Religion yet again

Has McGyver anything to do with it? [!--emo&:huh:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/huh.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'huh.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
I really hate offending believers, and trust me, it's not my intention. However, I have read somewhere the very plausible theory that the virgin pregnancy is interpreted to be a non-marriage one.
 
I hate to spread rumours, but I heard that it was a mistake in the translation. The original text was mentioning a 'young woman', which got translated into 'virgin'. Many of my learned friends here can tell me whether I got it wrong or what. [!--emo&^_^--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/happy.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'happy.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Perun+Jan 24 2006, 10:38 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Perun @ Jan 24 2006, 10:38 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]However, I have read somewhere the very plausible theory that the virgin pregnancy is interpreted to be a non-marriage one.
[snapback]127656[/snapback]​
[/quote]

You're talking about the DaVinci code [!--emo&:P--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'tongue.gif\' /][!--endemo--]


[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]So why are they at great pains to prove that Jesus was born of a virgin when later they recognize Joseph as his father?[/quote]

According to the religion, Jesus is the only son of God, but he grew up with Joseph as his human father.
 
So god -- as intemporal and shapeless as he's supposed to be -- has got a penis (and testicles and a prostate). Wow! He must be human!

But basically, little Mary committed adultery then, didn't she? Ah well... [!--emo&:unsure:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/unsure.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'unsure.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
[!--QuoteBegin-DeadlySinner+Jan 25 2006, 12:10 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(DeadlySinner @ Jan 25 2006, 12:10 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]You're talking about the DaVinci code [!--emo&:P--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'tongue.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
[snapback]127660[/snapback]​
[/quote]

I'm not, I'm talking about something called historical science, which is virtually unknown to some people, apparently.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-DeadlySinner+Jan 24 2006, 04:10 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(DeadlySinner @ Jan 24 2006, 04:10 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]You're talking about the DaVinci code [!--emo&:P--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'tongue.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
[snapback]127660[/snapback]​
[/quote]

No, he's not. The English word 'virgin' is a translation of the Greek word 'parthenos', which itself is a translation of two different Hebrew words: 'na`arah' meaning "young woman, not necessarily a vigin" and 'bethulah' meaning "virgin". While the evidence is not conclusive, there is stronger evidence that Mary was simply a "young woman" and not a virgin.

Here's a Wikipedia link about it:
[a href=\'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth#Greek_translation\' target=\'_blank\']http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth#Greek_translation[/a]
Granted, Wikipedia is not always an authoritative source. However, this particular section of this specific article accurately summarizes this subject.

Fact: Mary and Joseph were the parents of Jesus. Mary was not a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth. The mythology of the virgin birth is a later invention, and a complete historical falsehood. Sorry, "believers": you believe in a myth, and nothing more. That's fine if you like it, but don't try to tell the rest of us that it's true.

Another supporting point: Jesus either claimed and/or was taken by some of his contemporaries to be "King of the Jews". Remember, this is why Rome crucified him. The Romans reserved the punishment of crucifixion exclusively for political enemies. The claim that simple thieves were crucified alongside Jesus is again a mistranslation of a word more accurately translated as "bandit" which the Romans used for political traitors.

Why would some Jews accept Jesus as a potential king unless he was a member of the Jewish royal line (in other words, descended from King David) ? Back in those days, kingship was hereditary. Not just any ordinary person could make that kind of claim. And there has never been any claim that Mary was descended from David. On the contrary: Joseph is the person who claimed descent from David. If any first-century Jews recognized Jesus as a potential king, it means they accepted Joseph as his father.

In all, here's what is the most likely historical scenario:
A claimant to the (dormant) Jewish kingship became a religious preacher, and said many fine and wise things like "Love thy neighbor as thyself". But, because of his political aspirations, the Romans killed him. His original followers continued to preach his message of love, but Saul of Tarsus (who never knew Jesus) completely misinterpreted the stories of Jesus and started a cult based on a supernatural man-god that his audience (the Greeks) would be more receptive to. That Pauline version of Jesus became the dominant myth, but has almost nothing to do with the historical reality.

(Edits were only to correct 2 minor typos.)
 
God is all powerful so he can do whatever he wants including causing mary to get pregnant without intercourse. If you would even bother to read the first couple of chapters of Genesis you would notice god WILLS things into creation, he doesn't have to have a physical anything.

I am not going to quote anything because there is just way to much information but here it goes
as for historical proof of a historical Jesus there is the Pretonious (sp?) Report. The report of the soldier Pretonious stating that Jesus died on the cross. The document is real.

