If I may point out, no one alive has the original bible. It's a well documented fact that the bible has been edited and revised many times by whoever happened to be in power to foster their beliefs, and force them on the people by not only giving them religous credence, but destroying all previous editions so that they would be forced to accept it as true. The closest thing we have to an original copy is the dead sea scrolls and even those had already suffered revisions. Why christians choose to ignore the fallacies in belief is simple, it's all they know. Imagine someone coming up to you and instructing you that the sky is red. You see it as blue, but you're worng and everyone has been lying to you because actually, it's red. They begin to pull out evidence to prove this to you, do you listen? Most people in that situation wouldn't, and would continue to view the sky as they had always viewed it instead of accepting that something they had always held as a universal truth was simply wrong, and every decision they had made based on that fact was equally questionable. An over statement for the example provided, but I think the point remains.
Personally I'm neither christian or any religon, including atheistic. I have my own personal brand of beliefs that I choose to believe in regardless of evidence either for or against. I believe in it because I choose to believe in it and it comforts me to hold it as true. That said, I'm not harming anyone, so why should it matter if I ignore evidence to the contrary?

Why do atheists not see that Christians are just doing what makes them happy? o_o
Religion is, at its heart, really just a crutch. It provides an answer to all of our unanswerable questions and gives us a soothing alternative to the idea of dying. It's not sensible to me, but obviously some people take comfort in it. Who are we to tell them that their source of happiness is wrong and bad?

It contradicts a lot of what I've said in the past, I know. But ultimately, there isn't much use in telling someone their religion is wrong and bad.. is there? I mean, if they want to live their life in blind faith why stop them? Are they hurting anyone, really?

@Fabby: Their beliefs just support extremists and fanatics. Not a problem really, thanks the government extreme fanatism is against the law when it begins to hurt. [This is not sarcasm! Just brutal honesty D:]

It does hurt me when they try to prove me wrong though. Not because my self-steem goes down, but because they start it and end up noticing they can't give real evidence. It's like saying the best color in the world is red, and me saying 42% of the world population's favorite color is blue, following by the good it does to one's health the use of blue compared to the rest of colors. It makes me sad making them sad even when I don't intend to xP

@Firemare: But, but-- it's PINK and ORANGE! Haven't you seen the sky? D:[/joke]
I understand most people wouldn't believe, but if solid evidence was shown, all textbooks and systems would have to be modified so they support the truth, eh? We shouldn't go on saying frogs spontaneously appear on puddles if it's going to affect their rainy days. How many people use their car to go to church instead of staying home doing some family activity? How many bash homosexuals because they're fed that they're possessed by devils? Any belief, be it that there's a God up in the sky or that the Tooth Fairy leaves you a dollar for your molar, can affect how you act in society.

Evidence is rarely indicative of truth. Take for instace, Evolution. Controversial, I know, but it is just the latest in a long line of theories on why the next generation of any given thing looked the way it did. Each previous theory had merit! Even Darwin didn't have the idea that we accept today, he was a proponent of "blending" as I recall. It was Gregor Mendel whose theories, when incorporated into Darwin's become what is commonly recognised as the theory of Evolution today. The point being that many scientific views held today are wrong, and we know it! Modifying ALL textbooks to reflect the current thory in favor is foolish, meaning there can be no absolute truth, even from science. Scientists attempt to come closer to the truth. And while there are some people who hate homosexuality because "the bible tells them to" All they are really doing is misinterpreting the source to justify their own beliefs. The bible HAS homosexual evidence, and the same part that condemns all homosexuals, also condemns all sex, reinforces the property status of women and condones slavery! The bible is a tool for people to justify their beliefs when used in that manner, nothing more. It CAN be a tool of enlightenment and teaching compassion, but too often it isn't.

it shocks me when Christians don't believe in Santa.
a man flying around the would in one night dropping presents down chimneys is ridiculous but one man hearing everyone's prayers and causing constant miracles isn't.

