PDA

View Full Version : Religion, Science, and You


Alpharaider47
13-05-10, 05:18
Recently within the "should cultural/religious facial coverings be banned?" thread there has been a lot of really great discussion about the nature/role(s) of Religion and Science. Unfortunately, that discussion was slightly off topic.

So in an effort to keep that discussion going, I've decided to open a separate thread for the civil Discussion of Religion and Science. This thread is meant to be a place where we can discuss some of the different or interesting aspects of each, a place where we can share our beliefs and why, and so on.

Here is a link to the above thread around where this discussion began-
http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showthread.php?t=168238&page=9

Let's please keep it clean guys, and respect everybody's opinions.

Mikky
13-05-10, 05:33
Great thread idea! :tmb:

Well, personally I don't believe in God, but I do believe that there is a God. I know that doesn't make much sense, but oh well. :p

I also strongly believe in the Big Band Theory. You never know, God could of just farted. :vlol:

Joke obviously. A lot of people say that. :p

star-dust
13-05-10, 06:02
Great thread idea! :tmb:

Well, personally I don't believe in God, but I do believe that there is a God. I know that doesn't make much sense, but oh well. :p

I also strongly believe in the Big Band Theory. You never know, God could of just farted. :vlol:

Joke obviously. A lot of people say that. :p

I know what you mean. I don't know if I do or do not believe in God. I do like to think that there is someone looking over me though.

I read this book called the "Celestine Prophecy" by James Redfield and it goes on about spiritual beliefs and psychological stuff... and this is really what I "believe" in.

I'm terrible with these topics. :hea:

But I will say that if I truly believe in anything, my religious aspect is karma! What goes around comes around!

Mikky
13-05-10, 06:04
I know what you mean. I don't know if I do or do not believe in God. I do like to think that there is someone looking over me though.

I read this book called the "Celestine Prophecy" by James Redfield and it goes on about spiritual beliefs and psychological stuff... and this is really what I "believe" in.

I'm terrible with these topics. :hea:

But I will say that if I truly believe in anything, my religious aspect is karma! What goes around comes around!

Exactly! :tmb:

Alpharaider47
13-05-10, 06:10
I know what you mean. I don't know if I do or do not believe in God. I do like to think that there is someone looking over me though.

I read this book called the "Celestine Prophecy" by James Redfield and it goes on about spiritual beliefs and psychological stuff... and this is really what I "believe" in.

I'm terrible with these topics. :hea:

But I will say that if I truly believe in anything, my religious aspect is karma! What goes around comes around!

That's quite alright, I wasn't quite sure how to kick this off lol.

I personally believe in a god, but I'm not very religious, if that makes sense. I think over the years I've felt like there were places where I needed some sort of outside help, and I never got that help which led me to focus on being more independent I think. And in some ways I think my career interest has influenced it as well. I don't really want to "belong" to a religion if you get what I mean, I'd like to be able to accept and appreciate all religions without personal opinions clouding me.
I think in some ways I'm still trying to figure out what exactly I believe in. I can see how a lot of what science says can fit into what religion has presented, I don't see why there needs to be this animosity between the two subjects.

star-dust
13-05-10, 06:15
That's quite alright, I wasn't quite sure how to kick this off lol.

I personally believe in a god, but I'm not very religious, if that makes sense. I think over the years I've felt like there were places where I needed some sort of outside help, and I never got that help which led me to focus on being more independent I think. And in some ways I think my career interest has influenced it as well. I don't really want to "belong" to a religion if you get what I mean, I'd like to be able to accept and appreciate all religions without personal opinions clouding me.
I think in some ways I'm still trying to figure out what exactly I believe in. I can see how a lot of what science says can fit into what religion has presented, I don't see why there needs to be this animosity between the two subjects.

I have never been religious. I've been to Church a few times... but it was just never something I could see myself attending regularly.

To me religion is like a "safety-net". It gives us a reason to believe that our lives are what they are for a reason, we are who we are for a reason. And I don't know. I do believe my life is the way it is for a reason but I don't think it really has to do with a higher power... ? So confusing this stuff!

And just to say, no offense to anybody! I respect all religions.

lcaddict
13-05-10, 06:16
I dunno..I belive both in God and in scienece, but what I don't belive in is that we come from apes. Dude, WTH?!
No offence guys, I respect other religions.

Mikky
13-05-10, 06:16
I have never been religious. I've been to Church a few times... but it was just never interesting to me.

To me religion is like a "safety-net". It gives us a reason to believe that our lives are what they are for a reason, we are who we are for a reason. And I don't know. I do believe my life is the way it is for a reason but I don't think it really has to do with a higher power... ? So confusing this stuff!

I'd have to say that I agree with you on that.

Ikas90
13-05-10, 06:41
I'm leaning a bit towards an agnostic point of view myself. I believe in 'a God', but whether I believe in 'God' is debatable. Not saying I don't; but I just don't feel completely secure with my belief. But I have no right to fully claim myself as an Agnostic until I know enough from both sides. Then again, it is wrong to 'look for the truth', isn't it? It makes me afraid. There is a lack of trust, but I blame that lack of trust on the people, not on God himself.

Something just isn't right. The fact that we don't know the truth is what makes it questionable. Faith alone is what we rely on.

What I mostly believe in, is being a good person and living a virtuous life. Essentially, that is karma.

Cochrane
13-05-10, 06:56
Ah, finally we get a thread like that again. Okay, so first of all, I am basing all what I am going to say here on the idea that both are systems to explain and understand the world. There are probably other aspects to religion as well, but I am not interested in them in this context.

I think that science is objectively better than religion.

This is mainly because of the process underlying both. Religion gains new knowledge by divine revelation, something that we inherently cannot verify. It is entirely possible (and in fact my belief) that all claims of divine inspiration in the history of mankind were due to eating the wrong mushrooms and/or the one claiming to have had or have seen one just making things up. Whether you agree with me or not, you cannot objectively prove me wrong here, which is a big flaw in the process.

Another issue is that more often than not, religion has was just plain wrong. Turns out lightning is not Zeus being angry with us mere mortals, the sun does not revolve around the earth and the earth and all life on it are far older than 6000 years. Religion can only offer two answers here: Either it can claim that it is all just symbolic, or it can stubbornly claim that it is right and everyone else is wrong (as is happening in that never-ending evolution vs. creation debate). The first one seems the smarter choice to me, but it effectively removes religion from trying to understand the world. The second one, well, I am not a fan of that.

Science is often wrong, too, of course. The difference to religion is that by definition, it was built to account for that. We create a theory, see what this theory predicts, test it, and based on the test results reject the theory, modify it, or gain a little more trust in it. There is no faith required in science. All knowledge in science is something that any of us could derive ourselves. Yes, there is equipment and training and so on, but you do not have to be a particularly good believer or chosen or anything. All you need to gain new understanding of the world is the willingness to try, err and learn from your mistakes.

patriots88888
13-05-10, 07:10
Religion(s) were created out of belief(s), not the other way around.

aktrekker
13-05-10, 07:19
Science is also based on beliefs. A theory is just a belief. Until it can be proven, or at least enough evidence gathered to support the belief with reasonable certainty, it does, in fact, require faith.

Religion and science are not as different as everyone thinks. It's just that science likes to think of itself as better, so it tries to distance itself from religion.

Lara's Nemesis
13-05-10, 07:26
I've thought about it a lot over my life and think that man created God and not the other way around.

Mikky
13-05-10, 07:28
I've thought about it a lot over my life and think that man created God and not the other way around.

Yeah, I tend to think like that a lot.

TippingWater
13-05-10, 07:28
I've thought about it a lot over my life and think that man created God and not the other way around.

:tmb:

Cochrane
13-05-10, 07:28
Science is also based on beliefs. A theory is just a belief. Until it can be proven, or at least enough evidence gathered to support the belief with reasonable certainty, it does, in fact, require faith.
No it doesn’t. There is no need at all for you to accept any particular theory, you are perfectly free to ignore it until enough evidence has been gathered, and in fact that is what real scientists do. Of course, in practice the evidence usually already exists and the theory that gets accepted is the one that best explains that evidence, but the effect remains the same. If you think a scientific theory is wrong, you are absolutely free and in fact encouraged to try and prove it wrong. I think that is about as far away from faith as it gets.

Oh, and you do know that scientific theories can not be proven to be true (except in maths), right?

Andyroo
13-05-10, 07:34
I've thought about it a lot over my life and think that man created God and not the other way around.

:tmb:


+1 :tmb:

Drone
13-05-10, 07:35
Religion and science are not as different as everyone thinks

Religion and science are absolutely different. Religion doesn't require any proof. Science does. It's obvious.


Religion = you either believe or don't.
Science = what you know today can be denied/updated tomorrow

aktrekker
13-05-10, 07:37
That's why I said "enough evidence gathered".

Unless someone believes in the theory nobody will experiment to try to prove or disprove it. Whoever proposes the theory must have faith that it has a chance of proving true. Otherwise it would be scrapped before it has a chance.

You are also free to believe or not believe in any religion or God. People who do believe have their reasons, their "evidence". Or do you believe it is simply human nature to believe in a God? I know you can come up with lots of psychological reasons people might turn to a god, but that wouldn't be something you could prove, therefore it isn't scientific.

Ward Dragon
13-05-10, 07:54
Unless someone believes in the theory nobody will experiment to try to prove or disprove it. Whoever proposes the theory must have faith that it has a chance of proving true. Otherwise it would be scrapped before it has a chance.

Someone looks at the evidence and proposes a hypothesis trying to explain it. That hypothesis gets tested, changed, replaced, etc. until it accommodates all of the available evidence. After it has withstood substantial testing and is widely considered to be true, it becomes a theory. However people still experiment to see if the theories still work once we get better technology or make new discoveries. Nothing is ever proven to be 100% true and there's always the chance that some new discovery could invalidate any widely accepted theory so people never stop looking for more evidence to evaluate.

Cochrane
13-05-10, 08:10
That's why I said "enough evidence gathered".

Unless someone believes in the theory nobody will experiment to try to prove or disprove it. Whoever proposes the theory must have faith that it has a chance of proving true. Otherwise it would be scrapped before it has a chance.
Not faith in the religious sense, though. Maybe "hope" would be a better term. A new theory is in practice always based on old evidence, and it gets formed and first evaluated by how well it explains that. A complete trust, despite a lack of proof, is something that is not exactly encouraged in science.

In science, what we believe to know can be proven wrong. I cannot emphasize that enough. I tried, but people still don’t seem to get that this is the main difference between religion and science, between faith and rational explanation. So yes, maybe there is some hope or if you want "faith" involved in starting a new theory, but there is no faith aspect in deciding whether to keep it or not. You try out whether it works, and if it doesn’t it gets thrown out.

You are also free to believe or not believe in any religion or God. People who do believe have their reasons, their "evidence". Or do you believe it is simply human nature to believe in a God? I know you can come up with lots of psychological reasons people might turn to a god, but that wouldn't be something you could prove, therefore it isn't scientific.
I actually do not care why people believe in God. All that matters to me is whether religion is useful for explaining the world. A lot of people believing in something does not make it true or useful.

Drone
13-05-10, 08:16
That's why I said "enough evidence gathered".
You are also free to believe or not believe in any religion or God. People who do believe have their reasons, their "evidence". Or do you believe it is simply human nature to believe in a God? I know you can come up with lots of psychological reasons people might turn to a god, but that wouldn't be something you could prove, therefore it isn't scientific.

Sometimes people don't need any "evidence" or reason, they just do believe because they need it or because they feel it. No one can say is it nature of human mind to have faith or it's just a God's "trademark" that was left on human. It's enough for some people to see/perceive/research this universe without faith and it's enough for others to believe without evidence. And for some it's even enough to see this world and to realize that there is / there isn't a God there. Everyone makes own choice. It can be objective, it can be subjective. People can lie and pretend too. Someone can say that they believe but actually they don't, you can never know. Same with science, people can always have their doubts while others can be always sure.

Two things will always be true anyway. 1. People need to move forward, they need to patch and update their science/knowledge daily/weekly/annually no matter. 2. People who have faith have to hold on to it.

Dennis's Mom
13-05-10, 13:00
First a question/complaint: As a former forum administrator, albeit of another software, I had the ability to merge threads and move/cull posts into another thread. I don't know whether this software allows this, but if it does, I think it would be respectful to merge duplicate threads rather than just close one, relegating those posts into a dustbin. Similarly, the entire end of the thread which inspired this thread could have been moved to this thread, and all of that discussion would not have been lost. If mods have that ability, I think it would be considerate to utilize it.

One comment that I wanted to address was the idea that an atheistic society "could have done just as well." The problem is, you won't find an atheistic society. We appeared to be hardwired to connect to the Divine.

Smog
13-05-10, 13:13
A lot of people 'learn' religion from a young age. When you're a child, you're far more open and accepting of anything that people in authority tell you. If your parents and teachers raise you in a certain faith, you're unlikely to question it, especially if you live in a very conservative society where beliefs are ingrained and passed on from generation to generation.

Other people have 'revelations' or are converted later in life. I don't think anyone can identify with someone like this unless they've experienced something similar. I know I can't.

One thing I do know is that you can't choose to believe in any religion. That completely defies the definition of 'belief.' It doesn't matter how much you want to believe in God, you can only be true to yourself in such a belief if there's some external reason that sways you in that direction. Otherwise it's just wishful thinking.

That's my contribution. :o

Dina_Croft
13-05-10, 13:48
I'm an Atheist. I believe in the Big Bang Theory. And I believe in science.

