Hate the information; love your assumption.

[TMA_1]

I asked a few people what they thought if a person argued against the christian and jewish religions without reading the Old and New testament books. Of course they said that it is not only ignorant, but potentially dangerous. You have to depend on data collected from others in order to argue your assumption. another point is that if you dislike what you are arguing against and you dont know the source info, then you are expressing only emotions and some sort of odd bitterness.

It is like the few people who's views are against evolution but dont actually study the information. They will say that they know evolution is wrong, and begin to spout out their "ideas" like they are ground breaking. You then realize that It is an exact duplicate as the one you saw on NOVA. Or the person or persons will bring up a point based on a few websites or taking biology 101.

When this happens, I always hear people who agree with evolution say, "You need to actually study evolution before you argue about it.".

they couldnt be more right in my opinion.

Doesnt that go with our faith as well? Just because I dont believe in evolution and dont agree with atheism, does that make my opinion less relavent? My system of belief is ancient and detailed. Many people believe it, so why are we inferior? (makes me feel like I am discriminated against). I hear a lot of atheists bashing the God of the bible, but rarely do I meet those who have actually taken good study of it from it's exact source.

Its even worse when a christian doesnt know his or her source info, but thats another debate all together.lol

[SurlyPIG]

Well I only speak for myself but I've read the NT. I never saw that much point in reading the OT but I might be wrong. I've also read about 1/4 of the Qur'an and by that time I'd had enough. I've never commented very much on the Jewish religion if at all so I don't see how I've screwed up in that area.

[TMA_1]

"if a person argued against the christian and jewish religions without reading the Old and New testament books."

that automatically discludes you then.lol sorry man. ;)

but its good you read all of that. did you read it with a personal opinion or bias?

[Navaros]

you don't need to study "evolution" to argue about it because the fact that it's malarky is plain old common sense

studying it will just waste your time determining the undisputable scientific facts as to the ludicrousity of "evolution" when any one with common sense already knows that. so the point is, don't waste your time studying "evolution" or any other malarky because malarky is not worth your time and no matter how much you have "studied" it, the bottom line is it's still nothing other than ludicrous malarky

[TMA_1]

you prove my point about annoying anti evolutionists.lol It is good to study the side you disagree on. Even if it is to strengthen your own opinions.

[Acriku]

I think the two are very different. You must understand evolution to argue against it, because it can be very complicated. But, you can argue against god by only reading parts of the bible, and always in context. I've committed myself to reading a pretty big part of the KJV and I find it hilarious. It "reaffirms my lack of belief" so to speak. But I also want to mention that some of us do not have the necessary resources to study the NT/OT, so they must rely on other's to point out verses and then come up with your own conclusions. This does not make the argument any less valid.

[SurlyPIG]

"but its good you read all of that. did you read it with a personal opinion or bias?"

The first time I read the NT I was nine or ten and I got about 1/4 of the way through it when it occurred to me I had absolutely no idea what was going on. I've never been good at reading Old English, and it was even worse then. I read it again with a much clearer understanding of the dialect and linguistic style. At that time I tried to reduce my bias to the material by imagining how four different people would interpret the texts. The first was a fundamentalist Christian, like sneezer for example, who took the text at face value. The second was a 'new age' or liberal Christian who interpreted the writings as connotative or metaphorical (kind of like Edric). The third was someone from another religion. It changed every day. One day it might be, "What would a Hindu think about the Gospel according to Matthew?" The next, "What would a Jew think of the Ten Commandments?" The last was an atheist of varying opinion. One day it was a secular-humanist, the next a hedonist, the next an anarchist. It was fun sometimes picturing these characters in a room arguing about the material.

[number6]

I am religious in that I believe in God and I am also a believer in scientific methods, but I have not seriously studied either the Bible or evolution theory (other than watching nature shows that always discuss evolution on Discovery,National Geographic, etc...)

There are parts of evolution that I have never understood. The nature shows will talk about how a certain fruit tree has through many years of evolution has selectively grown fruits that only certain animals will find appetizing so that the seeds get maximum dispersal. How does a tree know to grow a fruit that a monkey will enjoy eating and spread the seeds so there can be more trees? Sounds to me like there might be a greater purpose out there that made the trees grow the fruit instead of the tree eventually just getting the taste right by luck or the tree somehow knowing that more trees are growing because the animals are eating more of a fruit. How do we know that the fruit changed through evolution? It sounds a lot like educated guessing and not really scientific to me. Are trees sentient beings watching us animals?

[Acriku]

I imed you number6 with the explanation that I found most likely to be correct (it may not be entirely correct but gives the basic idea).

[number6]

I read the IM, thanks! I find it interesting as well. I still think that there is a higher purpose involved, but that is the best scientific explanation I have heard.

[Acriku]

Thanks :) I am taking college-based biology class right now, and it's awesome. I suggest everybody take it in highschool. You learn so much about the wonders of life it is really amazing.

Here is what I sent number6 incase anybody felt left out ;)...

That's a little backwards. When the ovary of a plant enlarges to become the fruit, and starts to ripen, it converts starches into glucose - a form of sugar. So, with this sugary taste, animals find it appealing and start to eat it. This disperses the seed(s) within the enlarged ovary to make more of those plants. Now over time, the fruit might develop a distinct taste by a mutation or two, and if it provides a great disperal of seeds, then it is going to grow a lot more, and the mutation is copied with the DNA so that the seeds contain this mutation as well. And so, the plant that makes fruit that allows the best dispersal of seeds becomes more present, and is able to survive in its generations to come. It's all real interesting to me :)

[TMA_1]

you told me you didnt read much of the bible acriku, so I am guessing you took snipits of it that other people found funny, and thought it was funny as well.

You havent studied the source acriku. You have told me this. I have studied the bible through and through. It is one thing I can brag about. They arent different. Both take sorting out and reasoning.

If you cant get a bible somewhere, (you can get them for free in so many places) then you are probably making it difficult to get one or live in a spiritually oppressive household.lol Acriku you didnt say how it is different, only odd statements. Both are reasonings for how things are. They are different in many ways, but they arent different in the fact that they both have an explanation for things (if you are a creationist like me). You like to flash fancy debate terms, but you screw around and use them while arguing.lol you bring up meaningless info like "the bible is hilarious".

I mean, if you had some value and respect in your threads, I wouldnt have to say this stuff. You just flipped out man. You went so far as to take one term and take it personally. You destroy yourself with your own emotions man.

[Acriku]

Only lately have I started reading the KJV, so yeah it's true that I didn't read much of the bible when I said it. I follow the philosophy that "If you can't come up with arguments against your own arguments, then you aren't very well prepared." Comments like "The bible is hilarious" is the god-to-honest truth to me, it's really apparent reading it from a skeptic's perspective. You should try it sometime. I find it as amusing and sometimes interesting as the stories of the Roman gods. But actually I think the Roman gods are more interesting than your god, but may just be me. I am a Jew, I live in a Jewish family, where am I going to get a bible? I'd rather look online for it, to read at my leisure without having it stink up my room. Haha ;) Jk...

[TMA_1]

what does you being jewish have to do with anything? you didnt even have the guts to tell your dad for the longest time how you feel, so how can you stand there and insult my faith? you can hurt people man. and not because of you being a jerk about this argument, but you changing into the jerk you are now. you are the one that flipped out, now we are enemies. its all because of your precious beliefs. Heck, I never did that to you. Im locking this.