@xHieix: Please don't quote John Mayer...lol

@Firemare: You're misstating the evidence to fit your needs. They alone were not entirely incorrect (in fact, Mendel wasn't incorrect at all), but their fields accentuated each other: the genotypic approach to heredity, and the phenotypic approach. Also, could you enlighten us on just which scientific views are incorrect? Is the Earth not billions of years old? Is the sky not blue? (and I'm not joking, I'm making a point)

@YourFallenAngel & anyone else who wants to say that not all Christians are the same: I realize this. I'm using a few generalities to save us all the headache of having to dissect every single person's personal beliefs and throw them all up on the board...

@Kah- Fanatics would probably find something else to rant and rave over if it weren't religion. It's not Christianity that is the problem there, it's the whack jobs that throw themselves into it.

The best theories based on current evidence lead to that conclusion. But as new evidence is uncovered, new theories will be made. For instance, the widely accepted path of human travel across the world is now being contested as more evidence is discovered. Though it is accepted NOW, that does not make it true. It is entirely possible that there will be new evidence that forces the theory of Evolution to be altered, or even discarded entirely. Our theories on how genetics work are being disproved and improved every day. Your arguements don't really work, for go back even a few hundred years and you would be asked "Is the earth not only a few thousand years old, Is there even a sky, and not merely an optical illusion?" They had sound arguments, even without the bible, and there was no evidence to disprove them except for a few crackpots on mountains.

Objection! We have more evidence now that we had a hundred years ago. It doesn't make us incorrect for the current time, it makes us closer and closer for a specific truth. DNA examination didn't exist 3 decades ago [or if it were, it was unheard of]. Evolution is an obsolete theory now, it's called Adaptation, which had gotten far more evidence than any other theory about the origins of men, because of these evidence we have now in comparison to a hundred years ago.

Evidence is indicative of truth. Or else, there wouldn't be any truth. I took a polaroid picture yesterday depicting my spouse of five years french-kissing another person. The picture is an evidence of a real event. If not, then my spouse never kissed anyone, and, who knows? Maybe he wouldn't even be my spouse because the marriage documents would be too old to be considered valid.*

*Hypothetical case, I'm not even in a relationship.

The bible, however, is only evidence that people of these times viewed homosexuality as a sin. They're mere accounts of these old times. Doesn't tell the truth whether homosexuality IS bad or not. And, who knows, it might even be fake evidence - the bible has been edited and translated quite some times, and even the old scrolls with the passages weren't as old as Jesus, which mean they're imperfect either due to malicious intents or human error.

However, homosexuality being a sin is something left to the study of Ethics, which is so subjective evidence doesn't work with it. Origins of humankind, however, is a fact, thus it should be studied and accepted through the scientific method. Why? Because it has a physical background, not a purely philosophic/spiritual one, thus, it can be proven with certainty.

Sorry, in all my science classes I was taught to never accept anything as the be all and end all of truth, because there is always something more to discover that may shed new light on every bit of evidence in the past. When I say that our theories are incorrect I mean that a thousand years from now, people will be asking "How could they have made such fallacious conclusions when the real answer is CLEARLY _____?" Evidence is indicative of truth, but what evidence to what truth?
Evidence: Some bottom feeders have very large eyes, while some don't have eyes at all. Evidence: No light can penetrate to this depth.
Truth: ?
While truth may be achieveable in one scenario, to achieve complete objective scientific truth would require all knowledge of everything leading up to and surrounding that, and every event. Quite frankly, it can't be done. Even if were were to completely map every synapse of every human mind, we would still be in the dark about what most of them meant or what signifigance they held. And if we understood every synapse of every mind, then we still would not have even begun to touch on the complex ways in which they interact with each other and the environment. If we could master that, understand every environmental and mental stimuli that led up to it, then we could say we achieved the truth of your spouse kissing someone else. THEN we would have truth.

