Lets [Debate] Religion [Archive]

GavinMannion

30-10-2006, 03:01 PM

Just for a change. No politics or race in this one.. I received this in the mail the other day and thought it was really good...

Top Ten indications that you’re over-obsessed with religion

#10 – You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

#9 – You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that humans were created from dirt.

#8 – You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

#7 – Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the male first-born babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" – including women, children, and trees.

#6 – You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods consorting with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

#5 – You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is about a couple of generations old.

#4 – You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs – though excluding those in all rival sects – will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering, and yet you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

#3 – While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor "speaking in tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" your choice of religions to be the correct one.

#2 – You define .01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers, and consider that to be evidence that prayer works.
And you think that the remaining 99.99% failure was simply the will of God.

#1 – You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history – but you still call yourself a christian.

simple_simon

30-10-2006, 03:05 PM

no. 3 is my favorite

ghoti

30-10-2006, 03:06 PM

taken from evilbible.com old information.

I would have preffered the topic "lets debate religion" . "lets bash religion" will not produce constructive debtate

noswal

30-10-2006, 03:07 PM

yes, well, ok, moving on...

hj2k_x

30-10-2006, 03:10 PM

*waits for flames...

stix

30-10-2006, 03:11 PM

I would have preffered the topic "lets debate religion" . "lets bash religion" will not produce constructive debate

You can't debate religion, see reasons 1 to 10 above. :D

GavinMannion

30-10-2006, 03:12 PM

taken from evilbible.com old information.

I would have preffered the topic "lets debate religion" . "lets bash religion" will not produce constructive debtate

Do you really think that a thread starting with 10 points proving you are obsessed with religion is ever going to get a constructive thread going? Like I said I see it as a bash on religion in a humorous manner.

The oldies are the best ;)

icyrus

30-10-2006, 03:14 PM

What is there to debate?

Highflyer_GP

30-10-2006, 03:15 PM

Well to be fair, those points seem to be aimed at christianity. End result: the truth hurts (even though it was meant to be humourous) resulting in people complaining to the mods to lock the thread. In order for this to be constructive one would have to debate religion in a general manner.

For instance, does one go to heaven for being christian, or do they go to hell for not being muslim?

ghoti

30-10-2006, 03:15 PM

You can't debate religion, see reasons 1 to 10 above. :D

lol

Other useless information: Since the truth behind religions like christianity and islam have been making their way to the surface. More people are athiests today than religious (developed, educated countries), and its growing at an amazing rate. There does however seem to be a trend that simple rural folk with limited information sources tend to stay religious. (the mormons of Utah or NGK`ers of die vrysaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat)

One can only hope common sense will one day be the order of the day, and rules like "you should not tie a donkey and a cow together" are out the window.

Tux

30-10-2006, 03:16 PM

-meaningless.rambling.flaming-

ghoti

30-10-2006, 03:17 PM

Well to be fair, those points seem to be aimed at christianity. In order for this to be constructive one would have to debate religion in a general manner.

For instance, does one go to heaven for being christian, or do they go to hell for not being muslim?

A jewish friend of mine has a muslim brother (he converted). Seems like bad little christian kids become satanists, and bad little jews become muslims.

GavinMannion

30-10-2006, 03:19 PM

Other useless information: Since the truth behind religions like christianity and islam have been making their way to the surface. More people are athiests today than religious, and its growing at an amazing rate.

Do you have any facts to back that up I still thought most of the sheep where leaning towards religion.

Highflyer_GP

30-10-2006, 03:19 PM

A jewish friend of mine has a muslim brother (he converted). Seems like bad little christian kids become satanists, and bad little jews become muslims.

LOL that's classic! :D

Rkootknir

30-10-2006, 03:19 PM

Another list:

How to irritate an atheist. (http://myweb.cableone.net/silentdave/how_to_irritate_an_atheist.htm) :p

jabulani

30-10-2006, 03:20 PM

For those of you weary of happyclapping and idiots "rolling around on the floor "speaking in tongues"" I recommend the Church Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Pastafarianism. Free pizza on conversion and a chance of winning a night with the Seven Vestal ( ie: wearing wet T-Shirts ) Virgins. Let His Noodliness into your heart at:
http://www.venganza.org/

simple_simon

30-10-2006, 03:20 PM

there is one fundamental problem with chrisitanity.....no one has the orginals....of the books that make up the bible.

therefore there is nothing to debate....there is no guarantee what so ever that what the people orignally said are still present today in what ever version of christianity you choose.

there are no laws of god in the bible....they're the laws of men

ghoti

30-10-2006, 03:22 PM

Do you have any facts to back that up I still thought most of the sheep where leaning towards religion.

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm

And you are right, most sheep will lean towards a religion. With information and the internet, less people are willing to be sheep.

Rkootknir Another list:

How to irritate an atheist.

Have you even read that list? Haha. yeeeeeah. It was funny

Alan

30-10-2006, 03:29 PM

* ponders ticking GM off as a "liberal league" member *

:D

spiderz

30-10-2006, 03:29 PM

A jewish friend of mine has a muslim brother (he converted). Seems like bad little christian kids become satanists, and bad little jews become muslims.

Does that mean that bad satanists, become christians? and bad little muslims become jews? :D

GavinMannion

30-10-2006, 03:32 PM

* ponders ticking GM off as a "liberal league" member *

Liberal League? "defunct Luxembourgian party"?

Rather tick me as the rabid atheist :D

Paul_S

30-10-2006, 03:33 PM

Reason

30-10-2006, 03:35 PM

To my weary and jaded eye, the how to irrate an atheist list is actually a more humourous indictment of "invisible friendism" by the friendly folks at Secular Web.

Highflyer_GP

30-10-2006, 03:35 PM

The same can be said of evolution - no one has ever witnessed macro evolution.
They're the foolish ideas of men.

Wanna witness macro evolution? Eat something radioactive :p

Alan

30-10-2006, 03:36 PM

Liberal League? "defunct Luxembourgian party"?

Rather tick me as the rabid atheist :D

Hmmm, I don't know. You look like one to me.

Liberal that is.

GavinMannion

30-10-2006, 03:39 PM

The same can be said of evolution - no one has ever witnessed macro evolution.
They're the foolish ideas of men.

