Friend found religion...

[realBabelfish]

Of course there is, it's a census not an election.

up until quite recently you didnt have the option. some still dont know.

 

[Salsa]

I see this thread has gone the same way as every other religious thread on OCUK.

OP makes reference to religion in some way shape or form.

The lolreligion brigade get wind of it and immediately arrive in force to point and laugh, and rage about the brainwashing of society.

One forum member, usually one who has faith, posts their opinion. Often their posts make reference to scripture or religious teachings.

This enrages the resident literal-translationists who immediately enter the thread attacking the poster who made reference to scripture or teachings from a religious book asking them to provide proof and scientific facts to back up their arguments.

Another forum member, possessed of more refined reasoning skills and a perhaps less biased view, posts a balanced argument considering both viewpoints and neither siding with one or the other. (It is at this point the the lolreligion brigade and the literal-translationists are hopelessly out of their depth)

Enter the fundamental atheists!! Thread deteriorates into endless postings of YouTube clips of Hitchens and Dawkins interspersed with posts confessing their absolute belief (oh the ironing) that religion is a load of tosh and has no place in today’s society.

Thread ends up locked...

We should have a cookie cutter thread template with the standard responses and members can just put their names against posts to save time and effort next time.

/Salsa

 

[Tekgun]

Ok, to repeat a point from a previous post. Let's assume that as of now the Bible doesn't claim to be inspired. All it is therefore is just another historical writing. Do you now accept the accounts in it? If not, then do you accept that many other historians from similar time periods are also wrong?

The difference between non-religious and religious historical records for me would be the actual likelihood of the event happening, and the believability of it. Also there would possibly be evidence that backs up the account.
A religious text usually asks for the reader to believe things that are impossible to prove, and if we are being honest fantastical at least.

 

[realBabelfish]

I see this thread has gone the same way as every other religious thread on OCUK.

OP makes reference to religion in some way shape or form.

The lolreligion brigade get wind of it and immediately arrive in force to point and laugh, and rage about the brainwashing of society.

One forum member, usually one who has faith, posts their opinion. Often their posts make reference to scripture or religious teachings.

This enrages the resident literal-translationists who immediately enter the thread attacking the poster who made reference to scripture or teachings from a religious book asking them to provide proof and scientific facts to back up their arguments.

Another forum member, possessed of more refined reasoning skills and a perhaps less biased view, posts a balanced argument considering both viewpoints and neither siding with one or the other. (It is at this point the the lolreligion brigade and the literal-translationists are hopelessly out of their depth)

Enter the fundamental atheists!! Thread deteriorates into endless postings of YouTube clips of Hitchens and Dawkins interspersed with posts confessing their absolute belief (oh the ironing) that religion is a load of tosh and has no place in today’s society.

Thread ends up locked...

We should have a cookie cutter thread template with the standard responses and members can just put their names against posts to save time and effort next time.

/Salsa

i think the OP was a little different as to me it seems more cultish than normal religion. the fact he know thinks sci-fi is the devil leads me to think he has been brainwashed by the group.

 

[fez]

The difference between non-religious and religious historical records for me would be the actual likelihood of the event happening, and the believability of it. Also there would possibly be evidence that backs up the account.
A religious text usually asks for the reader to believe things that are impossible to prove, and if we are being honest fantastical at least.

Thats what I can quite understand. If you believe the bible and take it literally you must be nuts.

The other option is to take it as a guide and that these stories are simply a means to an end with the idea of teaching morals. If thats the case though, then why on earth would you give any more credence to the bible than any other self help book.

I just can't remedy that one. Religion relies on the idea that there are people or things with mystical powers which has absolutely zero proof. Take that away though and what makes religion special or anything more than the idea of a group of mortal men. Either way, I cannot fathom religion.

 

[manic mushroom]

I just typed out a huge rant on this and then the forum decided to log me out and I lost all of it so this will be a genaral jist of it......

tbh I think your friend have been brainwashed by some fine fine ass(or not I dont know as you didnt say) and has is just weak minded.

