NationStates Jolt Archive

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for disobeying it. To say that because you didn't know it was illegal to kill someone doesn't mean that you aren't to be held accountable for it.

I'm sure you're aware in a court of law that a person can be acquitted if it could be proven they could not tell right from wrong.

Don't you lot keep claiming that God is infinite and beyond our understanding of the normal world?

We can understand him in the form of a word. The universe is a very easy word to say, but you'll find it impossible to imagine all of it...if there is an all of it...or if it's infinite I guess, there isn't really an all of it. You get what I'm saying.

You are being punished the same way I am for the sin of all humanity.
So what did I do wrong? I wasn't around at the time, and if I was, I'd have told Adam and Eve to leave the fruit alone. I do believe there's a rule somewhere in there stating that one should not punish fathers for the crimes of sons or sons for the crimes of fathers.

They did have a concept of law, though. Genesis 1:28 "...fill the Earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air and every other living creature that moves on the ground."
Good rebuttal. Now help me out here - if he commanded them to fill the Earth, then why were they still confined to two people living in Eden until they ate the fruit? Not only didn't they fill the Earth, but while still in the garden, there would be no reason to subdue anything anyway because they had their (non-knowledge) fruits ready to pick straight from nature.

We can understand him in the form of a word. The universe is a very easy word to say, but you'll find it impossible to imagine all of it...if there is an all of it...or if it's infinite I guess, there isn't really an all of it. You get what I'm saying.
God created the universe. Therefore he must exist outside/independantly of it, because you can't create yourself. (Escher's hands don't count.)

Note, even some atheist scientists believe that there might be multiple paralel "universes", so defining it as "all there is" would be rather naive.

So what did I do wrong? I wasn't around at the time, and if I was, I'd have told Adam and Eve to leave the fruit alone. I do believe there's a rule somewhere in there stating that one should not punish fathers for the crimes of sons or sons for the crimes of fathers.


Good rebuttal. Now help me out here - if he commanded them to fill the Earth, then why were they still confined to two people living in Eden until they ate the fruit? Not only didn't they fill the Earth, but while still in the garden, there would be no reason to subdue anything anyway because they had their (non-knowledge) fruits ready to pick straight from nature.

It is nothing you did or didn't do. We as humans are born in sin. This is why no works can ever save us, it is only the grace of God that saves us from the flames and frozen winds of hell.

Well, they weren't necessarily comfined to being two people. They could have had children and we never really got a chance to see what would have happened after that, so your guess is as good as mine 8-?

God created the universe. Therefore he must exist outside/independantly of it, because you can't create yourself. (Escher's hands don't count.)

Note, even some atheist scientists believe that there might be multiple paralel "universes", so defining it as "all there is" would be rather naive.

Escher, cool guy, anyway. The universe, though is defined as space and mass. If you take up neither space nor have mass then you can still exist without the universe. Theoretically speaking, existence without a universe in which to exist is possible.

It is nothing you did or didn't do.
So, I got condemned for something I didn't do. Point stands.

We as humans are born in sin.
What did I just say about fathers and sons? I know it's written somewhere. Do you expect me to worship someone who not only violates my own morals (not being responsible for other people's actions) but also hypocritically violates his own?

This is why no works can ever save us, it is only the grace of God that saves us from the flames and frozen winds of hell.
Umm, wasn't he the one who created hell in the first place?

Well, they weren't necessarily comfined to being two people. They could have had children and we never really got a chance to see what would have happened after that, so your guess is as good as mine 8-?
I recall it's pretty clear from the bible that their first son (which traditionally had a special standing in those times, and thus would definitely be properly recorded) was born after the fall. They might have had daughters before then, since the bible tends to neglect mentioning those.

Escher, cool guy, anyway. The universe, though is defined as space and mass. If you take up neither space nor have mass then you can still exist without the universe. Theoretically speaking, existence without a universe in which to exist is possible.
That's not what you said a page ago.

Ah a little while back it was wondered how God could exist and where he began. The reason God must be eternal is because something had to start the universe in motion. A Word. If there was no word at any time, there would never be an existence of anything. Someone started this book that we all live in. Some of us are written in the Book of Life for eternity. Some of us don't like this book at all and don't want to be apart of it. This knowledge of the book, is only given for us in all of creation to understand. We were given the gift of words from the Origin of Words. Our image is like Him. That is why we understand deep in our hearts what we all must know. We must know God. The word in the flesh has been sent out into this world. He sends the invitation to join in knowing Him. Will you join? Matthew 22:1-14

LAOS DEO

That's beautiful

So, I got condemned for something I didn't do. Point stands.


What did I just say about fathers and sons? I know it's written somewhere. Do you expect me to worship someone who not only violates my own morals (not being responsible for other people's actions) but also hypocritically violates his own?


Umm, wasn't he the one who created hell in the first place?


I recall it's pretty clear from the bible that their first son (which traditionally had a special standing in those times, and thus would definitely be properly recorded) was born after the fall. They might have had daughters before then, since the bible tends to neglect mentioning those.


That's not what you said a page ago.

Ok. Humans are flawed sinful creatures by nature. Our nature was changed when the forbidden fruit was eaten. We cannot help this, we cannot change our nature, it is true, but God saves us through his grace. Though we are imperfect he loves us and allows us passage into his heavenly realm.

I also was saying that they COULD have had children, not that they necessarily did, they didn't really have time for that considering that once Adam was created, God put him into a deep slumber to create Eve who was then tempted.

God is not a "thing" the definition of universe is that it contains everything. God can create things to take the form of, but he is, indeed, not a "thing" he is something of which we know as yet nothing other than the vaguest concept.

Except that I know plenty of good Christian people who are absolutely happy with the life they lead. Perhaps because they ENJOY helping others, and all that good stuff. After all, what do we miss out on? Getting so drunk we puke (done that already, but it gets old), stealing, killing people? What exactly do we miss out on? Fighting, always getting our way, insulting other people for their beliefs? Just because you live a christian life doesn't mean you can't enjoy life. I personally feel very good when I am helping other people, and I am usually glad I refrain from doing some things, because often when I do them, the consequences aren't worth the experience. Jail isn't that great, trust me. So what exactly do I miss out on?


Excuse me Mr. Pompous Christian,

Since when are non-Christian/non-religious people thieves, murderers, fighters, always getting their way, etc... I mean to say, I realize that some non-Christian/non-religious people are these things, but then, so are Christian/religious people.

I, for one, am atheist, and I DO NOT drink (at all), DO NOT steal, DO NOT kill people, DO NOT fight (really), DO NOT always get my way, and DO NOT insult others for their beliefs (I insult them for their naivete!).

Please, do not asssume that atheists are immoral. I am atheist, and I could easily be mistaken for a super-christian if not for the fact I don't believe in God or go to church. Moral and ethics can be taught by other means than religion.

Thanks for reading my opinion.

Excuse me Mr. Pompous Christian,

Since when are non-Christian/non-religious people thieves, murderers, fighters, always getting their way, etc... I mean to say, I realize that some non-Christian/non-religious people are these things, but then, so are Christian/religious people.

I, for one, am atheist, and I DO NOT drink (at all), DO NOT steal, DO NOT kill people, DO NOT fight (really), DO NOT always get my way, and DO NOT insult others for their beliefs (I insult them for their naivete!).

Please, do not asssume that atheists are immoral. I am atheist, and I could easily be mistaken for a super-christian if not for the fact I don't believe in God or go to church. Moral and ethics can be taught by other means than religion.

Thanks for reading my opinion.

I think he was just pointing out that those are the things you must avoid in Christianity and that he didn't miss them. I don't think that he was saying that all atheists did such things...

By the way, I'd just like to thank everyone here for the great discussion. You guys have really made me back up my beliefs right when I was starting to get complacent in my religion. So thanks, a WHOLE lot!

Well, I still disagree about the whole original sin issue, but I think I've pretty much stated all evidence I can think of right now.

If we're done on that topic, I'd be interested in a response to my rebuttal and reversal of Pascal's Wager (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6840522&postcount=178) and my accusation that the crucifiction was a publicity stunt (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6840572&postcount=184).

By the way, I'd just like to thank everyone here for the great discussion. You guys have really made me back up my beliefs right when I was starting to get complacent in my religion. So thanks, a WHOLE lot!
Yep, debate can be very stimulating mentally, so long as people try to stay away from the personal insults.

"By the way, I'd just like to thank everyone here for the great discussion. You guys have really made me back up my beliefs right when I was starting to get complacent in my religion. So thanks, a WHOLE lot!"

Thank you.

Doesn't hurt to be forced to back one's viewpoints once in a while :)

Well, I still disagree about the whole original sin issue, but I think I've pretty much stated all evidence I can think of right now.

If we're done on that topic, I'd be interested in a response to my rebuttal and reversal of Pascal's Wager (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6840522&postcount=178) and my accusation that the crucifiction was a publicity stunt (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6840572&postcount=184).

On Pascal's wager, (in my opinion) you are right as long as you go with the belief that all dieties are different, but if you, like, believe that almost all religions are essentially the same at the core then the original Wager still basically works.

If we started to get really specific, though we could start adding in things about which circle of hell to which you'd be condemned and then you'd really have to get mathematic. For instance, lets say that your statements were correct in the probability of picking the right god(s) and so forth. Now if you live a good life but you pick the wrong God(s) you'd only be condemned to Limbo, which really isn't that bad since your only punishment is to be mildly melancholy for all of eternity. Otherwise, it's pretty pleasant, nice sun, grass and so forth. But then if you are good and you pick the right god(s) then you could still go to heaven. If you die and there is no God, you have lost very little. Now if you choose to not worship a god, but live a good life then you will go to limbo too. however, it you die and there is no god, then I suppose you have lost nothing. But if you choose the wrong god(s) or no god and die and live a sinful life and there is a god, then he is much less likely to be merciful on your soul.

As for Jesus's death I agree and disagree with you. I believe that since he was the human form of God, he could be killed and was. However, I also believe that he was killed for two reasons, first of all it was a publicity stunt. But it was also representative of God making a sacrifice for us in order that we could be saved.

Unfortunately I have an early day tomorrow, so I've got to go to sleep. I'll be sure to check the thread ASAP tomorrow. Goodnight all!

On Pascal's wager, (in my opinion) you are right as long as you go with the belief that all dieties are different, but if you, like, believe that almost all religions are essentially the same at the core then the original Wager still basically works.
If they're all the same at core and that is your justification for thinking you have the right deity, then logically you should also worship only this common core. Which, I think, amounts to little more than Deism.

But if you choose the wrong god(s) or no god and die and live a sinful life and there is a god, then he is much less likely to be merciful on your soul.
Fortunately, I wasn't planning on being sinful anyway, at least not according to my own sense of morality, which I think is pretty decent. I don't recall ever seriously damaging anyone's life. And if I live a sinful life, wouldn't I also go to hell if I pretend to believe in the right God?

As for Jesus's death I agree and disagree with you. I believe that since he was the human form of God, he could be killed and was. However, I also believe that he was killed for two reasons, first of all it was a publicity stunt. But it was also representative of God making a sacrifice for us in order that we could be saved.
Representative. In other words, done for the representation (aka publicity). Besides, wasn't Jesus's human body reincarnated?

EDIT: I should probably have been in bed four and a half hours ago. Seeya.

Then, why did he ever reveal himself to us in the first place?

I'd say that to not reveal Himself at all would deprive us of free choice just as surely as to reveal everything. Bad Moody Blues reference here, but it seems like a "question of balance" between too much revelation and too little. ;-)

He didn't even really die. I mean, as an onmipotent being, he CAN'T die, and I am sure that he knew this very well and intended from the start to come back to life afterwards. The entire crucification was a publicity stunt, not an actual sacrifice.

This is an interesting one, and I actually thank you for making me think. I'm going to try and answer as best as I understand, but forgive me for faltering.

One way in which I have understood Jesus' existence is that He is the way in which God incorporated the human experience into Himself, and provided to us an example of what the ultimate human experience is. He seems to have experienced things in linear fashion as we do--thus the reason for not knowing, while He prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, absolutely for sure what the final outcome was to be. In this He demonstrated what absolute faith in God is, even when dealing with emotions like fear and so on.

Another way in which I understand His existence is as a means of righting an imbalance in the universe. And this is where the notion of sacrifice gets in. I do not know about other Christians so much, but I see Hell as nonexistence, and Satan as annihilation. Human beings, in order to have free will, must be exposed to the imbalance we know as a distinction between good and evil. However, this imbalance does have to be put right ultimately, and it was through Jesus' death and resurrection that this occurred. (Incidentally, I see it as a timeless event...that it occurred for all time, not just those who lived after it occurred.) Something had to fill the void of nothingness--and that is what the sacrifice was. Unlike some, I've actually found it heartening to see similar themes in some other religions...again a reason I'm not about to make reckless judgments about the practitioners of other faiths.

I should ask you to consider the way in which you define "death" in your statement, though, because the way I see it removes the problem that "an omnipotent being cannot die". Cessation of bodily function for me is not synonymous with cessation of the spirit. I do not see the electrochemical processes of the body as the be-all-end-all of one's existence--rather as a conduit for the spirit to interact with the physical world. You could think of this as describing the body as a transformer (in the electrical sense) rather than a container. Death in my view is simply the severing of the connection between the spirit and its conduit (the body), not annihilation. I can see where you may be having a problem if you do view death as annihilation, and I do not know how I can convince you otherwise since I have not died and can't report on it firsthand. But, I think that issue may be at the center of our disagreement: the nature of consciousness.

Agreed. I don't agree with religion, but I can tolerate it enjoy debating it so long as people don't assert that their explanation can be the only correct one. (I am not certain that God doesn't exist. It's just that I have no evidence supporting him, he is not necessary to explain how anything works, and as detailed in my previous post, I have weighed the possibilities against each other and decided that disbelieving is the most rewarding choice.)

In the same way, I've considered many options myself and to be frank, to renounce my beliefs would feel like a suicide for me. I've had some private experiences that cause me to feel as I do about God, but there is no point in sharing them because any final conclusion about Him has got to come from within. You cannot force faith upon someone from the outside.

i pity you poor athiest. you live your life to the fullest but i've seen an athiest on the brink of death and it's pretty sad. nothing but fear. for people of faith they have hope and don't spend the last times of their life is fear.


I would like to tell a story from my younger days as a good Catholic girl...

October 1989, San Francisco, California, USA.

After school on Tuesdays, I would go to CCD, and take classes at my local church. On this day, the entire CCD group went to Confession and then we all said the rosery. In the middle of the third set of Hail Marys, the ground started shaking, things started coming of the walls and the altar. All around me, the nuns and the priests and the other children were crying and screaming in fear, "I don't want to die Lord, spare me!"

Now, we'd just been to Confession, so in the eyes of God, our moral slates were clean, and we hadn't had any time to sin again. Free one-way ticket to Heaven. And my first thought looking around me at all these people scared of dieing was, "But if we die, we're going straight to Heaven. Why are they all afraid?"

After that, I no longer followed blindly. If a man of God, a bride of Christ and a whole bunch of people free of sin are afraid to go and meet their maker, maybe this wasn't the right road for me.

My best friend is an atheist. She joined the military soon after 9/11, with the intent of helping to protect her family and friends. While I do not personaly approve of her choice, her heart is in the right place and I love her for that. Her goal in life is to make her friends and family happy and safe, and to make the world a little bit better to live in, not to appease any god with the hope of being rewarded in the end. She has no fear of dying. She does not know, and does not care, what happens after death. She's here to live now, to be a decent person, and that's all that matters to her.

It seems to me that the religious ones are more afraid of death than the non-religious ones.

I'll ask you to read my other postings which firmly indicate that I don't believe in God out of fear. that was just one point out of many. Anyway, we are supposed to fear God and we are supposed to fear Hell. It's Christian, Islamic, Jewish, and Hindu doctrine, among others. Therefore to NOT fear God would be a sin...

And we really needn't get personal, I know you have a wider vocabulary than "stupid" and "STUPID", perhaps unintelligent, "incomprehensible to me", even ignorant would be much more pleasant.


I don't believe it is a sin to "not fear god" If it is a "loving and kind" god there should be nothing to fear...

and yes I do have a wider vocabulary, okay, I was just giving you my opinon on that specific thing (believing in a god because you fear hell) not saying YOU were stupid, don't start with the personal attacks.

Some people claim that being a moral good person only because of god is in fact, not moral. Being good because you’re promised heaven, or avoiding being bad by the threat of hell are in fact coercion, outside of your body and thus don’t make you a good person.

Some religious teachings are actually very variant from those that get the limelight, please, don’t let the televangelists and fundimentalists convince you there all that christianity has to offer, it would be an insult to reasonable minds and well known historical figures that have done lots of good in the world.

