What's the thesis of the book?

Of course he's mentioned in the Koran, Jesus is considered a prophet for Islam too. Islam doesn't really have anything against Jesus, it is more the Christian worship of a prophet as a false idol that Islam opposes. It's still part of the Abrahamic mythology and so still influenced by the same myths and stories as the Bible was (it's is not an independently arising religion).

There have been lots and lots of books about Tintin. They're very good books, they have stories, they teach morals, but Tintin is still fictional.

You haven't watch much History channel, have you?

There have been records found else where in the world that support many of the stories told in the Bible. Yes, even going as far back as Noah.

There's a story of a King Noah who, in an attempt to pay off a large debt, built a large ship to carry and sell off lots of different animals. On the day of launching the ship, a huge storm arose and since his family was out over-seeing the launch, they ended up loading onto the boat themselves to escape the flood. The flood was caused by a breach in a natural low mountian range at a small section of the Mediterianian sea. According to senior scientist from Columbia University, "Ten cubic miles of water poured through each day, two hundred times what flows over Niagara Falls." "The Bosporus flume roared and surged at full spate for at least three hundred days." 60,000 square miles of land were inundated. 1 The Black Sea shoreline significantly expanded to the north and east. The lake's its water level was raised many hundreds of feet. It changed from a fresh-water landlocked lake into a salt water lake connected to the world's oceans."

Their theory has been verified in a number of ways:

-In 1999-summer, maritime explorer Robert D. Ballard and his team located the ancient coastline, almost exactly where Ryan and Pitman said that they would find it. The team dredged up samples of rocks from the old shore line of the New Euxine Lake. They found seven distinct species of salt-water mollusks, all of which were carbon dated as being from 2,800 to 6,820 years old. They also found two species of freshwater mollusks which ranged from 7,460 to 15,500 years old. This supports the theory that the Black Sea switched from being a fresh water lake to a salty sea about 7,000 years ago.

-A survey of the floor of the Black Sea shows that the river beds of the Dniester, Dnieper, Danube, Don, Volga and other rivers continue beyond the present sea shore for as much as a hundred miles. The river beds all stop at the same level. This would have been the ancient shoreline of the New Euxine Lake.

-A number of features have been detected on the bottom of the Black Sea near its old shoreline. They are shaped like tells -- a characteristic shape of the remains of ancient towns or cities.

-At one site, some 150 meters (500 feet) under water, archeologists found more than 30 stone blocks, pieces of wood and other objects -- possibly ceramics. The site "appeared uniquely rectangular." The stone blocks did not appear to be part of a natural geological formation. They tentatively conclude that they have found a site that was once occupied by people. 10

-A tell near Ilipinar which is south of the Bosporus Straight, has been excavated. At the approximately 5500 BCE level the excavation reveals a sudden change in pottery design. Archeologists have studied other tells in the area which also showed similar abrupt changes in pottery at the same time. This shows that one society was overrun by another culture at about the same time that the New Euxine Lake was flooded. Presumably the more recent culture were refugees from the flooded lake.

And as an addedn note:
"2000-FEB-17: Search for Noah's Ark: According to ReligionToday: "The explorer who discovered the wreck of the Titanic wants to find Noah's Ark. Robert Ballard will look in the Black Sea near the Bosphorous where a cataclysmic flood is believed to have occurred 7,500 years ago. Ballard, 57, will use a sonar exploration vessel, undersea search equipment, and a fleet of submarine robots, the Los Angeles Times said. He has discovered the wrecks of the Lusitania, the Nazi battleship Bismarck, U.S. and Japanese warships in the Pacific, and ancient Roman and Phoenician ships. Work begins in a few months."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noah.htm

Unfortunately, the last dispatch from Ballard was in September of 2000 where they had found a couple of wrecks using a newly installed sonar. Unfortunately, they were too recent to be Noah's arc. Apparently Ballard has taken his new toys back to the Titanic, nearly 20-years after his initial discovery of it.

[Edit]Apparently, he went back to the Black sea in 2003, but still no Ark.

I thought that was already a known fact? And since when does everybody have to interpret religion the exact same way?

Religion is a personal thing... if you want to take it literally, then so be it.

Bleh.

