Why do you believe what you believe

[Ayelah]

You think I am against Christianity, go ahead. I can't change what you think, obviously, and you are free to think what you want. Of course, it might not be true, but you are going to think it anyways I suppose? Doesn't bother me much...

God gave is the ability to choose? Go ahead and think he did. Assume that I believed that were true. Well, I choose a different path. I choose a different set of beliefs, and that is MY choice because God gave it to ME. Sounds selfish, maybe, but I choose to believe in something different because it makes sense to me. It doesn't need to make sense to you if it makes sense to me. I can never ever prove what I believe is true. Why? Because I myself do not know how much truth or logic is behind it 100%. Now, you can question as to my 'blind faith' but my faith is really no faith at all in a sense. Because I don't really care to know anything more than what I am supposed to. Am I supposed to know the meaning of life and how it began? No, if I were to, I would have been giving proof of that knowledge. You may take your speculations as proof, most people do.

You can have faith in anything you wish. Other people can too and THEY think YOUR wrong, so your ranting about Jesus this and Divine God that means absolutely nothing to them. Just like it means absolutely nothing to me. Why? Because we think we know what is right, all of us, so anything else anyways says isn't going to really change that. You can say everyone in the world is wrong except for you and that you are the only individual on the planet who will get admitted into Heaven. Would I care? No, because I don't believe it. Would anyone else care? Probably not, because they don't believe it. There is no need to attack you for what you believe because you beleive it for a reason. So does everyone else.

There isn't a need to bring 100 people in here from different religions so each can prove theirs true. I know a decent amount of information about Islam (which I am not going to argue considering my knowledge base isn't very large) and I can see why they believe the stuff they do. Because it makes sense to me, and of course it makes sense to them. Does Christianity make sense? Of course, people wouldn't follow it if it did not. Does Islam make sense? Yes. Does Hinduism make sense? Yes. Does Taoism? Yes. Buddhism? Yes. Every religion MAKES SENSE or it would not have followers in the first place. Just because it doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it isn't true.

Where did I say I didn't believe in science? I didn't, you are just making assumptions...again.

Haha, YOU need ME proof to that each one of us has different morals? Is that not just common sense? I am not even going to go on with that topic...

Get offended, I didn't mean you to, but you are obviously going to do it anyways. Did I say his life was fabricated? Assumptions assumptions dear. I will never dismiss the life is Jesus Christ as false. But personally, I do not believe he was the son of God.

Personally, I think Jesus was a mentally unstable individual who no doubt did good things, but really...was no one of real importance. And now there is a religion based on his insanity. Do I have any proof that this is true? No. Do I have any proof that this is false? No. Unless, of course, you know someone 2,000 years old that can give a creditable account because he personally knew Jesus, the of course, I could be wrong. My apologies if you get offended by this, but it is only what I think, and obviously anything I think is not true to you, being of a different religion and/or thought pattern.

Proving the bible is false is like proving the bible is true. I do not think it can be done. Why? Because we are reading something written thousands of years ago. There are bound to be mistakes in it, but you seem to think otherwise. With reason, of course, but if one relies on science, then some of what the bible says is untrue.

How could the human race be started by two individuals? How could every kind of animal fit onto a raft? How could their populations be started by just two of their members?

I am not saying the bible is a bad thing, but I believe it was created to guide people morally, not to contain any sort of truth. The bible was written by people who have faults, regardless of if it came directly from god or was made up. It was written BY people, and people could have added or taken away anything to make the bible. That, and thousands of years ago, stories were passed along verbally, not usually written down. So, one can question that a story in the bible could be wrong because of how it was passed along in the first place.

 

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

The biggest discrepancy I'm seeing here is that the Bible can be "true" in its message, but not necessarily in its interpretation. Logically and scientifically speaking, we know that two people (Adam and Eve) could not have been the only people created, although the first chapter of Genesis describes a creation in which all of mankind was created together, conflicting with the Eden story in the second chapter, which also features a one day creation myth (and by the way, I happen to be both, and I thank you for the compliment, but I have lots of people to thank for getting me this far).

However, the Bible also does contain elements of historical accuracy, to a point, as it was written many, many years after the fact of those events. Pretty much all of Genesis is mythos, so I really wouldn't use the Ark or Babel as evidence against accuracy.

