The best reasons to believe that there is a God

[twonpoo]

matter of fact, let me explain something, half heartedly at least.

 

 

he's a douchebag because he believes the whole world ought to be ATHEIST.

 

that's pretty silly of you to call an educated man a douche because he has come to a conclusion based on evidence and Science that there is no tangible proof of a god. Especially claiming you are an Atheist.

 

 

 

the existence of a god or power or lack of is unprovable. Wrong, there is no proof of a god. No kidding, did you come up with that all by yourself? there is no need to prove there ISN'T, as an Atheist, you do not need to prove there is no such thing is the Easter Bunny to continue to be an Atheist, it's up to the Easter Bunny believers to prove he does exzist, OR they will continue to look like ignorant followers believing in such things.

 

take the facts available to you, decide what works for you, carry on.

 

And there lies your idiotic flaw of argument, Richard Dawkins for example, has done this. Ignorant religulous ingrained people from birth throw all rationality out the window and hold more faith in their own ego to be RIGHT then they do to be disproven. When raised in religion, most times you are always taught to believe no matter what anyone says, that is what makes you truthful and loyal to the lord Jesus Christ, that's faith, believing when it's not proven... Thats actually the perfect antidote for any religion, "believe just because", "believe or else" That's not only rediculous, but dangerously scarey.

 

 

uniformity in thought is homogeny.

 

Ahh yes, the usage of big person words. By definition

UNIFORMITY = the state or quality of being uniform; overall sameness, homogeneity, or regularity: uniformity of style.

 

thanks for that, but what does that have to do with anything? If you where refering to religious debates, I see no reason why to add it in at all, because neither in my lifetime or yours will there ever be a worldwide uniform agreement of religion being silly, because cultures are raised in a way where people like to believe in something, it's fun to think there's something magical out there, this is the evolution of the human mind for masses around the globe. Somewhat silly yes, but people have been herded like sheep since the dark ages.

Your coment though was one of the reasons I chose to overlook your comment earlier, but I was able to make a point out of it on your behalf.

 

 

 

an atheist world would not prevent wars, would not stop pedophilia, crime, etc.

Nor would a Christian world, or a Muslim world, another outright silly argument made. At least in an Atheist world, people who commit such criminal acts wouldn't be doing them because they think there's a red man with horns and a tail inside of them making them do it. There will always be such actions by humans, no matter what, we are still animals. But if I commited those crimes tomorrow, there's no one to blame but myself, I couldnt sit in a cell and say "I allowed the devil in me come out, but it's cool, as long as I repent and say some hail marries I'll still go up tot he golden gates"

 

why and how would the world be better if we all were staunch atheists?

 

Yet another silly comment, firstly if Scientific research wasn't railroaded head on by radical Catholics or Christian groups we would have made leaps in discoveries and achieved greater things, especially in the areas of stem cell research and cloning, in results like curing canvcers, diabetes, rebuilding lost limbs, as well as feeding parts of the world where food is not readily grown or available. An issue you may have heard of on the some news channels or internet sites. Just off the top of my head, they seem like some serious issues how we would be better off not handicappping ourselves by believing in fairy tails.

[twonpoo]

furthermore, being an Atheist, what exactly are you arguing about anyway? Not liking someone? Who cares?? It's petty for you to call another person a douche, yet set off a tirade about a man you don't even know on a message board who believes the same things you do.

Keep it movin.

 

 

 

 

shaking my head.

[MAR]

matter of fact, let me explain something, half heartedly at least.

 

 

he's a douchebag because he believes the whole world ought to be ATHEIST.

 

that's pretty silly of you to call an educated man a douche because he has come to a conclusion based on evidence and Science that there is no tangible proof of a god. Especially claiming you are an Atheist.

Dawkin's is all over the place. He suggested once that we might be the product of an alien experiment. Science! Not to mention he's created a dogmatic group of staunch haters who choose to quote his books instead of thinking for themselves...wait a second...

 

the existence of a god or power or lack of is unprovable. Wrong, there is no proof of a god. No kidding, did you come up with that all by yourself? there is no need to prove there ISN'T, as an Atheist, you do not need to prove there is no such thing is the Easter Bunny to continue to be an Atheist, it's up to the Easter Bunny believers to prove he does exist, OR they will continue to look like ignorant followers believing in such things.

Well following that logic science is flawed. Consider how science makes a leap with evolution or the big bang. No one has seen either happen or been able to recreate it. And don't waste your time quoting me the moths story, that's adaptation not evolution.

 

Science is theory. It's a set of assumptions we operate on for lack of a better alternative. Often the theories are disproven and new ideas are proposed, but just like before there is no certainty.

 

take the facts available to you, decide what works for you, carry on.

 

And there lies your idiotic flaw of argument, Richard Dawkins for example, has done this. Ignorant religulous ingrained people from birth throw all rationality out the window and hold more faith in their own ego to be RIGHT then they do to be disproven. When raised in religion, most times you are always taught to believe no matter what anyone says, that is what makes you truthful and loyal to the lord Jesus Christ, that's faith, believing when it's not proven... Thats actually the perfect antidote for any religion, "believe just because", "believe or else" That's not only rediculous, but dangerously scarey.