As for homosexuality as a sin, personally I think that that's about the same thing as damning someone for the color of their skin or the hue of their eyes.

I never said we have already touched the absolute truth about scientific theories. I said that every new evidence makes us closer to a definite, specifical truth. Ignoring the evidence is what make us take wrong assumptions, like these people who think Michael Jackson was a pedophile, or these that believed Earth was plane and not round.

And why is it that Adaptation is more accepted than Creationism? Because they have arguments. I was taught if an argument didn't have solid evidence then it wasn't an argument, just a mere baseless claim.

I think homosexuality is way more natural than being religious, if we look at it from a biological standpoint. It's just that the definition of "sin" is left for Ethic studies not for Physical ones. Ethic is so volatile and dependant no absolute truth can be found on it xP

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

I never said we have already touched the absolute truth about scientific theories. I said that every new evidence makes us closer to a definite, specifical truth. Ignoring the evidence is what make us take wrong assumptions, like these people who think Michael Jackson was a pedophile, or these that believed Earth was plane and not round.

And why is it that Adaptation is more accepted than Creationism? Because they have arguments. I was taught if an argument didn't have solid evidence then it wasn't an argument, just a mere baseless claim.

I think homosexuality is way more natural than being religious, if we look at it from a biological standpoint. It's just that the definition of "sin" is left for Ethic studies not for Physical ones. Ethic is so volatile and dependant no absolute truth can be found on it xP

Would you possibly be able to go into more detail as to both why you believe religion is unnatural and what you mean by from a biological standpoint? As I find when I take a quick look over several cultures (both large and small scale) I find that religion serves an important role to the people who belong to them. Take the Nuer for instance despite living without a state they were able to live in relative social cohesion due to their religious beliefs. Then there is the Ju|hoansi, who use their religion both quite strongly for their identity, as a means of social cohesion and finally as a means of withstanding the devastation which is being inflicted upon their lifestyles. There are also Anglo Indians who for over 300 years have had their catholic beliefs as a central pillar for their community and sense of identity. Perhaps you would like me to continue as I have not even touched on the role that Shaman play in their communities.

I have never cared about the differences in the Bible. Actually, I know that not everything is true there because the texts are made inside a loooong period and it mirrors that periods happenings and beliefs. But I believe that it DOESN'T EVEN MATTER!!! To me, religion isn't something that is written and said that "if it's like this, then it is like this!" It's something you live and feel inside, and... well, you must know what mystique is. :D
And I don't see any trouble in fitting science with religion. I know that there has been the Big Bang and all, but I can't believe that it has happened without a purpose. No, someone must have made the mistake to blow the space to create this world! :sarcasm: Ok, maybe not, life is brilliant! :D

Oh yeah, about the homosexuality discussion: It happens in the wild wild nature and they don't mind, so it's only natural to have humen homosexuals! I would be worried if we wouldn't have them. :D

Biology covers Anthropology? I thought History did, my bad. I meant that you're born homosexual, but not religious. I see religion as a Proto-science and an ethic standpoint. These cultures' religions started as a way to understand nature and maintain a social order. But way before you either make those realizations or are taught religion, you develop a brain of the "opposite gender."

::EDIT:: And never said religion was "unnatural". I said being gay was more natural. Don't go to such extremes, sheesh~

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

::EDIT:: And never said religion was "unnatural". I said being gay was more natural. Don't go to such extremes, sheesh~

As for your edit, I acknowledge you did not say it was "unnatural, but you did take the stance of saying "way more". So I would argue that you were the one to when to extremes, by not only expressing there is a difference, but that it is an extreme difference.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

Biology covers Anthropology? I thought History did, my bad.

I would hope you are joking when you imply that Anthropology only has elements of history to it. Although my point was more asking why you think Biology alone could explain the natural human condition, I then drew upon Anthropology to demonstrate that religion is an entirely natural phenomenon among peoples. While I do not argue that homosexuality is unnatural or even less natural than religion, I take objection to you assertion that religion is "way more unnatural".