People who are religious should be sectioned under the mental health act as they are clearly delusional and mental.

they believe that some omnipitant being created any and everything in 7 days rather than the big bang....OK I cant quite see how the big bang happered, nothing atall into an ever expanding universe, Its an damn more plausable than some woman getting pregnant from never having sex, I recon she was raped and was too ashamed to tell anyone, because in that day and age they would not have a syringe or anything to put sperm into her baby maker far enough to make her pregnant.

they believe that someone made everything including adam and eve, and that the dinosours were put there by the devil to question there faith and all the scienctific evidence that proves that man evolved from the primordial soup, to fish, to monkeys to humans is all wrong and that adam and eve created it all.

come off it, so your saying that 2 people had kids, then they had more children from there children, and having more children from your grandchildren and children and thier children having children from each other was what happered.

The world was not created by insest because they would be complete freaks and inbred this day and age, everyone would be like the elephant man and the human race would have not have lived to this day and age due to inbreeding.

Panda's dont have sex and the male pandas only have a one inch dingle due to inbreeding, so what would man have???

they believe that jesus was a zombie who could do magic (feeding the 5000 with one fish and one loaf of bread, and could turn water into wine. yeah right) and that god could do magic like damn harry potter or sabrina the teenage witch.

If no-one believed in god whos to say that he exists...I mean belief is why people think he as real in the first place.

I live in hope that I will sleep with scarlett johansson with the red hair from the avengers but that will never happeren, but I still believe and live in hope. Its the same with god, people only believe in him because they want too and are insecure in there lives and death.

religion and gods in general are for the weak minded, insecure and mental.

They have an invisible friend, who can do magic, and he had a son, who could also do magic, who eventally turned out to be a zombie.

when you die, thats it, the electrical impulses stop and thats it, you become food for worms and then they become food for the birds and you become the cycle of life (lion king referance lol)

as you can tell, I have quite a strong opinion on this and will not be swayed by anyone preaching at me and will tell them to **** off

 

[ringo747]

if he thinks its more of a brainwashing cult then yes, speak to parents. or ask parents if he seems ok to them? if he is acting weird and being aggressive it doesnt seem like normal actions to me. how do you know they arent some Moonie cult? Wako etc...

It might only be your opinion that makes it a 'brainwashing cult'? Unless you know exactly what it is like you can't interfere in someone else's life. If a non-religious person starts acting agressive would you consider a possible consultation with the parents in that case too?

regarding the aholes comment i mean that some very religious people dont hold christian values. like where my mum used to work (religious schools dept as a secretary) and they were all trying to stitch each other up. she left in the end because of their actions. they didnt sound very Christian to me.

This is such a common misunderstanding among those who seek to slate Christians. Is there anywhere in the Bible that says that Christians are perfect? No. The act of becoming a Christian involves a transaction whereby one is classed as being forgiven for wrongdoing etc. It doesn't alter the fact that we are still human and our nature still will encourage us to do wrong things. You don't have to teach a child to do wrong as it is in our nature.

Christians who are living properly should live their lives as good examples to others. This isn't to say that everyone does. Many people have become Christians but lose interest and drift away from what they first believed. They will would call themselves Christians but their level of conviction may be somewhat decreased.

So in simple terms - religion doesn't make anyone perfect. On the other hand I have seen first hand how it can change people for the better.

i said organised religion - please dont deliberately misquote me. organised religion was established to create control over the people. wasnt there a passage in the bible saying that god has no church etc... oh no, that one was left out wasnt it. but it was part of the dead seas scrolls or some other ones that the church tried to bury.

What do you mean by organised religion exactly? My church is completely autonomous and has no regional head/governing body or anything like that. There are a few elders who are responsible for what goes on. There is no subscription, no money spinning rackets or anything like that. I haven't felt under pressure from anyone in my church to live a certain way. I take my instruction on good practices for living from the Bible - not from any person.

yes, religious and none-religious both have *********. no doubt. but surely a 'good christian' should be a better person than one of us heretics? they dont seem to be to me.