I think this is too general. My religion promotes free thought. Religion is only scary when it is abused for ill gains, like most anything.

 

an atheist world would not prevent wars, would not stop pedophilia, crime, etc.

Nor would a Christian world, or a Muslim world, another outright silly argument made. At least in an Atheist world, people who commit such criminal acts wouldn't be doing them because they think there's a red man with horns and a tail inside of them making them do it. There will always be such actions by humans, no matter what, we are still animals. But if I commited those crimes tomorrow, there's no one to blame but myself, I couldnt sit in a cell and say "I allowed the devil in me come out, but it's cool, as long as I repent and say some hail marries I'll still go up tot he golden gates."

Again, general, and most religions hold people responsible for their actions. Also, when you remove the concept of good and evil you get into morally shaky ground. Morality is a complex subject.

 

why and how would the world be better if we all were staunch atheists?

 

Yet another silly comment, firstly if Scientific research wasn't railroaded head on by radical Catholics or Christian groups we would have made leaps in discoveries and achieved greater things, especially in the areas of stem cell research and cloning, in results like curing canvcers, diabetes, rebuilding lost limbs, as well as feeding parts of the world where food is not readily grown or available. An issue you may have heard of on the some news channels or internet sites. Just off the top of my head, they seem like some serious issues how we would be better off not handicappping ourselves by believing in fairy tails.

Well considering that the modern day scientific method was invented by a Muslim, and math was perfected by pagens, I'd have to say religion doesn't hinder progress.

[twonpoo]

Dawkin's is all over the place. He suggested once that we might be the product of an alien experiment. Science! Not to mention he's created a dogmatic group of staunch haters who choose to quote his books instead of thinking for themselves...wait a second...

 

Wrong, Richard Dawkins hasn't "created" a group, he's brought awareness to people who may or may not have already had either disbeliefs, or where already non believers in whatever religious debates, what Richard Dawkins did was simply make himself an interesting figure head at the forefront of the debate, that is interesting to listen to. No one is going around saying " I pray at night to Richard Dawkins" or am in a group every Sunday preaching Atheism. You saying he "created" some group is just some line youre saying to try to help whatever it is your argument may be, unfortunately holding no fact. Im sorry its just silly.

 

Your comment about him saying he was a part of an alien experiment, although I know of no such comment on his behalf, what makes THAT more silly then saying humans are an experiment from an imaginary guy in the clouds with feathered wings coming out of their backs? It's all the same, except there is more actual evidence from anceint hiroglyphs up to today sightings and government cover ups to prove exzistence of aliens before you can prove God makes the sun rise everyday.

Watch this video, I'd believe this FAR MORE then what the bible pumps. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4341528330489422334&ei=ggaES53oBoWWqwKkj-nwDw&q=ancient+sumerian+gold&hl=en#docid=-1356843629123064992

 

Well following that logic science is flawed. Consider how science makes a leap with evolution or the big bang. No one has seen either happen or been able to recreate it. And don't waste your time quoting me the moths story, that's adaptation not evolution.

Evolution has and is happening all around you smart guy, a bear in the forest is brown, evolved to fit its surroundings, a Polar bear is white to survive its environment. different continents, different evolutionary paths. We have animals that we've evolved in a SUPER short period of time to live in our homes with us. Our pinkys are useless fingers and look at your hands, the pinky along with eyebrows have been proven to be getting smaller and smaller as history goes, why? Because as the world is today we're not hunters and gatherers like we once where, we dont live outside in caves and need protection over our eyes from dangerous things like we once did. that's evolution my friend, and there's plenty more but I'll keep this short for tonight at least.

 

The big bang theory, was proposed by Georges Lemaître for the origin of the Universe, although he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom". This was an idea adopted by the scientific comunity, although as science evolved, and here's the beauty of science, people are able to adjust their beliefs, as apposed to being stuborn and ignorant to any outside newly found knowledge. Sound familiar?

 

 

 

Science is theory. It's a set of assumptions we operate on for lack of a better alternative. Often the theories are disproven and new ideas are proposed, but just like before there is no certainty.

 

Wrong again, a theory is not disproven by another theory. A theory or hypothesis could be made in an area of no prior proof. Then it's anyone's game to find proof, once proof is made it is no longer a theory, it becomes fact. " I think if I stick my body under water long enough, it will prove that Im not a witch" WRONG, it would PROVE that you would drown. That's scientific PROOF, therefore becomes a known fact. The same goes for everything across the board from silly shit all the way up to theoretical shattering beliefs that dinosaurs where actually here before people. Im sorry you cannot understand that, but that's how science works, not just a bunch of people who walk around with theories and that's it. It's a question, then a hunt for an answer, before you can find any answer you have to make assumptions, but assumptions are not fact until its proven or disproven.

 

I think this is too general. My religion promotes free thought. Religion is only scary when it is abused for ill gains, like most anything.

 

TOO general? how ? thats what religulous finatics preach, Ive been told by some people that if I "DO NOT CONFORM to christianity that I will burn eternally in hell!" thats too general? and thats NOT scarey???? LOL

 

if you think its too general, then dont waste your time getting involved, go be happy with what your beliefs are, unless of course you're into reason and not just throwing your opinions around, because then its your responsibility to listen to debates and be open to actually realizing that one day you might have found out your entire lifes belief system could have been in vein. IF your ego can allow that to happen.

