Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

In the end, who do you think will win?

Theres a famous quote by Einstein that goes something like

"Science without religion is dull, religion without science is pointless"

Isnt the end a little too far away to consider suppose it depends on ur point of view - whether ur religious or not

religion and science may contradict each other in some cases, but when the end comes both will still exist, they will simply explain one another.

Im undecided

thats one way of looking at it definately!

The christans have lost alot of battles against science. Galilaos theory nearly got him killed, but in the end he won. Religion cant keep holding onto its facts forever, especially with civilisation evolving.

It's usually only a conflict when the religious folk make it into one.

Religion will win - it's not prone to logic, revision or proof. It's not vulnerable in the way science is.

For science to win we would have to have a planet of intelligent humanist self-aware people. Fat chance.

science and relegion are 2 seperate things, not to be mixed together and interchanged, though they may compliment each other, the same way relegion and polotics are 2 seperate things.

am an open minded christian, i respect and study other religiong and sience, but i think the poll is really dull, who do u think will win?? what does it mean??? i agree with einstein, would u imagine a world without religions i know some ppl might think it would b great, but many ppl follow their religions rules, if nobody obeys any religions, the court would b like a 'god' and a religios world without sience?

one can always hope

lol... it would suck trust me, is ok that many ppl dont believe but we NEED a few ppl to believe

I am opposed to organized religion, but I'm not opposed to people having their own belief systems. I have nothing against somebody believing what I don't. What bothers me is when they try to push their bullshit on me. Get used to it, I'm not going to convert because of what you say. But I recognize and respect that some people need religion in their lives for whatever reason.

Science will always be more correct than religion, because religion stays the same no matter what new discoveries are made. If we found irrefutable proof that god did not exist, most people would still believe in their religions. If, on the other hand, we found irrefutable proof that god DID exist, science would (eventually) accept this as fact. Science changes over time. Religion does not.

As for who will "win", that's just a stupid question. Both will probably always exist, so it is totally pointless to argue about which will "win".

well said

It is most likely that Islam will conquer the world.

Lol...Islam can't conquer my backyard...The entire Islamic world has been unable to conquer the tiny nation of Israel and all of their invasions have been horrible, humiliating disasters (aka Yom Kippur war)

Anyway science will prevail. Religion was a tool of the ancient people to explain things in life. As more things become explained as humanity progresses, the less point religion will have.

If indeed one could win, it looks like we will all be suprised.

Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein

"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." --A. Einstein

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1073698,00.html

You are quite wrong. With current demographic trends - immigration and differences in birth rates taken into account - the majority of Europe will be muslim in a few decades and most likely the US soon afterwards.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,363750,00.html

http://society.guardian.co.uk/housing/story/0,7890,1311941,00.html

<<Almost 60% of Muslims in the census described themselves as Bangladeshi or Pakistani, but more than 10% describe themselves as white.<<

10% forcibly converted.

How would you like to come and vist Manningham?

religion doesnt cure disease... case solved

Who will win ? I won't answer that.

But I will remind you (if you have forgotten) that religion has won on many occasions over science, you've heard about the dark ages right, that was an age where science was suffocating under the thick veil of religious dominiation. It will happen again. But there will always be a renaissance ( I hope !).

religion causes the war, science is used in weapons to defeat the enemy, obliterating those religious fighting in the war for their beliefs it scales up to such a state that they'll start firing megatonne nukes in each others back gardens and cause such damage, it will crack the earth's core and the planet will drift apart, losing it's atmosphere killing everything....
but hey! that'll be ina few centuries methinks

i do so ****ing agree with u, see i hate ppl trying to get other ppl to believe the same they do is like get over it!! many mormones have knocked my door and start talking bullshit i just close it!!! i dont trey to get anyone in chrsitianity, or try to get other ppl to sujpport the same politics i support, everybody has their ideas

and meki nade, religion cuases war that was like 10000000 years ago, now their cuz of territory or oil

You do know what's going on in the Middle East, don't you?

ehh an Islamic nation ruled Israel for hundred of years prior to recent history.

never the US , chrisitanity have a to much hold of things in the States.

And as of Norway many of those second generation immigrants of other religions growing up here do much of the very same thing Norwegian kids do, they stray away form the believes of their ancestors.
In other words they couldnt care less about religion

thats a good way of putting it Meki_Nade

Science is proof without certainty
Religion is certainty without proof

I personally think that science will edge out all current organized religions until one that makes sense (preferably one that isn't bigoted and self-righteous, as well) emerges.

