Does 16s rRNA gene prove all Abrahamic religions wrong? - (Mar/15/2012 )
Hi pito, how's it going? Sorry it's taken so long to reply, I got a bit delayed, and the excellent answer I was putting together has disappeared, so here I go again from scratch....
pito on Tue Sep 4 18:10:11 2012 said:
Lots of the stories in the bible are "stories" , lots of them are written during bad times and were ment as a pass time! Also: people dont seem to realise that many of these stories were passed on orally and later written down .. We all know what happens if you pass a story orally...
sorry pito, but the opposite is true in those societies that do not have writing, but who rely only their oral traditions. Because the stories are the only way that information is passed down, it is more important, not less, that the stories are passed on precisely. And I'm not sure I understand you when you say the Bible stories were meant as a pastime...
How come religious people are blind for these arguments?
Its a proven scientific fact that the bible is a gathering of stories from different times and still there are people out there claiming it was written by 1 person during 1 "lifetime".
Its a proven scientific fact that the bible is a gathering of stories from different times and still there are people out there claiming it was written by 1 person during 1 "lifetime".
I have not heard of any Christian who says the bible was written by 1 person during 1 lifetime, unless they are referring to the fact the the New Testament gospels and letters were written in a relatively short period. The earliest letters are from the middle-to-late 40s AD, and the last book was written by 90-95AD, which is in a single lifetime. And in case there is concern over how we "know" this, those dates are from people who have spent their professional lives studying ancient documents and who can be considered experts (just as we have spent many years learning our skills in science). How would you feel if the local librarian came out correcting your work, saying they knew more about molecular biology than you did, because they have a degree and work in a library?
Also: the idea that a book or orally passed on story would be kept unchanged during all those years is idiotic. There are indeed some writing evidences, old "bibles" , but they are not as old as where the origin of the bible is situated.
The oldest one is just found in bits and pieces.
The oldest one is just found in bits and pieces.
Yes the oldest Bible papyri are fragmentary, but they are still from the first and early second century. The best copies of the ancient Roman and Greek historians, poets and philosophers are separated from the original documents by up to (and often well over) a thousand years, but there is no-one saying they are inaccurate. Even the best of them, Homer, has a gap of over 300 years from the original to the oldest existing copy. And the ancient Bible documents were translated into many ancient languages at the time which all translate back to the same message, so we are confident no-one changed the message. Finally, the so-called "Church Fathers" of the second century typically included verses from the letters and gospels as they wrote to each other, to such an extent that we could piece together the entire New Testament, bar 7 verses, from their letters alone. No, I'm sorry, if you investigate the ancient texts, there is absolutely nothing that comes close to the Bible in terms of quality, quantity or diversity of evidence. Anyone who says otherwise is either misled or deliberately ignoring the evidence.
Teachings are the highest moral code? An eye for an eye?
If you would live the way it is written down in the bible (litterally), we would be in total war.
If you would live the way it is written down in the bible (litterally), we would be in total war.
Actually, the whole "eye for an eye" thing was designed to limit the extent of revenge for injuries, not prescribe what you had to do. It stopped the escalation of blood feuds into killings. Just look at the way some people carry on a feud across hundreds of years: no-one actually remembers the initial insult, they just keep on hating each other. Jesus even took this limitation of revenge further: "You have heard it said, "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth", butI say to you do not resist an evil person... if someone forces you to walk 1 mile {which the Romans could do to a subject person}, walk with them 2 miles" and so on. So I reckon that if we actually lived as the Bible has it, we would be far away from "total war".
And massively advertised, its because of chirstianity's ability to spread through the world to all people? What?
Are you forgetting how the "christians" did spread their so called religion?
(ok, I confess, many of the so called "spreading" of believe was an excuse to conquer and get rich, but still......)
Are you forgetting how the "christians" did spread their so called religion?
(ok, I confess, many of the so called "spreading" of believe was an excuse to conquer and get rich, but still......)
I'm glad you brought this up. Yes, there were some stages of forced conversions, but so did the Muslims, both under Mohammed and after. But, just as with Islam, those stages were limited and done for relatively short periods of time. And they were terrible wrongs that were done. But I want you to also think of other times. During the second and third centuries, many of the German tribes, incredibly independent-minded and very violent societies, became Christian. Why? What "logical" benefit would come to them? There was certainly no political or military pressure placed on them, but they became Christianised. And the same story was repeated all over the Empire from the first century onwards, so you need to be careful when you trot out "statistics".
-swanny-
Curtis on Thu Sep 6 10:34:16 2012 said:
People used to think that the earth was placed on the back of four gigantic elephants standing on the back of a huge turtle.
I think we are still living in the same time.