 

Again, general, and most religions hold people responsible for their actions. Also, when you remove the concept of good and evil you get into morally shaky ground. Morality is a complex subject.

 

What are you talking about its general? that's your way of just giving up and not debating my statement? That's pretty sad, because you know if I'm a good person, its because I chose to be a good person, if your'e a good person, your taught that you SHOULD be good OR ELSE. An entire system set up on FEAR. There's nothing "general" about that concept. It's VERY descriptive.

 

Well considering that the modern day scientific method was invented by a Muslim, and math was perfected by pagens, I'd have to say religion doesn't hinder progress.

 

TRUE, for that you get credit, you actually brought a fact to the table, The scientific Method was created DURING an Islamic Era (d. 1050 CE) Interesting that Muslims where more curious about such questions at that time then Christians, but I won't pry at that, I'll leave you to fill in the blanks.

 

Also interesting that Pagans where wiped out by Christianity, because it was a threat to the growth of the religion.

 

Reguardless, those creations where the simple building blocks, and someone had to prove things first, sufficed to say who is irrelivant, it's that it WAS proven, be it gravity, motion, or mathematics. Building blocks that allow us to learn more. Although you flossed a little book savvy knowledge, it didn't help your argument. And further more saying "religion doesnt hinder progress" is another false truth. Just reading a book doesn't make a person intelligent. You should try in the future to use book knowledge to your advantage. And I'm not refering to bible knowledge ;)

[twonpoo]

the Bishop of Oxford believing in Evolution

 

@ 1:45

 

 

 

 

go figure.

[Fist 666]

twonpoo--i'd been contemplating whether or not you are worth responding to or not, i'm not convinced. i think you're an idiot for your posts in channel zero, but i'll try to not let that affect things here.

 

MAR, who is pretty much opposite from my stance, said more or less what i had to say to your initial responses.

 

uniformity is homogeny--you seem to be arguing from the perspective that science offers everything one needs in life. this relates to my question (not argument) of what an atheist world gives us. without religion we would never have had the renaissance, would lack most of the art and music we have. religious/'god'-believing scientists and mathematicians have made some of the most important discoveries to date. christian and jewish (and others) scientists continue to make some massive jumps in modern science. yes, anti-stem cell agendas are limiting science, no one would argue differently.

things are not so simply black and white for you to say that a world free of religion is going to advance more rapidly than a world of different understandings. in specific fields, perhaps, but as a whole, no.

 

my argument is this: dawkins is a douche and he does not believe the same as i do, he has not answered his own question of where life came from, but feels the need to tell the world to believe as he does. he is misusing science by operating with a sociopolitical agenda.

 

he has said it is possible we were planted/seeded here by aliens as an experiment. (terrible movie, but he says this in an interview in "EXPELLED" with ben stein).

 

 

also, 'crush me with your verbal chess skills,' ha ha ha. sick burn dude. big kids. what are you? a freshman taking your first year of bio? an intro to philosophy course? or are you just reading the 'god delusion' and feeling enlightened and liberated?

[Fist 666]

also, your understanding of evolution and adaptation are blurred.

[twonpoo]

twonpoo--i'd been contemplating whether or not you are worth responding to or not, i'm not convinced. i think you're an idiot for your posts in channel zero, but i'll try to not let that affect things here.

 

MAR, who is pretty much opposite from my stance, said more or less what i had to say to your initial responses.

 

uniformity is homogeny--you seem to be arguing from the perspective that science offers everything one needs in life. this relates to my question (not argument) of what an atheist world gives us. without religion we would never have had the renaissance, would lack most of the art and music we have. religious/'god'-believing scientists and mathematicians have made some of the most important discoveries to date. christian and jewish (and others) scientists continue to make some massive jumps in modern science. yes, anti-stem cell agendas are limiting science, no one would argue differently.

things are not so simply black and white for you to say that a world free of religion is going to advance more rapidly than a world of different understandings. in specific fields, perhaps, but as a whole, no.

 

my argument is this: dawkins is a douche and he does not believe the same as i do, he has not answered his own question of where life came from, but feels the need to tell the world to believe as he does. he is misusing science by operating with a sociopolitical agenda.

 

he has said it is possible we were planted/seeded here by aliens as an experiment. (terrible movie, but he says this in an interview in "EXPELLED" with ben stein).

 

 

also, 'crush me with your verbal chess skills,' ha ha ha. sick burn dude. big kids. what are you? a freshman taking your first year of bio? an intro to philosophy course? or are you just reading the 'god delusion' and feeling enlightened and liberated?

 

 

 

OHHHH, Im not worthhhyyyy.. LOL shut the fuck up, U mad right now.

 

 

First off, a person like yourself, overall I can see thru your bullshit str8 to your stubbornness. People like you, can't be argued with, because you give a question, it gets answered and you just ignore it and keep asking the same shit again. I gave clear cut MAJORRRRRRRRRRRRR examples of ways religion hinders growth in the current time we live. But it doesn;t matter to you, just jump to the dark ages for your rebulte about "who did what first ". I already said, these foundational building blocks of society that someone came up with was found first by one person, had that person not been there, others would have done the same thing, if not very close there after. Im sure you realize this.

