Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: an0n on November 19, 2004, 01:47:29 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4014351.stm
The 'missing link'.
**** you, all you creationist cockholes!
-
I would just like to say that I am religious and yet I think that creationists are some of the most amazingly idiotic people on the planet. Carry on.
-
In my view...religion and relgious belief does not equal creationism. Its a optional feature :)
-
In my opinion, anyone who believes in any God(s) should be taken out back and violently introduced to them.
-
I will not deny that evolution may play a role in the development of life. I will not however give it primacy. It isn't an either/or to me. It's causal, life was created, then it may have evolved.
However, in this case you're missing link is a missing link between a gibbon and a chimp not chimp and humans.
-
Here's an interesting theory about evolution I read the other day:
Oh, he's right, he's just attributed it all to the wrong being.
The universe was created and is maintained by Billy, an invisible being that lives in a small rock I have in my closet. I know because he told me himself. While I was on top of a mountain, when nobody else was around.
Billy says he created the universe for the benefit of bacteria. Human beings are just a way to move bacteria off planet. That is our purpose. If we do it well, he'll reward us with eternity in paradise. Fail to please him, and you will suffer for eternity!
Billy says you may please him by sending me money.
[\PRIEST]
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I will not deny that evolution may play a role in the development of life. I will not however give it primacy. It isn't an either/or to me. It's causal, life was created, then it may have evolved.
You can accept or deny whatever the hell you please, what's right will still be right.
And by that I mean your religion is stupid and wrong.
-
Originally posted by an0n
You can accept or deny whatever the hell you please, what's right will still be right.
And by that I mean your religion is stupid and wrong.
:yes:
-
I always thought that the only difference between religious and non-religious beliefs about creation should basically be whether the Big Bang was natural or an act of God.......
-
No, the difference between religion and science is that science maintains impartiality where religion claims supreme right.
-
i personally am glad we evolved from monekys. if we evolved from cats, we wouldnt get as much sex. :D
-
If life began not in Africa, but in Essex then we'd all be having much, much more.
-
It doesn't matter where we came from. We're here now and that's all that's important.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I always thought that the only difference between religious and non-religious beliefs about creation should basically be whether the Big Bang was natural or an act of God.......
Its the difference between blind stupidity and rational thought.
-
Can't we switch this back from a religion vs. atheism thread back to making fun of people who thing the world was created approximately 6000 years ago?
-
No, because it's the same thing. Without the other side being represented.
-
Not quite. In one, you have atheists, agnostics, a good deal of Christians, and various other religions making fun of another group of Christians, whereas in the other you have atheists vs. agnostics vs. religious people.
-
If you want to be 'real' about evalution, I guess you have to say that life always started on earth. It managed to survive the atmospheric properties back then and still be able to reproduce.
Later on, the life forms evolved with the Earth. It had to make use of the oxygen that was created 2 billion years ago from cyanobacteria.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Not quite. In one, you have atheists, agnostics, a good deal of Christians, and various other religions making fun of another group of Christians, whereas in the other you have atheists vs. agnostics vs. religious people.
Woohoo! A Gang-Flame! :D
-
Originally posted by an0n
If life began not in Africa, but in Essex then we'd all be having much, much more.
Kudos for the Essex joke :D
What's the difference between an Essex girl and a Porsche?
You don't lend the Porsche out to your friend
But, finding another missing link is cool. I guess we'll have the whole family tree before too long....
-
I guess that some people here were molested by priests when kids. That would explain so much hate... :rolleyes: :lol:
-
Originally posted by Liberator
No, because it's the same thing. Without the other side being represented.
You can be religious without being completely block-headed. I consider myself very open about religion, but when people spout **** like, "Evolution is just a theory," they demonstrate that they unquestionably have no idea what they are talking about. NEWSFLASH: GRAVITY IS ALSO A THEORY. People have aboslutely no idea what "theory" means in science. A theory is not a hypothesis; it is an explanation based on what our observation tells us, and our observation tells us that life evolves. It tells us this with much stronger proof than we have for a lot of other theories.
Creationism and evolutionary theory are simply not on equal ground. Creationism has as much merit as an assertion that the moon is made of cheese, and it has absolutely NO PLACE being suggested as legitimate in schools.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
However, in this case you're missing link is a missing link between a gibbon and a chimp not chimp and humans.
I'm going to ignore that on the basis of being bad palaeontology and bad modern day biology. Seriously - read up.
Originally posted by Bri_Dog
It doesn't matter where we came from. We're here now and that's all that's important.
Yes it does.
Anyway, this kicks arse, both for bragging rights on the so called missing link, and the fact that we're fixing up a severe case of fossillessness in a key period of ape evolutionary history. Excellence.
-
I wasn't molested by a priest, but when I was a kid I fantasized about molesting a nun at my sunday school (truth!)...
FYI: I was 9-10 (anyone else ever think of bending over Teenaged Sally Field when she was the Flying Nun? ) :devil:
-
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/link.jpg)
It's late.....
Gettar.... :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
-
Why the hell is it that almost every thread on this damn forum seems to instantly degrade into religion-bashing? This news article by itself has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, and yet you can't go four posts without the flames beginning. Seriously, it's not even worth reading this forum anymore.
-
And the thread title didn't give you any hints that the disussion contained within may just possibly be biased?
-
Or just the fact that it was an0n who posted it?
-
Yes, I was well aware of that. It goes along with what I said, though; even the titles of some of these threads are enough to stop flame-wars. Here's my whole view on the matter: I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe, but we should both just shut up about it.
-
tell that to hte gun toting people out there who want to make you believe what they want to believe.
I believe they can put under terrorists.....or somesuch thing like that.
an0n's one, but fortunately he's a nice one and lets us play about on NW and gives hosting stuff too........errr....
*wonders if he should be on hte running now
-
i believe that what i believe and what everyone else belives is irrelevant. nihilisim rules!
-
Liberator was right, this is not the "missing link" in the popular sense. That's an idea proposed about a hundred years ago that if eveolution was true, we would one day find a fossil that has halfway between apes and humans. Guess what? We did that. It's called australopithicus afarensis. Only half the scientists can't agree on whether it counts or not, and the religious people walk around with fingers in their ears going "Da da da da da da da THEORY! da da da da da da."
Even so as an anthropolgy student it's cool to find new stuff. Maybe in ten years the texbooks will catch up =)
Ok, back to religion bashing, a healthy pastime. You guys hear the one about how the grand canyon could have been made in a day or two when this big lake lake suddenly flooded all at once? Yeah, that's a Duane Gish thing... the worst thing to happen to creationists since the bible was written...
-
If they weren't so serious about it everyone would just lump creationists in with flat earthers and be done with it.
If the Earth is only 6000 years old where did dinosaurs come from?
-
According to many, the fossils were put here to test our faith.
I suppose it's like a detective turning up at the scene finding the husband, knife in hand, which is buried in his wife's chest, blood all over the place, and him standing there saying 'I didn't do it, it's a test to see how good a detective you are!'.
-
I like think of like this:
Religion is a giant cube. All sides are perfect squares, equal in height to width to depth to the most infinitecimal degree. The sides are perfectly smooth, the corners infinitely sharp and precise, the surface - glossy and red.
And common sense is a circular hole.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe, but we should both just shut up about it.
I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've ever agreed with Mongoose on anything. Frankly I'm sick of all the religion bashing, it's pointless and it achieves nothing.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
According to many, the fossils were put here to test our faith.
That's the outlook that worries me. Lets say for absolute certainty that there is a God who would do that kind of thing. He then gives you a book and say "This is the absolute truth" How on Earth can you take that on faith? You know damn well that he's capable of making **** up. It's not even as if the bible actually says "Ignore the fossils. They're just a test". You're supposed to figure out for yourself that they're a test cause they contradict the 6 day creation story.
What these people fail to consider is that if the fossils are a test who says all the tests are external to the bible? Surely the same God who would put scientifically accurate fossils in the ground just to check if people are paying attention would also put tests in the book itself too. After all what good was the fossil test for the 5800 years people thought that they were just angel-kin's bones?
No. The same God who'd test your faith with fake bones would test your faith in other much more subtle ways.
If there is a God I'd bet that the bible is full of other tests. The clauses on homosexuality for a start. I'd bet that was just a test to check if people were paying attention to all that love thy neighbour stuff.
-
Some Native American groups believed that the Earth was formed from a lump of dirt on a turtle's back.
What makes their idea of how the Earth began any more crazy than the Christian idea?
-
Actually, the thing on the back of a turtle/cow/other animal idea has bounced across quite a few continents. Buggered if I know why :nervous:
If creationists want to believe they are created then it's up to them, it affects me not, but if we tried to be truly 'equal', no-one would learn anything at school because there are always 2 points of view on everything.
I guess it is a lot more rewarding to show kids fossils and see them come to their own deductions in their own minds, than reading litany from a book. Though, that's just my opinion ;)
-
For all that I know we can be all in a computer simulation being run by an advanced civilization of bored plasma blobs. (yeah some scientist are considering this possibility, hmmm minus the plasma blobs...)
Why should I care if someone believes earth is 6000 years old and people and dinosaur walked together. If that makes them happy more power to them. I think it is idiotic but I'll not lose my time bashing them and their religion. I know good religious people and good atheists and F***** up fanatics, both religious and atheists. I don't give a **** what a person believes unless they are ****ing fundamenlists or psychos.
-
Religion is not being bashed here. We're bashing people's inability to reconcile their religion with plain truth. You can go around saying 2+2=5, but it takes a lot of nerve to tell people they're intolerant bigots when they dismiss you as being plain wrong. All the faith in the world isn't going to change the fact that you're ignoring the obvious.
Annihilation, if you believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that dinosaurs and humans walked together, you pretty much are a fundamentalist. As for why we care, it's because they're trying to force their laughable worldview on the rest of society by forcing it into the educational system.
-
Originally posted by Annihilation
Why should I care if someone believes earth is 6000 years old and people and dinosaur walked together. If that makes them happy more power to them. I think it is idiotic but I'll not lose my time bashing them and their religion. I know good religious people and good atheists and F***** up fanatics, both religious and atheists. I don't give a **** what a person believes unless they are ****ing fundamenlists or psychos.
Because arguing with them is funnier that just sitting around in your own faeces? :confused:
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Religion is not being bashed here. We're bashing people's inability to reconcile their religion with plain truth. You can go around saying 2+2=5, but it takes a lot of nerve to tell people they're intolerant bigots when they dismiss you as being plain wrong. All the faith in the world isn't going to change the fact that you're ignoring the obvious.
:rolleyes:
-
Here is two reasons that I think evolution is the stupidest thing man has thought of.
1. Evolution relies on chance. By chance the big bang created the universe. It says something about the universe being crushed into something the size of a pencil and bang it created everything. One problem, if it is the beggining there was nothin in the universe. And about evolution, lets say the thing, don't matter what evoloved, ok, maybe a 1 in a 1,000,000,000,000 chance, now whats the "Chance in another one evoloving in maybe 2 to 4 months of its life to mate with, and in the billion years it finally hapens they mate and create another. How long would it take to create all the animals there are today? and why have we not evoloved more, our minds gotten better, but the people back then built the huge buildings and they even forcasted the wet season and stored up food in famine. And finally about the world, I read somewhere if the earth was 1% closer to the sun we would fry, 1% farther away we would freeze, leaving alot to chance ain't it.
2. man has a habit of trying his best to get rid of God. But he can never do it. He trys to create things like God, but he can't. If you look at the cpu's we have today, there powerful, but they don't conpare nothing to the Brain we have in our heads.And we have been looking for that "missing link" and we claim that we have found it, but later on after they study it they find out that it is ether a man or a monkey never both.
Now wether any of you listen to me, is up to you. If some of you really belive we come from a thing like a monkey, they can be you great granparents, But they ain't mine.
-
Ooooohahahahahaha
OOOOHAHAHAHAHA
Let's face it, if I don't laugh in the face of that, I'll cry.
-
Let's see....
1. The Big Bang concept has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
2. The first life on earth would be very simplistic, and therefore asexual, preventing the need of another to reproduce.
-
Edicarians.... sounds like something out of Star Trek really, no orifices whatsoever, no mouth, no anus, they hung around for a few million years before triloblasts turned up ;)
-
Ok, lets say your right, but they will evolove so that they can'treproduce that way anymore.
-
I'd respond to that comment, but I'm still trying to figure out what it's actually saying....
-
Hey WeatherOp:
:welcome:
Finally managed to make the jump, eh?
-
Yeah, I thought I would see what was over here.
-
Oh boy. I can see chats getting nice and lively round here ;)
:welcome:
-
Here's the trick, Big Bang Theory and Evolution stem from the same mindset: "There is no God".
That's why they get talked about in the same breath. I agree facts are facts, and here's a fact: We have no reliable records from more than 10-12 millennia ago, and those are sketchy at best. We can have absolutely no idea, no matter how good the math is, how the Universe began without actually developing a Time Machine and going back to see for ourselves. The same is true of Evolution Theory, we can't know how we got here unless we travel far enough back to find out how or why.
All these arguments do is serve to divide us as a species. I'm one day, one way or another, the argument will be settled. However, there are aspects of life that science is all it's complexity can't explain and isn't equipped to explain, because according to science it can't or shouldn't be that way. This is where religion comes in. It's no mistake that religion has slowly moved back from primacy in our daily lives, as science has explained different aspects of life and the universe, religion didn't have to anymore. But, for every answer, a new question and every question a new aspect of religion has risen. People need to have things explained in life, when science can't do it, they turn to religion.