Personally, I would very much like to see people of other faiths post in this thread more, explaining their own beliefs and the reasons they follow them. This "faith versus non-faith" is beginning to get repetitive, although that may just be me.  

[souloe]

@rioku: essentially, what I am getting is that we talk on a different channel. I speak of logic and proofs to support statements while you do otherwise. Using your own beliefs I could very well answer all your statements saying "why not?" But quoting what dboyzero said, it "is beginning to get repetitive" so I shall refrain from proceeding further.

@dboyzero: Please, do explain your point of view. Why is it impossible for only Adam and Eve to be created? You say that logic and science both bids otherwise, and I do apologize if I am slow, but please, do explain that I may understand.

As for the first and second chapter conflicting. Please, do elaborate on the why part, for I myself see no conflict no matter how many times I read the text. As well, how did you even come up with the idea of one day creation myth???

but ya, as you said dboyzero, I too would like to see why people believe in different faiths as well. And as such, I am also very curious to see what/the supports and evidence that you will provide for your beliefs of the Big Bang and evolution.  

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

Oh boy...

Okay, so in populations of any living creature that uses genes (meaning all living things and some that aren't), you need a suitable amount of genetic variation in the gene pool in order to assure the survival of the population. Inbreeding and bottle-necking lead to genetic disorders (in human cases, hemophilia, among others) and greater chances of extinction due to genetic diseases. Since there is low variance, a single strain of disease is much more likely to spread through the population and wipe them out. While it is possible for a species to survive with a low population, the chances for survival decrease with the number of individuals, and any geneticist will tell you the impossibilities of a population being founded by a meager two people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_pool
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_population_size
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect

I'll get to the Bible thing later. In barebones, the first two chapters of Genesis had different authors with different aims, both presenting different creation myths. The P source, who wrote the first chapter, had the advantage of being later than the J source (the second chapter's author) and could put his text before the J text, thus giving people his version before the other.  

[Ayelah]

It works both way. Anything I could argue against you, it could be said "It is in God's Plan."

I said it before and I'll say it again to clear it up with you Souloe.

Religion is not a bad thing. It gives people hope, comfort, morals, answers etc. It may not be for me, but it works for the rest of the world. I don't hate anyone because of their beliefs or religion, and I never will. That is like hating people for being different.

I'd have to agree though, everything we have said supports our own beliefs in some way. If this arguement were to go on, I am sure it would never end. Nevertheless, it was still fun arguing (: I quite enjoyed that.

I do hope you don't judge me as a person for my lack of faith in organized religion. And I hope you have understood a bit of my own belief too. Who knows, maybe one day you or I will change our minds about what we believe.

 

[souloe]

@dboyzero: Interesting, yet if I was to analyze what you have said, what I'm getting is that rather than impossible, it is improbable. In addition, my question would be this. Are you assuming that the conditions back then is the same as now? Or have you factored the possibility of otherwise?

As for the authors, I suppose I'll have to wait for you to give me more details. Those statement alone are really quite "bare" in your own words.

@Rioku: yes indeed it was very interesting in various perspectives. hmmm, as for judging, do not worry. As I have mentioned before, I try not to judge - regardless of success rate - but I do try as I do not believe it is my place to judge anyways. smile  

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

Regardless of the conditions of the time period, human genetics wouldn't allow viable offspring to be continued to be produced from a founding population of 2. Even if their sons and daughters continued to inbreed, further offspring down the line would suffer drastic consequences. It's a genetic and natural safeguard that prevents this propagation, as it leads to reduced genetic fitness that logically wouldn't survive to compete against others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding

Quote:

First generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and health defects, including:

* reduced fertility both in litter size and in sperm viability
* increased genetic disorders
* fluctuating facial asymmetry
* lower birth rate
* higher infant mortality
* slower growth rate
* smaller adult size
* loss of immune system function.

There are reasons why we outlaw inbreeding, and there are reasons why it rarely happens in the wild. The results are drastic, and lead to nothing but further extinction of any organism which continues to do so.  

[souloe]

so you did presume the conditions back then was the same as now...

think about it this way. The symthoms you have stated "are more likely to show". Why? Because the probability of recessive genes surfacing would supposedly increase. Yet, was there such "bad" genes in Adam and Eve? If you take the assumption that what the Bible said is true, you can't just take a small section and leave out the rest. When God created the world He said that it was very good. That included man and world. If there are defective genes, can you say it is good? Perhaps, but at least, I would not.