Maverik is right in saying that it is possible that "young woman" or "maiden" got mistranslated into "virgin" and in the first chapter of Mathew it states that AFTER (meaning the birth of Jesus was caused by divine intervention NOT by adultery or from Joseph) Jesus birth Joseph "knew" Mary. There is also the theory that Jesus' brothers were from Joseph's previous marriage and that it is very likely he was an old man and Mary a very young woman. That it wasn't uncommon for such unions to occur back then.

MOST of the bible is NOT hsitorically reliable and the bible itself IS NOT a historical document, it is by believers for believers. IT IS NOT a conversion tool. However it does have historical events, people and places and some events are easily proven as occuring (for example paul's journies)

I am also sick of reading that believers are deluded, crazy, stupid, insane and what not. I've met many intellegent and well educated people that don't believe in evolution, believe the world was literally created in six days, that the devil is real and that heaven and hell are physical places. Now I pity them, but that doesn't make them idiots. believes have nothing to do with IQ. gullability (sp?) does.

Macumania is right that the conversation on this sort of subject will never stop, but that doesn't mean we have to keep faning the flames. I think it is clear by now that everybody who posted here is very narrow minded (including myself). all the so-called atheists are not open to the possibility of the existance of a God, his son and an afterlife unless they see it (they might not until they die). And the believers are not open to the possiblity that our believes are nothing but a big hoax that has lasted for thousands of years. The ambiguity of the issue will keep the camps divided forever. I for one have not (or at least not conciously) presented myself as holier than thou on any of these arguments and I have taken too many insults and humiliation to subject myself to any of it any further.

So to those willing to keep beating a dead horse I wish you luck and carry on.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Silky+Jan 24 2006, 08:06 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Silky @ Jan 24 2006, 08:06 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Actually, Jesus had many half brothers and sisters.  It states in the gosepls that Joseph and Mary went on to have other children, one of them called James.
[snapback]127620[/snapback]​
[/quote]
This isn't true. The bible calls James, Joses, Juda and Simon the brothers of Jesus, not the sons of Mary. It's possible (but very unlikely) that they were brothers by adoption or half-brothers, had Joseph been previously married. A much more likely explanation is that because Hebrew didn't have a word for 'cousin', they used the term 'brothers' to include cousins.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Jan 24 2006, 04:59 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Jan 24 2006, 04:59 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]God is all powerful so he can do whatever he wants...
[snapback]127666[/snapback]​
[/quote]
God is a myth. Your statement is inapplicable to reality.
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Jan 24 2006, 04:59 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Jan 24 2006, 04:59 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]I am also sick of reading that believers are deluded, crazy, stupid, insane and what not. I've met many intellegent  and well educated people that don't believe in evolution, believe the world was literally created in six days...

[snapback]127666[/snapback]​
[/quote]
It's a shame that you're sick of hearing the truth. Those who believe in any sort of god are deluded. However, I will admit the following two points:

1. The delusion of god can be harmless to others and beneficial to the deluded, if the deluded person uses their religion to guide them in being a better person and keeps it to themself.

2. Provided that the delusion isn't too severe, the deluded person can still be intelligent with regard to other areas.

However, I draw the line at those who believe the biblical creation stories are literally true. That is flat-out stupidity. Persons who believe in the literal truth of those myths are out of their freaking minds. I do not consider such persons to be anything other than morons in every respect, and any statement made by such a person I take to be of highly questionable veracity. Nothing such a person says, with regard to any subject whatsoever, can be trusted. Any person who has that level of ability to disregard accepted scientific truths cannot be trusted to evaluate anything correctly, and all their "knowledge" is suspect.

I expect the above paragraph will offend some people. Let me make this perfectly clear:
If you want to be harmlessly deluded by most religious myths, fine. People rising from the dead? Wrong, but OK. Virgin birth? Wrong, but OK. The only myth that I draw the line at is the biblical creation myth. If you take that to be literally word-for-word true, you have no credibility in this thread as far as I'm concerned. You're either stupid or brainwashed, maybe both. And if that offends you, maybe you need to get your brain out of the 12th century.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-SinisterMinisterX+Jan 25 2006, 05:13 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(SinisterMinisterX @ Jan 25 2006, 05:13 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]God is a myth. Your statement is inapplicable to reality.[/quote]

Wrong. It is inapplicable to your reality. It is not inapplicable to Onhells reality. Onhell believes in God, so he believes God is all-powerful. You don't believe in God. You think you're right, Onhell thinks he is right. It is often difficult for (us) atheists to understand that Christians are convinced in the same way that atheists are convinced that there isn't a God, that there is one (terrible sentence). As it is an undeniable truth for atheists that there is no God, it is an undeniable truth for Christians that God exists.
 
