwise, we would be just like the animals, surviving on primal instincts. But organized societies exist in the animal world just as they do in our world. Take ants, for example. Throw 300 ants into an isolated location, and within a week you will have a highly complex, organized civilization with workers and rulers. And if you mix different species of ants, you'll probably see a war between two different nations occur.
 

Oh, Bobak, you are your brother. Your slippery slope logic is the same type of logic that fundamentalist Christians are usually criticized for.

You say that religion has no merit, scientifically or logically because it cannot be challenged. And, while it is true the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved, neither can the theory of the Big Bang, yet you have no problem accepting that as fact. It is a "scientific" theory as to how the universe would have been created but seeing as how it is unchallengable (no one can prove it or disprove it) it has no merit either. In fact, quite a lot of "logical and irrefutable science" is built of the same conjectures that you are critisizing religion on. Heck, the entire way we date fossils is based on carbon dating which we assume has a certain half-life, but there is no way to prove it apart from waiting and monitoring it the entire time. Hence, that "science" also has no merit because you can't "prove" it or "disprove" it at this point.

We have now entered the Zhubin/Christopher realm where we always end up. So much of what you see as science and scientific fact is basically conjecture based on what we see around us and the evidence we have. Again, let me repeat...CONJECTURE! We think that certain laws function in a certain way and if A and B equals C then "logically" yada yada yada. Now, that is the basic tenet of religious thought as well, looking at what we have, what evidences there are, and then making a conjecture. The only difference is that you believe it was an accident and I don't. You can prove many things about science, but quite a bit of it that you would say had merit is, in fact, conjecture and, by your definition, without merit.

Finally, to simplify religions role in the world to an individual relationship that has no business being anywhere else is sheer lunacy. Simply because you can't put it in a petrie dish and run tests on it doesn't mean that it has no merit. By this thinking, most of the great art, music, and anything that gives our life greater meaning would be useless. Do you hate music and art, Bobak? DO YOU?! This is where Zhubin and I finally come to an impasse. He says I am willing to believe in things that can't be proved because I don't like the idea of us being alone and life on earth having no point and I say that his view of life and everything we do is pale and shallow by only believing in what we can see, touch, and replicate in a test tube.

Now, I have to go meet some friends and drink some beer...which was created by monks...who had religion...ipso facto...God is the reason for beer which, I think, gives religion merit....Mmmmm...merit...
 

I wrote that while you were writing your last post so I will respond to your most recent post in a while. Computer's on the fritz!
 

I think we both know, Christopher, that the only friends you have in England are a bottle of Guinness and a copy of The Office DVD box set.

You're right, though, we're back to the fundamental issue we always come back to.

Let me say this, though: many scientific theories are based on inferences that cannot be directly observed, that's true. But the difference between science and religion here is that science is a process that leaves itself open to continuous revision, something that is the exact antithesis of religion. You're wrong when you say the Big Bang cannot be disproved - it certainly can be. The only reason we think it's the way the universe started is that our observances of infrared waves seem to coalesce at a certain point. If anyone can bring evidence that challenges the Big Bang or suggests another origin, then the Big Bang will be revised or dropped.

But that will never happen to Christianity. To bring it back full circle to your original post, even if there was to be conclusive proof offered that Jesus never existed, and the Bible was entirely a lie, I doubt that you or the vast majority of Christians would believe it.

And that is ultimately where I think you have it wrong, Chris. Both of us accept that we live in a world with far more to it than our direct senses can possibly understand. But I have chosen to perceive the world through a framework that is always open and flexible, and ever-ready to embrace new ideas when the evidence supports them. You have chosen to perceive the world through a list of fundamental assertions, which do not change regardless of the evidentiary support. I will grant you that your system brings you more certainty, but it comes at too high a price for me.

By the way, I might come visit you in England in the fall. Email me your phone number, will ya?
 

Well, to say that you see it through an ever changing and open framework, whereas I see it as a closed and irrefutable idea is understandable from your viewpoint. However, I think it is more apt to say that I look at the world as able to encompass things that are not easily explainable and beyond my comprehension whereas you are not able to believe in anything you cannot see, touch, or feel. I am more than willing to look at fundamental observations and make new thoughts (you should know that through my political thoughts), but you have yet to show or tell me anything that, in my opinion, doesn't point more and more strongly toward the existence of something greater than ourselves. You say your ideas are ever changing and I say that my idea system is able to easily encompass all this new information easily and still point towards a basic truth. Basically your existence is empty and mine is full of joy.

As for the most important question, the cheapest way to call me in England from a land line is:

10-10-987-011-44-7817-690-092.

YEs I know it is the longest number in history. Let me know if you have any problems and I'll try and help them. I would absolutely love it if you could come and you WILL be staying with us while you are here! Talk to you soon!