In the end of what? Humanity? Civilization?

If by the end you mean the END of humanity it won't matter much. Neither will save us from our own destruction.

And as of Norway many of those second generation immigrants of other religions growing up here do much of the very same thing Norwegian kids do, they stray away form the believes of their ancestors.
In other words they couldnt care less about religion

The trend in the UK is that third generation asians are much more likely to feel nationalistic for eg Pakistan and also to respond vehemently to antagonism than their parents. Besides, the assylum seekers entering in their millions have their home ideals fresh in their mind and in terms of numbers they will outnumber all the previous inhabitants very soon; take that city in Sweden that the government there have officially declared as now out of their control and ruled by the muslim gangs.

Not really. You're right about the "without certainty" but, but scientists don't normally talk about proof, they talk about evidence.

On an unrelated note, I miss your green text. You should start doing that again.

i agree with gregory nor is very certain, cuz sience is changing every decade.... discovering new things proving old theories were wrong... and well i think 50 years from now (more or less) christian ppl will open their minds, cuz i highly doubt that god made us so that we'll worship him, i think that he wants masses to b funny, and us chrsitans not being so UPTIGHT... accepting that sometimes they're wrong too

My answer? niether will last.

you know what,i cant answer this question you know what my religion and science are best friends. im sikh, and not one scientific fact has proved my religion wrong in anyway. In fact in our prayers written many hundreds of years ago it talks about countless planets and universes.Alot of times sikhism has knnown things before science

sikhism?? never heard of that before

oh.. is an indian religion

Well it was founded in norhtern India by Guru Nanak around the 16th century

I mean the end of choice. That when there is only one fate or belief. There isnt separate beliefs (besides in religion there are semi choices like Christan, hindu, Budism ect.)
When either Science or religion gets beaten and proven wrong

^disagree

Some religions (such as Buddhism, which actually isn't a religion at all) don't try to argue with science. A lot of religions never mention science, or have creation myths, but quite a few of them accept science as new discoveries are made.

If by end you mean choice that it comes down to the individual not the masses. Since we all have different choices we can either accept Science or Religion as our truths. But since we are including choice some will chose Science, others will chose Religion, others will chose Both, and a very few will chose neither.

My choice is both for the sake of human intellect. But unfortunally that isn't the case with everyone. Science fanatics don't care for religious arguments and Religous fanatcis don't care for scientific discovery. Sometimes you can sense the arrogance and pride in both sides.

some sort of religion will always prevail

Evidence is basically proof


The green thing took too long to type, so I nixed it. I'm fine w/o it, really

so are we

http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,529910,00.html

Though I don't usually follow any Scandinavian news

HiddenPotential> No one will be surprised. Science has already won. Those few lunatics who won't accept that fact... well, poor them.
And Einstein was an expert on gravity and mechanics and relativity. He wasn't an expert on whether or not God exists. But religious people often draw out his quotes as if that somehow backs up their arguments.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Notice the... BLIND???

He also said "Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -- how passionately I hate them!"

Religion is like the symbiote in Spiderman, Venom. It will take any form to survive. Being a Christian, it might not be the best example, but it's the truth. Many scientists are Christians, and the best and brightest have devoted their lifetimes to reworking Christianity.

This is a good thing. Christianity, I believe forgot about Jesus' temptations in the desert. You cannot convert people legally unless they wish it. Being born into it is also acceptable, as you can oppose it if you wish. Anyway, to the Science question. I got a good example of my humble view. It's important when going to the toilet to know two things. First, you must push the handle down, and second, you must feel a tighness in your rectum. The how and the why.

If you just know to push the handle, you don't have much hope, and if you just know that you have a tighness in your rectum, then your family is going to bothered by your display. But Religon has to come first, I'm afraid.

The Omega- I love the way you gravitate toward my post as an opportunity to bash me cause your a radical atheist. I am aware.

If anything science has proved the unlikely event that humans would randomly appear from space junk colliding over time, ever again ever (if it were true).

You will contemplate religion for the rest of your life (as you should), get over it.

^ hmmm just a curious qn, what is with the 'tighness in ur rectum?'

just another definition for religion

^ It's the anal·o·gy for the big question "Why" (Sorry, couldn't help it!)

I agree that some sort of religion will always prevail.

More like linger on past relevance.....



