bgesley426
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2003
- Messages
- 450
- Reaction score
- 0
Phraxtion said:
So would you agree that you have faith in the bible? It doesn't have to be fact.
Do you Belive in a God or Not?
- Thread starter AgentXen
- Start date
- Status
So would you agree that you have faith in the bible? It doesn't have to be fact.
Deadline said:
Aww you completely ignored the substance of my post.
Are you, or are you not, the product of two single-cell organisms uniting in what we call "fertilization"?
Is that unlikely? What?
As for Darwin renouncing his theories: where did you hear that? Point me to a source.
It is a popular pastime of creationists, to spread stories of deathbed recantations by popular thinkers. They said it about Carl Sagan and Einstein, as well. They'll probably start up on Gould soon enough, if they haven't already.
poseyjmac
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 4,766
- Reaction score
- 0
bgesley426 said:
replace 'God' with the elusive pink elephant god and the polka dot banana slug god, and whatever other god you want to construct and it will be correct.
this is why i don't buy into christianity anymore. what separates the all powerful god from make believe gods if they all appear dead and require 100% faith with no reward for that faith?
mchammer75040
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2003
- Messages
- 4,008
- Reaction score
- 1
What proof?Phraxtion said:
Phraxtion said:
This is just the same ol' intelligent design, so heres the same ol' rebuttle: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
Oh and heres a whole site based on the disscusion of the intelligent design: http://www.talkdesign.org/
bgesley426 said:
Noone accepts a religion of faith cause if no religion has any supporting evidence than how are we to know which religion is correct and which one is bogus? There are dozens of religions out there, how can you accept a religion based on faith alone? Its like drawing a card out of a hat, you have just as much chance of being right.
So just because someone said it thousands of years ago it makes it true? what about the religions that came before christianity? Heres the reasons why not to accept religion for that very reason you just stated:bgesley426 said:
No religion is universal
One thing all religions have in common is they are all confined to their cultures and philosophies of their day. Why is it the bible only popped up in one small section of the world and not the rest at the sametime? If God wanted us all to worship him and follow the ten commandments then it makes sense he would allow the bible to be viewed by all at the sametime correct?
Not only that but doesnt it say in the bible that you cant go to heaven without first accepting jesus into your heart? So that means all those people who were (and there is still many out there now) never got to see the text went straight to hell. And if they didnt and got a free pass into heaven, whats the point of being saved?
Also dont throw the its God's plan at me, since that wont solve anything cause I could turn around and say the samething with any religion just insert a different God's name.
God can only be known through holy text
Well I think this one is pretty self explanatory, why is it that God can only be known through holy text? If hes all knowing and all powerful than he could definetely just preload us with the information, and let us accept or deny it. This may seem trivial but there are problems with having religious text:
1.)Text is too open to interpretation
Take genisus for example, so much controversy is going on on how we are supposed to accept this. Did he mean it literally, or are we supposed to look at it in terms of metaphors? And if we are supposed to interpret it to gain truth then how do we know we have arrived at the truth? Maybe we are mistaken all together; if the bible is open to interpretation than that means I can pull anything I want to out of this fabulous ass of mine and you cant tell me it doesnt fit since none of us would know the true meaning.
2.)authenticity
Consider for a moment how many times the bible has been rewritten, edited, and some parts even banned. Hell we dont even have copies of the copies of the copies of the original text.
So how do we know what is in the bible was really said by God in the first place?
Your a pretty smart guy so I dont think we would have any trouble agreeing on the fact that people, in the past and now, have used religion, politics..etc. o suit their own agendas. So if we are to accept the bible how it is, how do we know the bible wasnt manipulated by theologians in the past for their own benefit and what we have now is the result of that?
What? Bullshit. This is the kind of crap creationist come up with, he said no such thing.Deadline said:
Ill give you more than 1, I'll give you 29!Deadline said:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
No evolution isnt based on faith, there is a big difference between religion and science. Let me take this chance to clarify that scientists use a different lexicon that uses the word theory in the context of something that is demonstratable, observable, and is based on facts.Deadline said:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Also Ill point you to a debate of evolution vs. creationism here:
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=117
And these sites which will prove helpful:
http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modu...NS/origins.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ar...umber=1&catID=2
Also one should note that evolution and atheism dont go hand in hand so if evolution was one day proved wrong (which it wont, its gone through my scrunity in the last 100 years than any scientific theory and it still holds water) it doesnt mean religion wins by default since nearly all arguments against the bible on a philosophical basis dont require evolution.
