I have a friend,a very very catholic friend, who, recently revealed to our "group" that, due to them not being mentioned in the bible book, doesn't. Believe. In DINOSAURS! you heard right.
*smashes head on school desk multiple times ( I did this when she/he told us)*
so, I must ask, do any of you caths share this mind set?

Catholics aren't biblical fundamentalists. Your friend is on his own on that.

In this defense, dinosaurs don't exist. To quote Newt from Aliens: "they're dead all right, can I go now?"

I too miss our coconut eating TRex friends.

Nope, But many catholics/christians do. It involves that "If it doesnt make sense in my narrow world view, it is not real" Ideal f christians

So he doesn't believe in Kangaroos either then

 Frazzled wrote:
In this defense, dinosaurs don't exist. To quote Newt from Aliens: "they're dead all right, can I go now?"

I too miss our coconut eating TRex friends.

Cookies for the alien quote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yak9UT wrote:
So he doesn't believe in Kangaroos either then

The scary thing is that I don't know the answer to this question :(

 Yak9UT wrote:
So he doesn't believe in Kangaroos either then

Or crocodiles. Or Turtles.

Show him the passage in an older bible verse about jesus going toe to toe with a dragon. Then see if he thinks dragons are real

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Show him the passage in an older bible verse about jesus going toe to toe with a dragon. Then see if he thinks dragons are real

I need to read this "bible". The thing is, no offence to Catholics, but I would probably end up giggling for a week.

Im cathloc and I do too.
There are some good life lessons though if you get past the stoning of non-virgins

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Show him the passage in an older bible verse about jesus going toe to toe with a dragon. Then see if he thinks dragons are real

This could have more dangerous repercussions than desired.

In Psych of Religion as an exercise we had one group play the fundamentalist Christians and one group play the everyone else in a discussion on evolution. I, being a well educated man of science, thought that I could formulate an argument the fundamentalists couldn't defend against.

I was wrong.

Dinosaurs never existed, their fossils were put in the earth by God to test the faith of his children. True believers know that the earth is only about 6000 years old, and anything older than that is a lie.

Except Frazz, Frazz is older than dirt.

 xole wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Show him the passage in an older bible verse about jesus going toe to toe with a dragon. Then see if he thinks dragons are real

This could have more dangerous repercussions than desired.

In Psych of Religion as an exercise we had one group play the fundamentalist Christians and one group play the everyone else in a discussion on evolution. I, being a well educated man of science, thought that I could formulate an argument the fundamentalists couldn't defend against.

I was wrong.

I attempted to ask her to explain her religion and he/she slapped me, twice, in my face, painfully, twice.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Nope, But many catholics/christians do. It involves that "If it doesnt make sense in my narrow world view, it is not real" Ideal f christians

Unequivocal horsegak. We live about 25 minutes from a very conservative Christian founded "creation museum" and one of their biggest exhibits ever was about about dinosaurs and they presently have one about dragons.

They may not believe in evolution, but to say they don't believe dinosaurs existed is an outright falsehood.

Why on earth wouldn't they 'believe' in dinosaurs?

Catholicism doesn't teach the old testament literally. Dinosaurs existed, nothing in the New Testament suggests otherwise. What an odd thing to think.
I think you should suggest a new branch of the Christian Church, they should be a fundamentalist not a Catholic if they are that crazy...

 xole wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Show him the passage in an older bible verse about jesus going toe to toe with a dragon. Then see if he thinks dragons are real

This could have more dangerous repercussions than desired.

In Psych of Religion as an exercise we had one group play the fundamentalist Christians and one group play the everyone else in a discussion on evolution. I, being a well educated man of science, thought that I could formulate an argument the fundamentalists couldn't defend against.

I was wrong.

See, this is why you never argue with crazy people.

According to Wikipedia, the roman catholic church "believes" in evolutionary creationism (broadly speaking, the view that evolution is real and was started by God). However, individual catholics are free to disbelieve in evolution. Presumably it isn't an important point theologically.

Seriously, the Bill Maher attitude toward anyone religious or faithful is insulting. It doesn't reflect well on anyone that espouses it.

 cincydooley wrote:
Seriously, the Bill Maher attitude toward anyone religious or faithful is insulting. It doesn't reflect well on anyone that espouses it.

Um? What does that mean?

Just because you have issue with some of faith, does not mean you have issue with all of faith, and are attacking all as such.

I'm surprised Frazzled hasn't done his whole religious persecution complex act yet. Hurry it up man!

 the shrouded lord wrote:
I attempted to ask her to explain her religion and he/she slapped me, twice, in my face, painfully, twice.

Looks like Dinosaurs aren't the only ambiguous thing here... O.O

Also, I think it was a webcomic from ages ago, but my favourite response to this has always been "What's there to believe in? We can go to the museum and see some right now."

Also also, reptiles, birds, some horrors from the oceans, etc.

Also also also, I thought it was the devil that put fossils in the ground to test us? I may have that backwards, however.

 TheDraconicLord wrote:

 Yak9UT wrote:
So he doesn't believe in Kangaroos either then

Or crocodiles. Or Turtles.

Crocodiles are in the Old Testament, in Egypt. I'm sure turtles are in there somewhere too, but I'm a bit more fuzzy on that one.

OP, your friend is nuts, by the way. Especially if she hit you for asking her to explain her religion. Most religious fanatics WANT to spread their message and feed it to anyone willing (or unwilling, for that matter) to listen. The fact that she hit you when you asked her to do just that is a show she's as crazy as the Joker. Expect Fruity Pebbles laced with arsenic for a birthday present.

 Forar wrote:

 the shrouded lord wrote:
I attempted to ask her to explain her religion and he/she slapped me, twice, in my face, painfully, twice.

Looks like Dinosaurs aren't the only ambiguous thing here... O.O

Also, I think it was a webcomic from ages ago, but my favourite response to this has always been "What's there to believe in? We can go to the museum and see some right now."

Also also, reptiles, birds, some horrors from the oceans, etc.

Also also also, I thought it was the devil that put fossils in the ground to test us? I may have that backwards, however.

DAMN YOU FOR POINTING OUT MY MISTAKESES. SILENCE! I kill you.

 the shrouded lord wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Seriously, the Bill Maher attitude toward anyone religious or faithful is insulting. It doesn't reflect well on anyone that espouses it.

Um? What does that mean?

It means don't be a dick.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Just because you have issue with some of faith, does not mean you have issue with all of faith, and are attacking all as such.

I'm surprised Frazzled hasn't done his whole religious persecution complex act yet. Hurry it up man!

I don't have a problem with Catholics as long as they are willing to discuss it further than "NO! JEDUS WILL JUDGE YOUR FLESH UNWORTHY"
speaking of which, I remember how much I used to piss off the RE teacher in grade 6 by asking about the passage in the bible ( that's bib-ll) where it says Christ will return to iirc "judge the flesh of all mankind"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 the shrouded lord wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Seriously, the Bill Maher attitude toward anyone religious or faithful is insulting. It doesn't reflect well on anyone that espouses it.

Um? What does that mean?

It means don't be a dick.

Explain.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 TheDraconicLord wrote:

 Yak9UT wrote:
So he doesn't believe in Kangaroos either then

Or crocodiles. Or Turtles.

Crocodiles are in the Old Testament, in Egypt. I'm sure turtles are in there somewhere too, but I'm a bit more fuzzy on that one.

OP, your friend is nuts, by the way. Especially if she hit you for asking her to explain her religion. Most religious fanatics WANT to spread their message and feed it to anyone willing (or unwilling, for that matter) to listen. The fact that she hit you when you asked her to do just that is a show she's as crazy as the Joker. Expect Fruity Pebbles laced with arsenic for a birthday present.

I'm thinking there's a lot more to this story then is being told. But if the face slapping line is forming I'll get my lead pipe. (cookies to who catches that).

