What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history - the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
87 Comments
- OfficialJoe, on 11/19/2008, -9/+40The word "religion" elicits a powerfully immature response from the average digger it seems. Firstly, read the article. It tells the story of a man, as any man today, that held onto a set of beliefs in order to ensure that he remains immortal.
Secondly, consider this: atheists, FSM followers, freethinkers all hold onto beliefs that they hope will immortalise them. Maybe not via something as ethereal as a sun and storm god, but definitely in a life that will continue way beyond their own physical existence in the memory of the Internet, their academic efforts or maybe even their influence within their scientific belief system.
If this is indeed the case then the Internet will remember that many diggers couldn't tolerate disparate paradigms, were arrogant in the belief of their own intellectual capacity and were unable to fathom that a universe more complex than the human mind absolutely requires us to assume and presume a set of beliefs that we may or may not have evidence for. This is what makes us human.
I found this article very interesting because it tells me more about humankind. I think this discovery will help us understand how we form beliefs systems and how they affect us.
Now children, go play on the highway. - inactive, on 11/19/2008, -3/+28Is it just me, or are the comments on Digg starting to sound like the children over at Fark have been here recently?
- ScottMcIntyre, on 11/18/2008, -0/+19The article headline was changed from 10,000 to 2,900 by io9 after it was submitted. I have asked Digg support to change it.
- Zippo, on 11/19/2008, -1/+17I find it funny how some people take religion so seriously, yet look back at other past religions as being "ancient myths".
- ghidorahnotweak, on 11/18/2008, -0/+13Sorry - we fixed it right away on io9, but it took longer on Digg. I have been beaten with the requisite wet noodle for my error.
- ghidorahnotweak, on 11/18/2008, -0/+9Yeah, that was my error in the original article! Sorry about that.
- doiveo, on 11/18/2008, -0/+8mistake on io9's part
- inactive, on 11/19/2008, -0/+7My apologies.
- EarlOfLade, on 11/19/2008, -2/+8All religions are based on ancient myths. None of them are based on reality. It lies in the age of when they were invented. A time where the average persons level of knowledge was around what we would expect from a six year old today.
To them, the world around them, was a strange and scary place. A lot of things were happening and for which they had no explanations at all. A simple thing like thunder and lightening became anger from gods, we know it is not and we can easily produce lightening and we know that the thunder is just the sound of the lightening and not any angry gods. We know what the sun is and why it always rises in the east and sets in the west and we know where it is at night. These issues were great mysteries for a bronze age man or woman and they made up gods to explain them, to control people and to become rich and powerful.
Today we should know better and get rid of the old bronze age myths, shed religion and accept that it was just bronze age mythology and not reality. - withoutamartyr, on 11/19/2008, -3/+9Buried for Zeitgeist.
- Commodus, on 11/19/2008, -2/+8You mean that conspiracy movie? No thanks, even if some of it sounds true.
- Quaterni0n, on 11/19/2008, -0/+5You're just bitter because he's right and you're wrong.
- Arkz, on 11/19/2008, -1/+6would have been great if it translated to "Damn that bitch killed me AND got all my money!"
- Grazfather, on 11/19/2008, -0/+5It's a good thing both are wrong.
- Zippo, on 11/19/2008, -0/+5Actually, I've never really read anything specifically written by an atheist... I'm just stating the truth.
See: Ancient Roman, Greek, and Norse Mythology, etc. - JQP123, on 11/19/2008, -0/+5Throughout the history of mankind there have been somewhere around 10000 different documented religions.
To an atheist, all religions are silly myths.
To the religious, all religions are silly myths ... except theirs. - k3rfuffl3, on 11/19/2008, -1/+5I for one, welcome insight into how the stupidity of religion came to be... Dugg.
- georgemason01, on 11/19/2008, -1/+5Recently? It's been going on for a while. All we can do is bury them and tell them to ***** off.
- sanguinekane, on 11/19/2008, -2/+6You know odigity, if you actually just went to your library and started reading about actual Egyptian beliefs and early Christianity, you'd realize how much ***** that Zeitgeist "movie" contains.
