Originally Posted by panerd (Post 1931557)

I bet Front Office Cricket Central in New Dehli is having the same back and forth about being Hindus. Doesn't it scare Christians that you are a Christian pretty much because you were born in a Christian country. Doesn't that show you how illogical religion is?

I am sure there will be some poster born in China that is Christian or some Jewish poster that became Chrisitan, but let's face the hard facts here. Your parents were Christians and so are you. Had your parents been Muslim you probably would be that. Had you been born in some African country you would worship some God that Christians probably shake their heads at here. As been mentioned before if your were thousands of years before here you would be following Thor, Zeus, Athena, etc.

It's scary that such an easily proven point seems to be left out of the discussion and is almost certianly the reason why a lot of Americans are Christian. Even scarier is no matter who ends up being right (Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Atheists) almost 75% of the world is wrong. I will put my bets on the atheists as they are the only ones that seem to apply any logic to the discussion. Everyone else is just scared that when they die that is it. We are no different than deer, bees, wolves, bacteria, trees, dogs... we die and that's it.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan (Post 1931589)

Each to their own, I think admitting you don't know something is something which requires strength of character - partially because a lot of people think like you do.

If you KNOW you're going to be pushed by people into one camp or another yet realise you don't believe either arguement is convincing enough to sway you completely then it takes a special sort of person to remain true to themselves and admit that they'd prefer not to please anyone and continue to wait on the evidence.

I see this more as a scientific approach to religion to be honest, getting all the facts in before deciding if a theory holds water ... will these people ever know for sure, probably not ... but nothing wrong with them admitting it imho.

Originally Posted by JediKooter (Post 1931362)

Ok, is there some sort of mandatory black out period or something when someone has just been saved?

I sure would like to see tarcone at least make a comment or two regarding some of the questions he was asked. Otherwise, now it's just starting seem like a drive by prothlesizing.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan (Post 1931570)

Actually one of the things which intruiges me is that Christianity has very limited roots in the areas where it was born, instead having the bulk of its believers far from the middle east.

Anyone who's a Christian scholar want to try and explain this oddity?

Originally Posted by boberot (Post 1931696)

Can anybody honestly blame Tarcone for not wanting to weigh back in on this?

Dude just had his mind blown and wanted to share what, to him, was phenomenal news.

He never asked for a grad school rhetorical shitstorm to break out.

Not that there hasn't been some really intelligent and thoughtful discussion, but damn . . . .

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 1931453)

Same can be said for a lot of events. Why does a sweet little girl get taken, molested, and buried alive in a sexual predators front yard? God can "save" people, but not her? Why don't we ever hear answers for this when it comes to God?

It's why I was pissed to hear all the "Miracle on the Hudson" talk last week. It wasn't a miracle, it was a kickass pilot. If he had crashed the plane, would God have been responsible? Or does he only get credit for the stuff that goes right?

None of it makes sense.

Originally Posted by Groundhog (Post 1931713)

Yes, it must have been a complete shock to tarcone and everyone else here at FOFC that an innocent post on religion has instead become a debate re: religion/atheism/agnosticism.

I mean, who could have possibly seen that coming.

Originally Posted by Schmidty (Post 1931722)

That doesn't make it right. Another related thread that was simply made for debate would have been much more classy and would be easy to be started, imo.

Originally Posted by boberot (Post 1931696)

Can anybody honestly blame Tarcone for not wanting to weigh back in on this?

Dude just had his mind blown and wanted to share what, to him, was phenomenal news.

He never asked for a grad school rhetorical shitstorm to break out.

Not that there hasn't been some really intelligent and thoughtful discussion, but damn . . . .

Originally Posted by boberot (Post 1931743)

It has been mostly civil, I agree.

Schmidty reinforces my point: why not just start another thread to debate, or "resurrect" one of the 75 other religious-themed threads. I just told my kids this evening: many things are right or wrong simply based upon the context within which they happen.

I guess the real answer is that Tarcone should not have chosen this forum / medium to share his news. However, like I posted earlier [and as he probably knew deep down] this stream of debate was inevitable.

Originally Posted by Lathum (Post 1931732)

Tarcone's been here long enough to know what would happen to this thread.