L
Logic
Guest
Evolution is not only observable, but it's simply logical. A simple bit of logical reasoning presents more evidence of evolution than anyone has ever presented about the existance of God as 'he' is presented in the bible.
For instance: it is true, and proven, that life (in order to remain genetically diverse) mutates, causing offspring to be very slightly genetically different to their parents. This is absolute fact. Mutation happens, and it's how our (or any) population has been able to grow so large, and also why humans are so different and diverse in different parts of the world.
Now look at the idea of "natural selection". Genetic traits have a direct effect on how suited we (or any species) are to our environment. Try not to think of natural selection and evolution in terms of species "changing" to suit their environment (it's not like they decide "gee, bigger ears sure would help", and a pythonesqe police fairy turns up saying "and so you shall!"), it's a much more gradual process. Genetic traits, such as the way a creature's body functions, the sizes and shapes of body parts, and appearance (to name a few things) can make a creature slightly (or in some cases, much) more or less likely to be targeted by a predator, or more or less likely to find a mate, for example. While it's certainly true that many creatures who are less suitable in the species will survive and breed (since the differences between the individuals is slight), but over millioins of years, creatures not perfectly suited to their environment (and therefore breed slightly less) will diminish in number, and will be replaced by individuals who are more suited to their environment (who would breed slightly more). On a small scale, these "slightly more\less" numbers seem insignificant, but Earth is an old place. After billions of years, those slight changes make a huge difference. In the same way, if mutation causes a creature to have a new physical characteristic, such a characteristic will only thrive if creatures with that characteristic do. Such a trait may be an advantage in some areas, but a disadvantage in others, so as the species grows in size, and occupies multiple environments, a group with that trait may thrive separately to the majority without it, and eventually become a distinctly separate species.
Now that we've established that species VERY GRADUALLY change to suit their environments, it's important to consider that the environment also changes. The other creatures occupying an environment (predatory or otherwise) are also changing very gradually, not to mention climate changes and the occasional natural disaster, which means that one place may have very different requirements at two different times, separated by a hundred, or even thousand, years. That necessitates change even more, since even if a flock\herd\whatever migrates to a new area, they are still faced with a new environment.
Now, I've read many creationists accepting the idea of evolution on a small scale like this (dubbed "microevolution"), but disbelieving the idea that one species can change into a totally different one (dubbed "macroevolution"), but it's not hard to fathom that they are one and the same process. Anything that changes very slightly over time, will eventually have changed an incredible amount over millions of years. The only remotely rational argument against this is the idea that each species contains "genetic blueprints" that limits mutation to a very small degree surrounding the original "design". If you look at the human species in this way, then I put it to you that there are more unique human traits today then there were humans, in total, on planet earth 6000 years ago when earth was supposedly created. Not to mention examples of observed evolution, etc etc etc. I could go on all day with more and more points supporting evolution, but I'm very tired, so I'll leave it at that
Incidentally, a lot of people are mislead by the fact that evolution is know as "the theory of evolution". In truth, evolution itself IS FACT, not a theory. It has been observed, studied, and then proven. The 'theory' of evolution, is that we, as humans, evolved from lesser creatures, rather than being created as we are. Since actually PROVING details of history (and especially pre-history) is a very hard thing to do, the label 'the theory of evolution' is still around, and some creationists still maintain that we were created from scratch six thousand years ago. It is, however, an UNDISPUTED FACT that evolution DOES HAPPEN in the present, and that fact is rediculously strong evidence supporting the evolutionary 'theory' that it happened in the past, causing us to evolve from less complex species.
And now, the important paragraph: (basically, start reading here if you're too lazy to read the rest)
So basically, evolution itself doesn't require faith to believe in. That's completely rediculous. If one wants to prove evolution to themselves, all they have to do is read about scientific discoveries and experiments that have led scientists to know it to be true, and then replicate those observations. Spend your entire life studying the past and present of creatures on this planet. The fact that most of you are unprepared to go to those lengths doesn't say anything about evolution itself. It simply demonstrates that faith in a concept like God, and creation, takes much less effort to believe in, because you don't have to be bothered with research and scientific study.