And as for lower competitiveness, have you asked the question "did they need to compete?" If you read chapter one, you'd realize that there is no, if i have not mistaken, meat eaters. resources include what? food, land, mate and the likes. Food and land, there was plenty for all since logically, I'd say the earth is not as full as it is now. Mate, Adam had Eve and she had him. What do you think? Competition? against who? against what?  

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

Regardless of competition with other species or with human predators, the low competitiveness I'm referring to simply means genes that would result in the symptoms which I listed. There are simple genes for infertility, for hemophilia, or other less desirable characteristics; these are conditions which result from a combination of factors, which genes play a large part of. Even if two perfectly healthy and genetically "perfect" people have offspring, the offspring of those offspring's inbreeding will have poor genes from the recombination process. It may not be noticeable for a generation or two, but it will gradually make itself known with less and less fit individuals.

Besides that fact, there was know childbirth in the garden, as they only began birthing children after they had been banished, so all would not be good.

Along those same lines of not taking the Bible in parts, is incest not forbidden? Even if Adam and Eve's children produced healthy and viable offspring, would they not be at fault for procreating with their siblings?

And lastly, a point which I have been lax to mention due to its relation to the subject of evolution and the like, is that never has there been any evidence of an Eden, and that in all the genealogical trees that we have fashioned, never has anyone traced all of humanity back to a founding population of two. There were many other hominids present when Homo sapiens arose, and inbreeding would certainly reduce their competitiveness with other species such as the Neanderthals.  

[souloe]

hmmm, what you are saying is that the "bad genes" will show up after x generation. Now my question to you is this, how do they show up in the first place? If they are recessive genes that show up, then logically, if those genes never existed in the first place, we have no need to even discuss the matter. If however, they were created through breeding, I would have to ask "how?" as well as, "why does it not show up in the otherwise case?"

As for incest, from what I remember that was forbidden at around Leviticus. Would the timing have anything to do with anything? But yes, you do bring up very interesting points. In fact, you have made me question my own belief in a sense. Did God stop creating after the seventh day? Normally, at least I, have previously assumed so. But now that I think about it I dont' remember reading that "God stoped creating after the seventh day" so that's actually rather interesting. What do you think?

As for proof of Eden. If you really took the Bible as a whole you'd realize that there was something called a universal flood at the time of Noah. If that flood indeed happened, I would think that the garden would be destroyed. In addition, if I have not mistaken, the Bible says that God placed an angel with a flaming sword to guard the garden that man may not return to it. If that is the case, would you not think that God would have removed it - Knowing that man would populate to our current abundance?

But ya, I'm guessing the wait for your evolution and big bang would be proportional to the quality of evidence. I do look forward. smile  

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

Well, evidence is as evidence does. If I had the time and the resources, I would digitally scan my old bio textbooks and research the references they used, in addition to scientific proofs, articles, and other media that I've browsed through over the years. The problems with that, however, is that those without a heavy background in the sciences probably wouldn't be able to make head or tail out of the writing, and thus forth it would be fairly useless. If you would like, I'd be willing to ship you some reading material (ie, old textbooks) that would probably be far more specific than the background that I have. Other than that, I will do my best to explain the current scientific theories as best I can relate them through a digital medium.

Also: bad genes are a bit of a misnomer, as genes are just bits of code which produce RNA from our DNA, and the RNA then synthesizes proteins which our cells and body use. Errors in the transcription process can lead to bad proteins, which generally don't do much harm, or the production of prions, which are like proteins, but are self-replicating and can cause a lot of damage. Prions are the force behind such things like Mad Cow Disease.

In any case, genes also undergo a process of recombination during the early stages of post-fertility, which results in genetic variation from the parent DNA. This is why you aren't a direct clone of either one of your parents, but more a blending of both. This process as a whole is referred to as "chromosomal crossover," and literally involves limbs of the chromosomes crossing over each other and trading spaces. This results in genetic information being traded along, sometimes to the detriment of the offspring. These are generally referred to as "deleterious genes," and arise constantly from generation to generation, sometimes being passed on by being masked by dominant genes if they are recessive. This is why they do not always present themselves in a population, as dominant genes, like their name suggests, assert dominance and express their traits over the deleterious genes. As inbreeding continues, however, the chances of two heterozygous (meaning having one dominant gene and one recessive) individuals with deleterious meeting and mating increases exponentially, and thus the chances of those characteristics being expressed.

