Life proven scientificaly (yes another religion thread...go cry)

[Ravioli]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4

Why does people still believe in God even when faced with such beautiful science that makes more sense and logic than a scripture with absolutley 0% proofs?

Yes go ahead flame me for a thread regarding religion but the shit is intressting...i simply cant grasp how someone can believe in god...The whole concept of god seems to me irrational and illogical beyond the highest level perception!

 

[Saturos]

OH CRAP! NOT THIS S*** AGAIN!These threads are getting old, seriously dude.

 

[PortalStormzzzz]

It don't matter. It isn't changing what I believe.

But yea, this is getting real old real fast. Elections are upcoming, stop detracting us with theological crap.

 

[bbson john]

Concluded what we've learnt in secondary school. :|

 

[Avoidist]

That wasn't a proof, just a well put explanation of something we already assumed or knew.

These threads are getting a bit much. We need another Cold War or something here to keep the politics politics.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

These threads are getting a bit much. We need another Cold War or something here to keep the politics politics.

I'll go annoy the Russians then...

 

[Mr Stabby]

We need a theology board here. Considering about 95% people here are atheist, this is only preaching to the choir and getting lame.

 

[Avoidist]

We need a theology board here. Considering about 95% people here are atheist, this is only preaching to the choir and getting lame.

That's actually a pretty good idea. It could be a subforum or whatever those things are called to Politics (a la Zombie Convention etc).

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Or we could simply say: Religion and politics, instead of just politics, y'know, just for all those people who don't understand that religion is part of politics.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Religion is not necessarily apart of politics, explain the political significance of this thread for example?

 

[Avoidist]

Or we could simply say: Religion and politics, instead of just politics, y'know, just for all those people who don't understand that religion is part of politics.

That's why it would be a sub-forum. Religion may play a part in politics, but it can be separated easily enough. Why do you think so many constitutions have the separation of Church and State?

Mind you, we could always have a philosophy forum. It probably wouldn't work given the state of the politics forum alone, but it would do the job well enough.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Actually, we should just rename this section to "****ing stupid and pointless arguments where people insult each other while pretending to have an actual point" and be done with it.

 

[Absinthe]

g0d sux

l2p theists

 

[Avoidist]

Actually, we should just rename this section to "****ing stupid and pointless arguments where people insult each other while pretending to have an actual point" and be done with it.

True, but at least it has activity. The bulk of threads that are actually relevant to the website (i.e. the Half-Life stuff) tend to be very slow - though it seems to have inexplicably sped up recently - because we don't actually have anything to talk about after one week of theorizing once the game has been released. Politics may be bullshit but at least there's always something to discuss.

 

[Darkside55]

It don't matter. It isn't changing what I believe.

Precisely why these threads are wastes of everybody's time. Religious people won't listen to reason, atheists end up circlejerking each other, and we all get into a big argument again.

One of these days I'm just going to institute a decree against these threads.

 

[Kadayi]

Why does people still believe in God even when faced with such beautiful science that makes more sense and logic than a scripture with absolutley 0% proofs?

I'm pretty sure most Christians you speak to today don't particularly care too much about the origins of life aspect of the Bible, more the social instructions on how to live a good life etc it contains ('do unto others as you'd have them do unto you' etc). It's only really the hardcore creationist types who believe in the wacked out stuff. Also use firefox, it has a built in spell checker, that way you might of picked up on how to spell 'scientifically' and not look like a complete chump.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

it's "might have", not "might of".

Couldn't resist, sorry.

 

[bbson john]

('do unto others as you'd have them do unto you' etc)

There is a Chinese(Confucian)version of this verse. It is "don't do unto others as you'd not have them do unto you". I think the Chinese version is slightly better.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

It is, because with the christian version, say I want a new computer, I have to buy others a new computer

(Yes alarmists, I know thats just facecious)

 

[Kyorisu]

I'm pretty sure most Christians you speak to today don't particularly care too much about the origins of life aspect of the Bible, more the social instructions on how to live a good life etc it contains ('do unto others as you'd have them do unto you' etc).

And yet many types of animals can happily live in large packs without issue. You'd think without the bible they'd be turning on one another every chance they got. Groups of creatures animal or human will look after one another and create a set of social rules to follow by. Nobody needs the bible to teach them such a simple thing. They may as well all become Humanists.