I personally think that any good one does is direct influence of god. not that god is necesary to do good, but that he is present in all good deeds. now, this might confuse some people, because that would mean that moral atheists, and friendly asians and lots of other people actually have god with them with out them knowing it.

for cryin out loud, the dudes omnipitent, omnecient, and can do pretty much anything it wants. disguise is well catalouged as one of the dudes fav abilities. the dude might manifest in any number of ideals that a good person holds dear. this allows them to find them and thus motivate an individual towards helping his fellow man or atleast avoid grutuitious violence.

following this train of logic, any doer of good, feeler of love (the ultimate good), and generally friendly person gets into heaven, because they have found god, in there own way, and acted on it. What i just said could get me lynched by a lot people. I just said atheists get into heaven, gays get into heaven, aliens(from other planets, that is) get into heaven, basically the only people i’ve excluded are those that do incredible harm to society, knowingly, and in merryment!

now this premise has a few other conditions, one of which, the bible is mutable, meaning fluid. the culture as of 30 A.D. was not very familiar with phyics, pychology, medicine, or any science beyond rudimentary math, (cept the ancient greeks, pathogarous and his photon cannon kicked roman ass!) and wouldn’t quite understand concepts such, hydrogen and helium being different, or even the stuff that goes into your mouth is different then what comes out. This doesn’t change the fact that humans are curious little buggers, now does it? Reasonably, a non-involvist and benevolent diety would explain answers in terms much more easily understood at the time, and leave the people to get a better grasp on the truth, hoping they don’t destroy themselves along the way. and if they do, bummer, but not a horrible loss, most of them get up topside with the dude, and it’s not like theres nothing to watch, probably at least 3 other worlds to watch, each with loads of culture and diversityto learn from.

Where does this work into with the topic at hand? if this is accurate, which makes a lot more sense under the theory that A.) gods a nice dude, and B.) The dudes a watcher, not much of a doer.

As to people questioning the physics of creation, at the subatomic level, everything is probabillity, and stuff can pop in and out of exsistence at random, usually it’s small, but large stuff happens from time to time. so, from a subatomic perspective, the univserse is just something happens every once and a while.

I'd say that to not reveal Himself at all would deprive us of free choice just as surely as to reveal everything. Bad Moody Blues reference here, but it seems like a "question of balance" between too much revelation and too little. ;-)
Still, if God is intentionally avoiding giving us too much evidence, you can't really blame me for not believing in him.



One way in which I have understood Jesus' existence is that He is the way in which God incorporated the human experience into Himself, and provided to us an example of what the ultimate human experience is. He seems to have experienced things in linear fashion as we do--thus the reason for not knowing, while He prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, absolutely for sure what the final outcome was to be. In this He demonstrated what absolute faith in God is, even when dealing with emotions like fear and so on.
He was sure what the outcome would be, because he planned that outcome.

Another way in which I understand His existence is as a means of righting an imbalance in the universe. And this is where the notion of sacrifice gets in. I do not know about other Christians so much, but I see Hell as nonexistence, and Satan as annihilation. Human beings, in order to have free will, must be exposed to the imbalance we know as a distinction between good and evil. However, this imbalance does have to be put right ultimately, and it was through Jesus' death and resurrection that this occurred. (Incidentally, I see it as a timeless event...that it occurred for all time, not just those who lived after it occurred.) Something had to fill the void of nothingness--and that is what the sacrifice was.
HUH?

I should ask you to consider the way in which you define "death" in your statement, though, because the way I see it removes the problem that "an omnipotent being cannot die". Cessation of bodily function for me is not synonymous with cessation of the spirit. I do not see the electrochemical processes of the body as the be-all-end-all of one's existence--rather as a conduit for the spirit to interact with the physical world. You could think of this as describing the body as a transformer (in the electrical sense) rather than a container. Death in my view is simply the severing of the connection between the spirit and its conduit (the body), not annihilation. I can see where you may be having a problem if you do view death as annihilation, and I do not know how I can convince you otherwise since I have not died and can't report on it firsthand. But, I think that issue may be at the center of our disagreement: the nature of consciousness.
Death is at least, to some degree, something final and irreversible. In my view, the spirit is directly caused by bodily functions, so when I stop moving, my spirit is permanently gone - that's death. In Christian theology, when your body stops moving, you go to the afterlife and are never able to return to Earth - that's also fairly dead. But God himself, is omnipotent and can travel freely between Earth, Heaven, and Hell whenever he wishes, and can therefore not die. Nothing can ever happen that God cannot easily reverse.

My main complaint is about the line "There is no greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for his friend." True, I agree - for a MAN. For a person to give up all he has to help a friend, is indeed admirable (though you should always seek to find a way that allows both of you to survive first, since your friend will definitely miss you). Yet, God does not truely lose anything, so the "no greater love" claim simply doesn't hold.

For a human, the ultimate sacrifice. For God, a cheap advertisement.

For a human, the ultimate sacrifice. For God, a cheap advertisement.

God could just not bother with us, though. He is nonetheless giving of himself and has been since the beginning. Just as God is eternal, he will be giving eternally. Therefore, he is giving, not just part of himself, but all of himself.

I don't believe it is a sin to "not fear god" If it is a "loving and kind" god there should be nothing to fear...

and yes I do have a wider vocabulary, okay, I was just giving you my opinon on that specific thing (believing in a god because you fear hell) not saying YOU were stupid, don't start with the personal attacks.

1) You are to fear God as you would fear a parent. You know they love and will care for you, but you must nonetheless fear them. When I say God-fearing, I mean the ultimate respect for his utter power and one's own virtual insignificance compared to him, for he is the one that gives you significance.

2) I'm not even going to bother...

If they're all the same at core and that is your justification for thinking you have the right deity, then logically you should also worship only this common core. Which, I think, amounts to little more than Deism.


Fortunately, I wasn't planning on being sinful anyway, at least not according to my own sense of morality, which I think is pretty decent. I don't recall ever seriously damaging anyone's life. And if I live a sinful life, wouldn't I also go to hell if I pretend to believe in the right God?


Representative. In other words, done for the representation (aka publicity). Besides, wasn't Jesus's human body reincarnated?

EDIT: I should probably have been in bed four and a half hours ago. Seeya.

1) I was going under the assumption that there was the possibility that there was possibly one specific God since ::gasp:: I could just MAYBE be wrong.

2) Yes, you would. But if you believe the the right God and are sinful, then perhaps you'll get a little lee-way. For instance, I know a couple people who believe in God, but they think he's wrong.

3)Representation does not mean publicity. It was symbolic that God would sacrifice the most previous thing there was to him, his son and therefore himself for human kind.

anyone who is actively afraid of there parents or god or anyone they interact with regularly is in an abusive and messed up relationship. any argument to the contrary is executed by a person currently in one of these abusive relationships and is either incapable of observing it or is profiting from it in an illigitamate way, so obviously they are either incapable of arguing for it inteligently or are biased beyond value, so there opinion is to be disregarded,i have just answered all arguments that could devalue my statement, so hah!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunatic Goofballs
WHich is why I pity atheists. Because if I'm right, they get nothing.


and i pity you because if i'm right you will have missed out on living the only life you will ever get. your faith renders you unable to experience the fullness of your only chance at existence, according to my beliefs. given the choice, i would rather risk hell than the alternative.


..and I pity you as your beliefs apparently prohibit you from using capital letters, and therefore experiencing the truly great feeling that doing so brings!


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Over three fourths of the world claims to follow some kind of religion. Now, I'm not one for a "join the masses" kind of mentality...but can 4.8 billion people really be completely and totally wrong?

Not to mention, the way I see it, over 3.5 billion of them worship something that has many many aspects of the God I worship.

Just food for thought. At this point, no one is going to read 238 posts on here.

-R. S. of UC

Honestly, when you die, you go where ever the hell you want to go. I personally believe in "God" but i do not see him as a single omnipotent being, but rather a force that eminates throughout the universe. God is everything.

Kind of Buddhisty really.


But really, everyone stop caring whether or not you are doing something right in the eyes of "god" and think about whether what you are doing in life makes you happy and feel fulfilled and doesnt harm others.

..and I pity you as your beliefs apparently prohibit you from using capital letters, and therefore experiencing the truly great feeling that doing so brings!

i've covered this on other threads, but i have a muscle condition that makes it very difficult for me to constantly use the shift key (i type with only three fingers on each hand, and the stretching gets painful); i try to caps propper names out of respect, but capsing each sentence is a literal pain. if you can't find anything more important to do than criticize my capitalization flaws then you should stop posting about it before you tip people off to how boring your life really is.

Over three fourths of the world claims to follow some kind of religion. Now, I'm not one for a "join the masses" kind of mentality...but can 4.8 billion people really be completely and totally wrong?

yes. the number of people who believe something has no bearing on the correctness of that thing. nearly 100% of humans once believed the Earth was located at the center of all existence, but that doesn't mean they were right.

also, virtually none of those 4.8 billion people have exactly the same conception of God, beyond the generalize concept they all get from identical sources of mass religion, so that seems to support the idea that God is made up. people tend to have similar beliefs in God because they are raised in cultures with particular views of God, but go to a different culture and you will find a different God based on the values and priorities of that culture. each culture makes up myths and superstitions based on its situation; so what? people once believed the sun was a fiery chariot driven by a god, or that the world rested on the back of a giant turtle...is there any reason we discard those beliefs as myths while we claim it is reasonable to believe God is still angry with all of us because a talking snake convinced early humans to eat magic fruit?

Ok, so you don't believe in God. Then what do you believe? Big Bang theory, and we evolved from apes? You do realize that relies on faith as much as religion, correct? Except that there is more proof against the whole Bang theory/ape thing.

Is religion true or not?

Depends on which religion you mean... :p

Seriously, though, I'm a Christian and I believe in the Bible.

Ok, so you don't believe in God. Then what do you believe? Big Bang theory, and we evolved from apes? You do realize that relies on faith as much as religion, correct? Except that there is more proof against the whole Bang theory/ape thing.
there is more evidence against any scientific theory than there ever will be against religion, because religion defies evidence of any kind; religion can get around any evidence by saying "God made it that way," because religion is untestable and unscientific.

i know you won't be able to grasp this, but i don't believe in ANY creation story, scientific or otherwise. i don't think there is sufficient information for me to reach any conclusion. i am perfectly comfortable not knowing the answer to "where did we come from?" and similar questions. that said, i find the scientific explanations more relavent and important than religious myths, because scientific explanations can be tested, researched, improved, discarded, and otherwise interacted with, whereas religion is just taking somebody's word for it.

there is more evidence against any scientific theory than there ever will be against religion, because religion defies evidence of any kind; religion can get around any evidence by saying "God made it that way," because religion is untestable and unscientific.

i know you won't be able to grasp this, but i don't believe in ANY creation story, scientific or otherwise. i don't think there is sufficient information for me to reach any conclusion. i am perfectly comfortable not knowing the answer to "where did we come from?" and similar questions. that said, i find the scientific explanations more relavent and important than religious myths, because scientific explanations can be tested, researched, improved, discarded, and otherwise interacted with, whereas religion is just taking somebody's word for it.

You don't have to believe in religions, but I wish you'd show some respect and stop calling them 'myths.' I find that offensive. Besides, there's no way to prove/disprove if they're myths or not, is there?

^No, but that's exactly why they ARE considered myths, from a scientific standpoint.

Wouldn't evolution be considered a myth, then? Like religion, it's scientifically unprovable. Say what you want, there is no way to prove it ever happened or did not happen. Some things might suggest or support pro-evolution or anti-evolution theories, but nothing could conclusively prove or disprove it. (Of course, for what it's worth, I don't believe in evolution. Used to, but stopped believing in it about three years ago. :))

Futhermore, one must ask what you are trying to argue from such a point. That all religions are equally vaild? Following that, and borrowing from Pacal, that we should worship every concievable god "just in case?"

Wouldn't evolution be considered a myth, then? Like religion, it's scientifically unprovable. Say what you want, there is no way to prove it ever happened or did not happen. Some things might suggest or support pro-evolution or anti-evolution theories, but nothing could conclusively prove or disprove it. (Of course, for what it's worth, I don't believe in evolution. Used to, but stopped believing in it about three years ago. :))

Repeat after me: Science is not about certainty.

It is founded on considerable evidence and was determined by the scientifc method. What can be said for these "myths"?

there is more evidence against any scientific theory than there ever will be against religion, because religion defies evidence of any kind; religion can get around any evidence by saying "God made it that way," because religion is untestable and unscientific.

i know you won't be able to grasp this, but i don't believe in ANY creation story, scientific or otherwise. i don't think there is sufficient information for me to reach any conclusion. i am perfectly comfortable not knowing the answer to "where did we come from?" and similar questions. that said, i find the scientific explanations more relavent and important than religious myths, because scientific explanations can be tested, researched, improved, discarded, and otherwise interacted with, whereas religion is just taking somebody's word for it.

That is all fine and well, except that there IS no scientific explanation. Real scientists everywhere are abandoning the Big Bang theory. Evolution (i.e. origin of the species) has been losing credibility for years. Therefore, you leave yourself with a closed mind against the only alternative, that being a higher being. This is very closed-minded of you, and disappointing.

Futhermore, one must ask what you are trying to argue from such a point. That all religions are equally vaild? Following that, and borrowing from Pacal, that we should worship every concievable god "just in case?"

No, of course not. I just think calling religions 'myths' is offensive to many people, regardless of their religion. Even the ancient Greeks and Romans probably wouldn't have taken kindly to having their beliefs called myths.

That is all fine and well, except that there IS no scientific explanation. Real scientists everywhere are abandoning the Big Bang theory. Evolution (i.e. origin of the species) has been losing credibility for years. Therefore, you leave yourself with a closed mind against the only alternative, that being a higher being. This is very closed-minded of you, and disappointing.

Agreed! Well said!

No, of course not. I just think calling religions 'myths' is offensive to many people, regardless of their religion. Even the ancient Greeks and Romans probably wouldn't have taken kindly to having their beliefs called myths.

I notice Christians, in general, don't seem to be too careful about what they deem mythological. Following that, what is the difference between Zeus and the gods forming humans out of clay and Yahweh forming them out of clay? Only that more people believe the latter than the former?

Wouldn't evolution be considered a myth, then? Like religion, it's scientifically unprovable. Say what you want, there is no way to prove it ever happened or did not happen. Some things might suggest or support pro-evolution or anti-evolution theories, but nothing could conclusively prove or disprove it. (Of course, for what it's worth, I don't believe in evolution. Used to, but stopped believing in it about three years ago. :))

Wrong. It CAN be scientifically disproven. Just like this.

The Law of Biogenesis states that life comes from life. Therefore, life must have always existed. Therefore, God must exist, because no other form of life can possibly have existed forever. Evolutionists relunctantly accept the law of Biogenesis, simply because they cannot disprove it.

The Cambrian Explosion. According to evolution, we should see a gradual increase in the number of fossils, along with a gradual increase in complexity. However, in the Cambrian period we suddenly see a literal explosion in the fossil record of no less than 5,000 different species. No fossils have been found that pre-date the Cambrian period.

There you go. I can do more, but I prefer to keep it short. Evolution doesn't work.

That is all fine and well, except that there IS no scientific explanation. Real scientists everywhere are abandoning the Big Bang theory. Evolution (i.e. origin of the species) has been losing credibility for years. Therefore, you leave yourself with a closed mind against the only alternative, that being a higher being. This is very closed-minded of you, and disappointing.

Amazing the fabricated worlds people can create for themselves and then cide another for being close-minded.

Evolution doesn't work.

I definitely agree there!

Amazing the fabricated worlds people can create for themselves and then cide another for being close-minded.

Is that so? Then prove me wrong.

Look--I'm sorry, but if you don't understand basic science, you should not be posting in this thread. (Or maybe any of them...)

I'm not a scientist, nor will I pretend I know the answers here. However, let's look at some REAL BASICS. (Like, Middle School)

Science is comprised of THEORIES.
THEORIES have to have some BASIS in FACT and REALITY, that is DEMONSTRABLE repeatedly.

Okay?

FAITH, by definition, has NO FACTUAL BASIS. That is the DEFINITION.

Therefore, you should NEVER post a thread that states as it's premise, "There is more evidence for faith (your faith in particular) then there is for a scientific theory", esp. when it's a scientific theory which has been so extensively tested, and has so many other connexions.

It's not that I am picking one side or the other--I have my own FAITH beliefs, and there is not a shred of evidence for any of them.

That's what makes them FAITH--I believe them without evidence, and without proof.

I also want to add another disclaimer--I am not religious, certainly not in any mainstream way at least. (I'm also not a wiccan or anything bizzare like that).

Wrong. It CAN be scientifically disproven. Just like this.

The Law of Biogenesis states that life comes from life. Therefore, life must have always existed. Therefore, God must exist, because no other form of life can possibly have existed forever. Evolutionists relunctantly accept the law of Biogenesis, simply because they cannot disprove it.


No such law exists.


The Cambrian Explosion. According to evolution, we should see a gradual increase in the number of fossils, along with a gradual increase in complexity. However, in the Cambrian period we suddenly see a literal explosion in the fossil record of no less than 5,000 different species.


Can a great evolutionary pressure that could have simulated such an "explosion" be ruled out?


No fossils have been found that pre-date the Cambrian period.


A fabrication.

Hades Rules Much--I just read your post.

It's funny, I have yet to ever read a single factual post by you. Everything you post is out of the Good Christian Weekly.

Do you read REAL magazines, or are you solely a puppet for nonsense propaganda?

REAL scientists are not abandoning evolution. Ask Stephen Hawking or ANY prominent modern scientist if he or she is "Abandoning" evolution.