Tintin references many real-life events, Tintin visits the USSR, and the USSR most certainly existed. However, Tintin alone isn't evidence for the existence of the USSR. Tintin is still very good fiction.


Of course large floods and other natural disaters did happen, and they would be hugely significant for people of the time, so they would feature prominently in stories told at the time (much like the USSR was quite significant for the 20th century, and so naturally appears or influences 20th century fiction).

But as soon as you can start to explain these stories in terms of natural events, then they quite clearly aren't an act of God, no moreso than this recent earthquake.

The Bible is, at best, a fictionalised account of real events. Like Tintin.

Don't you mean that the USSR alone isn't enough evidence to support evidence of Tintin? That would have been a more accurate analogy anyway...



Perfect for use in telling stories centered around morals and values (considering what we've seen with Katrina), wouldn't you think?



I disagree. While I believe God seizes opportunities to teach lessons, it's no more less an "act" then if he'd caused the flooding himself. Like the warnings given prior to Katrina's landfall. The ones who could heed the warnings and took them seriously, left. Those who didn't (and were able to) were the ones foolish (or perhaps ingnorant) enough to believe that the systems set in place to protect the city from flooding, died or are now misplaced. Same applies to the Noah flood story. The moral of the story is that you shouldn't live in ignorance and over confidence and should heed warning that are significant (let's face it, I'd rather be safe then sorry).

I refer to a quote that I'm going to make my new signature...

"The creator in infinite wisdom, made every thing simple, people make it hard..."



Actually, I think it falls in a catagory in between. Anything based off of fact isn't totally ficticious. There's enough truth and meaning behind it to get the point across. The Bible is a guide, filled with examples, to not only illustrate Right from Wrong, but to also bring about an initimate understanding to the reader by giving examples they can relate to in their own life. This is true with anything in life. How can you understand something (rather it be Math, Science, Religion, or anything) if it has no meaning to you? How can you accept a Theory (scientific or otherwise) without first understanding the principles? Sometimes you even have to understand the scientist or theologist behind the theories, the background, what they were getting at or trying to accomplish, before the Theory has enough 'meaning' to you so that you can thoroughly understand it. This is why the Bible is written the way it is.

I think it's about time that an anouncement such as this from the Christian faith. It will now be much easier to convert Athiest then before when they don't have the crutch of "but other christians say the Bible should be taken literally." Now, as Christians, we can rebuttle with, "only the ignorant and the foolish."

Certainly, the Bible is a guide, but what makes it a better guide than Tintin?

Why not follow the adventures of Tintin, his personal struggle, the loyalty of Snowy, the courage of Captain Haddock? It's a whole lot more interesting, entertaining and better written than the Bible. And it has pictures.

Why should we accept the Bible as a moral guide? What makes the Bible special?

Because the Bible is written, either by or under the supervision of, God. (And Tintin, presumably, isn't.)

This is the only difference, and this is the difference that needs justification. But this is the difference for which there is no justification. The Bible provides no reasons for why we should believe in God, it only assumes that we do in order to accept everything else in it.


But the earthquake wasn't God. We know what earthquakes are, we know what causes them, and we can predict them. God doesn't cause earthquakes any more than he causes this data to be sent across phonelines.

I think your 'moral paralell' is rather tenuous. My Bible studies are more than a little rusty, but surely the whole point of the flood was because everyone was sinning and God wanted to kill everyone and start over again?
People trusting the flood banks to work against floods are.. overconfident? Sure, local officials not listening to scientists, that's a problem, but you can't really blame the citizens for trusting the institutions set up to help them, or else everyone would be perpetually living in a state of paranoia.

(And anyway, I wasn't talking about Katrina, I was talking about the earthquake in Pakistan)




If you start accepting the Bible as a 'moral handbook' and casually ignore the concept of God, you have to justify why the Bible is superior to the hundreds of secular works on morality (like Tintin!). As a philosophical piece, the Bible really isn't very good. It is internally inconsistent, has no real logical flow, and is deliberately ambiguous.
Who would accept the Bible? Why, only the ignorant and the foolish.

Same with a children's bible..... :p


But anyways, you know what's gay? My friend said (in 7th grade) in a book report (in the "What is your opinion" section) that he thought it was okay, but it would have been better if it had pictures.... and he got 10-20 points taken off because that was "inappropriate" or some such stupid answer.