(wow, that turned out a bit long, sorry ... also excuse any errors, I'm running low on sleep, have been for some time :rolling
For instance: it is true, and proven, that life (in order to remain genetically diverse) mutates, causing offspring to be very slightly genetically different to their parents. This is absolute fact. Mutation happens, and it's how our (or any) population has been able to grow so large, and also why humans are so different and diverse in different parts of the world.
Now look at the idea of "natural selection". Genetic traits have a direct effect on how suited we (or any species) are to our environment. Try not to think of natural selection and evolution in terms of species "changing" to suit their environment (it's not like they decide "gee, bigger ears sure would help", and a pythonesqe police fairy turns up saying "and so you shall!"), it's a much more gradual process. Genetic traits, such as the way a creature's body functions, the sizes and shapes of body parts, and appearance (to name a few things) can make a creature slightly (or in some cases, much) more or less likely to be targeted by a predator, or more or less likely to find a mate, for example. While it's certainly true that many creatures who are less suitable in the species will survive and breed (since the differences between the individuals is slight), but over millioins of years, creatures not perfectly suited to their environment (and therefore breed slightly less) will diminish in number, and will be replaced by individuals who are more suited to their environment (who would breed slightly more). On a small scale, these "slightly more\less" numbers seem insignificant, but Earth is an old place. After billions of years, those slight changes make a huge difference. In the same way, if mutation causes a creature to have a new physical characteristic, such a characteristic will only thrive if creatures with that characteristic do. Such a trait may be an advantage in some areas, but a disadvantage in others, so as the species grows in size, and occupies multiple environments, a group with that trait may thrive separately to the majority without it, and eventually become a distinctly separate species.
Now that we've established that species VERY GRADUALLY change to suit their environments, it's important to consider that the environment also changes. The other creatures occupying an environment (predatory or otherwise) are also changing very gradually, not to mention climate changes and the occasional natural disaster, which means that one place may have very different requirements at two different times, separated by a hundred, or even thousand, years. That necessitates change even more, since even if a flock\herd\whatever migrates to a new area, they are still faced with a new environment.
Now, I've read many creationists accepting the idea of evolution on a small scale like this (dubbed "microevolution"), but disbelieving the idea that one species can change into a totally different one (dubbed "macroevolution"), but it's not hard to fathom that they are one and the same process. Anything that changes very slightly over time, will eventually have changed an incredible amount over millions of years. The only remotely rational argument against this is the idea that each species contains "genetic blueprints" that limits mutation to a very small degree surrounding the original "design". If you look at the human species in this way, then I put it to you that there are more unique human traits today then there were humans, in total, on planet earth 6000 years ago when earth was supposedly created. Not to mention examples of observed evolution, etc etc etc. I could go on all day with more and more points supporting evolution, but I'm very tired, so I'll leave it at that
Incidentally, a lot of people are mislead by the fact that evolution is know as "the theory of evolution". In truth, evolution itself IS FACT, not a theory. It has been observed, studied, and then proven. The 'theory' of evolution, is that we, as humans, evolved from lesser creatures, rather than being created as we are. Since actually PROVING details of history (and especially pre-history) is a very hard thing to do, the label 'the theory of evolution' is still around, and some creationists still maintain that we were created from scratch six thousand years ago. It is, however, an UNDISPUTED FACT that evolution DOES HAPPEN in the present, and that fact is rediculously strong evidence supporting the evolutionary 'theory' that it happened in the past, causing us to evolve from less complex species.
And now, the important paragraph: (basically, start reading here if you're too lazy to read the rest
)So basically, evolution itself doesn't require faith to believe in. That's completely rediculous. If one wants to prove evolution to themselves, all they have to do is read about scientific discoveries and experiments that have led scientists to know it to be true, and then replicate those observations. Spend your entire life studying the past and present of creatures on this planet. The fact that most of you are unprepared to go to those lengths doesn't say anything about evolution itself. It simply demonstrates that faith in a concept like God, and creation, takes much less effort to believe in, because you don't have to be bothered with research and scientific study.
(wow, that turned out a bit long, sorry
... also excuse any errors, I'm running low on sleep, have been for some time :rolling
bgesley426
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2003
- Messages
- 450
- Reaction score
- 0
Let me start by saying I did vote NO in this poll.