I believe that it is possible for non-religious to be even better people than a Christian. I am certain that there are people who do far more for charity than I do, they give more time to others, they are better neighbours, they are more caring etc. We are talking about one isolated case in the OP aren't we?

dont several other religions also have a raising of the dead. in fact a lot of the bible is just taken from other religions. it was all done 400+ years after the fact when they all sat down and agreed what they would add and what they wouldnt. not a single jot of proof though.

the accounts are all written hundreds of years after the dates. gone through many translations. basically chinese whispers.

fair play, you have faith. more power to you. but there is still no proof for anything. there are records of jesus being an ordinary man then hundreds of years later he is turned from preacher into son of god. by committee.

i seriously think you need to do some more research

Have you ever heard of Josephus? A Jewish historian in roughly AD35-100. Is that really 400 years after the event? The thing to consider there is the fact that he was a Jew. Why on earth would a Jew have recorded anything about Jesus and resurrection.

Look at the account by Luke (probably written AD 60) - if we assume that the writing was not inspired then we have to take it as a historical account. So where does that leave us? We have a doctor who indicates that he has carefully investigated the background and so is recording the historical recollections of others.

There are a few questions that must be answered:

- If there were only 4 or 5 men making this all up then why was no official publication ever recorded that put the matter right?
- Would the apostles all have lost their lives over something that they had made up?
- Within approximately 100 years or so there was huge persecution of Christians suggesting that Christianity was becoming widespread. Why would people consider a faith with such severe consequences if there was no evidence? They would surely have heard accounts from others to back up the resurrection for example.
- Why would a Jewish historian confirm many of the facts that are also recorded in the Bible. Josephus records the death of John the Baptist for example.

The difference between non-religious and religious historical records for me would be the actual likelihood of the event happening, and the believability of it. Also there would possibly be evidence that backs up the account.
A religious text usually asks for the reader to believe things that are impossible to prove, and if we are being honest fantastical at least.

Again let's imagine that the Bible isn't inspired. We now have a series of historical records. Do you accept them as being worth further investigation or do you instantly claim they are rubbish?

 

[Haggisman]

I have said it before that the resurrection is one of the most well attested claims in the Bible. What is so shocking about the reporting of a rumour that supposedly spread like wildfire in the local area with the aim of denouncing the resurrection? History is allowed to record rumour as well as events or anything else.

What I don't understand is that we supposedly have historical proof of things that happened millions of years ago and yet literal historical records which have been found thousands of years ago are rubbished.

Lets see.

Historical accounts of various mundane events, verified by archaeological records = believable.
Historical accounts of impossible events (e.g. immaculate conception, resurrection), verified by... well... nothing = lolworthy.

There is absolutely no link between having eternal salvation and being a **** to other people? You could have any belief or no belief and still be a **** to other people. In this example the person being a **** just happens to be religious.

Congratulations on totally missing the point. I never said anyone was being a ****, I said it was sad that some people need the promise of heaven to be nice to others, and the threat of hell to not be a ****, what's wrong with being kind and looking out for people just for the sake of it?

While the end result is the same, I'd almost go so far as to say atheists who are kind to others are actually nicer people, as religious people are just faking it in order to avoid everlasting damnation

 

[steve-h]

It's not hard to pwn religious people's arguments, OP... give it a bash.

 

[MrViper]

emotional blackmail is a tool of their trade

 

[fez]

Have you ever heard of Josephus? A Jewish historian in roughly AD35-100. Is that really 400 years after the event? The thing to consider there is the fact that he was a Jew. Why on earth would a Jew have recorded anything about Jesus and resurrection.

Look at the account by Luke (probably written AD 60) - if we assume that the writing was not inspired then we have to take it as a historical account. So where does that leave us? We have a doctor who indicates that he has carefully investigated the background and so is recording the historical recollections of others.