Yeehaw... A fundamental one who is actually going to try and prove all the science of evolution is a conspiracy theory...

Okay I am waiting, why are their dinosaur fossils?

GavinMannion

30-10-2006, 03:40 PM

Hmmm, I don't know. You look like one to me.

Liberal that is.

Hmm what does a liberal look like?

Do all liberals disagree with religion?

Then I must be one, but wait don't liberals disagree with the death penalty? Damn I am so confused. I need a pastor to help me think :eek:

Paul_S

30-10-2006, 03:41 PM

Wanna witness macro evolution? Eat something radioactive :p

:D Good one.
Only problem is that you're unlikely to be able to reproduce afterwards and even if you do your offspring will return to the original un-mutated state.

I have a question for you Darwin/Evolution/natural selection supporters :
If everything is the result of natural selection then it follows that man's beliefs including religion are the result of that process.
Why are we trying to get rid of religion if it was part of the natural selection that makes us better, stronger and more intelligent? :D

ghoti

30-10-2006, 03:42 PM

Hmmm, I don't know. You look like one to me.

Liberal that is.

Dont you just hate it when people become enlightened? You can seem to figure out why this is and it infuriates you Aja.... whoops I mean Alan...

Well I am sorry. Its something people only get when they move on and wake up. I think its to late for you, but prehaps their is hope for you or your kids kids. You simply are not ready for it.

Paul_S

30-10-2006, 03:43 PM

Yeehaw... A fundamental one who is actually going to try and prove all the science of evolution is a conspiracy theory...

Okay I am waiting, why are their dinosaur fossils?

Uh ... because there once were dinosaurs on the Earth?
I don't see any problem with extinct species - happens all the time. :rolleyes:

ghoti

30-10-2006, 03:44 PM

:D Good one.
Only problem is that you're unlikely to be able to reproduce afterwards and even if you do your offspring will return to the original un-mutated state.

I have a question for you Darwin/Evolution/natural selection supporters :
If everything is the result of natural selection then it follows that man's beliefs including religion are the result of that process.
Why are we trying to get rid of religion if it was part of the natural selection that makes us better, stronger and more intelligent? :D

Evolution supporters? There are over 1.8 billion pieces of evidence that evolution took place and you still doubt it? Hahahahaha

Wanna debtate the bible? Book for book? Word for word? Lets start with contradictions: http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm (warning the list is long so low bandwidth users may experience problems)

Alan

30-10-2006, 03:45 PM

*Batten down the hatches*

GavinMannion

30-10-2006, 03:46 PM

Uh ... because there once were dinosaurs on the Earth?
I don't see any problem with extinct species - happens all the time. :rolleyes:

Damn so you don't believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Pity they are usually more fun :D

Why are we trying to get rid of religion if it was part of the natural selection that makes us better, stronger and more intelligent?

For the same reason we got rid of the Dark Ages and Polio :D, somethings are meant to have a limited lifespan. That's how evolution works.

jabulani

30-10-2006, 03:48 PM

Why are we trying to get rid of religion if it was part of the natural selection that makes us better, stronger and more intelligent?

Evolution is not a matter of "better" or any such value judgement. Just "different". Elephants are stronger. Neanderthals were probably "more intelligent". "Better" assumes some kind of yardstick, which does not exist.

teraside

30-10-2006, 03:48 PM

I will pray for you lost souls. May God have mercy ;)

ghoti

30-10-2006, 03:49 PM

Uh ... because there once were dinosaurs on the Earth?
I don't see any problem with extinct species - happens all the time. :rolleyes:

How can you believe in extinction but not evolution? Lol. Theyre from the same coin. Extinction is the inability of a species to evolve to its environment.

jabulani

30-10-2006, 03:50 PM

I will pray for you lost souls. May God have mercy ;)

Ramen, brother! Ramen!

Alan

30-10-2006, 03:50 PM

Dont you just hate it when people become enlightened? You can seem to figure out why this is and it infuriates you.

Well I am sorry. Its something people only get when they move on and wake up. I think its to late for you, but prehaps their is hope for you or your kids kids. You simply are not ready for it.

You are the one's that seem to get infuriated often and quite easily.
Should I tick you off as well then. I might have you down already though.

noxibox

30-10-2006, 03:50 PM

10) Accuse them of persecuting you.
This is just harassment. When I bring out the hammer and nails that'll be persecution.

Why are we trying to get rid of religion if it was part of the natural selection that makes us better, stronger and more intelligent? :D
Does it, or is it merely a side-effect of something that is useful. Or something useful taken to pathological extremes? Or a mental illness not severe enough to prevent procreation and therefore it will not be selected out.

chiskop

30-10-2006, 03:55 PM

If everything is the result of natural selection then it follows that man's beliefs including religion are the result of that process.
Why are we trying to get rid of religion if it was part of the natural selection that makes us better, stronger and more intelligent? :D

Um, because like walking on our knuckles, it has outlived it's usefulness?

Paul_S

30-10-2006, 03:59 PM

Evolution supporters? There are over 1.8 billion pieces of evidence that evolution took place and you still doubt it? Hahahahaha

So if there are over a billion smokers alive who claim that smoking isn't bad for your health you'll still doubt it? Isn't it more logical to believe that since they're alive it's proof that smoking isn't harmful for your health?

There's a big difference between discoveries, artifacts, etc. supporting a theory and the actual truth.
Evolution has never been proven - yes it has lots of evidence supporting it's ideas but until someone can prove it, it remains what it really is - a scientific theory.

icyrus

30-10-2006, 04:01 PM

So if there are over a billion smokers alive who claim that smoking isn't bad for your health you'll still doubt it? Isn't it more logical to believe that since they're alive it's proof that smoking isn't harmful for your health?

There's a big difference between discoveries, artifacts, etc. supporting a theory and the actual truth.
Evolution has never been proven - yes it has lots of evidence supporting it's ideas but until someone can prove it, it remains what it really is - a scientific theory.

Evolution is one the most proven theories in the world. I guess what you mean is the "Theory of Evolution" or even "Macro-evolution". I suggest some reading on your part if you are unaware of the differences.