Religion IS NOT about being in the right one. It never has and it never will be. You believe in a God because you have faith it him/her. You shouldn't need anything else.
I'm not even going to touch this. Debating the logistics and hypocrasies of the bible is unending and a major waste of time.
There is a HUGE logical issue with this comment. Think about it, in order for God to be written into Holy Text he must have been THOUGHT OF. There must have already been reasons to write about God. So logically, its fair to assume he was already "pre-loaded" into our brains, or (and most likely imho) he is someone/thing we made up in order to survive, or cope. God doesn't have to exist physically or scientifically, but rather...cognitively. But that is your desicion.
I'm not going to get involved with the whole creationism/evolution conflict. Who cares how we started, think about the here now and the next.
mchammer75040 said:
Religion IS NOT about being in the right one. It never has and it never will be. You believe in a God because you have faith it him/her. You shouldn't need anything else.
First I want to start off by saying that I did vote NO on this poll. You got my point exactly but assumed I was directly refering to Christianity. No, I'm not. I'm refering to the human cognitive character a lot of people manifest as a "god." It is a corporial person that man made up for what ever reason. To survive, self-motivate, and give answers to what man couldn't presently understand.
---- True, but out of 15 major religions 1 rule has stayed the same. "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you."
I'm not even going to touch this. Debating the logistics and hypocrasies of the bible is unending and a major waste of time.
There is a HUGE logical issue with this comment. Think about it, in order for God to be written into Holy Text he must have been THOUGHT OF. There must have already been reasons to write about God. So logically, its fair to assume he was already "pre-loaded" into our brains, or (and most likely imho) he is someone/thing we made up in order to survive, or cope. God doesn't have to exist physically or scientifically, but rather...cognitively. But that is your desicion.
I'm not going to get involved with the whole creationism/evolution conflict. Who cares how we started, think about the here now and the next.
hasan
Newbie
- Joined
- May 15, 2004
- Messages
- 1,134
- Reaction score
- 0
I Believe in God.
I am a Muslim (as some of you might already know ..) I'm not sure how many muslims we have on this board, but I'm sure they aren't many.
I think believing in God is the very logical thing for anyone with some brains.
Anyone who says that belife in God is some sort of mental illness is obviously just trying to find reasons to not Believe in God.
I think beleiving in anything needs a solid proof, solid logic, solid ground; otherwise I just take it as nonsense.
The Quran encourages reasoning and discovering, and condemns blind following.
It's full of things like: (my own translations)
"Bring your proof if you are truthful"
and condemenations for those who say
"we'll just follow what we found our ancestors following"
and condemnation for following one's own hopes and desires ..
"The wrong doers are just following thier desires with no knowledge .."
"Walk on earth and see how the creation started, then God will create the later creation, he's capable of everything"
As for evolution and mutation ... think aobut it this way: If you download a 500MB exe file, and some portions of it are curropted, there are only two possibilites:
-the program will still function but fail in certain areas (if the curroption is small, it maybe unnoticable .. it depends on the situation anyway)
-the program will totally malfunction.
There is no third possibility that the curropt data will actually fix some bugs causing the program to run better.
To think that a series of curropt downloads will upgrade HL1 to HL2 is more rediciolous than Kerberos's claim that I and CptStern are the same person.
Infact, one of the suggestions to cease the distribution of the stolen HL2 build from last year, was to share "corrupt" files, or fake files for HL2, people will download them and eventually the corruption will spread so that there is no possibility to download the stolen build without having a corrupt download.
Anyway, I'm comparing DNA to BITs which might not be very acurate, but DNA is essentially a code for life. Now, code doesn't just pop-up from no where, bits don't just get arranged by chance and form something useful, let alone form a game like HL2. (what's the chance of typing 10010010110 in notepad and coming up with half-life 2? )
The probability of producing 1MB of date is 2 to the power of million (appox.), as far as the universe is concenred, that number is beyond infinity.
If you don't realize how huge is that, look at this (now .. I kinda forgot this log math .. so please corrent me if I'm wrong):
2 ^ 1000 = 1.07150860718626732094842504906e+301 (windows calculator)
So approximatley 10^300
That's just for generating a 1KB of data.