It is difficult to question something that you are born with, raised with, taught with, lived with all your life. It is scary. It is scary to know everything was based on myth. We can't expect people to change with just one post of ours, Pito. We are faced with billions!
yes, curtis, but there is still hope for even you!! ;-) But don't be so hard on yourself; i woudn't call your background "myths"...
-swanny-
If God sends me to hell for not believing somone who maybe walked on water, I will tell him there wasn't enough evidence.
-Curtis-
Curtis on Thu Sep 13 10:04:16 2012 said:
If God sends me to hell for not believing somone who maybe walked on water, I will tell him there wasn't enough evidence.
Sorry, curtis, I was just stirring! My iPad doesn't let me do proper emoticons, sorry.
I must say i wonder what evidence would be enough when I hear that comment... the big problem is that the only available evidence is historical, so if someone are looking for other evidence, they're kinda out of luck.
Have we digressed at all from the original topic???
-swanny-
swanny on Thu Sep 13 05:29:24 2012 said:
sorry pito, but the opposite is true in those societies that do not have writing, but who rely only their oral traditions. Because the stories are the only way that information is passed down, it is more important, not less, that the stories are passed on precisely. And I'm not sure I understand you when you say the Bible stories were meant as a pastime...
See, this is where the problems start: you are blind for facts.
Its a well accepted fact, that when you pass things orally, you will change/alter stuff.... So there is NO certainty at all that the stories that are past orally are correct.
Even if you mention they are important, it does not matter, its a characteristic of humans to alter stories passed on orally.
This is a proven fact!
(many tribes have been studied on this and we know that some of the stories passed on are exagerated massively. Think about the so called "huge fish" in some of the stories that killed/ate people)
And many of the bibles stories were created during bad times: during wars/repression. So people made up stories that were ment to show how things could go and how the future would be good etc...
So you have to place the stories in the correct atmosphere.
I have not heard of any Christian who says the bible was written by 1 person during 1 lifetime, unless they are referring to the fact the the New Testament gospels and letters were written in a relatively short period. The earliest letters are from the middle-to-late 40s AD, and the last book was written by 90-95AD, which is in a single lifetime. And in case there is concern over how we "know" this, those dates are from people who have spent their professional lives studying ancient documents and who can be considered experts (just as we have spent many years learning our skills in science). How would you feel if the local librarian came out correcting your work, saying they knew more about molecular biology than you did, because they have a degree and work in a library?
Well, I have heard a lot of so called christians that claim that all the stories are from the same person and from the same time (not that it happened at the same time, but that they were written down at one time.
Again: if you claim that those experts are 100% sure that the dates are correct, then you claim that they have superpowers! We (well, not me, but those experts) are able to set a certain date, but is never 100% correct.
THe past has shown us that some of the stories were younger/older then they first believed and that some of the chronologic was not correct.
And its even a fact that not all those experts agree on it.. So why even state its all accurate?
Yes the oldest Bible papyri are fragmentary, but they are still from the first and early second century. The best copies of the ancient Roman and Greek historians, poets and philosophers are separated from the original documents by up to (and often well over) a thousand years, but there is no-one saying they are inaccurate. Even the best of them, Homer, has a gap of over 300 years from the original to the oldest existing copy. And the ancient Bible documents were translated into many ancient languages at the time which all translate back to the same message, so we are confident no-one changed the message. Finally, the so-called "Church Fathers" of the second century typically included verses from the letters and gospels as they wrote to each other, to such an extent that we could piece together the entire New Testament, bar 7 verses, from their letters alone. No, I'm sorry, if you investigate the ancient texts, there is absolutely nothing that comes close to the Bible in terms of quality, quantity or diversity of evidence. Anyone who says otherwise is either misled or deliberately ignoring the evidence.
Again: claiming that the translations were accurate and no mistakes were made is just naive.
Sorry again, but its a proven fact that when you start translating/passing stuff on orally that changes will happen!! This is a commen fact and also leads to many many many different interpretations of the bible or other books!
Think about figurative speech: how hard is it to translate stuff like that in another langauge! Its often impossible!
I dont know how many langauges you speak/know, but I know more then 1 langauge and I can tell you its almost impossible to translate figurative sentences or commen sayings correctly.
The idea that the bible or those papers would be kept 100% correct and not altered is just idiotic.
Unless you claim that some "higher power" made sure the words were kept accurate (and this is an argument often used by believers, but in my opinion this is just nuts).
I'm glad you brought this up. Yes, there were some stages of forced conversions, but so did the Muslims, both under Mohammed and after. But, just as with Islam, those stages were limited and done for relatively short periods of time. And they were terrible wrongs that were done. But I want you to also think of other times. During the second and third centuries, many of the German tribes, incredibly independent-minded and very violent societies, became Christian. Why? What "logical" benefit would come to them? There was certainly no political or military pressure placed on them, but they became Christianised. And the same story was repeated all over the Empire from the first century onwards, so you need to be careful when you trot out "statistics".