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

I meant that you're born homosexual, but not religious.

Perhaps you could explain why this makes it any less natural?

I see religion as a Proto-science and an ethic standpoint.

This does not really surprise me that you would take such an ethnocentric standpoint which just happens to put our Western science beliefs at the top of the hierarchy. I mean who would ever think of trying to understand them in their own cultural and historical context, when we can simply apply our own cultural standards to them. I mean we even have the added bonus this way of making ourselves look superior!

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

These cultures' religions started as a way to understand nature and maintain a social order. But way before you either make those realizations or are taught religion, you develop a brain of the "opposite gender."

Although you have yet to establish why this would make it 'more natural'.

That if you weren't taught religious beliefs, you wouldn't develop them [unless you're the exception, which I'm sure had been many times], but when you're born, these feelings will manifest themselves and one wouldn't ignore them.

Yeah yeah, I acknowledge that. I always think of it as a study of cultures rather than the study or man in all fields *wiki'd the topic*

To the fourth quote... I'll be honest, I don't fully understand it because I have yet to study "ethnocentric" and "hierarchy". I do understand the thing about me trying to make myself look superior. I'm not superior. I have the same limbs and/or capabilities as every other human. I just have a different view. And I know back then they didn't have the resources we have today, so they used religion as a way to understand the world.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

That if you weren't taught religious beliefs, you wouldn't develop them [unless you're the exception, which I'm sure had been many times], but when you're born, these feelings will manifest themselves and one wouldn't ignore them.

Although I would reject the notion that simply because it is learned that it is unnatural. But rather by pointing out that the learning of knowledge is a universally shared trait amongst societies, I would argue that it is in fact very natural. As surely you would agree that we are (in most instances) born with the capability to naturally learn?

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

Yeah yeah, I acknowledge that. I always think of it as a study of cultures rather than the study or man in all fields *wiki'd the topic*

Haha double majoring in politics and social anthropology, make me somewhat more sensitive to comments made about either of my fields. Even more so as the university I attend is predominantly aimed at horticulture/agriculture students, so it is viewed as a lesser subject by many of my fellow students.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

To the fourth quote... I'll be honest, I don't fully understand it because I have yet to study "ethnocentric" and "hierarchy".

By ethnocentric, I was meaning the act of applying your own cultural values and norms to other cultures. As a quick look at what proto-science means and I came up with a belief which fails to meet the cultural norms and values held by the natural sciences in general. This is quite a common thing to find in society, indeed I am currently coming across it a lot at the moment as I am taking a paper on Shaman. The hierarchy part was aimed at what I saw was an attempt to elevate the natural sciences above all other cultural beliefs (such as shaman for instance). When in reality they should not be studied outside of their own contexts.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

I do understand the thing about me trying to make myself look superior. I'm not superior. I have the same limbs and/or capabilities as every other human. I just have a different view. And I know back then they didn't have the resources we have today, so they used religion as a way to understand the world.

Although even here you are expressing the belief that your cultural view is superior to that of other peoples. Even the distinction between science and religion reveals this bias.

Man, you know who created this site, search in google.
You want to know who created you and bought you to your parents?
May the One God beside you.

I have a sorrow too, that Jesus died because of all sinners (especially Christians).
They murdered your ex God.
Your true God, I think, can forgive the sins without being crucified by despicable troops.

Originally Posted by Rescenin

I have a sorrow too, that Jesus died because of all sinners (especially Christians).

But Christians didn't even exist then. Jesus didn't even found them, he came to change jews' culture, and I don't believe he could ever come to "especially" save anyone. Then it would be like saying that which one of your children is your favourite!

You double-majored in the 2 fields I'm most ignorant on and I can't even speak the language properly, hell.