I don't think we need to be discussing any religion or belief in broad strokes, as many people hold different views, even with small groups like a single congregation.

The individual in the OP, frankly, is likely a lost cause if they went so far as to slap you for asking them to explain their beliefs. If they respond to mere questioning with violence, even if they didn't mean to cause long term harm, then I can only imagine they'd totally ignore any scientific data on the issue.

If you are feeling particularly noble you could compile the necessary research on how fossils are made and their dating procedures, and similar things, and present them, but again, it's likely to be ignored.

I'm reminded of this Happle Tea comic.
www.happletea.com/2013/04/09/the-devils-handiwork/

It means don't be a dick.

Explain.

 Frazzled wrote:

It means don't be a dick.

Explain.

Really, that has to be explained to you? OK, I'll clarify. It sounds like you're being the sterotypical dick teenager. Don't be a dick.

I thought most groups that were biblical literalists consider the monsters alluded to in Genesis to be dinosaurs and other extinct creatures.

Catholicism generally doesn't engender the more fundamentalist types, but those that do emerge can be quite off putting.

 the shrouded lord wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

It means don't be a dick.

Explain.

Really, that has to be explained to you? OK, I'll clarify. It sounds like you're being the sterotypical dick teenager. Don't be a dick.

again, explain. I don't understand what I've said that is "dickish" already I can see your clearly religious and would be happy to compete in friendly debate, further than "don't be a dick"

You people continue. It's 0:41 and I have school tomorrow. I'm going to sleep.

 the shrouded lord wrote:
I have a friend,a very very catholic friend, who, recently revealed to our "group" that, due to them not being mentioned in the bible book, doesn't. Believe. In DINOSAURS! you heard right.
*smashes head on school desk multiple times ( I did this when she/he told us)*
so, I must ask, do any of you caths share this mind set?

Well I'm a Theistic Evolutionist, so I actually believe in evolution as fact as well as the Christian God.

As for the Dinosaurs not being mentioned in the Bible, there is a creature called Behemoth mentioned in the book of Job. I know some Christians see this as a possible reference to Dinosaurs.

Job:40:15-18 “Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength it has in its loins, what power in the muscles of its belly! Its tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of its thighs are close-knit. Its bones are tubes of bronze, its limbs like rods of iron.

 the shrouded lord wrote:
You people continue. It's 0:41 and I have school tomorrow. I'm going to sleep.

And point frazzled.

I'm guessing from my quote you don't know who Bill Maher is. He's a super liberal that belittles and condescends do anyone that has a shred of religious faith.

 Yak9UT wrote:
So he doesn't believe in Kangaroos either then

Also this ^

The Bible is not an encyclopedia of animals. It was never meant for that purpose.

Catholicism does NOT take a literalist view. However, Catholics can frequently be misguided by fundies who do. The odd thing is that the literalist viewpoint is really only a hundred years or so old.

Still, if your friend is really Catholic, tell him to see his priest and get set straight on the tenets of his faith. Wonder how he'd feel about the frequent Jesuit participation in the advancement of modern science.

 DarthOvious wrote:
As for the Dinosaurs not being mentioned in the Bible...

Genesis doesn't mention amoebas or penguins, either. Just saying.

I have relatives the live in that very religious part of New Zealand, (Christchurch I think?), when they were back in Glasgow when I was about 4/5 we took my Cousin, who must have been 13/14 at the time, to the Kelvingrove Art Gallery to see it's various historical wares. She didn't think dinosaurs had existed and was surprised to see their bones. Being 4/5 I didn't broach her on the subject.

People believe all kinds of strange things. Some are slightly stranger or more dangerous than others.

 Breotan wrote:
Catholicism does NOT take a literalist view. However, Catholics can frequently be misguided by fundies who do. The odd thing is that the literalist viewpoint is really only a hundred years or so old.

This is true. Young Earth Creationism came about after the English interpretation of the Bible. I believe that Thomas Aquinas argued against this sort of thinking.

Still, if your friend is really Catholic, tell him to see his priest and get set straight on the tenets of his faith. Wonder how he'd feel about the frequent Jesuit participation in the advancement of modern science.

Those darn radical inquisitors.

 DarthOvious wrote:


This is true. Young Earth Creationism came about after the English interpretation of the Bible. I believe that Thomas Aquinas argued against this sort of thinking.
.

Pretty sure you're right.

 Breotan wrote:
Genesis doesn't mention amoebas or penguins, either. Just saying.

Yeah I know I agree with you. Like I said earlier, the Bible isn't an encyclopedia of animals. I just thought I would point out that there is a passage that is considered by some to be a reference to Dinosaurs.

 the shrouded lord wrote:

I need to read this "bible". The thing is, no offence to Catholics, but I would probably end up giggling for a week.

Ever read the gospel of John?

I'll give you bonus internet points if you can tell me what even the first four lines mean.

the bible mentions unicorns

(and the book of Mormon mentions Cockatrice)

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
the bible mentions unicorns

The bible also mentions the philosophical concept of "logos", more specifically the personification of thinking, truth and logic; and places this philosophy at the centre of the very idea of God.

Or are you just rattling off random bs to troll religious people? I can never tell what counts as trolling in OT.

xruslanx wrote:

 the shrouded lord wrote:

I need to read this "bible". The thing is, no offence to Catholics, but I would probably end up giggling for a week.

Ever read the gospel of John?

I'll give you bonus internet points if you can tell me what even the first four lines mean.

You're making it sound like a non-theist can't comprehend your religion.

 xole wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 the shrouded lord wrote:

I need to read this "bible". The thing is, no offence to Catholics, but I would probably end up giggling for a week.

Ever read the gospel of John?

I'll give you bonus internet points if you can tell me what even the first four lines mean.

You're making it sound like a non-theist can't comprehend your religion.

I'm atheist, so no. But I don't like seeing stupid atheists attacking stupid theists, when the former have believes that are just as stupid it's just that they don't involve the word "god".

If you're going to attack religion, make sure you understand what religion actually is. If you want to slate the ideas of simple or backwards ideas, then fine. But don't pretend that you're doing anything other than insulting a random person based on their personal beliefs.

If you want to attack *religion* you better know your gak.

 the shrouded lord wrote:
I have a friend,a very very catholic friend, who, recently revealed to our "group" that, due to them not being mentioned in the bible book, doesn't. Believe. In DINOSAURS! you heard right.

Nothing to do with Catholicism. You'll have to look elsewhere to explain his weirdness on this issue.

xruslanx wrote:

 the shrouded lord wrote:

I need to read this "bible". The thing is, no offence to Catholics, but I would probably end up giggling for a week.

Ever read the gospel of John?

I'll give you bonus internet points if you can tell me what even the first four lines mean.

I have actually, not that I'm interested in internet points from you, but the beginning four lines of the talks about Jesus and lays down the idea of his divinity. The 3 previous Gospels in the New Testament talk about how Jesus was the Son of God, but focus on the aspect of Jesus as a man. The Gospel of John says that Jesus is a divine being first and a man second. He was always with God from the beginning. It also sets up the idea of the Trinity...

Also the Gospel of John is far more poetic than the three previous gospels, so you have to take that into account as well...

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But many catholics/christians do.

Do what? if you meant to say "do not believe dinosaurs existed" then you are incorrect.

The dinosaur bones were put there by satan to turn us into unbelievers.

Unicorns are definitely real, though, here is the proof:


Numbers 23:22 “God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.”

Numbers 24:8 “God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.”

Job 39:9 “Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?”

Job 39:10 “Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?”

Psalms 29:6 “He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.”

Psalms 92:10 “But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.”

Deuteronomy 33:17 “His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.”

Psalms 22:21 “Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.”

Isaiah 34:7 “And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.”


9 separate mentions, as far as hard evidence goes it doesn't get more concrete than that.

I'm not saying that they exist today, that would be ridiculous, but they were around at some point and probably got hunted to extinction by early homo erectus or wiped out by climate change. Or it could have simply been an evolutionary dead end as the more common traits of the horse prevailed and the genes for horn formation ceased to exist on account of being extremely rare.