- solid12345, on 11/19/2008, -2/+6You hit the nail on the head. So-called godless leaders like Lenin, Stalin, Mao and such built personality cults around themselves, had thousands of paintings, statues, busts and more dedicated to themselves, they deny God yet seek to make themselves God on earth. Why should people be surprised that humans follow silly religion, everyone seeks to live forever in some form or another.
- Phyltre, on 11/19/2008, -1/+4Even if we aren't religious people, we all have the same basic brain design. We all have romanticized ideas of morality, of progress, and of justice that don't really have any specific relationship to the space outside of the human mind. Some people apply these impulses toward religion, others toward science--or charity, or the state, or capitalism, or any number of philosophies.
The assumption that being non-religious makes one automatically more logical or "correct" totally ignores the way we perceive our world--often partially or totally obscuring what are obvious truths (to others) from ourselves. We're all going to die, anything we do in the mean time is motivated by something other than cold logic. There is no external "point." - SarcasticGenius, on 11/19/2008, -8/+11The article has nothing to do with Christianity. Stop hating and RTFA.
- nitsuj, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2@Justathought,
I'm aware of what you've posted. The problem is, after looking at many human religions, it just all looks so incredibly contrived. It highlights 'god' as the biggest mass murderer of all time because every human supposedly had to pay the price of adam's screw-up. That's billions of humans dying in pain, misery, despair and often alone - you'd have thought an all powerful being could have come up with another solution that didn't require this absolute carnage and suffering.
"But, he chose to use that injustice as a way to remedy the human condition. "
That's it? That's all the omni-being could muster up? By offering up a 'perfect' human for sacrifice, which incidentally wasn't much of a sacrifice because he survived and went to heaven anyway? Were's the loss? Nowhere. It's all just so made-up it's painfully obvious.
And there's always this dangling carrot of ever-lasting life yet no description about what that entails exactly. Ever-lasting is a long time. Maybe believers should have more of an idea what this entails from moment to moment.
Bottom line, personally I don't find the bible credible at all. - inactive, on 11/19/2008, -1/+3he is holding =1 the pine-cone thing represents the pineal gland said to be the seat of the soul, and that is worth a look at ((pineal gland )) 2 the other is a vessel(cup) presuming to hold the water of life .,,,,,, also notice the Greek nose-line
- qwertyxuiop, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2@Justathought
also how do you feel about the years 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1918, 1920, 1925 and 1975
I know that you know what I'm talking about - nitsuj, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2@Justathought,
From that first link:
"The Bible itself invites us to test its accuracy. Consider its historical authenticity, its practicality, the candor of its writers, and its integrity."
Tested, Considered and rejected. This is the fundamental difference between us - your criteria for evidence, rationality, facts and acceptance are clearly not the same as mine. - nitsuj, on 11/22/2008, -0/+2"What is the "indisputable evidence"?"
Talking about our own species, go and check out endogenous retrovirus insertions and the fusing of one of our chromosomes. You may want to check this out: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M
For other animals, go check out whale evolution. It's incredibly well documented. There's a lot more if you just look.
"Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things."
And it does.
"For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs."
And there is. You should do a bit more research.
"Darwin attempted to explain these huge problems by attacking the fossil record. "
I'm not sure why you're so fixated on Darwin, but never mind. We know for sure that the fossil record is problematic - hardly any animals end up as fossils and geology tells us how the Earth's crust churns and travels over time so that has to be taken into account. Having said that, the fossil record as we know it does support the theory of evolution. What it doesn't support is your story of a creator creating all animals at a single point. The fossil record is littered with many, many different lifeforms that constantly come into being and then go extinct. This is not in-line with the biblical account at all.
"No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found."
This is essentially a lie. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.h ...
As for the Carl Sagan quote, let's have the rest of that shall we?
"The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer (although not with a Designer of a more remote and indirect temperament). "
Quote mining is not your friend.
"but I can safely say that when examining the Bible honestly, one can only come to the conclusion that it had to be from a supra-human source."
Well, I came to a different conclusion. I already stated the incorrect ordering and events in the genesis account compared to what we actually now know. Problem is you'll just hand wave any facts like this because of your personal investment in your belief.