Claymore

30-10-2006, 04:02 PM

I have a question for you Darwin/Evolution/natural selection supporters :
If everything is the result of natural selection then it follows that man's beliefs including religion are the result of that process.
Why are we trying to get rid of religion if it was part of the natural selection that makes us better, stronger and more intelligent? :D

Firstly, not "everything" is a result of natural selection. Why should it be? Natural selection is one of the mechanisms of evolution.

ghoti

30-10-2006, 04:03 PM

You are the one's that seem to get infuriated often and quite easily.
Should I tick you off as well then. I might have you down already though.

Add me to your list PLEASE!!! I beg you. I dont EVER want YOUR approval thanks. It would be like Mugabe saying he thinks Im cool. Yuck.

ghoti

30-10-2006, 04:04 PM

So if there are over a billion smokers alive who claim that smoking isn't bad for your health you'll still doubt it? Isn't it more logical to believe that since they're alive it's proof that smoking isn't harmful for your health?

There's a big difference between discoveries, artifacts, etc. supporting a theory and the actual truth.
Evolution has never been proven - yes it has lots of evidence supporting it's ideas but until someone can prove it, it remains what it really is - a scientific theory.

Your argument is 40 years old. Please read books that were printed in the last 10 years. You seem to have a lot of catching up to do.

Claymore

30-10-2006, 04:08 PM

Evolution is one the most proven theories in the world. I guess what you mean is the "Theory of Evolution" or even "Macro-evolution". I suggest some reading on your part if you are unaware of the differences.

Hmmm. I'd like to clarify to say that evolution, like gravity, is *fact*, not a theory. However, the Theory of Evolution attempts to explain the actual machanisms of evolution, just like Einstein's Theory of General Relativity attempts to explain the mechanism of gravity. There's overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection, though there is, of course, discussion on finer points (for example, Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium theory).

Kimosabe

30-10-2006, 04:09 PM

I love this shiner...

7) Tell them that the universe is too complex to "just exist," and must have been created by a God who "just exists."

ghoti

30-10-2006, 04:10 PM

Hmmm. I'd like to clarify to say that evolution, like gravity, is *fact*, not a theory. However, the Theory of Evolution attempts to explain the actual machanisms of evolution, just like Einstein's Theory of General Relativity attempts to explain the mechanism of gravity. There's overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection, though there is, of course, discussion on finer points (for example, Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium theory).

Or by judging by looking at humanity. Its not survival of the fittest, rather survival of the mediocre.

icyrus

30-10-2006, 04:10 PM

Hmmm. I'd like to clarify to say that evolution, like gravity, is *fact*, not a theory. However, the Theory of Evolution attempts to explain the actual machanisms of evolution, just like Einstein's Theory of General Relativity attempts to explain the mechanism of gravity. There's overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection, though there is, of course, discussion on finer points (for example, Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium theory).

Thank you, after rereading my post I see it wasn't clear.

Alan

30-10-2006, 04:10 PM

Add me to your list PLEASE!!! I beg you. I dont EVER want YOUR approval thanks. It would be like Mugabe saying he thinks Im cool. Yuck.

Well done you are the first person to own up and voluntarily go into the list without kicking up a fuss. For that I congratulate you.

Funny thing is you came out of left field( excuse the pun) to beat Reason to the punch.

Unfortunately Mugabe already thinks you are cool.

Rkootknir

30-10-2006, 04:12 PM

There's a big difference between discoveries, artifacts, etc. supporting a theory and the actual truth.
Evolution has never been proven - yes it has lots of evidence supporting it's ideas but until someone can prove it, it remains what it really is - a scientific theory.Err, yes. A scientific theory is a framework that attempts to explain certain facts in a coherent manner. Some other examples of scientific theories:

Gravity - Currently the General Theory of Relativity (though incomplete)
Particles & forces - Mostly Quantum Electrodynamics and Quantum Chromodynamics
Cosmology - Big Bang

There is no such thing as proving a scientific theory. Theories are either supported by the evidence or not. If you want a proof, look to mathematics.

GavinMannion

30-10-2006, 04:12 PM

Well done you are the first person to own up and voluntarily go into the list without kicking up a fuss.

Dude are you on some awesome giggly twig or do I just not have any idea what you are talking about :D

Since it's seems to be an elite club can I please also be on your list?

Paul_S

30-10-2006, 04:13 PM

Your argument is 40 years old. Please read books that were printed in the last 10 years. You seem to have a lot of catching up to do.

Why would I want to read books written by biased scientists who try to make the evidence support their theory and then claim that since there seems to be overwhelming evidence it must be fact?
That's sounds really similar to religion. :rolleyes:

Where's the proof that evolution happened beyond a shadow of a doubt?
Please give me some examples.

Alan

30-10-2006, 04:13 PM

What my list

The Big Firefly

30-10-2006, 04:14 PM

here we go again...:(

well all i say is that i'll pray for you guys....and i'll pray more for the guy that started this thread...:)

GOD LOVES YOU NO MATTER WHAT!!!:)

icyrus

30-10-2006, 04:17 PM

Why would I want to read books written by biased scientists who try to make the evidence support their theory and then claim that since there seems to be overwhelming evidence it must be fact?
That's sounds really similar to religion. :rolleyes:

Where's the proof that evolution happened beyond a shadow of a doubt?
Please give me some examples.

So you would discard everything written by scientists but still ask for proof? What proof would you like if you've already thrown science and logic out of the window?

It is kind of humorous how you disregard science as it suits you while typing away on your computer connected to the internet. I'm pretty sure those weren't mentioned in the bible.

GavinMannion

30-10-2006, 04:17 PM

Where's the proof that evolution happened beyond a shadow of a doubt?
Please give me some examples.

Aha so you are a fundamentalist ;)

Okay proof of evolution. Appendix.

Now please show me some proof that ***** performed one miracle without referring to a book widely regarded as being full of factual flaws?

FireFly: I know God loves me, it's the 2 Billion christians I am more worried about :D

neio

30-10-2006, 04:19 PM

icyrus

30-10-2006, 04:19 PM

here we go again...:(

well all i say is that i'll pray for you guys....and i'll pray more for the guy that started this thread...:)

GOD LOVES YOU NO MATTER WHAT!!!:)

Would that be christian god? muslim god? jewish god? Zeus?

jabulani

30-10-2006, 04:19 PM

GOD LOVES YOU NO MATTER WHAT!!!:)

The Flying Spaghetti Monster loves you AND gives free pizza! :D

Dare

30-10-2006, 04:23 PM

Aha so you are a fundamentalist ;)

Okay proof of evolution. Appendix.