If you just use a bit of logic it's easy to understand the bible and have it compatible with modern science. Big Bang = "heavens and earth", and the entire first page of the bible follows the order that modern science dictates..

First matter, then electromagnetic waves, then seas, then vegetation, then animal life etc...the bible and science sync up perfectly.

People are free to do and think as they wish.
Even if there is ton of evidence supporting it, people may still choose not to believe it, or may even have another theory on how it works.


However, religion is not my thing, so i dont usually get involved.
I tend to avoid it like the plague

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Nope, But many catholics/christians do. It involves that "If it doesnt make sense in my narrow world view, it is not real" Ideal f christians

Unequivocal horsegak. We live about 25 minutes from a very conservative Christian founded "creation museum" and one of their biggest exhibits ever was about about dinosaurs and they presently have one about dragons.

They may not believe in evolution, but to say they don't believe dinosaurs existed is an outright falsehood.

True, they just happen to believe that the Dinos lived as the same time as man. IIRC, the flood took care of the Dinos along with the bad people all at once. Hence, why there are no Dinos today.

I will be honest, their could be a really cool novel/movie about that biblical time just before the flood; a Hyperborean Age type tale!

xruslanx wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
the bible mentions unicorns

The bible also mentions the philosophical concept of "logos", more specifically the personification of thinking, truth and logic; and places this philosophy at the centre of the very idea of God.

Or are you just rattling off random bs to troll religious people? I can never tell what counts as trolling in OT.

no I am just saying it mentions unicorns...
I read religious scriptures often, though I don't belong to any church- I find them too limiting to how I feel and believe.
I don't remember where in the Bible Unicorns are mentioned but I did write down where Cockatrice's were mentioned in the Book of Mormon

If that line earlier was pulled from Genesis, word for word, then it's a pretty damn good description of a dinosaur. Not sure what else it COULD be.

But again, this isn't the view of Catholics. This is the view a serious nutjob who needs help. I'm sure someone who hasn't read the entire thread will get angry at me for calling her a nutjob, so go back and read the post where she HIT her friend for asking her about her religion. That isn't a normal person, and has nothing to do with religion. She's a Grade A wacko and needs help. Dinosaurs be damned (although they were freaking awesome). She's not a religious kook, she's just a kook (and is using religion to defend herself).

A old joke among Catholics is that we don't know the Bible.

 Easy E wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Nope, But many catholics/christians do. It involves that "If it doesnt make sense in my narrow world view, it is not real" Ideal f christians

Unequivocal horsegak. We live about 25 minutes from a very conservative Christian founded "creation museum" and one of their biggest exhibits ever was about about dinosaurs and they presently have one about dragons.

They may not believe in evolution, but to say they don't believe dinosaurs existed is an outright falsehood.

True, they just happen to believe that the Dinos lived as the same time as man. IIRC, the flood took care of the Dinos along with the bad people all at once. Hence, why there are no Dinos today.

I will be honest, their could be a really cool novel/movie about that biblical time just before the flood; a Hyperborean Age type tale!

Yeah. Theyre Young Earth Creationists, which hardly speaks for the whole of Christendom, particularly the numerous Jesuits that have been integral to scientific advancement.

Then, you know, there's everything Pope John Paul II had to say about science and the Church's stance on evolution.

Stuff like this makes me think the Catholic Church was right for discouraging people from reading the Bible, and leaving it up to the priests to interpet

But the stance of the catholic church is that Dinosaurs existed, your friend is engaging in heresy. It's likely that if you tell her that in a smug way, you'll get slapped again, though.

People of faith often don't like smarmy atheists, as a person of no faith, I don't like them much either.

 scarletsquig wrote:
The dinosaur bones were put there by satan to turn us into unbelievers.

Unicorns are definitely real, though, here is the proof:


Numbers 23:22 “God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.”

Numbers 24:8 “God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.”

Job 39:9 “Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?”

Job 39:10 “Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?”

Psalms 29:6 “He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.”

Psalms 92:10 “But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.”

Deuteronomy 33:17 “His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.”

Psalms 22:21 “Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.”

Isaiah 34:7 “And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.”


9 separate mentions, as far as hard evidence goes it doesn't get more concrete than that.

As with many things in the bible it all depends on the interpretation of the translation. Re'em has been translated as unicorn, but also as Wild Ox, specifically aurochs.

What about us non-atheists who just don't take things too seriously?

Higher power = definite yes.

The odds of the correct sequence of amino acids necessary for life to form at random (as a result of a non-alive universe bashing rocks together) is so small as to be effectively impossible.

There's a certain elegance to the laws of physics that implies design, too.

Everything else (various religious books written by humans, afterlife etc.) = Who the hell knows?

Probably not, and just wishful thinking on our part because we don't like to admit that people often get away with bad things without any consequences and can't accept the fact that we're going to die.

That's just my take on it.

 Alfndrate wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 the shrouded lord wrote:

I need to read this "bible". The thing is, no offence to Catholics, but I would probably end up giggling for a week.

Ever read the gospel of John?

I'll give you bonus internet points if you can tell me what even the first four lines mean.

I have actually, not that I'm interested in internet points from you, but the beginning four lines of the talks about Jesus and lays down the idea of his divinity. The 3 previous Gospels in the New Testament talk about how Jesus was the Son of God, but focus on the aspect of Jesus as a man. The Gospel of John says that Jesus is a divine being first and a man second. He was always with God from the beginning. It also sets up the idea of the Trinity...

Also the Gospel of John is far more poetic than the three previous gospels, so you have to take that into account as well...

That's a gross over-simplification. I don't think you do understand the gospel of John if you only have what you were told as a child about it. So, no internets for you.

Someone slaps you for questioning them, whilst they've spouted nonsensical crap that's disproved the human race at large. Even despite the second part, slap the idiot back, and/or remove them from the gene pool so they can't sprout such twaddle to the next generation (preferably whilst wielding a dinosaur bone).

 Da Boss wrote:
Stuff like this makes me think the Catholic Church was right for discouraging people from reading the Bible

Bingo

scarletsquig wrote:The odds of the correct sequence of amino acids necessary for life to form at random (as a result of a non-alive universe bashing rocks together) is so small as to be effectively impossible.

A common misconception unfortunately. Trillions of reactions occur every second in even a small volume of fluid. Simple components form which link to form more complex forms etc... once you get to a certain complexity you have self assembling mechanisms and essentially life is inevitable.

There's a certain elegance to the laws of physics that implies design, too..

Elegance yes, design no.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im cathloc and I do too.
There are some good life lessons though if you get past the stoning of non-virgins

And here's an exhault.

On topic - I grew-up/currently live in a very catholic town, and I've never anything like that. I sincerely hope he's not serious in those beliefs....

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Someone slaps you for questioning them, whilst they've spouted nonsensical crap that's disproved the human race at large. Even despite the second part, slap the idiot back, and/or remove them from the gene pool so they can't sprout such twaddle to the next generation (preferably whilst wielding a dinosaur bone).

The chance that this sequence of events occurred as described is incredibly small.

I'd lay the odds of there even being a grain of truth in this bs at 20:1.

Odd, really, since dinosaurs are in the book of Job. Usually the "strange" fundamental belief is that Dinosaurs survived the deluge of Genesis Seven and cohabitated with humanity for several generations before dying out.

- J

xruslanx wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 the shrouded lord wrote:

I need to read this "bible". The thing is, no offence to Catholics, but I would probably end up giggling for a week.

Ever read the gospel of John?

I'll give you bonus internet points if you can tell me what even the first four lines mean.

I have actually, not that I'm interested in internet points from you, but the beginning four lines of the talks about Jesus and lays down the idea of his divinity. The 3 previous Gospels in the New Testament talk about how Jesus was the Son of God, but focus on the aspect of Jesus as a man. The Gospel of John says that Jesus is a divine being first and a man second. He was always with God from the beginning. It also sets up the idea of the Trinity...