I belive, and this is my personal belief, there is an almighty, all knowing, personal God that created the universe at sometime in the past. He set the rules and conditions into place that the Universe operates on. He loves his creations in a way that no mortal being can comprehend, and as such has set paths before us to lead us to where we will be at both our happiest and greatest. He has given us the ability to understand most of creation, but it is so vast that we will never be able to comprehend it all.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Here's the trick, Big Bang Theory and Evolution stem from the same mindset: "There is no God".
That's bull****. What about all of the people who believe God caused the Big Bang? Or that Evolution was God's plan all along?
-
Actually, the aim of science isn't anything to do with a God, be it proving or disproving it's existence.
Some people interpret that as an attack. ;)
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Here is two reasons that I think evolution is the stupidest thing man has thought of.
1. Evolution relies on chance. By chance the big bang created the universe. It says something about the universe being crushed into something the size of a pencil and bang it created everything. One problem, if it is the beggining there was nothin in the universe. And about evolution, lets say the thing, don't matter what evoloved, ok, maybe a 1 in a 1,000,000,000,000 chance, now whats the "Chance in another one evoloving in maybe 2 to 4 months of its life to mate with, and in the billion years it finally hapens they mate and create another. How long would it take to create all the animals there are today? and why have we not evoloved more, our minds gotten better, but the people back then built the huge buildings and they even forcasted the wet season and stored up food in famine. And finally about the world, I read somewhere if the earth was 1% closer to the sun we would fry, 1% farther away we would freeze, leaving alot to chance ain't it.
2. man has a habit of trying his best to get rid of God. But he can never do it. He trys to create things like God, but he can't. If you look at the cpu's we have today, there powerful, but they don't conpare nothing to the Brain we have in our heads.And we have been looking for that "missing link" and we claim that we have found it, but later on after they study it they find out that it is ether a man or a monkey never both.
Now wether any of you listen to me, is up to you. If some of you really belive we come from a thing like a monkey, they can be you great granparents, But they ain't mine.
Oh dear.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
I'm going to go through this point by point and explain it. You will probably choose not to listen. But if I don't, I'll feel bad that I knew someone with beliefs like this existed, and I did not even try to enlighten them.
So, in order...
The big bang is not evolution. At all. How the hell people can confuse cosmology and astrophysics with biology is beyond me. They are two of the most widely separated fields of sciences yo could possibly get. The big bang has nothing to do with evolution. Please - if you take nothing else away from reading this post, take that.
Biogenesis - the initial formation of life - is the first point at which evolution may come into play. The first "life" probably consisted of extremely primitive RNA like protein chains that self replicated. That's all. Just primitive chemicals making primitive chemicals. Just like modern day bacteria, cyanobacteria and other asexual organisms, they didn't need to mate. Sexual reproduction took billions of years to evolve.
Our minds. Ok. I'm not 100% sure where you're going with this, but I think you're comparing our brains with those of the monument builders of the past, i.e. the Egyptians, the Britons, the Maltese temple builders, the Babylonians etc. etc. Once again, you're not applying evolution in the correct context. Homo Sapiens Sapiens has existed for about 300 000 years if memory serves. The four or five thousand years that separates us today from the Great Pyramids at Giza is nothing on an evolutionary scale of time. A mere grain of sand through the hourglass. Genetically, we were identical to those people. Culturally and technologically we've improved, but only through the gradual process of learning from the past and adapting or innovating old procedures and knowledge.
The position of the earth. Yes, in all likelyhood, if the earth moved that much on it's orbit, things would change on the planet. 1% is rahther a lot when you're talking about the scale of astronomical distances. But the reason we survive so well here is because we have adapted, over the course of billions of years, through evolution, to the earths current position. Had it been that 1% further out, different organisms would have evolved who, theoretically, could have been sitting at their computers going "You know, if the earth was 1% further in, we'd fry to death".
Comparing the brain to CPUs. Err... Just because something is good, as the human brain is, doesn't provide any evidence either way. The crux of human evolution has been the growth in complexity of the brain, o get it to the point it's at now. CPUs don't do anything like the jobs the brain does - they're designed to do mathematics, really really quickly. Our brain is designed to do a totally different and far more varied range of tasks.
The missing link. You're misunderstanding the concept of "Monkey" (Which should be primate, more accurately) and "Human". These are, at best, arbitrarily assigned groups by taxonomists. Biologically, there is no true "monkey", to use your term, and there is no true "Human" either. The very concept of the missing link is foolish - it's basically requesing palaeontologists find a half ape, half human. That's not the way evolution works, and represents a serious lack of understanding. What we have is a somewhat patchy (up until the last few million years anyway) record of gradual evolution from apes to what we consider modern humans. If you date them and arrange them in order, there are no missing links. Evoluion doesn;t need them - it's got the entire chain right there. Tis fossil is representative of the last common ancestor between Apes and Humans - both groups evolved along the line of this animal, or something very much like it. What more did you want?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Here's the trick, Big Bang Theory and Evolution stem from the same mindset: "There is no God".
no they stem from the mindset "without useing any preconcived notions and useing only what we can see today what can we figure out as to how things happened"
We can have absolutely no idea, no matter how good the math is, how the Universe began without actually developing a Time Machine and going back to see for ourselves. The same is true of Evolution Theory, we can't know how we got here unless we travel far enough back to find out how or why.
we have an idea, maybe it's wrong, but we have an idea, that's the whole pointwe don't know, we can't, but we're trying to figure out as best we can
However, there are aspects of life that science is all it's complexity can't explain and isn't equipped to explain, because according to science it can't or shouldn't be that way.
not sure what you are talking about
I belive, and this is my personal belief, there is an almighty, all knowing, personal God that created the universe at sometime in the past. He set the rules and conditions into place that the Universe operates on. He loves his creations in a way that no mortal being can comprehend, and as such has set paths before us to lead us to where we will be at both our happiest and greatest. He has given us the ability to understand most of creation, but it is so vast that we will never be able to comprehend it all.
I have no problem with that, and totaly respect it. now I know the word 'respect' gets tossed around around as a means to change the subject, but I realy do, I'm not going to tell you that you are wrong, becase I don't know for absolute certanty that I am right, I just happen to think that what I beleive is a lot more likely that what you believe. I not only have no desier to force you to change what you belive or the way you lead your life I will fight to alow you to continue, even though I think you are dead wrong. but consequently I also will fight you if I feel you are trying to force your thinking or way of life on other people
-
I will walk the wire here and try to balance two equations.
Since I have seen no evidence to the contrary, I am willing to acknowledge the theory that a God created the universe and set it into motion, whereas physics set in, and with any system, after a while Chaos starts to set in, it's one of those laws of physics.
I refuse, however to hold myself in such an exulted position as to believe that this entire universe, billions upon billions of light years in size, aeons old, was created for the sole purpose of giving us somewhere to stand. That, to my mind, is an insult to the creation, be it natural or deified.
So if I, who believes in evolution am going to acknowledge that I don't know the answer to all our questions, and that God still hasn't been dismissed as a Primal Force of some kind. Who's going to acknowledge the evidence for evolution? ;)
-
Originally posted by Liberator
That's why they get talked about in the same breath. I agree facts are facts, and here's a fact: We have no reliable records from more than 10-12 millennia ago, and those are sketchy at best.
What about the fossil record? In some ways, it's far more reliable than written records - the fossil record was not written by the winners, it wasn't coloured by perception or preexisting beliefs. It just is, as the animal died. Sure, it can be fragmentary, and occasionally bits and pieces are altered by unusual circumstances, but by ad large, it all fits together cohesively and neatly.
And it provides ridiculously strong evidence for evolution. Take Echinoids for example. There are two great groups in the fossil record - irregular and regular. The regular echinoids evolved first, and we have a very clear evolutionar history for those things turning into irregular echinoids. Their mouth and anus moved around their body from top/bottom to front/back over a period of millions of years, their plates changed in composition and shape, again over a periond of millions of years, and all the other changes gradually occured. If you lay out the dozen or so fossil species we have of this transition in chronological order, the gradual change is impossible to miss. It's the same with trilobites, horses, dinosaurs, humans - anything we have a decently complete fossil record for. Gradual change always occurs, always in line with radiological dating methods. They support each other, thousands and thousands of times across the fossil record. How can that be ignored?
-
hmm... did libby invite a frend :)
is there some creationist forum he belongs to who keep a watchful eye on us nasty atheist pegans?
well come one come all, just ask one question at a time and we'll be more than happy to explane anything you don't get.
would you like to know how a lifeless planet could spontaniusly spawn life?
-
Flip, I never said we were the only creations. I also believe that there are thousands if not millions of sentient species in this galaxy alone, let alone the rest of the universe.
-
I can give a rather nice synopsis on the formation of the Solar System if you would like? ;)
Edit : I know you don't personally Lib, but I betcha know people who do ;)
-
Heh. The entire universe exists for HOOMANS to conquer!
-
The funny thing is, had Dinosaurs developed a rudimentary culture, say around tribal level, with a 'spoken' language, and possibly simplistic writing, domesticating animals etc, we would find absolutely no evidence to say so. We can barely find evidence of human cultures 10 thousand years old, so image what 60 million years would wipe away?
Many of the smaller dinosaurs were pretty smart. Now I'm not saying that Dinosaurs were intelligent or had a culture of any kind, what I am saying is that if they did the odds of us finding any evidence of it are absolutely minute.
-
Atlantis was of Reptilian Construct!
-
oh, I remembered this (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/)
-
The reason I put evolution and the big bang together is because they are used together. And the only reason man made evolution is something to say they belive in besides a Allmighty God, because if you say you come from a "Primate" you don't have to live right, you don't have God to come and get you for living wrong. Man wants to make his on destiny, not allready planed by God. One thing that will seperate man form primates or any other animal. Is that MAN HAS A FREE WILL AND KNOWS RIGHT FORM WRONG,animals follow instinct, they do whats in their head, they don't know wether what their doing is right or wrong, their only instict is to survive, wether it means killing your brother for that tiny piece of food. And that how They will never find the animal to link us.
-
Humans are one of a very small number of animals that 'kill their brothers for food'. As a general rule Primates and most other species don't do that. Especially when there is no actual competition for it.
-
WeatherOp, I find it truly frightening that people actually think as you do.
-
You know, I've just figured out why the guy in that 'Ascent of Man' poster looks so happy as he changes from a Neolith into Modern Man.... he managed to make that entire journey without showing his genitals! :nervous:
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
The reason I put evolution and the big bang together is because they are used together. And the only reason man made evolution is something to say they belive in besides a Allmighty God, because if you say you come from a "Primate" you don't have to live right, you don't have God to come and get you for living wrong. Man wants to make his on destiny, not allready planed by God. One thing that will seperate man form primates or any other animal. Is that MAN HAS A FREE WILL AND KNOWS RIGHT FORM WRONG,animals follow instinct, they do whats in their head, the don't know wether what their doing is right or wrong, their only instict is to survive, wether it means killing your brother for that tiny piece of food. And that how They will never find the animal to link us.
Evolution was created for no ther reason than Newtons theory of gravity were created, or Einsteins theory of Relativity. To explain observations about the natural world. That's wha science does. The rest of your post is essentially spouting anti evolution dogma.
Interesting fact - many primates, once aught to convey their thoughts through sign language or computers, have similar fundamental ideas to us. They share food among their groups, don't kill members of their own social groups, rarely kill members of other socil groups except in "wars" when one troop tries to enter anothers territory. Their 'morality', if you want to call it that, is not that different from our own.
-
Now, wether they choose to use knowledge of right or wrong, is up to them. But, they have that choice.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Annihilation, if you believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that dinosaurs and humans walked together, you pretty much are a fundamentalist. As for why we care, it's because they're trying to force their laughable worldview on the rest of society by forcing it into the educational system.
Just to clarify this point I think that's bull****, obviously earth is billions of years old and dinosaurs never had the bad luck to walk with humans.
-
I find your discriminatory attitude towards animals offensive the squirrel living in my backyard, WeatherOp. :mad:
-
I told myself that I should have left this thread alone. Like I said before if you belive you came from "Primates" you did. But, I didn't. But, this subject will go on forever until the book of Revelation come to pass.
-
What science is, is the combination of intuition and observation.
We could get into 'Why did God give us the ability to think and then not expect is to use it?', that's always good for a laugh ;)
As for the Book or Revelation stuff......ummmm.... ok, problem is, how many people are working subconciously towards making that a self-fulfilling prophecy?
-
IF there is a God out there he obviously don't want to have his existence proved. So it's useless to try proving that or what He really wants. But you this was never about God but power, influence and people with different opinions that can't get along together.
-
And I don't know why people thinks that evolution is against religious beliefs. Just because of a book that's an obvious alegory, a fable? I think that genetics and evolution are a mechanism much more interesting than Hmmm, what can I put here in this savana? Oh, right, right an elephant and that evolution doesn't prove or disprove anything besides evolution.
-
Just to clarify this point I think that's bull****, obviously earth is billions of years old and dinosaurs never had the bad luck to walk with humans.
Yeah I know, I was just using the general "you."
But, this subject will go on forever until the book of Revelation come to pass.
If it does, you may rest assured that I will be among the first to beg for mercy. In the meantime, I will be content with the only substantial gifts religion has given us: its art, music and literature.
