Can we please refrain from making references to the Bible?

Will do. But considering that the OP asked a specific question about Christianity, we'll be threading on the rule's edges.

 

Even the bible has gaps ... like the evolution evidence. Some say the bible is nothing more than oral history. Time, as we know it, may or may not correlate well with that oral history.

We have no frame of reference for that.

It would be nice if the evolutionary record or the bible were better.

Even a well know author who wrote a book about his roots, the record was sketchy, even when he was found guilty of plagiarism.

 

I have reconciled this in my own mind but I'm as busy as a one legged man at a butt kicking contest right now, and my answer is very long. There is no simple way to get from, "here I am" to, "Life the Universe and Everything". If this Thread is still running when I get a break you will hear from me.

 

I lost interest in organized religion at a very early age when I saw that the answers the catholics gave to questions in their teaching were just circular arguments with no real answers.That also applied to most religions anyway. NOBODY has the final answers to the question of life. "42"maybe?
I was sorta hoping that JC would come back in 2000 as so many thought and sort out the so-called "nasties" in the world but I realized they would probably do a forgiveness deal and get let off.
I kind of like the Buddhist religion. They don't believe in any great god but you get to Nirvana by living the "right way" although it has now also been corrupted over the years. Oh well, I'll let you all know what its like when I get there( if I get an internet connection)

 

I kind of like the Buddhist religion. They don't believe in any great god but you get to Nirvana by living the "right way" although it has now also been corrupted over the years.

The first and only time I heard about (from a Buddhist lady), she explained that it was a philosophy and not a religion, oriented to live a better life.

Most in your post reflects part of my feelings.

 

Can we please refrain from making references to the Bible?

Just curious. Why that MrChips? Is ofense being taken or you consider it not good enough as a valid informative mass of data?

 

Just curious. Why that MrChips? Is ofense being taken or you consider it not good enough as a valid informative mass of data?

Fundamentalists take every word of the Bible as truth.
Then we have to accommodate the religious writings of every other religion. Do we want to go there?

 

Then we have to accommodate the religious writings of every other religion. Do we want to go there?

My view is that when a topic is being presneted an discused rationally there is on issue.

It's when someone goes half wit troll over stupid easily disproven stuff or to just be disruptive that action needs to be be taken and so far I see zero evidence of that trolling here.

 

The problem is there is no religious, political, economic, etc. viewpoint that can be universally acceptable, so what's the point of arguing, or discussing rationally. It always ends up with one person wanting to impose his/her viewpoint on to another person.

 

Will do. But considering that the OP asked a specific question about Christianity, we'll be threading on the rule's edges.

I think the best idea is to discuss the theory or Mans necessity of requiring (or not) religious beliefs without getting in to any detailed discussion of the present day recognized religious institutions.
I think this is more in keeping with the original intent of the OP.
Max.

 

People also forget that all of the founding fathers of your country (and mine) were all Christian.

I'm not so sure about that, at least in the US. There is some evidence that many (Jefferson and Washington as an example) while believing in God or a supreme being, also had other thoughts on religion that weren't openly discussed and now taught in school.

 

Is anyone heard any compelling theories about intelligent design other than the modern creationist Theory? Aliens perhaps?

Ever watch the history channel series Ancient Aliens? While most of it is way out there some of it is about things that no one can explain. If you see the ruins on top of a mountain in South America, built with stones weighing thousands of tons, that came from the base of the mountain. And the stones are put in place and so well crafted that they fit together with no real gaps, I find that beyond the ability of men from the age that the buildings were built.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiwanaku

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumapunku

 

People also forget that all of the founding fathers of your country (and mine) were all....

Whoa! I'm not sure about that one. I understand that the land was stolen by some European nationals.

 

Ever watch the history channel series Ancient Aliens? While most of it is way out there some of it is about things that no one can explain. If you see the ruins on top of a mountain in South America, built with stones weighing thousands of tons, that came from the base of the mountain. And the stones are put in place and so well crafted that they fit together with no real gaps, I find that beyond the ability of men from the age that the buildings were built.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiwanaku

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumapunku

I have watched the Ancient Aliens show, and just like religion, just like mainstream scientific theories, there were some things that made sense and a lot of things that didn't. Enough things sounded like hogwash that I stopped watching. But the stone structures on mountains are definitely an intriguing unanswered question in my book. I don't rule out the possibility of extraterrestrial intervention; actually it's the theory that seems most likely in my book.

I have often pondered what extraterrestrials would look like if we met them. I wouldn't be surprised if they were human.

 

I have often pondered what extraterrestrials would look like if we met them. I wouldn't be surprised if they were human.