Also the Gospel of John is far more poetic than the three previous gospels, so you have to take that into account as well...

That's a gross over-simplification. I don't think you do understand the gospel of John if you only have what you were told as a child about it. So, no internets for you.

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

 whitedragon wrote:

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

I should have stipulated "read and understood". Simply reading something doesn't mean you understand it, otherwise I'd be a theoretical physicist

 Seaward wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Someone slaps you for questioning them, whilst they've spouted nonsensical crap that's disproved the human race at large. Even despite the second part, slap the idiot back, and/or remove them from the gene pool so they can't sprout such twaddle to the next generation (preferably whilst wielding a dinosaur bone).

The chance that this sequence of events occurred as described is incredibly small.

I'd lay the odds of there even being a grain of truth in this bs at 20:1.

I believe the slapper is a woman. I'm pretty sure there's a lot more to it.

 the shrouded lord wrote:

so, I must ask, do any of you caths share this mind set?

I was raised catholic. No, I was not taught that Dinosaurs didn't exist.

I was taught dinosaurs taste like chicken.

 Frazzled wrote:
I was taught dinosaurs taste like chicken.

Especially if they're from Texas. Everything not beef tastes like chicken there.

 scarletsquig wrote:
Higher power = definite yes.

The odds of the correct sequence of amino acids necessary for life to form at random (as a result of a non-alive universe bashing rocks together) is so small as to be effectively impossible.

A million monkeys on a million typewriters on hundreds of thousands of millions of stars for billions of years...

I think the OP was either trolled by his friend or was trolling US. Either way, it worked.

~Tim?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Someone slaps you for questioning them, whilst they've spouted nonsensical crap that's disproved the human race at large. Even despite the second part, slap the idiot back, and/or remove them from the gene pool so they can't sprout such twaddle to the next generation (preferably whilst wielding a dinosaur bone).

The chance that this sequence of events occurred as described is incredibly small.

I'd lay the odds of there even being a grain of truth in this bs at 20:1.

I believe the slapper is a woman. I'm pretty sure there's a lot more to it.

Agreed, and I kinda wonder a little about the OP's intent here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
I think the OP was either trolled by his friend or was trolling US. Either way, it worked.

If so, it's a pretty terrible troll considering the poor command of the facts.

 gorgon wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
I think the OP was either trolled by his friend or was trolling US. Either way, it worked.

If so, it's a pretty terrible troll considering the poor command of the facts.

Oh, I dunno. I know some atheists who would actually jump on this as further evidence all religious people are backwards anti-science morons that need to be sent to labor camps and shouldn't be allowed to breed. Kinda like Christians who jump on the fact that Stalin was an atheist and use it as proof that all atheists are evil haters that want international communism and labor camps for Christians.

Some people are just crazy like that.

~Tim?

Well that explains it. If trollhunter taught us anything, its that trolls are attracted to Christians. Clearly she was fighting of the attack of a TROLL!!! nomnomnom

I friggin' LOVE Trollhunter! It's just brilliant.

~Tim?

Is it really that good a movie? I keep seeing it show up on Netflix and I go "maybe....nah".

xruslanx wrote:

 whitedragon wrote:

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

I should have stipulated "read and understood". Simply reading something doesn't mean you understand it, otherwise I'd be a theoretical physicist

I did understand your question and I understand the first four lines of the Gospel according to John. The Word is a metaphor for Jesus, I think being able to make that connection would imply that I understand the the first four lines.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im cathloc and I do too.
There are some good life lessons though if you get past the stoning of non-virgins

I think there are still plenty of good life lessons even if you don't get past the stoning of non-virgins

Thought this was going to be about feathered vs non-feathered dinosaurs.

Can not describe my disappointment.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Is it really that good a movie? I keep seeing it show up on Netflix and I go "maybe....nah".

Its not big budget, so factor that in, but yea its really good.

And Fraz, meant to ask: why do you say you were told dinos tasted like chicken? I figured you could just walk outside as a boy and take down a full grown brontosaurus with nothing but a hunting dagger made of flint before cooking it up on the family fire pit.

 the shrouded lord wrote:
I have a friend,a very very catholic friend, who, recently revealed to our "group" that, due to them not being mentioned in the bible book, doesn't. Believe. In DINOSAURS! you heard right.
*smashes head on school desk multiple times ( I did this when she/he told us)*
so, I must ask, do any of you caths share this mind set?

I'm very very Catholic. I don't need to believe in dinosaurs because there is physical, empirical evidence of their existence, ergo, my belief is irrelevant when faced with direct evidence. The Church doesn't advocate the disbelief in dinosaurs, nor does it teach that the Earth is only 6,000 years old either. Your friend is on his own in this regard.

Cell phones aren't in the Bible but I'm using mine right now. Dinosaurs aren't in the Bible but their bones are in the local museum. We can all have opinions, but when they are simply flat out wrong, sure, headdesk is appropriate.

I opened the door once for whom I assumed was my mother... before me stood two Jehovah's - ugh I'm not religious in the slightest.

Funniest thing in our entire conversation was when one them was getting frustrated with me and said: "why don't you try to have an open mind". I informed them of their irony and I thanked them for coming by (closes door).

I've also had some pretty amusing convos with mormon missionaries on the bus since their church was a few stops away from mine. They always have a very polite way of telling you that you are going to hell, but if you can manage to change the subject they are actually pretty nice (and 50% of the time they are pretty normal people).

 streamdragon wrote:
Thought this was going to be about feathered vs non-feathered dinosaurs.

Can not describe my disappointment.

I had the exact same thought process.

And I'll agree with Frazz, Trollhunter was a total surprise. I loved it!

 timetowaste85 wrote:
And Fraz, meant to ask: why do you say you were told dinos tasted like chicken? I figured you could just walk outside as a boy and take down a full grown brontosaurus with nothing but a hunting dagger made of flint before cooking it up on the family fire pit.

mmm yes thrilling tales of yesteryear, when we weren't top of the food chain yet.

As mamma Frazzled used to say:
"Remember Noog. You no bright. You run when giant bid comes to eat you. To them you taste like chicken. But you no have to be fastest in tribe, just faster then person next to you. Make lots of slow friends."

 Alfndrate wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 whitedragon wrote:

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

I should have stipulated "read and understood". Simply reading something doesn't mean you understand it, otherwise I'd be a theoretical physicist

I did understand your question and I understand the first four lines of the Gospel according to John. The Word is a metaphor for Jesus, I think being able to make that connection would imply that I understand the the first four lines.

okay, i'll try and break down what rhe first four lines actually mean for you.

Firstly, and most importantly, these lines simply cannot be understood in english. The word that's commonly translated as 'word' is actually the greek word'logos'. This is a word that has a huge weight of meaning in classical greece, with extensive reflections and arguments about its meaning.

At its most basic level, logos was one of two aspects of the mind, the other being pathos. Pathos referred to emotions that affected oneself without you actually being aware of them -eoughly analagous to the modern notion of the self-conscious. By contrast, the logos referred to thoughts and feelings that one was immediately experiencing, the distinction between the two being of great importance when evaluating drama (what the audience is directly looking at, as well as what the overall theme or tone of the play is) and philosophy - the logos being the logical forms of argument in particular was studied in an effort to gain an understanding into the nature of truth, and into how the truth is manifested.

So when you read 'in the begining, was the logos', it means a lot more than 'jesus is a metaphor for the word'. It first states an absolute - that the logos is the beginning of the universe.

Then it equates that truth to god - 'and the logos was with god'. This is a phenominal statement - the logos of the greeks, whose contribution to human understanding is unparelled, is said to be alongside god at the beginning. This of course being the judeo-christian god...yet enthused with greek philosophy. At a stroke, God goes from being a smiting diety of jewish goatherders, into the god of logic, the god of thought and experience.