Again Im not arguing that, those are great historical things, but I dont think someone discovered gravity and motion BECAUSE they where religulous. cmon man, thats silly. Or tht a church came and knocked on a scientists door one morning and said "Knock knock, are you up? Its us the church, youre allowed to practice your science todayyyy, see you tomorrow"

 

 

the Renaissance is an interesting idea, because yes we can both agree it is a good thing, but history could have also been something else that we dont know of also. If god made you drive down certain street and on that street you saw a naked lady, you cant come back to me and say, god allowed me to see a naked lady today, and it was amazing. You dont know if there where 2 naked ladies on the other side of the block. The Renaissance is a good thing that happened, but what if artist werent paid by royalty and churches to spend all those years painting religious ideas as real as possible, what if those artist where allowed to paint what they WANTED? What if? and any other art from any other periods that where great didn't have the Madonna as a subject matter. I think graffiti is a huge movement in history, a hundred years from now are you gonna tell me Jesus Saves was the greatest thing to happen to the graffiti movement? It's also how history writes out.

 

We are in a serious pivotal point in history NOW, because of all the things happening in front of us. Dont just go jump into the past and say "see see, this was a great thing we did back then, so its still good now!"

Nah man, things change, people's viewpoints on things change. Views and opinions from 400 years ago don't work today, things have to change with the times. Science is evolving, and religion is without question hindering it's growth. Bottom line. The thing is Imnot even here trying to troll this issue, it was something asked, so I shot from the hip and still shot it down. But people like you like to overlook it and change the subject or try to find flaws in irrelivent things like how I post messages somewhere else. You cant be serious, face facts instead of putting your head in the sand.

 

he has said it is possible we were planted/seeded here by aliens as an experiment.

 

everytime Ive ever heard him touch this at all, was to say he would sooner believe something LIKE this, then what ANY religion has brought to the table.

 

But, it is funny how someone who can believe in a fairy tale, cannot grasp the possibility that there is life on another planet, and that earth could have been a greenhouse experiment by a more higher species. What's stopping humans tomorrow from planting a seed on Mars? If Mars was an environment that would sustain life, don't you think we would do that? GOD didn't build a space shuttle, science did.

 

Here's my issue, especially with people like you, you seem intelligent, I didn't say smart. Anyone can spend years reading books and still be dumb asses. Someone like yourself can't grasp to potential that you may be wrong, and you where raised into your thought at an early age and THAT single reason is why you attach yourself to it so strongly, because it directly effects your who you are, the confidence you've had growing up, its your backbone of reason, your ground for where your morals come from. And what's gonna happen to you, if something comes about that proves there are lil green men who came to earth and planted that seed of life? Are you gonna flip to say "oh well god put the lil green guys here for a reason" LOL You would because it keeps your safety blanket wrapped around you still.

 

But hey, here's an idea, dont ask questions when youre going to overlook the seriousness of the answers. And certainly dont waste my time.

 

Lastly what you may think you know about me in channel zero, just might be something Im purposely doing, for reasons you're unaware of, sorta like god :lol: Im sure you can understand that right?

 

 

 

 

You should probably watch this too, like ACTUALLY watch it, instead of ignoring actual facts that DID happen, not stories written on paper. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...43629123064992

[!@#$%]

people invented God to explain the natural world.

 

the natural world IS our god.

it controls time, space, and everything more powerful than us.

it created everything, plus life from a soup of chemicals and evolution eventually made us.

 

this shit is so easy for me to accept, i can't belive people try to package 'Nature' into some 'being' that cares about morality, prayer, worship and conformity.

it's nature. it doesn't CARE. it just IS.

[twonpoo]

people invented God to explain the natural world.

 

the natural world IS our god.

it controls time, space, and everything more powerful than us.

it created everything, plus life from a soup of chemicals and evolution eventually made us.

 

this shit is so easy for me to accept, i can't belive people try to package 'Nature' into some 'being' that cares about morality, prayer, worship and conformity.

it's nature. it doesn't CARE. it just IS.

 

high five!

 

 

 

But im saying, I heard this was real though

 

[cunt sauce]

The more and more i think about it, maybe i am a "gaia-ist" or whatever dude suggested. I mean, think about it.. What makes life on earth possible? The sun shining its light down upon us, clean water, clean air.

 

Some Christians i know laugh that there are sun-worshipers but honestly that makes more sense to me then the whole "god loved us so much he sent his only son down to die on our cross to pay for our sins.." I don't understand that kind of reasoning. Why did dude have to die? Maybe if Jesus was real he was murdered by the Jews for being an activist. You know, knocking over collections in the temple because money should not be involved with someones relationship with god. Maybe they merked him for fuckin with their money flow?

[twonpoo]

youre at least free thinking, rartionally.

 

 

people bred from birth into a one way frame of mind cant grasp anything other then the concepts hancuffed inside their brains instilled from their parents.