Wait, that's already happened.

It's where you feel it when you have a desire to go. In my analogy, what'shername is right, it's the question why.

ok

a) Omega is not a radical
b) I can't understand what ur second line is saying
c) I'm done comtemplating religion. I'm sure she has too.
d) Science will always prevail, relgion offers guidences, so do other things.

Your done now? right now? to never contemplate religion again...

fair enough

religion has nothing to offer me. I'm done with it. I refuse to take part in something where ppl kill in the name of their god. I refuse to believe in something that can't be backed up by hard facts.

Science can adapt. Look back through history. Science is rarely wrong, parts of a scientific law or theory might need some adjustment as new facts are learned. Religion will always have the same beliefs, the same old stories.

Religion isn't the only thing that kills people..... power, greed, justice and so on have done so at various points for good and bad reasons. Still, I think it is impossable to see one or the other going. From the moment the first hominid (or Adam) lit a fire, or notched a bow, we were doing scientific things. Equally so we will probably always have religion, as faith can be important for many, but it also exists to explain things that science is yet to answer. However, religion is just as good at adapting as science, look how different Christianity is from say the ancient ancestor worshipping, it adapts to meet the needs of society (and many want to think our time on earth contributes to something, and it doesn't necessarily end with death, and that things must get better...)

So both will probably be there in the final hour, perhaps very different, but also very much the same....

^ I think so

Both science and religon are getting better. Science only recently learned to test theories, like the idea that after a certain amount of moving, things suddenly stopped and fell straight down. Religon has the greatest minds in the world seeking to crack the true meaning of the beliefs, and find new ways of telling the stories.

Plus, people can kill in the name of science. Philosophy, the first form of science, was spread out over massive areas. Often based on Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato. They killed others, due to their different beliefs. Humans have a strange desire to kill others who disagree with them, if they have a sharp stick.

Take Jack, and his stick sharpened at BOTH ends. Just a little disagreement over who was leader.

Thats because ppl believe those stories.

ANd you know, not all religions tell you to kill in the name of their god. In fact, none do. It just how humans interpret what is written in their specific holy book or what ever you want to call it.

HIII everyone, yesss i'm back for those of you that know me hehe i'm sure you've missed me


WEll... of course I choose religion, but there's tons of religion out there, and religion won't actually win, its God in the religion that will win.

Most of their believers as well.

depends on which the denomination

religion won't get ya to Heaven, The Grace of God, repentance of sins is the only way to get there. doesn't matter the denomination.

HP> Oh, here we go again… Some “poor” religious person being unable to answer my posts, and immediately turns to feeling attacked and bashed… and then attacking me (the RADICAL atheist).


“If anything science has proved the unlikely event that humans would randomly appear from space junk colliding over time, ever again ever (if it were true).”

Really? Who proved that? When was it proven? Where’s the link to back up your claim?

I’m done contemplating religion. But holier-than-thou religious people, who claim monopoly on the truth, tosses pseudo-science everywhere, uses every opportunity to preach and feel bashed when they can’t answer - are a constant source of amusement and entertainment to me.

1. Science needs to put forward a likely theory. You cannot propose that elves did it, you've got to put forward that there's a feasible possibility. Links against it could be misleading, links for it from you would disprove
2. It's not called religon, it's called pride.

Hi there morningstar
What religion does tell you to kill in the name of God?

Exodus 32:27 tells random people to kill in the name of their god. Does that count?

Deuteronomy 7:1-2: "... the seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them."

Have been wondering where uve been!

Ytaker> *shrugs* God told Moses to tell them to. They had sinned against God (making the gold idol to be their God). They had broken one of the ten commandments. Hmm to me i dont see it as killing other people for their God becoz those killed had sinned too. Meh. Hard to describe.
TC> God knew that if the ppl of Israel became involved with the Hittitesm Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites (weird names!) those people would lead the descendants of Israel to worship other Gods.
Urgh dont like Deuteronomy, its hard to understand. rolleyes1

God is telling his followers to go out and kill with out covenant or mercy and to utterly destroy them. Where I come from that is called genocide. There is nothing you can say that makes that statement acceptable.

Ytaker> Are you now saying that science has NOT put forward a theory as to how life arose on Earth?
When I ask for links, I ask for links to sites with a certain amount of credibility. One crackpot Creationist who’s been caught lying countless times doesn’t count. (Have a look here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html)
Religion is called pride? Pride in WHAT I may ask?