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH LIKING PICTURES BOBDANGIT!!!

hehe, my parents nicknamed me after tintin. That's how I got the name tinny, sigh. Tinny the ignorant fool.

Personally, I don't think the gods are in the business of performing earthquakes either, but a good Christian would tell you that god could have been creating the conditions that led up to a certain event for thousands, if not millions of years. While that may sound ridiculous, if you assume there's a god, it's also quite possible.

It's so easy to think up simplistic excuses for stuff like that, that it holds no value at all. I could give you all the evidence in the world that god doesnt exist, and you'd just say "Well dude its cus he planted the evidence to see who was really faithful"...Personally I buy none of it. But whatever helps you to keep your firm grip on those straws i guess...

But all the evidence you have will not prove either way whether or not God exists... You can make the most convincing argument possible for the (non)existence of God, but you will still never KNOW for sure either way. You can only BELIEVE that what you say is true.

This is one agnostic argument I really don't like, because it goes without saying.

Does there exist knowledge that we don't know of? Of course. But we don't know it.
We can't speculate about hypothetical knowledge. Every single conclusion we make about anything ever has to be made using the knowledge we have here and now, and any 'truth' beyond that is irrelevant. We've not even come close to processing all the knowledge we already have, so you cannot rely on hypothetical future evidence to support an argument because it is just as likely that knowledge will be discovered to prove the opposite.

It should be even lower for using a dumb cliche.

He used it in a relatively fresh and creative manner, so he gets props.

Okay, I wasn't planning on posting to this thread any more after I posted. However, since you totaly misunderstood what I posted and twisted the words in such a manner that it justifies your position (major reasoning fallacy), I'm not just going to stand by and let you do it.



If nothing else, the Bible had a lot more time to mature and be well thought out.



I'm going to ignore the last statment in that as it's totally irrelevant. However, you could follow the adventrues of Tintin and learn quite a bit from it. However, it doesn't cover nearly as many individual lessons as the Bible does.



Why not? Are you refutting the morality of the 10 Commandments or anything else taught in the Bible? People accept it as a moral guide because they believe what it teaches is right and good.

This isn't to say that you can't refer to other sources to guide you as well. You'll certainly never hear me tell anyone that the Bible should be their only guide to life. Some of the stories simply don't apply to us now and we should appeal to new sources of moral literature that covers more modern issues (issues that didn't exist 100's or 1000's of years ago). Fortunately, most of this type of literature is consolidated and can be found in most Christian book stores.

(That's not to say that Christian literature is the only source for good moral literature, because it isn't. Other religous texts are also a good source of good moral literature).



No, but that could be a good enough reason for some people. It depends on the person.



It's not the only difference (read above). This is where the "faith" part comes in. The ultimates test. Can you truly love and follow a being that you can not prove exists? That is the heart of what "faith" is.



I know, I thought I made that quite clear. In fact, I specifically stated that he doesn't create the disasters, but mearly uses the natural events as an opportunity to test our resolve.



There's no such thing as a 'moral parallel.' There's right and there's wrong. No hazy or grey 'in between' stuff.



Not entirely. If you recall, Noah actually went out and warned everyone of the approaching storm and flood.



That's probably the most ignorant political statement I've ever heard. Yes, you can blame citizens for trusting the institutions set up to help them. In fact, that's the largest problem with the United States (and other countries) today. The citizens allow the "institution" (aka Government) babysit them and set up "protection laws" (ie, seatbelt laws). That's not how a government is supposed to operate. It's the citizens fault for allowing the government (aka "institution") to have that level of control and for the citizens to have that much "overconfidence" in them.

And no, people wouldn't 'perpetually live in a state of paranoia' if they stayed on top of things and made sure what their government (local or otherwise) was telling them was true and not the spoon feed crap they ussually give to make citizens feel all warm and cozy.



It doesn't matter, they're both natural disasters and Katrina was a better example as compared to the Noah flood story. So the fact you were talking about the earthquake is irrelevant.



I wanted to break this from the rest of the paragraph just point out that you are using an opinion (yours) and stating it as fact. This is a terrible reasoning fallacy and argument. Most scholors would surely disagree with you (and no, it's note because they hate pictures interupting the natural flow of text in their readings).