I don't believe in miracles or gods or saints or something like that.

patriots88888
13-05-10, 13:57
One thing I do know is that you can't choose to believe in any religion. That completely defies the definition of 'belief.' It doesn't matter how much you want to believe in God, you can only be true to yourself in such a belief if there's some external reason that sways you in that direction. Otherwise it's just wishful thinking.

That's my contribution. :o

For the most part I agree with what you say, however I believe people can choose which religion exemplifies the particulair beliefs they uphold.

As a follow up to my previous post I would like to add:

Religion was created so that people of similiar beliefs could come together to practice and share those common beliefs together. The problem with religion is that it tends to divide rather than its intended purpose of bringing together and that division often leads to conflict (the 'us against them' mentality). The beliefs themselves are not the true cause of conflict, in actuality it is the division and separation which subsequently results that is responsible. The more we continue to create division amongst ourselves, all the more likely there will be impending conflict as a result.

Ward Dragon
13-05-10, 14:01
Similarly, the entire end of the thread which inspired this thread could have been moved to this thread, and all of that discussion would not have been lost. If mods have that ability, I think it would be considerate to utilize it.

We don't have that ability. I think it was disabled because splitting/merging threads interfered with google search results giving links to specific threads. People can quote posts from the other thread and respond here though :)

MsRedFoxx
13-05-10, 14:03
I am a Physicist and the more I seem to learn about Physics and the universe makes me believe more in the Divine as there are so many things that are unanswered and it the idea that life was just an "accident" seems incredibly unlikely to me due to the vast amount of "accidents " that brought us here.

The thing I dislike about religion is that there is usually only one divine entity called God :mad: and that he is a giant person looking down on us from the sky. I believe that if there were to be a divinity it would most likely be genderless and multiple beings not just one.

I think that religion is a way our ancestors made society work as in the Ancient times there were no law or justice so if you did something bad God will punish you, but also it was a way of explaining things. Having said that though imo Magic seems a better explanation then any for the things science can't explain so I am really confusing myself on this topic.....

The thing that really gets me with religion though is death. No matter where you go all over the world people belive we all have souls and that when we die they move on to someplace or enter another body e.t.c. So far science, no matter how much it has tried, can only explain why we die but not whether we have spirits or not and what happens to consciousness when our bodys stop working. Souls are nothing really to do with God and yet people believe that they exist which is very interesting to me.

Anywayz my mind is getting all confuddled making sense of all this so I think I'm going to have to have a sit down with some tea and have a right good think about it all again before I repost on this thread :D

Ward Dragon
13-05-10, 14:15
I am a Physicist and the more I seem to learn about Physics and the universe makes me believe more in the Divine as there are so many things that are unanswered and it the idea that life was just an "accident" seems incredibly unlikely to me due to the vast amount of "accidents " that brought us here.

Imagine a thousand people have pennies and they all flip their pennies at once. By chance half get heads and half get tails. The tails people leave and the heads people flip again, and the process repeats itself roughly ten times until there is one person left. That person seems to have beaten all odds by flipping heads so many times in a row without any tails. However there are 999 other people who didn't make it. It's not an accident. It's just that we happen to be on the planet that made it, and if Earth had been one of the many planets that didn't make it then we wouldn't be here to wonder how it happened :p

Smog
13-05-10, 14:15
For the most part I agree with what you say, however I believe people can choose which religion exemplifies the particulair beliefs they uphold.


Sure, in terms of philosophies and life values. Deities and afterlives, not so much.

patriots88888
13-05-10, 14:35
Sure, in terms of philosophies and life values. Deities and afterlives, not so much.

I was referring to those who already possess a particulair belief, so yes that would be the case. With so many sects and factions present today, it has become much more common practice to do so.

Dennis's Mom
13-05-10, 14:46
Imagine a thousand people have pennies and they all flip their pennies at once. By chance half get heads and half get tails. The tails people leave and the heads people flip again, and the process repeats itself roughly ten times until there is one person left. That person seems to have beaten all odds by flipping heads so many times in a row without any tails. However there are 999 other people who didn't make it. It's not an accident. It's just that we happen to be on the planet that made it, and if Earth had been one of the many planets that didn't make it then we wouldn't be here to wonder how it happened :p

I fail to see where this analogy does argue the position of a Creator. Someone must flip the pennies, after all. The fact that the pennies plan results in a narrowing down process, does not mean that wasn't part of the process.

Like MsRedFoxx, I have yet to see anything in science that did not augment my belief in God.

Alpharaider47
13-05-10, 14:50
I am a Physicist and the more I seem to learn about Physics and the universe makes me believe more in the Divine as there are so many things that are unanswered and it the idea that life was just an "accident" seems incredibly unlikely to me due to the vast amount of "accidents " that brought us here.


You know that's something I've kind of thought about. I think I'd prefer to believe that there's some sort of purpose behind us being here, that'd be kind of anticlimactic if it was all just one big accident. I also find it interesting that in an effort to provide answers/explanation, science uncovers so many more questions.



The thing that really gets me with religion though is death. No matter where you go all over the world people belive we all have souls and that when we die they move on to someplace or enter another body e.t.c. So far science, no matter how much it has tried, can only explain why we die but not whether we have spirits or not and what happens to consciousness when our bodys stop working. Souls are nothing really to do with God and yet people believe that they exist which is very interesting to me.


I also find this really interesting. I'm not sure how science would test something like this though =/

Ward Dragon
13-05-10, 14:51
I fail to see where this analogy does argue the position of a Creator. Someone must flip the pennies, after all. The fact that the pennies plan results in a narrowing down process, does not mean that wasn't part of the process.

Like MsRedFoxx, I have yet to see anything in science that did not augment my belief in God.

My analogy was neutral on God's existence or involvement in the process. I was just trying to illustrate that there's a big difference between lots and lots of things happening by chance versus one specific thing happening by accident :)

irjudd
13-05-10, 15:22
...
The thing that really gets me with religion though is death. No matter where you go all over the world people belive we all have souls and that when we die they move on to someplace or enter another body e.t.c. So far science, no matter how much it has tried, can only explain why we die but not whether we have spirits or not and what happens to consciousness when our bodys stop working. Souls are nothing really to do with God and yet people believe that they exist which is very interesting to me....The immortal soul teaching has been around for a lot longer than most modern religions have, and certainly way way waaaaaaaay before Christianity came around. In fact, it's not even supported in the Christian Bible. For example, the Bible speaks of a soul’s doing work. (Leviticus 23:30) The soul is spoken of as being impatient, irritated, sleepless, fearful, and depressed. (Judges 16:16; Job 19:2; Psalm 119:28; Acts 2:43; 1 Thessalonians 5:14) Referring to a soul as a person, Romans 13:1 states: “Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities.” And at 1 Peter 3:20, we read: “In Noah’s days, . . . a few people, that is, eight souls, were carried safely through the water.” Nothing in these scriptures indicates that the soul is some immaterial entity that lives on after death. The Bible states: “The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.” (Ezekiel 18:4) The distressed prophet Elijah “began to ask that his soul might die.” (1 Kings 19:4) Likewise, Jonah “kept asking that his soul might die.” (Jonah 4:8)
I believe that so many people support it simply because of the fear of non-existence. This is actually one thing that the scientific community and the bible agree upon. It's just that many, many people still hold onto a very, very ancient belief.

Melonie Tomb Raider
13-05-10, 15:32
Most everyone here knows my beliefs. I'm a Christian, and I don't believe our world randomly happened to existence. Just like an extravagant painting needs a painter and a fancy sport scar needs a builder, the universe, which is beyond more detailed than any of those, could not have come into existence without a creator. It doesn't make sense.

If you dropped buckets of paint on a canvas over, and over, and over, you could never recreate the Mona Lisa. I don't care if you tried millions upon billions of times, it would be ridiculous to think that such a work of art could randomly be made like that, with so much detail! Just the same, there's no way a mind bogglingly detailed universe can sprout from a random explosion. I don't consider that to be scientific, but more so, downright silly.

Alpharaider47
13-05-10, 16:00
Most everyone here knows my beliefs. I'm a Christian, and I don't believe our world randomly happened to existence. Just like an extravagant painting needs a painter and a fancy sport scar needs a builder, the universe, which is beyond more detailed than any of those, could not have come into existence without a creator. It doesn't make sense.

If you dropped buckets of paint on a canvas over, and over, and over, you could never recreate the Mona Lisa. I don't care if you tried millions upon billions of times, it would be ridiculous to think that such a work of art could randomly be made like that, with so much detail! Just the same, there's no way a mind bogglingly detailed universe can sprout from a random explosion. I don't consider that to be scientific, but more so, downright silly.

That's a very interesting perspective, it makes a lot of sense.

woody543
13-05-10, 16:22
Whilst I will completely respect somebody's religious views, and understand why people believe in religion.

I completely disagree with the entire concept, and as I've just been revising this topic for my philosophy exam, I look forward to a nice debate on the subject. (could act as more revision.

But yeah, I believe religion is completely incoherent concept with archaic principles.

lara c. fan
13-05-10, 16:24
I dunno..I belive both in God and in scienece, but what I don't belive in is that we come from apes. Dude, WTH?!
No offence guys, I respect other religions.

While it may already have been said, the evolutionary theory does, you know, come under science. :p

woody543
13-05-10, 16:29
Oh on that point, evolutionary theory doesn't say that we have evolved from the apes we know today, but that we as humans share a common ancestor with the apes, and thus have both descended from the same gene pool/common ancestor.

Alpharaider47
13-05-10, 16:34
Oh on that point, evolutionary theory doesn't say that we have evolved from the apes we know today, but that we as humans share a common ancestor with the apes, and thus have both descended from the same gene pool/common ancestor.

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kpexs7e8xS1qztl8ao1_400.gif
If you take an Anthropology class you can learn all about it. It's fairly interesting, and in mine we stayed away from any religious aspects, etc. I think you've got to be open to accepting that according to what we've found there *is* a connection.

Dennis's Mom
13-05-10, 16:45
My analogy was neutral on God's existence or involvement in the process. I was just trying to illustrate that there's a big difference between lots and lots of things happening by chance versus one specific thing happening by accident :)

Ah, my mistake.

The immortal soul teaching has been around for a lot longer than most modern religions have, and certainly way way waaaaaaaay before Christianity came around. In fact, it's not even supported in the Christian Bible. For example, the Bible speaks of a soul’s doing work. (Leviticus 23:30) The soul is spoken of as being impatient, irritated, sleepless, fearful, and depressed. (Judges 16:16; Job 19:2; Psalm 119:28; Acts 2:43; 1 Thessalonians 5:14) Referring to a soul as a person, Romans 13:1 states: “Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities.” And at 1 Peter 3:20, we read: “In Noah’s days, . . . a few people, that is, eight souls, were carried safely through the water.” Nothing in these scriptures indicates that the soul is some immaterial entity that lives on after death. The Bible states: “The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.” (Ezekiel 18:4) The distressed prophet Elijah “began to ask that his soul might die.” (1 Kings 19:4) Likewise, Jonah “kept asking that his soul might die.” (Jonah 4:8)
I believe that so many people support it simply because of the fear of non-existence. This is actually one thing that the scientific community and the bible agree upon. It's just that many, many people still hold onto a very, very ancient belief.

Do you not feel you are being a little over literal in reading "soul"? Could it not be metonymy in some instances?

At any rate, using the fortune cookie method of plucking out Bible verses to prove a point usually misses the point entirely.

Zebra
13-05-10, 16:50
I'm not really the religious type. I respect religion as long as religion respects me (and same goes for religious people). I think that both - religion and science - can be good and bad. It depends what you do with them. They can both be inspirational, they can both help needy people, they can both be sth that gives people hope and happiness. But they can also make people kill or provoke conflicts and even wars.

The big difference is that science doesn't tell you what to think and most religions do (Granted, not all. But most of the really big ones). Science gives you facts or results and you can make up your opinion based on that. Religion forces an opinion onto you, tells you what is wrong and what is right, what to do and what not to do. Besides, science develops, changes its previous "statements" when needed. When I think of religions, most have not changed for hundreds and thousands of years (However this is nothing that applies to religion itself. It only applies to the most popular modern-day religions. In the past other religions have proven to be very interchangeable). Their rules are still the same as back then. How the hell do you want to apply rules from 2000 years ago to our modern society?

Dennis's Mom
13-05-10, 16:54
Their rules are still the same as back then. How the hell do you want to apply rules from 2000 years ago to our modern society?

Then you stopped paying attention two thousand years ago. Many churches continue to move forward with the times. Martin Luther would have been appalled at the thought of only one reformation.

MsRedFoxx
13-05-10, 17:05
Most everyone here knows my beliefs. I'm a Christian, and I don't believe our world randomly happened to existence. Just like an extravagant painting needs a painter and a fancy sport scar needs a builder, the universe, which is beyond more detailed than any of those, could not have come into existence without a creator. It doesn't make sense.

If you dropped buckets of paint on a canvas over, and over, and over, you could never recreate the Mona Lisa. I don't care if you tried millions upon billions of times, it would be ridiculous to think that such a work of art could randomly be made like that, with so much detail! Just the same, there's no way a mind bogglingly detailed universe can sprout from a random explosion. I don't consider that to be scientific, but more so, downright silly.