Thta's a very huge number, it's far beyond any astronomical number you can think of. You see, a billion is meerly 10^9
and btw, this is log math we are talking about here, 10^150 is NOT half 10^300. it's almost "zero" compared to it.
So don't think that 10^300 is ten times 10^30 ...
Actually, 10^299 is only one tenth of 10^300
Now, a 100KB's chance of being arranged in a useful form is:
2 ^ 100,000 = 9.9900209301438450794403276433003e+30102
So aprrox 10^30000
can you imagine how huge is that?
can you imagine how tiny is 1 over that?
I can't. I honestly can't .. it's something to ponder.
(note: when I say the possiblity is 10^300, what I mean is, there are 10^300 different possible arrangements, hence the probability is actually 1/(10^300))
I would assume for an MB, the it's:
10^300,000
and for a GB, it's
10^300,000,000
(I didn't actually calculate this, I just estimated it using a cheat shortcut I made up ..)
4 billion years means
4*10^9 years
if each year had 31 million second .. or for ease, lets assume 100 million secs, this gives:
10^8*4*10^9
seconds in 4 billion years, to make it eaiser let's assume it was 10 billions of years.
10*10^8*10^9 = 10^18
If there was a trillion attempt per second to form this DNA during this whole time, we have
10^18 * 10^9 = 10 ^ 27 attempts this whole time ..
let's even say there were 10^25 attempts per second ..
10^18 * 10^25 = 10^43
Am I right in saying the DNA, when compared to Binary data, consists of almost 1GB of data?
You do the rest of the math.
The possibility is just zero.
How do trillions of years and trillions of galaxies compare to 10^300000000? just zero.
That's is if the bits just wanted to get arranged at once.
If you want them to arrange in steps (evolve), I think the possibility will be even smaller. I'm not so sure .. but I think each step will have it's own tiny possibility, and the next step will have an even smaller possibility.
(This needs doing some math... )
But the possibility is small enough as it is, so there is really no point in trying something else.
I am a Muslim (as some of you might already know ..) I'm not sure how many muslims we have on this board, but I'm sure they aren't many.
I think believing in God is the very logical thing for anyone with some brains.
Anyone who says that belife in God is some sort of mental illness is obviously just trying to find reasons to not Believe in God.
I think beleiving in anything needs a solid proof, solid logic, solid ground; otherwise I just take it as nonsense.
The Quran encourages reasoning and discovering, and condemns blind following.
It's full of things like: (my own translations
)"Bring your proof if you are truthful"
and condemenations for those who say
"we'll just follow what we found our ancestors following"
and condemnation for following one's own hopes and desires ..
"The wrong doers are just following thier desires with no knowledge .."
"Walk on earth and see how the creation started, then God will create the later creation, he's capable of everything"
As for evolution and mutation ... think aobut it this way: If you download a 500MB exe file, and some portions of it are curropted, there are only two possibilites:
-the program will still function but fail in certain areas (if the curroption is small, it maybe unnoticable .. it depends on the situation anyway)
-the program will totally malfunction.
There is no third possibility that the curropt data will actually fix some bugs causing the program to run better.
To think that a series of curropt downloads will upgrade HL1 to HL2 is more rediciolous than Kerberos's claim that I and CptStern are the same person.
Infact, one of the suggestions to cease the distribution of the stolen HL2 build from last year, was to share "corrupt" files, or fake files for HL2, people will download them and eventually the corruption will spread so that there is no possibility to download the stolen build without having a corrupt download.
Anyway, I'm comparing DNA to BITs which might not be very acurate, but DNA is essentially a code for life. Now, code doesn't just pop-up from no where, bits don't just get arranged by chance and form something useful, let alone form a game like HL2. (what's the chance of typing 10010010110 in notepad and coming up with half-life 2?
)The probability of producing 1MB of date is 2 to the power of million (appox.), as far as the universe is concenred, that number is beyond infinity.
If you don't realize how huge is that, look at this (now .. I kinda forgot this log math .. so please corrent me if I'm wrong):
2 ^ 1000 = 1.07150860718626732094842504906e+301 (windows calculator)
So approximatley 10^300
That's just for generating a 1KB of data.
