what means dispair? since english isnt my 1st language i dont understand that.

@That Guy

First, I want to apologize if you interpreted my words as condescending, but at the same time I think it brings up a good point. Why do you interpret my words as condescending? What do words ultimately mean? It actually goes back to Social Darwinism. We are defined by information. When someone asks you a question, you respond in a certain manner.

Now, when others try change your response, whos information that defines you, that's when your darwinian instinct kicks in.

If the information that defines you changes, then who are you in respect to the changes? You, as you are now, would cease to exist if the information changes. You would be someone else. That's why you struggle to keep the information the same. Information wants to survive.

Perhaps to bring the idea home, I ask you, what would V say? Wouldn't he say that it isn't the person behind the mask, but the idea that matters? What if the idea behind V changed? Would it still be V or something else?


Secondly, you're confusing faith and trust.

trust

-n

1. reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence.
2. confidence in the certainty of future payment for property or goods received; credit


I can have all the trust in the world. I can trust my wife. I can trust my bank. I can trust anybody I want. But as soon as I see deception or stuff not making sense, I back my bags and run.

Faith, by definition, ignores logic and reasoning. If your wife told you one day that she was pregnant and 9 months later there was still no signs of pregnancy, but she insists that you have faith that she did get pregnant, a person of faith would accept what she said. A logical and rational person would say she was lying.


Lastly,

"I'd still say stuff like genetically engineering ourselves and weeding out "undesireables" is pretty dark. That's just my opinion. You start explaining off some things and its a pretty harsh way to describe people and phenomena (i.e. a statement like "there are more black atheletes because their ancestors were once slaves and were bred to be stronger and faster", etc. etc.). Maybe its just me, but I don't like describing people like that."

Your trying to protect yourself again and that's why you have such an emotional response. People like to romanticize things because it makes them feel special. And I think this is where culture and community should come into play. I'm a huge music, art, theater fan. But at the same time I think we need to have firm feet on the ground and use logic and reasoning when seeking understanding.

@z64dan

It's hard to deny the role science and logic have played in our lives, however you want to define it. Right now it is the best tool we have in gaining some form of objective understanding of the world. Yes, we don't know everything, but that's what makes living so exciting. If everything was known, what would we be doing?

@moe nl

Despair means there is no hope.

(quote)Secondly, you're confusing faith and trust.(/quote)

No, I am not. Faith is related to trust and is also based on information. You Trust your Wife and you have faith in her because you know who she is. Why do we say that a wife/husband is unfaithful or faithful?

If you can also have faith and trust in your friend, but if he is a shady individual, he can betray your trust.

You are confusing faith with credulity, which is a "blind faith" that is not based on a solid knowledge.

Now were just mincing words and we're not getting anywhere with this.

You are condescending because you are speaking down to me. (hence the "Descending" in the word condescending) You view what I believe as a "fantasy world" which obviously is not real and that what you believe is actually what happens in the real world.


I'm not "trying to protecting myself" from anything. I can choose what I think to be dark and not dark. That's my personal preference.

Social Darwinism seems a bit fatalistic to me and also involves a lot of hindsight. You mentioned that Hitler got what was coming to him and thus social darwinism did its job. What if Hitler won? Then obviously social darwinism still did its job as the superior people won.

What about the subjugation of the indians by the americans and of all of south america by the spanish? Obviously those indiginous people were genetically inferior and the superior races won out and thus social darwinism wins again!

And memo to techmo bowl guy:

I never actually saw V for Vendetta.

"Now were just mincing words and we're not getting anywhere with this. "

And that's exactly what I stated right from the beginning.

"You view what I believe as a "fantasy world" which obviously is not real and that what you believe is actually what happens in the real world."

Then provide evidence to the contrary. Prove that "...thanks to religion and Faith, Human beings have morality..." I have already discussed how morality could come about through Social Darwinism.

"I can choose what I think to be dark and not dark. That's my personal preference. "

And you have every right to.

"Social Darwinism seems a bit fatalistic to me and also involves a lot of hindsight. "

Actually no and no.

When and how the more fit is decided is non deterministic. A baby born tomorrow may not live past 30 years, but perhaps the following day another baby is born that can live past 100 years. But then out of shear luck the longer lasting baby gets killed in some freak accident. The baby that lives less passes on his genes while the one that could have lasted longer can not.

What hindsight is required? If Hilter won, then what? Yes, things would be different. Does it mean the human race wouldn't have survived? Dynasties have come in gone throughout the ages, why would it have been different?

Let me ask you this: what would have happened if an asteroid didn't hit the earth and killed off the dinosaurs? More likely than not, mammals wouldn't have been taken over the world. Is it bad that we now control the world and the dinosaurs are dead?

Also, perhaps you should see V, it was a good movie. Although the graphic novel itself was much better.

I believe that you are missing the level of some of the contradictions that are being mentioned here. Some of them can be put in comfortable wishy-washy categories like "if only we knew more" but there are some that ca  nnot be resolved.  For example, what were the last words of Jesus?

Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

 You simply have to accept that fact that one of these is not correct.  There is no getting around it by saying if only we knew more about the time period we could resolve this discrepancy.

Perhaps this is not good enough for you.  Then what color was the robe they put on Jesus when he was handed over to be crucified?

Matt. 27:28 They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him,

 John 19:2 And the soldiers wove a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and they dressed him in a purple robe,

Once again, one of these is simply wrong.  Was the light was playing tricks on their eyes?