 

the best shit ever is when Dawkins says if you where born in India youd be a die hard hindu, if you where born in Denmark during the Vikings, youd be a die hard Thor worshiper, classical Greece youd be a die hard Zeus worshiper, if you where born in central Africa youd believe in the mystical god at the top of a mountain.

 

It boggles me that modern day American and European Christians can't see how the Christian movement came after the Egyptians and systematically assassinated most all other threatening religions that came prior AND used many of the same exact stories from those prior religions and changed it into a fashion that worked FOR Christianity. Not to mention sending missionaries to parts of the world where people didn't even speak English and forcefully pushed religion onto people who lived for centuries prior just fine, and out of no where are told this white guy name jesus died on a cross and came back to life and performed miracles.

 

Its crazy.

[cunt sauce]

YES.

[MAR]

You amuse me, since you think so highly of yourself. It must be nice to feel like you have all the answers to everything.

Dawkin's is all over the place. He suggested once that we might be the product of an alien experiment. Science! Not to mention he's created a dogmatic group of staunch haters who choose to quote his books instead of thinking for themselves...wait a second...

 

Wrong, Richard Dawkins hasn't "created" a group, he's brought awareness to people who may or may not have already had either disbeliefs, or where already non believers in whatever religious debates, what Richard Dawkins did was simply make himself an interesting figure head at the forefront of the debate, that is interesting to listen to. No one is going around saying " I pray at night to Richard Dawkins" or am in a group every Sunday preaching Atheism. You saying he "created" some group is just some line youre saying to try to help whatever it is your argument may be, unfortunately holding no fact. Im sorry its just silly.

By popularizing something he created a movement, so yes he created a group of atheists. There is no fact or fiction in my comment it was merely a sophomoric jab at the similarities of the people who preach atheism and those that believe in a higher power.

Your comment about him saying he was a part of an alien experiment, although I know of no such comment on his behalf, what makes THAT more silly then saying humans are an experiment from an imaginary guy in the clouds with feathered wings coming out of their backs? It's all the same, except there is more actual evidence from anceint hiroglyphs up to today sightings and government cover ups to prove exzistence of aliens before you can prove God makes the sun rise everyday.

Watch this video, I'd believe this FAR MORE then what the bible pumps

The Dawkins comment was to point out that the even the most vocal atheist doesn't have all the answers and is willing to reach for completely unorthodox explanations, such as aliens. Once you start reaching you lose your "fact" footing. But I already argued much earlier in this thread that there are no such things as facts.

 

Well following that logic science is flawed. Consider how science makes a leap with evolution or the big bang. No one has seen either happen or been able to recreate it. And don't waste your time quoting me the moths story, that's adaptation not evolution.

Evolution has and is happening all around you smart guy, a bear in the forest is brown, evolved to fit its surroundings, a Polar bear is white to survive its environment. different continents, different evolutionary paths. We have animals that we've evolved in a SUPER short period of time to live in our homes with us. Our pinkys are useless fingers and look at your hands, the pinky along with eyebrows have been proven to be getting smaller and smaller as history goes, why? Because as the world is today we're not hunters and gatherers like we once where, we dont live outside in caves and need protection over our eyes from dangerous things like we once did. that's evolution my friend, and there's plenty more but I'll keep this short for tonight at least.

 

The big bang theory, was proposed by Georges Lemaître for the origin of the Universe, although he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom". This was an idea adopted by the scientific comunity, although as science evolved, and here's the beauty of science, people are able to adjust their beliefs, as apposed to being stuborn and ignorant to any outside newly found knowledge. Sound familiar?

You're making assumptions. Evolution has not been actively observed. Adaptation, yes. Evolution, no. There has never been a recorded instance of an observed change of one species evolving into another. Sure there is evidence, and I'm inclined to believe a lot of what scientist have proposed on the subject, but its far from proven fact.

 

I get the notion that you only are familiar with Christianity and a very small part of it too. You might be interested to know that many religions support free thought and are not threatened by science at all.

 

 

Science is theory. It's a set of assumptions we operate on for lack of a better alternative. Often the theories are disproven and new ideas are proposed, but just like before there is no certainty.

 

Wrong again, a theory is not disproven by another theory. A theory or hypothesis could be made in an area of no prior proof. Then it's anyone's game to find proof, once proof is made it is no longer a theory, it becomes fact. " I think if I stick my body under water long enough, it will prove that Im not a witch" WRONG, it would PROVE that you would drown. That's scientific PROOF, therefore becomes a known fact. The same goes for everything across the board from silly shit all the way up to theoretical shattering beliefs that dinosaurs where actually here before people. Im sorry you cannot understand that, but that's how science works, not just a bunch of people who walk around with theories and that's it. It's a question, then a hunt for an answer, before you can find any answer you have to make assumptions, but assumptions are not fact until its proven or disproven.

I understand how scientific theory works. You misread my post, i never said theories disprove theories.

I think this is too general. My religion promotes free thought. Religion is only scary when it is abused for ill gains, like most anything.

 

TOO general? how ? thats what religulous finatics preach, Ive been told by some people that if I "DO NOT CONFORM to christianity that I will burn eternally in hell!" thats too general? and thats NOT scarey???? LOL

 

if you think its too general, then dont waste your time getting involved, go be happy with what your beliefs are, unless of course you're into reason and not just throwing your opinions around, because then its your responsibility to listen to debates and be open to actually realizing that one day you might have found out your entire lifes belief system could have been in vein. IF your ego can allow that to happen.