For a relative short period?
What?????
its been going one for ages now and still is....
Think about 1900-1950, the time when european countries "invaded" african countries and forced the christian religion...
And I can go back till the year 0 .. Every period there were people invading others and killing them and spreading their religion.. THink about the spanish people that invaded the USA...
Or during the dark middle ages...
Again: the tribes becoming christians...
I really dont understand where you get this kind of information.
You claim it had to political or military pressure?
You do release it all started with a big war and the fleding of thousands of people and the king that made new laws in wich the christianity was also stated.
I really dont understand where you get the idea that it was all a voluntary movement.
I am not saying there are no non-violant changes, but many of them did come from violence or came after violence.
Dont forget that religion can bring faith/hope and people that just had massive battles are easier in changing religion or are more prone to religion then people that are having a pretty nice life without problems.
This is btw a fact in religion: many of the so called religious leaders use the weakness of people to make them join their religion!
(you can say this is only done by sects but christians did this too (and still are doing this).
People find happiness and joy in religion! And people with problems are thus more prone for a religion conversion.
Actually, the whole "eye for an eye" thing was designed to limit the extent of revenge for injuries, not prescribe what you had to do. It stopped the escalation of blood feuds into killings. Just look at the way some people carry on a feud across hundreds of years: no-one actually remembers the initial insult, they just keep on hating each other. Jesus even took this limitation of revenge further: "You have heard it said, "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth", butI say to you do not resist an evil person... if someone forces you to walk 1 mile {which the Romans could do to a subject person}, walk with them 2 miles" and so on. So I reckon that if we actually lived as the Bible has it, we would be far away from "total war".
Well, if it is what you are saying then the christians would be in total repression...
But I agree that there are some good parts in the bible and many things are indeed ok/good, but again: interpretation is everything.. Like with the eye for an eye.... You say its a positive thing that you do not need to do this.. but other christians will not see this and take it for what it is : eye for an eye.
If you check the wiki (where you got your info?) you can easly see that it all depends on interpretations..
So again: how on earth can you claim to know what is written in it and that nothing went wrong with translations if we see now that there is still a debate about it going on!
-pito-
pito on Thu Sep 13 16:13:23 2012 said:
But I agree that there are some good parts in the bible and many things are indeed ok/good,
yeah, I've read the bible and the translated version of Quran, they both got valuable lessons to educate people, but at the same time Nesa chapter in Quran says men must beat their wives if they don't obey,...it kinda puts you in limbo
swanny on Thu Sep 13 13:29:06 2012 said:
Sorry, curtis, I was just stirring! My iPad doesn't let me do proper emoticons, sorry.
I must say i wonder what evidence would be enough when I hear that comment... the big problem is that the only available evidence is historical, so if someone are looking for other evidence, they're kinda out of luck.
Have we digressed at all from the original topic???
it's alright
I'm just happy we're discussing this peacefully, unlike those who rocket each others' embassies. -Curtis-
I bit late to this conversation, but all I would like to ask the so-called Atheists here is that
If Believing in a parchment written by someone two thousand years ago and following the protocol (religion) is not being open minded,
then following the experimental protocol of some research paper published 20 years ago (read PCR) and using it to explain your hypotheses is no different.
-Ameya P-
Ameya P on Thu Nov 8 13:03:57 2012 said:
I bit late to this conversation, but all I would like to ask the so-called Atheists here is that
If Believing in a parchment written by someone two thousand years ago and following the protocol (religion) is not being open minded,
then following the experimental protocol of some research paper published 20 years ago (read PCR) and using it to explain your hypotheses is no different.
?
I do not understand what you mean.
There is a difference in following something that is a true protocol, proven (like PCR, a PCR does work, we are able to mulitply the genes) and a religious "protocol" that has no scientific value.
Besides you allready underminded your statement by stating that people follow the protocol/religion. Following something is not being open minded at all...
Following a protocol is open minded because the protocol published 20 years ago has been tested/ re-done and altered for many times before and has been proven.
An open minded scientists starts with a protocol, but will adjust it where needed and will strive to understand it.
Do you just follow a protocol blindly without thinking yourself??
While a religious protocol does not need any adjusment according to extreme believers.. thats just it: its written there and it has to be followed exactely as being written down, there is no room for being open minded, because if you are , then you are not a true religious people according to those "religious leaders" that claim to know everything.
Scientific protocol: tested, evaluated, changed if needed , clear cut written <=> religious papers: not changed, not tested, not altered, not clear cut written (ambigu, multiply interpretations possible leading to religious problems)
PS. you also underminded your answer here by stating this:
and using it to explain your hypotheses is no different
This is just it: HYPOTHESES !! We have hypotheses and they turn into truth when its 100% proven. If not proven, we use those hypothesis to explain a hypothetical situation!