Thta's a very huge number, it's far beyond any astronomical number you can think of. You see, a billion is meerly 10^9
and btw, this is log math we are talking about here, 10^150 is NOT half 10^300. it's almost "zero" compared to it.
So don't think that 10^300 is ten times 10^30 ...
Actually, 10^299 is only one tenth of 10^300
Now, a 100KB's chance of being arranged in a useful form is:
2 ^ 100,000 = 9.9900209301438450794403276433003e+30102
So aprrox 10^30000
can you imagine how huge is that?
can you imagine how tiny is 1 over that?
I can't. I honestly can't .. it's something to ponder.
(note: when I say the possiblity is 10^300, what I mean is, there are 10^300 different possible arrangements, hence the probability is actually 1/(10^300))
I would assume for an MB, the it's:
10^300,000
and for a GB, it's
10^300,000,000
(I didn't actually calculate this, I just estimated it using a cheat shortcut I made up ..)
4 billion years means
4*10^9 years
if each year had 31 million second .. or for ease, lets assume 100 million secs, this gives:
10^8*4*10^9
seconds in 4 billion years, to make it eaiser let's assume it was 10 billions of years.
10*10^8*10^9 = 10^18
If there was a trillion attempt per second to form this DNA during this whole time, we have
10^18 * 10^9 = 10 ^ 27 attempts this whole time ..
let's even say there were 10^25 attempts per second ..
10^18 * 10^25 = 10^43
Am I right in saying the DNA, when compared to Binary data, consists of almost 1GB of data?
You do the rest of the math.
The possibility is just zero.
How do trillions of years and trillions of galaxies compare to 10^300000000? just zero.
That's is if the bits just wanted to get arranged at once.
If you want them to arrange in steps (evolve), I think the possibility will be even smaller. I'm not so sure .. but I think each step will have it's own tiny possibility, and the next step will have an even smaller possibility.
(This needs doing some math... )
But the possibility is small enough as it is, so there is really no point in trying something else.
Non-Sequitur
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2003
- Messages
- 355
- Reaction score
- 0
No. I don't. There is no reason for me to believe... Plenty of reasons for me not to. And trust me... I tried to believe. I wanted to... but to no avail.
Neutrino
Tank
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Messages
- 4,407
- Reaction score
- 0
hasan said:
You don't seem to really understand evolutionary theory very well. But I'm too tired right now to get into it as it's 1am, so I'll leave it to someone else if they care to respond
I'll just say that I find it kind of ironic that you are trying to use computer programming examples to disprove evolutionary mutation.
Ever heard of evolutionary programming?
hasan said:
I hardly see how it's logical. Do explain please.
shortsite
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2004
- Messages
- 154
- Reaction score
- 0
Ok maybe it just depends on how ou were brought up. I mean I was shown a certain way to act and behave in church and at certain holidays. (Due to the fact that we got catholisism drilled into out tiny skulls) And when I became an adult I made my own choice and decided not to go to church and not be a practising Catholic. Maybe when i was young and had all that shtuff drilled into me has left a lastting effect ie not believing in church but do believe in God. But belief is one thing faith is another.
To Neutrino I do understand evolutionary thoery and about natural selection which is one of the many reasons I gave up on the church and not God.
To Neutrino I do understand evolutionary thoery and about natural selection which is one of the many reasons I gave up on the church and not God.
bgesley426
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2003
- Messages
- 450
- Reaction score
- 0
I think the very fact that people ask the question "Do you believe in God" shows that God is about faith and not proof. Or else we'd all be asking "Do you know God exists?"
mchammer75040
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2003
- Messages
- 4,008
- Reaction score
- 1
Religion is based on choosing the right religion, thats what the dogma is based off of. Christianity, for example, says they are right and all other religions are wrong and lead to eternal damnation..bgesley426 said:
Most of that post was tooken from a earlier post by me in a different thread, sorry for assuming and I agree with you.bgesley426 said:
Your point? Empathy is apart of being a social creature, so it shouldnt be all suprising that this sort of philosophy pops up in our sophisticated society.bgesley426 said:
I agree its a meme we came up with to cope and survive, but that doesnt mean it supports any religion or the existence of god. There is a wide number of reasons as to why we have the idea in the first place. So I wouldnt rule anything out and just assume that it means god exists.bgesley426 said:
Warbie
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 10,615
- Reaction score
- 0
hasan said:As for evolution and mutation ... think aobut it this way: If you download a 500MB exe file, and some portions of it are curropted, there are only two possibilites:
-the program will still function but fail in certain areas (if the curroption is small, it maybe unnoticable .. it depends on the situation anyway)
-the program will totally malfunction.