-
Indeed, but anything that divides people up into 'Us' and 'Them' is bad, inevitable in the extreme, but bad.
Science started out as Chemistry, or rather as Alchemy, a practice designed to turn lead into gold, which usually only suceeded in turning gold into less gold. However, in the course of their experiments, Alchemists took notes and starting noting similarities and properties of certain mixtures. Alchemy gave rise to various basic cures and remedies across a lot of Europe. Basic remedies such as boiled China-clay in suspension, which is still one of the most effective cures for diaorhhea. They may seem minor, but an upset stomach can kill you, ask any soldier.
The Church stamped on this practice pretty rapdily, after all, is just anyone could cure people, then it wasn't a miracle of God anymore, and there wouldn't be as much money coming in. What followed is known as the Spanish Inquisition, the Witch Hunts etc etc.
You see, every time science stumbles across an answer that doesn't neccesarily disprove the fact that a God exists, but lessens the influence of the Church over the people then you can garauntee trouble ;)
-
WeatherOp"..."
'big bang' and evolution are almost never thought about at the same time by scientists, because of the fact that they deal with totaly unrelated things. it's like thinking about how your car works and what is your ATM pin number, yeah it might happen every once in a while, but usualy when you are thinking about one your not going to be thinking about the other.
just becose you have a distant reletive of a monkey, does not give you the right to act 'immoraly'*. if you are a bad person you are still going to get run out of town or strung up by your justifyably enraged victims.
*immoral being acting in a fashion that benifits you at the expence of everyone else. most other definitions of immoral would work here. if you have a problem with my definition say so.
now your monkey killing his brother example.
let us consiter two populations of monkey. in one population, by instinct the monkeys would kill members of there group over trivial things like small amounts of food (lets call these the immoral monkeys), in the other group the monkeys have an instinctive behavior that encouriges shareing and helping each other (compasionate monkeys). at the end of 50,000 years wich population would have the largest population?
I beleive we will agree (if you disagree, tell me) that the compasionate group would have the larger population. now if you figure in predation, desese, and limited resources the immoral monkeys would likely have died off entierly while the compasonate monkeys would have a larger population than they started with.
as you can see evolution not only encourages morality amoung a socal speciese, it virtualy requiers it.
-
I would argue that science started long before alchemy, to the first time some proto-human made an observation about his or her environment and reached a conclusion based on it.
-
Indeed, Bobboau, in fact, it's even possible that humanity rose to ascension simply because of those pack morals, which would have made them stronger and more numerous than other types. Possibly our knowledge of right and wrong defines who we are rather than vice versa ;)
And yes, Ancient Babylonians studied Astronomy, which is a science, so a bit of bad wording on my part there ;) I suppose 'What we consider Modern Science' would be a more appropriate phrase :)
-
Well, that is free will. See you have free will, animals don't and never will. And about God proving his exsitice, I don't see how you can't, a egg hatching ito a baby chicken, the seasons haven't changed, the rain still falls, the sun still shines, But, how can you guys live with everythin being as a chance, there is a chance that a world wide flu will kill everybody or a 7 mile wide comet will hit the earth next week and destroy the Earth and there is a chance that the earth will chage orbit and float off into space or a war will break out and everyone will destroy each other with nukes.
-
how do you define free will and how do you know that no animal has it?
-
To me at least, that outlook is no more doomy and gloomy than the Book of Revelations hovering over my head.
I suppose the fact is, it hasn't happened yet. It might happen tomorrow, it probably won't though. Humans are a lot less frail than we give ourselves credit for, that's what evolution teaches us. We are fit, so we survive.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
about God proving his exsitice, I don't see how you can't,
a egg hatching ito a baby chicken, cellular mass reaches criticle and an instinctive behavior compells the chick to break free
the seasons haven't changed, the seasons rely on the orbital time of earth wich has not changed
the rain still falls, gravity
the sun still shines, nuclear fusion
But, how can you guys live with everythin being as a chance, it's not a chance it's all controled by natural laws, such as gravity, there is no real chance it's just we lack the capability to amass and comprehend all the rules and all the variables
there is a chance that a world wide flu will kill everybody yup or a 7 mile wide comet will hit the earth next week and destroy the Earth less likely but true, hopefully it won't happen untill we have the capability to do something about it and there is a chance that the earth will chage orbit and float off into space extreemly unlikely, it would requier something like the aforementioned asteroid or something else that would kill us all it'self or a war will break out and everyone will destroy each other with nukes. unfortunately true, people have a habit of hateing other people who they don't consiter to be part of 'us', I could explain the evolutionary reasons for this 'immorality' still exsisting if you would like
-
I define free will as this. A monkey or primate gets up eats, maybe runs from a predetor, maybe a few more things, go to sleep.Next day about the same thing, next day same thing again.
He dosn't differ from that basic pattern. While, I get up do I want to use the CPU or do I just want too sleep longer, Do want to watch tv? or do I want to eat breakfast or wait till lunch, or do I want to go online and fuss about something? A monkey don't think that, he uses instinct and he basicly does the same thing all his life, cause he don't think any different. That is free will.
-
Well, actually, if a monkey isn't hungry he won't eat. Watch a pack of Chimpanzees for a while, you'll soon be able to identify each one from it's character, Lazy, Grumpy, Greedy, it's kinda like the seven dwarves ;) Chimp behaviour is far from Robotic. They form fighting units when in conflict, plan strategies, use simple tools, and have an extremely complex social system.
Edit : Oh yes, theres also been strong indications of reverence of old-age, a knowledge of impending death, and, on one occasion, what appeared to be the public punishment of a thief.
-
why is exactly that you do things diferently from one day to another?
isn't it from you makeing a desision of competeing desiers? you want to sleep, you want to eat, you want to get on the computer, you want to go to work, ect.. all at the same time. you classify these wants and prioitise them and the most important want you try to fufill (maybe you'll try to kill two birds with one stone and get two wants with the same action, or plan ahead and try to figure out the best way to acomplish the most with the least effort). so would this mean that free will is basicly the ability to have multable competeing wants and the ability to prioritise and reason?
are any of these aspects lacking in all animals (uniquely human)?
-
WeatherOp, are you trying to compare the daily routine of a "monkey" and yourself? :lol: Consider this, imagine some other species was watching you and made the same judgements...
"He only get's up and satisfies his needs either through food, entertainment, social interaction or sleep, he might differ from that basic pattern but that's it. he cannot think!" :lol:
And a monkey can think for crying out loud... there are monkeys that can communicate with us through gestures. There are many evidences of inteligent behavior (AKA thinking) within the animal kingdom. Dolphins, primates, archerfish, you name it...
-
But, that isn't free will. My dog won't eat if it is full, and he can be grumpy, playfull, or mean. And using tools is in a monkey's instinct, you don't see him using anything else in the wild. This will be all I post on this subject. Again is you want to belive you came from a primate thats your free will. But, stop saying bad stuff about us, that is what made me mad in the first place, you don't see me saying that stuff to you guys. Yes but then there is something that makes us different, they have a limit of intelligence, yes they can learn to communicate with us, but they won't never learn how to split the atom or fly a plane. And if there was no God what would be the purpose for living, when you die that is the end, You wouldn't be put in another creature like some people think cause you won't have a spirit.
-
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FQP/is_4447_128/ai_59520062
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/02/science/02side.html?ex=1257138000&en=93017d4402112c2d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt
Not instinctive, learnt, and selected.
-
I want to have a discusion on this, comeon, if you don't want to fine.
I'm trying to understand what it is exactly what you think humans have that animals lack, the ability to learn? to comprehend? 'free will is sort of a nebulus thing and it is meaningless to me unless you can tell me what it is and prove than animals don't have it'
now I am not actualy desputeing free will, I'm not one of those psudo intelectuals that likes to sayillogical things like there is no free will or consusness is an illusion, what I have a despute with you is over wether animals also posess it and I'm looking for a way to prove to you that they do, or for you to prove to me that they don't. if you don't want to partisipate then fine, this is the ultimate diference between scientists and people such as yourself, we want to know if we are wrong, you 'know' that you are not .
[edit]that came off a little more hostile than I had intended it, but I can't think of a better way to put it
-
This post proves what i am talking about. Animals don't debate.
-
so would it be the ability to choose to use knowledge of right or wrong?
edit we posted at the same time
-
Indeed, as I said at the start of the thread, I'm perfectly willing to accept the possiblity that God exists somewhere in the holes my knowledge, but science is a strict teacher, absolutely nothing is 'sacred' or 'written', and I don't deny that even many scientists cannot accept that.
But, expect resistance to what you are saying, just as you stand firm in your belief, other people stand firm in theres. We like a good debate around here, but just don't expect any 'outcome' as it were ;)
-
Now, you know why I want to stop posting. If people belive we evoloved and strongly belive that there is no reason to keep going in this subject. But, like I said above you don't see us calling you guys bad names and stuff. So some of you need to respect our belief too. And that is what made me mad in the first place. I want to leave you guys with this thought tho, if you guys find out the you are wrong what, happen when its too late.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Yes but then there is something that makes us different, they have a limit of intelligence, yes they can learn to communicate with us, but they won't never learn how to split the atom or fly a plane.
wow wow wow :eek2:
Just because "they" cannot fly a plane doesn't mean that they don't think, that they don't have intelligence, that they don't learn. I dare you to go 200 000 years into the past and say that to your ancestors (or if you "believe" in the bible, go 6000 years and say that to Adam and Eve :rolleyes: ). Give them what gave us what we have today, a similar body, motivation and enough time and you will see what "they" can do.
Originally posted by WeatherOp
And if there was no God what would be the purpose for living, when you die that is the end, You wouldn't be put in another creature like some people think cause you won't have a spirit.
Life has no purpose, you make that purpose if you want, live with it. And about spirits... :lol:
-
I supose your right there, animals don't debate,
but is that realy a a single thing or a result of us being the smartest animal on the planet, posesing a very complex symbolic language and the ability to hold many many diferent options at the same time? there is no evedence that many of the other homonids would lack the ability to debate (unfortunately there is little evedence that they could other than we the decendents of one line of them can) however, to bad they are extinct.
and does debate realy play that signifigant of a role in one's ability to poses morality?
(this was the genisis of the free will debate after all)
-
I'd like to jump in here with a few comments of my own.
First: A bit of background on myself.
I'm currently a Ph.D. student in the biological sciences, and did my undergraduate work in the field of genetics.
Before that, I was raised in a Catholic household, and went to a Catholic school for nine years. Because of these dual experiences, I feel that I have some small understanding of both sides in this issue.
Next: An observation regarding this thread.
I've noticed a similar pattern in many religion vs. science threads, and in my own life, when talking to the religious devotees. While the scientists have been going out of their way to present scenarios and evidence to back up their assertions, the religious arguments seem to be a simple assertion of unshakable belief. Some rabid, seemingly mindless soldiers on the side of science have posted here, but the later pro-science posts have been rather more rational.
While I remember faith being emphasized as an important attribute from my formative years, I lack an understanding of why many become so fanatical about their faith that they will ignore any evidence that contradicts said faith. Faith is a vital attribute among thinking humans, even scientists. We scientists have faith that the natural laws of the universe will hold true in our daily lives. We believe that gravity will not suddenly cease to function, nor will the atomic forces reverse, sending our component particles flying in all directions. However, we are charged with the task of remaining open to contradictions between faith and reality. Look at Einstein's work with relativity. Einstein believed in gravity, and other suck forces, but saw situations that were not covered by the old rules. Rather than dismiss Newtonian physics entirely, Einstein set out to look for areas which were not properly explained by existing theory. Einstein's work itself was judged incomplete, and the realm of Quantum physics took the spotlight. Does this mean that we've abandoned our faith in gravity? No! It means that we've accepted that our knowledge is always incomplete, and accepted the challenge to constantly seek new explanations.
A famous saying in science is that "A million experiments will never prove me right, but it takes just one to prove me wrong." The strength of science is its flexibility. We realize that our "laws of nature" are the product of an incomplete understanding of the universe, and are willing to update our understanding of these phenomena as needed. I find this sensitivity to evidence lacking in religion. Where is your evidence for the Biblical truth, or that of the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or the Buddhist sutras? How about the Nordic Sagas, Native American creation tales, Incan gods, and the Egyptian pantheon? Where is your evidence in support of your grand theory of the universe? I'll share mine. It's called experimentation. It requires our explanations of the world to match our observations. As one involved daily in such experiments, I frequently see my world image shattered in small ways when an experiment fails. This evidence convinces me that I was wrong, and leads me to a new understanding.
Where is your evidence, oh religious world? Where is your growth in understanding?
Science and religion are truly separate entities. Science is the controlled and accountable study of what IS. Religion is the dogmatic belief in ONE particular explanation of the world, coupled with unwillingness to accept the validity of any evidence NOT in support of that belief. Science is not equipped to prove or disprove the existance of a god or gods, as they exist outside the realm of factual observations, and will remain entirely in the realm of conjecture until such time as our capability for observation expands to include this realm.
I do not claim that there is or is not a divine power. I have no evidence either way. I do not claim the Bible is wrong, again for lack of evidence. I merely claim that without evidence, faith is groundless. Without questioning, thought is useless. Without understanding the concept behind a choice, free will is nothing but an interesting phrase.
I welcome comments and complaints.
-
Well put.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
you don't see us calling you guys bad names and stuff.