Yet a random person burns their toast in a funny way and apparantly it looks like Jesus :D (lol no offence here I'm just joking)

So why are you a Christian and to what extent do you believe in god??? I'm only asking because I'm curious :)

I'm not of any religion in particular due to the fact that I disagree with a lot of parts of them. With Islam I disagree how women are treated as inferiors to men and of the chauvanism it seems to project, with Christianity I seriously disagree how a lot of Christians think that the human race being descended from a type of race is proposterous yet they're willing to believe that we're all descended from Adam and Eve who were created by God and kicked out of a magical garden for eating an apple. Even when science has shown us through the remains of fossils e.t.c that evolution is correct and we still have not discovered this magical garden. I especially think its silly how the study of evolution has be banned in some places :mad:. IMO denying education just because you don't believe in it is very wrong. All physics is when you come down to the nitty gritty stuff is theories e.g. The Big Bang theory. I seriously do not believe in it yet I stil have to learn it as keeping an open mind is crucial as it grants you a broader understanding to life.

Zebra
13-05-10, 17:10
Then you stopped paying attention two thousand years ago. Many churches continue to move forward with the times. Martin Luther would have been appalled at the thought of only one reformation.

On the one hand, I was talking about modern religions in general and among those is also the catholic church and on the other hand, even with those reformations, you'd be surprised how many stupid, unnecessary and to our modern society totally unapplicable rules there are left. Even protestants believe in the Bible and - no offense - that book has a whole of a lot of nonsense in it (which probably wasn't nonsense back then, of course) and rules that really leave no doubt that it was written almost 2000 years ago.

Ward Dragon
13-05-10, 17:33
The immortal soul teaching has been around for a lot longer than most modern religions have, and certainly way way waaaaaaaay before Christianity came around. In fact, it's not even supported in the Christian Bible. For example, the Bible speaks of a soul’s doing work. (Leviticus 23:30) The soul is spoken of as being impatient, irritated, sleepless, fearful, and depressed. (Judges 16:16; Job 19:2; Psalm 119:28; Acts 2:43; 1 Thessalonians 5:14) Referring to a soul as a person, Romans 13:1 states: “Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities.” And at 1 Peter 3:20, we read: “In Noah’s days, . . . a few people, that is, eight souls, were carried safely through the water.” Nothing in these scriptures indicates that the soul is some immaterial entity that lives on after death. The Bible states: “The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.” (Ezekiel 18:4) The distressed prophet Elijah “began to ask that his soul might die.” (1 Kings 19:4) Likewise, Jonah “kept asking that his soul might die.” (Jonah 4:8)
I believe that so many people support it simply because of the fear of non-existence. This is actually one thing that the scientific community and the bible agree upon. It's just that many, many people still hold onto a very, very ancient belief.

Ah, so you're saying that the Bible uses the word "soul" to refer a living person, not to a spiritual entity that is separate from the body? That makes sense, at least in the quotes you provided. But what about references to Sheol and Gehenna? As I understand it the Bible does mention places that souls go after death.

I'm not really the religious type. I respect religion as long as religion respects me (and same goes for religious people). I think that both - religion and science - can be good and bad. It depends what you do with them. They can both be inspirational, they can both help needy people, they can both be sth that gives people hope and happiness. But they can also make people kill or provoke conflicts and even wars.

Exactly. People are capable of using anything for good or for evil even if the thing itself has no inherent alignment.

Religion forces an opinion onto you, tells you what is wrong and what is right, what to do and what not to do.

It really depends what religion and which interpretation of that religion people are following. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas said that Christians have a duty to evaluate the morality they are taught and only follow it if they believe that it is right. He had a very logical mind and tried to lay out the implications of Christianity if the core axioms of the religion were true. While a lot of it is kind of circular reasoning or dismisses opposing arguments without a satisfying reason, I respect what he tried to do. That sort of analysis and evaluation is always refreshing to see because it means someone is really thinking about what they believe and why, not just blindly accepting what they are told.

On the one hand, I was talking about modern religions in general and among those is also the catholic church and on the other hand, even with those reformations, you'd be surprised how many stupid, unnecessary and to our modern society totally unapplicable rules there are left. Even protestants believe in the Bible and - no offense - that book has a whole of a lot of nonsense in it and rules that really leave no doubt that it was written almost 2000 years ago.

A lot of those rules made sense at the time. For example, a ban on shellfish because there weren't adequate means of preserving them and they could make people really sick. Also, I think Jesus basically said that those rules were no longer necessary to follow anymore but I guess people interpret that differently from me.

Zebra
13-05-10, 17:43
It really depends what religion and which interpretation of that religion people are following.

Which is exactly what I said in my post, thank you very much.

A lot of those rules made sense at the time.

Again, I said that in my post (Granted, I edited it in because I had forgotten it the first time around so you might not have seen it).

larson n natla
13-05-10, 18:05
I have no belief in anyone apart from my self I make all of my own decisions and am affected only by those who carry out the consequences of my decision.

I do how ever, believe in luck and to an extent karma. Although because neither can be scientifically proved I am no strong believer. If it can't be proven I don't believe it ;)

Ward Dragon
13-05-10, 18:15
Which is exactly what I said in my post, thank you very much.

Not trying to be argumentative, but this is exactly what you said:

When I think of religions, most have not changed for hundreds and thousands of years (However this is nothing that applies to religion itself. It only applies to the most popular modern-day religions. In the past other religions have proven to be very interchangeable). Their rules are still the same as back then. How the hell do you want to apply rules from 2000 years ago to our modern society?

As far as I know, Christianity would count as one of the "popular modern-day religions" and therefore it sounded like you were saying Christianity is a religion that hasn't changed at all and doesn't allow people to examine their beliefs, so I provided a counter example to show it's not always the case :)

Again, I said that in my post (Granted, I edited it in because I had forgotten it the first time around so you might not have seen it).

Yeah, I started typing my post before the edit so I didn't see it. In any case, sounds like we agree so no need to argue over it :)

Uzi master
13-05-10, 18:39
interesting, personally, though I find god a silly concept and that "magic" should not be an answer, melonie tomb raider, sorry but I think you prov e some reasons on WHY people turn to religion, because they don't know and need some sort of explanation. with science, sure nothing is really 100% confirmed but a concept of it could be, like we combine nutrients from food with oxygen to make energy. Humans crave knowledge and religion stumps that by saying "nope, were right if you disagree your a heretic" at least in the middle ages.

Today may seem better but really it's hidden under the rug, if you ask me.

have an atheist president in the U.S
a Jewish president of france
A Buddhist president of england
and a christian president of saudi arabia then I'll believe people are REALLY accepting.


Sometimes I think I loose my point, so heres a simple question: Why do you ignore the evidence right in front of you?

is it the feeling of acceptance, or being part of something bigger ect.?

or is it that you grew up with your believes and would not dare dissobey it?

irjudd
13-05-10, 18:47
Ah, so you're saying that the Bible uses the word "soul" to refer a living person, not to a spiritual entity that is separate from the body? That makes sense, at least in the quotes you provided. But what about references to Sheol and Gehenna? As I understand it the Bible does mention places that souls go after death.


In its original languages, the Bible uses the Hebrew word she’ohl′ and its Greek equivalent hai′des more than 70 times. Both words are related to death. Some Bible translations render them as “grave,” “hell,” or “pit.”
Consider the case of the righteous man Job, who suffered much. Wishing to escape his plight, he pleaded: "Who will grant me this, that thou mayest protect me in hell (rendered from Sheol), and hide me till thy wrath pass?" (Job 14:13, Douay Version) How unreasonable to think that Job desired to go to a fiery-hot place for protection! To Job, "hell" was simply the grave, where his suffering would end.

Gehenna occurs 12 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures, and it refers to the valley of Hinnom, outside the walls of Jerusalem. When Jesus was on earth, this valley was used as a garbage dump, "where the dead bodies of criminals, and the carcasses of animals, and every other kind of filth was cast." (Smith's Dictionary of the Bible) The fires were kept burning by adding sulfur to burn up the refuse. Jesus used that valley as a proper symbol of everlasting destruction. So in this sense, the soul, that is the entire person, being cast into Gehenna signified death.

Alpharaider47
13-05-10, 19:01
Sometimes I think I loose my point, so heres a simple question: Why do you ignore the evidence right in front of you?

is it the feeling of acceptance, or being part of something bigger ect.?

or is it that you grew up with your believes and would not dare dissobey it?

This may not be exactly relevant to what you said, but you don't have to ignore science to believe in God.

Ward Dragon
13-05-10, 19:07
In its original languages, the Bible uses the Hebrew word she’ohl′ and its Greek equivalent hai′des more than 70 times. Both words are related to death. Some Bible translations render them as “grave,” “hell,” or “pit.”
Consider the case of the righteous man Job, who suffered much. Wishing to escape his plight, he pleaded: "Who will grant me this, that thou mayest protect me in hell (rendered from Sheol), and hide me till thy wrath pass?" (Job 14:13, Douay Version) How unreasonable to think that Job desired to go to a fiery-hot place for protection! To Job, "hell" was simply the grave, where his suffering would end.

I have serious issues with Job but that's a whole other topic XD Relating specifically to what we were discussing, when Job says "hide me till thy wrath pass" that implies to me that Job expects to return from his hiding place once it's safe. If he was referring to the grave, then that would mean resurrection. And of course the obvious cases of Jesus and Lazarus being resurrected. How would a body come back to life after being dead without some form of consciousness which gets preserved regardless of the body decaying?

Gehenna occurs 12 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures, and it refers to the valley of Hinnom, outside the walls of Jerusalem. When Jesus was on earth, this valley was used as a garbage dump, "where the dead bodies of criminals, and the carcasses of animals, and every other kind of filth was cast." (Smith's Dictionary of the Bible) The fires were kept burning by adding sulfur to burn up the refuse. Jesus used that valley as a proper symbol of everlasting destruction. So in this sense, the soul, that is the entire person, being cast into Gehenna signified death.

That's a very interesting interpretation of it. My reading of it was that Gehenna represented Hell, not oblivion. Could the concept of Hell being a lake of fire have to do with the constant fires at Gehenna? Maybe that's where the idea came from, regardless of whether it's a correct interpretation of the metaphor.

Cochrane
13-05-10, 19:28
Interesting discussion. I am wondering whether the concept of a soul really applies to the Bible. Obviously there is some concept of afterlife in this book. There is plenty of resurrection and a promise of eternal life after death, all of which imply that something lives on. Contemporary roman culture, for example, also had an explicit afterlife in the form of Hades and ghosts walking on the earth, and I would be very surprised if that did not influence the writers of the Bible either. In fact, eternal life after a presumably imminent apocalypse was one of the main selling points of the early Christians.

Now, putting this together with the quotes irjudd mentions, I wonder whether the real problem is just that our modern idea of soul was developed after the Bible was written. I have no idea when it was actually developed, but it seems possible to me that the people at the time did not actually see a need for such a distinction.

After all, understanding how a human body works, what death really is, how it works, those are fairly recent discoveries. I could easily imagine that the early christians, as well as their contemporaries, did not make such a clear-cut division between soul and body, and just had a general belief in some form of being still around after death, which was not made explicit in the Bible.

Can someone tell me whether I am completely on the wrong track here? I find it fascinating, but as an Atheist I really don’t have much experience in understanding the Bible.

Alpharaider47
13-05-10, 19:30
Interesting discussion. I am wondering whether the concept of a soul really applies to the Bible. Obviously there is some concept of afterlife in this book. There is plenty of resurrection and a promise of eternal life after death, all of which imply that something lives on. Contemporary roman culture, for example, also had an explicit afterlife in the form of Hades and ghosts walking on the earth, and I would be very surprised if that did not influence the writers of the Bible either. In fact, eternal life after a presumably imminent apocalypse was one of the main selling points of the early Christians.

Now, putting this together with the quotes irjudd mentions, I wonder whether the real problem is just that our modern idea of soul was developed after the Bible was written. I have no idea when it was actually developed, but it seems possible to me that the people at the time did not actually see a need for such a distinction.

After all, understanding how a human body works, what death really is, how it works, those are fairly recent discoveries. I could easily imagine that the early christians, as well as their contemporaries, did not make such a clear-cut division between soul and body, and just had a general belief in some form of being still around after death, which was not made explicit in the Bible.

Can someone tell me whether I am completely on the wrong track here? I find it fascinating, but as an Atheist I really don’t have much experience in understanding the Bible.

You know, that would make a lot of sense because we use the term "soul" to refer to a person or persons as well. Very interesting.

xXhayleyroxXx
13-05-10, 19:55
I know what you mean. I don't know if I do or do not believe in God. I do like to think that there is someone looking over me though.

I read this book called the "Celestine Prophecy" by James Redfield and it goes on about spiritual beliefs and psychological stuff... and this is really what I "believe" in.

I'm terrible with these topics. :hea:

But I will say that if I truly believe in anything, my religious aspect is karma! What goes around comes around!

i totally agree with everything you just said :) I celebrate Christmas and Easter and sign religious songs, and I like to hear people talk about the stories of the bible -- but im just not sure if i believe entirely or not, although I would like to think theres something up there :)

larafan25
13-05-10, 20:13
Great idea for a thread, and great discussion being kept...civil!:)

For me...I rely on science, this is a fact about myself which I find weird as I am so interested in ancient myths and monster and am ready to believe it all in one second, yet I don't believe the stories of religion (Not that they are stories, just..what you read in the bible, so a book I guess, and what it is about).

So ya I lean more towards science but am HUGELY fascinated with religion, I find it so interesting to explore how the world started and the evolution of the human race through the religious teachings, even though I may not believe them I still think they have relevence.:)

Ward Dragon
13-05-10, 20:17
So ya I lean more towards science but am HUGELY fascinated with religion, I find it so interesting to explore how the world started and the evolution of the human race through the religious teachings, even though I may not believe them I still think they have relevence.:)

I'm the same way :) I'm fascinated by the symbolism of different mythological and religious stories. My knowledge of any one particular religion is limited, but I tend to know a lot of random scattered pieces of various different religions :p

larafan25
13-05-10, 20:22
I'm the same way :) I'm fascinated by the symbolism of different mythological and religious stories. My knowledge of any one particular religion is limited, but I tend to know a lot of random scattered pieces of various different religions :p

I am the same, I do not know much about religion as a hole and how each type of religion comes into play, I just know snippets.