Now please show me some proof that ***** performed one miracle without referring to a book widely regarded as being full of factual flaws?

FireFly: I know God loves me, it's the 2 Billion christians I am more worried about :D

Healing a cripple is going to be kind of hard to prove now...

The proof is that there are people who believe..

jabulani

30-10-2006, 04:25 PM

Where's the proof that evolution happened beyond a shadow of a doubt?
Please give me some examples.

See evolution in action in this thread:
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=57157

In a generation or two all the no-seatbelters will have been removed from the gene pool.

GavinMannion

30-10-2006, 04:25 PM

Healing a cripple is going to be kind of hard to prove now...

The proof is that there are people who believe..

Wow that was deep :rolleyes:

So since people believe it makes it true....

Quick everyone believe I am super wealthy.......

If believing was all that was required do you really think I would be typing this on a 1mb line :D

Proof people, if you don't have any then stop trying to stand on your pulpit's and demand it from others.

icyrus

30-10-2006, 04:26 PM

Healing a cripple is going to be kind of hard to prove now...

The proof is that there are people who believe..

There are people that believe that earth is flat.

jabulani

30-10-2006, 04:28 PM

There are people that believe that earth is flat.

Well it IS isn't it? In the multi-dimensions of space-time it is actually flat. Depending on your point of view of course!

Dare

30-10-2006, 04:29 PM

There are people that believe that earth is flat.

i doubt that ;)

ajax

30-10-2006, 04:31 PM

Ever hear about out of place artifacts? Some interesting links and pictures on the website, some of my fav ones are picture of dinosaurs shown with human beings. The Ica stones are quite an eye opener.

http://s8int.com/dinolit1.html

Yup, and what about Schweitzer's discovery of red blood cells inside dinosaur bones, this debunks the "millions of years" - no interpretation of evidence necessary, no pre-suppositions required, right there under the microscope.

http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-06/features/dinosaur-dna/
or
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp

Dare

30-10-2006, 04:32 PM

Wow that was deep :rolleyes:

So since people believe it makes it true....

Quick everyone believe I am super wealthy.......

I would not believe that ... cause its not true :D

Paul_S

30-10-2006, 04:32 PM

So you would discard everything written by scientists but still ask for proof? What proof would you like if you've already thrown science and logic out of the window?

I'm not trying to throw all the logic and science out of the window. In fact I'm all for logical reasoning and science and I've read plenty of pro-evolution material.
I simply fail to see how just because two fossils are similar or if two DNA strands are similar that they are in fact related.
That makes no logical sense to me.
That's like saying a BMW must be the evolutionary offspring of a Merc because they look similar. That's not proof or a fact - that's a theory.

It is kind of humorous how you disregard science as it suits you while typing away on your computer connected to the internet. I'm pretty sure those weren't mentioned in the bible.

It's kind of humorous that as soon as someone even questions the validity of evolution that people get all defensive and resort to mocking or personal attacks without engaging in constructive discussion.
Sounds rather like religious groups I've heard of. ;-)

icyrus

30-10-2006, 04:32 PM

i doubt that ;)

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Ignorant or naive?

Kimosabe

30-10-2006, 04:32 PM

:D Good one.

Why are we trying to get rid of religion if it was part of the natural selection that makes us better, stronger and more intelligent? :D

Oh please inform me on great and wise one. What great and wonderful things has the world of religion give us. Hate and war come to my mind. What a wonderful discovery. But then again with out hate or war we wouldnt live in the same world we do today.

Natural selection is something that does not happen anymore in the modern world. Take africa for example.
Now working with the idea of Natural selection, we as outsiders should not help those that are able but do not help them selves. Example when there is a faminie in a country. If u are unable to eat u will die, thus making way for those that have the fore sight to plan ahead to make some thing of the land that u had. The weak give way to the strong. Instead of having to depend on others you need to make do with what you have.

Natas

30-10-2006, 04:33 PM

taken from evilbible.com old information.

I would have preffered the topic "lets debate religion" . "lets bash religion" will not produce constructive debtate

I prefer the topic lets bash religion...I love bashing religion..another fun site is bettybowers.com...the WORLD"S BEST christian.......EVER!!!!

Alan

30-10-2006, 04:35 PM

Word of warning.

I'm monitoring this thread for any *ahem* liberal traits. W1z4rd has already gone in( voluntarily) and GM looks like he might too.

icyrus

30-10-2006, 04:36 PM

I'm not trying to throw all the logic and science out of the window. In fact I'm all for logical reasoning and science and I've read plenty of pro-evolution material.
I simply fail to see how just because two fossils are similar or if two DNA strands are similar that they are in fact related.
That makes no logical sense to me.
That's like saying a BMW must be the evolutionary offspring of a Merc because they look similar. That's not proof or a fact - that's a theory.

It's kind of humorous that as soon as someone even questions the validity of evolution that people get all defensive and resort to mocking or personal attacks without engaging in constructive discussion.
Sounds rather like religious groups I've heard of. ;-)

This quote of yours:

Where's the proof that evolution happened beyond a shadow of a doubt?
Please give me some examples.

Despite having it pointed out to you by more than one person you still are incapable of realizing the difference between evolution and The Theory of Evolution. If you don't even know this but want to debate it, you can't be surprised when all you get in return is ridicule.

Dare

30-10-2006, 04:37 PM

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Ignorant or naive?

I'd say this is a couple of college kids trying to be special.

bwana

30-10-2006, 04:40 PM

What is there to debate?Precisely - how do you debate an over-exaggerated fairy tale? :confused:

arf9999

30-10-2006, 04:42 PM

Dare

30-10-2006, 04:46 PM

Question:

Do you believe in evil spirits (the ones that posses people?)

neio

30-10-2006, 04:47 PM

I'm confused as to why you would want to bash religeon in general, unless the catholic priest played hide the sausage with the person who started this thread...

icyrus

30-10-2006, 04:53 PM

Question:

Do you believe in evil spirits (the ones that posses people?)

Of course not.

Do you believe in the toothfairy and santa claus?