Originally posted by WeatherOp
I think evolution is the stupidest thing man has thought of.
:)
now surely you arn't going to tell me that no creationist has ever gone around curseing us stupid immoral evolutionists.
Originally posted by WeatherOp
if you guys find out the you are wrong what, happen when its too late.
then I will fall on the infinite mercy of God, but someone has to convince me I'm wrong first, not imposable, but I can't think of anything that would do it (but if I could I wouldn't beleive what I believe now would I)
-
But, the thing is like I said before if your are wrong, you figue that out when its too late. What do you do?, Cause God will not keep his mercy here forever. Are 100% sure about evolution?Cause if your not then your in trouble. I am 100% sure that God created the heavens and the Earth. Man has tried to get rid of God for thousands of years, they couldn't do it and they never will. Let me say if they cursed at you they aren't true Creationists.
-
Atheism predates religion so, technically man has tried to create gods and god for thousands of years... ;)
Vinco :yes:
-
WeatherOp, who are these Men to whom you refer as trying to "get rid of God"? And which God is it? Is it the Christian God? Oh, wait... there are several Christian Gods... Each sect, perhaps each person has their own explanation for what their God is. Does your concept of God have greater merit than all others? If so, what evidence do you have to support this explanation of the divine? I am genuinely interested in finding such evidence, as it would help me answer a great many questions. If you have no evidence, then how can you justify your faith? Could another explanation not be closer to the truth?
A personal thought of mine is that if a person could truly understand the divine, then such a divinity would be sadly limited, and with it the universe.
-
I am 99.99% sure I'm right, I am 0.0000...000001% sure you are right, the remaining percentage is that someone else is right.
let's put it this way, I am as confedent that I am right as I am confedent that the sky is blue.
-
In matarial none, But in my heart and the Bible plenty.
-
That means your in trouble. Like said above I am 100% sure that I am right and nothing will change that.
-
WeatherOp, you cite the Bible as evidence for your beliefs. What reason do you have to believe in this book, to the exclusion of all other religious texts?
-
I would guess that God - or Allah, or Zeus, etc - would be more concerned with how good we are as human beings than how long we spend at Church.
OH, and earlier you asked 'if there was no God what would the purpose be of living?' or similar; why should there be a purpose? We exist, simply because in this particular iteration of the universe the dice came up right for carbon based life on this little rock. It's no less credible than believing in a supreme diety, is it? I certainly don't believe you can use it as an argument for a creator, anyways.
-
well then, I will say that you are in trouble, becase if you are wrong, you will never corect your self.
me, if I am given appropriate evedence, I'm willing to admit I'm wrong on anything, I consiter this a streangth not a weakness.
-
Maybe if it was considered more along the lines of science is trying to define just how incredible and complex the whole thing is, regardless of whether or not the scientist believes in God? After all, if you want a species to rise where it begins to dream of Godhood itself, what better way to make them than drag them up through several billion years of absolutely cut-throat competition?
Maybe it's not important whether God man Man in His image, or Man made God in his, maybe 'God' is merely a state that only we can dream of?
-
Originally posted by Vinco
All that Stuff
I think I'm going to like this guy. :nod:
-
Ok, lets just say that I am wron, ok acording to evolusion thats the end, But if your wrong you are fighting against a Allmighty God.
-
well he should have tried harder to reach me, a simple ten second face to face talk would do it, he's God, if he want's me to beleive in him it would be a simple task, if there is a God evedently he want's me to not beleive in him.
-
If it is, then I shall say with every conviction that I used the evidence provided by the collection of my senses that he gave me, used the mind that he gave me. After that, it's up to Him :)
And one of the advantages of science is that we have the statement 'In an infinitely big universe, an infinite amount of things can happen'. Most scientists don't rule out death as a point-blank ending ;)
-
So we're supposed to limit how we live on the off-chance that some almighty, vengeful god will smite us because we don't believe in him with our whole beings? :lol:
Oh, and that little speech was a very interesting read, Vinco :yes2::nod:
-
Ok, lets just say that I am wron, ok acording to evolusion thats the end, But if your wrong you are fighting against a Allmighty God.
So will you... what's your point?
-
God will not try hard to reach you. And that goes back to your free will. Its your choice. But, see I am not scared of the book of Revolation and I won't go thru it. And the reason I belive in the Bible is Faith.
-
I'd like to pose a question to the entire group. I've been considering this issue for years, and am still stuck at an impass.
_______________________________________
Given:
There is a single God
God is omnipotent
God is omniscient
Humans were created by God
Humans were given Free Will by God
_______________________________________
How does one explain the concept of free will?
Operating within only the "givens" above, and my understanding of their interpretation, I have reached an apparent contradiction. An omniscient God would, by definition, know the fate of any particle in the universe even before its creation. An omnipotent God would have the power to create anything, and when combined with the omniscience, would be unable to make mistakes.
When the fate of the universe is known even before the instant of creation, how can choices truly exist?
I'd like to add three more conjectures based upon my knowledge of Catholic teachings.
___________________________________
Conjectured:
God is "good"
Eternal suffering is "bad"
"good" and "bad" are opposing fates, and are in fact opposites.
___________________________________
As explained above, this God has the power to create the universe and everything within it. This God knows the ultimate fate of Its creation. *I interpret Free Will as the ability to Choose between a path that will lead either towards or away from eternal suffering.* When the conjecture of a "good" God being opposed to eternal suffering is added into the picture, then the concept of Man having Free Will and being able to Choose "bad" becomes somewhat confusing. How can a "good" God create beings that It knows will Choose a path that will lead to eternal suffering? If this God did not create the being knowing that it would Choose eternal suffering, then how can the givens of Omnipotence and Omniscience hold?
Does this confuse anyone else, or is it just me?
edit: added my interpretation of Free Will (within stars)
-
ok, let me try to put it this way, I am almost completely sure I'm right,
all other options, be it one of the many chirstian sects, or judism, islam, buhdism, paganism, zoroastrianism, all the others, are all consitered to be roughly equaly almost completely unlikely. do you even have any reason why I should consiter your religon more likely than the others?
"I am not scared of the book of Revolation"
neither am I
-
It's our choice to believe in something that has very little to no actual backing behind it? I know the choice I'm making...
-
It does seem, at the very best, to make us lab-rats.
How could a God give us doubt in His existence, doesn't that seem like an extremely sadistic thing to do for a God that loves us, to let us go through our entire life terrified that there is nothing but oblivion awaiting us?
-
Originally posted by Vinco
How can a "good" God create beings that It knows will Choose a path that will lead to eternal suffering? If this God did not create the being knowing that it would Choose eternal suffering, then how can the givens of Omnipotence and Omniscience hold?
As I stated in my earlier post it's worse than that. If the creationists are to be believed not only did he create humans knowing that some of them would choose eternal suffering, he then burried fossils to deliberately lead people astray.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
wow wow wow :eek2:
Just because "they" cannot fly a plane doesn't mean that they don't think, that they don't have intelligence, that they don't learn. I dare you to go 200 000 years into the past and say that to your ancestors (or if you "believe" in the bible, go 6000 years and say that to Adam and Eve :rolleyes: ). Give them what gave us what we have today, a similar body, motivation and enough time and you will see what "they" can do.
Life has no purpose, you make that purpose if you want, live with it. And about spirits... :lol:
What separates humans from animals are diferent levels of intelligence and brain complexity.
And what's so funny about spirits, souls? They either exist or not and it is impossible to prove one thing or other. You believe in them or not. To laugh about someone's beliefs is just impolite.
-
Again the reason I belive in the Bible is faith. I don't really know how God does it, but it say that he gave humans Free will. But, also some would belive him. And you guys forget that the devil is still around, and he is still getting people to think that we came from monkeys.
-
alright, this thing seems to be comeing to a close (wich would be a first) so I guess we can end it by saying;
some people beleive it is better to know than be happy,
other people would rather be happy than know.
both are perfictly valid ways of leading your life as far as I'm concerned.
-
or maybe it isn't winding down.
"And you guys forget that the devil is still around, and he is still getting people to think that we came from monkeys."
how do you know that isn't Seth getting all the people of the world to stop beleiveing in Ra?
(egyptian gods if you don't know)
-
Can I point out that the first 3 people to worship Jesus were Astronomers, and therefore scientists, can I? can I?
-
What if it's the work of Loki? (The Norse trickster, not the FS2 ship)
-
wouldn't they have been more like atrologers?
-
Annihilation, I was not laughing at his beliefs, but the sentence in which he used such a word, especially considering his beliefs.
Intelligence and brain complexity is diferent for all things, but seperating us from the rest of the animal kingdom just because of that when there are others close in intelligence (intelligence, not technological knowledge) is... well... a superiority complex.
-
Yes, Bobboau, they would have, been Astrologers to a large degree, the Eastern world, by that time however, had worked out a complex system of planetary motion around the Sun, with the planets being globes, and had identified the first six planets, their distance and their orbits. And that was years before the Church that sprouted from the event started excommunicating people for saying exactly the same thing ;)
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/HIS-SCI-STUDY-GUIDE/0014_babylonianAstron.html
Very short bit on Babylonian Astronomy.
http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb2c.html
Much longer. As you can see, the Babylonians had made quite an art from their science. Persian astronomy was at around the same level.
-
A very solid point, Flipside. However that Church did eventually come to its senses regarding the entire issue. In fact, I recall that that Church does not at all teach that evolution is wrong. The latest explanation of that stance I've heard is that Catholicism teachs that Genesis may be another parable, and that the salient fact is that God created the universe, not how It did so.
Then again, I've been removed from Catholic teachings for a number of years, so I could be mistaken.
-
Because the Bible's prophies are coming true. The reason I know is cause it is in my heart and in the Bible. See I don't have the Void that some people have and there isn't something missing in side of me. I wake up each morning happy and have very few bad days. God is real in my heart, and wether you belive it is up to you, but I am done with this thread, I have said what I think needed to be said. But, I know for sure if I die where I wake up. How sure are you guys?
-
I don't know if I should laugh or be appalled by that statement... :blah:
-
yeah, a few years ago, the Church even went so far as to admit that the earth does in fact revolve around the sun.
(no ****, the pope realised they never recanted what they said during the whole Galileo thing)
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Annihilation, I was not laughing at his beliefs, but the sentence in which he used such a word, especially considering his beliefs.
Intelligence and brain complexity is diferent for all things, but seperating us from the rest of the animal kingdom just because of that when there are others close in intelligence (intelligence, not technological knowledge) is... well... a superiority complex.
OK then sorry for the misunderstanding.
That's just a manner to classify living beings, using what they can do with their brains. Cats, monkeys and whales are creatures very close to a intelligence level capable of creating tools and making changes to environment but even lizards and parrots can learn (scientific sudies proved that) but you are right this Superiority Complex exists and it is ultimately harmful for mankind, that creates arrogance and arrogance is the first step to a really big fall.
-
"But, I know for sure if I die where I wake up. How sure are you guys?"
I doubt I am going to 'wake up' at all. but, I doubt that the God that I have had describe to me by most Chistians would have any problem with me.
-
Well, I suppose it's kind of like these people that have predicted the future by turning the Bible into a gigantic game of Boggle, it seems a bit silly to me :(
-
WeatherOp, religion is not required for happiness. I for one am far happier with myself and my life since I distanced myself from the organized practice of religion. I feel no Void within myself, nor do I suffer for lack of a purpose in life. I have no idea whatsoever what will happen to my consciousness upon death. I also feel no need to cling to the idea of an afterlife to make me sleep at night. When I die, I shall proceed to the next phase of existance, even if that phase is nothing more than the recycling of my component atoms into new life and new creations. I am happy with my life as it stands, and I feel no need for external justification of my existance.
I can't speak for everyone, but I do not understand the reason why you feel that those without religion are somehow lessened by its absence.
-
You know, I'm still waiting for you to say 'The ability to leap beyond what he can see and reach conclusions from it' as a defining feature of man, in fact, our abilitiy to believe in God, something which we cannot touch, taste or smell is something that appears unique to mankind ;)
But it is that same gift which created our ability to to believe in God that allows us to remain unsatisfied that this is the only answer we could need ;)
-
An argument brought up earlier interested me. The argument that if there's the possibility or an almighty deity existing, it's better to believe in the deity than to stay skeptical. That's an okay argument if it were a binary world, that is "Deity" or "No Deity", but the world is far more complicated than that.
Not only is there more than one deity to believe in, there're lots of variations on each deity and even variations on how to appease said deity (within the same religion too). There're even various mixes of religion and non-religious belief (e.g. those who believe there is a Christian God, yet believe in evolution).
So with all these different beliefs and differing supposed consequences if you don't believe, what's the best way to choose?
-
Personally, I'll wait until it's over and see who comes out of the woodwork, as it were ;)
If I tried to follow every major religion I'd be alternately starving myself, feasting, earning nothing, of which I'd give 20% to the church, and the rest to the poor......
-
Can someone explain to me a few things about the Catholic faith (which I was brought up in, and still hardly understand)?
This Devil, satan, the beast... What is he? Is he a god too? How can there be an almighty God, the only god, and have a devil that is equally powerful. Powerful enough as to constantly be at war with god and never having either side come out truly victorious?
If god is all loving, all caring, and all knowing...why is there a Hell? Why would god not forgive his creations for their straying? Especially since he would already know that they would stray from the moment of conception?
-
Let's see....