Finally it combines the two entirely - 'and the logos was god'. This combines utterly the idea of thought, and the idea of god. I could extrapolate on that endlessly, but you get the idea.

Certainly imo the gospel of john provides a more compelling and believable explanation of human existance than anything in the modern age...ymmv

Since this thread is about religion I'm going to shamelessly plug my thread.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/524739.page

FYI: Everything in the old Testament which was 'before Moses' was basically a transcription of what God *told* Moses. Most of the early Bible is based on the Torah, and those sections were Moses's transcription of God telling him a story of how the world was, how he made man and how crappy man has been for the past 6000 years.

So let's say God told Moses about dinosaurs, and evolution and science and how everything was really cool and how he set the whole thing up. Moses was a sheep herder for the most part. When he is telling stories about Dinosaurs and cavemen and evolution, Moses has no frame of reference. He can't understand. BAM, we get a awkward literal story based upon the limits of the human brain at the time of dictation. As far as we know Moses was told exactly how old dinosaurs were and how Evolution worked and Moses was like 'Too many Zeroes... lets say a long time ago... like 6000... and evolution? yeah, that is too hard to explain... he 'made them.' No wonder he aged 20 years after meeting with god!

And almost no sects of Judaism take the Torah literally... So I don't see how any Bible translations of the old testament can be taken literally since it is all based off the Torah. Now some Christianity groups are super literal about the New testament, because that is a day in the life of Jesus, but that shouldn't apply to the old testament.

xruslanx wrote:
okay, i'll try and break down what rhe first four lines actually mean for you.

You cannot describe what a religious text means to me, you can only describe to me what it means for you, but cannot ascribe those same meanings to my view.

At a stroke, God goes from being a smiting diety of jewish goatherders, into the god of logic, the god of thought and experience.

Well, I hope that, for Mary's sake, it took God a few more strokes than one... I mean he did get laid between the old and new Testaments... that's enough to calm the temperaments of most people...

Your explanation, while long and correct, does not mean that the Word/Logos is not the Christ (Jesus) whether literally or metaphorically. John's inclusion of this idea that the Word (Jesus, the literal word of god, Logos, insert divinity here) was to draw a parallel between Jesus of Nazareth and God as soon as possible. In the previous three gospels, it was looked at that Jesus was a man ("son of", "of Nazareth", etc...) first. As the 'life of Jeus' is told through those gospels, his divinity and ministry is revealed. The Gospel of John starts with the following lines:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

bolded is my emphasis

I don't disagree with your assessment that the Logos is an extremely important word to these passages, but you're also forgetting that the Word was with God (separate) and was also God (together). This relates to the Christian ideology that God is made up of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Then John talks about how the Word became flesh and dwelled among us. This is that link that the Word is Jesus. The Word is God, The Word is Flesh, Jesus is of God and is God and is Flesh.

All that passage does is set up the idea of Jesus's divinity from the beginning.

But much like how I said that you cannot ascribe the meaning of a religious text to me, I cannot do the same to you. At the end of the day, the Bible is a collection of stories about how to be a good person.

 the shrouded lord wrote:
I attempted to ask her to explain her religion and he/she slapped me, twice, in my face, painfully, twice.

I dunno, that seems like a fairly accurate summation of Catholicism to me...

::slaps insaniak::

Noooooobody expects the Dakka moderation!

 insaniak wrote:

 the shrouded lord wrote:
I attempted to ask her to explain her religion and he/she slapped me, twice, in my face, painfully, twice.

I dunno, that seems like a fairly accurate summation of Catholicism to me...

3 years of boarding school summarized in one sentence. It's the modern equivalent of the Agoge.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im cathloc and I do too.
There are some good life lessons though if you get past the stoning of non-virgins

This reminds me of a joke. Perhaps you have noticed that in some eastern countries women get stoned for committing adultery, of course here in the U.S. women get stoned and then commit adultery.
#Look ma' no hands

- Okay, I'll stop.

- J

Conversation (quoted directly)

Me: so with being catholic, what made you a believer in the first place, and can you explain

Some of what you believe?
Him/her: no, I cant tell you because you don't believe.
Me: don't catholics and christains constantly try to convert people into your people. Willingly or not.
Slap slap

Here's the part where I don't believe you.

 the shrouded lord wrote:
Conversation (quoted directly)

Me: so with being catholic, what made you a believer in the first place, and can you explain

Some of what you believe?
Him/her: no, I cant tell you because you don't believe.
Me: don't catholics and christains constantly try to convert people into your people. Willingly or not.
Slap slap

Well then, since you were actively shopping for a bitchslap...

 the shrouded lord wrote:
Conversation (quoted directly)

Me: so with being catholic, what made you a believer in the first place, and can you explain

Some of what you believe?
Him/her: no, I cant tell you because you don't believe.
Me: don't catholics and christains constantly try to convert people into your people. Willingly or not.
Slap slap

Oh. So you're stupid or willingly ignorant to begin with, then?

Don't know that I'd expect much more from some high school troll, but you should at least know what you're talking about if you're going to be purposefully antagonistic. Seems to me you don't actually know gak about Catholicism at all. Go read a book, or hell a Wikipedia article, and you can come sit at the adult table and have a conversation.

 scarletsquig wrote:
Higher power = definite yes.

No.

The odds of the correct sequence of amino acids necessary for life to form at random (as a result of a non-alive universe bashing rocks together) is so small as to be effectively impossible.

Sorry, that is a classic argument from ignorance. That assumes abiogenesis was random, which in fact it was not because it relied on chemistry and natural selection. On top of that, as someone else pointed out, trials were occurring almost everywhere simultaneously in Earth's amino acid-rich primordial oceans. Given the massive amounts of trials that were taking place before life arose and that the simplest precursors to life isn't as complex as life is today, the probably of it happening is far greater than what creationist (or intelligent design promoters, which are one and the same) try to claim.

Here are some numbers for you:
Amount of water on primordial earth: 10²⁴ liters
Amino acid concentration: 10^-6M (which is very dilute)
Under those conditions, the number of self-repeating peptides (the simplest theorized as being only 32 amino acids long) forming in under a year: 10³¹
That seems like a lot still, but it is nowhere near the odds often quoted by ID/creationists, which is usually in the ballpark of 10³⁹⁰.

There's a certain elegance to the laws of physics that implies design, too.

Elegance is not indicative of designed. Not to mention there are plenty of things in the laws of physics that aren't elegant and there are design flaws in every living creature on Earth, including humans.

That's just my take on it.

That's fine, you're still wrong though.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
I think the OP was either trolled by his friend or was trolling US. Either way, it worked.

Quality trolling is so rare these days, I don't consider it 'successful' until the mods have to start handing out yellow or red cards (or that particular forum's equivalent).

If anything, I feel kind of sad for the OP. I'm not a particularly religious man, but as long as one's beliefs and efforts don't lead to harm coming to others, I'm fine with 'live and let live' as a policy.

Of course, go far enough down the rabbit hole...

 the shrouded lord wrote:
Conversation (quoted directly)

Me: so with being catholic, what made you a believer in the first place, and can you explain

Some of what you believe?
Him/her: no, I cant tell you because you don't believe.
Me: don't catholics and christains constantly try to convert people into your people. Willingly or not.
Slap slap

Well... "Trying to convert people, willingly or not" is a pretty insulting attitude, that is not what most christian groups believe or practice. You probably will get slapped for that because it is pointlessly antagonistic and confrontational.

Like if you don't even have a remote clue about what their religion is, there is no point in trying to debate it. At least be well-read so you can debate actual topics with them.