Not to mention that the Bible sells far more copies each year then Tintin.



It was an uncorridinated effort from the beginning. You CAN find versions that have rearranged the flow of the Bible so that it is more natural. However, for the sake of tradition, the original flow is used. Some find it quite artistic.

Please feel free to point out any inconsistancies you've found in the Bible. Firefox used to try to pull the "inconsistancy" card all the time in the old Religion Forum...I never let him get away with it though.



I disagree. I think you've never really given the Bible a chance. Although, I think you really meant to say, "Who would accept God? Why, only the ignorant and the foolish." To that I say, "Who wouldn't accept God? Why, only the ignorant and the foolish."

Knowledge is not only power...it's understanding. You can not accept what you don't (or refuse to) understand.

Point: Bevvil

I'm not too big on picking apart a post, and if I misunderstood your post then that's probably why (I picked a part and replied to it and thought it separate from something else, sorry), so I'll keep this in one chunk..

Your contention that there is only 'right' and 'wrong' and no 'grey area' inbetween is indeed something that the Bible teaches, but doesn't justify. Moral absolutism/relativism is of course a hugely important topic and has been central to philosophy for milennia. The Bible contains none of this discussion or thinking, and this is what makes it poor. The Bible merely says "This is right and this is wrong because God said so.". It outlines morality arbitrarily and gives it divine status. Yes, there's perfectly good reasons for why you should believe "Thou shalt not kill", but those reasons don't appear in the Bible. The Bible merely says "Thou shalt not kill" (or maybe it says 'murder', there's some dispute about that). Why should I not kill? Because God says so.

And the point I was making way back when I was making the point was that the Bible says "This is right and this is wrong, because God says so", but gives no justification for why we should believe in God in the first place.

Catholic moral teaching has always focused on "the truth," with God being the personification of it. The ten commandments are not arbitrarily chosen things to prove one's devotion to God, but rather a list of actions that are against truth and cause a person to live removed from reality.

For example, in reality a person's belongings are there's and not yours no matter how much you try to justify it to yourself through stealing. It is very simillar to Platonic or Aristotilian thought in the manner that the ultimate goal is the truth, and 'sin' is bad in that it removes oneself from reality and fosters habits which keep a person from the only thing tha can make them happy. The Church has often been criticised of using philisophical rather than biblical language in it's teachings, and at other times of relying too much on the Bible. It seems like a balance that sways from time to time.

I think the reason is that some Church teachers believe that faith was more the way to go, while others like Augustine and Aquinas needed more understanding. So while the Church has people like St. Francis or Mother Theresa who really seem to see God through great faith, without the need for great understanding, there are also those who need more than that like Augustine, or the other Church thinkers who make up the rich philisophical tradition.
It makes sense to me since it's said that Faith is a gift, which imples it isn't given to everyone in the same amount.

There really aren't many Church leaders who subscribe to creationism, or literalism, and the Church has never taught that as official doctrine. Attention has especially been paid in the last 40 years or so to show the philisophical truths behind the writing. I've heard of some Cardinal who thinks the current scientific view on evolution is incompatable with Catholic teaching, but for the most part I disagree. The only things the Church teaches on the matter as dogma are that God created man, and that man was not the spawn of an animal.

But what constitutes a man and what constitutes an animal? (Obviously this isn't a question with an easy answer, it's another hugely complicated and important topic that the Bible just completely ignores)

word.

P.S
Point: Bevvil

Good Question. I took it as given that that "man" meant "posessing a soul." But that in itself is a pretty murky definition.

I looked it up and it would appear that it means that God alone is the "immediate Creator of the human soul," and that many Catholics believe that the evolutionary theory may be judged by its own merits as long as this is not denied. That would appear to allow for man as a creature to have resulted through evolution, but not his soul.

The ease in which one comes up with an excuse has no bearing on its validity.

The problem is that you can't give evidence that god doesn't exist. My belief in the divine is based on logic, and until you can destroy that belief with logic, I'll continue on as I have for some time. I'm not one of the misinformed individuals that you may find here that believe that science and religion can't go hand in hand.