I have tried to read the bible but I found it hard, like reading shakspear, it's like reading a different language.

I don't even know how many bibles there are, I have heard some are changed or different versions, and this would make sense, but then how do we know which bible we are talking about.

I have now confused myself. :pi:

Cochrane
13-05-10, 20:27
I am the same, I do not know much about religion as a hole and how each type of religion comes into play, I just know snippets.

I have tried to read the bible but I found it hard, like reading shakspear, it's like reading a different language.

I don't even know how many bibles there are, I have heard some are changed or different versions, and this would make sense, but then how do we know which bible we are talking about.

I have now confused myself. :pi:

Then read this version: http://www.thebricktestament.com/ Very irreverent, but also very funny. :D

Catracoth
13-05-10, 21:54
I do not believe in there being a God sitting up beyond the galaxies watching over us - I believe purely in scientific reasons for they make the most sense to me and I get instant answers, not the usual "You must have faith" malarkey you're fed by the Catholic church.

Just don't ask me how I think life began - I haven't the foggiest.

Mad Tony
13-05-10, 22:06
have an atheist president in the U.S
a Jewish president of france
A Buddhist president of england
and a christian president of saudi arabia then I'll believe people are REALLY accepting.These things shouldn't have to happen before these countries are considered accepting. It almost implies that you think in future people should elect an atheist as president in the US for example just for the sack of that man or woman being atheist.

Also, Saudi Arabia and England don't have presidents.

larafan25
13-05-10, 22:27
Then read this version: http://www.thebricktestament.com/ Very irreverent, but also very funny. :D

Interesting, I'll check this out :pi:

Thanks!:)

TRfan23
13-05-10, 22:43
Then read this version: http://www.thebricktestament.com/ Very irreverent, but also very funny. :D

I can't stop being in hysterics to some of the illustrations on there :D

My school even used that site for education in RE.

Archetype
13-05-10, 22:46
People often confuse religion with God.

Gregori
13-05-10, 23:22
Most everyone here knows my beliefs. I'm a Christian, and I don't believe our world randomly happened to existence. Just like an extravagant painting needs a painter and a fancy sport scar needs a builder, the universe, which is beyond more detailed than any of those, could not have come into existence without a creator. It doesn't make sense.

If you dropped buckets of paint on a canvas over, and over, and over, you could never recreate the Mona Lisa. I don't care if you tried millions upon billions of times, it would be ridiculous to think that such a work of art could randomly be made like that, with so much detail! Just the same, there's no way a mind bogglingly detailed universe can sprout from a random explosion. I don't consider that to be scientific, but more so, downright silly.


The processes that make life and planets appear are not truly "random" but are subject to laws of physics that make certain combinations of matter survive and others are selected against.

If you tossed the paint enough times, eventually, the statistics would favor something like the Mona Lisa appearing some of the time. Its just a matter of time.

And in life, the dice has been thrown so many trillions of times for a period of over 4.5 Billion years. Venus is too Hot. Mars is too cold. Earth is just right.

Its just like the patterns in clouds. People see things that are not really there.

A whole human being comes from one single cell dividing millions of times
without the intervention of any designer!!! Babies grow ALL by themselves
because the chemicals they're made of have all the instructions for what the whole baby will be like.

http://paranormalteam.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/face_on_mars1.jpg


http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/ImStarBirth/horsehead.jpg

silver_wolf
14-05-10, 00:39
A whole human being comes from one single cell dividing millions of times
without the intervention of any designer!!! Babies grow ALL by themselves
because the chemicals they're made of have all the instructions for what the whole baby will be like.
But where did those instructions come from? I'm not talking the parents, either. You look at the very basic components of life and you see there's nothing basic about them. They're complex machines with intricate working parts that would be useless if just one part was missing. If they developed over time through trial and error, then all life would have died out long before it could have gotten around to the right formula. You see a car or a watch, you don't think it's something natural that just happened together. You can see the intelligence, the design behind it. Same goes for life.

Apathetic
14-05-10, 00:40
I do not believe in there being a God sitting up beyond the galaxies watching over us - I believe purely in scientific reasons for they make the most sense to me and I get instant answers, not the usual "You must have faith" malarkey you're fed by the Catholic church.

Just don't ask me how I think life began - I haven't the foggiest.

:tmb:

silver_wolf
14-05-10, 00:44
"Science" is just as much of a faith as religion. You believe these ideas because people came up with them based on other ideas that people before them came up with based on other ideas, and so on. They may offer so many explanations and theoretical models, but in the end it's all that- theoretical.

CiaKonwerski
14-05-10, 00:48
I am not officially "Christian", but I do indeed believe in God. I pray, etc. I try to follow the Christian beliefs etc. I do believe that there are other life forms we do not know about and uncontrollable forces we just do not understand.

silver_wolf
14-05-10, 00:49
What would you say separates you from "official" Christians, if you believe the same things?

CiaKonwerski
14-05-10, 00:56
I do not completely agree with many in the things that the Bible says. I do not think that gay people are sinner, nor do I think any of the other negative things about people that the Bible intels etc.etc. Many other things. To me, those are non-Christian like.

Gregori
14-05-10, 00:57
But where did those instructions come from? I'm not talking the parents, either. You look at the very basic components of life and you see there's nothing basic about them. They're complex machines with intricate working parts that would be useless if just one part was missing. If they developed over time through trial and error, then all life would have died out long before it could have gotten around to the right formula. You see a car or a watch, you don't think it's something natural that just happened together. You can see the intelligence, the design behind it. Same goes for life.

Everything came from very simple single celled organisms, that accumulated
useful mutations. It took BILLIONS of years to go from single celled organisms to multi celled creatures. The failed mutations just didn't survive.
In this process, many life forms did die before getting to right formula!!
If you role the dice trillions of times, it will eventually come up with 2 sixes,
and this right combination only need to happen once for something to stick.

Some mutations aren't a benefit to you, but they also won't kill you immediately. Its why we have an appendix, a totally useless organ. There are thousands of horrible genetic disorders, yet people survive with them.

Cars and watches are made in a totally different way to how organisms are made. They're cut from metal. They don't "grow" the way an organism grows
by cells subdividing. Completely different to life.

A more likely explanation of life than intelligent design is Malignant Design!!!
And there is plenty of evidence for it. All the suffering in the world. All the
diseases, genetic disorders, animals eating animals, viruses, bacteria, pain, plagues, natural disasters etc etc

aktrekker
14-05-10, 01:08
Everything came from very simple single celled organisms, that accumulated
useful mutations. It took BILLIONS of years to go from single celled organisms to multi celled creatures. The failed mutations just didn't survive.
In this process, many life forms did die before getting to right formula!!
If you role the dice trillions of times, it will eventually come up with 2 sixes,
and this right combination only need to happen once for something to stick.

People misunderstand probability. Just because something is probable, even overwhelmingly probable, does not mean it absolutely will happen. There is a chance that if you roll the dice a trillion times you will never get those 2 sixes.
And the right combination might have to happen more than once. There is no guarantee that the first organism will survive and reproduce.

Some mutations aren't a benefit to you, but they also won't kill you immediately. Its why we have an appendix, a totally useless organ. There are thousands of horrible genetic disorders, yet people survive with them.

As I've posted before, the appendix is not useless. That is a fallacy of evolutionists. It has been proven to create useful bacteria that help with digestion.

A more likely explanation of life than intelligent design is Malignant Design!!!
And there is plenty of evidence for it. All the suffering in the world. All the
diseases, genetic disorders, animals eating animals, viruses, bacteria, pain, plagues, natural disasters etc etc
So you would blame our condition on a creator (designer)? We have created the conditions under which we live. It is our own "evil nature" that has made the Earth a living hell for so many. You only have to read the news to realize this.

silver_wolf
14-05-10, 01:09
Everything came from very simple single celled organisms, that accumulated
useful mutations. It took BILLIONS of years to go from single celled organisms to multi celled creatures. The failed mutations just didn't survive.
In this process, many life forms did die before getting to right formula!!
If you role the dice trillions of times, it will eventually come up with 2 sixes,
and this right combination only need to happen once for something to stick.

Some mutations aren't a benefit to you, but they also won't kill you immediately. Its why we have an appendix, a totally useless organ. There are thousands of horrible genetic disorders, yet people survive with them.

Cars and watches are made in a totally different way to how organisms are made. They're cut from metal. They don't "grow" the way an organism grows
by cells subdividing. Completely different to life.

A more likely explanation of life than intelligent design is Malignant Design!!!
And there is plenty of evidence for it. All the suffering in the world. All the
diseases, genetic disorders, animals eating animals, viruses, bacteria, pain, plagues, natural disasters etc etc
The appendix does (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21153898/) actually have a function.
The odds of all the varieties of complex life that we see evolving are so astronomical it's barely worth considering. If life did form through macro evolution, I think we'd see very few complex lifeforms today. And cars and watches- machines are actually very much like complex organisms. They are formed from different pieces that are put together through instructions. IN the same way life forms from millions of parts through the instructions written in DNA. The question is, where did those instructions come from? Mutations cannot write new information in DNA. They can switch around, duplicate, or eliminate sequences, but the DNA of a microbe cannot spontaneously mutate the instructions for an exoskeleton just because the situation calls for it- not without an intelligent force behind it.

Alpharaider47
14-05-10, 01:10
So you would blame our condition on a creator (designer)? We have created the conditions under which we live. It is our own "evil nature" that has made the Earth a living hell for so many. You only have to read the news to realize this.

I agree with aktrekker here, God did not create the Atomic Bomb. Man did.

Gregori
14-05-10, 01:16
People misunderstand probability. Just because something is probable, even overwhelmingly probable, does not mean it absolutely will happen. There is a chance that if you roll the dice a trillion times you will never get those 2 sixes.
And the right combination might have to happen more than once. There is no guarantee that the first organism will survive and reproduce.

the probability of not rolling two sixes after a trillion times is so small its not worth thinking about. You misunderstand probability.

As I've posted before, the appendix is not useless. That is a fallacy of evolutionists. It has been proven to create useful bacteria that help with digestion.

You can live perfectly normal life without it. Its evolved from a totally different organ from our ancestors.


So you would blame our condition on a creator (designer)? We have created the conditions under which we live. It is our own "evil nature" that has made the Earth a living hell for so many. You only have to read the news to realize this. Humans didn't invent Cancer, Genetic diseases, Viruses, pain, animals eating animals, volcanos, tornadoes, asteroids and all the other cruelty that we see in nature!!! If there is a creator, they are surely responsible for their defective designs.

silver_wolf
14-05-10, 01:21
You can live perfectly normal life without it. Its evolved from a totally different organ from our ancestors.And what organ might that be?
The entire argument of "A is similar to B, so it must have evolved from B" is completely irrelevant. Similarities between organisms is just as much evidence for a common creator as it is for evolution.

aktrekker
14-05-10, 01:22
Probability is not certainty. And probability can never disprove something (as in your example). That is the misunderstanding.

If natural forces created cancer, diseases, etc then it would seem that life is self-destructive. This reduces the chances that life could ever occur and survive. The argument is self-defeating.

silver_wolf
14-05-10, 01:26
And religion does have an answer for "natural" harmful forces, at least mine does. It was man's fault. Basically, the world is deteriorating from the perfect state it used to exist in. Weather systems are becoming more severe, bacteria and microbes are turning harmful, human DNA is falling apart.

Gregori
14-05-10, 01:30
The odds of all the varieties of complex life that we see evolving are so astronomical it's barely worth considering.
The probability is actually 1!!

If life did form through macro evolution, I think we'd see very few complex lifeforms today. We do. They're called Humans, Crocodiles, Mammals, Birds, Bees etc etc They're all very complex.

Of course that wasn't always the case. The fossil record show that life for most of its existence on Earth was very simple for about 3 Billion years.
For most of time, life consisted of single celled organisms with short strands of DNA.

The fossil record also shows there used to more primitive species of humans
before Homo Sapiens arrived on the scene.

And cars and watches- machines are actually very much like complex organisms. They are formed from different pieces that are put together through instructions. IN the same way life forms from millions of parts through the instructions written in DNA.

You can't grow a car the way you can grow a baby or a beautiful tree.
I wish you could, but you can't.


The question is, where did those instructions come from? Mutations cannot write new information in DNA.They definitely can.

They can switch around, duplicate, or eliminate sequences, but the DNA of a microbe cannot spontaneously mutate the instructions for an exoskeleton just because the situation calls for it- not without an intelligent force behind it Requires no intelligent force, just switching on and off genes, or new genes being created though mutation.

Ward Dragon
14-05-10, 01:36
If natural forces created cancer, diseases, etc then it would seem that life is self-destructive. This reduces the chances that life could ever occur and survive. The argument is self-defeating.

But those bacteria, viruses, etc. are working in their own best interests and propagating themselves. It doesn't matter that their actions hurt humans because humans aren't some perfect end result that must be preserved. The argument isn't self defeating at all -- it's pure logic based upon all of the available evidence that we have.

silver_wolf
14-05-10, 01:42
The probability is actually 1!!
1? Really? How do you figure?
We do. They're called Humans, Crocodiles, Mammals, Birds, Bees etc etc They're all very complex.

Of course that wasn't always the case. The fossil record show that life for most of its existence on Earth was very simple for about 3 Billion years.
For most of time, life consisted of single celled organisms with short strands of DNA.