Perun, you should mention that god exists or not depending on our conception of reality. There is only one reality, but we all have a different view on it.

As the saying goes, there are always three sides to every story:
- yours
- mine
- the truth.

[!--emo&^_^--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/happy.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'happy.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
[!--QuoteBegin-DeadlySinner+Jan 24 2006, 10:10 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(DeadlySinner @ Jan 24 2006, 10:10 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]
According to the religion, Jesus is the only son of God, but he grew up with Joseph as his human father.
[snapback]127660[/snapback]​
[/quote]
That's not what l said though is it? They recognize him as his biological father. They had to prove that he comes from David's bloodline! If Joseph is only his stepdaddy he does not come from David. Simple enough. [!--emo&:P--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'tongue.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
[!--QuoteBegin-national acrobat+Jan 24 2006, 12:37 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(national acrobat @ Jan 24 2006, 12:37 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Having read Tacitus fairly extensively, I have never found any reason to doubt anything he writes as fact. The Annals is the earliest account of this period, and almost the only Latin account (Suetonius writing far less serious biographies, and Dio Cassius writing Greek history a centruy later). By the end of the first century AD, Christians were not that influential, especially not on an upper class Roman, who reached the consulship and governorship of Asia.

The few lines I quoted merely show Tacitus stating what Nero did to Christians, and explaining where the name 'Christians' came from, with no indication that this was news or rumour being spread by Christians themselves.
[snapback]127598[/snapback]​
[/quote]
The evidense of Tacitus is not contemporary, but dates from about 50 years after the event. The only thing to make Tacitus' writings an independent testimony to the existense of Jesus and not merely the repetition of Christian beliefs would be if he had gained the information about Christ being crucified under Pontius Pilate from the copious records that the Romans kept of their legal dealings. But this does not seem to be the case, for Tacitus calls Pilate the "procurator" of Judea when he was in fact a "prefect", so Tacitus is clearly not returning to the records of the time but quoting hearsay information from his own day.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Onhell+Jan 24 2006, 10:59 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Onhell @ Jan 24 2006, 10:59 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]I think it is clear by now that everybody who posted here is very narrow minded (including myself). all the so-called atheists are not open to the possibility of the existance of a God, his son and an afterlife unless they see it (they might not until they die). And the believers are not open to the possiblity that our believes are nothing but a big hoax that has lasted for thousands of years. The ambiguity of the issue will keep the camps divided forever.
[snapback]127666[/snapback]​
[/quote]

Why do you refer to atheists as "so-called atheists?" Are you suggesting that deep down no none really denies the existence of God? Doubting the sincerity of your interlocutor is a bad way to conduct a conversation. [!--emo&;)--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/wink.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'wink.gif\' /][!--endemo--]

I think Onhell is right that most of the paties to this sort of debate tend to be narrow-minded advocates of a particular ideology rather than genuine seekers of truth. But I doubt that this is true of everyone. Perun, for example, had a very intelligent post about different questions that tend to get confused in this area (i.e. whether there was a historical figure in the early 1st century called Jesus vs. whether the Biblical account of his life and divine origins are true) and he was quite open in acknowledging the limitations of his evidence and knowledge. It did not strike me as the post of a narrow-minded ideologue.

For my part, I tend to aree with Perun. I don't think there is strong evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus, but I think this is something over which reasonable people can certainly disagree. There are some documents that suggest there was such a figure and I think there is room for intelligent debate over the reliability of those documents. SMX's suggestion that Jesus was a political agitator whose life served as a loose inspiration for the Bliblical Jesus is, as far as I know, a historical possibility.

On the other hand, I tend to feel quite strongly that there is no God and therefore I am strongly skeptical of the biblical account of Jesus's life and works. But I am not closed to the possibility that I am mistaken, that there is a God and that Jesus is his "son" (in some metaphorical sense) sent to earth to redeem humanity of its sins. As a philosopher ([span style=\'font-size:8pt;line-height:100%\']if you didn't know, I study philosophy[/span]) I have to take each argument I'm presented with and evaluate it seriously and charitably. If I should come across an argument for the existence of God that I cannot refute, I shall have to rethink my atheism. But the fact is that so far I have not come across any such argument. In an earlier thread, I tried to engage Onhell on this question. He seemed to be presenting arguments for why one should believe in God and when I tried to demonstrate their insufficiency, Onhell backed off and claimed to not be offering arguments at all but merely recounting the causes of his own belief with no indication that other's should share his belief nor, indeed, that his beliefs are true. And I suppose that's fine, if that' what he wants to do. But then he shouldn't accuse other's of being closed-minded.