Versus religion: NO HYPOTHESES at all, they see it as the truth.
PS. this is just what makes a religion a religion: you accept it (the religion) as being true! Thats where it all starts: you dont doubt it, you agree with it.
Having doubts about your religion is something that makes you a non believer for true believers, because for being a believer you need to believe...
Thats just the basis of religion: accepting something thats just written down/not proven.
-pito-
pito on Thu Nov 8 17:33:06 2012 said:
Besides you allready underminded your statement by stating that people follow the protocol/religion. Following something is not being open minded at all...
Following a protocol is open minded because .......
pito on Thu Nov 8 17:33:06 2012 said:
While a religious protocol does not need any adjusment according to extreme believers.. thats just it: its written there and it has to be followed exactely as being written down, there is no room for being open minded, because if you are , then you are not a true religious people according to those "religious leaders" that claim to know everything.
Why does a religious person have to be fanatic at all times???? Isn't that being too presumptuous?
pito on Thu Nov 8 17:33:06 2012 said:
Scientific protocol: tested, evaluated, changed if needed , clear cut written <=> religious papers: not changed, not tested, not altered, not clear cut written (ambigu, multiply interpretations possible leading to religious problems)
Religion is a large social experiment and I do not think its as rigid as you are making it sound. Its a guide as to how to lead a normal, socially inclusive life.
pito on Thu Nov 8 17:33:06 2012 said:
Having doubts about your religion is something that makes you a non believer for true believers, because for being a believer you need to believe...
Thats just the basis of religion: accepting something thats just written down/not proven.
The whole scientific community is following a religion. You accept whats written down in Nature/ Science to be true. The first time somebody told you that a PCR makes multiple copies of DNA, you accepted it to be true. How many of us have actually asked Kary Mullis for an explanation?
-Ameya P-
Ameya P on Thu Nov 8 18:42:19 2012 said:
Besides you allready underminded your statement by stating that people follow the protocol/religion. Following something is not being open minded at all...
Following a protocol is open minded because .......
Did you read it....
there are words behind because........... and they are important!
While a religious protocol does not need any adjusment according to extreme believers.. thats just it: its written there and it has to be followed exactely as being written down, there is no room for being open minded, because if you are , then you are not a true religious people according to those "religious leaders" that claim to know everything.
Why does a religious person have to be fanatic at all times???? Isn't that being too presumptuous?
True, but then we are talking about semantics, because you need to draw a line somewhere between "believer" and "non believer".
A "true" religious person is one that accepts the "holy book" as it is written.
If you are indeed less "extreme" , then yes there is room for more.. however, these people are often not the ones yelling from the tops of their houses that they are religious.
Scientific protocol: tested, evaluated, changed if needed , clear cut written <=> religious papers: not changed, not tested, not altered, not clear cut written (ambigu, multiply interpretations possible leading to religious problems)
Religion is a large social experiment and I do not think its as rigid as you are making it sound. Its a guide as to how to lead a normal, socially inclusive life.
no and yes.
First of all: the fact that you call it a large social experiment makes people go crazy !
A true believer will be prepared to "kill" you or at least kick your ass because you call religion a social experiment...
(I do wonder: are you really religious or not, because a religious person will never call his/her religion an experiment.....
or are you using the wrong words?)
Secondly: it is rigid.. thats just religion, it is ment to be rigid!
If there is too much place for interpretation and adaptation, that specific religion will not stay as it was/is...
pito on Thu Nov 8 17:33:06 2012 said:
Having doubts about your religion is something that makes you a non believer for true believers, because for being a believer you need to believe...
Thats just the basis of religion: accepting something thats just written down/not proven.
The whole scientific community is following a religion. You accept whats written down in Nature/ Science to be true. The first time somebody told you that a PCR makes multiple copies of DNA, you accepted it to be true. How many of us have actually asked Kary Mullis for an explanation?
Did you really read my post?
You dont need to ask Kary Mullis for explanation..
When I do a PCR and it works.. I see it with my own eyes!
+ I do read the papers and question them.. I do not follow it blindly!
Why do you think papers are being retracted or addenda are made up?
Can you imagine a retraction of a part of the bible because we know its impossible to become pregnant without sex?
Can I explain everything in detail, do I know how it works for 100M% sure? No I dont, but I do know what the end result will be and why it is (hypothesis or facts).
This is different from religion where you cant predict the outcome, where people did not question stuff (if they do, they are regarded as outcasts), where people adapted/changed stuff.
Just one note: keep in mind that when I speak about religious people I peak about people that are 90-100% sure about their religion to be true and that are not open for the idea that there might be a different kind of god (or more then ones) or that their might be mistakes in their "book".
If you question the Koran, as a muslim, for example, you are (by many muslims) not regared as a true muslim.
But then again; we can also debate about what a religious person is.. where to draw the line..
-pito-