By all present standards who we are and how we live now, as viewed by someone from 10,000 years ago (that still by evolutionary standards is identical to us in every detail) we would be Gods and well worth worshiping for favors.

 

The problem is there is no religious, political, economic, etc. viewpoint that can be universally acceptable, so what's the point of arguing, or discussing rationally. It always ends up with one person wanting to impose his/her viewpoint on to another person.

Imposing? Or showing valid proof that their belief is not logically or factually founded?

For example, If you think you have that right to believe that 2 + 2 = 7 I also have the right to disagree and point out why you are wrong. You may say I am 'imposing my views' but I am not. I am trying to educate you on you obvious false belief/misunderstanding. You may not like it but it is in fact not actually wrong.

That's where I see the problem. Showing some that they are wrong is not being disrespectful, we do that here daily on electronics and like principles all the time. What is disrespectful is acting like childish ass, in so many ways, when you have been solidly proven wrong in that your belief in fact has zero foundation to stand on beyond total ignorance, defiant foolishness or worse.

 

Imposing? Or showing valid proof that their belief is not logically or factually founded?

For example, If you think you have that right to believe that 2 + 2 = 7 I also have the right to disagree and point out why you are wrong. You may say I am 'imposing my views' but I am not. I am trying to educate you on you obvious false belief/misunderstanding. You may not like it but it is in fact not actually wrong.

That's where I see the problem. Showing some that they are wrong is not being disrespectful, we do that here daily on electronics and like principles all the time. What is disrespectful is acting like childish ass, in so many ways, when you have been solidly proven wrong in that your belief in fact has zero foundation to stand on beyond total ignorance, defiant foolishness or worse.

Why would you insist that 2 + 2 = 7 is incorrect? What fundamental laws do you have to back your argument?

I can also make the claim that 7 + 7 = 16 with an equal amount of veracity.

 

Imposing? Or showing valid proof that their belief is not logically or factually founded?

For example, If you think you have that right to believe that 2 + 2 = 7 I also have the right to disagree and point out why you are wrong. You may say I am 'imposing my views' but I am not. I am trying to educate you on you obvious false belief/misunderstanding. You may not like it but it is in fact not actually wrong.

That's where I see the problem. Showing some that they are wrong is not being disrespectful, we do that here daily on electronics and like principles all the time. What is disrespectful is acting like childish ass, in so many ways, when you have been solidly proven wrong in that your belief in fact has zero foundation to stand on beyond total ignorance, defiant foolishness or worse.

I don't disagree with you at all, but you are debating a mod about a rule that the mod made in an effort to guide the thread in a direction that wouldn't get it shut down.
I would prefer to keep the thread open, and make no mistake, I see this thread as an instance of "giving just enough rope to hang oneself."
Hell, it spent its first 2 days in quarantine before anyone was even allowed to reply to it. It walks a fine line.
I wish we could discuss the content of the book too, but that's a landmine that has been placed for us so let's not step on it.

 

I have watched the Ancient Aliens show, and just like religion, just like mainstream scientific theories, there were some things that made sense and a lot of things that didn't. Enough things sounded like hogwash that I stopped watching. But the stone structures on mountains are definitely an intriguing unanswered question in my book. I don't rule out the possibility of extraterrestrial intervention; actually it's the theory that seems most likely in my book.

I have often pondered what extraterrestrials would look like if we met them. I wouldn't be surprised if they were human.

Extraterrestrials, definitely possible. There have been a number of objects discovered that are much too advanced for the time. Or perhaps the level of knowledge and skill was higher that we assume in our linear thinking and all was lost...

Simple example - for the longest time biologists thought that great whites do not really migrate. I can see why they would formulate this hypothesis - why leave the shore where the food is? Its been only a few years since this was revised...

 

There have been a number of objects discovered that are much too advanced for the time. Or perhaps the level of knowledge and skill was higher that we assume in our linear thinking and all was lost...

sure, that's also a plausible answer. I wonder how many times we have risen from hunter-gatherers to advanced civilization and back again. I wonder how advanced civilizations became before our recorded history. Many years ago before the guy with the big hair on the History Channel, I had a fascination with the theories about Atlantis. Some believe they had manned flight. I don't remember where that theory came from, but I doubt there was much evidence to support it.

That's why I consider extraterrestrial intervention to be (only slightly) more plausible; because of the lack of evidence .... of anything. It seems to me that if we were once (or more than once) a highly technologically advanced civilization, we would have left behind some evidence of our technology. But the only remains are primitive tools (and no tool marks on those stone structures BTW). We have these advanced remains on mountains and under the sea, no solid explanation how they got there.