If you offer arguments for the existence of God, I will consider them seriously and open-mindedly. If you don't, if you just repeat (ad nauseam) that this is something you feel strongly about, and that you have the right to such a belief, then you are in no position to accuse me of being closed-minded for not changing my mind; you have not given me any reason to change my mind.

Unless, perhaps, I am being closed-minded in asking for an argument in the first place. Perhaps the relgious-minded argound here will say that this isn't a matter of reason and argument, but a matter of faith. Well, if by 'faith' you mean believing in things without a reason, then I think it is you are are closed-minded.
 
oops...that was me above. Sorry! Forgot to log in.

One final point...

[!--QuoteBegin-Perun+Jan 25 2006, 05:26 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Perun @ Jan 25 2006, 05:26 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]As it is an undeniable truth for atheists that there is no God, it is an undeniable truth for Christians that God exists.
[snapback]127686[/snapback]​
[/quote]

Since I spoke highly of Perun's post above, let me take this opportunity to strongly disagree. I don't think it is an undeniable truth that there is no God. I think it is a simple, ordinary truth that is supported by reason and argument. If, however, one produced a strong, convincing argument against it, then I wouldn't think it is a truth after all and that it should therefore be denied.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Guest+Jan 25 2006, 04:21 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Guest @ Jan 25 2006, 04:21 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]
If you offer arguments for the existence of God, I will consider them seriously and open-mindedly.  If you don't, if you just repeat (ad nauseam) that this is something you feel strongly about, and that you have the right to such a belief, then you are in no position to accuse me of being closed-minded for not changing my mind; you have not given me any reason to change my mind.     
[/quote]

Okay, how about this one. If you don't believe that there is a God, and he created the universe, then you accept that we are currently having this argument as a result of insane odds; that a star of the right temperature would condense in our solar system; that the material left over from this star's creation would become nine planets, one of which had JUST the right position, orbital time, axis and rotary speed to facilitate the growth of particular single celled organisms. That over time these organims adapted so that they evolved, and eventually the world was populated by dinosaurs and other reptilians. That a comet/meteorite/other natural disaster of such devastating proportions smashed into earth/occured to wipe out said dinosaurs, which were the main limiting factor on our ancestors, mammals. That these mammals, by virtue of their small size, were able to survive, and become the mammals of the Pleistocene and other post-Mesozoic eras. That 2 million years ago, a monkey that it would be a better idea to walk a bit more upright to see stuff better. That man evolved, and gained sentience, enough to argue over whether a creator existed at all!

Sorry for the long paragraph, but if you don't believe in God, ironically, you actually must have more faith than most believers, in that you accept that the only reason we're here is by result of a GIANT fluke. Basically, if you don't have faith enough to accept something you can't prove, you can't become a Christian. The whole point of religion is putting trust in something you can't see, measure or record. Remember the test of Abraham? Or Moses'/Noah's faith in God?

I doubt this argument will win anyone over, because most atheists simply won't believe in something that might not exist. Again, sorry if this post sounds slightly harsh, I'm just trying to say what I think in simple, neutral terms. It's not supposed to be scathing or anything.

Oh, and Perun, I only mentioned about the Old and New Testaments because you mentioned your source was the Bible, which was written in the 1st Century AD. I didn't realise you meant only the gosepls were written in that era.
 
A giant fluke? That's exactly what life on earth as we know it is.

Life has arisen on many other worlds, only in different forms than the ones we know here. It's an event waiting to happen, and there's no reason why our "third rock from the Sun" would be the only one.

The "need" for a god stems from the time the first humans were looking for an explanation of the apparently supernatural phenomena they were witnessing (lightning, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, etc.). Humans have always needed an explanation for what they saw, and they also had a pretty good imagination. So they "invented" super-beings in charge of those unexplained phenomena... god of thunder, earth, air, etc.

One day, someone decided that only one god was in charge of the whole thing and the notion of monotheism was born. One janitor for the whole building. Easier than a whole army of independent gophers, right?

Besides, the awareness of our own end was also a big worry. Could our consciousness be switched off and turned to nothing just like that? Of course not! Humans are not only aware of life and death, but they're also very proud. We can't just go into oblivion like that! So they invented a god that was going to take care of that and ensure their "eternal life" by preserving their "soul" for "judgement day", when they can return if they behaved appropriately during their time on earth.