Macguyver1

30-10-2006, 04:54 PM

Religion has its place, just as all belief systems do, regardless of its origins. Just as some people lean on others in times of despair, those that have no one, use religion to keep going.

Random717

30-10-2006, 05:03 PM

I'm halfway through reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. I suggest that everyone posting to this thread gets a copy and reads it.

It has the clearest and most concise explanation that I have seen as to why God does not exist... and it's quite funny.

Haven't got around to it yet, still busy reading the Blind Watchmaker: he shows how you can generate a complete sentence from random letters of the alphabet using 'natural selection' in a total of one hundred steps, whereas it would have been statistically impossible to randomly generate the same sentence in a hundred trillion attempts.
It is a great explanation for those who believe complex organisms couldn't have formed randomly, due to the process being statistically impossible.
Take things step by step, make survival dependent on each step, and you'll find that everything has evolved!
I recommend reading all of Dawkins books, great logical explanations that are extremely hard (if not impossible) to argue.

Debbie

30-10-2006, 05:31 PM

jabulani, read any interesting books lately by any chance? ;)

Paul_S

30-10-2006, 06:01 PM

How can you believe in extinction but not evolution? Lol. Theyre from the same coin. Extinction is the inability of a species to evolve to its environment.

They're only from the same coin if you choose to look at it that way.
If a meteor hits the earth and wipes out human kind but the trees survive does that mean that 1000 years from now when fossils of our bodies are found that the trees evolved from humans because we were unable to evolve?

There is growing evidence that dinosaurs were alive not that long ago (proteins and soft tissue still in bones), historic art of dinos and humans living together, etc.

The whole scientific thing is a farce if I ever saw one especially with regards to the soft tissue found in a Tyrannosaurus rex femur.
Do you know what the scientists are saying about the find? They're saying that they found 70-million-year-old soft tissue and that fossilization does not proceed as science had assumed. So now they're redefining how fossilization works so that their theory of evolution doesn't break.
I've yet to find a scientific journal article that asks the question "did dinosaurs become extinct recently?".
They call that science?! Objectivity - yeah right ... more like religious nuts if you ask me.

jabulani

30-10-2006, 06:08 PM

jabulani, read any interesting books lately by any chance? ;)

Ah, only military history!

But, not only is the world flat, it also travels in a straight line around the sun, if I recall basic Riemannian geometry from many moons ago correctly! ;)

Alan

30-10-2006, 06:09 PM

Ah, only military history!

But, not only is the world flat, it also travels in a straight line around the sun, if I recall basic Riemannian geometry from many moons ago correctly! ;)

Care to name the book.

icyrus

30-10-2006, 06:13 PM

They're only from the same coin if you choose to look at it that way.
If a meteor hits the earth and wipes out human kind but the trees survive does that mean that 1000 years from now when fossils of our bodies are found that the trees evolved from humans because we were unable to evolve?

There is growing evidence that dinosaurs were alive not that long ago (proteins and soft tissue still in bones), historic art of dinos and humans living together, etc.

The whole scientific thing is a farce if I ever saw one especially with regards to the soft tissue found in a Tyrannosaurus rex femur.
Do you know what the scientists are saying about the find? They're saying that they found 70-million-year-old soft tissue and that fossilization does not proceed as science had assumed. So now they're redefining how fossilization works so that their theory of evolution doesn't break.
I've yet to find a scientific journal article that asks the question "did dinosaurs become extinct recently?".
They call that science?! Objectivity - yeah right ... more like religious nuts if you ask me.

But you prefere the option of "God did it"?

Tell me, do you know of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster)? Now I know what the purpose of it was, but what makes it any different from any of the mainstream religions? I am being serious. Would one of our firm religious believers on this forum like to comment on why their religion is more valid than the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

jabulani

30-10-2006, 06:20 PM

Care to name the book.

Well, off topic by miles I suppose, but recently:
Desmond Young's book on Rommel
Enemy at the Gates about Stalingrad
Re-reading The Washing of the Spears after many years at the moment.

jabulani

30-10-2006, 06:22 PM

But you prefere the option of "God did it"?

Tell me, do you know of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster)? Now I know what the purpose of it was, but what makes it any different from any of the mainstream religions? I am being serious. Would one of our firm religious believers on this forum like to comment on why their religion is more valid than the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Ramen! Ramen! A fellow Pastafarian! Pass the parmesan! :D

Our pasta, who art in a colander, draining be your noodles. Thy noodle come, Thy sauce be yum, on top some grated Parmesan. Give us this day our garlic bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trample on our lawns. And lead us not into vegetarianism, but deliver us some pizza, for thine is the meatball, the noodle, and the sauce, forever and ever. RAmen.

ghoti

30-10-2006, 06:52 PM

They're only from the same coin if you choose to look at it that way.

There's another way? Explain your way.

If a meteor hits the earth and wipes out human kind but the trees survive does that mean that 1000 years from now when fossils of our bodies are found that the trees evolved from humans because we were unable to evolve?

Yes, because in the years that we were the most intelligent species we were not smart enough to look forward, and wasted all our time and resources killing each other for our gods instead of pumping those nice military budgets into space exploration, and safety and disaster recovery.

There is growing evidence that dinosaurs were alive not that long ago (proteins and soft tissue still in bones), historic art of dinos and humans living together, etc.

When you say "dinosaur", could you please be more specific. There were several dinosaur groups and more than one cataclysmic mass extinction situation. At least four I know of, so what age where these ones from? What type where they?

Its not beyond reason that some dinosaurs could have survived up until the last ice age. So how is this going to effect evolution? We still have crocodiles, finding another species that survived up until the last 4.3 million years should not be hard.

The whole scientific thing is a farce if I ever saw one especially with regards to the soft tissue found in a Tyrannosaurus rex femur.
Do you know what the scientists are saying about the find? They're saying that they found 70-million-year-old soft tissue and that fossilization does not proceed as science had assumed. So now they're redefining how fossilization works so that their theory of evolution doesn't break.

There's a LOT of different ways fossilization can take place that we know of. How is finding out ANOTHER way this takes place have any effect on the theory except make it stronger?

I've yet to find a scientific journal article that asks the question "did dinosaurs become extinct recently?".

Ill once again refer you to the crocodile. Just because most life was wiped off a couple of times, does not mean all life was wiped off. Catch up here.