To be honest I thought it would turn out WAY worse.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan (Post 1931765)

(so in summary - this board rocks ;) )

Originally Posted by Noop (Post 1931790)

I think some of you are completely full of shit. I read this thread and can not believe some of the crap that is being thrown around.

:banghead:

Originally Posted by Drake (Post 1931710)

Despite the fact that I self-identify as a believer, I tend to lean more toward Marc's thinking about religion. The primary reason I'm a Christian is because my parents are. If they'd been Muslim, I'd be Muslim. Doesn't make my faith any less real to me or of any less value.

I also tend to think of religion the same way I think about sports: I'm a Colts fan because they're the local team. They're the team I hear about most often, so I've developed an attachment. I don't always think they're right. I don't always think they're the best team, but you also can't talk me out of believing that they're MY team -- no matter how much logic you apply, how many statistics you throw at me or how many other sexy teams with better systems and better personnel there are out there.

I think that's also why I don't argue religion -- either with believers in other faiths, agnostics or athiests. I believe in my team. I believe that your team is not as good as mine -- no matter how much evidence you throw at me, because I also assume that you're invested in your team.

At the end of the day, only one of our teams is going to win the Super Bowl. Might be mine. Might be yours. Even if it's yours, I'm still going to believe in my team. Point is, none of us really know.

So it's really not worth arguing about.

Originally Posted by Lathum (Post 1931732)

Tarcone's been here long enough to know what would happen to this thread.

To be honest I thought it would turn out WAY worse.

Originally Posted by boberot (Post 1931743)

It has been mostly civil, I agree.

Schmidty reinforces my point: why not just start another thread to debate, or "resurrect" one of the 75 other religious-themed threads. I just told my kids this evening: many things are right or wrong simply based upon the context within which they happen.

I guess the real answer is that Tarcone should not have chosen this forum / medium to share his news. However, like I posted earlier [and as he probably knew deep down] this stream of debate was inevitable.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan (Post 1931765)

I didn't to be honest - this forum is one of the few ones I've visited where people actively try and show respect by and large to other peoples opinions and the level of debate is generally quite intelligent and some patience is shown to people with regards to posts.

(so in summary - this board rocks ;) )

Originally Posted by Groundhog (Post 1931795)

Outside of a couple of posts, I'm not seeing anything that would elicit that response.

Originally Posted by Groundhog (Post 1931795)

Outside of a couple of posts, I'm not seeing anything that would elicit that response.

Originally Posted by Noop (Post 1931803)

Might be because I sat down and read this entire thread rolling my eyes at the usual cast of characters peddling their bullshit just with another topic.

Originally Posted by Drake (Post 1931710)

I also tend to think of religion the same way I think about sports: I'm a Colts fan because they're the local team. They're the team I hear about most often, so I've developed an attachment. I don't always think they're right. I don't always think they're the best team, but you also can't talk me out of believing that they're MY team -- no matter how much logic you apply, how many statistics you throw at me or how many other sexy teams with better systems and better personnel there are out there.

Originally Posted by RendeR (Post 1931806)

Ok, maybe I'm not seeing what you're seeing? Is there an example you can give? There are a few people that appear to be a little less knowledgeable overall (I may be one of them, who knows?) but other than some inflammatory stuff that got beaten down hard and fast I think this has been quite interesting?

Originally Posted by bignej (Post 1931428)

I saw the article you are referring to with the helmet fly's or whatever. This doesn't actually contradict the theory of evolution as much as it helps validate another theory(cant remember the name).

I will also say that its not very fair to compare a scientific theory supported by evidence and tested to a book that is essentially a hole with very few real world references that make people think its a textbook. The bible is nothing but stories that give promises of rainbows, puppies and sunshine. All vague promises. This morning I saw a billboard that said, "He is the Answer". What the hell does that mean? Its like a damn horoscope.

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper (Post 1931812)

yes yes, please you must divulge more so we all know whether you're on our side or one of them. :devil: :devil: :devil:

Originally Posted by Drake (Post 1931710)

Despite the fact that I self-identify as a believer, I tend to lean more toward Marc's thinking about religion. The primary reason I'm a Christian is because my parents are. If they'd been Muslim, I'd be Muslim. Doesn't make my faith any less real to me or of any less value.