I'm no scientist, but I happen to live near the science department at Yale--I don't know a single person there (all scientists) who would say that they are "Abandoning" the Big Bang OR Evolution.... I also attend scientific lectures and debates on the nature of the universe, physics, etc.--I've NEVER heard any scientist at ANY of them say, "Let's throw out Darwin, Einstein, and every other prominent scientists work for the last 500 years".

Do you actually think before posting?

Is that so? Then prove me wrong.

The very nature of such a comment illustrates the point.

"You do not agree with my conclusions, therefore you are close-minded."

That said, as I have yet to read your previous posts, I will do so now.

Edit: And now, I must say I am disappointed. You have said nothing new. You are indeed a rhetorician for you continually naked assert bold statements for the purpose of seeming profound when there is no actual substance.

Wrong. It CAN be scientifically disproven. Just like this.

The Law of Biogenesis states that life comes from life. Therefore, life must have always existed. Therefore, God must exist, because no other form of life can possibly have existed forever. Evolutionists relunctantly accept the law of Biogenesis, simply because they cannot disprove it.

Actually, nothing can be scientifically proved nonexistent. You can only prove contradictory claims.
More to the point, however: what you are talking about has nothing to do with evolution. And your "logical" extension into proof for existence of God is really rather silly. That's only one possible explanation out of many, which only apply in the case that random generation of life did not occur.
As for the bit on fossils: perhaps you should investigate the fossilization process a little more academically before making a conclusion about it.

No such law exists.



Can a great evolutionary pressure that could have simulated such an "explosion" be ruled out?



A fabrication.
Really? That is all unsubstantiated BS. And I'll prove it.

Law of Biogenesis
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences4.html
http://www.discoverymagazine.com/articles/d1992/d9204g.htm

There is absolutely no evidence that any "evolutionary pressure" occurred. There is no explanation for it. Don't believe me?
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camb.html

Yea, I even got berkeley to lie for me. You dumbass.

Actually, nothing can be scientifically proved nonexistent. You can only prove contradictory claims.
More to the point, however: what you are talking about has nothing to do with evolution. And your "logical" extension into proof for existence of God is really rather silly. That's only one possible explanation out of many, which only apply in the case that random generation of life did not occur.
As for the bit on fossils: perhaps you should investigate the fossilization process a little more academically before making a conclusion about it.

Wrong. If a hypothesis can be consistently be disproven, it is discarded and they go back to the drawing board.

Perhaps you do not know what you are talking about? Evidence anyone? None.
And what I said has everything to do with evolution. Because what I said was fact, and evolution does not fit into those parameters.

Wouldn't evolution be considered a myth, then? Like religion, it's scientifically unprovable. Say what you want, there is no way to prove it ever happened or did not happen. Some things might suggest or support pro-evolution or anti-evolution theories, but nothing could conclusively prove or disprove it.

As God King Eru-sama pointed out, you're talking about the kind of "science" that non-scientists refer to -it doesn't exist. Science is, in the end, just a means of forming reliable generalizations based on observed evidence. In other words, it is extremely limited in its scope and it is also extremely dynamic(any scientific theory is potentially refutable).

Evolution IS provable; at least, the scientifically-accepted Darwinian model is. Think very carefully about the claims you're about to make on Darwinian evolution -chances are you don't even know what it really entails.

Religion, on the other hand, is unprovable because it simply lies beyond the realm of proof. You can never prove or disprove the existence of God or any other spiritual phenomena because they are supernatural -outside of nature. Science can only measure things within our own plane of existence(i.e. nature).

The very nature of such a comment illustrates the point.

"You do not agree with my conclusions, therefore you are close-minded."

That said, as I have yet to read your previous posts, I will do so now.

Edit: And now, I must say I am disappointed. You have said nothing new. You are indeed a rhetorician for you continually naked assert bold statements for the purpose of seeming profound when there is no actual substance.

And you talk a lot of trash without actually having any evidence. You cannot disprove what I say. You don't even understand most of it. Yet you try to pass yourself off as an open-minded, intelligent human being. Give it up.

As God King Eru-sama pointed out, you're talking about the kind of "science" that non-scientists refer to -it doesn't exist. Science is, in the end, just a means of forming reliable generalizations based on observed evidence. In other words, it is extremely limited in its scope and it is also extremely dynamic(any scientific theory is potentially refutable).

Evolution IS provable; at least, the scientifically-accepted Darwinian model is. Think very carefully about the claims you're about to make on Darwinian evolution -chances are you don't even know what it really entails.

Religion, on the other hand, is unprovable because it simply lies beyond the realm of proof. You can never prove or disprove the existence of God or any other spiritual phenomena because they are supernatural -outside of nature. Science can only measure things within our own plane of existence(i.e. nature).

You have obviously never tried to prove a hypothesis. You cannot form a hypothesis, have it endlessly disproved, and still consider it possible. That is your problem. You choose to believe somehting that is completely unsubstantiated. Especially since there is actually more evidence against it.

Wrong. If a hypothesis can be consistently be disproven, it is discarded and they go back to the drawing board.

A hypothesis can't be disproven, consistently or not, ever. You can only prove hypotheses which contradict the initial given hypothesis. The scientific method is evidence-intensive -a lack of evidence does not signify falsehood, it merely signifies a lack of evidence.

And what I said has everything to do with evolution. Because what I said was fact, and evolution does not fit into those parameters.

No, it does not. You were talking about the origin of life. That is a separate topic -evolution is about the development of life, post-origin. It does not, and never has, attempted to explain how life came about(except in futile attempts to debunk evolutionary theory by describing it as something it is not). Darwin himself believed in a supernatural origin of life.

Hades Rules Much--I just read your post.

It's funny, I have yet to ever read a single factual post by you. Everything you post is out of the Good Christian Weekly.

Do you read REAL magazines, or are you solely a puppet for nonsense propaganda?

REAL scientists are not abandoning evolution. Ask Stephen Hawking or ANY prominent modern scientist if he or she is "Abandoning" evolution.

I'm no scientist, but I happen to live near the science department at Yale--I don't know a single person there (all scientists) who would say that they are "Abandoning" the Big Bang OR Evolution.... I also attend scientific lectures and debates on the nature of the universe, physics, etc.--I've NEVER heard any scientist at ANY of them say, "Let's throw out Darwin, Einstein, and every other prominent scientists work for the last 500 years".

Do you actually think before posting?

Are you stupid, or do you usually just post without any fact backing you up?

A hypothesis can't be disproven, consistently or not, ever. You can only prove hypotheses which contradict the initial given hypothesis. The scientific method is evidence-intensive -a lack of evidence does not signify falsehood, it merely signifies a lack of evidence.



No, it does not. You were talking about the origin of life. That is a separate topic -evolution is about the development of life, post-origin. It does not, and never has, attempted to explain how life came about(except in futile attempts to debunk evolutionary theory by describing it as something it is not). Darwin himself believed in a supernatural origin of life.

And, as I said before, evolution deals not only with the origin of the species, but with the origin of life. The Cambrian explosion disproves evolutions part in either.

The scientific method is evidence-intensive -a lack of evidence does not signify falsehood, it merely signifies a lack of evidence.
I am not talking about a lack of evidence. I am talking about conflicting evidence. Evidence that directly disproves the hypothesis.

Really? That is all unsubstantiated BS. And I'll prove it.

Law of Biogenesis
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences4.html
http://www.discoverymagazine.com/articles/d1992/d9204g.htm


I have not seen how this has been established as a law beyond that Creationists state it is such?


There is absolutely no evidence that any "evolutionary pressure" occurred. There is no explanation for it. Don't believe me?
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camb.html

Yea, I even got berkeley to lie for me. You dumbass.

Would you care to point out exactly what is stated and where?

You have obviously never tried to prove a hypothesis. You cannot form a hypothesis, have it endlessly disproved, and still consider it possible.

Actually, you can. People do it every day. Until you prove that any hyopthesis is false, it lies within the realm of possibility. You can not prove a hypothesis is false by simply saying there is no evidence for it. Such a situation has three potential meanings: 1) it is false 2) there is no evidence 3) we can't perceive the evidence. All are equally possible, since none are quantifiable.That is the reason scientists do not claim that god is nonexistent(at least, not as a statement of fact).

And, as I said before, evolution deals not only with the origin of the species, but with the origin of life.

And, as I suspected, you are discussing the layman's version of evolution -which the majority of scientists do not agree with, by the way.

Actually, you can. People do it every day. Until you prove that any hyopthesis is false, it lies within the realm of possibility. You can not prove a hypothesis is false by simply saying there is no evidence for it. Such a situation has three potential meanings: 1) it is false 2) there is no evidence 3) we can't perceive the evidence. All are equally possible, since none are quantifiable.That is the reason scientists do not claim that god is nonexistent(at least, not as a statement of fact).

I never said there was no evidence for it. I said there was evidence against it. I just gave you some. Would you like more? Number 1 would be the answer, because I provided factual evidence that evolution is false. You should quit ignoring that poignant fact.

No, I am not ignoring it. At least, not in the way you would like to believe. I am ignoring it because you are trying to disprove a form of evolutionary theory that only exists in the minds of those attempting to disprove it.

And, as I suspected, you are discussing the layman's version of evolution -which the majority of scientists do not agree with, by the way.
And as I suspected, you are taking the cowards way out of this discussion. Do you know why? Because you have presented absolutely no evidence for your side. None. Prove that evolution has occured. There is no missing link, although people search for one. The definition of evolution I use is the accurate one.

Evolution has two parts. First is macro-evolution, and second is micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is change within a species. Macro-evolution is change from one species to an entirely different species. Micro-evolution can be observed. Macro-evolution has never been observed, and there is no reason to believe that it can occur. And you have provided no proof that I am wrong.

because I provided factual evidence that evolution is false. You should quit ignoring that poignant fact.

I hesistate to ask why no one else seems to acknowledge these "poignant facts" in the scientific world, but no doubt there is some evil atheist conspiracy to lead people away from God underway of which I am unaware.

And as I suspected, you are taking the cowards way out of this discussion. Do you know why? Because you have presented absolutely no evidence for your side.

I'm not presenting evidence because I have no desire to prove the sort of crap you think scientists believe in. Example:

Evolution has two parts. First is macro-evolution, and second is micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is change within a species. Macro-evolution is change from one species to an entirely different species. Micro-evolution can be observed. Macro-evolution has never been observed, and there is no reason to believe that it can occur. And you have provided no proof that I am wrong.

Honestly now. Are you TRYING to prove what I'm saying?

*snip*


And you so fluently demonstrate that you do not know. Continue beating your straw man, it is obviously to anyone with a mind that you have no interest in honest discussion.

You speak boldly to appear profound, while there is no substance to it.

Ok then, I will attack the part of evolution that you are referring to. Simply for your sake.

1. Strangely enough, there is no link between protozoa and metazoa. For evolution to be accurate, you should be able to see a gradual growth from one-celled creatures to many-celled creatures. However, all meta-zoans are made of hundreds of cells, at the very least. There is no possible explaantion for such a jump.

2. Plants. Plants appear suddenly and with no pre-existing form to evolve from. Darwin himself could not explain the appearance of plants. He called it "an abominable mystery."

That better?

I hesistate to ask why no one else seems to acknowledge these "poignant facts" in the scientific world, but no doubt there is some evil atheist conspiracy to lead people away from God underway of which I am unaware.

Provide evidence that I am wrong or shush.

It may just be me, but why do we need science to justify Christianity? It seems to me that if you need scientific evidence to validate your faith, then you have little faith to begin with. Most of being a Christian is feeling the presence of God, the being that He is. I was once lost, but when I found God I found something that had been missing inside of me. I felt, for the first time ever, complete.

Aside from that, I think that the drive to find scientific evidence to prove or disprove a religion would be insulting to any god no matter what your religion.

Honestly now. Are you TRYING to prove what I'm saying?

Honestly now. If you choose to ignore evrything I say, then do so. But if you can't disprove it, with factual evidence, then don't insult me. You have proven nothing. You dance around, but never actually have any proof.


Evidence.

It may just be me, but why do we need science to justify Christianity? It seems to me that if you need scientific evidence to validate your faith, then you have little faith to begin with. Most of being a Christian is feeling the presence of God, the being that He is. I was once lost, but when I found God I found something that had been missing inside of me. I felt, for the first time ever, complete.

Aside from that, I think that the drive to find scientific evidence to prove or disprove a religion would be insulting to any god no matter what your religion.

Thats very nice. However, some people still like to dig around and learn facts. So much the better when those facts actually help me.

Do you intend to listen to anything anybody else is saying? For the last time:

I don't need to prove what you're trying to disprove, because NOBODY BELIEVES IT.

Do you intend to listen to anything anybody else is saying? For the last time:

I don't need to prove what you're trying to disprove, because NOBODY BELIEVES IT.

But the funny thing is, its only because your mind is closed to what you do not like. You have no evidence, you have no proof. I have linked to websites that back me up. I have supporting proof. You have your ignorance. I like my style better.

Depends on who you ask.

And i'm NOT asking.

Provide evidence that I am wrong or shush.

How boldy he proclaims "Prove me wrong! Prove me wrong" while employing the kitchen sink tactic of advancing in the most incredible and refuted claims as devastating flaws in Evolution. Such as this Missing Link (http://pages.emerson.edu/students/benjamin_delahaye/ml/science.html) nonsense.

A rhetorician indeed.

I think I'm just gonna hit the hay. Its obvious these bozos aren't going to say anything particularly intelligent, or give me a challenge of any kind. Listen, start a new thread when you have proof. If you base your atheism in science, then you should be able to back up your beliefs. If you are an atheist just because you don't like the idea of God, then that is a personal issue.

How boldy he proclaims "Prove me wrong! Prove me wrong" while employing the kitchen sink tactic of advancing in the most incredible and refuted claims as devastating flaws in Evolution. Such as this Missing Link (http://pages.emerson.edu/students/benjamin_delahaye/ml/science.html) nonsense.

A rhetorician indeed.

And what exactly do you base this on? Your link only showed a bunch of hoaxes and unproven claims. You still have no proof...

Depends on who you ask.

And i'm NOT asking.

Isn't this a remarkable case of projection? How the rhetorician tries to switch the roles make the honest man seem like a peddler of lies?

Good Night. I hope tomorrow maybe you will have something new for me.



Like Proof proof proof proof proof. You know, what I had.

But the funny thing is, its only because your mind is closed to what you do not like. You have no evidence, you have no proof. I have linked to websites that back me up. I have supporting proof. You have your ignorance. I like my style better.

What the hell are you talking about? The close-minded accusation really doesn't make any sense here. If you want proof, walk outside and talk to some biologists at your local university. Open a book. Evidence for the actual, accepted theory of evolution is not only available, but ubiquitous. You won't be able to see it, however, unless you find out what the scientifically accepted theory of evolution, the Darwinian model, actually IS.

Try to disprove that, and I'll bother having a decent discussion with you. So long as you're trying to disprove a theory that nobody claims is true, I'm not going to waste my time. You're referring to something that does not exist, so why should I try to prove that it does?

And what exactly do you base this on? Your link only showed a bunch of hoaxes and unproven claims. You still have no proof...

... and the dishonesty comes to full sail. He claims "I am not satisified" even when his objection is shown to be flawed at the core. No doubt in some other place of discussion he will advance this objection yet again, convienently forgetting the refutation.

I think I'm just gonna hit the hay. Its obvious these bozos aren't going to say anything particularly intelligent, or give me a challenge of any kind. Listen, start a new thread when you have proof. If you base your atheism in science, then you should be able to back up your beliefs. If you are an atheist just because you don't like the idea of God, then that is a personal issue.

Actually - if you base your atheism in science, then your basis is the evidence. If you see no evidence for 'god', then you have no reason to 'believe' in 'god'.

Science works with what can be recorded, what can be observed and measured, and what can be repeated under isolated conditions.

God does not qualify... has no effect upon science - so it would be illogical for the scientist to pursue reasons to justify/resolve the existence of god.

On the contrary, science only considers 'god' in the light of evidence presented to prove 'his' existence. And, when some evidence turns up, I'm sure science will be very thorough.

In the meantime, the logical SCIENTIFIC viewpoint would be to 'not believe' in 'god'.

I'm not going to say anything particulary clever here, just adding my support for the creationists. The way i see it, a universe without the grace of God would not be one i would want to live in.

I'm not going to say anything particulary clever here, just adding my support for the creationists. The way i see it, a universe without the grace of God would not be one i would want to live in.

Damn shame that what you want doesn't actually affect reality, otherwise everyone would be horribly wealthy and live forever.

Ok, so I don't believe in God or Allah or whoever, i do respect anyone right now ho does. There are so much sick things going on right know on our little planet, it's easy for people to say "Ok, now i know, this place just can't be run by God!" So all of you that do believe in a graeter being: :D

Whether religion is true or not is not the point of religion. The point of religion is to inspire people in a way that maybe more prosaic things cannot inspire. Religion is true in theory although it might not be in reality. But do most of us tell kids that they can't believe in the possibility of there being a Santa Clause? Some parents do, much to the demise of a child's need to believe in the unbelievable. All children and even some adults have wildly active imaginations that more often than not desire an outlet such as religion. I'm all for the teaching of religion in religion classes (Church etc.) but I'm against teaching religion as if it were science. Science deals with certain phenomenon that can be proven or disproved to a degree by cold, and hard experimentation. Religion isn't even in the same ballpark as science is. The two shouldn't even be in the same book together but that is besides the point and i'm offering a little too much of my opinion here.