The fossil record also shows there used to more primitive species of humans
before Homo Sapiens arrived on the scene.
You know, the funny thing about the fossil record, is that what it means is all based off your assumptions. You assume it formed over billions of years through the slow geological processes we see today, then sure it'll look like that. But that's simply not possible- fossils only form if the dead organism is buried beneath sediment- wet sediment- almost immediately. It can't be a slow process, or the organism will rot before fossilization can take place. So either everything lived under water for billions of years, or something else happened.
You can't grow a car the way you can grow a baby or a beautiful tree.
I wish you could, but you can't.
Of course you can't "grow" it, it's not biological. But they're both incredibly complex constructions. You claim the baby- humans- came to be what they are now by random mutations. By that reasoning, if I take metal parts and shake 'em in a box, eventually I'll get a BMW.
They definitely can.
No, they can't. An organism that has never had anything like a pair of lungs can't suddenly develop the information required to grow even a basic lung-like organ because there's no precedent- nowhere in its DNA was there anything remotely like it.
Requires no intelligent force, just switching on and off genes, or new genes being created though mutation.
You have a better chance of floating outside out galaxy, firing a bullet at earth, and hitting the bullseye of a target the size of that bullet on earth. The explanation of random chance is unnecessarily implausible- so much so to be impossible. The simpler reason- that something planned and created this incredibly variety of life which we only barely understand- is much more likely.

Ward Dragon
14-05-10, 02:02
1? Really? How do you figure?

A probability of 1 means that something is 100% certain. We can see that life exists, therefore the probability of life existing is 1.

You have a better chance of floating outside out galaxy, firing a bullet at earth, and hitting the bullseye of a target the size of that bullet on earth. The explanation of random chance is unnecessarily implausible- so much so to be impossible. The simpler reason- that something planned and created this incredibly variety of life which we only barely understand- is much more likely.

That's the issue -- to continue the analogy, the gun is not aimed specifically at Earth. The gun is fired into the universe and there are so many planets that it's bound to hit something. Earth just happens to be the one that got hit.

irjudd
14-05-10, 02:07
But the real issue is, would the combustion chamber of said gun actually fire in space?

Gregori
14-05-10, 02:07
1? Really? How do you figure?
Probability is 1, because life exists!!!

You know, the funny thing about the fossil record, is that what it means is all based off your assumptions. You assume it formed over billions of years through the slow geological processes we see today, then sure it'll look like that. But that's simply not possible- fossils only form if the dead organism is buried beneath sediment- wet sediment- almost immediately. It can't be a slow process, or the organism will rot before fossilization can take place. So either everything lived under water for billions of years, or something else happened.
Fossil rarely happen, but after billions of animals dying, one of them eventually is fossilized. And of course there are insects trapped in amber
and millions of fossils that show more simple life forms preceding the more complex ones. The whole fossil record show this pattern,


Of course you can't "grow" it, it's not biological. But they're both incredibly complex constructions. You claim the baby- humans- came to be what they are now by random mutations. By that reasoning, if I take metal parts and shake 'em in a box, eventually I'll get a BMW.
How a BMW is artificially constructed is nothing like how chemicals react with each other to form organisms. The mutations are not exactly random.
Certain mutations stick, because they are either useful or they don't decrease the life forms ability to survive an reproduce.


No, they can't. An organism that has never had anything like a pair of lungs can't suddenly develop the information required to grow even a basic lung-like organ because there's no precedent- nowhere in its DNA was there anything remotely like it.

Yes they can!! Its not sudden, its gradual. Thats the key point. It takes multiple generations for anything as complex as lungs to evolve.
All organs come from an accumulation of mutations that cause simple structures to become more complicated over thousands and millions of years.

There are just too many examples to contrary to mention. Velociraptors having bird like feathers, Archeopteryx, the transition form spineless animals to animals with a simple backbone, woolly mammoths, all the fossils of humanoid species....Genetic experiments show that changing a single gene can turn off an animals ability to grow legs or cause it to grow multiple legs and wings.....


You have a better chance of floating outside out galaxy, firing a bullet at earth, and hitting the bullseye of a target the size of that bullet on earth. The explanation of random chance is unnecessarily implausible- so much so to be impossible. The simpler reason- that something planned and created this incredibly variety of life which we only barely understand- is much more likely.

That reasoning falls hollow, because if there is a "creator", who created this creator? A being capable of creating all life in the universe must be much
more complicated than any human being!! Who created such a complex being. Who created the creator of the creator..... and so on

Ward Dragon
14-05-10, 02:10
^ Very well said :tmb: I'm kind of tired and couldn't think how to coherently say all of that but you did an excellent job.

But the real issue is, would the combustion chamber of said gun actually fire in space?

Dead Space says no :p (The Flamethrower doesn't work in the vacuum sections XD)

irjudd
14-05-10, 02:14
That reasoning falls hollow, because if there is a "creator", who created this creator? A being capable of creating all life in the universe must be much
more complicated than any human being!! Who created such a complex being. Who created the creator of the creator..... and so on
But that's assuming that this is the only plane of existence. Physical creatures know nothing different than that everything has a beginning and an end. But this Creator wouldn't be a physical being, so why would it be subjected to physical laws?

Alpharaider47
14-05-10, 02:15
But that's assuming that this is the only plane of existence. Physical creatures know nothing different than that everything has a beginning and an end. But this Creator wouldn't be a physical being, so why would it be subjected to physical laws?

That's a really good point right there.

Ward Dragon
14-05-10, 02:17
But that's assuming that this is the only plane of existence. Physical creatures know nothing different than that everything has a beginning and an end. But this Creator wouldn't be a physical being, so why would it be subjected to physical laws?

So God is an infinite loop? :pi: I'm trying to wrap my mind around this and I can't see any other way of interpreting your statement, so what am I missing?

irjudd
14-05-10, 02:20
So God is an infinite loop? :pi: I'm trying to wrap my mind around this and I can't see any other way of interpreting your statement, so what am I missing?
Assume that the spirit realm is beyond our physical universe. An infinite loop (as is time and space) is also a physical concept that man can relate to, so that wouldn't apply either.

Gregori
14-05-10, 02:22
It must have some physical component in order to interact with our universe, some laws that govern and make up the intelligence of the being.

I don't see how this really justifies a creator anymore than the universe just existing.

Ward Dragon
14-05-10, 02:25
Assume that the spirit realm is beyond our physical universe. An infinite loop (as is time and space) is also a physical concept that man can relate to, so that wouldn't apply either.

Then what does apply? And would these spirit realm beings be subject to physical laws if they entered our realm?

irjudd
14-05-10, 02:28
Then what does apply? And would these spirit realm beings be subject to physical laws if they entered our realm?
I'd liken it a little closer to the concept of the universe having infinite dimensions. The only things that man knows of that has no apparent end are time and space, yet we accept (for now) that this is so. However, what we can't accept is time and space having no beginning, being "always was". That's a concept nobody can grasp, so we fight to figure out when and how it began. I think that the spirit realm has a completely different set of laws governing it than the physical realm does. What we consider "time" and "space" may either not exist, or may be very different things. To the physical being, the spirit realm is intangible. But to the spirit being, perhaps it isn't so in the reverse.

Gregori
14-05-10, 02:30
Its intangible because its imaginary!

irjudd
14-05-10, 02:37
Ok, I can appreciate and understand that you believe that, but it's not conducive to an interesting discussion. To me that's exactly as closed-minded and boring as saying "It's so because God said so."

Gregori
14-05-10, 02:41
I just see no evidence of a "spirit world"....

I think an intelligent being would have to be made out of components and subject to some physical laws. Maybe they're not the same physical laws as our universe...

If there need to be a creator for life on earth, then anything as complex as a being that could create the universe is likely trillions of times more complicated than a human being's mind. If that being is eternal... life can be eternal too, and need no creator

silver_wolf
14-05-10, 02:45
But that's assuming that this is the only plane of existence. Physical creatures know nothing different than that everything has a beginning and an end. But this Creator wouldn't be a physical being, so why would it be subjected to physical laws?
I was going to say as much, but thank you. God is not a he or a she or even an it; "He" is beyond human comprehension, something that exists outside of the furthest reaches of our understanding. Only such a being could create a world like this.

So God is an infinite loop? :pi: I'm trying to wrap my mind around this and I can't see any other way of interpreting your statement, so what am I missing?
That's just it; you can't wrap your head around it because we are constrained to this physical existence. God is not.

It must have some physical component in order to interact with our universe, some laws that govern and make up the intelligence of the being.

I don't see how this really justifies a creator anymore than the universe just existing.
You're not getting it. It only need to have physical components to interact with our world if it exists on the same plane. Think of a computer. Inside is a whole separate cyber world, one which we don't exist on. But we can manipulate it through physical means. They have "cyber" impacts, but we aren't "cyber" beings.
I just see no evidence of a "spirit world"....

I think an intelligent being would have to be made out of components and subject to some physical laws. Maybe they're not the same physical laws as our universe...

If there need to be a creator for life on earth, then anything as complex as a being that could create the universe is likely trillions of times more complicated than a human being's mind. If that being is eternal... life can be eternal too, and need no creator
You've hit on a couple points here. First, there's plenty of evidence for a spirit world: all throughout history people have had contact with angels, demons, spirits, whatever you want to call them. Their testimony is evidence in itself. Is it all true? No, but some of it most certainly is. The problem today is that people are taught to believe that if our smartest minds can't understand it, then it can't exist. The ancients understood and accepted that things are beyond our understanding, and they were smarter for it.
Second, well, I already addressed the whole physical problem.
Third, you are absolutely correct. Life can be eternal. Humans are not the physical bodies we see every day, we're the "essence" or soul or whatever you want to call it. That is immortal. What happens to it for all eternity is another matter.

Gregori
14-05-10, 02:48
You're not getting it. It only need to have physical components to interact with our world if it exists on the same plane. Think of a computer. Inside is a whole separate cyber world, one which we don't exist on. But we can manipulate it through physical means. They have "cyber" impacts, but we aren't "cyber" beings.

You're not getting it. The computer is made of the same atoms that we are. We're subject to the same laws as the computer is.

Draco
14-05-10, 02:49
As far as I'm concerned religion is a distraction from progressive thinking.

silver_wolf
14-05-10, 02:53
That sort of thinking is a distraction from progressive thinking. Religion and science do not need to be at odds. Science has just taken it upon itself recently to eliminate God from the equation, to elevate man and nature to a position they can never fulfill. Science these days, as far as dealing w/ the origins of life and whatnot, is not true science. True science forms theories around observations. Today's science does not; it approaches the observations with the bias that there can be no God and constructs theories within those limits. Therefore the theories are flawed, constantly rewritten, never successfully explaining much of anything. True science can come to the conclusion that there is a higher being. The greatest thinkers in human history, such as Plato and Aristotle, reached the same conclusion.

Ward Dragon
14-05-10, 02:54
I'd liken it a little closer to the concept of the universe having infinite dimensions. The only things that man knows of that has no apparent end are time and space, yet we accept (for now) that this is so. However, what we can't accept is time and space having no beginning, being "always was". That's a concept nobody can grasp, so we fight to figure out when and how it began.

But based on background radiation and the rate of expansion of the universe, people have estimated the age of the universe. If we can tell how old it is based upon these factors, then we can tell when the beginning was. It's measurable, and maybe in a few centuries technology will be able to take even more precise measurements and come up with a more accurate estimate.

I think that the spirit realm has a completely different set of laws governing it than the physical realm does. What we consider "time" and "space" may either not exist, or may be very different things. To the physical being, the spirit realm is intangible. But to the spirit being, perhaps it isn't so in the reverse.

But if a spirit being actually entered the physical realm then wouldn't that being also be subject to the laws of physics? And this implies that there is an entire realm full of such beings, so how can anyone tell which one created the universe let alone what the motivations were? Maybe we're a videogame for a bored spirit child, or an experiment for the school science fair.

Regardless of how everything started, the universe does appear to have consistent rules governing energy flow, how particles react with each other, basically what we try to discover through chemistry and physics. The world, along with all life on it, is the logical conclusion of those natural forces acting over billions of years. Whether it was started off by a spirit being or not, whether it was intended to be this way or not, this is how it is. Evolution is the net result of the changes to a population caused by natural selection acting upon living organisms for countless generations. It can be seen in the fossil record, and for organisms with a short enough life span it can even be seen in the lab (for example, this 21-year long study with E. coli (http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=evolution-details-revealed-through-2009-10-18) showed how the population evolved over the course of 40,000 generations).

Draco
14-05-10, 02:55
That sort of thinking is a distraction from progressive thinking. Religion and science do not need to be at odds. Science has just taken it upon itself recently to eliminate God from the equation, to elevate man and nature to a position they can never fulfill. Science these days, as far as dealing w/ the origins of life and whatnot, is not true science. True science forms theories around observations. Today's science does not; it approaches the observations with the bias that there can be no God and constructs theories within those limits. Therefore the theories are flawed, constantly rewritten, never successfully explaining much of anything. True science can come to the conclusion that there is a higher being. The greatest thinkers in human history, such as Plato and Aristotle, reached the same conclusion.

And what does religion have to do with there being a god or not.

silver_wolf
14-05-10, 03:03
But if a spirit being actually entered the physical realm then wouldn't that being also be subject to the laws of physics? And this implies that there is an entire realm full of such beings, so how can anyone tell which one created the universe let alone what the motivations were? Maybe we're a videogame for a bored spirit child, or an experiment for the school science fair.