I also tend to think of religion the same way I think about sports: I'm a Colts fan because they're the local team. They're the team I hear about most often, so I've developed an attachment. I don't always think they're right. I don't always think they're the best team, but you also can't talk me out of believing that they're MY team -- no matter how much logic you apply, how many statistics you throw at me or how many other sexy teams with better systems and better personnel there are out there.

I think that's also why I don't argue religion -- either with believers in other faiths, agnostics or athiests. I believe in my team. I believe that your team is not as good as mine -- no matter how much evidence you throw at me, because I also assume that you're invested in your team.

At the end of the day, only one of our teams is going to win the Super Bowl. Might be mine. Might be yours. Even if it's yours, I'm still going to believe in my team. Point is, none of us really know.

So it's really not worth arguing about.

Originally Posted by DrAFTjunkie (Post 1931815)

The stories...yeah, heavily skewed by years of being passed down from mouth to mouth and then modified by the powers that be to keep the masses in line, but David, Mary, Jeus, Pilot were real people. There is eveidence from countries that don't give two shits and a fuck about christianity that support this. I don;t think you can deny that, and I think the comparision isn't as far off, IMO, as you're saying it is.

Originally Posted by DrAFTjunkie (Post 1931815)

Never said it contradicted the theory of evolution; I said it called Darwinism (whixh people thump as vehheminlty as the bible) into question.

As for the bible, I agree that it's a collection of stories, but whether you like it or not, of lot of it's characters actually walked the earth and that is supported by historical fact. It's not just some Salinger novel. The stories...yeah, heavily skewed by years of being passed down from mouth to mouth and then modified by the powers that be to keep the masses in line, but David, Mary, Jeus, Pilot were real people. There is eveidence from countries that don't give two shits and a fuck about christianity that support this. I don;t think you can deny that, and I think the comparision isn't as far off, IMO, as you're saying it is. People cling to the bible to answer the unanswerable just as people cling to scientific theories for the same reason as science. It's human nature to go with what makes the most sense to you. I'll admit that it seems to me that science is a lot, lot, lot more viable than the bible, but science is not not etched in stone either. For example: the stated facts on the very beginning of the universe is that there was absolute nothing, and then there was an explosion which created everything. I've seen/read this dozens of times. Umm...what? Why? How? There is no expalination for this that I've ever heard of, and the theory that a god created this is just as viable to me than a pure scientific explaination until I hear someone make sense of it. Because nobody on earth truely knows what's what. I had widespread bone cancer as a lad, there was a benefit/vigil and it disappeared completely. I can't explain why, the doctors coudln't explain why, but it happened. Not to say that I think god intervened, nor do I think he would've if he truely existed, but the fact remains. I went from a terminal, veritable cripple to completely healthy overnight.

All in all, any scientist worth his weight in salt will tell you that theories are just that. Theories do nothing but support an idea. IMO, anyone who clings to anything (on either side of the spectrum) is just plain deluded. We're not ever going to know the whole truth. And I'll say it again: anyone who tramples Tarcone for what he believes is a hypoocrite. Regardless of what you think, you're far less ahead of the curve than you might think.

Originally Posted by Noop (Post 1931820)

RendeR I read your post, so I don't want you to think I ignored you but for the sake of this thread I will just leave what I stated as it without further explanation.

Originally Posted by RendeR (Post 1931816)

What do you want to know? I'm not sure I get this post?

Originally Posted by Noop (Post 1931803)

Might be because I sat down and read this entire thread rolling my eyes at the usual cast of characters peddling their bullshit just with another topic.

Originally Posted by RendeR (Post 1931824)

This is a major crux for me in the whole debate. In MY opinion, not everyone or anyone elses, I see two things at odds that really shouldn't be.

The Bible gives a reason for creation, for how everything got here and why (because the invisible friend to millions wanted it to be, sorry, it was funnier in my head) and that's fine, people who believe may or may not believe that Genesis is the factual creation story.

Science says "this is what the evidence is showing us so far as to how it all began" and while its a decent story also, its also not proven. It is based on the evidence of the world we live in. its not saying "this is how the universe came into being" so much as its saying "this is how the universe works as we know it"

those two things aren't mutually exclusive as far as I can see. Personally I think someone looked at the universe and created a story, or fable to help describe the eons of time it took for the earth to get to this point. Which again, doesn't bother me at all.