The point is religion is akin to poetry and art. And in my opinion that's all it should be. It shouldn't be scowled upon just because it's not completely politically correct.

We are all humans and we should respect the many qualities, like imagination, that we have. However placing the beautiful art of religion and poetry in the guise of credible science is disgusting to me.

There's so much that I want to say here about creationists and their ridiculous intelligent design theory that they want to implement into high school science classes that I can't for the sake of censorship.

All in all I want to spiral back and reiterate that the question of is religion true or not is counterproductive to both the institution of science and of religon.

Hey me well i'm a True Christian and i just want to add can you disprove God maybe you can prove a lot of scientific stuff but can you DISPROVE GOD. You can't. it's the honest truth scientists have tried and tried to do it and they can't. They also can prove there big bang, evolution stuff true either. Do you think that beautiful thing like the colour of the sky and the gracefulness of a swan could be created by accident?? If you do you are so sad. This may sound soppy but think about it. :(


Creation is so much more logical than everything happening by chance and if you look at thestuff science has proved anout the beggining of the world it links perfectly with what an "old book" The Bible says.

Life without the grace of God would be far to sad and empty for me

can you DISPROVE GOD.

I can prove saying 'God did it' doesn't actually explain anything, that do?

Creation is so much more logical than everything happening by chance and if you look at thestuff science has proved anout the beggining of the world it links perfectly with what an "old book" The Bible says.

Evolution doesn't say everything happened by chance. Try again.

Also, there's plenty of historical and scientific innaccuracy in the Bible, too.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

And google "Occam's Razor" if you thing creation is in any way logical.

Hey me well i'm a True Christian and i just want to add can you disprove God maybe you can prove a lot of scientific stuff but can you DISPROVE GOD. You can't. it's the honest truth scientists have tried and tried to do it and they can't. They also can prove there big bang, evolution stuff true either. Do you think that beautiful thing like the colour of the sky and the gracefulness of a swan could be created by accident?? If you do you are so sad. This may sound soppy but think about it. :(


Creation is so much more logical than everything happening by chance and if you look at thestuff science has proved anout the beggining of the world it links perfectly with what an "old book" The Bible says.

Life without the grace of God would be far to sad and empty for me

I think you'll find that most scientists have no interest at all in disproving god. Can you disprove Hunuga Skwamba?

Yes - the colour of the sky could be accident... since colour is basically just electromagnetic wavelength. But, it's not accident. Our 'sky' is the colour it is because of atmospheric 'pollution' of various kinds. e.g. The daylit sky is blue because of light arriving through water vapour, etc.

The gracefulness of a swan isn't an accident. Swans are 'graceful' because it is favourable in terms of survival. I was in a hospital once when a patient was wheeled in with a badly broken leg. A swan had 'hit' him with it's wing. He didn't think swans were all that graceful...

By the way... I fail to see why a disbelief in god would make a person 'sad'? Just because YOU cannot envision that world, doesn't make it the wrong view. I suspect most atheists are very happy living in blissful ignorance of the reality/non-reality of god.

Hey me well i'm a True Christian and i just want to add can you disprove God maybe you can prove a lot of scientific stuff but can you DISPROVE GOD. You can't. it's the honest truth scientists have tried and tried to do it and they can't. They also can prove there big bang, evolution stuff true either. Do you think that beautiful thing like the colour of the sky and the gracefulness of a swan could be created by accident?? If you do you are so sad. This may sound soppy but think about it.
The burden of proof if on people that say that there is a god and not on the people who don‘t believe in god. But as god told me to tell everybody earlier, “you cannot prove that god exists anymore than I can prove that I am holding up my left hand while I click the submit button.”

Also anybody who’s a good scientist knows that science proves nothing. All that it can really do is give us pretty good ideas as to what really is happening and how stuff works. Today’s scientific laws could quite possibly be proven inadequate by finding a better explanation or formula.

Evolution doesn't say that things are created by accident. There may be a lot of chance involved, but by all means it is hardly ever an accident. But most of the time animals exhibit traits because they are favored for survival. And besides, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. What would you say if the sky was green? Would you say the same thing?

1. Strangely enough, there is no link between protozoa and metazoa. For evolution to be accurate, you should be able to see a gradual growth from one-celled creatures to many-celled creatures. However, all meta-zoans are made of hundreds of cells, at the very least. There is no possible explaantion for such a jump.
Yes there is. There is no point for an organism to have just two cells, as that would be hardly better than one. Even if such a species existed as an intermediate stage at some point, it would be impossible to find fossils.

However, the primary necessity for multi-celled organisms is to be able to get your cells to stick together. Once you have genes that do so (and they are not particularly uncommon, as they evolved several times independently in various protists), getting to several hundreds of cells is really easy.

2. Plants. Plants appear suddenly and with no pre-existing form to evolve from. Darwin himself could not explain the appearance of plants. He called it "an abominable mystery."
Ever heard of green algae?

Do you think that beautiful thing like the colour of the sky and the gracefulness of a swan could be created by accident??
There are thousands of animal species out there. If one of them just happens to have characteristics that humans consider attractive, then yes, I consider that a fluke. If you think God is responsible for the way animals are, think of all the animals that AREN'T graceful, like worms, mosquitos, hagfish...

As for the sky, if blue is such a beautiful color for it, why do people like to watch sunsets?

1)It is untestable because as yet science has not come up with a way to test it. And science never will because the very concept of something infinite is simply unacceptable within the confines of human science.

2) There are different religions for the same reason that there are different languages. Going by your logic we'd all be speaking modern Proto-Indo-European right now, but we're not, are we? As people spread far and wide and grow seperate from their origin, things will change and evolve. Thing will be made up and forgotten, but nonetheless the core remains the same.

I'm almost tempted to ignore your "why doesn't god just show up" comment. The very point of faith is just that, faith. To receive the grace of god, we must have faith in him and know personally that (s)he exists without having to have it proven and I think that if everyone looks deep inside themselves they will find god there awaiting them.
1 science deals with the infinite more often than you think. Read up on some of the cutting edge physics and cosmology. It's simply impossible to test something that has no percievable properties. The definitions that the faithfull assign to their gods have evolved to be untestable. Gods that can be tested are found wanting, and those religions fade into obscurity.
2 The difference between language and religion is that in the case of religion there's supposed to be a guy who wants you to get it right, so you would think he would show up now and then to clarify.

Webster's dictionary of atheist
A person that believes there is no God
There are actually two types of atheist. The strong atheist position is that there is no possibility of god. This one is pretty hard to defend. How can one be sure? The weak atheist position is that the evidence for god is nonexistant, therefore there is no rational reason to beleive. Basically atheism as a default position until proof can be presented. The latter is my, and most other atheist's beleif.

Ah a little while back it was wondered how God could exist and where he began. The reason God must be eternal is because something had to start the universe in motion. A Word. If there was no word at any time, there would never be an existence of anything. Someone started this book that we all live in. Some of us are written in the Book of Life for eternity. Some of us don't like this book at all and don't want to be apart of it. This knowledge of the book, is only given for us in all of creation to understand. We were given the gift of words from the Origin of Words. Our image is like Him. That is why we understand deep in our hearts what we all must know. We must know God. The word in the flesh has been sent out into this world. He sends the invitation to join in knowing Him. Will you join? Matthew 22:1-14

LAOS DEO
Why must the "something" that started the universe be a conscious being? There isn't any evidence to support that assumption.

It is nothing you did or didn't do. We as humans are born in sin. This is why no works can ever save us, it is only the grace of God that saves us from the flames and frozen winds of hell.

Well, they weren't necessarily comfined to being two people. They could have had children and we never really got a chance to see what would have happened after that, so your guess is as good as mine 8-?
How can you be guilty of a sin you didn't personally commit? Would it be mericfull to punish all white Americans for the sin of slavery? All germans for the holocaust? Why is your god's mercy so inferior to that of his creation?

Over three fourths of the world claims to follow some kind of religion. Now, I'm not one for a "join the masses" kind of mentality...but can 4.8 billion people really be completely and totally wrong?

Not to mention, the way I see it, over 3.5 billion of them worship something that has many many aspects of the God I worship.

Just food for thought. At this point, no one is going to read 238 posts on here.

-R. S. of UC
Sure 4.8 billion people can be totally wrong. Once the entire human species beleived that illness was caused by evil spirits rather than pathogens. Once the majority of people beleived that the earth was flat, and that the sun spun around the earth. Some things are just part of human nature, like the religious experience. Just because they are part of the way our brains are wired doesn't make them correct.

Ok, so you don't believe in God. Then what do you believe? Big Bang theory, and we evolved from apes? You do realize that relies on faith as much as religion, correct? Except that there is more proof against the whole Bang theory/ape thing.
Bullshit. there are reams of evidence to support evolution, and plenty of math and observations to support the big bang.

Good Night. I hope tomorrow maybe you will have something new for me.



Like Proof proof proof proof proof. You know, what I had.
u call that proof?
that what u had?

just saying something in ur eyes unexplained, and say god did it?

well I say a gay leprechaun with a pink hat that has sidehobbies like fucking sheep in the wide wide grassfields did it

'nuff said

I'm sure if somebody would give you a scientific explanation for it you would just reject it, cause that's what ppl who fanaticly believe in god do you know, reject everything instead of prooving it wrong.. and no, you can't prove something wrong by saying "god did it!"

Wouldn't evolution be considered a myth, then? Like religion, it's scientifically unprovable. Say what you want, there is no way to prove it ever happened or did not happen. Some things might suggest or support pro-evolution or anti-evolution theories, but nothing could conclusively prove or disprove it. (Of course, for what it's worth, I don't believe in evolution. Used to, but stopped believing in it about three years ago. :))
It's supported by so much evidence that only a fool would claim it's false at this point. It makes predictions, like the prediction that in transition from one type of animal to another (dinosaurs to birds, land mammals to whales) there would arise species that are midway into the change. We have fossils of feathered dinosaurs, and of toothed birds. We have fossils of animals like ambulocetus, that had striking similarities to whale skeletons, but were capable of shuffling onto land. These support evolution.

Repeat after me: Science is not about certainty.

It is founded on considerable evidence and was determined by the scientifc method. What can be said for these "myths"?
Science is not absolute certainty. It is, however, self-correcting, and testable. Unlike religion, which claims absolute certainty, but provides no mechanism for testing or correction. Science comes closer to the truth because it strives to. If a double blind experiment tells me that a certain drug will cure a disease, and a priest tells me that prayer will, based on what he read in the bible, I would waste no time praying but run to the pharmacy.

i believe religion is faith. if there's nothing to believe in then whats the point in being here. Belief helps us to get through each day. even if we do know ourselves that something isint gonna happen faith helps us to have confidence. Im a catholic but dont go to church. i think people can believe in whatever the hell makes them happy and not give out to other people for believing in something else.

Wrong. It CAN be scientifically disproven. Just like this.

The Law of Biogenesis states that life comes from life. Therefore, life must have always existed. Therefore, God must exist, because no other form of life can possibly have existed forever. Evolutionists relunctantly accept the law of Biogenesis, simply because they cannot disprove it.

The Cambrian Explosion. According to evolution, we should see a gradual increase in the number of fossils, along with a gradual increase in complexity. However, in the Cambrian period we suddenly see a literal explosion in the fossil record of no less than 5,000 different species. No fossils have been found that pre-date the Cambrian period.

There you go. I can do more, but I prefer to keep it short. Evolution doesn't work.
It's kind of tough to find fossils of soft-bodied organisms. We see more fossils after the cambrian period because that's when hard tissues, like shells, teeth, and bones evolved. The first argument is in doubt because then one must wonder what created god? Also, it's been shown that non-living substances can mimic living ones. Prions (defectively folded proteins) can influence similar proteins to fold in a similar defective manner. a sort of non-living procreation. Amino acids, the building blocks of protein, are found scattered throughout the universe. This tends to support the hypothesis that life may have evolved from non-living chemicals. This is, of course, in a speculative phase, but no more speculative than a being who has no beginning.

Really? That is all unsubstantiated BS. And I'll prove it.

There is absolutely no evidence that any "evolutionary pressure" occurred. There is no explanation for it. Don't believe me?
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camb.html

Yea, I even got berkeley to lie for me. You dumbass.


You do realize that the link contradicts your previous post about "There are no fossils found before the Cambrian Period," right?

From the link:

The Cambrian Period marks an important point in the history of life on earth; it is the time when most of the major groups of animals first appear in the fossil record. This event is sometimes called the "Cambrian Explosion", because of the relatively short time over which this diversity of forms appears. It was once thought that the Cambrian rocks contained the first and oldest fossil animals, but these are now to be found in the earlier Vendian strata.

Not sure if you realize the "earlier" in this case means BEFORE THE CAMBRAN PERIOD!

Maybe you should read a webpage you're going to cite as proof for your arguement. Just a thought.

Also, creationscience.com? Please. What other possibility are they going to explore other than CREATION? Propoganda anyone?

i believe religion is faith. if there's nothing to believe in then whats the point in being here. Belief helps us to get through each day. even if we do know ourselves that something isint gonna happen faith helps us to have confidence. Im a catholic but dont go to church. i think people can believe in whatever the hell makes them happy and not give out to other people for believing in something else.
if u need belief to help u through each day, you need to re-evaluate ur life

I have no problem with people who use religion to get through each day however, what I do have a problem with is people who deny they need religion because they're too weak to face the world theirselves and try to force their religion on people who don't need it

I've been reading a WHOLE bunch of really anti-relgious threads recently on the forum. I hear people talking about how stupid you are if you believe in a religion. The problem is that I can call those people stupid for not believeing in a religion for the same reasons. The simple fact is that there's about as much proof of the Big Bang as there is that God spoke and the universe came into existence. And what's to say that God didn't cause the big bang himself? What do you think?

Mrs God and God got it on one night and he banged her, right? Is that what you mean? Then there were lots of little gods created that spread through the universe quickly and became Zeus and Athena and stuff?
:fluffle:

if u need belief to help u through each day, you need to re-evaluate ur life

I have no problem with people who use religion to get through each day however, what I do have a problem with is people who deny they need religion because they're too weak to face the world theirselves and try to force their religion on people who don't need it

Dude, thats your opinion, i take each day as it comes. so what your saying as that because i have belief each day that i need to evaluate my life.

Hey me well i'm a True Christian and i just want to add can you disprove God maybe you can prove a lot of scientific stuff but can you DISPROVE GOD. You can't. it's the honest truth scientists have tried and tried to do it and they can't. They also can prove there big bang, evolution stuff true either. Do you think that beautiful thing like the colour of the sky and the gracefulness of a swan could be created by accident?? If you do you are so sad. This may sound soppy but think about it. :(


Creation is so much more logical than everything happening by chance and if you look at thestuff science has proved anout the beggining of the world it links perfectly with what an "old book" The Bible says.

Life without the grace of God would be far to sad and empty for me
The burden of proof lies with the person that asserts that god exists. You provide evidence for the existance of god, and I'll convert. So far all of your arguments are based on ignorance. "You don't know for sure what happened to cause the universe and life to come into existance, therefore god did it." That's not a logical argument.

i believe religion is faith. if there's nothing to believe in then whats the point in being here. Belief helps us to get through each day. even if we do know ourselves that something isint gonna happen faith helps us to have confidence. Im a catholic but dont go to church. i think people can believe in whatever the hell makes them happy and not give out to other people for believing in something else.
Being here is an end unto itself. Facing struggles and succeeding. Leaving a better world for the next generation. These are the things that make us noble and good. An invisible man in the sky is unnecessary.

thats exactly it, we dont know if god exists. its pure faith, thats what im trying to say. every religion is different with different gods etc, thats the beauty of it. no religion is right, for all i know, none of the gods from any religion exists. it just doesnt matter and you all shouldnt lose sleep over it, just enjoy life while you can coz its far too short

Being here is an end unto itself. Facing struggles and succeeding. Leaving a better world for the next generation. These are the things that make us noble and good. An invisible man in the sky is unnecessary.

i understand what your saying but what im saying is that let them believe in what they want, its making them happy and helping them to believe in something after they die

i understand what your saying but what im saying is that let them believe in what they want, its making them happy and helping them to believe in something after they die
I'm not going out trying to piss on anyone's parade. I'm simply arguing my point of view in a message board. If they don't want to hear it they can ignore the thread. Beleive me, I don't want to engage in religious discussions each and every day with everyone I meet. It's boring and doesn't make you any friends. Threads like this, however, are an appropriate place for such arguments.

WHich is why I pity atheists. Because if I'm right, they get nothing.

Not even the life that they live right now? There are many for whom that's enough.

It's the whole notion of passing judgement on another's beliefs that I find a subject of pity. If you're happy with what you got, who cares if someone's happy with something different?

http://www.discoverymagazine.com/articles/d1992/d9204g.htm

I'd hate to burst your bubble but Gravity IS a theory and that article is more than twelve years old.