There are a few questions that must be answered:

- If there were only 4 or 5 men making this all up then why was no official publication ever recorded that put the matter right?
- Would the apostles all have lost their lives over something that they had made up?
- Within approximately 100 years or so there was huge persecution of Christians suggesting that Christianity was becoming widespread. Why would people consider a faith with such severe consequences if there was no evidence? They would surely have heard accounts from others to back up the resurrection for example.
- Why would a Jewish historian confirm many of the facts that are also recorded in the Bible. Josephus records the death of John the Baptist for example.



Again let's imagine that the Bible isn't inspired. We now have a series of historical records. Do you accept them as being worth further investigation or do you instantly claim they are rubbish?

You are using very dodgy evidence and if it were fact I'm afraid. 2000 years ago, information wasn't disseminated that well and someone who was considered your better could do what they pleased. Its not very likely that in an age of superstition and religion that people would say "wait a second, all this stuff we are hearing sounds a little far fetched, lets investigate". If religion relied on proof there would be no religion.

People join cults every day, plenty of people have died / committed suicide in the name of a "religious" figure so I don't see why it would be any different in an age where information was not freely available and people were easily led.

To say that people wouldn't follow christianity without proof is sheer madness. Thats exactly what every christian does these days so why would it be any different then. The ideas of christianity were appealing and the idea of an eternity in heaven isn't too bad.

Do you think that Christianity has any more weight to it than Scientology? I just ask because I don't see how the two are different really. Both rely on you believing in something that has no proof only one is a lot older than the other. 2000 years from now, will people be making the same argument that "thousands of people wouldn't follow a religion without proof" thus scientology must have a basis in reality.

 

[ringo747]

I just typed out a huge rant on this and then the forum decided to log me out and I lost all of it so this will be a genaral jist of it......

If this is your quick version then I am absolutely gutted to miss your original masterpiece.

tbh I think your friend have been brainwashed by some fine fine ass(or not I dont know as you didnt say) and has is just weak minded.

People who are religious should be sectioned under the mental health act as they are clearly delusional and mental.

I would happily go for a check up if you insist. Would you be available for comment if I come back classed as sane?

they believe that some omnipitant being created any and everything in 7 days rather than the big bang....OK I cant quite see how the big bang happered, nothing atall into an ever expanding universe, Its an damn more plausable than some woman getting pregnant from never having sex, I recon she was raped and was too ashamed to tell anyone, because in that day and age they would not have a syringe or anything to put sperm into her baby maker far enough to make her pregnant.

You seem to miss the fundamental point. If the Bible is true then God is who he claims to be. What is so unusual about someone claiming to be God doing pretty spectacular things?

Is the big bang officially fact yet? That is another topic totally so let's move on. I just would love to be able to work out in my head how there was nothing originally and now we have the woman that you refer to. Was there always male and female? Were all the constants in the universe just magically set from instantly after the big bang? Was the speed of light always the same? Was mavity always there? Was it just by complete chance that all the 'settings' to allow human life were put in place? I don't know the answers but they are interesting questions.

You reckon she was raped? Maybe you should publish your theories and make a pound or two. Can you share how you came to that conclusion? I'm happy to listen.

they believe that someone made everything including adam and eve, and that the dinosours were put there by the devil to question there faith and all the scienctific evidence that proves that man evolved from the primordial soup, to fish, to monkeys to humans is all wrong and that adam and eve created it all.

Dinosaurs put there by the devil? New one to me that. Care to enlighten me? If scientific evidence has proven that we evolved from the soup then why are we even having this topic? I'd have expected a news headline saying that the Bible has finally been proven wrong. Again, was the distinction between male/female just something that happened by chance that came from something that was orginally soup?

Maybe an elementary question but if the process went from fish to monkeys to humans then why do we still have fish and monkeys? Did some part of the evolution process get stopped? Does evolution end at humans or are humans evolving into something else?

I just can't find reasonable explanations for these things.

come off it, so your saying that 2 people had kids, then they had more children from there children, and having more children from your grandchildren and children and thier children having children from each other was what happered.