Short timeline:
*God put Man on Earth in paradise, They disobeyed god and sinned.
*God put Man on Earth in a crappy environment, They disobeyed god and sinned.
*God tried to meddle directly in Man's ongoings, They disobeyed god and sinned.
*God tried to punish Man a bunch, They disobeyed god and sinned.
*God tried to talk to ONE man (moses) and try to get him to convince everyone to be good and follow God's commands and they will have a good life, They disobeyed god and sinned.
*God tried to give his select group of people power, wealth, nations, everything they asked for, if only they did EXACTLY what he said. They disobeyed god and sinned.
*God tried to kinda butt out and told the people and said 'listen to this King guy on earth, he ain't so bad... You can have a good life and worship freely under him.' They disobeyed god and sinned.
*God Sent his only son to earth to help man out directly. They killed the crap out of him basically because he was too nice and shaking up the establishment.
*Jesus basically throws off the 'requirements' for getting into heaven, goes into hell, lets everyone out and says 'Man is gonna do what they do, they can't help themselves.'

Now if you believe in Jesus and follow his teachings, you can have a good life on earth and a happy afterlife.

And the difference between Judaism, Christianity and Islam is basically which 'guy' was the last true word of god. Jews believe Moses was the last 'true' word of God and Jesus was a really nice guy, but not the son of god. Christians believe Moses was good, and Jesus was the son of god. Muslims believe Moses and Jesus were both Divine prophets, but Muhammad was the most recent 'True word of god' around 600AD. All 3 are based around the same God, but there are some differences in bloodlines and paths through the old testaments. Basically Ishmael, Abraham's first Son (the Arab Peoples) and Issac, the first son of his actual wife (Israelites)

Regardless if you believe in the religions, a lot of this is basic middle-east history and a basic foundation of how all this went down is required for understanding what is going on there right now.

 scarletsquig wrote:
There's a certain elegance to the laws of physics that implies design, too.

It appears that way because of the intentionnal stance of the human mind. It's a very natural and insanely useful fallacy (without it, the entirety of human knowledge would have been impossible), but it's a fallacy nonetheless. Designed objects have an ''about-ness''. The chair is ''about sitting''. The table is ''about laying objects on it's surface''. A great deal of our understanding of things comes from assigning properties to objects that they do not have based on those that they do have. And in the case of the human mind, what is useful, what is healthy, what is complex is considered to have an aesthetical value.

The elements on the periodic table aren't ''about'' anything. The complexity of the body of physical laws isn't evidence that it was designed, but simply a result of the insane amount of entities whose interactions this body of law try to describe. The elegance you refer to is interest-based : "because this universe has laws that led to my existence, I find it cool, because my existence is pretty damn cool to me'' basically. To someone who could entertain it, a universe that would end up being nothing but a huge ball of iron could just as well be elegant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

*Jesus basically throws off the 'requirements' for getting into heaven, goes into hell, lets everyone out and says 'Man is gonna do what they do, they can't help themselves.'

If I'm not mistaken, that's only those that could not be allowed in Heaven because they were born before the New Testament. Also, I'm not sure if it's Catholic dogma or just something Dante wrote up when he was drunk.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Also, I'm not sure if it's Catholic dogma or just something Dante wrote up when he was drunk.

Dakkanaut, educate thyself:

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

nkelsch wrote:

 the shrouded lord wrote:
Conversation (quoted directly)

Me: so with being catholic, what made you a believer in the first place, and can you explain

Some of what you believe?
Him/her: no, I cant tell you because you don't believe.
Me: don't catholics and christains constantly try to convert people into your people. Willingly or not.
Slap slap

Well... "Trying to convert people, willingly or not" is a pretty insulting attitude, that is not what most christian groups believe or practice. You probably will get slapped for that because it is pointlessly antagonistic and confrontational.

Like if you don't even have a remote clue about what their religion is, there is no point in trying to debate it. At least be well-read so you can debate actual topics with them.

Short timeline:
*God put Man on Earth in paradise, They disobeyed god and sinned.
*God put Man on Earth in a crappy environment, They disobeyed god and sinned.
*God tried to meddle directly in Man's ongoings, They disobeyed god and sinned.
*God tried to punish Man a bunch, They disobeyed god and sinned.
*God tried to talk to ONE man (moses) and try to get him to convince everyone to be good and follow God's commands and they will have a good life, They disobeyed god and sinned.
*God tried to give his select group of people power, wealth, nations, everything they asked for, if only they did EXACTLY what he said. They disobeyed god and sinned.
*God tried to kinda butt out and told the people and said 'listen to this King guy on earth, he ain't so bad... You can have a good life and worship freely under him.' They disobeyed god and sinned.
*God Sent his only son to earth to help man out directly. They killed the crap out of him basically because he was too nice and shaking up the establishment.
*Jesus basically throws off the 'requirements' for getting into heaven, goes into hell, lets everyone out and says 'Man is gonna do what they do, they can't help themselves.'

Now if you believe in Jesus and follow his teachings, you can have a good life on earth and a happy afterlife.

And the difference between Judaism, Christianity and Islam is basically which 'guy' was the last true word of god. Jews believe Moses was the last 'true' word of God and Jesus was a really nice guy, but not the son of god. Christians believe Moses was good, and Jesus was the son of god. Muslims believe Moses and Jesus were both Divine prophets, but Muhammad was the most recent 'True word of god' around 600AD. All 3 are based around the same God, but there are some differences in bloodlines and paths through the old testaments. Basically Ishmael, Abraham's first Son (the Arab Peoples) and Issac, the first son of his actual wife (Israelites)

Regardless if you believe in the religions, a lot of this is basic middle-east history and a basic foundation of how all this went down is required for understanding what is going on there right now.

Short timeline:
*God put Man on Earth in paradise, They disobeyed god and sinned.
*God put Man on Earth in a crappy environment, They disobeyed god and sinned.
*God tried to meddle directly in Man's ongoings, They disobeyed god and sinned.
*God tried to punish Man a bunch, They disobeyed god and sinned.
*God tried to talk to ONE man (moses) and try to get him to convince everyone to be good and follow God's commands and they will have a good life, They disobeyed god and sinned.
*God tried to give his select group of people power, wealth, nations, everything they asked for, if only they did EXACTLY what he said. They disobeyed god and sinned.
*God tried to kinda butt out and told the people and said 'listen to this King guy on earth, he ain't so bad... You can have a good life and worship freely under him.' They disobeyed god and sinned.
i knew all of this, didnt know the last thing (about jesus and hell. , thanks for the knowledge

Clearly you didn't.

As a religious person, I should try and avoid such topics as this, but the title didn't quite imply religion when I read it... oh well.

I believe in Dinosaurs... don't believe the Earth is 'young' and also believe in evolution... as it's continually proven to be true, most commonly with diseases.

The Bible.. well, don't want to jump down that vipers nest, but I can see where cyncydooley may be coming from, some of the stuff posted is offensive.. but this is 'Off Topic' forum, you can't fault people for opinions.

As for the slapping, yes, saying that we 'force our religion onto you' probably wouldn't make me too happy either. I wouldn't slap you, but I probably wouldn't play against you either... just a side note.

 Frazzled wrote:
Here's the part where I don't believe you.

Yeah. People don't go around slapping other people for no reason, unless the other person was being a complete donkeycave. So either the OP is making stuff up or he's not being truthful about what he said or possibly the lady was just crazy.

~Tim?

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Here's the part where I don't believe you.

Yeah. People don't go around slapping other people for no reason, unless the other person was being a complete donkeycave. So either the OP is making stuff up or he's not being truthful about what he said or possibly the lady was just crazy.

~Tim?

I can 100% believe the OP was/is an donkey-cave. And ignorant one at that.

As much as I want to smack down the ignorant teenage troll, I think we may just want to lock the thread. He's already gotten enough reaction to his trolling. And in the even that he isn't trolling and he's actually that uneducated and misinformed, well then he's not worth the time in the first place.

 Forar wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:
Higher power = definite yes.

The odds of the correct sequence of amino acids necessary for life to form at random (as a result of a non-alive universe bashing rocks together) is so small as to be effectively impossible.

A million monkeys on a million typewriters on hundreds of thousands of millions of stars for billions of years...