They call that science?! Objectivity - yeah right ... more like religious nuts if you ask me. *cough*.

Alan

30-10-2006, 07:31 PM

Well, off topic by miles I suppose, but recently:
Desmond Young's book on Rommel
Enemy at the Gates about Stalingrad
Re-reading The Washing of the Spears after many years at the moment.

Well if you are interested in selling any of them give me a PM:) . You could just lend them to to me if you live nearby;) .

I just finished Barbarossa by Alan Clark.

Debbie

30-10-2006, 07:48 PM

Jabulani: Okay

Claymore

30-10-2006, 10:04 PM

Yup, and what about Schweitzer's discovery of red blood cells inside dinosaur bones, this debunks the "millions of years" - no interpretation of evidence necessary, no pre-suppositions required, right there under the microscope.

http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-06/features/dinosaur-dna/
or
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp

Just a couple of comments on this interesting discovery.
1) I can't find any follow-ups after the initial announcement in early 2005. There ought to be follow-up research from other scientists in the field.
2) This in no way debunks the age of the fossils - I've seen no suggestion whatsoever that there have been errors in dating the fossils, the surrounding rock, other fossils in the area, etc., not even from the dicoverer, who is apparently an evangelical Christian.
3) Without actual follow-up research, we don't know whether or not the soft tissue is truly organic or not, and how/if it was preserved in the mineral matrix.

GavinMannion

31-10-2006, 08:03 AM

Cool this thread is still alive. :D

Someone asked if the starter of this thread had been abused by a catholic priest. Glad to say no. Also what is the problem with religion.

Well you see, I have a problem with people's freedom of choice being taken away from them first of all. 2 year olds are not old enough to make a choice of whether they want to follow god or not.

I also have a problem with the way it spreads lies (evolution is a conspiracy).

Obviously the fact that people keep on killing for religion also annoys me quite a bit. I had a thought and checked News24. Guess what another religious killing "Boy sacrificed to goddess"...

What about the fact that religion is the only reason why gay's and lesbians are still treated like lower animals..

Or what about how we where forced to go to Bible ed classes during apartheid where they used the bible to validate what they where doing to innocent people. Lovely.

Religion causes problems all over the world. It's time has gone, we don't need fairy tales anymore.

The fossil discussion has been interesting from a std 8 point of view. How about explaining how Noah put all the animals on one boat and then managed to repopulate the entire world without committing incest?

Rkootknir

31-10-2006, 08:33 AM

Just a couple of comments on this interesting discovery.
1) I can't find any follow-ups after the initial announcement in early 2005. There ought to be follow-up research from other scientists in the field.
2) This in no way debunks the age of the fossils - I've seen no suggestion whatsoever that there have been errors in dating the fossils, the surrounding rock, other fossils in the area, etc., not even from the dicoverer, who is apparently an evangelical Christian.
3) Without actual follow-up research, we don't know whether or not the soft tissue is truly organic or not, and how/if it was preserved in the mineral matrix.There's a nice article about this at Dino-blood and the Young Earth (http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/YEC_and_dino_blood.htm).

Why, it seems that AIG are caught misrepresenting & ignoring actual research, what a massive change this is for them. :rolleyes:

Nod

31-10-2006, 08:34 AM

Another source of interesting reading is: The Internet Sacred Text Archive (http://www.sacred-texts.com/)

noxibox

31-10-2006, 08:55 AM

Do you believe in the toothfairy and santa claus?
Be careful what you say about the Great Claus. His commandment clearly states 'If though art naughty thou shalt receive no presents'. I take this very seriously.

noxibox

31-10-2006, 08:56 AM

It would seem to present a major difficulty for evolutionists to explain the representation in art or literature--or in artifacts of recognizable species of dinosaurs--- by ancient men who supposely had never seen one alive.
This naturally could not be because there are many living reptiles that do have a resemblence to some dinosaurs.

GavinMannion

31-10-2006, 08:59 AM

This naturally could not be because there are many living reptiles that do have a resemblence to some dinosaurs.

What and use logical thought in a religious discussion, what is going through that head of yours man. Could you imagine the repercussions if that happened?

Gargmel

31-10-2006, 09:12 AM

''5) Insist that there is a God, and show them where in the Bible it says so.''

Perfect example of Christian logic...:rolleyes:

jabulani

31-10-2006, 09:12 AM

Another source of interesting reading is: The Internet Sacred Text Archive (http://www.sacred-texts.com/)

Sadly no "The Gospel Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster" on that site. :(

GavinMannion

31-10-2006, 09:23 AM

Just to lighten things up

Joke of the day::::
God created man..... and He stepped back and said:
"This is an image of perfection indeed. From the beautifully defined muscles,
to it's grinning shaggy head. From the slightly furry torso,
to it's easy going tread. Lets create something for it to wed."

So God went on to create a woman... and He stepped back and said:
"Oh good grief, this thing's going to have to wear make-up."

Nod

31-10-2006, 09:32 AM

Sadly no "The Gospel Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster" on that site. :(

Maybe you should ask them to add it. Spread the word.

Reason

31-10-2006, 10:25 AM

I had not realised that such copious evidence would arise to support my thought regarding what is the greatest danger (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=57164) to South Africa

Let's see, we have believers claiming that their "holy book" is true, because they believe it to be true, because it (the book) proclaims itself to be true and because others believe it to be true. Thus it is true.

Then the aforementioned believers doubt methodological, rational research which is peer reviewed and then the believers proclaim evidence gathered through methodological rational research to be false, because it does not match their interpretation of their holy book.

And we then have our own authoritarian/contrarian running around with his little "list", Sadly No! The word "liberal" does not mean what you seem to think it means. Liberalism and Robert Mugabe have as much in common as a panda has with pasta.

Of course we then have a figure named from legend (gasp, heretical legends even) who brings up some of the "facts" created by those dedicated to lying for the lord. Sadly No! these "facts" are not true, please see the Talkorigins FAQ to creationist claims. Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371.html) & Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371_1.html)

The number of lies told be creationists is very large (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CH100)

One word. Irrational.

GavinMannion

31-10-2006, 10:31 AM

Reason: we are a growing force in SA and the world.

People are becoming aware (thanks to the net) of the huge wholes in every religious belief. Especially when they start trying to debunk science to 'prove' their religion....