The world was not created by insest because they would be complete freaks and inbred this day and age, everyone would be like the elephant man and the human race would have not have lived to this day and age due to inbreeding.

Panda's dont have sex and the male pandas only have a one inch dingle due to inbreeding, so what would man have???

The Bible would state that man was originally made perfect so it could be possible. Do you not think the world isn't full of complete freaks today?!

they believe that jesus was a zombie who could do magic (feeding the 5000 with one fish and one loaf of bread, and could turn water into wine. yeah right) and that god could do magic like damn harry potter or sabrina the teenage witch.

If no-one believed in god whos to say that he exists...I mean belief is why people think he as real in the first place.

I live in hope that I will sleep with scarlett johansson with the red hair from the avengers but that will never happeren, but I still believe and live in hope. Its the same with god, people only believe in him because they want too and are insecure in there lives and death.

Sorry but I don't know any religious person who ever claimed Jesus was a zombie. In fact history records that he was an actual man. The debate is around whether he was who he claimed to be or not.

Me insecure? No. I know myself that I have done a bit of research and am happy with my own conclusions. I'm not sure that you have done the same research.

religion and gods in general are for the weak minded, insecure and mental.

They have an invisible friend, who can do magic, and he had a son, who could also do magic, who eventally turned out to be a zombie.

when you die, thats it, the electrical impulses stop and thats it, you become food for worms and then they become food for the birds and you become the cycle of life (lion king referance lol)

O yes a reminder to come back when I have a certificate to prove my sanity.

Zombie again? Not sure what you have been reading.

You are very sure of yourself when it comes to categorically stating what comes after death. I can't prove the opposite.

as you can tell, I have quite a strong opinion on this and will not be swayed by anyone preaching at me and will tell them to **** off

I did gather that. Telling somebody to **** off suggests to me like many others on here that you are somewhat intolerant of other opposing points of view.

 

[Salsa]

Enter the fundamental atheists!!

as you can tell, I have quite a strong opinion on this and will not be swayed by anyone preaching at me and will tell them to **** off

Apt forum name is apt! Exactly what species of shrooms were you consuming when you wrote your tirade?

/Salsa

 

[spudbynight]

I see this thread has gone the same way as every other religious thread on OCUK.

OP makes reference to religion in some way shape or form.

The lolreligion brigade get wind of it and immediately arrive in force to point and laugh, and rage about the brainwashing of society.

One forum member, usually one who has faith, posts their opinion. Often their posts make reference to scripture or religious teachings.

This enrages the resident literal-translationists who immediately enter the thread attacking the poster who made reference to scripture or teachings from a religious book asking them to provide proof and scientific facts to back up their arguments.

Another forum member, possessed of more refined reasoning skills and a perhaps less biased view, posts a balanced argument considering both viewpoints and neither siding with one or the other. (It is at this point the the lolreligion brigade and the literal-translationists are hopelessly out of their depth)

Enter the fundamental atheists!! Thread deteriorates into endless postings of YouTube clips of Hitchens and Dawkins interspersed with posts confessing their absolute belief (oh the ironing) that religion is a load of tosh and has no place in today’s society.

Thread ends up locked...

We should have a cookie cutter thread template with the standard responses and members can just put their names against posts to save time and effort next time.

/Salsa

seems pretty accurate to me.

Can we all just move on and assume the usual on this thread?

 

[DAIR]

manic mushroom - Cool Rant..............................

I'm not a religious person myself but will respect the views of anyone who is (as long as they dont try to force their beliefs onto me).

Now having read your rant, I'm left thinking you're as narrow minded as those religious people who refuse to believe anything else.

To class them as insane is subjective so I'll give you that lol. But to shun someone views because you simply dont agree with them is just a touch childish lol. Disagree if you must.... Just do it in a more respectable way and be up for a debate!

 

[Haggisman]

Maybe an elementary question but if the process went from fish to monkeys to humans then why do we still have fish and monkeys? Did some part of the evolution process get stopped? Does evolution end at humans or are humans evolving into something else?