"There is plenty of extra-Biblical evidence that shows that Jesus was indeed a real person."
One for another day but I found this not to be the case either - and I looked at the lot.
"Any way, as I said before, we disagree. I think we will just have to leave it at that."
I think so. - nitsuj, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2Oh dear, signing out fail.
For any one else who may be interested, the bible says nothing about the point of view of the narrator and it doesn't make sense OR change the fact that the ordering and events are plain wrong to make the conjecture that the point of view is from human observers. Had they been present? How could they have been present? Total nonsense.
"God did not intend the Bible to be a book that reveals the secrets of creation to us."
They're not secrets. These are things that we factually know and the bible is incorrect on them. Not a great start to the book, everything on the first few pages is wrong. - nitsuj, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2"Newsweek magazine presented those findings in a report entitled “The Search for Adam and Eve.”"
You are aware that mitochondrial eve and Y-chromosomal adam lived at completely different times? And that mitochondrial eve has changed many, many times?
You should really look at the facts with these findings. This is typically how theism can muddy your thinking.
In the meantime maybe you'd like to consider that we are indisputably part of the ape family and what the bible has to say on that. And it is indisputable, look up endogenous retrovirus insertions and our fused chromosome for hard genetic evidence.
"But, my point is that the Bible has never been conclusively proven to be wrong in any point."
The account of genesis is completely wrong (in particular, the ordering of events). Adam and eve story is also wrong - we share common ancestry with all life, not just two humans. Noah's ark is an engineering and logistical impossibility. There is no record of an exodus out of egypt outside of the bible. It goes on and on.
The bible is only error free for those blindly believing it. - nitsuj, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2"You are trying to blame God for what was clearly Adam's fault. What do you suggest God could have done differently?"
You think the death and misery of billions of humans was justified for eating a bit of fruit? How about this for different; destroy satan and chastise Adam and Eve in a nurturing way. Don't create unbelievable misery and suffering for billions of humans (men, women and children) as the result of a mistake that they had nothing to do with.
"(Genesis 3:4-5) . . .“YOU positively will not die. For God knows that in the very day of YOUR eating from it YOUR eyes are bound to be opened and YOU are bound to be like God, KNOWING good and bad.”"
If they didn't 'KNOW' good and bad then how did they know that eating the fruit or disobeying god was 'bad' in the first place? So much for consistency.
"I doubt that any of us would appreciate not having the gift of free will."
You mean the same free will that gods murdered victims in the OT had? If I have true free will then I'll wait until I die to see if it's all true and then exercise my free will and choose heaven thanks. How's that for free will?
"They simply take for granted that he does not exist and don't bother to investigate."
I've investigated a lot and, in my humble opinion, it's a myth.
"However, today, millions of sincere persons, from all walks of life, and from all corners of the Earth are learning that indeed his word is true and that living according to God's will is the best way to live. "
You are living in cloud cuckoo land. At least here in the UK religion is fading and fast.
"Why not give it a chance?"
Why bother? None of it is convincing, there's zip all evidence for 'god' and the whole christian show fits the perfect pattern of mythology stories.
I'm perfectly happy with any of that old superstition, magic and nonsense thanks. - nitsuj, on 11/23/2008, -0/+2"If you disagree, please show me what part of what I wrote you disagree with."
I gave a very simple 15 point break down of events as we _know_ they happened and it's different to the genesis account. The genesis account is wrong.
"There is one final point I'd like to address since you asked and I had intended to answer, the extra-Biblical evidence of Jesus existence."
I'm well aware of all of the references you mention and have looked at them before in detail.
The Testimonium Flavianum is a known forgery. The reference to James, although classed as genuine, is also controversial in that the "who was called Christ" part is a suspected later insertion. There is also mention of another Jesus in the same passage: "when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest." and many believe that this is the Jesus really talked about in the writing.
Nevertheless, it's noteworthy that this was written in the year 93 - way after the supposed death of Christ and the whole account is retrospective. All in all, not very convincing.