Regardless of how everything started, the universe does appear to have consistent rules governing energy flow, how particles react with each other, basically what we try to discover through chemistry and physics. The world, along with all life on it, is the logical conclusion of those natural forces acting over billions of years. Whether it was started off by a spirit being or not, whether it was intended to be this way or not, this is how it is. Evolution is the net result of the changes to a population caused by natural selection acting upon living organisms for countless generations. It can be seen in the fossil record, and for organisms with a short enough life span it can even be seen in the lab (for example, this 21-year long study with E. coli (http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=evolution-details-revealed-through-2009-10-18) showed how the population evolved over the course of 40,000 generations).
To the first part, if we don't understand anything about the spirit world, then we can't really assume anything either. There's no reason why they would be subject to our laws. To the second part, yes there are laws and yes there is evolution but on a smaller scale. It's simply a process that allows organisms to adapt, not create new species. And all the rules governing the universe are so complex they have to have been created. Again, consider rules written into a computer program. If a bunch of coding were randomly generated it would be chaos, nothing would do anything. But add an intelligent aspect and that chaos can be rewritten into order, and maintained.
And what does religion have to do with there being a god or not.
God and religion are intertwined. To think otherwise is nothing but idiotic new-age wishy-washiness.

Draco
14-05-10, 03:05
God and religion are intertwined. To think otherwise is nothing but idiotic new-age wihy-washiness.

And you religion is right of course, and all the others are wrong right?

Don't call me an idiot unless you mean it... and can defend it.

silver_wolf
14-05-10, 03:09
You're obviously a scientific person. In science there is only one correct answer, no matter how many different theories there are. Religion is no different- there's only one correct one. It's not pleasant, but it's the truth. And of course I believe mine is the only true one, or I wouldn't believe in it. Again, not pleasant, but true. And I wasn't calling you an idiot specifically. But people choose to disassociate God from religion for many reasons.

Gregori
14-05-10, 03:11
You've hit on a couple points here. First, there's plenty of evidence for a spirit world: all throughout history people have had contact with angels, demons, spirits, whatever you want to call them. Their testimony is evidence in itself. Is it all true? No, but some of it most certainly is.
There is zero certainty that any of that is true. For all we know, those people could have had serious mental illnesses. I myself have had hallucinations.
People have dreams all the time that seem to have "messages". Some people
are even liars.



The problem today is that people are taught to believe that if our smartest minds can't understand it, then it can't exist. The ancients understood and accepted that things are beyond our understanding, and they were smarter for it.

The ancients believed in a lot of crazy superstitious things that resulted in no progress for humanity. Thank jaysus we got out of that period of time and into 20th Century.

Actually trying to understand the universe and not leaving it up to superstition resulted in computers,medicine, cures to horrible diseases, space travel, improved agriculture cars, mobile phones, breast cancer screening, X rays, airplane, refrigerators,heart surgery, computer games, nuclear power, electricity, hubble space telescope, MRI, epileptic drugs, life support machines, gas cookers and the endless list of things the "ancients" who were so smart, didn't have!!

Because something is supposedly beyond our comprehension does not justify its existence at all. The universe could be ruled by Barnie the dinosaur. There is no evidence for this, but it can be justified by saying " don't look folks, its beyond our comprehension!!" Its just a cheap ploy to justify any product of our imaginations.



Third, you are absolutely correct. Life can be eternal. Humans are not the physical bodies we see every day, we're the "essence" or soul or whatever you want to call it. That is immortal. What happens to it for all eternity is another matter. There is no evidence of an immortal soul, or that there is any component of us that is separate from our physical bodies


You're obviously a scientific person. In science there is only one correct answer, no matter how many different theories there are. Religion is no different- there's only one correct one. It's not pleasant, but it's the truth. And of course I believe mine is the only true one, or I wouldn't believe in it. Again, not pleasant, but true. And I wasn't calling you an idiot specifically. But people choose to disassociate God from religion for many reasons.

There is the obvious possibility that NO religions are the correct one, that they are all wrong.

interstellardave
14-05-10, 03:12
Religion needs God; God does not need religion. I'm too tired to expand on that; just think about it awhile while I retire for the evening. :p

Draco
14-05-10, 03:14
You're obviously a scientific person. In science there is only one correct answer, no matter how many different theories there are. Religion is no different- there's only one correct one. It's not pleasant, but it's the truth. And of course I believe mine is the only true one, or I wouldn't believe in it. Again, not pleasant, but true. And I wasn't calling you an idiot specifically. But people choose to disassociate God from religion for many reasons.

At least science can base its convictions on facts and reality. All religions can do is compete for the most outrageous ritual and follower count.

silver_wolf
14-05-10, 03:24
At least science can base its convictions on facts and reality. All religions can do is compete for the most outrageous ritual and follower count.
Let me guess, you had a bad experience with religion, right? Maybe you used to belong to one, but you didn't like the way things were run. So you do your best to present religion in the most cynical way possible. Science is nothing but the musings of organisms that are nowhere near as smart as they think they are. It does a lot of good, but it's not the answer to everything.
There is zero certainty that any of that is true. For all we know, those people could have had serious mental illnesses. I myself have had hallucinations.
People have dreams all the time that seem to have "messages". Some people
are even liars.




The ancients believed in a lot of crazy superstitious things that resulted in no progress for humanity. Thank jaysus we got out of that period of time and into 20th Century.

Actually trying to understand the universe and not leaving it up to superstition resulted in computers,medicine, cures to horrible diseases, space travel, improved agriculture cars, mobile phones, breast cancer screening, X rays, airplane, refrigerators,heart surgery, computer games, nuclear power, electricity, hubble space telescope, MRI, epileptic drugs, life support machines, gas cookers and the endless list of things the "ancients" who were so smart, didn't have!!

Because something is supposedly beyond our comprehension does not justify its existence at all. The universe could be ruled by Barnie the dinosaur. There is no evidence for this, but it can be justified by saying " don't look folks, its beyond our comprehension!!" Its just a cheap ploy to justify any product of our imaginations.


There is no evidence of an immortal soul, or that there is any component of us that is separate from our physical bodies




There is the obvious possibility that NO religions are the correct one, that they are all wrong.
I have absolutely nothing against the advancement of science. I have no problem with trying to understand the universe. What I have a problem with is the arrogance of people who think they can out think generations of humans who have all reached the same conclusion- there is something bigger than us. Not just nature, but something beyond it. Every single person knows this at one point in their life, unless it's squashed out for whatever reason.

Now I can see this is going to get nowhere. It's not my job to convince you, but God knows I try (for whatever reason). You're in His hands.

Gregori
14-05-10, 03:27
Emmmmmmm ....

What God?

silver_wolf
14-05-10, 03:30
Yeah. I'm sad for you, I really am. How empty is your life, believing that this world is all there is? What do you have but physical things that inevitably decay and disappear? I am genuinely sorry for you.

Uzi master
14-05-10, 03:33
Religion needs God; God does not need religion. I'm too tired to expand on that; just think about it awhile while I retire for the evening. :p

Obviously you've never heard of BUDHISM a little religion that has NO god, buhda isn't a god;)

Yeah. I'm sad for you, I really am. How empty is your life, believing that this world is all there is? What do you have but physical things that inevitably decay and disappear? I am genuinely sorry for you.

the reason for religion for most people, they dont notice whats around them, the beuty of nature, the wonder of birth. loving families, pets, you I feel sorry for, as I see you cant find happiness on earth you need to beleive in something bigger so you ignore the world, you ignore what could be by foccussing on some unseen un-proven force that possibly does not exist. sorry but that was too personal for this, or any place and you obviously want to convert him "bad experience" like not being forced into church right? I think I am similer to him in this sence, but my mother always sayed I should choose what I think is right, seeing evidence seems right too me.

P.S. the world you refer too, do you meen earth? if you do there are maney other worlds

silver_wolf
14-05-10, 03:35
Buddhism isn't really a religion, is it? More like a philosophy. True Buddhism, anyway.

Ward Dragon
14-05-10, 03:36
To the first part, if we don't understand anything about the spirit world, then we can't really assume anything either. There's no reason why they would be subject to our laws.

Is not religion an assumption of how it works?

To the second part, yes there are laws and yes there is evolution but on a smaller scale. It's simply a process that allows organisms to adapt, not create new species.

I feel a sense of deja vu so we've probably had this discussion before :p Anyway, macroevolution is the logical result of microevolution taking place over thousands and thousands of generations, billions of years. Of course this wouldn't be a convincing argument if one considers the world to be 6,000 years old, but that raises a whole new string of questions since we have written records from ancient civilizations going back even farther than 6,000 years.

And all the rules governing the universe are so complex they have to have been created. Again, consider rules written into a computer program. If a bunch of coding were randomly generated it would be chaos, nothing would do anything. But add an intelligent aspect and that chaos can be rewritten into order, and maintained.

But God would have to be even more complex, so then God must have been created too. That means we've got an even bigger God who made the little God that made the universe, and it just keeps going up the chain ad infinitum. The only way out of that chain is if God somehow just exists, in which case why can't that explanation apply to the universe itself?

God and religion are intertwined. To think otherwise is nothing but idiotic new-age wishy-washiness.

I think this concept is an attempt for people to have faith in God without being constrained by traditional rituals or dogmatic beliefs which they see in organized religion.

Draco
14-05-10, 03:40
Let me guess, you had a bad experience with religion, right? Maybe you used to belong to one, but you didn't like the way things were run. So you do your best to present religion in the most cynical way possible. Science is nothing but the musings of organisms that are nowhere near as smart as they think they are. It does a lot of good, but it's not the answer to everything.

You just described religion. Science is observation of what actually is observable.

Uzi master
14-05-10, 03:43
Buddhism isn't really a religion, is it? More like a philosophy. True Buddhism, anyway.

um, yes. I live next to a buhdist temple (long story...) so I should know. I won't go through it all now.

read the rest of my post?

Gregori
14-05-10, 03:46
Yeah. I'm sad for you, I really am. How empty is your life, believing that this world is all there is? What do you have but physical things that inevitably decay and disappear? I am genuinely sorry for you.


I feel perfectly happy existing as I am. My life is full. I don't claim to know the answers to everything. I've a wonderful family and friends who love me. I have my Art!!! I am constantly questioning reality and thinking creatively.

On the contrary I feel sad for you.I don't need an invisible man to give my life meaning. Sure I will decay and disappear, but being clingy and attachments are not good for the soul. In the end and if you're going to disappear, might as well go out with a bang. I can live life knowing its not permanent and its perfectly fine. I'll leave a beautiful corpse, maybe a fossil that future generations will study and wonder who that was!!

Draco
14-05-10, 03:47
um, yes. I live next to a buhdist temple (long story...) so I should know. I won't go through it all now.

read the rest of my post?

I'll help a little.

Religions don't need a god to exist, religions are a system of beliefs and convictions, not a spiritual treatise. Some religions are more about rituals than spiritualism, which removes them from the point of spirituality.

Bhuddism is one of the purist religions on the planet as far as 'getting the point of it'.

silver_wolf
14-05-10, 03:49
You just described religion. Science is observation of what actually is observable.
Oh, yes, like how new, more advanced species of previous ones are forming today? Where do we see that happen?
Is not religion an assumption of how it works?



I feel a sense of deja vu so we've probably had this discussion before :p Anyway, macroevolution is the logical result of microevolution taking place over thousands and thousands of generations, billions of years. Of course this wouldn't be a convincing argument if one considers the world to be 6,000 years old, but that raises a whole new string of questions since we have written records from ancient civilizations going back even farther than 6,000 years.



But God would have to be even more complex, so then God must have been created too. That means we've got an even bigger God who made the little God that made the universe, and it just keeps going up the chain ad infinitum. The only way out of that chain is if God somehow just exists, in which case why can't that explanation apply to the universe itself?



I think this concept is an attempt for people to have faith in God without being constrained by traditional rituals or dogmatic beliefs which they see in organized religion.
I guess that depends on your religion. Some are assumptions, others claim to be what God himself told us.
Yeah, we have had this conversation before, I think.:o Micro evolution would over time create variations of existing species so different that they would practically be new species, but the original species has to exist first. And even then, as you say, it would take a long time. I don't believe in the billions of years theory, but I think the earth is a bit older than 6,000 years. The timeline based off the genealogy in the OT is flawed, since it was put together at a time when not a lot was known about the Hebrew language and their measurements of time and etc. So I think 6000 is the very least. As for evidence to a billions-old earth, well, that can be explained by the Genesis flood. Drastic natural disasters can create geological formations that would normally take a long time. It happened with Mt. St. Helens.
Yes God is immensely complex, but he doesn't need a creator because he specifically says he has no beginning. Something with no beginning has no need for a creator. He can have no beginning because he exists outside of time. The universe is a physical construction, which did have a beginning, so it does need a creator. This is tough to understand- I don't even get it all- but I think its true.
And yeah, most people who are "spiritual but not religious" have become disillusioned with organized religion.

Uzi master
14-05-10, 03:50
Thank you:D you are very inntellegent Draco, A little off topic but, buhdists allso seem a lot more peacfull, less violent, just pondering.

aktrekker
14-05-10, 03:54
Evolution is the net result of the changes to a population caused by natural selection acting upon living organisms for countless generations. It can be seen in the fossil record, and for organisms with a short enough life span it can even be seen in the lab (for example, this 21-year long study with E. coli (http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=evolution-details-revealed-through-2009-10-18) showed how the population evolved over the course of 40,000 generations).
It started as E. coli, it ended up as E. coli. This is adaptation, or genetic variation. Technically it's evolution, but not in the sense that most people mean.

There is zero certainty that any of that is true.
That is a false statement.