I just can't find reasonable explanations for these things.

I read a book when I was about 8 years old which gave perfectly reasonable, viable and likely explanations for these things.

As an example, some fish became trapped in a lake/pond/whatever which began to dry out, as food became scarce some of these fish randomly developed rudimentary lungs, giving them the ability to spend short times out of the water and so gather food unavailable to the fish which didn't have this ability. These fish became stronger and healthier than their rivals, and so lived longer, mated more and had more offspring. Although some of these offspring didn't carry the out-of-water mutation, many did, and some had the ability to stay out of water even longer. Rinse and repeat over a few hundred thousand years, and you have a "fish" which no longer needs to be in the water at all, has lost it's scales and grown fur to keep warm, etc. The fish which didn't become trapped had no such influence, or benefit to being able to breath out of the water and so therefore remained as fish. Are you really that unfamiliar with evolution.

The Bible would state that man was originally made perfect so it could be possible. Do you not think the world isn't full of complete freaks today?!

If man was originally made perfect, then why was he stupid enough to listen to a talking snake rolleyes telling him to eat an apple from a tree?

If he was made perfect, then how did he have imperfect offspring?

Sorry but I don't know any religious person who ever claimed Jesus was a zombie. In fact history records that he was an actual man. The debate is around whether he was who he claimed to be or not.

An actual man doesn't get executed and then magically come back to life 3 days later.

 

[413x]

I'm in the camp of

I believe the might be something but that none of the religions are right


I would explain to him the situation, how you feel, but don't try and force him, if no change and he continues to be aggressive in his views of you just leave him too it.
Best case, he realises his mistake, realises you are right and comes back.
Worst case, he goes and you loose a friend but no more hassle.

It's like pushy parents, more you push them the more they rebel. If he does end up thinking it's a mistake it needs to be his decision and your suggestion not your pressure

Religious nuts are what's wrong with religion. I have no problem with normal keep it to your self religious types, it's the arrogant types I hate. You are a pretty weak person if you feel you need to convert people IMO

I had a good friend at uni who was fairly religious, we knew each of our views and just didn't go there. Neither of us needed to force either views. That's what I feel a good person does, religious or not

No one can say for sure it is wrong or right, although it is obvious it isn't all right!

 

[ringo747]

Lets see.
Historical accounts of various mundane events, verified by archaeological records = believable.
Historical accounts of impossible events (e.g. immaculate conception, resurrection), verified by... well... nothing = lolworthy.

Congratulations on totally missing the point. I never said anyone was being a ****, I said it was sad that some people need the promise of heaven to be nice to others, and the threat of hell to not be a ****, what's wrong with being kind and looking out for people just for the sake of it?

While the end result is the same, I'd almost go so far as to say atheists who are kind to others are actually nicer people, as religious people are just faking it in order to avoid everlasting damnation

The archaeological finds of Biblical records are as relevant for consideration as any of the mundane finds as you put it. What makes them believable? Is it possible that the process for investigating these is erroneous?

The usual reponse is to pick and choose what parts of the Bible you want to accept. If you wish to investigate immaculate conception or the resurrection then you need to also accept the assumption that God is who he claims to be. There is no point in trying to pick holes in something if you are selective in which parts you want to refer to.

I said already that as humans we have the ability to be nice to anyone. This isn't affected by religion.

You are using very dodgy evidence and if it were fact I'm afraid. 2000 years ago, information wasn't disseminated that well and someone who was considered your better could do what they pleased. Its not very likely that in an age of superstition and religion that people would say "wait a second, all this stuff we are hearing sounds a little far fetched, lets investigate". If religion relied on proof there would be no religion.

Is it proven that information wasn't disseminated well back then? How did you come to that conclusion? You surely must be referring to history! O wait, the history that you just said was dodgy. Vicious circle?