I'd hate to burst your bubble but Gravity IS a theory and that article is more than twelve years old.
The existance of gravity isn't a theory. The way gravity works is a theory. Actually it's a number of theories. Experiments and observations are being made to find which one is right.
Likewise, evolution has enough proof that it's regarded almost as a natural law. The debate among scientists is how evolution happened. My money's on punctuated equilibrium.

Dude, thats your opinion, i take each day as it comes. so what your saying as that because i have belief each day that i need to evaluate my life.
don't get me wrong

I said that because u specifically said
Belief helps us to get through each day.

you didn't say you have belief each day but you said it helps u get through each day, which are two entireally different things

The existance of gravity isn't a theory. The way gravity works is a theory. Actually it's a number of theories. Experiments and observations are being made to find which one is right.
Likewise, evolution has enough proof that it's regarded almost as a natural law. The debate among scientists is how evolution happened. My money's on punctuated equilibrium.
I know that, I was just lazily looking for a way to discredit his source. But now you made my mind think so now I have to come up with a less lazy explanation on the article in question. Biogenesis is a theoretical aspect of life. It explains everything except the creation of the first cell, but it was generally accepted because present observations seemed to imply that life was needed to make life. However more recent studies have shown that essential amino acids necessary for living organisms can form through natural processes in an environment without any previous existing organic compounds. Although I’m not sure as to any studies that go beyond that.

Also if I remember correctly, spontaneous generation was also widely accepted for a time before being discredited. The new studies seem to give a different aspect to spontaneous generation. Although I wouldn’t exactly call it spontaneous. It still requires a process of development.

Here's something to think about for both creationists and evolutionists.

Right now, the Big Bang theory is the most prominent due to many facts pointing towards it. A creationist might argue, however, 'Where did the mass come from?'. Well, where did God come from? If God is essentially mass-energy, he had to have had a source. Ahh, but the universe was supposedly not even around until God decided to amuse himself with it. So the natural laws didn't apply, of course.

Scientists take on faith that the mass-energy was always there the same way that creationists take on faith that God was always there. There's no way to prove or disprove either of these - yet.

Now, I have a few questions for the Christians here.

When a baby is first born, its mind is nearly blank. It has instinct, but no true thought. It doesn't associate things the same way a young child or adult does; it feels things and cries to get attention, like an animal - as humans are essentially animals.

Now, you teach the child from day one. You give them knowledge and even send them to school, or homeschool them. They observe things and play games, watch T.V. and talk to other chldren when they're older. All the while, they're learning. You see, everything you know was put there. All knowledge was learned at some point - and every idea is something you've already heard of, or a combination of things you know.

EDIT: (I forgot to include this part)
This also goes for reaction. You learn to react to certain things in a certain way, and to perceive things in a certain way. Thus your decisions will always be the same in the same circumstances, because you were taught to react in that way.

There is no such thing as an original thought!

Now, for the questions: With the above in mind, how is it that we are judged eternally upon death for our sins or for our good deeds? Why are we judged in the name of free will when it clearly and plainly says in the Bible that God has a plan for everyone? Why, if our lives are written out like some book, are our souls, which are not our minds, deemed either worthy or un to enter Heaven?

Do you have a favourite book? Read it again. The characters will do the exact same things they did the first time you read it. They'll say the same things, make the same decisions, and the end will always be the same.

They believe in hard facts.
But where are these "hard facts"?

Who has ever proved that God doesn't exist?

But where are these "hard facts"?

Who has ever proved that God doesn't exist?
The closest thing to proof that god doesn’t exist is because nobody has yet proven that god does exist.

None of this stuff is provable one way or the other. Even once we prove science (and most of it, not the Big Bang but MOST of it, is pretty provavble if you're a reasonable person), this doesn't counter the explanation that science and math were the blueprints of a Creator of some kind for our world. The truth is, we can't see past the scope of science, so we have no clue if anything's there or not, so why fight about it. I'm a theist and my boyfriend is an atheist, but we both conceed that neither of us can be sure. He just puts his faith in science and I put mine in some sort of Higher Power. Big Deal.

But where are these "hard facts"?

Who has ever proved that God doesn't exist?
It isn't up to anyone to prove it doesn't exist. It's up to those who claim he does exist to prove it.

In terms of an afterlife, I trust no one here has any proof for it, so why believe in it? Why believe anything on mere faith?

There is no justification.
If possible read 'Journeys to Heaven and to Hell' by Rodney Davies.

Before i read it i was an out and out atheist, but it got my beliefs started. There are so many accounts of NDEs (Near Death Experiences) where people have regained concioussness and described seeing Heaven and/or Hell that it overwhelmed me. It presented evidence, too, eg: a Hindu woman had an NDE where she was tied to a board with ropes and carried off by angels. When she regained concioussness there were rope markings on her legs where there were none before she had the NDE.

It isn't up to anyone to prove it doesn't exist. It's up to those who claim he does exist to prove it.

Now that is ignorance. Instead, why don't you make it fair and provide evidence that there is an alternative possibility that is actually feasible. As for proving God exists, I can do that with one simple scientific law.

The Law of Biogenesis states that life comes only from life. For life to exist, life would have always had to exist, to satisfy this law. This is proven because no example of spontaneous generation has ever been found. The theory of evolution states that life came from non-living matter through natural processes. This is simply not possible, since every experiment in spontaneous generation has shown it to be impossible.

What this means is that, since life comes only from life, life must have always existed. The only explanation that fits this criteria is that of a higher being. Regardless of which religion you adhere to, the only possibility is that of creation. Therefore, although this does not necessarily prove that the christian God exists, it does prove that there has to be a god.

Except that your "law of biogenesis" is not a law and no-one believes it.

Now that is ignorance. Instead, why don't you make it fair and provide evidence that there is an alternative possibility that is actually feasible. As for proving God exists, I can do that with one simple scientific law.

The Law of Biogenesis states that life comes only from life. For life to exist, life would have always had to exist, to satisfy this law. This is proven because no example of spontaneous generation has ever been found. The theory of evolution states that life came from non-living matter through natural processes. This is simply not possible, since every experiment in spontaneous generation has shown it to be impossible.

What this means is that, since life comes only from life, life must have always existed. The only explanation that fits this criteria is that of a higher being. Regardless of which religion you adhere to, the only possibility is that of creation. Therefore, although this does not necessarily prove that the christian God exists, it does prove that there has to be a god.
Bullshit. There is evidence supporting, but not proving, abiogenesis. The fact that amino acids are found throughout the galaxy, even in comets. The fact that amino acids can organize into proteins without intelligent intervention. The fact that proteins can influence other proteins to fold into similar patterns. Meanwhile, the god hypothesis appeals only to ignorance. "We don't know for sure, therefore god did it." I tend to side with abiogenesis because we can observe amino acids, proteins, prions, etc. We can't detect god(s).

If possible read 'Journeys to Heaven and to Hell' by Rodney Davies.

Before i read it i was an out and out atheist, but it got my beliefs started. There are so many accounts of NDEs (Near Death Experiences) where people have regained concioussness and described seeing Heaven and/or Hell that it overwhelmed me. It presented evidence, too, eg: a Hindu woman had an NDE where she was tied to a board with ropes and carried off by angels. When she regained concioussness there were rope markings on her legs where there were none before she had the NDE.
So, angels need ropes and boards to carry a soul (insubstansial, incorporial, and weightless) up to heaven? Sounds like a load of bullshit to me.

Bullshit. There is evidence supporting, but not proving, abiogenesis. The fact that amino acids are found throughout the galaxy, even in comets. The fact that amino acids can organize into proteins without intelligent intervention. The fact that proteins can influence other proteins to fold into similar patterns. Meanwhile, the god hypothesis appeals only to ignorance. "We don't know for sure, therefore god did it." I tend to side with abiogenesis because we can observe amino acids, proteins, prions, etc. We can't detect god(s).

Amino acids can NOT organize into proteins without intelligent intervention. There are 400 amino acids in one protein string. The odds of amino acids forming correctly into a protein on their own are 1:100^100*. That is less likely than a tornado hitting a junkyard and leaving behind a working Boeing 747.

Not only that, but the law of philosophical necessity states that something cannot come from nothing, and therefore something always was. No scientist has ever postulated that matter always existed, without a source.

Abiogenesis does not work. A virus is the simplest form of life, yet it contains 600 proteins. And some scientists don't even consider a virus to be alive. The odds of 600 proteins coming together correctly and making a working virus are so remote that the possibility is ludicrous.

*100^100 means 100 raised to the hundredth power.

Except that your "law of biogenesis" is not a law and no-one believes it.

Really? It isn't. Well, in that case...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences4.html

Now feel free to bring up some facts to debate if you would like.

Amino acids can NOT organize into proteins without intelligent intervention. There are 400 amino acids in one protein string. The odds of amino acids forming correctly into a protein on their own are 1:100^100. That is less likely than a tornado hitting a junkyard and leaving behind a working Boeing 747.

Not only that, but the law of philosophical necessity states that something cannot come from nothing, and therefore something always was. No scientist has ever postulated that matter always existed, without a source.

Abiogenesis does not work. A virus is the simplest form of life, yet it contains 600 proteins. And some scientists don't even consider a virus to be alive. The odds of 600 proteins coming together correctly and making a working virus are so remote that the possibility is ludicrous.
And how many different possible proteins are there? An almost infinite number. A protein is just a chain of amino acids. The statistic you quoted is for one _specific_ protein. The odds of amino acids, under the right conditions, coming together to form a long chain of unspecified composition is much much better. As for the law of philosophical necessity, it doesn't prove that god always existed. Many scientists beleive that the universe formed from the collision of two "Branes" (short for membranes) why can god exist without a beginning, but branes can't?
I think it's far more reasonable to beleive in abiogenesis, which I admit is speculative, than to beleive in a creator, which is also speculative. At least abiogenesis is founded on things we _know_ exist, whereas we don't know god does.

True. And to be fair, the law of biogenesis has very little to do with abiogenesis, and more to do with spontaneous generation. I must apologize here for mixing up the terms myself.

The law of biogenesis proved that organisms as complex as maggots or even bacteria cannot spontaneously form. In no experiment did they test the possibility of something such as a virus forming from increasingly complex molecules. I will give you that much. I will also point out that such an action has not been observed to occur. This does not necessarily disprove it.

Also, the theory about membranes. Would you happen to have a link or perhaps a book that I could refer to? I simply haven't heard that theory before. Although the idea of eternal membranes does not really seem to strike me as being a viable possibility.

Not only that, but the law of philosophical necessity states that something cannot come from nothing, and therefore something always was. No scientist has ever postulated that matter always existed, without a source.
Something always was, I'll buy that. But which brain disease posessed you to think that this something cannot be anything except an intelligent God?

True. And to be fair, the law of biogenesis has very little to do with abiogenesis, and more to do with spontaneous generation. I must apologize here for mixing up the terms myself.

The law of biogenesis proved that organisms as complex as maggots or even bacteria cannot spontaneously form. In no experiment did they test the possibility of something such as a virus forming from increasingly complex molecules. I will give you that much. I will also point out that such an action has not been observed to occur. This does not necessarily disprove it.
OF COURSE it won't happen during an experiment done in a small box in a lab and taking several hours. But the earth has been around for billions of years. In that time, the chance that somewhere on its surface abiogenesis occurs is much, much, larger.

(Also, bacteria did not evolve from viri. Viri reproduce by infecting cells and causing them to produce more viri instead of fulfil their original function. As such, viri cannot have existed before the first cells (bacteria), because they would have been unable to reproduce.)

OF COURSE it won't happen during an experiment done in a small box in a lab and taking several hours. But the earth has been around for billions of years. In that time, the chance that somewhere on its surface abiogenesis occurs is much, much, larger.

(Also, bacteria did not evolve from viri. Viri reproduce by infecting cells and causing them to produce more viri instead of fulfil their original function. As such, viri cannot have existed before the first cells (bacteria), because they would have been unable to reproduce.)

I never said bacteria evolved from virii (virii, not viri). If you got that from somewhere it wasn't from me. And in this you actually only support a case against evolution. Why? Because even after a virus has managed to form through abiogenesis, there is still no possibility of it transforming into a bacterium. Since many scientists do not consider a virus to be alive, then the law of biogenesis would still apply.

True. And to be fair, the law of biogenesis has very little to do with abiogenesis, and more to do with spontaneous generation. I must apologize here for mixing up the terms myself.

The law of biogenesis proved that organisms as complex as maggots or even bacteria cannot spontaneously form. In no experiment did they test the possibility of something such as a virus forming from increasingly complex molecules. I will give you that much. I will also point out that such an action has not been observed to occur. This does not necessarily disprove it.

Also, the theory about membranes. Would you happen to have a link or perhaps a book that I could refer to? I simply haven't heard that theory before. Although the idea of eternal membranes does not really seem to strike me as being a viable possibility.
The universe in a nutshell by Stephen Hawking has a section on Brane theory.

I never said bacteria evolved from virii (virii, not viri). If you got that from somewhere it wasn't from me. And in this you actually only support a case against evolution. Why? Because even after a virus has managed to form through abiogenesis, there is still no possibility of it transforming into a bacterium. Since many scientists do not consider a virus to be alive, then the law of biogenesis would still apply.
Are you trying to be stupid, or does it come naturally?

BACTERIA DID NOT EVOLVE FROM VIRII. BACTERIA FORMED THROUGH ABIOGENESIS WITHOUT EVER GOING THROUGH AN INTERMEDIATE STAGE THAT COULD BE CALLED A VIRUS. VIRII APPEARED AFTERWARD.

Except that the Law of Biogenesis has already proven that bacteria cannot form from abiogenesis. Abiogenesis only supports the creation of primitive forms. A bacteria has already been shown to be too complex to form through abiogenesis. In other words, you don't understand the theories and laws you are dealing with. Keep reading back and you will see that I already mentioned bacteria could not form through abiogenesis.

Here are replies to the law of biogenesis. These are from people who support abiogenesis. Read the replies, and you will see that they never argue that bacteria might form. They specifically refer to primitive forms of life, and one of them mentions bacteria as being something that cannot be formed through abiogenesis.

In fact, the form of life they refer to is very vague, and at best a stretch to be considered "life."

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Pasteur_proved_life_only_comes_from_life_(law_of_biogenesis)

This is my (very speculative) hypothesis for abiogenesis. In the beginning the earth's warm shallow seas were filled with many chemicals, including amino acids. The amino acids, due to environmental conditions, formed proteins. These proteins could influence the folding of proteins near them. (prions, like those that cause mad cow, are improperly folded proteins that cause other proteins in the brain to fold wrong and thus reproduce themselves). Some proteins were good at resisting folding by others. some were good at causing others to fold. In time complex clusters of proteins may form that had a shell of resistant protein, and an interior of "genetic" protein that could assimilate or reproduce. In time the building blocks of RNA accumulated in some of these "proto cells". It was organized into a chain by one or more of the proteins (the reverse of what happens in modern cells). Now you have a very primitive cell. A cell membrane of resistant proteins, internal cell machinery made of other proteins, and genetic material in the form of RNA.

I can't prove any of that happened, but it seems more likely to me than an eternal intelligence.

Joey, the problem is that abiogenesis only states that a "self-perpetuating, self-reproducing chemical reaction" might form, through the process of abiogenesis. It does not specifically refer to any advanced form of life. In fact, the "chemical reaction" it refers to only barely qualifies as life.

Honestly? I'm tired of these threads.

But I'll answer.

I think Faith is the driving force of afterlife. Like Christ said, "He who believeth in me shall not die, but have eternal life." I think that our afterlife is determined solely by our faith. Call it a neural hallucination as our conciousness fades and subjective time crawls to a standstill, or 'Heaven and Hell'. I think we give ourselves the afterlife our faith says we deserve.

WHich is why I pity atheists. Because if I'm right, they get nothing.

What if YOU picked the wrong faith, buddy?

Joey, the problem is that abiogenesis only states that a "self-perpetuating, self-reproducing chemical reaction" might form, through the process of abiogenesis. It does not specifically refer to any advanced form of life. In fact, the "chemical reaction" it refers to only barely qualifies as life.
But once you have such a self-perpetuating reaction, then isn't very presumptive to assume that over the course of billions of years, they will clump together into gradually larger and more complicated self-reproducing entities, AKA bacteria.

and i pity you because if i'm right you will have missed out on living the only life you will ever get. your faith renders you unable to experience the fullness of your only chance at existence, according to my beliefs. given the choice, i would rather risk hell than the alternative.


what exactly are christians missing out on? the legalistic ones pretty much are supposed to be good to others and not have promiscuous sex. why is that missing out? is there some great experience to be gained by oppressing others?

No. As I said before, even others who believe in abiogenesis do not make this claim. The reason is that there are no links between life forms. Virii are not related to bacteria. Bacteria are not related to amoebas. Amoebas are not related to cows.

Therefor, the only possibility is that all of these forms came about seperately through abiogenesis, which is entirely unlikely.

You know, I've always figured "better safe than sorry". I can live a pretty darn happy life without too much sin, so I'll take my chances on wasting it so that I don't have to spend eternity encased in ice with my eyes ears and mouth frozen shut while satan's four heads gush bloody foam all around me.


well, to be reasonable... there are a lot of other religions that claim to be the only way, too. what if you're right about god existing but you were following the wrong law?

what exactly are christians missing out on? the legalistic ones pretty much are supposed to be good to others and not have promiscuous sex. why is that missing out? is there some great experience to be gained by oppressing others?