Tacitus: this reference is from the year 116, also way after the supposed life/death of Christ and is also a retrospective account of an event that took place in the year 64 where christians were accused of starting the fire in Rome. All it points to is that there was a religious sect called Christians. That's all.
Pliny the Younger: again the year 111, way after the supposed life/death of Christ and again just points to the existence of a religious sect called Christians.
So what to take from those references? Well, there was a religious sect called 'Christians' sometime early in the 1st century. That's about all you can get from them. This is a far cry from validating the existence of christ, or his supposed divinity. If you want to see how believe in a mysterious cult figure can take place, even in the modern day, the go look up Cargo Cults and John Frumm.
"That testifies to the reality of the existence of the Christ, whose followers were prepared to give their lives for their belief in him."
This is not convincing either. History is littered with people prepared to sacrifice themselves for a believed faith/ideology - particularly if it promises afterlife. It is nothing remarkable or unique.
Britannica: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus...”
This is clearly false, opponents of Christianity do doubt the historicity of Jesus and the accounts you've given are a long way from proof.
Can you provide any accounts of Jesus written during his lifetime? You would think that if the NT was true then history would be littered with independent accounts. But conspicuously, it isn't. What you have are cherry picked gospels of unknown authorship written again many years after christ's supposed lifetime.
FWIW, I think christianity has about as much credibility as many other religions that I've looked at. There may be a grain of truth in there historically speaking (I'd be surprised if there wasn't) but there's so much coloration as to make then unpalatable to me. - nitsuj, on 11/22/2008, -0/+2Wow, there's so much misinformation in your post that it's hard to know where to begin or even whether to bother or not.
"I did. What does it prove?"
It proves that our fused chromosome originates from two primate chromosomes that are also shared with the chimpanzee species. Endogenous retrovirus insertion evidence is even more overwhelming still - I'd like to see how you explain that.
"Alright, I took a peak. What I find is this. Evolutionists scramble to find something something, amongst the millions of species of animals, that somehow fits their preconceived ideas."
No, biologists look for something that fits the *evidence*. You research into this particular subject didn't seem too deep so here's another link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
The evidence goes way beyond your appraisal of Pakicetus and on even a very simple level you might want to consider why Whales and Dolphins are *adapted* mammals.
We also have very complete records of the evolution of many other mammals. Go check out horse evolution for example.
Most of the references you quoted are highly questionable. For example, I would be very surprised if we had some kind of fossil evidence for the very first examples of life. We can hardly find rock that old due to the activity of the Earth's crust, never mind find evidence of simple organic structures in it. I doubt there would have been any initial trace at all.
Equally naive:
"“The horseshoe crab . . . has existed on earth virtually unchanged for 200 million years.”"
So what? This is absolutely fine and does not contradict anything in evolution theory but statements like this are still made by naive would-be critics. If an animal is well suited to it's environment and reaches an equilibrium in form then it is unlikely to change much. They _do_ change but in very subtle ways.
"Many of the so called " vestigial features" have been slowly but surely proven to be nothing of the sort."
What about the vestigial leg features of some snakes? Same with whales - occasionally a whale is born with a redundant limb. Now why would that be?
"Strenuous efforts have been made to link the amphibians to some fish ancestor, but without success. "
Tetrapod ancestry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
I'll give you a quote from New Scientists, it's an interesting article but here's a snippet which sums up my thoughts also:
"Evidence of evolution in the fossil record has vastly increased since then. Yet the idea still persists that the fossil record is too patchy to provide good evidence of evolution. One reason for this is the influence of creationism. Foremost among their tactics is to distort or ignore the evidence for evolution; a favourite lie is "there are no transitional fossils".
This is manifestly untrue. We now have abundant evidence for how all the major groups of animals are related, much of it in the form of excellent transitional fossils."
Link to the above article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726451.700 ...
Continuing, the paragraph that ends in this:
“In 40 million years of struggling up the evolutionary ladder, they have made almost no discernible progress.”
Just incredible. There is no evolutionary ladder and no arrow of progress. It appears your quotes are from people who are not qualified to comment on evolution at all and are therefore not credible.