Maybe something as insignificant as they color of the robes placed on Jesus is not enough to convince you of anything. Lets look at a more important event like what was seen at the tomb of Jesus:

MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

Who was at the tomb of Jesus?  Was it a man or an angel?  I'm sure many people reading this will just immediately assume that all the stories were talking about an angel, but if that's the case how many were there? One or two?  Did the authors of Matthew and Mark just forget about one angel?  Even if that were true two of these stories are correct and 2 are wrong.  Which two will you believe?

 Shall we look at the major event of the creation of the world?  In Genesis 1 the order of creation goes like this:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans
Day 7: Nothing

But in Genesis 2:18-19 God clearly makes the animals after he makes man. This contradiction will not be solved by knowing more about the history of the world.  One story is wrong. Not to mention the question of the age of the universe.  Do you believe that it was made in 6 days?  I know that many people like to say these are metaphorical "God" days but then why put that information in at all? Why make it so misleading?  Why not put it in human years?  

 So there is the beginning of the world.  Now lets take a look at the end.  When will the second coming be?

MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

 
This generation shall not pass?  It seems on the face of it that this was wrong.  Was this yet another metaphor?  Do you think the people listening to Jesus at the time thought that?

It seems that I have gone off track from my original goal of providing examples in which one must logically (not historically) be wrong.  So I will end with one more.   How did Judas die?

MAT 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself.

ACTS 1:18 And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out.

 So did he hang himself or did he explode?  Surely his death was not caused by both and each author decided to focus on one aspect of the death.

 BTW there is no evidence that Luke "the beloved physician" even wrote the book of Luke (or Acts for that matter)  Sorry.. that one could be cleared up by further historical study...

1.  If there is a divine force the concept of the universe is not "void"

2.  People feel that the universe is not "void"

3.  Therefore there is a divine force (i.e God)

 
Non sequitur

 Point 2

The gift of prayer is from Jesus Christ?  Then prayer was not available before Jesus? 

 Point 3

 An all-powerful God will not forgive those who speak ill of him?  Why when making God the fountain of such love did you stop there? Is God's love greater than any other kind?  If so do you imagine the Buddha would not forgive someone who spoke ill of him?

If only it were that easy, we could all go home and be happy. However you do not seem to be realizing the level of the contraditions here. All of these can not be swept under the rug by saying "we need more evidence". Some you may hope one day can be uncovered by future researchers. These are not all "perceived contradictions " as you would like to believe. Unfortunatly Erebus beat me to the punch here. Just look what has crawled out of the shadows.  In his post he did not even bring up the time of Jesus death, which according to 3 gospels occurs after passover, while John has it occur on passover.  The author of John has a reason for this, he wanted to make it look like on passover when the lambs are slaughtered, Jesus himself the "lamb of God" was slaughtered too. Yes, the author of John fudged reality to make a theological point. This is not a perceived contradiction. This is a contradiction. And the author did it for a very apparent reason. The gospels are not to be taken literally. I say this every time to you for a reason.   A literal interpretation of the bible is headed for disaster, please jump ship.

One more word on the empire wide census. Don’t hold your hopes out for the truth of this one. Perhaps I should have explained this one a little more to get the point across.  According to Luke, Joseph and Mary have to go back to their ancestral homeland to register for a tax.  Joseph traces his lineage back to King David, so he goes back to Bethlehem.  However King David lived 1000 years before Joseph.  So all the citizens of the Roman empire went back to their ancestral home from 1000 years ago? How would everyone know where to go? Do you know where you would go? We are left with the question, did this event really happen? And the inescapable answer, no, this did not happen as was written in Luke. 

On the authors of the bible; The idea that the authors were the disciples themselves is a 2nd century contrivance which we do not have evidence for. In fact all the evidence we have would show that they did not write the gospels. Think about it for a second, if Matthew had written the one of the books, he would have not titled it "The Gospel according to Matthew". In fact the gospels were written anonomously. The titles were attached later and the person who attached the title was trying to show whos version of the story this was. The books are written in the third person. They are written in Greek. The disciples did not speak Greek. Read the intro to Luke. The authors were not eyewitnesses. 

@moe_nl

You said: "what means dispair? since english isnt my 1st language i dont understand that."

Sorry, its despair, and its the feeling I get when I read internet forums. :)

I will admit one thing; I think we are talking past each other.  I understand Erebus much more than what you are trying to tell me. We wouldn’t know gods plan without our books so yet again so my point still stands. And your last statement "Everyone can get in touch with God, so i have trouble understanding your point. And please, do not blaspheme the spirit of God. That is a sin that Jesus says is unforgivable (if one truly believed in their hearts that God is an evil spirit)" would only be believed by only the cruelest god and to me is ridiculous. Not only that, but you know that blasphemy is a sin not because it is revealed in the world, but because it was in an old book you read.

God/No God = Meaningless if we dont know what said god wants from us. We can not intuit everything as you would so cheerfully like to believe. Saying this is akin to saying that the Jews Muslims Buddhists and others are just not trying hard enough to figure out god. This is not very believable.

Perhaps the universe is a void. Our believing it is not does not make it so.

I redact my post.

 What are you talking about?  Did you even bother to read the posts?  If you did how can you claim that we are "preaching Christianity"?  My entire post was attacking contradictions in the Bible!!!  Do not tell me you were zipping through the post and saw a lot of Bible quotes so just decided to assume that I was praising Christianity.  If you really don't have the energy to read how the conversation came to this point let me summarize it for you.  Some ppl here claimed the bible is consistent and I (and Schopenhauer for that matter) were pointing out that there are contradictions in the Bible.  When one member decided to play the old "We just don't have enough historical data because if we did we may be able to prove the Bible true" game I wrote my post to say that actually no this strategy does not work.  Why not? Because the Bible not only contains historical inaccuracies but simply says logically contradictory things. 

Please tell me that your post is a joke.