No offense, but you kinda posted on something that has already been answered. In fact, I answered it the same way you did. Now the discussion has become more oriented towards scientific facts.

Let's see- the Big Bang thoery successfully predicted:
- Expansion of the universe (Red-shift)
- Cosmic background radiation
- The abundance of helium
- The distrubition of quasars

As well, it resolves Olber's paradox (http://www.fact-index.com/o/ol/olbers__paradox.html).

Please take the time to research (from multiple sources!) scientific theories before you make such statements.



And what's to say that Shimako (http://koti.mbnet.fi/muumi/Roinaa/somethingsomething/more/marimite/shimako01.jpg) didn't cause the big bang herself? I think we should stay true to the scientific method. It works.


many sailors still use the earth-centered model of the universe as a back-up navigating method (the analysis of the star positions based on it) to their more technologically advanced methods. they still work. science is based on observation... not concrete fact. it is our interpretation of what we see. we could be totally wrong.

Bacteria are not related to amoebas. Amoebas are not related to cows.
Yes they are. Spell out with me: EE-VEE-OH-ELL-YOU-TEE-EYE-OH-EN.

No offense, but you kinda posted on something that has already been answered. In fact, I answered it the same way you did. Now the discussion has become more oriented towards scientific facts.
Yep. It's about scientific facts and how you try to deny them.

Really? Facts? You haven't presented a single fact since you got in here. All you have done is pose questions, make suppositions, and without any evidence. I can go on all day about the problems with evolution. The only person denying facts is you. You have ignored every single point I made so far. You probably haven't even had the intelligence to look at the links.

Not to mention the fact that all you have done since you got in here is throw around insults.

"The man who hits first admits that he has run out of ideas."
-Ancient Chinese Proverb

No. As I said before, even others who believe in abiogenesis do not make this claim. The reason is that there are no links between life forms. Virii are not related to bacteria. Bacteria are not related to amoebas. Amoebas are not related to cows.

Therefor, the only possibility is that all of these forms came about seperately through abiogenesis, which is entirely unlikely.
Are hares related to rabbits?
Are turtles related to tortoises?

on abiogenesis
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Actually. No. They aren't. Similar appearance doesn't necessarily mean relation. They are still of different species. And there is no link between the species.

I've been reading a WHOLE bunch of really anti-relgious threads recently on the forum. I hear people talking about how stupid you are if you believe in a religion. The problem is that I can call those people stupid for not believeing in a religion for the same reasons. The simple fact is that there's about as much proof of the Big Bang as there is that God spoke and the universe came into existence. And what's to say that God didn't cause the big bang himself? What do you think?

You are absolutely right about proof. If someone wishes to believe in a creator, in which ever form, that's fine by me. My only problem is when people rely on the teachings of their faith to determine what is right or wrong. Having someone say "Jesus hates gays" does not help the religious institution. I mean come on your more likely to say "fuck off" than anything else.

Actually. No. They aren't. Similar appearance doesn't necessarily mean relation. They are still of different species. And there is no link between the species.
Molecular DNA testing proves otherwise.

Actually. No. They aren't. Similar appearance doesn't necessarily mean relation. They are still of different species. And there is no link between the species.
Are common ancestors not a link? What about the fact that transitional speceis are found in the fossil record? (feathered dinosaurs, toothed birds, etc.)

Not to mention the fact that all you have done since you got in here is throw around insults.

"The man who hits first admits that he has run out of ideas."
-Ancient Chinese Proverb
Like you have any right to say that. Just look at your previous post.

Really? Facts? You haven't presented a single fact since you got in here. All you have done is pose questions, make suppositions, and without any evidence. I can go on all day about the problems with evolution. The only person denying facts is you. You have ignored every single point I made so far. You probably haven't even had the intelligence to look at the links.
:rolleyes:

on abiogenesis
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Several problems I see here. First, the odds they present are actually a lot higher than the ones I have. And I have documented sources for these odds, and they were not figured by Hoyle. Next, I don't know what 300 protein string he could be speaking of, but as I have said before, the simplest form of life is a virus, which consists of about 600 proteins. This is still more complex than what they are referring to. Also, most of the objections he uses against statistics are unfounded, and quite similar to what most people spout off. I never used Borel's Law, already knowing it is worthless (in my opinion).

He presents the composition of non-living matter into living matter as being non-random. However, this is ridiculous since there is nothing to guide the reaction.

Most of everything else he says is basically "they don't understand it," while we are to take for granted that he knows better.

Like you have any right to say that. Just look at your previous post.


:rolleyes:

Really? It says nothing about the man who hits second. I am left free to reply. Add something constructive to the discussion.

Several problems I see here. First, the odds they present are actually a lot higher than the ones I have. And I have documented sources for these odds, and they were not figured by Hoyle. Next, I don't know what 300 protein string he could be speaking of, but as I have said before, the simplest form of life is a virus, which consists of about 600 proteins. This is still more complex than what they are referring to. Also, most of the objections he uses against statistics are unfounded, and quite similar to what most people spout off. I never used Borel's Law, already knowing it is worthless (in my opinion).

He presents the composition of non-living matter into living matter as being non-random. However, this is ridiculous since there is nothing to guide the reaction.

Most of everything else he says is basically "they don't understand it," while we are to take for granted that he knows better.
non-random in that the laws of chemistry only allow certain combinations of chemicals to take place. this limits the ammount of randomness

You are absolutely right about proof. If someone wishes to believe in a creator, in which ever form, that's fine by me. My only problem is when people rely on the teachings of their faith to determine what is right or wrong. Having someone say "Jesus hates gays" does not help the religious institution. I mean come on your more likely to say "fuck off" than anything else.

Did anyone say the Jesus hates gays? No christians hate gays. However, they do regard them as they would anyone else who has sin in their life (i.e. everyone). They simply state that that person should repent (and be baptized depending on your faith). No one hates gay people, or if they do then that would be another sin.

Did anyone say the Jesus hates gays? No christians hate gays. However, they do regard them as they would anyone else who has sin in their life (i.e. everyone). They simply state that that person should repent (and be baptized depending on your faith). No one hates gay people, or if they do then that would be another sin.
None of them? Are you sure? ...

Actually. No. They aren't. Similar appearance doesn't necessarily mean relation. They are still of different species. And there is no link between the species.

"Life" and "species" are ambiguous definitions. There are no unbreakable, eternal divine classifications or categorizations.

How do you explain this situation where two species are directly linked via a third population?:

http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~simmons/1116/16specie.htm

In some cases the determination of a species is not possible. For example there are four phenotypically distinct populations of the deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus found in the Rocky Mountains. These populations are geographically isolated and are referred to as subspecies. At certain points the populations do overlap, and at these locations there is some interbreeding, which produces some gene flow between the populations. Two of these populations are the exception; P. m. artemisiae and P. m. nebrascensis do not interbreed in the area where they overlap. However they are not entirely reproductively isolated as genes from each of these populations can flow through each of the other two subspecies populations. For example populations A and C cannot interbreed, but both can breed with population B. Therefore genes from population A can reach population C through population B. There are many other examples where there is a blurry distinction between populations with limited gene flow and a full biological species with isolated gene pools. It is unlikely that we will see a single unambiguous definition of a species, which will apply in all cases. However this biological species concept does allow us to examine some of the mechanisms which keep two populations genetically isolated.

non-random in that the laws of chemistry only allow certain combinations of chemicals to take place. this limits the ammount of randomness

Actually, if only certain combinations can take place, then it makes it less likely that chance combinations will actually occur in such a manner as to lead to life.

"Life" and "species" are ambiguous definitions. There are no unbreakable, eternal divine classifications or categorizations.

How do you explain this situation where two species are directly linked via a third population?:

http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~simmons/1116/16specie.htm

In some cases the determination of a species is not possible. For example there are four phenotypically distinct populations of the deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus found in the Rocky Mountains. These populations are geographically isolated and are referred to as subspecies. At certain points the populations do overlap, and at these locations there is some interbreeding, which produces some gene flow between the populations. Two of these populations are the exception; P. m. artemisiae and P. m. nebrascensis do not interbreed in the area where they overlap. However they are not entirely reproductively isolated as genes from each of these populations can flow through each of the other two subspecies populations. For example populations A and C cannot interbreed, but both can breed with population B. Therefore genes from population A can reach population C through population B. There are many other examples where there is a blurry distinction between populations with limited gene flow and a full biological species with isolated gene pools. It is unlikely that we will see a single unambiguous definition of a species, which will apply in all cases. However this biological species concept does allow us to examine some of the mechanisms which keep two populations genetically isolated.


This however, does not cause the deer mice to become a different species altogether. This would still be change within a species, and hence irrelevant in relation to evolution. No one disbelieves micro-evolution (change within a species. Macro-evolution (change from one species to another) is what is disbelieved.

Actually, if only certain combinations can take place, then it makes it less likely that chance combinations will actually occur in such a manner as to lead to life.
There is no logic to that statement.

There is no logic to that statement.
Yes there is. You are just too set in your ways to listen. No matter how many chemicals there are. Only certain ones can combine in certain ways. There are conditions that have to be met. Not all can, say, react just by coming in contact with another chemical. Therefore, the conditions that have to be met provide another obstacle.

This however, does not cause the deer mice to become a different species altogether. This would still be change within a species, and hence irrelevant in relation to evolution.
It isn't change within a species because there are clearly two species that cannot reproduce with each other and produce fertile offspring, yet these two populations can exchange genes via a third type of mouse.


No one disbelieves micro-evolution (change within a species. Macro-evolution (change from one species to another) is what is disbelieved.
The deer mice scenario is macro-evolution/speciation in progress.

How do you determine the probability of chemical reactions leading to life? How do you determine the probability of an intelligent creator being existing? The odds against a coin toss landing on it's edge and staying there are slim. The odds of it disappearing into thin air are much slimmer. We know the ingredients for life exist. We can observe them. We know chemical reactions happen without intelligent intervention. No one has yet observed a creator being that has no beginning. I still think natural abiogenesis is more reasonable than a creator.

It isn't change within a species because there are clearly two species that cannot reproduce with each other and produce fertile offspring, yet these two populations can exchange genes via a third type of mouse.



The deer mice scenario is macro-evolution/speciation in progress.
Wrong. It says they do not interbreed. This is not to say that they can not interbreed. Besides which, they are specifically referred to as sub-species, which implies that they are members of the same species.

Wrong. It says they do not interbreed. This is not to say that they can not interbreed. Besides which, they are specifically referred to as sub-species, which implies that they are members of the same species.
What's to stop microevolution's cumulative changes in two isolated populations of the same species from turning them into different species? What's the limiting mechanism?

How do you determine the probability of chemical reactions leading to life? How do you determine the probability of an intelligent creator being existing? The odds against a coin toss landing on it's edge and staying there are slim. The odds of it disappearing into thin air are much slimmer. We know the ingredients for life exist. We can observe them. We know chemical reactions happen without intelligent intervention. No one has yet observed a creator being that has no beginning. I still think natural abiogenesis is more reasonable than a creator.

And you are entitled to have that opinion, although I do not agree with it. I won't try to force you to believe as I do. I only defend my beliefs when theyare attacked. Besides, you have done an excellent job, and I thoroughly enjoyed having a discussion with someone that didn't descend into petty insults. I appreciate your input.

What's to stop microevolution's cumulative changes in two isolated populations of the same species from turning them into different species? What's the limiting mechanism?

Because, if they can still interbreed, and are only different due to physical differences, then they are still of the same species. Micro-evolution = physical changes generally, such as color, tail length, or even size.

And you are entitled to have that opinion, although I do not agree with it. I won't try to force you to believe as I do. I only defend my beliefs when theyare attacked. Besides, you have done an excellent job, and I thoroughly enjoyed having a discussion with someone that didn't descend into petty insults. I appreciate your input.
Thanks for a great discussion. Debates like this encourage me to learn more.

I would also point out that plenty of people came into contact with God in the Old Testament. However, no one living can say the same. And we can not use old writings as proof.

Because, if they can still interbreed, and are only different due to physical differences, then they are still of the same species. Micro-evolution = physical changes generally, such as color, tail length, or even size.
Small differences do add up. What's to stop them from adding up to the point where the two populations can't interbreed?

Yes there is. You are just too set in your ways to listen. No matter how many chemicals there are. Only certain ones can combine in certain ways.
And it just so happens to be that many of these "certain ones" capable of combining in "certain ways" are carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen combining via natural forces to create rudimentary organic substances.
There are conditions that have to be met. Not all can, say, react just by coming in contact with another chemical. Therefore, the conditions that have to be met provide another obstacle.
You correctly name the obstacles, however you fail to realize that natural forces easily overcome these obstacles... large energy sources such as lightning, etc which reconfigure molecular bonding.

Thanks for a great discussion. Debates like this encourage me to learn more.

Hey, its the nice thing about the 'net. If you have nothing else to do for the time being, you can always learn from other people, or at least foster an enthusiasm for knowledge that will serve you well in life. The net is the only reason I gained an interest in politics, for instance.

And it just so happens to be that many of these "certain ones" capable of combining in "certain ways" are carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen combining via natural forces to create rudimentary organic substances.

You correctly name the obstacles, however you fail to realize that natural forces easily overcome these obstacles... large energy sources such as lightning, etc which reconfigure molecular bonding.

Except that what you suggest has never been observed. That is the problem. It is only theorizing.

Did anyone say the Jesus hates gays? No christians hate gays. However, they do regard them as they would anyone else who has sin in their life (i.e. everyone). They simply state that that person should repent (and be baptized depending on your faith). No one hates gay people, or if they do then that would be another sin.

fair enough. But have you not seen the amount of the religious threads that have a some point or other, had someone say this or something similar?
I am not saying that it is standard doctrine, but nor does it shine is in a positive. AND i'm not saying it has too.

But Russo-etc. was talking about the amount of threads that seem to land up being anti-religion. I could just have easily used the argument....pro-life/anti-abortion.

That's fine. I just want to make it understood that if a christian says they hate gay people, then that is in and of itself a sin. Hatred of any kind is a sin. To dislike someone because of their particular sin is rather foolish, because any christian should know that they are sinners as well.

Except that what you suggest has never been observed.
Yes it has

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/AbioticSynthesis.html

Small differences do add up. What's to stop them from adding up to the point where the two populations can't interbreed?

There is no way for that to occur. Unless of course one population of mice grows to the size of the horse, while the other gets smaller. In that case, I would say that the two would no longer inter-breed. However, you could take a male of one species and artificially impregnate a female of the other.

Wrong. It says they do not interbreed. This is not to say that they can not interbreed. Besides which, they are specifically referred to as sub-species, which implies that they are members of the same species.
THey act in all ways as two different species. However scientists will continue to call them subspecies to acknoweldge that these populations are still in the process of macroevolution and thus do not fit traditional definitions of species.

Yes it has

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/AbioticSynthesis.html
All that his experiment formed were amino acids. What exactly is the point? He did not create life. Not to mention that the atmosphere he used (supposedly that of early earth) can not be proved to be correct.

THey act in all ways as two different species. However scientists will continue to call them subspecies to acknoweldge that these populations are still in the process of macroevolution and thus do not fit traditional definitions of species.

Macro-evolution is not even referred to in that article. Macro-evolution can not be observed to occur. Why? Because supposedly it would take millions of years. Therefore, the changes we see now would seem miniscule, or unnoticeable.

There is no way for that to occur. Unless of course one population of mice grows to the size of the horse, while the other gets smaller. In that case, I would say that the two would no longer inter-breed. However, you could take a male of one species and artificially impregnate a female of the other.
If it goes on long enough what's to stop the addition of an extra chromosome or the deletion of an existing one?

Macro-evolution is not even referred to in that article. Macro-evolution can not be observed to occur. Why? Because supposedly it would take millions of years. Therefore, the changes we see now would seem miniscule, or unnoticeable.
Even if macroevolution takes millions of years what we observe is a freezeframe of the process. We can only see a tiny sliver of the process but if we take the deer mice situation to its logical conclusion we will have fully speciated populations. And even though the change is miniscule or nearly unnoticeable that does not mean the trend toward speciation isn't there.

All that his experiment formed were amino acids. What exactly is the point? He did not create life.
But that isn't the only experiment. Other experiments created phospholipids and other components which when left alone coalesced into cell membranes, and artificially made amino acids formed peptide chains. More factors could cause these primitive molecules to increase in complexity until it becomes a self sustaining organism.

Not to mention that the atmosphere he used (supposedly that of early earth) can not be proved to be correct.
The point of this experiment wasn't to show that this is exactly how it happened on earth, but to show that living things can arise from non living things.

Nope. :)

I agree totaly. Faith and Logic are Apples and Oranges. They have different funtions and it would seem anyway that Faith Complements Logic. Look at the Scientific Method When one Forms An Hypothesis. It starts with a kind of Faith.

However When Dealing with ones/someones Life, Freedom, Property or Prosperity Certain kinds of Faith should never be used if this kind of Faith contradicts Logic and/or Love.

At any rate Blind Faith should be a last resort if all possible solutions to a problem have been exhausted.