Hey, I believe in science for a reason. I don't know if people here just fail that much at expressing themselves when talking about why they believe in their religion, but science doesn't only give me the why, it tells me the whole mechanic [don't know if I'm expressing myself right in there xD;;], something religious people haven't gotten through me.

And where am I saying I'm superior?! @[email protected] I know if I didn't have glasses I would think frogs just appear out of puddles and that's it. Unless you're suggesting my mind works differently because I was raised differently. And then, you can't deny we have more resources for investigation than we did, say, a couple thousand years ago. Telescopes, microscopes, lasers, specific vitamin supplements, cameras... and even now we have a margin of error.

::EDIT:: maybe I expressed myself wrong? =.= I just see a basic difference between science and religion, and that's religion requires blind faith instead of skepticism... [of course there's many more but the one that jumps at me the most >.>']

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

You double-majored in the 2 fields I'm most ignorant on and I can't even speak the language properly, hell.

Haha not quite, I am only a second year student. Albeit at the second half of my second year. Also to be fair there have been more than a few moments when I have been humbled by my material. For instance I still recall how difficult the very first reading I got assigned was.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

Hey, I believe in science for a reason. I don't know if people here just fail that much at expressing themselves when talking about why they believe in their religion, but science doesn't only give me the why, it tells me the whole mechanic [don't know if I'm expressing myself right in there xD;;], something religious people haven't gotten through me.

Although my point in regards to this is that 'western science' is a culture in itself and as such carries its own biases. For instance what it values as being proof etc. This can be demonstrated quite clearly with the comparison between Shaman and healers vs Medical Doctors. Both Shaman and healers are quite commonly viewed as being highly distinct to medical doctors. Which is something I find quite puzzling as they both perform the same function in their societies.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

And where am I saying I'm superior?! @[email protected] I know if I didn't have glasses I would think frogs just appear out of puddles and that's it. Unless you're suggesting my mind works differently because I was raised differently. And then, you can't deny we have more resources for investigation than we did, say, a couple thousand years ago. Telescopes, microscopes, lasers, specific vitamin supplements, cameras... and even now we have a margin of error.

I was not accusing you of personally thinking you are superior. But rather having the belief that the culture of science is superior which makes you unable to take into account other differing cultural perspectives. As for your assertion it is clear we have better technology, I would argue who? As there are many tribal peoples out there who still live without such technology. I would not assume that their knowledge or experience is any less valid despite their having lower levels of technology.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

::EDIT:: maybe I expressed myself wrong? =.= I just see a basic difference between science and religion, and that's religion requires blind faith instead of skepticism... [of course there's many more but the one that jumps at me the most >.>']

I think more of our difficulty comes from you only comparing them to cultures from large scale societies. Whereas in my explanations I include small scale and fourth world peoples as well.

I don't believe in everything the bible says. I don't even listen to what the bible says, because I don't need a book to tell me what I should and shouldn't do. Though I do think that God and Jesus just wants people to believe in them and do things the right way. So I live by that rule, just the general nice things that should be notice and probably is. Like if someone needs help, I would surly hope you would help them or someone is having a hard time dealing with things and, of course, I would help them. I mean if they come to me for advice. I just don't think you should be mean to anybody at all. I would rather see a very much happy environment in the place we live in. We all are sharing this earth and I would rather see things as a happy side and not all negative with disgusting energy. Do you get what I am saying?

Originally Posted by reddeath26

Haha not quite, I am only a second year student. Albeit at the second half of my second year. Also to be fair there have been more than a few moments when I have been humbled by my material. For instance I still recall how difficult the very first reading I got assigned was.

I think I can understand the feeling, I'm having this new class [ToK] and it's driving me insane with its puzzling questions D:

Originally Posted by reddeath26

Although my point in regards to this is that 'western science' is a culture in itself and as such carries its own biases. For instance what it values as being proof etc. This can be demonstrated quite clearly with the comparison between Shaman and healers vs Medical Doctors. Both Shaman and healers are quite commonly viewed as being highly distinct to medical doctors. Which is something I find quite puzzling as they both perform the same function in their societies.