"OK, I will have to stop here for now. But there is more, much more. Including the largest gulf of all."
Likewise. I also have tons of information but it seems pointless to continue. What I will say is that many of your sources don't seem credible (it's obvious when reading them) and that nothing you've written addressed my original claim that the events in genesis are blatently wrong.
Regardless of what you might think, the fossil record shows lifeforms changing over vast epochs of time and this is in stark contrast to the genesis account - never mind the ordering falsehoods of the events stated in the story. Genesis is simply wrong. - nitsuj, on 11/23/2008, -0/+2"Your 15 point breakdown is not in disagreement with the explanation I gave you, which is clearly what the Bible says."
The points I gave (and ordering) are NOT what is written in genesis. Again, genesis is wrong. How can the very 'word' of god simply be wrong? unless....
Anyhow, I did read your response and you didn't address this at all.
Let's get back to agreeing to disagree otherwise this thread will carry on forever. :-) - sealhands, on 11/19/2008, -1/+3"The stone depicts Kuttamuwa himself, smoking a bowl"
- nitsuj, on 11/22/2008, -0/+2"And it will continue to change as more insights are acquired and as more data is revealed. Eventually they may arrive at the truth, maybe."
No, I didn't mean _change_ in that respect, change in that at different times there's been a different mitochondrial eve. If you actually read about the subject without cherry picking for your religious beliefs you'd have known this.
"God chose to reuse some of its designs in the many species that he created."
There is indisputable evidence for all life having common ancestry and evolving (changing) over time. There's no other explanation which fits the biological evidence including that it was somehow all done with magic.
"Ducks have always been and will always remain ducks."
Always been? This is blatantly false:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/16/science/16fossil ...
Closer to home, we have not always been humans - we are apes that share recent common ancestry with other apes. You can deny this all you like but to do so is to ignore the mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary.
"The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events"
Please provide this mathematical evidence.
"(1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order."
No, it doesn't, not in the slightest. It's just WRONG. Saying that our current scientific knowledge agrees with this ordering is either ridiculously naive or an outright lie.
Even a very, very simple off-the-top-of-my-head list would look something like this (and note, it is SIGNIFICANTLY different to the genesis account):
(1) Inflation from T=0
(2) Light
(3) Formation of atomic structures and then early stellar structures
(4) Stars, then production of heavier elements through super nova
(5) Planets and moons
(6) Organic molecules
(7) Single celled lifeforms
(8) Proto plant life and multicellular life forms
(9) Alteration of Earth's atmosphere due to oceanic lifeforms
(10) Early amphibious/land venturing lifeforms
(11) BIG ONE HERE, hundreds of millions of years of radically changing lifeforms eventually leading to early mammals and much, much LATER, birds
(12) Evolution of primates including several human-like ancestors, Neanderthal, Cro-magnon and many others
(13) ...leading to *****-sapien which becomes the sole survivor of the human like apes
(14) Domestication of some animals from hunter gatherer lifestyle
(15) Development of agriculture which leads to early (several thousand years ago) genetic modification of crops and livestock.
And this list isn't just made up. There is masses and masses of evidence from cosmology, geology, physics, paleontology and anthropology.
"What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order?"
They didn't. The bible is just wrong. You should really look at all the evidence but the problem is that blind belief (faith) mentally cripples a person from doing so. - qwertyxuiop, on 11/21/2008, -0/+2@ Justathought
AHA... your a JW are you.. I thought your arguments sounded familiar
curious... are you among the 144,000? is Digg your new recruitment method?
How do you deal with the fact that Armageddon did not happen in 1843?
just thought that I would hijack the thread
@ nitsuj
Are you who I think you are? - nitsuj, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2"Maybe in the end we will just have to agree to disagree,"
This is the case. I don't find any part of these stories credible.
Human genetic lineage refutes the whole Adam and Eve story. Without the literal interpretation of that story there is no original sin. Without that, there is no real meaning in the christ myth and the hole thing falls down like a house of cards. This is the real reason that many theists are set against evolution science.
I find the whole thing dubious even on a theistic level.
"As I wrote above, as the almighty, he is able to undo the effects of mankind’s suffering."