At least from what I've seen, in the modern Roman Catholic faith, the devil and Hell don not seem to be mentioned much. In fact, Revelations, which probably contains the largest number of references to these, itself is basically ignored, with it being brought up only periodically, and then only interpreted as a parable.
-
I envy people who can be entirely comfortable with the absence of a god. When I look at the world and see an existence governed by random chance, populated by people who aren't even aware of how much they're slaves to their instincts, I tend to alternate between absurd euphoria and depression.
-
Originally posted by Raa
Can someone explain to me a few things about the Catholic faith (which I was brought up in, and still hardly understand)?
This Devil, satan, the beast... What is he? Is he a god too? How can there be an almighty God, the only god, and have a devil that is equally powerful. Powerful enough as to constantly be at war with god and never having either side come out truly victorious?
If god is all loving, all caring, and all knowing...why is there a Hell? Why would god not forgive his creations for their straying? Especially since he would already know that they would stray from the moment of conception?
i'm not Catholic, but as far as i know: the devil is an angel that turned against God, god knows how long ago, and with his side-kicks (other fallen angels), ummm... i don't know what the Catholics think the devil's and his demons' purpose is.
Well some religions don't believe in hell (for the very reason you gave). I can think of one offhand. no, two.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
I don't know if I should laugh or be appalled by that statement... :blah:
how about showing a little bit of god damn respect. even though what he believes contradicts what you believe, it's common courtesy, not to mock someone for what you think is absurd, since they obviously see it in a different light. respect his opinions, don't laugh at them.
-
Raa/others, basically, as Stealth said, according to Christian tradition, Satan is a fallen angel. He is not equally powerful to God; in fact, he is doomed to be destroyed at the end of time. It's kind of hard to explain about such matters, or even to put them into words, since a lot of it is more tradition than actual dogma. Suffice it to say that the Devil is the representation of the evil that is present in the world, and this evil will be finally defeated at the end of time. Also, regarding victories over evil, Christ's death and resurrection represents a great victory, since he conquered death and opened the way to eternal life.
As for the whole existence of Hell, according to Catholic teaching (and to most people in general, but that's beside the point) all human beings have free will. We are given the free choice to act for good or evil. Being good people brings us closer to God, while committing evil thoughts/actions turns us away. Either way, the choice is ours to make. Yes, God is all-forgiving, but we have to actually want forgiveness. Hell exists for those who have truly turned away from God, who are non-repentant. It is true that God is omniscient, but he still gives us the choice to follow him or not. Otherwise, we would be nothing more than slaves. In the Catholic view, humanity represents the pinnacle of creation and was made "in the image and likeness of God." We are not God's slaves; we are his children. Just as any parent must allow their children to learn from their own mistakes and to live out their lives, so God does with us.
Grey Wolf, I don't know where you've been looking, but Hell at least is mentioned a great deal in the modern Catholic faith. As for the Devil, try not to think of the horned, pitchfork-carrying, pointy-tailed Halloween representation. The Devil, instead of really being a certain persona, is the image of the temptation that we all face, the part of us that wants to turn away from God. As for Revelation, I think that a lot of people could look at it and believe that it's not supposed to literally portray the end of time. I believe, and the Catholic Church teaches, that it is an allegory or parable to the end of the world.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Ok, lets just say that I am wron, ok acording to evolusion thats the end, But if your wrong you are fighting against a Allmighty God.
Who is supposedly benevolent. So I'm not worried about it either way :)
I don't think the existence or non-existence of God matters, or has any impact on how i should live my life. I think that all I have to do is be what I judge to be a 'good' person (which principally consists of not being a dickhead), and this whole issue will be settled when I pop me clogs.
Call that aetheism or agnosticism (or a cop out...), but that's how I feel - that it doesn't matter either way, because I would rather judge myself as a person than rely on some proxy. And I'm happy with that.
-
Originally posted by Vinco
I'd like to pose a question to the entire group. I've been considering this issue for years, and am still stuck at an impass.
_______________________________________
Given:
There is a single God
God is omnipotent
God is omniscient
Humans were created by God
Humans were given Free Will by God
_______________________________________
How does one explain the concept of free will?
Operating within only the "givens" above, and my understanding of their interpretation, I have reached an apparent contradiction. An omniscient God would, by definition, know the fate of any particle in the universe even before its creation. An omnipotent God would have the power to create anything, and when combined with the omniscience, would be unable to make mistakes.
When the fate of the universe is known even before the instant of creation, how can choices truly exist?
I'd like to add three more conjectures based upon my knowledge of Catholic teachings.
___________________________________
Conjectured:
God is "good"
Eternal suffering is "bad"
"good" and "bad" are opposing fates, and are in fact opposites.
___________________________________
As explained above, this God has the power to create the universe and everything within it. This God knows the ultimate fate of Its creation. *I interpret Free Will as the ability to Choose between a path that will lead either towards or away from eternal suffering.* When the conjecture of a "good" God being opposed to eternal suffering is added into the picture, then the concept of Man having Free Will and being able to Choose "bad" becomes somewhat confusing. How can a "good" God create beings that It knows will Choose a path that will lead to eternal suffering? If this God did not create the being knowing that it would Choose eternal suffering, then how can the givens of Omnipotence and Omniscience hold?
Does this confuse anyone else, or is it just me?
edit: added my interpretation of Free Will (within stars)
My understanding is, that most (all?) religions have some form of promised land post-death; be it via reincarnation or a heaven type scenario. And that said diety gave humanity free will in order to prove itself worthy of that, by being good.
And , of course, it's a common mythological thread, said choice; Adam & Eve, Pandora's box, etc... probably reflect this issue, so it's one that has been around since the beginning of religion (hence, I guess, why all religions tend to have some form of contradictory 'evil' diety or multiple Gods with different purposes.... I don't know, I'm no theologan)
I don't particularly like that idea (test), anyways. It smacks to me of a 'trickster' God, running a great big game over eternity. And if you apply this 'test' as a central tenet of religion, then (I think) you find that what is 'Gods will', in terms of the moral statues you have to follow, is simply an extension of what is best for society; i.e. the needs of a group, written down as religion to better enforce them.
So I don't think it makes all that much sense either. Of course, the converse argument is that most religion demands unconditional belief and they could thus argue its (relgion, the world relating to it) not meant to make sense anyways.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
how about showing a little bit of god damn respect. even though what he believes contradicts what you believe, it's common courtesy, not to mock someone for what you think is absurd, since they obviously see it in a different light. respect his opinions, don't laugh at them.
Well, excuse me for reading this:
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Because the Bible's prophies are coming true. The reason I know is cause it is in my heart and in the Bible. See I don't have the Void that some people have and there isn't something missing in side of me. I wake up each morning happy and have very few bad days. God is real in my heart, and wether you belive it is up to you, but I am done with this thread, I have said what I think needed to be said. But, I know for sure if I die where I wake up. How sure are you guys?
First he tells us that the bible's prophecies were coming true without giving any facts to it but instead saying that it is in his heart and bible. Then he judges some people, who I assume he is mentioning agnostics, etc... even though his religion (from what I understood) says only god can judge people. Then he says something I'm still not sure I understand where he is trying to get at.
But, I know for sure if I die where I wake up. How sure are you guys?
Now imagine yourself in my place, reading this. Would you try not to laugh at the first part of his statement about the absence of facts or feel strangely directed in his judgement? How would you react?
-
He should prove the theory... :lol:
-
:lol:
Don't be horrid :p It's his choice what he believes, and it's our choice whether we believe him. We argue things as though it were a court of law, where 'evidence' and 'reasonable doubt' come into play. But religion is based on leaping beyond what you can see, in that respect it, and science actually share a common root.
We need to accept that without religion, science would never have been born, since had not these things impressed and awed us into attributing them to supernatural forces, we would never have looked further.
Religion has a place, but as a dictate for self, not a dictate for masses, at least in my opinion :)
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Grey Wolf, I don't know where you've been looking, but Hell at least is mentioned a great deal in the modern Catholic faith. As for the Devil, try not to think of the horned, pitchfork-carrying, pointy-tailed Halloween representation. The Devil, instead of really being a certain persona, is the image of the temptation that we all face, the part of us that wants to turn away from God. As for Revelation, I think that a lot of people could look at it and believe that it's not supposed to literally portray the end of time. I believe, and the Catholic Church teaches, that it is an allegory or parable to the end of the world.
Let's see... Total times the Devil and Hell were mentioned during mass this morning: 0. Doesn't seem to be that big of an emphasis to me....
-
And that, Flipside, is precisely the problem. Fundamentalist interpretations of religion always seem to lead people to the conclusion that they must externalize their beliefs and reshape society according to them. They become consumed by the assumption that their notions of society are the correct ones and they use an arbitrary interpretation of god to justify it. And yet it's not arbitrary to them, which is the most frustrating part. It's as though I believed that we were all meant to obey trees and that society is morally bankrupt because we no longer listen to the mandate of the trees. Who can ever prove me wrong? If I've made up my mind that this is something beyond the realm of science, than it's also beyond contention. Anything that I want to be true can be true. It's a cheap way out of being backed into the corner that I'm grotesquely naive.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Well, excuse me for reading this:
i don't care. it's his beliefs, and mocking him for them isn't mature. besides, it's not like it's something he pulled out of his ass... believe it or not many, many people on this world believe exactly what he posted...
but anyway, you're excused. just don't let it happen again. ;)
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the entire Bible just a way of placating the heathens after they were conquered during the Crusades?
Originally, the bible has no such concepts as Angels and the war in heaven, but these little scenarios were dreampt up to keep the heathens and their ingrained belief in polytheism from becoming a problem after they were subjugated and forced to worship another fictional character in the story of the universe.
So everything you hear about people being corrupted by Satan is basically bull****, even by the rules of the official Bible (not one of these mormonesque 'reworkings').
So basically, there's God - and he hates everyone. He turns people into pillars of salt, rains fire and brimstone on cities and manifests himself on the Earthly plane to get some pussy occassionally. He smites people whom he arbitrarily decides are evil and anyone who happens to think contrary to him.
And then there's nothing.
You either side with God, or you get nuthin'. No eternal torment, no suffering in the fires of the not-so-great beyond. You're gone. Poof.
Then Jesus came along and basically said "God's not so bad" completely contradicting a thousand years of God ****ing people up. People flocked to this idea of "Do what the **** you like, then beg forgiveness on your death bed". Now, to me, that seems more like something a great corrupting force like the as-yet-unconcieved Satan would say. Primarily, because this equates to "Sin and rely on the forgiveness of God" and pretty much ignores the aforementioned thousand years of burning cities, salty people and people being ****ed up for minor infractions.
But somewhere along the way, the religiously enlightened began to realise that your average peasant wasn't smart enough to fear the void because they lacked the capacity to comprehend it, and would get itchy if they couldn't be shown God actively ****ing over the wicked, so they sat and they said "Gee, we need something they can really fear, not this pseudo-metaphysical concept of non-sentience. What does everyone hate?" and decided that all those who rebelled against God would be burned, because nobody likes fire. And they could be all showy when killing heathens and boat-rockers.
Thus is the story of Christianity!
-
Stealth?
I DIDN'T MOCK ANYBODY!! READ THE F****** POST AGAIN!!
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Let's see... Total times the Devil and Hell were mentioned during mass this morning: 0. Doesn't seem to be that big of an emphasis to me....
So you're basing your entire interpretation of Catholic doctrine on the content of a single Mass?
an0n, you're dead wrong. That has to be the strangest interpretation of Christianity I've ever read.
-
I think he was useing today as an examle of normality
-
Bobboau has a good grasp of the point I was trying to make. It is quite rare in my experience for the Devil or Hell to be mentioned during a mass.
-
Indeed, somehow I severely doubted you went to Mass that particular morning just to see if someone mentioned Satan ;)
-
Originally posted by an0n
All that stuff...
Scarily enough, this is basically my take on the Bible too, aside from the blatant an0nisms... The Bible was written by Man. And according to faith, only Moses, and Abraham spoke to God... SO where the hell do all of these other guys who worte the 'good book' get their ideas from?
They put their own biases in there.
-
Grey Wolf, the Mass is just one part of the whole of Catholic doctrine. You're not going to get the entire catechism proclamied at every Mass. Certain elements of Catholocism are brought up in the Mass, and certain ones are not.
-
Originally posted by Raa
Scarily enough, this is basically my take on the Bible too, aside from the blatant an0nisms... The Bible was written by Man. And according to faith, only Moses, and Abraham spoke to God... SO where the hell do all of these other guys who worte the 'good book' get their ideas from?
They put their own biases in there.
:nod:
That's what I've always felt - at the end of the day, it was men who wrote the bible, and you have to regard it as you would any story 'based on a real* event' - with a lot of caustion.
(*?)
-
Originally posted by Raa
The Bible was written by Man.
Not neccessarily. Even if you concede that the Bible was written by divine inspiration, be it from God or from Selma Hayek, there's still the small matter of it being deliberately, purposefully and calculatedly changed to accomodate the new additions to Christendom during the crusades.
Encarta agrees with me. It specifically says the Bible was ****ed over to pander to the sacreligious beliefs of the heathens and to make their transition and incorporation into the great Christian Empire just that little bit smoother.
-
Bah! It's still a biased story book...
-
Personally, I'd beleive the bible more if God (or Jesus) actually wrote it. You know, like, with thier own hands and pen?
-
Nah, that'd leave it open to simple "Look, there's a mistake" things.