I see you are also on the liberal league list ;) WHat the hell is that about?

neio

31-10-2006, 11:20 AM

arf9999

31-10-2006, 11:40 AM

And yet, pride always comes before the fall...

I don't think you're going to convince any atheists by quoting the Old Testament. Most atheists consider the Bible as mythology....

"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs, chapter 16, verse 18.

AntiThesis

31-10-2006, 11:44 AM

Yes I've always objected to that sort of argument.

Atheist: I don't believe in God or the bible.
Basher: But the bible says you must!
Atheist: But why?
Basher: Because the bible says so!

Reason

31-10-2006, 11:45 AM

Gavin

I think what has happened is that alanf85 was exposed to American propoganda at a young age(the American Right have been working for a long time to descredit liberalism). Consequently he feels that Robert Mugabe is a liberal and that as a result, liberals are bad. Simply put "liberal" does not mean what he thinks it means.

As to his list, I wonder why it so important to him?

jabulani

31-10-2006, 11:57 AM

The greatest fool is he who believes that there is none greater than himself.

That's why we believe in His Noodliness The Flying Spaghetti Monster who created the world in his own image and gave us Pasta to eat!

GavinMannion

31-10-2006, 12:09 PM

The greatest fool is he who believes that there is none greater than himself.
Atheists have so much pride in themselves and their belief of no G0d. And yet, pride always comes before the fall... Yeah, uhm, go ahead flame me :)

Why are you that arrogant that you don't think any Human is greater than your so you follow a mythical creature instead?

I don't have any more pride in myself than any other normal person. I just don't feel the need to base my life on fairy tales. I personally don't need a story to tell me what morals are and how to live a decent life.

Society has been created through mutual respect and knowledge and then religion has tried to hijack it and take credit for it.

noxibox

31-10-2006, 02:02 PM

The greatest fool is he who believes that there is none greater than himself.
God is the greatest fool?

noxibox

31-10-2006, 02:06 PM

I see you are also on the liberal league list ;) WHat the hell is that about?
It's so you can conspire to undermine the good works of right-wing extremists. Just like the Illuminati and the Jewish Conspiracy.

dlk001

31-10-2006, 02:10 PM

God is the greatest fool?

No, The greatest fool is the Pope.

GavinMannion

31-10-2006, 02:14 PM

Seriously if you are going to start talking about who is the greatest fool you have to have Mugabe in the list...

He always wins hands down.

In religion the greatests fools are those that refuse to question their religion. So basically everyone who is religious. Because if anyone ever honestly and openly questions what their religion states they will see that their religion is based on political writings and not a higher power.

dlk001

31-10-2006, 02:18 PM

neio

31-10-2006, 02:22 PM

Fortunatly atheists are in the minority in this world, 95% of the earthly population believes in a G0d of some kind.

/me waves at the 5% :D

GavinMannion

31-10-2006, 02:23 PM

??? Wow I never knew Mugabe was that powerful.

//Off Topic- Why do people insist on calling people/countries Satan? It is the most ridiculous thing I have seen. According to religion Satan is pure evil and everyone knows that neither Mugabe or Bush is pure evil. pure stupidity maybe :D

And Neio brings up the great reason all religious people eventually sink to. Everyone else is religious so why aren't you? 3rd Grade logic.

neio

31-10-2006, 02:26 PM

neio is with lower case. Smile, life's too short to take seriously.

dlk001

31-10-2006, 02:27 PM

GavinMannion

31-10-2006, 02:27 PM

Hell since it was brought up that only 5% of the world is Atheist I thought I would ask Google. Google really is God :)

Atheism is the third largest group in regard to religious studies.

Here is the top 10 for your viewing pleasure :)

1 Christianity: 2.1 billion
2 Islam: 1.3 billion
3 Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
4 Hinduism: 900 million
5 Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
6 Buddhism: 376 million
7 primal-indigenous: 300 million
8 African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
9 Sikhism: 23 million
10 Juche: 19 million

So maybe there are more enlightened people in this world than I had originally thought....

What is strange though is
12 Judaism: 14 million

I thought they where bigger than that?

neio

31-10-2006, 02:29 PM

Show more detail on athiest and I'll believe the 1.1 billion figure.

noxibox

31-10-2006, 02:31 PM

Fortunatly atheists are in the minority in this world, 95% of the earthly population believes in a G0d of some kind.
This particular brainwashing does leave a residue that many people are unable to shake. People do like their superstitions.

Religious material should carry a no under 21 restriction. Or at least a requirement that all religions are presented equally to those who are underage. Or people can pick by throwing darts at a dartboard.

/me waves at the 5% :D
Standing on the dock we're very glad we decided not to get on the Titanic.

dlk001

31-10-2006, 02:32 PM

The world is in relegious conflict because of extremists from 1 & 2.

GavinMannion

31-10-2006, 02:37 PM

Show more detail on athiest and I'll believe the 1.1 billion figure.

Umm I have no idea what you are asking?

What detail do you want? +- 14% of the world's population do not believe in a God. According to the real God of Google.

Look here for more info http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

Another odd one 25% of the population of Israel is agnostic/atheist/non-believers... The irony cracks me up :D

neio

31-10-2006, 02:50 PM

Erm, no, you posted: Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion

Those are several groups, not only atheist. Secular can mean they believe in G0d but dont identify with any specific church/ mosque or temple.

chiskop

31-10-2006, 02:51 PM

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Present_day_adherents):

...the third-largest "group" of approximately 1 billion people adhere to irreligious approaches which include Humanism, Atheism, Rationalism, and Agnosticism.

Okay, I type too slow.

I would dispute your definition of secular (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=secular): 2 - not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred): secular music .

GavinMannion

31-10-2006, 02:53 PM

"Secular"
From Econterms
Definition: Secular is an adjective meaning "long term" as in the phrase "secular trends." Outside the research context its more common meaning is 'not religious'.

Okay? You can call me what ever you want. I don't believe in any God at all. Neither do Atheists, agnostics or secularists? Is that even a word?

Damn Chiskop beat me to it.... strange how we always seem to be defending our facts yet all they have is a book which tells them the truth? Open your eyes and you will see...

JBFRobisher

31-10-2006, 03:05 PM

Secular can mean they believe in G0d but dont identify with any specific church/ mosque or temple.