When indeed they perform the same function, healing people of their community, there's the difference that most of the time, the shaman only knows that if you do a, b happens, while the doctor knows why and how a causes b.

Originally Posted by reddeath26

I was not accusing you of personally thinking you are superior. But rather having the belief that the culture of science is superior which makes you unable to take into account other differing cultural perspectives. As for your assertion it is clear we have better technology, I would argue who? As there are many tribal peoples out there who still live without such technology. I would not assume that their knowledge or experience is any less valid despite their having lower levels of technology.

Well, maybe people think like that because of what I stated above. I know manabitans have no idea why botflies come out when smoking/blowing tobacco directly at the skin they invaded, they just know it happens.

While we're on that, I heard of this African tribe whose language didn't have numbers. I figured it was because in their context they didn't need numbers, so they just developed "less" and "much".

Originally Posted by reddeath26

I think more of our difficulty comes from you only comparing them to cultures from large scale societies. Whereas in my explanations I include small scale and fourth world peoples as well.

Well, I'll confess the only non-christian religion I have had contact with is quichwan [which even then it's been mixed with christianism since Spanish colonialism], which their believers don't question, they just follow. How can they reach truth if they don't question and experiment? :|

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

I think I can understand the feeling, I'm having this new class [ToK] and it's driving me insane with its puzzling questions D:

Although I am sure you will agree it is an amazing feeling when you suddenly understand what the reading is trying to say, or that difficult question is asking. For instance the moment I grasped the reading, I knew I was in the right major . :)

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

When indeed they perform the same function, healing people of their community, there's the difference that most of the time, the shaman only knows that if you do a, b happens, while the doctor knows why and how a causes b.

Not entirely as this is firstly going by the assumption that Shaman only live in small scale societies. Whereas take India for example, they are gaining increasing access to Western medical knowledge and they combine what they learn from this with their Shaman knowledge. It is not just here but in many places around the world Shaman draw their knowledge from numerous cultural fields. From this one could argue that they are more aware of the healing process than a medical doctor, simply because of their increased cultural horizons. Whereas a medical doctor is encouraged to simply engage with their own cultural practices. Even when they look at other cultural views it is more commonly out of interest and they do not really take the time to learn.

Even in cases where the Shaman lives in the small scale tribal culture, it is not so simplistic that they believe they do A and B happens,although I would argue there is little difference between this and the medical Doctor. As they simply have a different system of healing. But before I stray I had a point here. Namely that culture to culture it is extremely difficult to pin down the Shaman and their understandings of healing. For instance Levi-Strauss demonstrated through his research that not all Shaman start off believing in their healing powers. To demonstrate this he drew on the field research of Franz Boas.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

Well, I'll confess the only non-christian religion I have had contact with is quichwan [which even then it's been mixed with christianism since Spanish colonialism], which their believers don't question, they just follow. How can they reach truth if they don't question and experiment? :|

Although truth can be quite a slippery term. It is also worth noting that I do not believe that objective truth is obtainable by us. But rather I believe we all have our subjective truths. Indeed drawing from Historical Particularism, I find (and hold) that all cultural traits are the result of our own unique historical conditions. As a result they can only be understood within their own context. Furthermore to even increase your understandings of a culture you need to understand their language and to have spent significant time studying them. Although drawing from Post modernist Anthropology, I am inclined to think your level of understanding will always be impaired, by your own biases. As whatever information you gain, you will interpret and understand it based on your culture and experiences. So from these two points I would push that first in order to determine whether they have truth in their views, we would need at the very least to understand them. However because of our own bias we are both prevented from achieving either this or gaining objective truth ourselves.

I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than to live my life as if there isn't a God and die to find out there is.