If they have some guys writing it under divine inspiration, all mistakes can be attributed to the man as opposed to debunking the whole 'book of God' thing.
-
To be honest, after 2000 years of the Church having their hands on it, if the Bible had been written by Jesus, the situation today would probably be far far worse, since it would be far easier to froth up religious fervour ;)
-
Originally posted by an0n
Nah, that'd leave it open to simple "Look, there's a mistake" things.
If they have some guys writing it under divine inspiration, all mistakes can be attributed to the man as opposed to debunking the whole 'book of God' thing.
Although, theorhetically speaking, a book written by a perfect God wouldn't have any such plotholes or mistakes, and as such, there would be nothing wrong to attribute to it. All of the arrogance and hipocracy within could then be acredited to the author deity, and there would be no confusion.
-
Originally posted by Raa
Scarily enough, this is basically my take on the Bible too, aside from the blatant an0nisms... The Bible was written by Man. And according to faith, only Moses, and Abraham spoke to God... SO where the hell do all of these other guys who worte the 'good book' get their ideas from?
They put their own biases in there.
as was mentioned, divine inspiration...
an0n: that's a good theory, but as far as i know, the going belief as to why God himself didn't write the "good book" as you put it (;) ) is because it's much more effective written from an imperfect human's perspective, for an imperfect human. i mean look at all the trials many of the writers had to go through, and their "temptations" etc. etc. etc. how could someone who's never experienced any of those trials, temptations, etc. (i.e. God?) write it? it wouldn't be as effective as reading it from a 1st person point of view. it's for that reason that he had men write the Bible for Him.
ummm well, that's as far as i know anyway. there may be other reasons or theories out there as to why the book was written by man.
EDIT: Ghostavo: go back and read some of your posts fool. thx.
-
Thing is that by allowing the book to be written by an 'imperfect hand' has allowed for an 'imperfect translation' of Gods will. Surely only God Himself would understand the true scope of his plans, so why leave such an important job in the hands of a fallible human being and then expect everything to work out ok?
-
Well, there are a few possibilities in this situation:
1. God wrote the Bible, in which case most of us are screwed as nobody follows all of the laws enshrined within the Bible.
2. People inspired by God wrote the Bible, in which case we have some factual inaccuracies.
3. Idiots on drugs wrote the Bible, in which case we've been listening to a bunch of potheads for the last few thousand years.
4. Megalomaniacs wrote the Bible, in which case they succeeded in taking over the world.
5. Well intentioned people wrote the Bible to provide a moral society, in which case they failed horribly.
-
Well 1 has already been refuted by the religion itself, same with Islam, since Muhammed was illiterate, so that leaves 2-5 :)
-
I'm more inclined to believe it's a mixture or 3 and 4, with a little bit 5 mixed in...
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Thing is that by allowing the book to be written by an 'imperfect hand' has allowed for an 'imperfect translation' of Gods will. Surely only God Himself would understand the true scope of his plans, so why leave such an important job in the hands of a fallible human being and then expect everything to work out ok?
"imperfect hand" and "imperfect translation"? where are you getting those quotes from?
see thing is, if the writers were inspired by God, don't you think God would make sure they put the points He wants in their writings? kind of defeats the purpose of "divinely inspired" if they don't... think about it ;)
-
Originally posted by Stealth
"imperfect hand" and "imperfect translation"? where are you getting those quotes from?
see thing is, if the writers were inspired by God, don't you think God would make sure they put the points He wants in their writings? kind of defeats the purpose of "divinely inspired" if they don't... think about it ;)
Unless the writing of the book was also a test of how means' bias would skew the religion. I mean.... if there is a single God, then why are there / have there been so many contrasting different religions?
-
Also the "imperfect translation" might also mean that god may have tried to comunicate something there wasn't a word for it at the time.
Stealth, PM.
-
Originally posted by Raa
I'm more inclined to believe it's a mixture or 3 and 4, with a little bit 5 mixed in...
With a (somewhat optimistic) realistic view, I think it could be 2 or 5 or both. Taking over the world would be a good one though.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Unless the writing of the book was also a test of how means' bias would skew the religion. I mean.... if there is a single God, then why are there / have there been so many contrasting different religions?
Because Satan/Lucifer/The Devil makes a policy of decieving Man as often as possible and is not above portraying himself as God.
-
that post will come back to haunt you.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Because Satan/Lucifer/The Devil makes a policy of decieving Man as often as possible and is not above portraying himself as God.
You leave such a point open I really want to pick on it.
but not now. I'm going to wait for anyone else to rip it apart first before having going at it tonight :drevil:
-
I actually stand behind Liberator's view: for a Christian, that's the primary explanation for the many religions...
-
I guese it's also the primary explaination why you are trying to oppress and foment hatered for people who have done nothing to you, under the name of 'God'.
-
I'm not trying to oppress or foment hatred of anybody. I don't hate the people, just the behavior because I believe it's a negative behavior.
Buddhists are okay since it's mostly a series of behaviors that aren't at odds with Christianity.
Muslims I can live with mostly, but they are the ones with the holy book that tells them to convert at the end of a sword.
You can't really use the Old Testament to judge Christianity because we aren't bound by it. Christ's sacrifice signifies the creation of a new covenant with God that overrides the old one the Jews have. You just have to choose to partake in the new covenant. There are many important lessons in the OT, but it's just that, a book of lessons on how God want's us to behave.
Modern Chrisitanity takes the needed parts of the bible and reinforces them and leaves out truly horrific parts because they have less meaning in a Christian's life.
-
...
...
"Lets just leave out the bad parts! Then everything will be happy!"
-
It's like watching PBS.
-
Lib: if you're leaving out the bad, gruesome parts now, who's to say that in 25 years, it won't be common practice to ignore all those inconvenient parts about homosexuals, sodomites and so on.
To me, religion is not a set of laws, since as we have seen, those laws bend, and rightly so, to cultural progress. If thats all religion is, just going through the motions (and I'm not implying that that is what it is for you, just in general) then frankly I don't see the point. It ought to be something deeper, no? Thats what so bothersome to me about some of the more extremist preachers and evangelsists right now, they take the letter of the Bible over the content. What happened to tolerance, piety, and peace (turn the other cheek). It seems to me that, while supposedly representing Christianity, people like Pat Robertson & Co are really misrepresenting it, to the point that they have turned 180 degrees from some of the more fundamental aspect of the faith.
Or thats the way it seems to me.
-
Rictor, what you don't understand is that until recently, Christianity has been turning the other cheek. It's just that Robertson & Co. counterparts on the otherside have raised the stakes with gay marriage and a myriad of other blasphemies that we can't just sit idly by while our way of life is changed for the worse. Homosexuality is a sin in every major religion on Earth. By allowing Gays to marry, we will have allowed, through inaction, an inexcusable blasphemy against God.
Tolerance and peace are noble goals. But don't shake a man's hand if he has a knife in the other one. The people who support gay marriage ultimately also support the complete obliteration of Christianity, Judaism and every other form of organized religion on Earth, because they suffer from a delusion that by killing the messengers they can kill the message that their behaviors are wrong, no matter how right it feels, and that they'll then be able to get away with whatever they want. It won't be like that, someone will always stand for what is right in this world, despite the oppositions best efforts.
-
Right, because all homos hate God and therefore, should be utterly crushed.
-
No, their support of gay marriage has nothing to do with being homosexual or not, it is because it represents a slap in the face to upstanding moral ofttimes Christian people in the United States.
Gay marriage is about the benfits, social and financial, that heterosexual couples get. The problem is that regardless of how many lawsuits are filed, research done in why some people are homosexual, ect, homosexuality has always and will continue to have a stigma in Western Society.
-
So there's nothing wrong with gays, just the people who want them to be treated as equals? :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Because Satan/Lucifer/The Devil makes a policy of decieving Man as often as possible and is not above portraying himself as God.
Strange.... I could swear other religions say that same thing about Christianity.......
Originally posted by Liberator
Rictor, what you don't understand is that until recently, Christianity has been turning the other cheek. It's just that Robertson & Co. counterparts on the otherside have raised the stakes with gay marriage and a myriad of other blasphemies that we can't just sit idly by while our way of life is changed for the worse. Homosexuality is a sin in every major religion on Earth. By allowing Gays to marry, we will have allowed, through inaction, an inexcusable blasphemy against God.
Tolerance and peace are noble goals. But don't shake a man's hand if he has a knife in the other one. The people who support gay marriage ultimately also support the complete obliteration of Christianity, Judaism and every other form of organized religion on Earth, because they suffer from a delusion that by killing the messengers they can kill the message that their behaviors are wrong, no matter how right it feels, and that they'll then be able to get away with whatever they want. It won't be like that, someone will always stand for what is right in this world, despite the oppositions best efforts.
Surely you want people to have the choice of whether to believe in a religion or not? Because that's what this is about - the freedom to choose not to believe in religion, and not to have the beliefs of a religion forced upon you through legislation.
Remember, your opinion of whether a belief is right or wrong is simply your personal opinion - and that includes via religion. Unless you want to dictate all the opinions and views people are allowed to hold, it's not fair to do this.
And, anyway, the church can't make it's mind up whether homosexuality is wrong or not; why the hell should we be adding laws that affect all of society based on a Christian institution which can't make it's own mind up?
-
Thing is, from what you are saying, then the fine upstanding citizens would be, in my opinion, those who preach tolerance, acceptance and the diversity of Gods creation.
Satan could not Mar Gods work, only God had the power of creation iirc? So Satan couldn't create Gays, only God could?
At the end of the day a group have people have been selected, in this case Gays, and have been told that because they are 'different', that everything they have done is worthless, the additions to Art, Science, Architecture, fighting in Wars for the US etc, still does not give them equal rights to a straight American Citizen, depsite the fact they worked just as hard to make your country great, and free?
Whatever people personal opinion on Gays, for America to claim to be a Free and unoppressive society will continue to be a joke to the rest of the world unless you start with sorting out your own house and your own human rights abuses. Note they are called 'Human Rights' not 'Christian Rights'.
-
read my sig, it is a blasphomy against God to wear cloths that are made of two diferent materials. I don't see you enacting legislation to ban this.
-
bob, you're missing an e at the end of "divers". Surely, you have nothing against people wearing scuba suits, right?
...or do you?
Lib: Yes, but each individual is responsible only for their conduct. You can't be held responsible for how 300 million people who you're never met behave, right? If they are indeed sinning against God, well, that's their problem. I don't see how you can be judged for what others do. Even if everyone in the world except you suddenly decided to become Satanists or whatever, if you yourself are living according to the laws of the Bible, then I don't see the problem. If you don't want anyone to tell you what to do, and I'm pretty sure you don't, then it works the other way too.
But thats just me and I could be wrong.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Rictor, what you don't understand is that until recently, Christianity has been turning the other cheekso now they have turned there backs on the teachings of Chist, well what a wonderfull reason to follow them . It's just that Robertson & Co. counterparts on the otherside have raised the stakes with gay marriage and a myriad of other blasphemies that we can't just sit idly by while our way of life _your_ way of life? is changed for the worse. Homosexuality is a sin in every major religion on Earth. By allowing Gays to marry, we will have allowed, through inaction, an inexcusable blasphemy against God. becase it's your job to make sure people don't use there 'God given' free will to chose between right and wrong
Tolerance and peace are noble goals. too bad they're not yours But don't shake a man's hand if he has a knife in the other one. The people who support gay marriage ultimately also support the complete obliteration of Christianity, Judaism and every other form of organized religion on Earth, becase you know what I want more than I do because they suffer from a delusion that by killing the messengers they can kill the message and thanks for telling me what my motivation is that their behaviors are wrong, no matter how right it feels and thanks for judegeing me, but your doing all the rest of Gods jobs I'm sure he has no problem with you takeing on one more , and that they'll then be able to get away with whatever they want oh, the horror, we'll have the freedom to live our lifes the way we want ITSTHE END OF CIVILISEATION!!! . It won't be like that, someone will always stand for what is right in this world take that you fucking fags, despite the oppositions best efforts. yeah, know your role and shut your mouth we know better
-
Rictor I'll have you know I copied and pasted that from the HOLY BIBLE, it would be a Blasphomy against God ALMIGHTY to correct his devine typos.
...sinner!
-
c'mon lay off him for a bit. Yeah yeah, you don't agree and neither do I, but we've been through this already. No one is going to change anyone's mind. He's free to believe what he wants, as is everyone else.
-
DEUTERONOMY 22:8 When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.
Does your house have a battlement? Does it?! SINNER!!!!
hehe.
also; 22:10 Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together.
I can see some of this stuff really threatens the future of mankind.
EDIT; yeah Rictor, fair point.
Let's not make personal attacks here, I'll try and stick to describing my precise objections & views from now on if I haven't already.
-
The mere fact that the argument is taking place, disproves the existance, and therefore, laws, of God. It's all about proof, and intervention. If God were to appear right now, then the argument would be over, and everyone like me could say "Oh crap! I was wrong all along" and wail and gnash our teeth etc.
BUT IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN! get over it, and stop using your redundant book to berate people about thier private lives - butt out! (literally and metorphorically) the Law is made by the people, not some bearded fool in the sky.
Oh, and Christians are tolerant and accepting? - Tell that to thousands hacked down by the Crusaders in the 'Holy Land'
OK, who else can I turn on today?
Jews - See above, whatever you think is wrong. Bacon is delicious, your multitude of laws make no sense, mutilating young boys is NOT right.