As I stated in the paragraph that you quoted, I don't buy that excuse either, but to deny it as a possibility is illogical. In other words, you can believe it's wrong, but you can't know it's wrong, unless you too have "faith" in that belief.

Wtf...your belief is not based on logic at all...Its based on faith...which is anti-logic. The believe in something when there is no logical, scientific evidence to prove that it is true. Unless you claim to have such evidence, in which case please share. Sure I can't prove you wrong, but you cant claim to be basing your believes on logic...thats wrong.

The only thing that smells of "anti-logic" is your presumption regarding my beliefs. Would you be so kind as to explain how my belief in the gods is illogical? I believe that all faith is blind.



I believe that it's more likely that the gods set the wheels of creation in motion, and that scientists, in their search for truth, can only hope discover the gods' methods. I find it more plausible that creation was "sparked" (for lack of a better term), by at least one intelligent being that has quite possibly always existed, than to believe in a universe that has always existed (Hawking's "imaginary time" is describing god), or an object that has always existed, which one day, without any reason, decides to spontaneously begin to create. In my opinion, it's quite possible that religion itself came about because of this line of thinking.

Please excuse my limited knowledge of science, and feel free to enlighten me on how I'm wrong, but I'm more interested in the philosophical side of such a debate. I tend to work things out in my own mind, instead of reading much on this subject, which may be a mistake, but it's certainly more fun.



I just did, and no it isn't. My beliefs are based on reason and observation, and I'd like for you to prove that it's instead "faith". The difference between myself and most people who believe in divine creation is that I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong. I don't pretend to believe in the gods without a doubt. I simply believe that my beliefs are more reasonable.

One very important thing that differentiates animals from humans is the capability of rational thought -- an intellect

Humans have it; animals do not.

This is also the source of our free will

A man can draw Tintin books. :p

But this really gets us nowhere. What is intellect? Pretty much all animals have the ability to communicate, lots can form complex social groups, and several can express themselves through art. Yes, humans are interesting animals, because the evolutionary line we followed is unusual (but not unique), but animals nonetheless.
And how do humans have 'free will' when animals do not?

My cat can think rationally. He figured out how to open doors using rational thought. He learned how to shake hands with people using rational thought. Now what? :p

I didn't make that, a stripper on the Orgy(the band) message board did.

I asked if I could use it though.

Yeah, well my dog can think rationally too.

He learned that if he poops in the house, I'm going to make him spend the day outside.

The Bible was written as a guide from God. No reason was necessary within the context in which the Bible was meant to be used. A guide is never a philosophical work. However, that is not to say that you can not take points, topics, or ideas from the Book and discuss it philosophically. What you, sir, are in quest of, is an "Idiot's Guide to Sin" that breaks down every little thing for you. The Bible isn't as simple as that. It wasn't designed to be described thoroughly in a 5-page essay. The Bible is taught at the College level. Like other college level texts, it's not going to spell everything out for you. YOU have to find the logical connection so that the words have a meaning to YOU. Which goes right back to what I said before about not being able to accpet what you don't understand. It's the quest for 'Truth' and Understanding of the world around you that helps you to grow as a human and for us to grow as race. In short, the Bible doesn't explain all of the reasoning behind every word because God wants you to use your brain to draw the connection of understanding "why?". Only then, will you have obtained that deeper understanding and fully know what the Bible has to offer you. God isn't just in the buisness of telling interesting stories, he's also in the buisness of teaching.



I've already answered this. It's Faith. The ultimate test of believing in a being that you can not definitively prove exists.

There are 100's of reasons to believe in him and I have yet to hear one good reason why not to...

Let's say you start today believing in Him. And tomorrow or 100 yrs from now you die. At that moment, if he doesn't exist, have you really lost anything? If nothing else, you gained the comfort of knowing there's someone looking over/after you and no matter who leaves you (or dies off) you're never alone (even if he never really existed). What if He does exist? Then you've gained eternal life and happiness. What if He does exist and you never believed? Then you'll suffer eternal damnation in Hell.

Me personally? I'd rather be safe then sorry...

No, it's just likely that you were conditioned by family and society to believe in god and the bible. Your parents were christian, so you are too.