Originally Posted by What DrAFTjunkie said (Post 1931847)

**edit** I'm fighting through Dayquil, which is falsely marketed so it seems, so I apologoze for spelling and grammatical error that I've noticed. Hopefully I'm, not losing anyone with jibber jabber.

Originally Posted by What DrAFTjunkie meant to say (Post 1931847)

**edit** I'm high as hell, which is correctly marketed so it seems, so I apologoze for spelling and grammatical error that I've noticed. Hopefully I'm, not losing anyone with jibber jabber.

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 1931853)

.

Originally Posted by Anthony (Post 1931646)

he went back to the Dark Side after reading most of the "hahaha, you believe in God and the Tooth Fairy!!1" and is now realizing drinking and whoring is much more fun than bible study. :devil:

Originally Posted by Drake (Post 1931710)

Despite the fact that I self-identify as a believer, I tend to lean more toward Marc's thinking about religion. The primary reason I'm a Christian is because my parents are. If they'd been Muslim, I'd be Muslim. Doesn't make my faith any less real to me or of any less value.

I also tend to think of religion the same way I think about sports: I'm a Colts fan because they're the local team. They're the team I hear about most often, so I've developed an attachment. I don't always think they're right. I don't always think they're the best team, but you also can't talk me out of believing that they're MY team -- no matter how much logic you apply, how many statistics you throw at me or how many other sexy teams with better systems and better personnel there are out there.

I think that's also why I don't argue religion -- either with believers in other faiths, agnostics or athiests. I believe in my team. I believe that your team is not as good as mine -- no matter how much evidence you throw at me, because I also assume that you're invested in your team.

At the end of the day, only one of our teams is going to win the Super Bowl. Might be mine. Might be yours. Even if it's yours, I'm still going to believe in my team. Point is, none of us really know.

So it's really not worth arguing about.

Originally Posted by DanGarion (Post 1931594)

Isn't it a prove fact that the smarter people are the less they believe in organized religion anyway...?

Originally Posted by JediKooter (Post 1931477)

All I know is, god must hate rock and roll.

Dead: John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, the guys from Lynard Skynard, Elvis, Buddy Holly, etc...yet, we are stuck with the Simpson girls, Hanson, Michael Bolton, so many other crappy people now that I don't even know their names.

Just not fair I tell ya.

Originally Posted by Drake (Post 1931710)

Despite the fact that I self-identify as a believer, I tend to lean more toward Marc's thinking about religion. The primary reason I'm a Christian is because my parents are. If they'd been Muslim, I'd be Muslim. Doesn't make my faith any less real to me or of any less value.

I also tend to think of religion the same way I think about sports: I'm a Colts fan because they're the local team. They're the team I hear about most often, so I've developed an attachment. I don't always think they're right. I don't always think they're the best team, but you also can't talk me out of believing that they're MY team -- no matter how much logic you apply, how many statistics you throw at me or how many other sexy teams with better systems and better personnel there are out there.

I think that's also why I don't argue religion -- either with believers in other faiths, agnostics or athiests. I believe in my team. I believe that your team is not as good as mine -- no matter how much evidence you throw at me, because I also assume that you're invested in your team.

At the end of the day, only one of our teams is going to win the Super Bowl. Might be mine. Might be yours. Even if it's yours, I'm still going to believe in my team. Point is, none of us really know.

So it's really not worth arguing about.

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 1931965)

Correct. Many recent studies have shown this.

Originally Posted by Raiders Army (Post 1931633)

Saying you don't know is honest, but I think the preponderence of credible evidence points towards a disbelief in a higher power.

I think this goes again to possibility vs. probability. Is it a possibility the Christians are right? Absolutely. Is a probability? No. There is no evidence to prove that there is in fact a Christian God. The only evidence that has been brought forth is circular in nature. To give this possibility the same weight that you would give any other proof of an argument is ridiculous. Either believe or don't believe. Atheists also admit that they can't disprove that there isn't a God. There's some doubt there, but it's negligible at best.