Morningstar> “Hmm to me i dont see it as killing other people for their God becoz those killed had sinned too. ”
So if someone has ”sinned” in your virew, it’s OK to kill them?

“God knew that if the ppl of Israel became involved with the Hittitesm Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites (weird names!) those people would lead the descendants of Israel to worship other Gods.”
What happened to ”God has given us free will”? So it’s okay to kill people to prevent them from deciding NOT to worship the Christian God???

you're not too well attuned to Old Testament ethos

I'm glad the Bible can justify that for you.

Good luck with that.

I choose religion because mine tends to go hand in hand with science.WHATEVER the holy book states is proven true by scientists!

Turbo-Cajun Deuteronomy 7:1-2: "... the seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them."


Can either of you show me in the NT? The law was different in the OT. When Jesus died on the cross for everyone's sins, we are under new law: GRACE So, can anyone find it in the NT?

what scientists would that be?

I'd also like to know this.

I choose Science. I'm not saying that everything scientists say is gospel (excuse the reference) but I'm much more inclined to believe in the theories of scientists than the preachings of religious fanatics.

I thought god was immutable? If he has a serial murder problem, it's not going to go puff.

O.k. can you answer my questions on the subject

1. How can particles combine with the brownian motion of water sloshing them about?

2. Somebody said that a comet hit the earth, starting life. How could simple life withstand a hundred kiloton explosion (ignore the mathematics, just think "big explosion)

3. The simplest life is a virus. I suspect that the idea is that the simplest lifeform was simpler still. A Virus can only live of other beings, e.g. a human, dog, hummingbird. How can such a basic life suceed where a virus has failed?

I'm sorry, that was extrodinarily boring, and my mind could only skim, so you should be able to clear these things up for me

1. How does a group of particles combine with the attacks of brownian motion, dense brownian motion like water?

2. Somebody said that a comet hit the earth, maybe starting life. How could simple life withstand a hundred kiloton explosion (ignore the mathematics, just think "big explosion)

3. The simplest lifeforms we know are viruses. They cannot exist without an outside aid (e.g. a dog, human, cat) and a basic lifeform must be simpler still. How can a simpler creature still (without even the aid of DNA?) manage to reproduce?

Pride in... if you think, arr, I'm a bloody good chap for siding with God, arr arr, I'm the model of faith, arr arr, This is a good partnership arr arr.
Then you are acting on pride. The idea is to be humble in your heart.

Some of those societies wanted to kill all Israelites. That wouldn't have been good for the world. It's not like he's going to kill them to make space, but if they represent a serious threat to the future of Jesus, they have to go.

No i dont think its ok to kill people who have sinned. The way i see it, God has made so many sacrifices for us, given us so much and we virtually threw it back in his face. He gave us the world, a place in heaven, sent his ONLY son to die for us, loves us unconditionally, and we've almost said 'thats not good enough, i want more.' Now thats graditude for you. Ok gone off topic point.

Look at the context all these 'killings' were in. THats all i can say.

Look im not even gonna bother to pretend that i am an expert on the OT coz its really simply obvious that im not. There's a lot of stuff that i havent read in the OT and there's a heap of stuff i dont understand. And thats probably the same as quite a few other people. Im more of a NT kinda person because its more about Jesus' life and stuff. I learn about NT in youth group, BIble study and when im just at home. But i dont tend to read the OT. Now im sure u couldnt really care less what im saying but anyway. You can ask me about Jonah in the OT tho, i actually know stuff about that

...but science kills us too

so if we are under a new law doesn't the 10 commandments count anymore then.

yes but at least it tries to make a progress into solving diseases

dont bother read it cause you are under a new law now Grace. Never thought Jeff Buckley would have such an impact on what we should adjust our life to

The answer to that requires knowing something about the chemistry of the prebiotic


well gotta go to work

Science sould win but i dnt no.
Religion is a tuff 1 people base there hole lives around it and would give there life for it but yet if it makes them happy its there choice...
Not me though i belive in life itself and thats all thats inportant 2 me but..im weird so there u go

Actually large companies find drugs that are cost effective, and sell them to the public. If you want an example of their morals, think of that film with the doctor who jumps out of the sewage pipe (fugitive maybe?). They are certainly not good example of behaviour.