-The freedom to form your own morals.
-Freedom from dogma.
-The truth.
-Time.
-Energy expended on a lie.
-Quite possibly money.



Mental masturbation. If god doesn't exist and (indicated by your use of if nothing else) then there's really no other way to describe that. You'd be lying to yourself to make yourself feel better. I don't see any good in that.



If god inflicts eternal suffering on me (or anyone) because I am not Christian, I would gladly reside in Hell.

That's Pascal's Wager, the idea that if even if an atheist is correct, he has no more to gain from belief in atheism than if a theist is wrong.

There's two problems with it.
Firstly, it ignores there thousands of different religions across cultures and history, every single one of those having equal probability of being 'truth' and the tiny chance you have of picking the 'correct' one.
Secondly, an atheist will (probably, but not necessarily) believe that this is the only life you're ever going to have. Belief in something that is false is wasting the only life you're ever going to have.
And also, it paints a rather shallow picture of God, if mere 'faith in God' is the only (or the primary) thing that he's going to reward. An atheist that has lived a good yet godless life should surely recieve greater recognition than a theist that has lived a horrible life. That isn't a God I particularly want to believe in.



As for why I don't believe in God... well, we've done this whole thing loads of times (and is the main reason why I want the religious forum back, so we can exhaust them and sticky them, rather than bring them back up again every few months).
The reason why I'm an atheist rather than an agnostic is because of a series of arguments outlining the logical inconsistencies within the qualities of God (it isn't really the concept of God or gods that is the issue, but rather the conflicts between omnipotence, omniprescence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, etc.). And because I consider a lot of agnostic arguments to be lazy and self-evident.
The reason why I'm not a theist is decidedly more simple. Why God? I have no problem living my life without God, I have no problem explaining events without God, I don't need no stinkin' God. What is the point of God? As a metaphor for the unknown? As a feel-good father figure? As a meta-physical totalitarian leader? I don't need, or want, any of that (unlike a lot of fellow atheists, I might add, they are often quite angry at God for not existing and consider it to be a romantic idea. I don't.)

I certainly welcome your logical inferences for the existance of God, but I do fear that they will be arguments by creation ("Look at this flower! Look how pretty and complex it is! It must have been created!" and other Watchmaker-style arguments), which are quite boring. Although I may well be pre-empting unfairly!

Agnostic arguments are lazy? The only strictly agnostic argument I'm aware of is it's impossible to know whether god exists. Self-evident, perhaps, but hardly lazy. I think it's a commendable viewpoint. You don't know if it took that agnostic 10 years to reach that conclusion or 10 seconds. It may be that an agnostic has gone through blood, sweat, and tears to come to that conclusion, and labelling their belief as lazy is uncalled for.

That's a bit exagerated (to say the least). There may be thousands of different denominations, but not thousands of different religions. Of the few different religions that are actually out there, the majority of them share the same if not a similier God. Almost all religions feature a single God. Some of them also feature gods and godesses, which, by the wording of the 1st commandment, is completely acceptible ("Thy shall not have any other gods before me." Meaning, you can't have a god that you worship above (before) Him).

So, more accurately, the probablity of choosing any religion and it being "right" is actually quite high. None of the religions I've seen that don't violoate the 1st commandment, are necessarily "wrong." It's a foolishly held belief that you must choose one and hope that it's the "right" one. It's more of a preference. I, for one, do not follow any of the main stream religions (at least not strickly speaking). My beliefs, while heavily influnced by Christianity, are different enough that it would technically classify as a totally different religion. In short, what I've done is tailored the 'idea' of religion to my preferences (and extensive research). My religion is therefor, "right" for me...but probably not for you (even though I have a much more logical take on religion and God, which might actually appeal to you).



This is a huge Atheist fallacy. It stems from either ignorance, a "get out of arguement" card, or a combination of the two. Having a belief in a religion is probably no more time consuming then having a firmly held belief in a favorite Theory. It's just thoughts in the back of your mind. Now if you want to join a church or other religious circles, then yes, it can become a little time consuming (but not without it's rewards as an ability to grow as a social creature). I have filled times that I've been bored with research on religion. So it's not a waste of time. All in all, if nothing else, at least I've perhaps gained the knowledge of a moral lesson (or two) in the course of the research, so there again, not a waste.