There is no third possibility that the curropt data will actually fix some bugs causing the program to run better.
Sorry to be so blunt - but that is a very poor (and irrelevant) analogy which clearly displays you don't really understand the theory of evolution.
Ecthe|ioN
Newbie
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2004
- Messages
- 1,731
- Reaction score
- 0
I believe there is a superiour being. Something started it all. I believe in the big bang, but what started it all? There has to be a "creator" of some kind, but it doesn't have to be liek teh God 'n shit. The truth is out there.
Yakuza
Newbie
- Joined
- May 15, 2003
- Messages
- 769
- Reaction score
- 0
Minerel said:
So if I killed your whole family because I simply didn't approve of there existance then that would neither be, right nor wrong?
I mean in my opinon I was justified in what i did so it couldn'y be bad or evil, correct?
No, what I did was give you an example that made your religious causes war idea lame, because as you yourself just discribed there were probably a lot of people who didn't believe in a religion who fought in the war.
really, last time I checked the world is still far more populated with those who choose to believe in a deity than not.
I also find this kind of statement interesting when we abserve countries that are struck with a sudden crisis. Take 9-11 for instance. If those days are truly over, then why were churches flooded and packed after 9-11.
And all I am saying is that " For all you know" the bible could be infact 100% true.
PvtRyan
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2003
- Messages
- 10,026
- Reaction score
- 1
Yakuza said:
By choosing a different religion you willfully reject the Christian truth don't you?
Correct. It's not evil what you did, it's evil in the opinion of the soceity and most religions.
Is a male lion that kills the youngs of a rival male lion evil? For us, it's really mean yes, but for the lion it's perfectly justified to do what he did.
Yakuza
Newbie
- Joined
- May 15, 2003
- Messages
- 769
- Reaction score
- 0
Neutrino said:
the worlds worst and most breif summerization of Einstien, who basicaly said that the world was far to complex and organised for there not to be a designer or creator.
Also doesn't evolutionary programming only become valid if its based on previously existing Core code. I mean it has to have a set of previously existing variables for it to begin, right?
Yakuza
Newbie
- Joined
- May 15, 2003
- Messages
- 769
- Reaction score
- 0
PvtRyan said:
No, only if its done in spite of the known will of God. Sacraficing an animal only becomes wrong when God says, "Dont do that any more." There is also the law of our hearts that will be judged according to what we have done in accordance to the law of our hearts.
So Killing a million jews is not wrong or evil?
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
Yakuza said:
Catholicism allows everyone a chance to go to heaven by finding redemption while in Purgatory, few go to hell except those that are "beyond salvation". A religion that promotes eternal damnation for those who willfully object to the "truth" is teetering on the fine line between radical fundamentalism and cultism IMHO.
mchammer75040
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2003
- Messages
- 4,008
- Reaction score
- 1
Er its just like pvtryan said: by choosing a different religion you willfully reject the Christian truth.Yakuza said:
This thread needs more cowbell...Sprafa said:
hasan
Newbie
- Joined
- May 15, 2004
- Messages
- 1,134
- Reaction score
- 0
I think I cknowledged in my post that my comparison is probably not very accurate.Neutrino said:
But I'd like to tell you that I studied alot about evolution and I claim I know enough about it.
Some evolutionists try to claim that it's not about chance. I find that hard to believe.
Why "ironic"?
I guess I'm deemed an idiot because I said "stuff" :E
I don't talk formal, I talk slang even on the most serious issues, for a simple reason: english is not my first language. So the hell I don't care.
I have no time
/sarcasmI seriously have no time right now, I gotta go to my Uni.
But if it needs to be explained, then it's not so obviously logical then, is it? It actually needs no explanation. I am willing to explain however, but not this moment. I'm in a little hurry.