Is that any use to me at all?

you were the one raising questions with viruses

And you were the one trying to put foward an answer

actually I did put an answer forward, that you dont know what to do with it is of no concern to me

If you asked "what is 2+2" then it would be far better for you to say 4 than to say "you'll need knowledge of arithmetic for that”. You could even explain the arithmetic, if you had the time. But four would be sufficient

prebiotic cant be easily explained, not as simple as 2+2 anyways.
There are tons of studies on the matter and to simplify it aint easy at all cause it is a bit complex.

Wait... Is this the methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water experiment results? That's absolute bukkake, as there wasn't any methane, or ammonia then. That's been known since the 1970s.

no

What is it then?

Sorry, 1980s. Made of Water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen, some very inert gases.

the entire thing involving both prebiotic and probiotic

Yes, but I need some specifictions, so that I know what I'm looking for. Give me a clue or two.

just look up something about from evolution to life

This show is awesome!

I totally need to spread the word about the Finti/Ytaker Pre/Probiotic War!

Yes, Finti, the 10 commandments we still live by. I was talking about we have an advocate w/the Father thru Jesus Christ now. We don't have to sacrifice, now, JESUS paid the price for us all.

so how come the first one has change from me to trinity

and jesus paid no price for me

Jesus paid the price for everyone, including you!! That is why we can now pray to the Father in Jesus name and ask forgiveness. We can have a direct one on one pray life w/him. There's no priest that have to pure themselves for hours before they go into the temple, there's no sacrifices.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here finti:
so how come the first one has change from me to trinity

NO HE DIDNT DIE FOR ME, get it in your head this is you belivers who are in for this dillusional picture.
I dont sin cause I dont believe in sin either so I dont have to ask forgivness for things I havent done wrong.

You can believe all you want but please no preaching to us who aint fooled by this fairy tale

He did die for everyone and paid the price for everyone.

That is your choice to believe or not believe. that is your choice.

to be or not to be

No he didn't. By Chrisitan beliefs, he died for Christians only. Tough shit for everyone else.

there may be some that believe that, but i've not heard that. How could he only die for christians, when we were all sinners at one time in our life?

As a Christian, you are led to belive that those who believe in Christ(CHRISTIANS) are the only ones who are forgiven and accepted into heaven, correct? Not everyone believes in Christ(or, to put it another way, not everyone is Christian), therefore, these people are f*cked.

What does that have to do with the point you were trying to make, by saying that HE didn't die for everyone?? Which in fact in did, it's our CHOICE to chose him or not. He chose us, thats why he died for everyone, but we have the choice to repent of our sins and ask Jesus Christ into our heart. Choice.

Then he DIDN'T die for EVERYONE. He died for CHRISTIANS. You said it yourself. To become saved, you must chose him. Those that don't(people who aren't Christian) are screwed.

You're going around in circles, and you need to find a way out. By that I mean that you are arguing against yourself by proving my point, inadvertently, and need to think before you answer.

No, I am not! He did die for everyone, we have the chose to chose him, he did chose us, DO you chose him? Did you repent of your sins and ask him to be your Lord and savior of your life?? We have the choice

Just out of curiosity, If I remember correctly didn't Jesus die to 'open the gates of heaven'? Does that mean everyone who died before jesus was born and never heard of his teachings were all stuck in purgatory or hell?

You can "choose" him, but surely Jesus or God or whoever must have realized at some point that some people, despite knowing about Christianity, simply won't ever believe in it? Even if they are good people? Like if you're Jewish, you're not going to convert to Christianity just because you know it exists. The logic is totally flawed... Believe it or not, people of other religions are just as adamant as Christians are that their religion is the right one. Ever heard a Muslim talk about Islam? They insist just as much as Christians that their religion is the one true path.

thats not what FE said dude. Jesus died for everyone - for all who have sinned (and that would be everyone). Whether you want to accept that fact is your choice or not. You dont have to believe it, that is entirely up to you.

he died for those who choose to follow him, if you care to believe in that that is. I dont believe in any of it so no one died for my sins cause I have none

Yes, it is up to me. Let's look at this situation.

Choose Jesus, (which means becoming CHRISTIAN) and be saved, or choose to have evidence of God's existence and wait it out...and eventually end up in hell.

Wow. What a great choice God has presented to me.

Jesus died for Christians, face the facts.

ArachnoidFreak> Considering the fact that NO ONE has ever come up with the slightest piece of evidence that Jesus EVER existed... he didn't die for ANYONE. As he didn't die...