Faith is always more useful than Blind Faith( A totally Naked Assertion) When dealing with this life.

Blind Faith is unavoidable for most folks, ( myself included) ,But we should still examine critically our Blind Beliefs to see how badly they contradict Logic.

We should never use Naked assertions (Holy Books), that might jusify a belief that someone elses God Concept is wrong. That is why it is important to take our Holy Books with a grain of salt and not allow ourselves to use our Holy Books in an idolatrous way.

All religions are Equally valid as they all depend on Faith. Since we cant be 100 percent(Logic) sure of our Holy books We shouldnt take a chance of being wrong. Put God and people first. And the contents of our Holy Books last.

Consider:
We exist. We are here. So based on that I am assuming that God wants us to survive and therefore we should not limit our chances by not getting along.

Given the number of Religions in the world I would say that the atheist/agnostic has as good a chance as any religionist. Many religions do not have a concept of Hell. The world is bigger than christianity.

God/s Bless.

Is that so? You disagree? Let me explain for you then.

The basic premise of the Big Bang theory is that a very small, very dense clump of matter exploded and then the universe formed from the explosion. However, what it does not explain is where that matter came from.



And I guess we can stop there.... bad definition.

One of the many definitions I have heard, but far from being the only one, and certainly not the one I would wager money on...

Where did the 'big clump of matter' come from?

I prefer the version with the conversion of energy to mass.

Really? It says nothing about the man who hits second. I am left free to reply. Add something constructive to the discussion.
Actually I looked back to see who dispensed with the first insult and it was you. Albeit not directed at Joey, you did say the following.

Are you stupid, or do you usually just post without any fact backing you up?
And I was having a really hard time finding anything that Joey said that could be insulting other than "Bullshit." Which really isn't all that insulting. Not only that but you yourself have yet to put down any credible facts yourself. Most of what you have posted so far is either conjectured or is a complete lie. Where is your credible evidence that you are so expectant of us?

Wrong. Human morality comes precisely from religion. Otherwise, why shouldn't you lie, or think about having sex with your friends wife, or steal some guys car?

It is scary how much stuff 'religious people' would do if they didn't have 'god' to hold them in check...

I'm not religious.

I don't lie, because you always get caught out in the end, and I'd like to think that people tell me the truth.

I don't steal other people's cars because it would piss me off if someone did it to me, because I think it is wrong (an invasion in someone else rights) and because you can go to jail for it...

I have thought about having sex with my friends wives. Everyone - even the religious - will 'think' about it. I haven't done it, though. Mainly because I am happily married, partly because of the whole 'give as you would like to recieve' philosophy, and partly because I respect their relationships too much.

And that is why it scares me that the only reason you can see for not doing any of these things is religion...

The men who wrote it did not claim credit for the words. And you have no evidence of an alternative. As I said before, the Big Bang theory has been disproved. So has evolution. What do you have left?

The men who wrote it DID claim credit, actually.

For example... who wrote the gospel of Matthew? And how do we know...?

I have sooooo much evidence of alternatives, both secular and from other religious sources. What you mean is YOU have no evidence of an alternative. And you won't find any, because you choose not to look.

It depresses me that someone can have a faith so weak, that it would collapse if they found evidence against it.... and that is why they rubbish all the evidence.... hands over ears, singing "I can't hear you..."

The Big Bang is only one possible model... and not the best mechanisma at that, but it has yet to be disproved.

And, re: 'evolution has been disproved'... this is just baiting, I hope... noone is really that ignorant.

HadesRulesMuch seems to be following the misguided notion that if somehow evolution or the big bang are disproven that his position will win by default. This is not the case.

Actually I looked back to see who dispensed with the first insult and it was you. Albeit not directed at Joey, you did say the following.


And I was having a really hard time finding anything that Joey said that could be insulting other than "Bullshit." Which really isn't all that insulting. Not only that but you yourself have yet to put down any credible facts yourself. Most of what you have posted so far is either conjectured or is a complete lie. Where is your credible evidence that you are so expectant of us?
Actually, Hades and I were having a civil discussion. We disagree, but we don't insult.

And for evidence, I have cited numerous websites, since every time I use a scientific law there is some numnut who says "I don't believe you." As Joey said, he and I were having an adult conversation.

Actually, Hades and I were having a civil discussion. We disagree, but we don't insult.
He didn't seem to think so...Unless he was talking about somebody else. He was quite vague as to who he was actually talking about.

He didn't seem to think so...Unless he was talking about somebody else. He was quite vague as to who he was actually talking about.
I think he was talking about me. I'll admit that I was getting rather annoyed by him repeatedly asserting made-up claims that prove an utter lack of understanding of science.

And for evidence, I have cited numerous websites, since every time I use a scientific law there is some numnut who says "I don't believe you." As Joey said, he and I were having an adult conversation.
Yes, you have done that. But those websites were less than credible. Biogenesis is not a law, nor have I ever heard it explained as such until this thread.

Even if macroevolution takes millions of years what we observe is a freezeframe of the process. We can only see a tiny sliver of the process but if we take the deer mice situation to its logical conclusion we will have fully speciated populations. And even though the change is miniscule or nearly unnoticeable that does not mean the trend toward speciation isn't there.

Logical conclusion? There is no evidence for thta. Even in that article, you are taking your own beliefs and twisting what is said so that it fits your view. What you have is 4 variants within a species. They have all adapted physically to the niche which they inhabit. They may not all live in the same environment, and so those with desirable physical attributes survive while those who are less fit die. "Survival of the Fittest." No matter how far down the line you go, all yuo will have is going to be members of the same species who look different. You have absolutely no evidence given in that article to suggest otherwise.

Yes, you have done that. But those websites were less than credible. Biogenesis is not a law, nor have I ever heard it explained as such until this thread.

Really? Well, then that would be your fault for not knowing enough about the subject. The Law of Biogenesis is a law, and was used to disprove the theory of spontaneous generation. There is a lot of history. If you have never heard of it before, I can not hep that.

He didn't seem to think so...Unless he was talking about somebody else. He was quite vague as to who he was actually talking about.

Actually I wasn't talking to him. I was referring to another person who had joined in, and had done nothing but insult me throughout the course of the discussion. Joey knew I was referring to him. Infact, I even quoted the person before replying to their insults. If you did not see this, then that would be your mistake.

Really? Well, then that would be your fault for not knowing enough about the subject. The Law of Biogenesis is a law, and was used to disprove the theory of spontaneous generation. There is a lot of history. If you have never heard of it before, I can not hep that.
Really, and I’m a biology major go figure. The only other time I heard of Biogenesis was in middle school. And they never even tried passing it off as a law.

Actually I wasn't talking to him. I was referring to another person who had joined in, and had done nothing but insult me throughout the course of the discussion. Joey knew I was referring to him. Infact, I even quoted the person before replying to their insults. If you did not see this, then that would be your mistake.
Shit, I just had a brain fart. I even said that it wasn't Joey that you were talking about.

*Hangs head in shame*

Really? Well, then that would be your fault for not knowing enough about the subject. The Law of Biogenesis is a law, and was used to disprove the theory of spontaneous generation. There is a lot of history. If you have never heard of it before, I can not hep that.
The problem with spontaneos generation is that it claims that over very short time spans, it is possible for rotten meat and the like to spawn numerous amounts of insects of the same species. This cannot work, because to create such complex creatures, and to get the same species all the time, and to reliably pull this off EVERY time you have the requisite rotten meat, some information must be stored in the meat that leads to their appearance. There isn't.

However, abiogenesis isn't like this. Firstly, it's not reliable - it probably took trillions of attempts or more (and thus also much more time and space) before by some fluke creating something capable of reproducing itself. Secondly, even this something is much simpler (and thus more likely to appear by a fluke) in design than insects. Thirdly, if abiogenesis happened again, there is no reason why the new life would look anything like the old.

Abiogenesis is not the same theory as spontaneous generation, and the former can be true without the latter. It's simple math, really.

Really, and I’m a biology major go figure. The only other time I heard of Biogenesis was in middle school. And they never even tried passing it off as a law.

Please. You are still a biology major who has presented no facts. Tell me, where do you go to school? You have contributed nothing, other than to say "That's not true!" All the while you still provide no FACT. All we hear is what you say. I could say I was a neurologist. That doesn't mean it is true.

The problem with spontaneos generation is that it claims that over very short time spans, it is possible for rotten meat and the like to spawn numerous amounts of insects of the same species. This cannot work, because to create such complex creatures, and to get the same species all the time, and to reliably pull this off EVERY time you have the requisite rotten meat, some information must be stored in the meat that leads to their appearance. There isn't.

However, abiogenesis isn't like this. Firstly, it's not reliable - it probably took trillions of attempts or more (and thus also much more time and space) before by some fluke creating something capable of reproducing itself. Secondly, even this something is much simpler (and thus more likely to appear by a fluke) in design than insects. Thirdly, if abiogenesis happened again, there is no reason why the new life would look anything like the old.

Abiogenesis is not the same theory as spontaneous generation, and the former can be true without the latter. It's simple math, really.

Funny thing is, I already stated the difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation. Thank you for restating it. I also pointed out that no experiments to prove abiogenesis have succeeded, except for creating a few amino acids. Now. I believe all of you biology majors should remember Dr. Stanley Miller and Dr. Sydney Fox. They are well-known for their attempts to create life in the laboratory.

They created an oxygen free environment, placed all the normal gasses in it, and then passed electricity through it to simulate lightning. Guess what. No life was created. Amino acids are either right- or left-handed. Living creatures contain only left-handed amino acids. The mixtures they created had perfectly even mixes of both types of amino acid.

Logical conclusion? There is no evidence for thta. Even in that article, you are taking your own beliefs and twisting what is said so that it fits your view.
Read the whole article. All the points and facts stated in the article are taken in the evolutionary context... the deer mice story is an example of reproductive barriers and later it is explained how these barriers give rise to macroevolution of wholly new and distinct species... All the points made reflect the title and purpose of the article - "Origin of Species" and examining "evolutionary relationships between species."

What you have is 4 variants within a species. They have all adapted physically to the niche which they inhabit. They may not all live in the same environment, and so those with desirable physical attributes survive while those who are less fit die.
They do live in the same physical environment though... their habitats largely overlap and all are in the north central ROcky Mountains. The only explanation of the deer mice phenomenon is drastic genetic changes that have put them on a macroevolution path.
"Survival of the Fittest." No matter how far down the line you go, all yuo will have is going to be members of the same species who look different. You have absolutely no evidence given in that article to suggest otherwise.
All the evidence and facts in the article support the evolution argument. I think this debate will go nowhere because we both have our own pre-conceived interpretations that we're not going to convince each other of even though we are looking at the exact same facts and claims.

Funny thing is, I already stated the difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation. Thank you for restating it. I also pointed out that no experiments to prove abiogenesis have succeeded, except for creating a few amino acids.
I also already pointed out that more can happen over the course of billions of years somewhere along the Earth surface, than can happen during some experiment in a lab. Even if something has a chance of one in a trillion of happening in a lab, it's still going to be almost guaranteed to have happened at some point during the Earth's history.

Now. I believe all of you biology majors should remember Dr. Stanley Miller and Dr. Sydney Fox. They are well-known for their attempts to create life in the laboratory.

They created an oxygen free environment, placed all the normal gasses in it, and then passed electricity through it to simulate lightning. Guess what. No life was created.
They got closer than anyone thought would have been possible before their experiment. How many millenia do you think it took us until someone even realized that electricity actually is lightning?

Amino acids are either right- or left-handed. Living creatures contain only left-handed amino acids. The mixtures they created had perfectly even mixes of both types of amino acid.
So what? It just shows that there is a later stage of abiogenesis where amino acids are separated by handedness.

Actually, this supports evolution. If all life evolved from a common ancestor, then it makes sense that all life would have the same amino acid handedness as this common ancestor. If God made each species separately, I'd think he'd throw in some variation, as he seems to have done with so many other characteristics.

there's only 1 thing worse than a fanatic religious person

and that's a fanatic religious person on a messageboards

you ppl just can't seem to get that hades will keep ignoring everything he doesn't know anything about, and will try to use his religious dogmas to disproove everything he does know something about

it's what fanatic religious ppl do... live with it and ignore it :P

I do wonder how many people throughout the world have actually changed one of their beliefs as a result of a religious message-board debate.

Please. You are still a biology major who has presented no facts. Tell me, where do you go to school? You have contributed nothing, other than to say "That's not true!" All the while you still provide no FACT. All we hear is what you say. I could say I was a neurologist. That doesn't mean it is true.I have given facts. You simply chose to ignore them.

It took a while before people finally accepted that the earth is not the center of the universe. But I hear that there are still a few people out there who think that it is.
there's even more people who think they are

I do wonder how many people throughout the world have actually changed one of their beliefs as a result of a religious message-board debate.
Bah, bulletin board debates aren’t about gaining converts. They’re about mouthing off, showing what you know, or think you know, having to go back over notes you took long ago, and most importantly it’s about wasting time.

there's even more people who think they are
And for the same reason that people used to think that the world was the center of the universe too. Inflated ego.

and most importantly it’s about wasting time.
Yeah. That's the reason I'm here. Still, it'd be nice if SOMEONE actually listened to me who didn't already agree with me in advance.

Yeah. That's the reason I'm here. Still, it'd be nice if SOMEONE actually listened to me who didn't already agree with me in advance.
Yeah, in most topics that I post something serious in I usually just get a "that's a good idea" reply if anything. Which can be annoying at times, but reassuring because nobody's disagreeing. :D

Yeah, in most topics that I post something serious in I usually just get a "that's a good idea" reply if anything. Which can be annoying at times, but reassuring because nobody's disagreeing. :D

I usually consider it a bad sign if nobody disagrees...

I did actually get a catholic to acknowledge that there were pagan elements in his religion in a livejournal forum...he told me I was going to hell and then emailed me a week later and told me I was right, and he was disturbed by that fact...hehe

Honestly? I'm tired of these threads.

But I'll answer.

I think Faith is the driving force of afterlife. Like Christ said, "He who believeth in me shall not die, but have eternal life." I think that our afterlife is determined solely by our faith. Call it a neural hallucination as our conciousness fades and subjective time crawls to a standstill, or 'Heaven and Hell'. I think we give ourselves the afterlife our faith says we deserve.

WHich is why I pity atheists. Because if I'm right, they get nothing.

well.. not exactly "nothing"..
they get an entire eternity in hell,away from God, doomed to fiery torment, begging for relief through death which never comes.. burning forever, never consumed.. watching the rest of the good people dancing around happilly in the perfect community of Zion. yay
all that fun stuff.

You do realize, of course, that heaven is hotter than hell (http://homepages.westminster.org.uk/hooke/issue9/heaven.htm)?

Honestly? I'm tired of these threads.

But I'll answer.

I think Faith is the driving force of afterlife. Like Christ said, "He who believeth in me shall not die, but have eternal life." I think that our afterlife is determined solely by our faith. Call it a neural hallucination as our conciousness fades and subjective time crawls to a standstill, or 'Heaven and Hell'. I think we give ourselves the afterlife our faith says we deserve.

WHich is why I pity atheists. Because if I'm right, they get nothing.


WHich is why I pity atheists. Because if I'm right, they get nothing.
Even if your guess about how the afterlife works is correct your ASSumption is not necasarily true. And your guess could be totaly wrong. So could my belief of how the afterlife works.

I think Faith is the driving force of afterlife.
Interesting. I assumed God/s is the driving force.
Still… Well, maybe. Who’s to say that God/s didn’t gift us all with free will to the extent that our Faith “IS" the driving force of the afterlife?
Intersting. If this is so then it applies to everyone no matter what their Faith is.

Like Christ said, "He who believeth in me shall not die, but have eternal life."
Your Jesus isnt the only God in the equation there Mr. oinker.

" I think that our afterlife is determined solely by our faith. Call it a neural hallucination as our consciousness fades and subjective time crawls to a standstill,
Ah, the last dream that we might ever have….. then death. In this case Faith is not a factor for people. The atheist might still think they are living as they always have and they lose nothing. They have their last dream like everyone else.

, or 'Heaven and Hell'
A version of the MANY different heavens and happy afterlife concepts , there Mr. oinker? Maybe. A reincarnation as another person or creature on Earth or another planet? Maybe. Stop being so smug you have an advantage in the equation by only one factor over the atheist. Given the fact that there are so many different religions out there Mr. oinker, your chances arent all that peachy either.

The atheist could have for her/himself an afterlife awaiting them if on their death bed they have Faith.
Knowing that your going to die could be traumatic enough that the atheist “might” instantly have Faith in a God/s concept. ROFL!!! Those atheists will have their cake and eat it too. They live thier lives as atheists and then at the last moment have Faith! Hey it could be a real possiblilty. In this case Religion is not necasary only a faith in some kind of Higher Power is! HEE HEE.


Hell? Well only if God/s is totally sadistic and ILLOGICAL.

Punishment is for teaching.
Revenge is for a sadistic pleasure.
Revenge has no purpose.
Punishment does.
What good is it to be taught a lesson if the lesson learned can not be applied by the sinner in a meaningful way?
Can good exist in hell? Will the repentant sinner be taken out of hell?
If not then hell is not a punishment but revenge.
Revenge has no purpose nor does hell.