Hindus - What's with the cows?
Sikhs - What's with the hair? it's NOT sacred, any more than my armpit.
Buddists - Your god is a fat bloke that sits on his arse all day? might as well worship a football fan.
Shinto - I just don't want to know how much crack you smoked before leading a procession through streets carrying a giant penis on a platform
Catholics - Nuns are the most evil, spiteful, and hate-filled creatures to stalk the earth
(As you may have guessed, I'm in a bad mood today)
-
Originally posted by Clave
(As you may have guessed, I'm in a bad mood today)
No ****, sherlock?
:D :p
-
:lol: Actually, you just cheered me up a little, thanks!
-
And buddists have no god...
-
yeah he was just th first guy to 'win'
-
Oh well, this thread is more 'emotive' than 'factual' anyways....:nervous:
-
buy hay guyz evolution is just a theory it doenst even have th big bang everywear in it i mean then it just cant be rite am i rite
-
I have no idea if you're being sarcastic or not... :nervous:
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
DEUTERONOMY 22:8 When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.
Does your house have a battlement? Does it?! SINNER!!!!
Funny enough, what that was talking about was at the time many of the houses had flat roofs, and the family, guests, etc. would often gather on the roof to eat, talk, etc. but since there was just a straight drop, it was saying that if someone were to fall over, because you didn't have any protection around the roof, then you'd be bloodguilty.
and the reason Christians believe homosexual is a sin, is because of the numerous references to it in the Bible, all of which condemn it.
EDIT: also, i'm not trying to start anything, but didn't Darwin later turn on his theory and say it was inaccurate? or am i thinking of someone else... i might be thinking of someone else, i know SOMEONE did that though
-
Originally posted by Stealth
Funny enough, what that was talking about was at the time many of the houses had flat roofs, and the family, guests, etc. would often gather on the roof to eat, talk, etc. but since there was just a straight drop, it was saying that if someone were to fall over, because you didn't have any protection around the roof, then you'd be bloodguilty.
and the reason Christians believe homosexual is a sin, is because of the numerous references to it in the Bible, all of which condemn it.
EDIT: also, i'm not trying to start anything, but didn't Darwin later turn on his theory and say it was inaccurate? or am i thinking of someone else... i might be thinking of someone else, i know SOMEONE did that though
I don't believe he did, no. I believe there was a faked claim he had 'recanted' his scientific theories on his deathbed.
He did say, IIRC, that in human society 'survival of the fittest' had become somewhat inversed, as the first to die in war are usually the best men - at the front. I think he (Darwin) detested the use of 'social Darwinism', etc, to justify discrimination against the weaker members of society.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
EDIT: also, i'm not trying to start anything, but didn't Darwin later turn on his theory and say it was inaccurate?
You're thinking of Darwin, but the story is actually bull****. Besides - even if he had recanted, it doesn't make the theory any less correct.
Check out here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html) for a slightly extended version. That site also owns for answering the vast majority of anti-evolution arguments thrown up in this thread. I sugest everybody (Creationists and Evolutionists alike) read through the list (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html) before (continuing) debating evolution/creationism.
-
The theory was also formed by another man, something Wallace, wasn't it? The 2 of them co-wrote the first paper on the theory IIRC - I think the main difference was that Wallace though natural selection was constant, whereas Darwin thought it occured more or less only when the environment changed.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
EDIT: also, i'm not trying to start anything, but didn't Darwin later turn on his theory and say it was inaccurate? or am i thinking of someone else... i might be thinking of someone else, i know SOMEONE did that though
I think he mentioned something about the sheer complexity of the human eye as striking him as impossible to achieve through his own theory, but I don't know if he was actually serious. There's a well documented evolution path for the human eye, from simple photosensitive cells on the first complex organisms to its current structure on humans, so any doubts raised by it at the time have long since been dismissed.
-
He wasn't retracting his claims, he was marvelling at the complexity of it all.
-
Originally posted by an0n
He wasn't retracting his claims, he was marvelling at the complexity of it all.
Yeah, more or less what I figured.
-
ooohk. i knew i'd heard something about that, didn't know the specifics... thanks for briefing me :nod:
"Social Darwinism" is the biggest load of crap... one of the reasons i dropped college Sociology. Sociology makes absolutely no sense tome
-
Darwin was the grandfather of modern evolutionary theories - he figured out the basics, but nowadays the theories are much more accurate and quite different from what Darwin thought. See the entire field of genetics, for example.
Mendel first discovered this, being an active hortonomist and all. The huge effect they have on our lives - we are breeding factories for genes and just how much of our higher level intelligence is based on them we can only guess, they affect our feelings, they most likely make us pay more attention to our parents than our potential companions, etc. etc. - was discovered much later, in early 1900s. Now many biologists focus on genes and amino acids to study life and the forms it takes rather than inaccurate lumps of flesh and slime we know as "living" entities. [see viruses!]
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Because Satan/Lucifer/The Devil makes a policy of decieving Man as often as possible and is not above portraying himself as God.
Take a good look at the Nostra Aetate, released by the Second Vatican Council: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html
Doesn't seem to me that the Church follows any of what you said. Unless, of course, you're one of the people who think that the Roman Catholic Church is a bunch of pagans....
-
or maybe the Roman Catholic Church doesn't represent every single strand of Christianity in the world today...?
-
I know it isn't. I'm just saying it's another point of view. The pagan comment refers to the fact that for some reason certain groups of Christians think that the Roman Catholic Church is a bunch of pagans.
-
I don't think you can use the devil as a reason to dismiss all you disagree with, and still claim to be interested in improving the morals of mankind.
Y'know, cos what is the argument based around other than personal interpretation and hence bias?
-
There was actually an experiment held regarding the evolution of the human eye from very basic sensing organ to what it is today, it was done in 1994 by Daniel Nillson and Susanne Pelger.
The outcome was that, ever the course of about 400,000 generations, a basic eye could, by slowly improving, turn into what we have today :)
-
All this talk about creationism and evolution... Do you know what is really funny? Darwin was a DEEPLY religious man. Sometimes world is a funny place.
-
He lost a lot of that after his daughter died though.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
There was actually an experiment held regarding the evolution of the human eye from very basic sensing organ to what it is today, it was done in 1994 by Daniel Nillson and Susanne Pelger.
The outcome was that, ever the course of about 400,000 generations, a basic eye could, by slowly improving, turn into what we have today :)
Let's see what Billy has to say about that:
Billy does say that human beings evolved by accident, and he simply let us live to help with his bacteria project. He's particularly pleased that we've sent bacteria to Mars and even beyond the solar system, while humans have still not left Earth and moon.
He says the human blind spot is evidence of fault-prone evolution in action. He says if he'd designed humans, he would have used a better layout for the eye, similar to that of squid.
-
Originally posted by Annihilation
All this talk about creationism and evolution... Do you know what is really funny? Darwin was a DEEPLY religious man. Sometimes world is a funny place.
Yeah and Jesus was a JEW!
:doubt:
-
Come to think of it, Satan was an Angel too :)
-
Oh and as another 'anti-bible' thing, I take issue with the war in heaven.
If God is all powerful, no number of Angels should ever have posed any kind of threat to him. But the fact that there was supposedly this war in heaven means that a sufficiently large number of Angels would be more powerful than God.
-
But that's the whole thing, Christianity is about the 'One true God'....
And Angels
And Seraphim
And various other immortal helpers.
Why does an omnipotent and omnipresent God need helpers? Makes him sound more like Santa.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Oh and as another 'anti-bible' thing, I take issue with the war in heaven.
If God is all powerful, no number of Angels should ever have posed any kind of threat to him. But the fact that there was supposedly this war in heaven means that a sufficiently large number of Angels would be more powerful than God.
well maybe Satan and the rest of his followers weren't destroyed for a reason. when people talk about a war in heaven, and Satan and the demons cast out, it doesn't mean a war fought with swords and guns. it's referring to some sort of conflict i presume. also, God's supposed to be infinitely powerful, right? and the power of angels, while extremely powerful, have limits, right? so if you take trillions and trillions of the largest number you can think of... is it larger than infinity? no, it's not even close.
-
Then why doesn't he just blink them away, if that's true?
-
Originally posted by Flipside
But that's the whole thing, Christianity is about the 'One true God'....
And Angels
And Seraphim
And various other immortal helpers.
Why does an omnipotent and omnipresent God need helpers? Makes him sound more like Santa.
that's weird, because when does the Bible ever talk about "helpers"? it doesn't... and if God created angels, seraphim, and 'various other immortal helpers', you don't think He'd have the power to govern on His own? i'm sure He would. perhaps they were created for a different purpose, say to worship Him, or to serve Him in some other matter, or even serve under him.
-
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
Then why doesn't he just blink them away, if that's true?
Originally posted by Stealthmaybe Satan and the rest of his followers weren't destroyed for a reason
it's a good point you have though... do some research on that, and see what you come up with.
-
Normally, I'd pick fault with your argument and lambast you with profanity, but inkeeping with my new sunny attitude and the erradication of my many vices I will simply say that I believe you to be wrong and the concepts addressed by the Bible to be fundamentally flawed.
Thank you and good day.
-
sounds like the Islamic interpetation of satan there, God uses him so he can pick off the moral straglers.
-
The war in heaven wasn't between God and some of the angels though. It was between angels loyal to God and those not. After it was all over, God kicked out the rebellious ones. I don't think Satan wants to kill God, just take his job because he thinks he can do a better job. Unfortunately, his idea of a better job involves lots of pain, death and destruction.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Normally, I'd pick fault with your argument and lambast you with profanity, but inkeeping with my new sunny attitude and the erradication of my many vices I will simply say that I believe you to be wrong and the concepts addressed by the Bible to be fundamentally flawed.
Thank you and good day.
naaa i'm not arguing for or against creationism ;) if you look at my posts you'll see i never really backed any side, i'm just trying to clarify some things for people :p
EDIT: and the sunny attitude? when did this happen? i guess i should've checked NW ;)
-
Originally posted by Liberator
don't think Satan wants to kill God, just take his job because he thinks he can do a better job. Unfortunately, his idea of a better job involves lots of pain, death and destruction.
Irony is just another metal like goldy and silvery to you isn't it? :lol:
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The war in heaven wasn't between God and some of the angels though. It was between angels loyal to God and those not. After it was all over, God kicked out the rebellious ones. .
Er....why have the war in the first place if God's all-knowing and all-powerful? It's not like he'd need it to find out who was rebellious, is it?
-
What
-
the bloody fork? Sorry to go off-topic, but we can't delete our own posts? that is fuct...:mad:
But the whole wording can be changed by edit anyway, so why not allow deleting?
-
It's to preserve your humiliations for posterity.
-
While we're on the subject of evolution here's a question I want an answer to and seeing as there are some creationists hanging about I can finally get one.
Do creationists believe that mankind bred the chihuahua from the wolf or do they believe that there were wild chihuahua that mankind domesticated?
-
The wolf - dog thing took far longer than the supposed creation time anyway, so the point is already proven imo.....
-
Actually, I kind of like the idea of hordes of Chihuahua sweeping across the artic tundra, terrorising all civillisation... maybe they were the animals that wiped out the dinosaurs! Imagine it, a Tyrannosaurus being devoured by a pack of thousands of angry mogwai........
-
:lol:
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Actually, I kind of like the idea of hordes of Chihuahua sweeping across the artic tundra, terrorising all civillisation... maybe they were the animals that wiped out the dinosaurs! Imagine it, a Tyrannosaurus being devoured by a pack of thousands of angry mogwai........
There are no such things as Tyrannosaurs. God put the fossils there to test your faith. Just like he hid the fossils of the ancient Chihuahua packs that ravaged mexico in 4000BC.
-
LOL Why do I think of scenes similar to Return of the King and the ghost army, only with little sets of jaws with legs?
-
Originally posted by karajorma
There are no such things as Tyrannosaurs. God put the fossils there to test your faith. Just like he hid the fossils of the ancient Chihuahua packs that ravaged mexico in 4000BC.
The dastard!
-
(http://www.thescarymonkeyshow.com/encyclopedias/biopics/spookychihuahua.jpg)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
The dastard!
What do you expect from someone who makes wagers with Satan.
-
Ah, and here's Darwin's full quote on the human eye - he never doubted evolution because of that at all. The part that's normally left out by creationists is in italics.
:)
[q]To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.[/q]
-
only 13 million years? Richard Leakey found a normal human skull under a layer of rock dated at 212 million years...
-
was it 212 million years old?
people have a habit of digging and buring there dead with wrecless disregard for the age of the earth they dig in.
-
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.....I find 212 million a bit hard to believe, that's only about half a billion years after the Pre-Cambrian explosion.
Still. stranger things have happened I guess, I'll google it :D
-
Originally posted by Terminator
only 13 million years? Richard Leakey found a normal human skull under a layer of rock dated at 212 million years...
You're referring to KNM-ER-1470. Two points
1. It's not a normal human skull at all:
(http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/hominids/er1470front.jpg)
(http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/hominids/er1470rside.jpg)
There are lots of differences, not least an estimated brain size of around 800 cc.
And second, the 212 million year old date has been refuted. The modern date is 1.8 million years, though there is still some contention to push it back to around 2.4 million.
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
It's not a normal human skull at all:
It is in Louisiana :nervous:
-
any more?
-
Originally posted by Clave
It is in Louisiana :nervous:
*plays bango*
"You ain't from round these parts, areya boy?"