1st, a "theist" that has lived a horrible life will not gain the reward of everlasting life. You can not mearly belief in Him and then continue a life of darkness. It doesn't work like that. The old saying of "once saved, always saved" only applies if you truly meant it when you confessed and accepted Him.
2nd, God doesn't care how great of a life you lived. The major (yet simple) test he gives us in life is Faith. You either pass it or you fail it.



Can you point me to said "series of arguments outlining the logical inconsistencies with the qualities of God)"? And please don't link me back to Mr. Wrong as Firefox once did...



At the very least, I prefer the chance of eternal life over the chance of eternal damnation...but that's me...eternity is an awfully long time to be damned...



Admitedly, my "faith" in God is actually rather false. I don't believe in God because of "faith" and I do understand why it is so hard for another to believe solely on that. I give you my testimony:
I know there is a God because he revealed himself to me...in a very unique way. I was at a Christian Youth Camp when a counceler asked our focus (small) group if we truly believed in the existance of God. Up until that point, I had always believed...but I didn't know.
As I sat outside, alone (everyone had left to walk down to the beach), I ponder the question "does He really exist?" I looked up into the sky and that's when I heard the most beautiful sound you could ever imagine. It was very high pitched singing (higher then what humans are capable of producing...and generally hearing). You see, my right ear can hear higher-then-normal pitches, while my left ear can hear lower-then-normal pitches. It was this unique physical condition under this unique situation, that allowed me to hear this sound. To this day I can not logically explain it. There were no speakers around (nor anybody around, for that matter). I studied music in high school and have self taught myself further since then and realize that the music was not naturally created by the wind moving through leaves, etc. This was the real thing....it sill bring a tear to my eye each time I recall the event.
At any rate, it was then I knew that God existed and all doubt had be cast aside. I'm sure you'll simply dismiss it, but I've heard similer amazing tesimonies from family members that are just as impossible to disprove with logic and reason (such as my mother, born without a sense of smell, for one brief moment in church, she prayed for herself to have a sense of smell, and for a brief moement after that, she did).

However, I understand now more then ever, the need to find the logical connections between us and God. This such that I can help lead other, logical-reasonable people to understanding God and what he can do for you in your quest for more knowledge and self-growth.

The power of the human mind is what is responsible for that smell thing, not god.

A cat pulling on a door handle is little more than associative learning. He is recognizing that downward motion or twisting on a door handle makes it open. Whether that is on a concious, rational level, I'm not sure. But I would have to say that it is above a basic association.

Shaking hands, however, is just an association. You grab the cat's paw, shake it, give it a treat. Maybe say a word. At least that's how it works for a dog. Once the association is formed, the cat or dog knows that the the spoken word or a hand under its paw means it's time to shake and to get a treat. Well, the association would be just as easily formed without food, but most animals wouldn't be as willing to learn.

The more I read about animal intelligence the more I start to question just exactly what it is to be intelligent. Chimpanzees often aren't considered intelligent or sentient, but what if you compare one to say, a severely mentally handicapped human? Is such a human intelligent and sentient? I think we place intelligence and sentience at fixed points. I think intelligence is more like a continuum. Human brains have all or almost all the same parts as chimp brains, just larger and more evolved. Couldn't a chimp be intelligent, just much more "stupid" and less aware than a human?

Sentience is another hard thing to pinpoint...but not as much as being just "intelligent." If sentience is self-awareness, then I'd have to say that a being is sentient if it is capable of communicating, with language, that it is sentient. So far no other animals on this planet have been able to do that (unless there are hobbits living in the middle of the Earth!). Or unless dolphins are like, sentient but just don't bother with us. "Goodbye and thanks for all the fish!"

...er yeah, sorry about the tangent. Is it obvious I've been doing a lot of reading on intelligence and cognition for school?

Dolphins and whales have been shown to communicate with a language all their own. And if dolphins were highly intelligent, how would we know anyways? Their bodies aren't adapted for living on land so they could never create a civilization or anything. They really have no way of showing their intelligence to us, beyond the ways they already have...haven't they been known to lead ships to safety? That seems like an incrediblity smart thing to do to me...not the fact that they CAN lead them to safety but the fact that they CHOOSE to.