Neutrino
Tank
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Messages
- 4,407
- Reaction score
- 0
hasan said:
Well, I said that because your analagy was not accurate. Evolution through genetic mutation is quite well documented. It has been shown conclusively that random mutations can result in a positive change for a species. Just look at fruit flies or E-coli bacteria for obvious examples.
hasan said:
Sorry, for just writing in "stuff". I just didn't have time to respond to what you said specifically, so I didn't see a reason to quote it all. I didn't say anything about you being an "idiot", I only said that your argument was ironic, which it was. This is because you were using computer programming to say that mutations could not be a positive influence, when in fact they can be and there are even programs specifically written to take advantage of this fact.
hasan said:
I agree, it is not.
bgesley426
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2003
- Messages
- 450
- Reaction score
- 0
mchammer75040 said:
I completely disagree. Religion is based on oranization of similar belief systems.
Sprafa
Tank
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,742
- Reaction score
- 0
Phisionary
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,305
- Reaction score
- 0
No. Athiest.
If there was a 'higher being' (which I consider as an extremely unlikely possiblilty, and physically impossible to ever know, as per my 'true' religion, belief in physical law), I find it impossible to believe that we were created through direct action. Rather, the universe was created by something, and the ball was rolling. We are therefore a creation of chance, no more... Logic had an interesting post mentioning similar concepts a while ago. Wont repost...
As for religion, my views are similar to the very un-'PeeCee' view of former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura (I rewatched 'Predator' last week, BTW... awesome.):
"Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business."
Now, that isn't always true, of course. If religion makes peoples lives more producting, happy, or meaningful, it can't be all bad. If that comes at a cost of them attempting to impose their religiosly formed moral (or other) ideals upon others who do not hold similar views, therein lies my problem with religion (generalizing).
If there was a 'higher being' (which I consider as an extremely unlikely possiblilty, and physically impossible to ever know, as per my 'true' religion, belief in physical law), I find it impossible to believe that we were created through direct action. Rather, the universe was created by something, and the ball was rolling. We are therefore a creation of chance, no more... Logic had an interesting post mentioning similar concepts a while ago. Wont repost...
As for religion, my views are similar to the very un-'PeeCee' view of former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura (I rewatched 'Predator' last week, BTW... awesome.):
"Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business."
Now, that isn't always true, of course. If religion makes peoples lives more producting, happy, or meaningful, it can't be all bad. If that comes at a cost of them attempting to impose their religiosly formed moral (or other) ideals upon others who do not hold similar views, therein lies my problem with religion (generalizing).
L
Logic
Guest
Religion can be beneficial to some people, but I do strongly object to the way many organized religions tend to operate. I spent my first three school years in a heavily christian school, and most of the rest in a catholic school, and in retrospect I certainly think their methods were oppressive and destructive. Kids learned to have faith, simply by having the idea that doubters will go to hell drummed into them, day after day. That's certainly a wonderful way to encourage open-mindedness, isn't it? I guess that's how they keep their numbers. I just don't like the idea that kids are growing up, learning NOT to question things, or to make up their own minds, but rather to accept what they are told.
I also think the pervasive influence religion has in politics is one of the world's greatest problems today. The larger religions of the world may offer better lives to some individuals, but I do think, on the whole, they have a very negative effect on the social and political development of the world.
I also think the pervasive influence religion has in politics is one of the world's greatest problems today. The larger religions of the world may offer better lives to some individuals, but I do think, on the whole, they have a very negative effect on the social and political development of the world.
Phisionary
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,305
- Reaction score
- 0
amen, brother. haha, j/k :E
the dominant religious organization in my area also happens to be one of the largest economic forces in the state. Not to mention that I recently heard that they purchased the limited state liquor licences that are required in my area, so as to prevent local businesses from having them. I'm sure you could figure out who I'm talking about, if anyone cares.
the dominant religious organization in my area also happens to be one of the largest economic forces in the state. Not to mention that I recently heard that they purchased the limited state liquor licences that are required in my area, so as to prevent local businesses from having them. I'm sure you could figure out who I'm talking about, if anyone cares.
Yakuza
Newbie
- Joined
- May 15, 2003
- Messages
- 769
- Reaction score
- 0
PvtRyan said:
Subjective my ass! do you think that the kids getting killed in russia of the recent incident was okay because they thought there were justified.
Subjective, get real man tell that to the man who raps and murders your family.
If there is no basic obejective view of right and wrong then why do most cultures institute one.
- Status
Similar threads