Technically, the odds of the amino acid chains forming and all subsequent events happened to be 100%, as we currently exist.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Here's the part where I don't believe you.

Yeah. People don't go around slapping other people for no reason, unless the other person was being a complete donkeycave. So either the OP is making stuff up or he's not being truthful about what he said or possibly the lady was just crazy.

~Tim?

I would say being extremely confrontational and rude about something that a person clearly has a deep belief for is not "No reason".

It's a shame that she didn't slap some sense into the OP at the same time. Though that looks to be a futile endeavor.

man... I was so disappointed... I thought this thread was going to be about them cloning dinosaurs or something to that effect.

come on biologists get on it!

 Manchu wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Also, I'm not sure if it's Catholic dogma or just something Dante wrote up when he was drunk.

Dakkanaut, educate thyself:

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

Basically you had a majority of the Euro/Middle east Religions basically believing everyone went to 'Hades' or basically a form of 'Hell' which had a place for 'good people' but it was still basically hell. Gods for the most part before that lived 'above' mortals in both life and death. If you were going to have people join your religion to go to an awesome afterlife hanging with God, it would be a hard sell to know your ancestors are all basically stuck in 'Old Hell' while you enjoy eternal life in a new paradise.

So either you believe Jesus died and then marched into 'Old Hell', wrecked up the joint and the dead basically marched out of holes in the ground and flew nekkid and reborn to Heaven, Or it was a neat story to tell people to get them to adopt a new 'religion' because 'Be nice = Eternal Life with God' was better than 'All your gods hate you, and will punish you in stupid ways if you do things wrong and regardless you get sent to Hades'

That is not all that unheard of hear in the states, never heard it among Catholics nor was it ever taught when I was in Catechism.

There was a girl in my English class who believed dinosaur bones were placed on earth by the devil to confuse humans and drive them further away from God.

Yup.

 scarletsquig wrote:

Higher power = definite yes.

The odds of the correct sequence of amino acids necessary for life to form at random (as a result of a non-alive universe bashing rocks together) is so small as to be effectively impossible.

Export Problem; this explains how life originated on earth. Does not explain how "creator" originated, so leaves the "how did it all start?" question unanswered.

Besides, such molecules can assemble given nothing but the right (actually quite simple) conditions and sufficient energy. While admittedly none of our experiments have crossed the "God threshold" and created full life, we have reached the point where random chance plus time could quite honestly be a perfectly reasonable explanation.

nkelsch wrote:
So either you believe Jesus died and then marched into 'Old Hell', wrecked up the joint and the dead basically marched out of holes in the ground and flew nekkid and reborn to Heaven, Or it was a neat story to tell people to get them to adopt a new 'religion' because 'Be nice = Eternal Life with God' was better than 'All your gods hate you, and will punish you in stupid ways if you do things wrong and regardless you get sent to Hades'

I think the real point of the Harrowing is that Jesus really died and therefore really overcame death, that is he is totally sovereign. Hell or, as you say, Hades in this account is more about the older, more widespread ideas of the afterlife than the developing Christian sense of Hell as final death (i.e., the lack of eternal life). To be honest, the Harrowing is the subject of ongoing theological debate. See here for more.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
so leaves the "how did it all start?" question unanswered

And Catholics are okay with that because what we call faith is not a collection of fact claims or even opinions but rather an orientation toward human experience.

Given what you've now told us of your conversation, I don't consider your friend as nuts (for hitting you, that is). You kinda walked into it-you asked an insulting question and she hit you for your insulting attitude, rather than "asking about religion". I change my view. She's still odd for not believing in dinosaurs when there is actual physical proof AND written descriptions in the Bible, but she's not a complete psycho for hitting you. That's your own fault, based on what you now told us.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Given what you've now told us of your conversation, I don't consider your friend as nuts (for hitting you, that is). You kinda walked into it-you asked an insulting question and she hit you for your insulting attitude, rather than "asking about religion". I change my view. She's still odd for not believing in dinosaurs when there is actual physical proof AND written descriptions in the Bible, but she's not a complete psycho for hitting you. That's your own fault, based on what you now told us.

i can accept that. i will admitt that i can be an ass hole sometimes. so, this thread will now go to the original perpose, how commen is the belief that dinosaurs did not exist in catholic society. also, i have since apologized to this person multiple times (and been kicked in the mouth( not because of the beforementioned conversation, but because of a few... rash questions about dinosaurs)) by her/him and we are now friends again.

 the shrouded lord wrote:
how commen is the belief that dinosaurs did not exist in catholic society

Extremely uncommon.

 Manchu wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Also, I'm not sure if it's Catholic dogma or just something Dante wrote up when he was drunk.

Dakkanaut, educate thyself:

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

Ah, thanks!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the shrouded lord wrote:
how commen is the belief that dinosaurs did not exist in catholic society.

I would think it very rare for Catholics to even entertain the question. The idea that an hermeneutic is necessary to comprehend the true meaning of the religious texts is pretty central to Catholic thought, I mean, you'll rarely see a Catholic trying to defend the idea that yes, the Earth was created in seven days. My religion courses in Primary, in a Catholic private school, started with explaining the origin of that particular myth. That's part of why it's pretty easy to not get our head stuck on the darker parts of the books.

Edited by Manchu

 xole wrote:

 Forar wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:
Higher power = definite yes.

The odds of the correct sequence of amino acids necessary for life to form at random (as a result of a non-alive universe bashing rocks together) is so small as to be effectively impossible.

A million monkeys on a million typewriters on hundreds of thousands of millions of stars for billions of years...

Technically, the odds of the amino acid chains forming and all subsequent events happened to be 100%, as we currently exist.

Unfortunately that is not how probability works - winning the lottery is not 50:50 because you "either win or you don't" for example

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 xole wrote:

 Forar wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:
Higher power = definite yes.

The odds of the correct sequence of amino acids necessary for life to form at random (as a result of a non-alive universe bashing rocks together) is so small as to be effectively impossible.

A million monkeys on a million typewriters on hundreds of thousands of millions of stars for billions of years...

Technically, the odds of the amino acid chains forming and all subsequent events happened to be 100%, as we currently exist.

Unfortunately that is not how probability works - winning the lottery is not 50:50 because you "either win or you don't" for example

No, you misunderstand me. Everything has a 100% or 0% chance of happening. For instance, last week I had a 0% chance of winning the California lottery, as I did not win. I didn't play, either, but that is more or less beside the point. Tonight I had a 100% chance of eating chicken nuggets and weird pasta stuff, as that is what I ate for dinner. The only reason we have odds other than 0% or 100% is because we do not possess enough information to make an entirely correct assessment of an outcome, since most of us are not omniscient.

In short, it had to happen that way, because that's the way it happened.

 scarletsquig wrote:
The odds of the correct sequence of amino acids necessary for life to form at random (as a result of a non-alive universe bashing rocks together) is so small as to be effectively impossible.

The assumption of pure randomness is a mistake as there are basic pattens produced through various chemical reactions.

For instance, the odds of a lot of sodium and chloride bonding, and then aligning in an ordered form just as a matter of random chance is incredibly close to zero. And yet it happens all the time because there are basic patterns and systems to how those atoms interact, and the crystalline structure they line up. The same is true of amino chains - there are chemical processes that combine as they do not out of random chance, but as part of a series of chemical reactions.

Then there's also the implicit assumption that humans, or even life in general, is somehow so remarkable that if it did happen it must mean something made it so. And, well, of course we think we're remarkable - we would. But in the scope of the vast universe, is that really true? Some time sooner or later we'll be gone, and out in the galaxy there will be suns that were burning before we ever came in to being that will still be burning, and we weren't at all remarkable in comparison to that sun.

And finally there's the assumption that if life didn't form as we did, then it can't have formed any other way. For all we know there might be countless other complex ways for life to form, and this just happened to be the one that worked to produce us.