This is the same logic used as evidence against the reality of the story of Noah's ark, as a pair of every kind of animal would lead to the extinction of all those species. I also must add that there has been no evidence detailing a global flood, either.  

[souloe]

I have some knowledge for how genes work so no need to think I am zero on this field. But yes, you say that it produce "bad genes" (i do understand what you said about the term but I'm just using it for convenience) but is it 100% or is it a probability? You said sometimes detriment to the offspring, does that reinforce that it is a probability thing? If it is a probability thing then even if suppose there was no divine intervention it still doesnt' refute that mankind could start with two people. And again, we should not take one bit of the Bible and leave out the rest. Don't leave God out of the picture. If God wanted man to populate the earth in this method, what is to stop Him from doing so?

As for Noah's ark. From what I remember there are evidence. On high mountains you can find crystals that should not logically be there for they appeared in oceans. Does that not mean that those mountains were once under water?

How do you think the grand canyon came to be?

((sry I had a really long day, if I'm not making sense... tell me.))  

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

The grand canyon was formed over millions of years, as a result of the slow erosion process from the Colorado river. I'm not sure what you're referring to with these crystals in the mountains, but modern geologists unanimously consider the Genesis flood to be absolutely mythical, the evidence for such being more or less a fictitious pseudoscience.

With a deity in the picture, I suppose anything is possible, so if it really was supposed to be that way, there would be nothing stopping him from breaking the rules of physics, genetics, or even common sense. Five-minute hypothesis, remember? Simply going by modern genetics and population dynamics, it would be absolutely unheard of for any population to be started with just two individuals.  

[souloe]

Grand canyon... so essentially it became the way it is by being "carved by water" then?

As for your claims that it is unheard of for any population to start with just two individuals. You base that on a supposed improbability. Yet, if you really think about it, evolution has even lower odds of occuring, but I won't get into details of why I made that statement until you post the evolution support since it fits into that category. As well, if we use your own point when stating the "higher plane of existance" that "there is a probability of it to be true therefore you can not say absolute otherwise" then how can you say that it is impossible for a population to originate from two? Can you prove its absolute impossibility?

With a deity in the picture...yes I suppose that will eliminate all else. Yet if you think about it. All historical aspects of the Bible has only been proven true and never false. There may be uncertainties but never false. In terms of credibility its even higher than the 2 records - that marks contradicting routes of the same journey - that describes Alexander the great's journey of conquest. in terms of archeology there have been many cases where people denied the Bible because they could not find the sites stated wtihin, yet years later, they actually find it. If it was a book of mythologies written by people thousands of years ago. Would you not think that they would incorporate what they know of "science" as they knew it into the book? And the science they knew is not half of what we know today. Then logically, probability wise, should there not be a high chance of contradiction in terms of impossible and possible against the science we understand today?  

[Cornelius loh Quatious]

The grand canyon was indeed carved by water, but not all at once, but over the course of millions of years. It is a slow process, and a flood would not produce canyons at all.

I claim that it is unheard of for a population to start with two individuals because it is just that. Never in the history of population study has there been a successful case of a thriving population (especially one with as many as six billion people) starting with two animals. In bacteria and single-celled organisms, maybe, but never in chromosomal animals. Remember that I believe that absolutely anything is possible, just things that are more and less likely.

The global flood has been proven false, and I would think that uncertainty would be enough to place enough doubt on the document as is. Interpretations of the text also matter, as something that one person believes is explained by the text may not be up to snuff for the next. Take the Genesis, for example. One person may interpret it as the creation of the entire universe and all that we know, taking place 6000 Earth-years ago, the Young Earth Hypothesis. On the other hand, many Christians believe in the Old Earth Hypothesis, that the world was formed 4.5 billion Earth years ago, and that the universe almost 14 billion years ago. Contradictions exist within the bible, but there are those who are willing to interpret the text differently so as to make things fit.

Evolution has lower odds of occurring? I am curious to hear what you mean by this, as it might be easier for me to go on the defensive than to dig up all of my research all at once.