All those lovely stories are very reassuring and sound really nice. The problem is, they're just that: stories. We're trying to cope with the fact that we're nothing and will return to nothingness afterwards. If it helps some people, I'm fine with that. After all, this is not different from the stories that are told to kids so they behave nicely until they're able to distinguish fairytales from reality...
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Maverick+Jan 25 2006, 07:26 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Maverick @ Jan 25 2006, 07:26 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]A giant fluke? That's exactly what life on earth as we know it is.

Life has arisen on many other worlds, only in different forms than the ones we know here. It's an event waiting to happen, and there's no reason why our "third rock from the Sun" would be the only one.

The "need" for a god stems from the time the first humans were looking for an explanation of the apparently supernatural phenomena they were witnessing (lightning, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, etc.). Humans have always needed an explanation for what they saw, and they also had a pretty good imagination. So they "invented" super-beings in charge of those unexplained phenomena... god of thunder, earth, air, etc.

One day, someone decided that only one god was in charge of the whole thing and the notion of monotheism was born. One janitor for the whole building. Easier than a whole army of independent gophers, right?

Besides, the awareness of our own end was also a big worry. Could our consciousness be switched off and turned to nothing just like that? Of course not! Humans are not only aware of life and death, but they're also very proud. We can't just go into oblivion like that! So they invented a god that was going to take care of that and ensure their "eternal life" by preserving their "soul" for "judgement day", when they can return if they behaved appropriately during their time on earth.

All those lovely stories are very reassuring and sound really nice. The problem is, they're just that: stories. We're trying to cope with the fact that we're nothing and will return to nothingness afterwards. If it helps some people, I'm fine with that. After all, this is not different from the stories that are told to kids so they behave nicely until they're able to distinguish fairytales from reality...
[snapback]127729[/snapback]​
[/quote]

You know, I guessed you'd say something like that. Ah, what a cynical world we live in. I bet you don't believe in Santa Claus, either.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-SinisterMinisterX+Jan 25 2006, 03:13 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(SinisterMinisterX @ Jan 25 2006, 03:13 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]God is a myth. Your statement is inapplicable to reality.

It's a shame that you're sick of hearing the truth. Those who believe in any sort of god are deluded. However, I will admit the following two points:

1. The delusion of god can be harmless to others and beneficial to the deluded, if the deluded person uses their religion to guide them in being a better person and keeps it to themself.

2. Provided that the delusion isn't too severe, the deluded person can still be intelligent with regard to other areas.

[/quote]
for the exception of the "deluded" part I completely agree with you, in today's society one can believe whatever the hell he wants (including vampires and cat people) and still be a fucntional person in society.

[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]However, I draw the line at those who believe the biblical creation stories are literally true. That is flat-out stupidity. Persons who believe in the literal truth of those myths are out of their freaking minds. I do not consider such persons to be anything other than morons in every respect, and any statement made by such a person I take to be of highly questionable veracity. Nothing such a person says, with regard to any subject whatsoever, can be trusted. Any person who has that level of ability to disregard accepted scientific truths cannot be trusted to evaluate anything correctly, and all their "knowledge" is suspect.

I expect the above paragraph will offend some people. Let me make this perfectly clear:
If you want to be harmlessly deluded by most religious myths, fine. People rising from the dead? Wrong, but OK. Virgin birth? Wrong, but OK. The only myth that I draw the line at is the biblical creation myth. If you take that to be literally word-for-word true, you have no credibility in this thread as far as I'm concerned. You're either stupid or brainwashed, maybe both. And if that offends you, maybe you need to get your brain out of the 12th century.
[snapback]127680[/snapback]​
[/quote]


This is by far the dumbest thing you have ever posted SMX. keeping with what I said above in mind, I don't see why if person "A" believes that the world was created in 6 days then he doesn't have any credibility. I don't think someone with a Ph.d or an M.D has anymore credibility than Person "A". This is the type of narrow mindedness I was talking about. A person can believe whatever they want (as long as, like you said, they keep it to themselves and by that we mean don't force their believes on others) and not affect any other information he might hold (i.e there are 8 planets*, the sky is blue, etc) For example. if person "A" is your cardiologist and he tells you your heart has a blocked artery I doubt you'll be like "he's full of shit, he is not credible!" Mind you there aren't many fundamentalist scientist (but they do exist). Being intelligent or an idiot are completely independant of belief. Sure educated people tend to be more skeptical than high school drop outs, but there is no rule.

*someone, I think silky, mentioned something about 9 planets in one of their posts. For decades it has been debated whether Pluto is a planet or not and finally it has been settled that it is not. It is merely a stray asteriod from the Kieper belt outside the solar system. Now, since I'm a deluded individual with no credibility you folks just might want to google that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top