ROFL! Read what you wrote, its off the wall hilarious! Basically what you wrote is, "Unless you're going to agree with me then don't bother arguing with me," and then called me an egomaniac, hahaha.

 

Again, general, and most religions hold people responsible for their actions. Also, when you remove the concept of good and evil you get into morally shaky ground. Morality is a complex subject.

 

What are you talking about its general? that's your way of just giving up and not debating my statement? That's pretty sad, because you know if I'm a good person, its because I chose to be a good person, if your'e a good person, your taught that you SHOULD be good OR ELSE. An entire system set up on FEAR. There's nothing "general" about that concept. It's VERY descriptive.

I could argue that you insult people when you don't want to answer their questions.

When I say general, I'm pointing out that you are lumping all religions into one while the only thing they have in common is god(s).

 

Well considering that the modern day scientific method was invented by a Muslim, and math was perfected by pagans, I'd have to say religion doesn't hinder progress.TRUE, for that you get credit, you actually brought a fact to the table, The scientific Method was created DURING an Islamic Era (d. 1050 CE) Interesting that Muslims where more curious about such questions at that time then Christians, but I won't pry at that, I'll leave you to fill in the blanks.

 

Also interesting that Pagans where wiped out by Christianity, because it was a threat to the growth of the religion.

 

Reguardless, those creations where the simple building blocks, and someone had to prove things first, sufficed to say who is irrelivant, it's that it WAS proven, be it gravity, motion, or mathematics. Building blocks that allow us to learn more.

What blanks? They saw understanding the world as important to understanding G-d, much like Judaism and other religions do. The pagans weren't wiped out by anyone, except maybe the Romans (pre-Constantine, so not Christian), they were absorbed into Christianity. Where do you think rabbits, fir trees, etc come from?

 

P.S. i used the term Pagan in its colloquial form (polytheists), math was perfected by Indians, Greeks, and Romans. Not to mention monotheist such as Jews, Christians and Muslims.

 

Most notably super-god-lovin' Isaac Newton.

 

Although you flossed a little book savvy knowledge, it didn't help your argument. And further more saying "religion doesnt hinder progress" is another false truth. Just reading a book doesn't make a person intelligent. You should try in the future to use book knowledge to your advantage.

Uh, that made no sense at all.

[!@#$%]

just a note here, on evolution:

 

"Evolution has never been observed." is a false claim

 

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

 

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

 

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

 

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

 

.here is an article about another case of 'observed evolution'

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070712143300.htm

 

..............................................................

 

and a brief note on theories.

 

A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

 

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

[twonpoo]

wait a second, did both of you just say there is no such thing as facts?

 

 

 

 

discuss. This clip is very much whats going on in this thread. I love it.

[MAR]

just a note here, on evolution:

 

"Evolution has never been observed." is a false claim

 

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

 

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

 

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

 

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

 

.here is an article about another case of 'observed evolution'

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070712143300.htm

 

..............................................................

I know your credentials, so indulge me in a few questions to heighten my understanding.

 

Whats the difference between adaptation and evolution?

 

Is bacterial mutation truly a proof of evolution? How come we haven't seen them evolve into a higher life form? (bad ex: a one celled organism to a two celled organism)

 

Do you think the mudskipper is a rad dude?

 

and a brief note on theories.

 

A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

 

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

I agree fully, and within that uncertainty remains a possibility of a higher being, or not, but we can't know for sure. Which is why I'm ok with everyone doing their thing so long as they arent judgmental about it.

 

wait a second, did both of you just say there is no such thing as facts?

Basically with schrodingers cat situation when you open the box, there is one universe where the cat is dead and one where the cat is alive; so every situation with probability like that has a distribution of universes with different results, so every fact has an opposite counterpart.

[cunt sauce]

did you guys know that if all of the molecules in the universe were touching it would be the size of a golf ball? thats how much space there is... whoa man...... thats deep.

[redeyedanimal]

what if everything always has been, and always will be, here. there is no beginning, and no end. the universe doesn't follow the laws of logic we impose on ourselves. everything that is, will be, and has been - forever.

[russell jones]

 

Is bacterial mutation truly a proof of evolution? How come we haven't seen them evolve into a higher life form? (bad ex: a one celled organism to a two celled organism)

 

A two celled organism is not a higher life form from an evolutionary perspective. It may be a more complex one, but not necessarily. Evolution only cares about success in reproduction. Human beings are not the most successful species in the world simply because we are a "higher" life form.

 

Even if macro-evolution had not been observed directly (it has been), the unity of life on the planet and the clear connections between different forms in the fossil record is plenty of evidence to prove evolution exists. The alternative, that some sort of being outside of the universe created each form separately and placed them on earth is not falsifiable, and is not science, so it is pointless to use that argument. Evolution is falsifiable, and has been robustly proven.

[MAR]

Actually, there is another alternative. Prevalent in the Jewish community is the idea that G-d works in natural ways, so evolution could be the way the word was populated. I happen to subscribe to that viewpoint.