Gregori
14-05-10, 03:59
That is a false statement.

No its quite true. There is no certainty that people's "encounters" with angels, spirits, demons or aliens are true stories. They could be lies, delusions, hallucinations or dreams for all we know. There is no physical evidence to back any of these claims.

silver_wolf
14-05-10, 04:02
You clearly don't know a lot on the topic, there's plenty physical evidence.

Dark Lugia 2
14-05-10, 04:05
I'm Athiest, and i find it incredibly annoying when people state that science and religion dont go together. People say "I dont believe in the Big Band and Science, not God" when a religious person could easily say God created the Big Bang, I fail to see how this is so hard to miss :p

I understand the Big Bang theory and I think it makes sense but as almost everything with science, its started out as a theory/is a theory. The universe is expanding outwards, so it seems correct that if we reversed time everything would have started from one point. We think black holes can exist as a single point and have the potential to swallow entire galaxies up(?? so why cant the universe start from a single point?

Religion has more to do with science than most people think... well at least the religion I've had to grow up with does.

Alpharaider47
14-05-10, 04:06
At least science can base its convictions on facts and reality. All religions can do is compete for the most outrageous ritual and follower count.

That's not exactly true. Religions can provide people with a purpose in life, and a way of living. There's no competition in that. Not all people seek the answers to the questions that you do. Not all people ask the questions that you do either. Some "simpler"(for lack of a better word) people may only want a way to live, a way to be happy, and religions can facilitate this. If you don't seek the answers to the questions that science seeks to answer, then what can science offer you that religion cannot?

aktrekker
14-05-10, 04:10
No its quite true. There is no certainty that people's "encounters" with angels, spirits, demons or aliens are true stories. They could be lies, delusions, hallucinations or dreams for all we know. There is no physical evidence to back any of these claims.
Obviously you aren't sure. There may be no certainty but there is possibility. Therefore your statement was false.

Gregori
14-05-10, 04:11
Obviously you aren't sure. There may be no certainty but there is possibility. Therefore your statement was false.

Its not false. There is no certainty that those people are telling the truth or any evidence that what they say is correct.

Gregori
14-05-10, 04:13
You clearly don't know a lot on the topic, there's plenty physical evidence.


like?

Ward Dragon
14-05-10, 04:21
Oh, yes, like how new, more advanced species of previous ones are forming today? Where do we see that happen?

I'm quite tired and about to go to bed so I resorted to Wikipedia for a quick example. I'll try to find more later after I wake up :)


Hawthorn fly

One example of evolution at work is the case of the hawthorn fly, Rhagoletis pomonella (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhagoletis_pomonella), also known as the apple maggot fly, which appears to be undergoing sympatric speciation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympatric_speciation).[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#cite_note-12) Different populations of hawthorn fly feed on different fruits. A distinct population emerged in North America in the 19th century some time after apples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple), a non-native species, were introduced. This apple-feeding population normally feeds only on apples and not on the historically preferred fruit of hawthorns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crataegus). The current hawthorn feeding population does not normally feed on apples. Some evidence, such as the fact that six out of thirteen allozyme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allozyme) loci are different, that hawthorn flies mature later in the season and take longer to mature than apple flies; and that there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization rate) suggests that sympatric speciation is occurring. The emergence of the new hawthorn fly is an example of evolution in progress.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Hawthorn_fly


I guess that depends on your religion. Some are assumptions, others claim to be what God himself told us.

Yeah, but even in the second case a follower must assume that the claims are true. There's always going to be some assumption involved (unless the issue is completely ignored).

Yeah, we have had this conversation before, I think.:o Micro evolution would over time create variations of existing species so different that they would practically be new species, but the original species has to exist first. And even then, as you say, it would take a long time. I don't believe in the billions of years theory, but I think the earth is a bit older than 6,000 years. The timeline based off the genealogy in the OT is flawed, since it was put together at a time when not a lot was known about the Hebrew language and their measurements of time and etc. So I think 6000 is the very least. As for evidence to a billions-old earth, well, that can be explained by the Genesis flood. Drastic natural disasters can create geological formations that would normally take a long time. It happened with Mt. St. Helens.

Right, I remember now. I think we basically agree on the mechanism of evolution but disagree over how much time that mechanism has had to work. Geological formations aren't the only method of determining the age of rocks. Radioactive isotopes can be used because they have a steady pattern of decay so people can see how much it has decayed and work backwards to find out how old it is. Various methods testing many different radioactive elements at different locations, including meteorites, all return an age of roughly 4.5 billion years.

Yes God is immensely complex, but he doesn't need a creator because he specifically says he has no beginning. Something with no beginning has no need for a creator. He can have no beginning because he exists outside of time. The universe is a physical construction, which did have a beginning, so it does need a creator. This is tough to understand- I don't even get it all- but I think its true.


But would "beginning" even mean the same thing to God? Due to existing outside of time, why isn't it possible that God was created but not in a linear time-line that we'd understand?

aktrekker
14-05-10, 05:27
I'm quite tired and about to go to bed so I resorted to Wikipedia for a quick example. I'll try to find more later after I wake up :)

Hawthorn fly

One example of evolution at work is the case of the hawthorn fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, also known as the apple maggot fly, which appears to be undergoing sympatric speciation.[13] Different populations of hawthorn fly feed on different fruits. A distinct population emerged in North America in the 19th century some time after apples, a non-native species, were introduced. This apple-feeding population normally feeds only on apples and not on the historically preferred fruit of hawthorns. The current hawthorn feeding population does not normally feed on apples. Some evidence, such as the fact that six out of thirteen allozyme loci are different, that hawthorn flies mature later in the season and take longer to mature than apple flies; and that there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization rate) suggests that sympatric speciation is occurring. The emergence of the new hawthorn fly is an example of evolution in progress.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Hawthorn_fly


It's still a Hawthorn fly.
This is where discussions of evolution come into problems. The definition of terms. One side is discussing "macro" evolution while the other side presents evidence of "micro" evolution.
Unless the definition is agreed on before hand, the discussion will fall into chaos.

Draco
14-05-10, 05:32
And they can't be related to each other?

Humans are undergoing evolution as we speak.

Tyrannosaurus
14-05-10, 05:42
Regarding the relationship between religion and science, I think it is utterly foolish to believe that the two occupy seperate opposing ends of a one-dimmensional spectrum. The reasoning behind the "Science > Everything" philosohpy usually goes like this:

1) The most valuable truths are those which are confirmed through the scientific method.

2) Religious truths cannot be confirmed this way.

3) Religion is not as valuable as science.

Since premise 1 is not a truth that can be confirmed by the scientific method, it is self-refuting.

The claims of religion are philosophical, moral, and metaphysical etc., but not, for the most part, scientific. They generally cannot be falisified and aren't even subject to scientific investigation. This casts no reflection on their validity, only that they need to be examined instead through philosophical reasoning.

This is not to say that no reasonable conversation between religion and science can take place, only that their relationship is much more complex than the simplistic hokum that such intellectual light-weights as Dawkins, Harris, Stenger etc. would like for us to believe.

Cochrane
14-05-10, 07:11
...
Again, consider rules written into a computer program. If a bunch of coding were randomly generated it would be chaos, nothing would do anything.
...

Actually, that’s wrong. Programs that automatically change based on random chance and survival of the fittest are a very useful tool in the machine learning and artificial intelligence field. There are a number of research projects using this method to create smarter firewalls, for example.

Of course, programmers still have to write a lot of code around it, but you have to remember that a software program has (on a mathematical level) no environment, except the environment that the programmer creates, so that is a different issue.

If you are interested I can show you some research papers about this topic, I actually think it is very interesting. The important point, though, is that you are wrong: Random generation and mutation can work very well, as long as circumstances ensure that only the individuals suited best for a job survive, and that has been verified.

It's still a Hawthorn fly.
This is where discussions of evolution come into problems. The definition of terms. One side is discussing "macro" evolution while the other side presents evidence of "micro" evolution.
Unless the definition is agreed on before hand, the discussion will fall into chaos.

When does it stop being a Hawthorn fly? As far as I can tell, the only thing separating a Hawthorn fly from the new species Hawthorn++ fly is that nobody has given it that name yet. The distinction between micro and macro evolution is a false one, created by people who don’t like evolution but have to admit that they can’t deny some evidence. What you call macro evolution is just what you call micro evolution really, really often. There is no need to agree on a definition for this split here when the split itself is false.

aktrekker
14-05-10, 07:35
I would consider it a truly new species if it was unable to reproduce with the other flies.
Of course, scientists have many definitions of what a species is. There are over 30 definitions in common use. They just pick the one that supports their conclusions. It's a common practice.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-a-species (sorry, not the full article)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Speciation.html
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:U9Pw-AxMb8EJ:www.bioweb.uncc.edu/Biol4111/Fall/PPT/Speciation.ppt+what+is+a+species&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a (HTML of a PowerPoint)
http://www.bioinquiry.vt.edu/bioinquiry/Cheetah/cheetahpaid/cheetahhtmls/toc.html#species (Click What is a Species and see the list of methods they provide)
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/speciation/speciation.html (Good lecture)

Cochrane
14-05-10, 09:18
I would consider it a truly new species if it was unable to reproduce with the other flies.
Of course, scientists have many definitions of what a species is. There are over 30 definitions in common use. They just pick the one that supports their conclusions. It's a common practice.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-a-species (sorry, not the full article)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Speciation.html
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:U9Pw-AxMb8EJ:www.bioweb.uncc.edu/Biol4111/Fall/PPT/Speciation.ppt+what+is+a+species&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a (HTML of a PowerPoint)
http://www.bioinquiry.vt.edu/bioinquiry/Cheetah/cheetahpaid/cheetahhtmls/toc.html#species (Click What is a Species and see the list of methods they provide)
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/speciation/speciation.html (Good lecture)

Well, the world is full of examples of things reproducing that you would not normally expect to. Is a lion a different species from a tiger? Probably (and according to all definitions I know) yes, but they are able to reproduce (even if their offspring usually isn’t). I think what the amount of definitions you found there shows best is that there is no natural point where something becomes a different species. It is a matter of definition. Your definition sounds reasonable, but as I said, it is by no means bullet-proof.

ryan91
14-05-10, 09:24
i believe in god but i don't understand somethings. he knows everything. so he did know even before he created devil that devil gonna be a bad creature someday. same thing happens for adam and eve. god knew that they were gonna eat that fricking apple. cuz he knows everything. so why didn't he do anything?

irjudd
14-05-10, 09:54
But based on background radiation and the rate of expansion of the universe, people have estimated the age of the universe. If we can tell how old it is based upon these factors, then we can tell when the beginning was. It's measurable, and maybe in a few centuries technology will be able to take even more precise measurements and come up with a more accurate estimate.
I agree with that 100%, I was just using the beginning of time and space as an example. It is definitely measurable within a few billion years (!!!) and I am excited about future discoveries about it all.
The rest of the conversation since I went to bed last night.I really wish the thread hadn't turned so condescending, from both sides of the discussion. It just makes your opinion less respectable.

Ikas90
14-05-10, 09:54
i believe in god but i don't understand somethings. he knows everything. so he did know even before he created devil that devil gonna be a bad creature someday. same thing happens for adam and eve. god knew that they were gonna eat that fricking apple. cuz he knows everything. so why didn't he do anything?

My guess is that it was all done to test humanity. We have to prove to God that we are spiritually strong. Otherwise, we could all be in heaven to begin with, and none of this chaos would have ever happened.

Lara Fan 4Life
14-05-10, 10:37
I've been brought up to believe there's a God, but as I've grown older, them beliefs have been changing! It's a nice idea to believe that there's a God and that Heaven exists, but I find myself thinking that God doesn't exist and there's no afterlife, but while I think that I believe it in some form as it's nice to believe there's some truth in it .. Ok that made no sense! :p

Legends
14-05-10, 10:48
I don't believe in God. A "person" watching over us, someone with great power. I believe in science. One can never be 100% sure what is right. You can only base it on what you believe in and logic. I might be wrong, but I would rather be wrong to be proven right. But on a more spiritual level, I hope there is something more. Something else out there, that we are meant for something more. Like when we die our souls lives forever. I don't really believe it, but it makes me feel better only for a second when I think about it. Sadly, I don't really think there is something "more" though.

I wish.

Mad Tony
14-05-10, 12:39
I don't believe in God. A "person" watching over us, someone with great power. I believe in science. One can never be 100% sure what is right. You can only base it on what you believe in and logic. I might be wrong, but I would rather be wrong to be proven right. But on a more spiritual level, I hope there is something more. Something else out there, that we are meant for something more. Like when we die our souls lives forever. I don't really believe it, but it makes me feel better only for a second when I think about it. Sadly, I don't really think there is something "more" though.

I wish. It's not a case of "you either believe in God or believe in science". You can believe in both you know.

Dennis's Mom
14-05-10, 13:46
i believe in god but i don't understand somethings. he knows everything. so he did know even before he created devil that devil gonna be a bad creature someday. same thing happens for adam and eve. god knew that they were gonna eat that fricking apple. cuz he knows everything. so why didn't he do anything?

Probably for the same reason I know my own children are going to screw up. You can lay down the rules, teach them everything they need to know, but it's their life. They are going to learn some things the hard way.

Personally, I think the Adam and Eve story to be mostly allegorical, which is not to say it isn't true, just not a news account.

Capt. Murphy
14-05-10, 14:22
I was thinking a few days ago... About our dimension -- the 4th Dimension. We've got the 3 spacial axis.. axi? Then time. And I've heard talk of the 5th being either a new spacial direction or another dimension of time -as if the dimension of time begins as a point in the 3rd spacial dimension, then it has length in the 4th... Anyway. If God is outside of our dimension then it should be possible for Him to exist. It should be possible for him to perform what we might call "miracles", or anything we would consider as impossible. But this is only trying to understand him on a physical level.