So despite the historical accounts you still want to classify this as dodgy evidence? Is history based around facts mostly? I mean if a number of writers claim that John the Baptist existed and was murdered by Herod would this not give a fairly good indication that it happened? I can't prove it scientifically but history gives a good reason to investigate further. Why is there no other historical records that affirm the contrary? Surely if something was so blatantly wrong then it would have been nipped in the bud.

Similarly I couldn't prove that someone existed back in the 1800s for example, but history would prove that they did.

People join cults every day, plenty of people have died / committed suicide in the name of a "religious" figure so I don't see why it would be any different in an age where information was not freely available and people were easily led.

Not sure which religion this refers to but there is nothing associated with my beliefs as a Christian that would make me consider suicide.

I think you are missing the fact that these people who were martyrs claimed to be witnesses. They weren't basing this on conjecture.

 

[ringo747]

I read a book when I was about 8 years old which gave perfectly reasonable, viable and likely explanations for these things.

So just to clarify that you believe this person to be correct in all that he says?

As an example, some fish became trapped in a lake/pond/whatever which began to dry out, as food became scarce some of these fish randomly developed rudimentary lungs, giving them the ability to spend short times out of the water and so gather food unavailable to the fish which didn't have this ability. These fish became stronger and healthier than their rivals, and so lived longer, mated more and had more offspring. Although some of these offspring didn't carry the out-of-water mutation, many did, and some had the ability to stay out of water even longer. Rinse and repeat over a few hundred thousand years, and you have a "fish" which no longer needs to be in the water at all, has lost it's scales and grown fur to keep warm, etc. The fish which didn't become trapped had no such influence, or benefit to being able to breath out of the water and so therefore remained as fish. Are you really that unfamiliar with evolution.

You see that just doesn't make sense to me. I mean 'randomly developed rudimentary lungs' - how can that be? How would life have been sustained during the time when these lungs were being formed? Surely they would have died had the conditions not been right.

Then randomly growing fur? I may be missing something but personally I think the probabilities of all those random events is just way too high.

Aside from the above my concern goes back further. If it was a soup to begin with then how can we explain the distinction between male and female for example. Were they all males to begin with, then they evolved into females? They they discovered that they could mate? Why only two sexes then?

I find it easier to accept that there was a higher power involved.

If man was originally made perfect, then why was he stupid enough to listen to a talking snake rolleyes telling him to eat an apple from a tree?

If he was made perfect, then how did he have imperfect offspring?

An actual man doesn't get executed and then magically come back to life 3 days later.

The Bible suggests the snake was said to have been very subtle and deceptive. Sin entered as a result and therefore tarnished all future generations.

The Bible doesn't claim that he was an actual normal man - it claims he was the son of God. There is a difference.

 

[Haggisman]

The archaeological finds of Biblical records are as relevant for consideration as any of the mundane finds as you put it. What makes them believable? Is it possible that the process for investigating these is erroneous?

Which archaeological finds? Where is the evidence for Adam & Eve, the garden of eden, immaculate conception, the resurrection, etc.?

Whilst I'm not arguing against a lot of the content of the bible - I'm sure many of the events did occur - there isn't really anything to back up these fantastical claims.

The usual reponse is to pick and choose what parts of the Bible you want to accept. [...] There is no point in trying to pick holes in something if you are selective in which parts you want to refer to.

Why not? Most of us aren't trying to pick holes in the Bible as a whole (excuse the pun ) merely the parts which are so far fetched as to be impossible. No one is disputing the fact that many of the events in the bible occurred, or even that there was probably a bloke named Jesus kicking around at some point, however, stating that "everything in the bible must be true because some of it is" is just daft

Using my Harry Potter example from earlier, it's like saying "because London is a real place, all the stuff about wizards must be true as well".

If you wish to investigate immaculate conception or the resurrection then you need to also accept the assumption that God is who he claims to be.

Well, you know what they say about assumption...

I said already that as humans we have the ability to be nice to anyone. This isn't affected by religion.

Yes we do have that ability. So why do so many people need to rely on the crutch of heaven/hell in order to use it?