 

FYI, I suspect it hasnt been clear, but I do believe in evolutionary theory. I just don't believe that it disproves a higher being. To the contrary, it strengthens my faith.

[russell jones]

Actually, there is another alternative. Prevalent in the Jewish community is the idea that G-d works in natural ways, so evolution could be the way the word was populated. I happen to subscribe to that viewpoint.

 

FYI, I suspect it hasnt been clear, but I do believe in evolutionary theory. I just don't believe that it disproves a higher being. To the contrary, it strengthens my faith.

 

Cool, we agree! I don't think evolution has anything to do with the existence or non-existence of a higher power. Science needn't disprove anything in the spiritual world, in fact, it can't, since science deals only with material evidence.

 

To add to the discussion above, Dawkins bothers me too. His point is well-taken that religion can get in the way of progress, but it doesn't have to. Being a believer does not preclude the ability to rationally assess the natural world. For many believers, God and the natural world are separate, so there is no need for one to get in the way of the other.

 

I'm personally not a believer, but I cannot deny its value to others.

[nsmbfan]

Actually, there is another alternative. Prevalent in the Jewish community is the idea that G-d works in natural ways, so evolution could be the way the word was populated. I happen to subscribe to that viewpoint.

 

FYI, I suspect it hasnt been clear, but I do believe in evolutionary theory. I just don't believe that it disproves a higher being. To the contrary, it strengthens my faith.

 

 

 

so far out of 12 pages we've concluded there are four major viewpoints:

 

1. Science explains creation

 

2. Religion explains creation

 

3. Science strengthens religions claim on creation (?... thats on you Mar)

 

4. What is, was, and always will be. Mans quest to define itself and its surroundings is a futile quest indeed. Lets all live together and smoke a bong.

 

 

 

i like #4. but religion keeps the dummies in line. so it is necessary, for those who require it... like law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

when I think about science I think of it from the viewpoint of an objective observer.

 

but what happens when you put yourself in the equation? you. or maybe a loved one. the situation changes. you don't want to believe, truly, that when you die you're gone. this is the sole reason we have legacies left behind, and our friends come to our funerals, and why we celebrate iconic figures in history. it is comforting to know your life has meaning, if only to somebody else's life.

 

I always think about this. It is a curse to be aware of alternate endings, it is. This is why they say ignorance is bliss. Bliss is comforting. And it is comforting to think that your best friend or wife or grandmother went to heaven when they passed away.

 

That is why religion is good. That is how religion got us to this point. I won't deny a paradigm shift in beliefs, that is happening. But one thing that must stay in tact is moral good: not for the grace of god, but for the common good of people as a whole.

[Mushu]

Some fleeting thoughts before bedtime that you don't have to read:

 

Nietzsche was right in his Parable of the Madman, the second industrial revolution replaced God, or more so, brought along the idea that God was replaceable and at the same time questioning why God was imagined in the first place. (I wrote this before you, NSMB, but just took a while to post.)

 

Religion condones a whole lot of great things, like family values, the general pursuit of being a nice person but was also historically used to justify slavery, discrimination to both blacks, women, and gays. In both good or bad uses of religion, its believers held value to it. They pray for themselves for food on their table, not for others. Of course, once in a while some graduates from Harvard Divinity School will fly to Darfur and help those there as much as possible, buying kids with pocket money from a-holes. Or Christian Children's fund... so, not just once in a while then... damn you!

 

I will go on a limb here and talk about animal rights. I'm not sure how any Christian can believe that "dominion over... every living thing that moves on the earth." means being a steward for the animals and the environment when I'm guessing more than 90% of Christians disagree or never recognized this interpretation. Genesis 1:28 was also the justification for slavery, no? Being a vegetarian, the complacency among the religious upset me, but that goes for everyone else too anyways.

 

What about the idea of giving birth knowing that there is already a child out there that needs help. Why did the poor give birth back then, when their children would live a lifetime of fail. Couldn't the nuclear family be revolutionized?, let more than two parents, who need not be in some polygamous relationship, raise a child? The religious have too many babies. Osama has like 26 children? Christians usually have 3 kids? I just searched "sponsor a family" on google, which came up with cool results. Something I'll plan on doing no doubt. Fuck yeah! I'm gonna save up a lot of money and go Will Smith from Seven Pounds and donate a shit load of money to some stand out family.

 

Macabre T. Strongbody wrote two page back, "most everything separated by 6 degrees. Saying there is no god is the same as saying there is a god." Nietzsche said it better, but I'll prop you anyways.

 

NSMB, I don't believe in heaven because only humans get to go. What about my cat? I'd also like to be up there with the 10 billion farm animals killed a year. Or all the fishies the shit-heel sharks eat. I'd have diary products up there. Also, I thought you were religious? From that post it seems like you aren't, like an atheist who is understanding of those who are?

 

Nietzsche on the paradigm shift, "Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars---and yet they have done it themselves."

[herbsyntec]

youre at least free thinking, rartionally.

 

Maybe I misunderstood what you said, but are you saying that if people think a certain way, then they are not free thinking, sheep if you will? I have a feeling you do not genuinely believe that, if someone grew up in the south and is yet a Christian despite considering rationally, other alternatives, they are still sheep.