Leaning on the principles/teachings of I.D.... Let's say you're a forensic scientist and you're looking for clues as to why something happened or perhaps how something was formed. Let's keep it really simple. You find a painting. You have a theory that it might've formed by random chance or by no independent/outside influences. You study it so closely and see there is a purpose for everything in it. Then your idea that it coincidentally came about to be so perfectly formed and proportioned, (you even see and obvious pattern to it... Like, whoever made it was having a little fun - maybe even showing off) -is starting to look more silly by the minute. But! For whatever reason you CAN NOT attribute the painting to an Artist. To do so would be ludicrous. The rest of the scientific community would make you a laughing stock. So, to retain your "credibility" among your peers - you reach the conclusion that it was the result of luck. Luck so fantastic that the idea of being so lucky isn't actually any better than an imaginary Master Artists. So, you go ahead with it out of peer pressure.

But seriously. You can believe in God and Science. Yet, to not believe in God is merely to believe in Luck. :pi:

Dennis's Mom
14-05-10, 17:02
I don't think there's any question there's more to the universe than we we can currently observe. String theory postulates there are 9 other dimensions, I think. Jesus appears and disappears after the resurrection like a quantum particle. Just because we can't explain, doesn't mean it's supernatural. We just can't explain it---yet. :D

Uzi master
14-05-10, 18:35
without any solid proof I will never believe what some random person says happened to them, I guess I'm just not gullible.

according to someone know the sky is blue because "God" made it that way, while there is no proof, in science there is the light spectrum, I dont remember everything but I beleive blue light reflects of the molocules in the sky giveing it the blue look, or is it molucules have blue pigmentation there? either way there is scientific proof.

if some guy ran up too you and said he just say an alien space ship destroy the white house, would you beleive him?

like I've said though, religion usually stems from people not being contempt with our own world and wanting to be part of some grand, beutifull place. they consider it sad the all there is her is the "bleak" earth and its sad about that. Now first, look at so many things on earth, don't go complaining about suffering, a lot of that is because religion beleive it or not. anyway, "it may get you through the night, but it doesn't make it true".


maybe accept there is no wonderouse place beyond and learn to make earth a nice place.


I forgot the quotes so, yeah.

interstellardave
14-05-10, 18:51
without any solid proof I will never believe what some random person says happened to them, I guess I'm just not gullible.

Without proof? So--if you knew me, and knew me to be rational--and I came up to you and said "I saw what could only be an alien spacecraft last night!" would you believe me even if I had no proof? Granted I would not be a random person in that case but would you accept the testimony of a credible witness?

Alpharaider47
14-05-10, 18:55
without any solid proof I will never believe what some random person says happened to them, I guess I'm just not gullible.


That's why it's called 'Faith"

Chocola teapot
14-05-10, 18:57
I don't beleive in god, I do beleive in spirits to a certain extent and that my soul will live on somehow.

Mad Tony
14-05-10, 19:01
like I've said though, religion usually stems from people not being contempt with our own world and wanting to be part of some grand, beutifull place. they consider it sad the all there is her is the "bleak" earth and its sad about that. Now first, look at so many things on earth, don't go complaining about suffering, a lot of that is because religion beleive it or not. anyway, "it may get you through the night, but it doesn't make it true".I never knew you could read minds.

Antonio
14-05-10, 19:46
As I sad few times, I'm Christian. Well I'm not a guy who will go in church every Sundays and pray every day, but my faith is really important to me and I believe in God. Abut science before I believed it about monkey evolution, etc,... but not any more. I have noticed ago most of them they say everything, that every word has a price. You have to pay to hear they discovery how world has began. Wait, what! No thank you. Few days ago I had a discussion with my brother about global warming and he told me some thing what I didn't think of it. After that I don't believe in Maya's 2012, global warming,... Everyone has a price which I not willing to pay and debate.

larafan25
14-05-10, 20:37
without any solid proof I will never believe what some random person says happened to them, I guess I'm just not gullible.

according to someone know the sky is blue because "God" made it that way, while there is no proof, in science there is the light spectrum, I dont remember everything but I beleive blue light reflects of the molocules in the sky giveing it the blue look, or is it molucules have blue pigmentation there? either way there is scientific proof.

if some guy ran up too you and said he just say an alien space ship destroy the white house, would you beleive him?

like I've said though, religion usually stems from people not being contempt with our own world and wanting to be part of some grand, beutifull place. they consider it sad the all there is her is the "bleak" earth and its sad about that. Now first, look at so many things on earth, don't go complaining about suffering, a lot of that is because religion beleive it or not. anyway, "it may get you through the night, but it doesn't make it true".


maybe accept there is no wonderouse place beyond and learn to make earth a nice place.


I forgot the quotes so, yeah.

I don't think it's that.

Why hate on their earth when their God created it?

There is a hell to worry about, which would supposedly be much worse than living on earth.

I have always thought of religion being something that makes people feel happy, well some people obviously.

Cochrane
14-05-10, 21:48
It's not a case of "you either believe in God or believe in science". You can believe in both you know.

Yeah, but you don’t have to.

Gregori
14-05-10, 21:49
When there is something really complex that humans don't understand yet, people tend to say "Oh, God Must have done that!!" but its about as interesting an awnser as saying I DON"T KNOW!!

Mad Tony
14-05-10, 22:02
When there is something really complex that humans don't understand yet, people tend to say "Oh, God Must have done that!!" but its about as interesting an awnser as saying I DON"T KNOW!!What's your problem? You seem to be really irked by people who say that and I don't understand why. It's not harming you is it?

Catracoth
14-05-10, 22:05
Religion is a bit of a joke, in my opinion...or at least it is in my city. Churches are as corrupt as a teenager's mind.

Gregori
14-05-10, 22:07
What's your problem? You seem to be really irked by people who say that and I don't understand why. It's not harming you is it?

No problem. Actually I want people to say " I don't understand why!!"

Its far more honest a thing to say that invoking invisible men into the equation.

Cochrane
14-05-10, 22:09
What's your problem? You seem to be really irked by people who say that and I don't understand why. It's not harming you is it?

You know, instead of trying to find "his problem", you could just try to prove him wrong and explain how "God did it" is not a cheap cop-out, or how "God did it" is really a misquote of a more complex statement. I believe that this would lead to a much more interesting discussion.

I obviously do not know about Gregori, but I personally find it annoying when people try to defend a point of view that is based on clearly false premises or logical fallacies. As an example, you will find a number of people here in this thread who reject evolution and the big bang more or less on the sole reason of the ideas sounding silly to them. You can’t really argue against someone who does not even try to think about the issue.

Of course, there are people here who are good at making a pro-God point, and discussing that with them is a lot of fun. But many simply are not, and that goes for the would-be scientists as well, of course.

Uzi master
14-05-10, 22:18
I don't think it's that.

Why hate on their earth when their God created it?

There is a hell to worry about, which would supposedly be much worse than living on earth.

I have always thought of religion being something that makes people feel happy, well some people obviously.

well, earth sucked a lot then so heaven must sound nice huh:)
oviously not all things are gonna make since, but then wouldnt god have created hell too? so its not like everything, if he existed, is perfect.

And Mad Tony, some people on the thread said it already. I know one person said "why would you want to think this world is all there is?" now I cant say I am completely right but I think it's a quite plausible explination for many people, alon with wanting power, stability, saftey, fitting in, many things. And when you have nothing to turn too sort of falls under the "bleak earth" theorie of mine, except a little more littereral, if that situation came up at least.


and about the "god did it" I find it a lazy response, as I said someone said the sky is blue cause god said so, she also says a lot of other things like that. many things have been proven wrong or looked into instead of being stamped a mystery beyond our conception of why.

Without proof? So--if you knew me, and knew me to be rational--and I came up to you and said "I saw what could only be an alien spacecraft last night!" would you believe me even if I had no proof? Granted I would not be a random person in that case but would you accept the testimony of a credible witness?

well if it was a believable story and you were a credible person I knew, like you crashed your car and need money, I would beleive you but for something that is out there, like alien spacecraft then no. not saying there are no aliens but I have no real proof.

Mad Tony
14-05-10, 22:22
You know, instead of trying to find "his problem", you could just try to prove him wrong and explain how "God did it" is not a cheap cop-out, or how "God did it" is really a misquote of a more complex statement. I believe that this would lead to a much more interesting discussion.I never said I personally believe that the answer to everything complicated is "God did it". I was merely pointing out that if that's what some people believe, let them. No point attacking them over it.

And Mad Tony, some people on the thread said it already. I know one person said "why would you want to think this world is all there is?" now I cant say I am completely right but I think it's a quite plausible explination for many people, alon with wanting power, stability, saftey, fitting in, many things. And when you have nothing to turn too sort of falls under the "bleak earth" theorie of mine, except a little more littereral, if that situation came up at least.There are many different reasons why people believe in God. There isn't just one or two.

Uzi master
14-05-10, 22:25
And Mad Tony, some people on the thread said it already. I know one person said "why would you want to think this world is all there is?" now I cant say I am completely right but I think it's a quite plausible explination for many people, along with wanting power, stability, saftey, fitting in, many things. And when you have nothing to turn too sort of falls under the "bleak earth" theorie of mine, except a little more littereral, if that situation came up at least.



I'm surprised you missed that, knowing how you like to see the detailes Mad Tony:p

Mad Tony
14-05-10, 22:26
I'm surprised you missed that, knowing how you like to see the detailes Mad Tony:pI didn't miss it. There are many more reasons than that.

Cochrane
14-05-10, 22:29
I never said I personally believe that the answer to everything complicated is "God did it". I was merely pointing out that if that's what some people believe, let them. No point attacking them over it.
Where's the fun in that? I don’t give a damn about a nice long list of what everybody believes in. The interesting part of any thread like this is discussing it. And if some arguments are weaker than others, well, it wouldn’t be much of a discussion if we refused to mention that, would it?

Uzi master
14-05-10, 22:29
ughh, I said MANY THINGS, unless I should have put in an and...

TRfan23
14-05-10, 23:36
Religion is a bit of a joke, in my opinion...or at least it is in my city. Churches are as corrupt as a teenager's mind.

What you have to realize is there's a difference between religion & the church. Religion is just religion it doesn't do anything it just sits there waiting to be interpreted, people is what the problem is as they interpret it and the church on the other hand is corrupt and always will be corrupt. There's not really any irony when the church does bad stuff since it always has.

Sadly I can only see the bad side of the church not the good, and people say I've very open minded about things. Well I'm actually very closed minded when it comes to the church :(

I'm trying to achieve to be the most open minded person in the world!

Dark Lugia 2
14-05-10, 23:53
i think i saw twice here people referring to evolution as monkey to man? Thats not evolution... :s
Darwin's theory of evolution states that we along with... 'monkeys' may have shared a common ancestor from which we may have evolved from in seperate directions over time (hence why we and apes, monkeys, etc share so many characteristics but at the same are so different). i dunno why most people who dont bother looking into it think its pureley monkey -> man scenario . They feel so right in dismissing something they dont understand :p


I sure do love going off topic :| sorry hehehe.


@TRfan23 - you do a good job at looking at everything from every point of view imo! :D a good quality indeed!

Legends
14-05-10, 23:56
It's not a case of "you either believe in God or believe in science". You can believe in both you know.

You can believe in whatever you want. And if you read the rest of the post, that's exactly what I am doing.;)

Cochrane
15-05-10, 07:04
i think i saw twice here people referring to evolution as monkey to man? Thats not evolution... :s
Darwin's theory of evolution states that we along with... 'monkeys' may have shared a common ancestor from which we may have evolved from in seperate directions over time (hence why we and apes, monkeys, etc share so many characteristics but at the same are so different). i dunno why most people who dont bother looking into it think its pureley monkey -> man scenario . They feel so right in dismissing something they dont understand :p

You are right, but I don’t think that is the most useful aspect to focus on, especially since our shared common ancestor can still be described as monkey-ish by someone who doesn’t really care. What is much more interesting is how quite a lot of people here have a wrong idea about how evolution works, just the simple process, not the particular results, and then evaluate it based on this wrong understanding.

Uzi master
15-05-10, 08:40
well, some peopel I think just don't want to get technical about species. most people would call birds, well, birds (or mammals) while there avian's, like dinosoars.

MsRedFoxx
15-05-10, 11:29
I think that the coolest religion of all time was that of the Ancient Greeks :D Its sooo fascinating and not only were they religious but the Greeks studied and learnt about everything (coming up with the theory of the atom and the elements) which shows that science and religion can go along side by side. Its interesting how all the other religions gods didn't interact directly with the followers where as in Ancient Greece they were constantly involved in their followers actions.

I also like their idea of fate and destiny. They say that you have a destiny to follow but you can choose to not follow it.

And about evolution I'll make it simple for everyone; It is the best theory we have at the moment about why animals are like they are and where they came from, it is supported by evidence and until someone creates a better explanation for it I'm going to have to stick with team evolution :p
Yes we came from the same ancestors as primates and if you don't like it until you can think of a better explanation then I'm afraid I'm not really going to listen to your complaints.

Tyrannosaurus
17-05-10, 07:56
The line between dinosaur and bird is becmoning more pointless to draw the more we learn about them. We can safely say that birds are dinosaurs just as we can say that humans are mammals. If you had seen a Deinonychus or a Velociraptor or any of their ilk in the flesh you would mistake them for weird birds.