 

[Ravioli]

I'm pretty sure most Christians you speak to today don't particularly care too much about the origins of life aspect of the Bible, more the social instructions on how to live a good life etc it contains ('do unto others as you'd have them do unto you' etc). It's only really the hardcore creationist types who believe in the wacked out stuff. Also use firefox, it has a built in spell checker, that way you might of picked up on how to spell 'scientifically' and not look like a complete chump.

But how can one believe in certain parts of the bible and not believe in other parts? If they believe Genesis is false...then there isnt much sense to believe that the rest of the bible is true.

 

[Eejit]

But how can one believe in certain parts of the bible and not believe in other parts? If they believe Genesis is false...then there isnt much sense to believe that the rest of the bible is true.

Parables. Bible has lots.



Anyway that doesn't prove that life occured that way, just that it may have. So you're not convincing anyone of anything. /sigh

 

[Ravioli]

Parables. Bible has lots.



Anyway that doesn't prove that life occured that way, just that it may have. So you're not convincing anyone of anything. /sigh

yes, but its got tremendous evidence and experiments to support it. Intelligent design has none. What you basically are saying is that evolution is just how it may have happen, and that its not convincing anyone of anything. Why would you believe in evolution and not this? (altho this basically is evolution)

 

[Eejit]

It's nothing like evolution...

 

[nurizeko]

Aside from the fact Religion bashing is getting old, that was a nice video, I enjoyed watching it.:imu:

 

[Kadayi]

But how can one believe in certain parts of the bible and not believe in other parts? If they believe Genesis is false...then there isnt much sense to believe that the rest of the bible is true.

People believe in plenty of stuff that cannot be 'proven', and exists only as concept. There is no way to tangibly/physically demonstrate the act of multiplication in Mathematics, but we all subscribe to the theory or it as a given. Should we claim all mathematics is complete hokum because you can't really take 3 apples and 4 apples and end up with 12 apples?

If you are to apply a rule to one thing, then you have to apply it to all without compromise of prejudice, surely?

There is a Chinese(Confucian)version of this verse. It is "don't do unto others as you'd not have them do unto you". I think the Chinese version is slightly better.

You'll find most early religions works contain similar teachings of tolerance towards others, and of plain simple getting along with your fellow man.

And yet many types of animals can happily live in large packs without issue. You'd think without the bible they'd be turning on one another every chance they got. Groups of creatures animal or human will look after one another and create a set of social rules to follow by. Nobody needs the bible to teach them such a simple thing. They may as well all become Humanists.

As Cavemen didn't have pens or printing presses I don't think anyone is denying that we lacked morality/altruism behaviour before the Bible or other religious works came along, or that in in their absence we'd likely descend into some savage state out of an 80's 'snuff' movie, we aren't that naturally aggressive as a species without due provocation. How you have to view them is that they represented the various civilizations attempts to quantify universal moral guidance, for mass instruction. One of the fundamental differences between us and the rest of the primates is how large our social groupings are in comparison. Chimpanzee tribes number 30 - 40 individuals at most, if they grow any larger then the tribes split, this is because there simply aren't enough hours in the day for them to do the food gathering and actively engage and acknowledge all the other members of the tribe socially when they get too numerous.

Human social groupings are significantly larger, because we developed complex verbal languages as a means to communicate to each other, and therefore can address more than one individual at a time (no other species instructs it's young on the scale we do). Writing evolved as means to record those verbal instructions. As much as religious works acted as records for moral guidance, a lot of the time they also contained a lot of everyday practical advice relevant at the time they were written for the people who wrote then. Half the Old testament is a Mediterranean survival guide if you look at what it says, 'don't eat pork', 'avoid Shellfish' bear in mind these people didn't know what colds or food poisoning were or why they occurred, but the effects could be devastating/fatal back in those times. Sure most of this stuff is irrelevant and redundant today in our modern society (I'd say not indulging in incest is still relevant), but it's a mistake assume it was always irrelevant and unnecessary, and that it served no good purpose at the time, or that we'd of gotten where we are without it through natural progression alone.

 

[Mr Stabby]

yes, but its got tremendous evidence and experiments to support it. Intelligent design has none. What you basically are saying is that evolution is just how it may have happen, and that its not convincing anyone of anything. Why would you believe in evolution and not this? (altho this basically is evolution)

There isn't much evidence for Abiogenesis, it's only a hypothesis, the hypothesis certainly makes sense, and there is evidence to support parts of it, but it's not in the same league as evolution in terms of evidence.