So what's the point then? Why bother with all the suffering in the first place?
"Adam is the one that bears the responsibility for all the death and suffering that we have had to endure."
Just like sticking a knife into a child's head should it steal a biscuit is the child's fault?
"I am not sure I understand this statement of yours."
In the OT your god performs countless acts of murder. It's as simple as that.
If I were you I'd give up quoting scripture. My eyes kind of glaze over when I see it - it does nothing for your case as I do not consider it credible at all. - nitsuj, on 11/19/2008, -0/+2"But, now, thanks to the atonement sacrifice of his son the prospect of eternal life is open."
How on Earth you can even actually swallow this Rube Goldberg mythology farce is beyond me. Arbitrary rules, somehow Jesus dying 'magically' gives the prospect of eternal life if you just 'believe' (Tinkerbell anyone?). Exactly by what precise mechanism does all this 'magic' belief work?
Crazy rules clearly left over from a more ignorant time. - OfficialJoe, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1Ah, the old grab & punch. First you grab something out of context and then you punch an argument in there that is supposed to shift the discussion. Bible bashers do it all the time.
I was referring specifically to the initial responses of the digg community to this article that was posted by individuals displaying said arrogance.
Whether or not a belief in a relationship with God is arrogant is entirely out of context and therefore irrelevant to this particular discussion.
Your response speaks of an individual that seems personally offended somehow, bordering on that characteristic intolerance of those who regard themselves as intellectually superior. Personally I think people can believe whatever they wish, their beliefs will either bring about strength and goodness, or it will bring about weakness and destruction. The latter being the kind of belief that I avoid. - rustintable, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1There should be a mode you can turn on where you only see the comments of friends of friends of friends ect.
- Kzoo, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1Ms. Newitz, some words (like scientific jargon) have specific meanings that do not change, and that's for a reason (concision and precision). A stele is not always a grave marker, though it can be. It's a slab of some material with writing or pictures made to commemorate an event.
Quite a find though, and in excellent condition. - qwertyxuiop, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1wrong spot
- Justathought, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1Regarding your last statement, by time Christianity became "Roman", the time of Constantine, Christianity itself was a far a cry from what Jesus had taught and what his apostles worked hard at establishing. The most fascinating thing about that is that the deviation and corruption of the church was foreseen by the prophets of old, by the apostles, and by Jesus himself. (2Peter 2:1-3 1Tim 4:1-3; 2Tim 2:16-19) It was to take hold once the apostles were out of the way. (2Tes 2:1-12; Mat 13; Acts 20:29, 30; 2Tim 4:3,4)
Happily, that would not be the end of true Christianity. (Dan 12:4, 9, 10) - DirtySanch, on 11/21/2008, -0/+1I wasn't talking about the religion I was talking about how art went from an accurate human portrayal, to fairy tale story telling after Christianity started to spread. I don't give a ***** about religion, just curious why art changed so much as a result of it.
- rustintable, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1Hence the term stoned?
- praisethelard, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1The real error was that you didn't link here: http://news.uchicago.edu/news.php?asset_id=1486
- pw378, on 11/19/2008, -1/+2The Jewish Torah and Christian Bible do not teach that the soul and body are the same. This is just your ignorance of understanding.
The soul, after death, will either reside with God or in Hell. Heaven is eternal, Hell is not. Hell will eventually be destroyed and all those condemned souls along with it. So, in that sense, yes a soul can die. - DirtySanch, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1Cool article and very timely as I'm taking an art history class and we covered this civilization earlier this semester. I did notice though how the quality of art in western civilizations went to ***** at around 250-300 AD when Rome went Christian. They had a better grasp on architecture but the realism in art was gone in exchange for fairy tale story telling. That last statement had absolutely nothing to do with this article.
- phosphite, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1My soul is hungry too.
- nitsuj, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1Dogma is the enemy. Atrocities are atrocities whether they're committed in the name of some 'god' or some ideology (the state, communism, fascism etc).
Interestingly then, atheism isn't an ideology. Just something to remember. -
Show 51 - 89 of 89 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is