There's a certain elegance to the laws of physics that implies design, too.

Whereas I'd look about the planet and see a random mess that doesn't look like anything any creature would deliberately make. I ask myself if there was a being that had the power and inclination to invent some kind of existance, would he put a tiny in orbi of a vast mass of burning fuel (and then put billions more suns and planets out there in the universe), and then dedicate much of the planet to areas where little can live, and then introduce a handful of primitive organisms and just sit back for millions of years watching while they slowly evolve?

Whenever I look about at nature and the greater world, I can't see how any being would have done it on purpose.

That's just my take on it.

And it's an interesting take, and thanks for sharing it. I hope my replies are taken as invitations to discussion, and not an attack.

 Manchu wrote:

 the shrouded lord wrote:
how commen is the belief that dinosaurs did not exist in catholic society

Extremely uncommon.

Manchu's got the right of it. I spent grades K through 9 in Catholic education, and not once did any class teach me (this includes religion and science classes) that dinosaurs were put on this earth to test the faith of believers, or that we could not believe in dinosaurs because they weren't mentioned in the bible.

Granted my religion classes were more concerned with teaching the whole, "be a good person" aspect of the bible and my science classes were held to the Ohio standards.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 the shrouded lord wrote:
how commen is the belief that dinosaurs did not exist in catholic society

Extremely uncommon.

Manchu's got the right of it. I spent grades K through 9 in Catholic education, and not once did any class teach me (this includes religion and science classes) that dinosaurs were put on this earth to test the faith of believers, or that we could not believe in dinosaurs because they weren't mentioned in the bible.

Granted my religion classes were more concerned with teaching the whole, "be a good person" aspect of the bible and my science classes were held to the Ohio standards.

And you were taught properly. The correct response is that God created Texas to train the Faithful.

It is by will alone that I set this post in motion.

 Manchu wrote:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
so leaves the "how did it all start?" question unanswered

And Catholics are okay with that because what we call faith is not a collection of fact claims or even opinions but rather an orientation toward human experience.

See? That's why I don't lump Catholicism under the "crazy irrational religions" category.

Anyways, the comment was in response to one of my pet peeve arguments. Whether transport on a meteor, aliens, or gods are used, the "Terrestrial life is too complex to originate randomly, so it must have come from someplace else" argument annoys me. This is because it provides no meaningful answers or predictions, yet tends to pretend it does; it's not "I believe in a higher power that is oriented towards the human experience (to use your words)", it's "I'm just gonna pass the buck on explaining this and say that it is an explanation". Does that make sense?

Yes, it makes sense. For me, folks who want to simplify the natural history of the world for the sake of promoting religion are kind of blaspheming. It's like they are insisting that God must be as simple as their own vision, which seems unlikely.

 Manchu wrote:
And Catholics are okay with that because what we call faith is not a collection of fact claims or even opinions but rather an orientation toward human experience.

That's really well said, Manchu.

Thanks. Took me a long time to learn that.

 xole wrote:
No, you misunderstand me. Everything has a 100% or 0% chance of happening. For instance, last week I had a 0% chance of winning the California lottery, as I did not win. I didn't play, either, but that is more or less beside the point. Tonight I had a 100% chance of eating chicken nuggets and weird pasta stuff, as that is what I ate for dinner. The only reason we have odds other than 0% or 100% is because we do not possess enough information to make an entirely correct assessment of an outcome, since most of us are not omniscient.

In short, it had to happen that way, because that's the way it happened.

I am afraid you are entirely incorrect. Even assuming for a second you might be on to something, the uncertainty principle dictates that complete knowledge of a system cannot be obtained. Nor can the outcome of an event be determined to a probability of 1. Nor does the fact that because something has happened in the past imply it had a probability of 1 simply because it happened; the probability of you selecting certain food to eat would vary depending on what you had in the fridge, what you felt like eating etc. The act of eating it does not raise the probability of you selecting to eat it to 1, it simply indicates that at that particular event you decided to eat it... in entirely identical circumstances you could have elected to order something in, for example.

Xole, if you honestly believe there is only a 100% or 0% chance of something happening, you need to go back to 8th grade math. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. You are dealing in absolutes only, and chance plays a role in almost everything, if not everything. Even if it's only a 0.01% of something happening.

 the shrouded lord wrote:
I have a friend,a very very catholic friend, who, recently revealed to our "group" that, due to them not being mentioned in the bible book, doesn't. Believe. In DINOSAURS! you heard right.
*smashes head on school desk multiple times ( I did this when she/he told us)*
so, I must ask, do any of you caths share this mind set?

What does he think/say when looking at a dinosaur skeleton then? There are plenty about, does he think they are models made by the museum to trick people?

xole wrote:In short, it had to happen that way, because that's the way it happened.

NO. Just no.

Hume's Guillotine

 xole wrote:

 Forar wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:
Higher power = definite yes.

The odds of the correct sequence of amino acids necessary for life to form at random (as a result of a non-alive universe bashing rocks together) is so small as to be effectively impossible.

A million monkeys on a million typewriters on hundreds of thousands of millions of stars for billions of years...

Technically, the odds of the amino acid chains forming and all subsequent events happened to be 100%, as we currently exist.

It's like the lottery. You either win or you lose, so the chances are 50%.

Oh wait, that's not how statistics really work either, is it...

 kronk wrote:
Oh wait, that's not how statistics really work either, is it...

Already used that example

Bah. I said it with style!

I thought the only dinosaur Catholics believed in was the pope (both in age and beliefs/morals)

I went through secondary education in a catholic school and we got taught science , religion class was for learning about other religions after about year 9 interestingly , so It could be said that a catholic school is responsible for my religious pluralism.
Science was always taught in science, and if anyone mentioned creationism they were laughed out of class by the students.

and Xole lesson #1 in dakkaness, never and i repeat NEVER bring up statistics on dakka, there are too many people who utilise statistics properly on here who will then send the thread meandering off into areas that normal people have no chance of understanding.

I repeat, Rule #1 of dakka : Don't talk about statistics, or "what happens in statistics class stays in statistic class".

Bullockist wrote:

and Xole lesson #1 in dakkaness, never and i repeat NEVER bring up statistics on dakka, there are too many people who utilise statistics properly on here who will then send the thread meandering off into areas that normal people have no chance of understanding.

But then we can never argue about what kind of errors are preferable, false positives or false negatives, because that differs across disciplines, and other fun statistical discussions!

Maybe you should read a bit about the present pope. Dinosaur beliefs and or morals aren't exactly what you'd attribute to the most progressive Pope ever.

But you know, don't let me get n the way of your hilarious quip.

 motyak wrote:

Bullockist wrote:

and Xole lesson #1 in dakkaness, never and i repeat NEVER bring up statistics on dakka, there are too many people who utilise statistics properly on here who will then send the thread meandering off into areas that normal people have no chance of understanding.

But then we can never argue about what kind of errors are preferable, false positives or false negatives, because that differs across disciplines, and other fun statistical discussions!

I've tried to read enough of them Motyak , I just come away mumbling to myself "Maths, i thought i knew you" and "Why the hell am I so stupid"

I think we have to consider the possibility that not only were there dinosaurs in the time of Jesus, they went extinct because he willed it to be so.

I went to one of the few non-catholic vocational schools in my area, and I had a crazy evangelical biology teacher who refused to teach us about evolution, told us condoms didn't work because rubber is porous and also ranted about the antichrist on occasion. Fun guy. Wasn't a catholic though.

The kids that went to the Catholic controlled schools got a proper education in evolution, and at the least weren't told any lies about condoms.

Wait, you have crazy evangelicals in Germany?

~Tim?

They're pretty much everywhere, but I'm originally from the Republic of Ireland.

Bullockist wrote:
I thought the only dinosaur Catholics believed in was the pope (both in age and beliefs/morals)

LOL and they say the Church is out of touch. Read the news once in a while, Bullockist.