Nope, Jesus existed. Whether or not you are a Christian, you must admit that religions just don't suddenly appear out of nowhere. Someone has to start them.

Lasksharis> "Nope, Jesus existed."
Prove it.

"Whether or not you are a Christian, you must admit that religions just don't suddenly appear out of nowhere. Someone has to start them."

“Someone” is not synonymous with a god or divinity. Do you believe that Mohammed was the prophet of God? That Buddha was en enlightened boddhisatva? That the Greek gods really ex-isted, or the Norse ones?

Maybe the Romans just needed a new religion to match the "One Empire, One Emperor, One God" ideal? So they looked around and found various goodies in the Empire, especially the Jewish One-God.
But circumcision? NO, thank you. So what did they do, Judaism 2.0. Does go a long way to ex-plain all the contradictions, errors and flaws in the first books in the NT.

ok

Y'know what I've never understood, is why the hell Christians are so insistint upon the idea that EVERYBODY is, by the act of existing, a sinner, and that the only way to redeem themselves in God's eyes is to assimilate to Christianity. See, there are ten commandments... If you break any one of these, it is a sin. So, if you're not Christian by birth, and you don't know what the commandments are, you theoretically cannot be a sinner since you have no way of knowing what a sin is. And don't give me that "everybody has the chance to become Christian" crap, because you know as well as I do it's not true. There are some people who, despite having conscious knowledge of Christianity, simply will never change their own beliefs at the threat of going to Hell. We all believe our own beliefs are the correct ones. Any god who thinks that by simply telling people about one religion, the world will eventually be entirely that religion, is a retard plain and simple.

The Gospels do NOT contradict each other. If we were all standing in front of a burning building, we would all see different things that happened, YET it was the same building on fire. Meaning, mattew, mark, LUke and JOhn, were all there, they just told what stood out most to them. NOT contradictions.

Oh Omega, there's no need to try to convince me of that fact. I'm just using Christianity against the Christians. There are so many flaws and contradictions that I can just pick at whatever I want and make it all seem...unrealistic and illogical.

just wondering, why were you quoting me saying 'ok'? I simply decided not to argue with finti on that particular point. *shrugs*

If you've never heard of Jesus/God or havent heard of sin or anything, at judgement day (from a Christian perspective) they would be judged on how pure their heart is.

ok explain this then

Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals Matthew 10:10
Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey Mark 6:8-9

The fig tree withered immediately. and the disciples registered surprise then and there Matthew 21:9
The morning after Jesus cursed the fig tree, the disciples noticed it had withered and expressed astonishment. Mark 11:12-14 & 20

The father of Joseph was Jacob. Matthew 1:16
The father of Joseph was Heli Luke 3 :23

Written by different people at different times who apparently didn't remember every detail from the other books....

This probably won't help, but I get the feeling that the chronology of a tree dying was of little importance to a bunch of wild-eyed ex-fisherman who spent most of their time either preaching in a hail of rocks and rotten fruit or being thrown into prison for their disgustingly non-Roman ways. Read the book of Acts, the energy and passion in there is absolutely incredible.

so is The Wuthering Heights still it is mention in the gospels

probably very close to the truth

I don't think it is a bout winning but if I had to say which I believe most I'd go for science

I think it would be totally wierd if some time in the future, somebody discovers that all of science was one big lie, and that science was just a test that people created a few millennia ago in order to control people.

Heh, nice point about Wuthering Heights, I must conceed...

Heathcliff, it's me Cathy.
Come home. I'm so cold
Let me in a your window.
- from Kate Bush's Wuthering Heigts

From Jospehus, the Jewish Roman (he was biased to the Romans, but also Jew)

Testimonium Flavianum: about this time lived Jesus, a wise man, "if indeed one ought to call him a man". For he was the one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. "He was the Christ". When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. "On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesised these and countless other marvellous things about him." And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still till to this day not disappeared

(Certain bits aren't consistent with his language, and were probably added by Christian copyists (interpolations). They're in quotation marks) This shows that he was the martyred leader of the church in Jerusalem, that he was a wise teacher with a large following, and that Jewish priests made Pilate do it.

Somewhere in the Antiquities(the history of the Jews from creation till the present day) He also says "He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, (means anointed one, or messiah) and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned

Ignore the bits in brackets. Note, if this was made up by Christians, it would have shown more praise of James (maybe contested the charge) as said by L.H. Feldman.