-
Psst...that's "banjo".
-
"Not in these here parts it ain't. You're gonna squeal like a pig, boy!"
-
And what parts are ya from, then?
(Find somebody who's family isn't from Georgia before you try this.)
-
Last time I checked, Lousiana wasn't Gerorgia...
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
"Not in these here parts it ain't. You're gonna squeal like a pig, boy!"
no, I think you mean to say
"na'en dees pert t'ain't. ya'gana sqweeel like'a piggy-boi!"
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
And what parts are ya from, then?
(Find somebody who's family isn't from Georgia before you try this.)
Gamardjobat!
-
Originally posted by Stealth
quote:Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
Then why doesn't he just blink them away, if that's true?
quote:Originally posted by Stealthmaybe Satan and the rest of his followers weren't destroyed for a reason
it's a good point you have though... do some research on that, and see what you come up with.
That's fairly straightforward.
God cares about this creation of his, and is not willing to let it all burn. Since it is broken, he intends to fix it. Waving a magic wand to make all the problems go away would not be fixing it, it'd be replacing it with an alternate version where nothing ever went wrong.
Dealing with rebellious angels is all part and parcel of dealing with the fundamental fracture of the whole cosmos. So, Satan & Co. are still around for the simple reason that God is not finished yet.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
There are no such things as Tyrannosaurs. God put the fossils there to test your faith. Just like he hid the fossils of the ancient Chihuahua packs that ravaged mexico in 4000BC.
Heh. I always thought that was the stupidest creationist argument ever.
-
We're still in a transitional phase regarding creationism. The same was true for the geocentric belief and the the common wisdom that the Earth was flat; eventually the masses were unable to hold the flood gates open so they retreated and entrenched themselves somewhere else.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
That's fairly straightforward.
God cares about this creation of his, and is not willing to let it all burn. Since it is broken, he intends to fix it. Waving a magic wand to make all the problems go away would not be fixing it, it'd be replacing it with an alternate version where nothing ever went wrong.
Dealing with rebellious angels is all part and parcel of dealing with the fundamental fracture of the whole cosmos. So, Satan & Co. are still around for the simple reason that God is not finished yet.
I didn't think the passage of time would be a concern to the omnipresent.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
God cares about this creation of his, and is not willing to let it all burn. Since it is broken, he intends to fix it.
Sorry but I don't buy that. If God really did care why did he stand around and do nothing while the snake tempted Eve?
-
Why didn't he give them some clothes to start with? :p
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Why didn't he give them some clothes to start with? :p
Maybe he's a voyeur?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I didn't think the passage of time would be a concern to the omnipresent.
Aldo has a good point on that, even though it probably should be "omnipotent" there, as being everywhere at once doesn't seemt hat useful in this situation.
-
Actually it would be immortal, but that's a nitpick. :D
-
Whatever 'omni' means existing in all time / independent of time. Point is not so much being able to live forever, but to see forever.
EDIT; BW, I thought 'being everywhere at once' would include being everywhere in time.
-
Anyone who's seen Dogma knows that God is Alanis Morissette.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Sorry but I don't buy that. If God really did care why did he stand around and do nothing while the snake tempted Eve?
Not to drive this thread further off-course, but this is an argument I've had to face a lot over the past several months. You probably won't like my answer, but I'll say it anyway: free will. What would it prove if God had snapped a finger and removed the snake? It would have proved that humanity was something like God's pet, needing to be kept out of danger because it doesn't know any better. That's not the relationship God wants with humanity. God created human beings (through whatever means you may believe God created them) as children, who could love him of their own free will, unconditionally. Since you're already using the symbolism of the Genesis story, God let Eve be tempted for the same reason every parent lets their children go out into the world and make mistakes: to learn from them. A parent can't control their child's life; that child must live his or her own life someday. The same is true of God's relationship with humanity; he doesn't want automatons or drones, he wants beings of intellect and free will to have a meaningful relationship with. The Bible says that man was made in God's "image and likeness," as a rational being; having God perform a "deus ex machina" would take that all away. Besides, to a Christian, Christ represents God's answer. We believe that God just didn't stand around and do nothing, that he sent his son to suffer and die so that we might have a chance at eternal life and so overcome the sins of Adam and Eve.
P.S. Please, no flamewars/taunting/usual load of crap. I'm trying to actually let some people here know what the other side believes, since so many of you seem to have formed misconceptions/stereotypes about those who have religious beliefs.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I didn't think the passage of time would be a concern to the omnipresent.
But it is to us. Since time is a fundamental part of what the cosmos is, any dealings with it (including us) have to take place within time. To supercede time would not be dealing with his creation, it would be superceding it (and thereby replacing it).
-
But God would also known his creation would be broken 'before' (before being an abstract concept in this case) he even created it. So He'd have to intentionally create a universe that was flawed; in which case why even bother to fix it?
-
"A parent can't control their child's life; that child must live his or her own life someday. The same is true of God's relationship with humanity;"
so is God eventualy going to have us in a condition were we are not dependent upon him? ie liveing on our own
-
I always said that not going to church on sundays was a sign of an evolved human being :D j/k
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Sorry but I don't buy that. If God really did care why did he stand around and do nothing while the snake tempted Eve?
Why indeed! :)
That God permitted evil to exist in his cosmos is derived from his desire to create something that had life in it---something that was Other than himself and not just a figment in the divine imagination.
To create something that in a real sense is Other is a double-edged sword. If something Other has real being, it can be creative like God who is the source of all being: God made rocks and trees and Michelangelo, but Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel ceiling. But if something is Other, it can also be unlike God and become destructive: God made plants and animals and people, and we hack and burn and kill with reckless disregard.
So, God permits evil because denying our Otherness would be to deny us real being. Forcing us would destroy us---at best, we would become nothing but figments in the divine imagination, a wishdream of what could have been. Giving us time permits the possibility of saving us.
-
So God created the universe in order to what, save it?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
But God would also known his creation would be broken 'before' (before being an abstract concept in this case) he even created it. So He'd have to intentionally create a universe that was flawed; in which case why even bother to fix it?
When he created it he knew it would break. But equally true is that when he created it he also knew it would be fixed afterwards. And moreover, fixing it does not merely mean putting it back the way it was, but rather it means bringing the creation through all this mess to something better and greater than the way it was. So why not bother?
-
So did God decide he wanted to make a broken universe, then? Or is an omnipotent, omniprescent diety incapable of making a 'working' universe?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
So God created the universe in order to what, save it?
He created it in order to attain the final goal of a situation wherein the creation would be both Other and entirely good.
You will notice that I didn't use the word "before" when I replied to you. That is because even when we recogise that "before" is abstract in this case, it still misleads us. It is more accurate to say that when he created us, he saw that we fell. But he could only see that once he created us, because there was nothing to see until we existed to make the choice.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
So did God decide he wanted to make a broken universe, then? Or is an omnipotent, omniprescent diety incapable of making a 'working' universe?
See above, plus the fact that at the end of the process (for lack of a better term), it will be "working."
-
So God can do something, but until he does it he doesn't know if it'll work or not? That doesn't seem very 'all-knowing' to me.
-
how's this, we are the childeren of God so the universe is basicly a sort of deity reproduction.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
"A parent can't control their child's life; that child must live his or her own life someday. The same is true of God's relationship with humanity;"
so is God eventualy going to have us in a condition were we are not dependent upon him? ie liveing on our own
In a manner of speaking, yes, and in a manner of speaking, no. In the end we will be Other than him (as we are now), but not estranged from him any more.
However, any metaphor breaks down eventually, including this one. God is the source of all being, and we receive our being from him. So it will neer be the case that we exist apart from him.
Basically, this is the situation: In the beginning, there was God, who is the One Who Is and the source of all life and goodness and truth, etc. Apart from God there was, well, nothing. Once he made his creation (of which we are a part), there was something else. But our being is received from God, who is Being. The choice we have, and which will one day be carried to its logical conclusion, is the choice between God and nothingness. To be utterly independent of the source of all being is to cease to exist. To be different from but in harmony with him is to have life abundant.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
So God can do something, but until he does it he doesn't know if it'll work or not? That doesn't seem very 'all-knowing' to me.
He said he knows the end from the beginning. He didn't say he knew it "before" the beginning. To ask him to see what isn't there yet is sor of non-sensical, don't you think?
-
INcidentally, what I was saying to Bobb about nothingness is a good way of understanding what evil is. Evil is corruption of the good. Evil is destructive, and the more evil, the more destructive. When something gets as corrupt as possible, and you carry the destructive process to its conclusion, you get total destruction: utter nothingness.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
He said he knows the end from the beginning. He didn't say he knew it "before" the beginning. To ask him to see what isn't there yet is sor of non-sensical, don't you think?
No, I don't actually. I'd expect it of a supreme diety.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
how's this, we are the childeren of God so the universe is basicly a sort of deity reproduction.
Again, in a manner of speaking yes, and in a manner of speaking, no. This is also what the "image of God" language is meant to convey. We are meant to be like him, but not to clone him. The "child of God" metaphor is never carried to the "grown up and moved away" metaphor in the bible for a reason. Neither you nor I nor anything in all creation will ever be the self-existent source of all being. If we were, we'd never have been created. We'd have no beginning.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
No, I don't actually. I'd expect it of a supreme diety.
You'd expect him to defy the rules of logic which are themselves an expression of his character?
If he doesn't claim to know it "before" the beginning, you can't really charge him with being anything other than he said he'd be.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
You'd expect him to defy the rules of logic which are themselves an expression of his character?
If he doesn't claim to know it "before" the beginning, you can't really charge him with being anything other than he said he'd be.
What rule/s of logic?
I don't find anything particularly logical about the whole God created universe, God left universe to sort itself out, etc type scenario - I don't see any purpose in it. For me the whole concept of a supreme diety transcends the rules of human logic.
-
You think he arbitrarily made them up afterwards then? Meh, fair enough. To argue that would be a digression at this point. The point is, God can now see all time at once, but he didn't make creation to be preplanned. So saying that he should have preplanned it better doesn't make sense.
Anyway folks, I need to go to bed. Always a pleasure, Aldo. :) Talk to you later.
-
I wasn't aware there were any biblically stated rules of logic (not that that would imply they were Gods rules of logic, of course; just what the writer thought they were).
anyways, g'night.
-
Oh, one last clarification about this post:
Originally posted by aldo_14
So God can do something, but until he does it he doesn't know if it'll work or not? That doesn't seem very 'all-knowing' to me.
I should point out that the answer to this question depends on the perspective you take---on what the "something" is that we are talking about. If we try to imagine ourselves out of time (which we can never perfectly do) so that the "something" he does is just the entire cosmos as a whole, then we have to say that he sees it all in an instant once it is created. If we look at things from within time, the "something" has to be this or that particular action of God within creation. In this perspective, we can say that he knows the end from the beginning (and thus whether something will "work" or not).
-
That's a different perspective from the one I take, suffice to say :) (mine would generally lumped in the multiple-parallel-threads of existance and infinite universe type region leading to low probability events being able to occur in this universe)
anyway, shouldn't you be in bed? :p
-
Bump (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4073359.stm)
Take that, creationists :)
-
Nice to see evolution is still working - not that it bodes well for humanity....
-
no no it was a divine intervention
PRAISE THE LOOOORDAH
-
LOL
Natural selection, you see, it's not so much 'survival of the fittest; and 'He who lives, breeds'.
Still bloody irresponsible to introduce a poisonous skinned toad to the environment in the first place though. We are paying the price for that in various forms over and over again :(
-
Originally posted by Flipside
LOL
Natural selection, you see, it's not so much 'survival of the fittest; and 'He who lives, breeds'.
[/b]
We are actually just genes' reproduction/survival facilities, says Dawkins.
Still bloody irresponsible to introduce a poisonous skinned toad to the environment in the first place though. We are paying the price for that in various forms over and over again :( [/B]
Oh Australia, you land of various failed introduction attempts.
I mean, now they have, what: foxes, rats, toads, camels, rabbits, cats, those being the first few that spring to my mind. When looking at toads, the swiftness of adaptation might look fast, but let's see:
Under those circumstances, where a big part of seemingly consumable food is actually poisonous, ANY, and I do mean ANY, adaptation to have raised resistance to toads' poison would be so immensively profitable for the individual and "it's genes" that it's continuity would be practically guaranteened. Once such mutation takes place, it can quite rapidly establish itself throughout the entire population, especially if the competitors tend to die. Not many successive mutations in nearby populations are needed after the resiliance becomes a dominant feature in said snake populations, thuse even FURTHER increasing the populations efficiency, as they are now able to exploit a consumable that has previously been usable only once/user.
edit: as Aldo pointed out, the entire above point is bull, as the snakes don't actually eat the toads, apparently. Go me.
Or you could just replace the poison resistance with head size, and the point would be roughly the same. Whatever. I am sick.
-
I find it somewhat amusing that the snakes have evolved to survive by not being able to eat something.....
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I find it somewhat amusing that the snakes have evolved to survive by not being able to eat something.....
oh ****, that's what I get from making up a long and obscure thesis before reading the article. lolol.
-
hehehehe, Not to worry, you've actually probably got the second phase bang on though, a reduction at first as the genetics struggle to adapt to the new 'addition' to the environment, and then an explosion as they 'learn' to exploit it.
-
*Wonders if people who eat at McDonald's too much will cause this same adaptation in Americans.*