 

 

Also the notion of evolutionist creationism (macro-evolution) makes little sense to me. The idea that an organism of simplest form would begin to add more and more complex parts through generations doesn't seem to make sense with natural laws. I would encourager explanation as to why I am wrong. And it makes less sense to me that evolution on a macro scale would begin to create rationally thinking beings that are good for little else aside from thinking. I haven't done any research or considered anything involving evolution in quite a few years but don't things that evolve outlast their predecessors?

[Fist 666]

but what happens when you put yourself in the equation? you. or maybe a loved one. the situation changes. you don't want to believe, truly, that when you die you're gone. this is the sole reason we have legacies left behind, and our friends come to our funerals, and why we celebrate iconic figures in history. it is comforting to know your life has meaning, if only to somebody else's life.

 

this bothers me, does your day-to-day life have no meaning? life is what you make it, give it meaning, don't find meaning in what you clearly are uncertain about.

[nsmbfan]

NSMB, I don't believe in heaven because only humans get to go. What about my cat? I'd also like to be up there with the 10 billion farm animals killed a year. Or all the fishies the shit-heel sharks eat. I'd have diary products up there. Also, I thought you were religious? From that post it seems like you aren't, like an atheist who is understanding of those who are?

 

my grandma always told me that dogs couldn't go to heaven because they lacked souls. also the buddhists and any non believers were sent to hell. warped, eh?

 

im not religious, that is to say I don't follow any religious dogma. but denouncing something takes about as much faith as worship, as such I am indifferent to the situation. i grew up christian, was baptized christian, and generally conformed to the lifestyle of a christian - like most people, as a child I was indoctrinated into this belief system.

 

turns out there are people who truly believe they are gods chosen people. it feeds into american exceptionalism, we all think we're special; at least, more special than, say, Guam or Indonesia, or France. can you blame us? our whole lives we've heard that America is #1, Jesus died for our sins, and god bless the troops. my whole life.

 

now it would be absurd to believe any of that. i did a lot of soul searching and came up with my own conclusion. nature is the only thing that I can consider to be close to a god. sun worship makes the most sense. i believe somebody years ago turned sun worship into a full on cult called Christianity. immaculate conception? i doubt it. but look how far we've gotten on a lie. what's next is the question.

 

naturalistic pantheism is the closest thing I could call my beliefs. plus, i'd like to believe magic does exist and that pagans used to control magic and that's why they were persecuted by early christians. yea, im sort of bat shit insane but in a controlled sort of way.

[nsmbfan]

this bothers me, does your day-to-day life have no meaning? life is what you make it, give it meaning, don't find meaning in what you clearly are uncertain about.

 

haha, we can go into a "what is meaning?" conversation.

 

i think what i was getting at is people aren't alone in this world. we're social creatures. we love, laugh, and share with each other. its these connections that we make in life that give our lives meaning. its the intangibles.

 

i believe life without purpose is incomplete. it's like throwing a ball against a wall without any clearly defined rules for what the game is.

 

then again life is what YOU make it. if you find meaning in going solo dolo, being certain about the things you "know", content with the answers you've formulated; then by all means, you're doing the damn thing and good for you.

 

when i think of me on my deathbed, I think of what I'll remember. it won't be the food i've eaten, the cars I've owned, the places I've been to, or the money I've acquired.... what I'll remember is the people I've made memories with. that's what life is about. and on my deathbed I may only remember maybe 300 or so moments of pure awesome, you know the "knock it out of the park homerun" feeling? its these moments we take with us. its these moments we'll wish we had just 100 more of.

 

^^ my dad told me that after his heart attack. it made me rethink everything I was doing in life.

 

this stems from my belief that there is no you or I, there is only we. its the us versus them mentality that keeps us in conflict. maybe i'm an idealist.

[Fist 666]

i agree, my meaning or purpose is to be distracted as much as possible, i have goals and plans to allow more distractions to happen along the way, but my intent is to experience the most that i can with people i care about.

 

and when i'm done, its done. i don't find that depressing, i find it motivating--i have a rough idea for how many years i have to accomplish these things, and i've got a wife and friends and family to do those things with.

 

an afterlife would motivate me to get out of this place quicker. i just read palahnuik's "haunted." one of its short stories is about 'emigrating'--when the afterlife is discovered to be real on venus most of humanity starts killing itself as a means to get there. (i didn't enjoy the book, but i agree with the idea).

 

i'm tired so this might not make sense

[nsmbfan]

no no, i follow just fine.

 

i often wondered why people dont kill themselves to reach nirvana. i guess thats why they put that rule in the book.

 

or better yet, could it be possible to convince millions of people to die by your sword as a means to get to heaven? or would that constitute suicide, seeing as how you'd be a willing participant. if so, wouldn't war be a glorified suicide? but most religions adopt the notion that war in the name of god is righteous, and in itself a means to get a heaven.

 

mass suicide is the way to go, jonestown n shit. then we all high five god once its over.

 

 

 

on a lighter note, i am enjoying the shit out of these things:

turkey sandwich and cheese circles for lunch is the jam.

 

oh, and Mrs. Bairds bread, if you don't know about it, you're living in the wrong place.