Next, Tacitus the Roman historian

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had it's origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome....Accordingly, an arrest was made of all those who pleaded guilty: then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much for the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

He accused Nero (fiddled whilst the city burned) of blaming the Christians. A note that "the extreme penalty" that Jesus received was the origin of ex*crus*ifing (crux means cross). They invented a term to deal with the pain. Also that there's a movement based on a crucified man to explain.

Then there's Pliny the younger (nephew of Pliny the elder, who died at Pomeii

I have asked them if they are Christians, and they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be lead away for execution: for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubbornness and unshakeable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished....

They also declared that the sum of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn to chant verses alternately among themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft robbery and adultery….

This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women, whom the called deaconesses. I found nothing but a degenerate sort of cult carried to extravagant lengths.

What a bastard. You hear about these guys, but you have to read them to get the truth. This testifies to the rapid spread of Christianity, even to slaves, the high ethical standards, and that they were not easily (but could be) swayed from their beliefs.

There’s an eclipse one by Thallus (he wrote the history of the eastern Mediterranean since the Trojan war in 52), and although his work was lost, It was quoted by Julius Africanus in AD 221

Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun- unreasonably as it seems to me.

A bit weak, but interesting.

In the Talmud (an important Jewish work in 500 circa that includes there’s a little on Jesus. They call him a false Messiah who practises magic and who was justly condemned to death. They also suggest that Jesus was born from a Roman soldier and Mary, suggesting something unusual about the birth (or the cause of impregnating)

There’s a ton of evidence outside the Bible.

I'll give my opinion here.

I'm a person who believes in science rather than religion (my 1st career choice was Biology), but I'm convinced that none of them will be able to be better than the other since they need each other. They just cannot be separated. Albert Einstein's phrase about them says it clearly (I think it was already mentioned here, but...): "SCIENCE WITHOUT RELIGION IS LAME. RELIGION WITHOUT SCIENCE IS BLIND".

There are many things that science cannot explain and probably will never be able to. Most of these are just not meant to be discovered. And religion... well, I think that the Church is making too many mistakes.
So, I had to choose and answer, I would say that science is further than religion right now.

It's not because some romans write about Christ that he existed (let alone that he was the man the bible claims he was)

I was providing evidence that he existed, outside the bible. I cannot prove a point about him, unless I can conclusively prove that he exists ( as many atheists disagree with his existance, and the bible's truth).

Read it. It shows a lot of stuff about him.

Science is making many mistakes too. Take the television; billions of IQ points down the drain...tv_happy

Nice use of an ad hominem abusive fallacy of logic, "Religion is correct because science is flawed too."

^ i think u were missing the finer points of Ytaker's point

hana_skywalker stated, "well, I think that the Church is making too many mistakes," and instead of refuting this claim, Ytaker responded with a criticism of her own, "Science is making many mistakes too."

In the scope of a discussion or argument, this is the equivalent of childish fingerpointing, "I know I am but what about you?"

I was really quoting finti's post, otherwise it would have seemed like I was talking to myself or something

You're missing my point. Very few people in the European/American countries have not heard of Christianity and Jesus. That is not the point. The point is, if somebody is already, say, Hindu, they are not going to simply convert to Christianity because they know it exists. They believe their religion to be the correct one, and Christianity and all others to be false. There is enormous fallacy in the Christian way of thinking that says "one day everyone will know of Jesus's teachings and there will be no excuse to not be a Christian!" Until God himself decides to show everybody beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christianity is the one true religion, there are going to be perfectly decent people who will have gone from cradle to grave without any interest in converting to Christianity. Most, if not all, Muslims know what a Christian is. But they will never actually become Christians, because their religion tells them that Islam is the more correct path. See what I mean?

Adam_PoE> I'm fairly sure that what Ytaker said was intended as a joke

Oh, yes. Science has made MANY mistakes during the ages… Fortunately science – unlike religion – has NO problem correcting mistakes when better data arrives new observations and new test-results.

And this – the ability to say “Oh, look, THIS is how it works” is what makes science much stronger than religion. Not to mention the fact, that no scientist has EVER prosecuted a religions person based on science – the opposite however, has taken place countless times.

FE> http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/seejesus.html
Which one is correct?
So, you are wrong. There ARE contradictions in Matthew and John. Deal with it.
Or here http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/imprisonment.html
Or here http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/postbaptism.html And here, for a longer account http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jesus.html
Want me to go on?