Since Adam and Eve did not eat of the TREE OF LIFE they can not live eternally without Jehovahs help. And Jehovah told them that if they did eat of the TREE OF KNOWLEGE OF GOOD AND EVIL they would surely die. That would mean that Jesus and Jehovah are sadists and promise breakers by keeping sinners eternaly existant in hell. Also consider the fact that the Jews do not, nor have they ever believed in a Hell. Also I enjoy what Milostein Shared. HEHEHE!!!
Thanks Milostein!

Heaven is Hotter than Hell
From Applied Optics, II, A14 (1972)________________________________________
The temperature of Heaven can be rather accurately computed from available data. Our authority is the Bible: Isaiah 30:26 reads, Moreover the light of the Moon shall be as the light of the Sun and the light of the Sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days.

Thus Heaven receives from the Moon as much radiation as we do from the Sun and in addition seven times seven (forty-nine) times as much as the Earth does from the Sun, or fifty times in all.

The light we receive from the Moon is a ten-thousandth of the light we receive from the Sun, so we can ignore that. With these data we can compute the temperature of Heaven.
The radiation falling on Heaven will heat it to the point where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation.

In other words, Heaven loses fifty times as much heat as the Earth by radiation. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann fourth-power law for radiation:
(E/H)4=50
where E is the absolute temperature of the Earth - 300K. This gives H as 798K (525oC).

The exact temperature of Hell cannot be computed but it must be less than 444.6oC, the temperature at which brimstone or sulphur changes from a liquid to a gas.
Revelations 21:8: But the fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.

A lake of molten brimstone means that its temperature must be below the boiling point, which is 444.6oC. (Above this point it would be a vapour, not a lake.)
We have, then, temperature of Heaven, 525oC. Temperature of Hell, less than 445oC. Therefore, Heaven is hotter than Hell.

They created an oxygen free environment, placed all the normal gasses in it, and then passed electricity through it to simulate lightning. Guess what. No life was created. Amino acids are either right- or left-handed. Living creatures contain only left-handed amino acids. The mixtures they created had perfectly even mixes of both types of amino acid.

So you assume that because living creatures contain only left-handed amino acids the first organic self-replicating molecule must have too? Justify this.

While you're at it, state the theory of creation.

We have, then, temperature of Heaven, 525oC. Temperature of Hell, less than 445oC. Therefore, Heaven is hotter than Hell.

Yeah, but it's a dry heat, man!

Yeah, but it's a dry heat, man!
ROFL!!!

Yeah, but it's a dry heat, man!
It’s actually a bit more complicated than what he said. Heaven is wide open and is allowed to have a nice cool breeze. Not only that but they have central cooling. That’s right, heaven has air conditioning. Now where do you think they blow all of the hot air? That’s right, straight into Hell. You see before Heaven installed in the central cooling system Hell used to be a dank dark pit. But God got the idea to vent all of the hot air of the central air system into hell. It didn’t take long for the temperature in Hell to skyrocket. Once hell heated up God needed to find other places to vent the hot air from time to time. So what he did was he started venting it in the mountains. But anytime there is a build up of heat and gas there would be an explosive force that we call volcanoes. But his primary vent is still in hell. Now hell is a lot hotter than 444 degrees. It’s a closed off area so it acts like a pressure cooker. The Brimstone can’t just evaporate because there’s just no room for it to do so.

It’s actually a bit more complicated than what he said. Heaven is wide open and is allowed to have a nice cool breeze. Not only that but they have central cooling. That’s right, heaven has air conditioning. Now where do you think they blow all of the hot air? That’s right, straight into Hell. You see before Heaven installed in the central cooling system Hell used to be a dank dark pit. But God got the idea to vent all of the hot air of the central air system into hell. It didn’t take long for the temperature in Hell to skyrocket. Once hell heated up God needed to find other places to vent the hot air from time to time. So what he did was he started venting it in the mountains. But anytime there is a build up of heat and gas there would be an explosive force that we call volcanoes. But his primary vent is still in hell. Now hell is a lot hotter than 444 degrees. It’s a closed off area so it acts like a pressure cooker. The Brimstone can’t just evaporate because there’s just no room for it to do so.

Someone needs a refill on their medication...

If it's under pressure, then that means it's nearly full and thus can't accomodate many more souls. Which is a pretty silly state for a place that has been like that for two thousand years.

(Wait, or have I just proven that almost nobody goes to hell? I don't even remember what I'm trying to get at anymore.)

I do wonder how many people throughout the world have actually changed one of their beliefs as a result of a religious message-board debate.
I was a theist, started posting on alt.atheism, and was convinced by the evidence and arguments of atheists. It's important to note that at the time I had explored many religions starting with Roman Catholicism, then protestant christianity, then buddhism, then taoism, then a vague theism. Only after seeing what religions had to offer, and finding it wanting was I ready to consider the possibility that god was a myth.

well.. not exactly "nothing"..
they get an entire eternity in hell,away from God, doomed to fiery torment, begging for relief through death which never comes.. burning forever, never consumed.. watching the rest of the good people dancing around happilly in the perfect community of Zion. yay
all that fun stuff.

Funny thing is that eventually you get used to the eternal torment. If you're constantly subjected to the pain and torment your pain threshold will become so high it won't matter.
Of course you'll go insane eventually because all you do is sit there burning with no other sensation. But the same thing will happen in heaven as well seeing as how eternal bliss gets pretty damn boring after a while with no bad sensation to balance out.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People look for meaning in god, but once god is gone meaning is everywhere.

I was a theist, started posting on alt.atheism, and was convinced by the evidence and arguments of atheists. It's important to note that at the time I had explored many religions starting with Roman Catholicism, then protestant christianity, then buddhism, then taoism, then a vague theism. Only after seeing what religions had to offer, and finding it wanting was I ready to consider the possibility that god was a myth.

I note a trend in your "search".

Structured to unstructured.

If (HEAVY emphasis on the "if") you CAN be swayed by ANY evidence that a concept like "GOD" is (your definition of) a "myth" (probably meaning "nonsense"), then nothing actually changed for you, as you never truly "believed" in the first place.
o
You simply clarified your disbelief.

For those who believe, having them change to non-belief is the equivalent of their suddenly deciding that that time does not exist.

Anything else is simple clarification of non-belief.

If the definition of something is "it is", and you truly elieve that, then there is no convincing you that "it is" means anything but "it is".

Pretty simple stuff, which people complicate for any number of reasons, mostly having to do with "job security".

Happiness, love and wisdom to you..! Aloha nui loa..!


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

I note a trend in your "search".

Structured to unstructured.

If (HEAVY emphasis on the "if") you CAN be swayed by ANY evidence that a concept like "GOD" is (your definition of) a "myth" (probably meaning "nonsense"), then nothing actually changed for you, as you never truly "believed" in the first place.
o
You simply clarified your disbelief.

For those who believe, having them change to non-belief is the equivalent of their suddenly deciding that that time does not exist.

Anything else is simple clarification of non-belief.

If the definition of something is "it is", and you truly elieve that, then there is no convincing you that "it is" means anything but "it is".

Pretty simple stuff, which people complicate for any number of reasons, mostly having to do with "job security".

Happiness, love and wisdom to you..! Aloha nui loa..!


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"
I'm not sure I get the gist of your post. Are you saying that I never really beleived in god? I can assure you that I did. I was looking to understand god as well as possible, and eventually became convinced that I was on a fool's errand.

People look for meaning in god, but once god is gone meaning is everywhere.


This is called being "stuck on words",.. seeing the arbitrariness of words as meaning that all meaning is arbitrary.

I do agree with the sentiment though, once stripped of the bogeyman-word "god",.. that meaning is everywhere as self evident.

I rather like the "it is" phrase as a more accurate (!?) meaning for god.

But then,.. I come from a simple people...! :)


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

You simply clarified your disbelief.



I'm not sure I get the gist of your post. Are you saying that I never really beleived in god? I can assure you that I did. I was looking to understand god as well as possible, and eventually became convinced that I was on a fool's errand.

You can assure yourself of what you like. Just as you can believe what you like.

You can NOT assure me, though, that your "transformation" was anything more than a clarification of your disbelief.

The reason you can't is due to my stubborn definition of "belief in god", which is simply belief that "it is".

You can not convince me that if you believed that "it is" is really true, that you were somehow convinced the "it is" is now suddenly untrue.

Whatever your concept was (of the definition of "god"), it was a concept of which you could be convinced otherwise, which is simply a measure of your disbelief in "it is" toward some other structure of your own creation.

You do not "understand" god. "It is" is all there is to the concept. :)

Everything else is embelishment.

(( As we hear bells go off around the planet as THE SINGULAR MOST PROFOUND THING THAT HAS EVER BEEN SAID IN THE HISTORY OF HUMAN-KIND is voiced in a minor posting, in a minor thread, on a minor website, in some far flung speck of dust somewhere in the vastness of the universe... ))

((
God can come back now and wrap up this little experiment, as we've come to the ultimate answer to everything,... but wait,.. if that's the answer,.. which means essentially "nothing" [logical self-evident trivality], then what is left to do...?!

Everything that is not "it is" is left to do.

Let's get to it then..... :)
))

Wonders abound,.. as do bunnies...

Aloha..!


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Thanks for clearing up what I _really_ beleived. I'm sure glad I have someone like you around who can read my mind and tell me what my _true_ thoughts are. asshole.

There is one thing that I can't ever seem to figure out about theists. People always try and point to the bible or to some ancient scrolls for "proof" that God exists. But I have to ask you to consider that everything that you base your belif on was told to you by someone else. A story that probably was retold a million times before it got to you. It's like the "kidney theft ring" urban legend that keeps floating around. Just because people believe something and repeat it doesn't make it true.

You believe in God because your parents taught you that God existed. Your friends and your family all go to a church, where everyone believes in the same God, the same way, and every week a spiritual adviser tells you that your belief is correct.

But aside from people telling you that it's correct, how do you really know? If you say, "the bible," then I have to remind you that people who you don't know wrote the bible. Probably hundreds, if not thousands, of people had a hand in creating the translated, mass produced version of the bible that you so strongly believe in. And even if God exists and the bible is the word of God, how do you know that it's exactly the same as what was written 1900 - 2000 years ago? Think of Joseph Smith who only about 150 years ago wrote the book of mormon, supposedly inspired by the angel Moroni. Millions of mormons believe that their book is the word of God, based on a guy they don't know and an improbable situation, but their belief is no less valid than yours.

It strikes me as odd, that people can describe, explain, and tell you about God. God loves you. God is kind. God will judge you. Just because the holy man of your religion tells you, does that make it so? Because HE didn't talk with God - he learned his information from another holy man, who learned it from another holy man, and so on. But people can describe God with almost absolute certanty.

I have one last question. Have you personally read the entire bible, and do you daily and without fail follow the rules outlined within it? All of the things in the bible, most people don't really know it or follow it, yet they all believe they are going to go to heaven. It seems to me that if you truely believed in heaven and hell, you'd stop wasting your time online and spend all your time making sure you are doing what God requires of you to get into heaven. Do you know for sure that you're following God's will for man?

Just food for thought.

I am a very religious person. But I am not a Christian or a Jew or a Muslem. I am a Wiccian. And I thnk it is DISGUSTING how all of hte athiest bash orginized religion and all of the other religions bash each other and the athiests. Why cna't we leave each others personal preferances alone and let us live our lives and practice our religions in peace?

Thanks for clearing up what I _really_ beleived. I'm sure glad I have someone like you around who can read my mind and tell me what my _true_ thoughts are. asshole.

Assholes deliver shit,.. as do I, it appears... :)

Therefore I *AM* indeed an asshole...!

Damn,... well done..!


I don't need to read minds. That's not what minds are for.

Minds are for using to make complications into simplicities, and for making simplicities into complications.

You choose to make a very simple, yet profound, concept into a massive earth-shattering personal complication.

That's more than fine..! That is the source of most literature and nifty artwork.

If you choose to take offense at my observations, that's fine. :)

I would rather you NOT do so, as annoyed people tend to be less interesting in conversation.

What I believe is merely "contrast" for you to use in trying to work out your own beliefs, nothing more.

Use what the world gives you in the best way you can, great one.

:)


Happiness, love and wisdom to you..! Aloha..!

-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

You can NOT assure me, though, that your "transformation" was anything more than a clarification of your disbelief.
Some people are actually capable of doing something called "changing your mind". In fact, scientists encourage doing so regularly. That you do not understand how to perform this action, does not mean the same holds for everybody else.

(( As we hear bells go off around the planet as THE SINGULAR MOST PROFOUND THING THAT HAS EVER BEEN SAID IN THE HISTORY OF HUMAN-KIND is voiced in a minor posting, in a minor thread, on a minor website, in some far flung speck of dust somewhere in the vastness of the universe... ))
Where? I'm looking.

The answer Garak is because most religions, especially Christian and Moslem, beleive that it's their duty to convert the world to their brand of belief. They want it in the schools, in the government, everywhere. Most Atheists don't give a damn about religion, except that religion wants to rule our society.

I don't care what believers do in their own homes, or in their churches. But when their belief controls and rules our schools, our courts, our entertainment, and our freedom, I take a personal interest. If I go before a judge who has the ten commandments on the wall behind him, how do I know if I'm going to be judged fairly? Why should our children are forced to recite a prayer in school, regardless of their beliefs. Why can't I buy a beer or a certain kind of music in some places because some religous group claims that it's "immoral."

That is what Atheists are fighting against.

I am a very religious person. But I am not a Christian or a Jew or a Muslem. I am a Wiccian. And I thnk it is DISGUSTING how all of hte athiest bash orginized religion and all of the other religions bash each other and the athiests. Why cna't we leave each others personal preferances alone and let us live our lives and practice our religions in peace?
Ever see the movie Highlander? Well some people think that when it comes to religion there can be only one.

There is one thing that I can't ever seem to figure out about theists. People always try and point to the bible or to some ancient scrolls for "proof" that God exists. But I have to ask you to consider that everything that you base your belif on was told to you by someone else. A story that probably was retold a million times before it got to you. It's like the "kidney theft ring" urban legend that keeps floating around. Just because people believe something and repeat it doesn't make it true.

You believe in God because your parents taught you that God existed. Your friends and your family all go to a church, where everyone believes in the same God, the same way, and every week a spiritual adviser tells you that your belief is correct.

But aside from people telling you that it's correct, how do you really know? If you say, "the bible," then I have to remind you that people who you don't know wrote the bible. Probably hundreds, if not thousands, of people had a hand in creating the translated, mass produced version of the bible that you so strongly believe in. And even if God exists and the bible is the word of God, how do you know that it's exactly the same as what was written 1900 - 2000 years ago? Think of Joseph Smith who only about 150 years ago wrote the book of mormon, supposedly inspired by the angel Moroni. Millions of mormons believe that their book is the word of God, based on a guy they don't know and an improbable situation, but their belief is no less valid than yours.

It strikes me as odd, that people can describe, explain, and tell you about God. God loves you. God is kind. God will judge you. Just because the holy man of your religion tells you, does that make it so? Because HE didn't talk with God - he learned his information from another holy man, who learned it from another holy man, and so on. But people can describe God with almost absolute certanty.

I have one last question. Have you personally read the entire bible, and do you daily and without fail follow the rules outlined within it? All of the things in the bible, most people don't really know it or follow it, yet they all believe they are going to go to heaven. It seems to me that if you truely believed in heaven and hell, you'd stop wasting your time online and spend all your time making sure you are doing what God requires of you to get into heaven. Do you know for sure that you're following God's will for man?

Just food for thought.

I find "pointing at books" to be a silly way to prove anything (especially belief) to anyone.

That is NOT why I believe what I believe.

My parents did NOT teach me anything about god.

That is NOT why I believe what I believe.

How can one really know? What is it you're trying to "know"..!?

Have I read the bible? No. It's very long, and very convoluted. Perhaps some day.

That is NOT why I believe what I believe.

What is it you're trying to "KNOW"..!?


I believe that "god" is equivalent to the concept "it is".

This belief gives me comfort, as something other than my perceptions of things, exists in the world.

It helps explain the "weirdness" of the world, as there is no personality involved in the "it is" and therefore no one to get angry at when things go badly.

If offers a "plan", of sorts, of what to do, or at least how to proceed, because "it is" is always with me, and if I look REAL HARD I might see something that will help me in my present situation.

"It is" is not my mother or father, or wiseman, or ancestor, or forest-nymph, and I therefore carry no societal baggage in my relations with it.

What the heck,... it works for me..! :)

To each his/her own....

Happiness, love and wisdom to you..! Aloha nui loa..!


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
You can NOT assure me, though, that your "transformation" was anything more than a clarification of your disbelief.

Where? I'm looking.


Now you're just being silly.. :)


Some people are actually capable of doing something called "changing your mind". In fact, scientists encourage doing so regularly. That you do not understand how to perform this action, does not mean the same holds for everybody else.

Isn't reading comprehension a wonderful thing..! And the lack of it distressing?

Something defined AS *THE* (singular) absolute is by definition not redefinable, and therefore redefining it on a personal whim is embracing a logical contradiction as a logical non-contradiction.

This is called being silly in the extreme.

"I know you are, but what am I...?"

As childish as it gets actually.


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"