However I was referring to the historical errors and flaws as well. Herod died in 4 BC for example. And the census conducted under Quirinius didn’t happen until 6 AD.

Arachnoidfreak> Yeah, I know. Just re-stating the obvious…

Ytaker> I already showed you Testimonium Flavianum isn’t worth a thing. So why do you keep using it?

When Christians try to find any bit of evidence for Jesus outside the NT, they ALWAYS point to the following:
1) Testomonium Flavianum
2) Antiquities
3) Suetonius
4) Cornelius Tacitus
5) Mara Bar Serapion’
6) Pliny the Younger

Can YOU find any other?

Suetonius, writing about AD 120, mentions that emperor Claudius "banished the Jews from Rome, since they had made a commotion because of Chrestus," and that during the reign of Nero (54-68), "punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief."
The second reference is to the existence of Christians. No one disputes the existence of Christians. The first reference may be to Jesus. However, there were many messiahs making their appearance during this period and "Chrestus" was a common name, not necessarily a variant of "Christ." It should be noted that nowhere in his writings does Suetonius specifically mention a Jesus of Nazareth.

Tacitus: Tacitus did not claim to have firsthand knowledge of the origins of Christianity, he is repeating a story which was then commonly believed, namely that the founder of Christianity, one Christus, had been put to death under Tiberius. There are a number of serious difficulties which must be answered before this passage can be accepted as genuine. There is no other historical proof that Nero persecuted the Christians at all. There certainly were not multitudes of Christians in Rome at that date (circa 60 A.D.).
In fact, the term "Christian" was not in common use in the first century. We know Nero was indifferent to various religions in his city, and, since he almost definitely did not start the fire in Rome, he did not need any group to be his scapegoat. Tacitus does not use the name Jesus, and writes as if the reader would know the name Pontius Pilate, two things which show that Tacitus was not working from official records or writing for non-Christian audiences, both of which we would expect him to have done if the passage were genuine.

Perhaps most damning to the authenticity of this passage is the fact that it is present almost word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died in 403 A.D.), where it is mixed in with obviously false tales. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Sulpicius could have copied this passage from Tacitus, as none of his contemporaries mention the passage. This means that it was probably not in the Tacitus manuscripts at that date. It is much more likely, then, that copyists working in the Dark Ages from the only existing manuscript of the Chronicle, simply copied the passage from Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus which they were reproducing

And the Tacitus quotation wasn’t used by Christians until the 15th century.

Mara Bar Serapion: In the second or third century this gentleman wrote a letter to his son in jail. The letter mentions that the Jews had killed their "wise king." It is not clear who this is referring to. Mar Bar Serapion certainly was not a contemporary of Jesus so it is hard to see how this is a confirmation of Jesus.

Pliny the Younger: Pliny corresponded regularly with the emperor Trajan (98-117). In his letters, Pliny specifically mentions and describes the beliefs and practices of Christians in Asia Minor, and asks Trajan's advice about what action to take against them, if any. Pliny's writings provide no independent confirmation of the events of the New Testament, but just show that there were indeed Christians living in Asia Minor around 100.

SO NO:
1) there is not a ”ton” of evidence outside the Bible, you guys just keep clinging to the same few passages, hoping they will give you evidence, which
2) they do not.

I gonna hafta break down for all of you:

Science and Religion Don't make mistakes. But Scientists and Religious people do make mistakes! Why? Because they both are HUMANS! Humans are NOT perfect beings they make mistakes all the time! Get it in your heads! Humans make mistakes!. What's the point of correction when a mistake has been done? the damage has already been done.

Holy wars were caused by Religious fanatics. Pollution and Destructive weapons were made by Military Scientists! Both sides have being at fault before. No one is perfect! Please, for the sake of humanity let's become one race and stop pointing fingers at each other. There will never be understanding between humans until both sides work together! Yes, it can be done!

talk for yourself

pollution?

hehe...



Well.....I was thinking more like Chemists. Some of them dump their toxic waste into the gutter and ends up in the sea. Contaminating the beaches is a bad thing. Fortunally, laws are getting made.

Yep, Winddancer is very right... Both scientists and religious people make mistakes. But I think that if we had to break down the real difference between the two, scientists will generally admit their mistakes more readily than religious people. But then again, some of the mistakes scientists make end up being hugely detrimental in their long-term effects... Like nuclear waste and such.