Cack. It means not religious.

GavinMannion

31-10-2006, 03:06 PM

Where have all the religious people gone? This thread was teaming with them yesterday?

jabulani

31-10-2006, 03:09 PM

Where have all the religious people gone? This thread was teaming with them yesterday?

Right here right here! It's just that us Flying Spaghetti Monsterists don't get so uptight. :D

dlk001

31-10-2006, 03:10 PM

STILL ON THE TOPIC, Do you believe God created earth or do you believe in the "Big Bang"? Where did it all start?

GavinMannion

31-10-2006, 03:11 PM

No jabulani, I am talking about the people who follow the false gods... Not the Flying Spaghetti Monster :hail:

dlk001: Who are you asking?

dlk001

31-10-2006, 03:18 PM

noxibox

31-10-2006, 03:22 PM

Where have all the religious people gone? This thread was teaming with them yesterday?
Somebody turned on the lights :D

GavinMannion

31-10-2006, 03:27 PM

Well, most christians believe God created the universe and most scientist believe in the "Big Bang" evolution theory. Does that mean scientists are Atheists and fools? Who is the biggest fool between the two?

A large majority of scientists are atheists but not all by any stretch. You see science and religion can co-exist. Once you accept that the bible is not an exact record of History and that obviously the world has been around millions and millions of years then it's quite easy to do both.

However once you throw part of the book out you are on the road to truly being free and seeing the light ;)

arf9999

31-10-2006, 03:29 PM

who created God?

jabulani

31-10-2006, 03:31 PM

STILL ON THE TOPIC, Do you believe God created earth or do you believe in the "Big Bang"? Where did it all start?

A difficult question. A popular semi-heretical theory is:

The Flying Spaghetti Monster designed a process by which all of creation would come into existence through natural progression, initially triggered by Him in one significant event, called the Big Boil. The Big Boil Event took longer than He expected until He created salt and added it to the mix. This initiated the Big Boil and also explains why the sea is salty.

Or it could have been like this ( orthodox ):

Long ago, His Noodliness decided, in his great wisdom, to make stuff. His first task was easily the most difficult. On the first day, he made a mountain, trees and a "midgit" (sic). The midgit (sic) took the greatest time, as He had to create a small human, having never even created a human before. At the end of that day, it was so, at which point, He spent the next 3 days making everything else, including the first 3-day weekend, the Shroud of Napkin, and fake carbon atoms to fool scientists and geologists. He then rested on the 5th, 6th and 7th days.

noxibox

31-10-2006, 03:32 PM

Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html)

arf9999

31-10-2006, 03:38 PM

A large majority of scientists are atheists but not all by any stretch. You see science and religion can co-exist. Once you accept that the bible is not an exact record of History and that obviously the world has been around millions and millions of years then it's quite easy to do both.

However once you throw part of the book out you are on the road to truly being free and seeing the light ;)

Science and religion should not co-exist. The word "science" comes from the latin word "scire" which means "to know". This is fundamentally opposed to religion where the basis is not knowing but accepting and believing (i.e. faith).

Why should we believe the teachings of a book written by primitive people with little knowledge or understanding?

Anthropologists will generally talk about cultures progressing from polytheism to monotheism... the obvious next step is to atheism.

GavinMannion

31-10-2006, 03:38 PM

Seems like a load of rubbish really? Starts of normally and ends up trying to prove that noone is an atheist?

I did just skim it though

dlk001

31-10-2006, 03:40 PM

A large majority of scientists are atheists but not all by any stretch. You see science and religion can co-exist. Once you accept that the bible is not an exact record of History and that obviously the world has been around millions and millions of years then it's quite easy to do both.

However once you throw part of the book out you are on the road to truly being free and seeing the light ;)

I also believe Bible is not an exact record of history.

The two accounts of creation, Biblical and The Big-Bang Theory, are similar in that they both started from nothing; however, they differ entirely from there.

The Bible shows that everything was perfectly planned out, from the beginning of time, while The Big-Bang theory asserts that the world came into being for no particular reason at all.

The first shows that there is a caring, loving God who created us in His image, but the other merely suggests that we “are” and exist for no reason or purpose.

GavinMannion

31-10-2006, 03:41 PM

It has been asked before but it seems right to ask it again.

Who created the caring loving God? (Who ended up ordering the murders of women and children)

GavinMannion

31-10-2006, 03:45 PM

I firmly believe people still NEED religion.

Otherwise they are afraid that their lives will become useless. However it is the exact opposite which is true.

Dedicating your life to something that does not exist is the most useless thing you can do, you don't need a God to show you how to live and enjoy your life. We are sentient beings who have figured that out for ourselves, enjoy the life that we have and embrace it as it is the only one we have.

That's not sad it's great. To really and truly live life you need to open your eyes and experience true life.

arf9999

31-10-2006, 03:47 PM

I also believe Bible is not an exact record of history.

The two accounts of creation, Biblical and The Big-Bang Theory, are similar in that they both started from nothing; however, they differ entirely from there.

The Bible shows that everything was perfectly planned out, from the beginning of time, while The Big-Bang theory asserts that the world came into being for no particular reason at all.

The first shows that there is a caring, loving God who created us in His image, but the other merely suggests that we “are” and exist for no reason or purpose.

Who created this loving God? Why should it be harder to believe that an unlikely event caused the universe to form, than that some omniscient, omnipotent being created it? Where did the omnipotent, omniscient being come from?

You can't use the Bible to provide proof that the Bible is true. This is called circular logic. The Big Bang Theory is supported by independent observation and measurement. There is no observation or measurement that supports the supernatural existence of God.

dlk001

31-10-2006, 03:55 PM

GavinMannion

31-10-2006, 03:58 PM

hehe and Genesis can?

They have mathematical formulas that account for the big bang, as well as being able to measure the size of the universe and the rate that it is expanding. THen with that info be able to see how long the earth has been around. Compare that with Carbon dating and all the other scientific ways of measuring and they all come back to the same +- time line.

What does Genesis have?

dlk001

31-10-2006, 04:04 PM

GavinMannion

31-10-2006, 04:06 PM

There are reams and reams of documentation and research that account for where Human kind came from?

All of which is backed by solid scientific research.

arf9999

31-10-2006, 04:06 PM

The Bible doesn't have much too but then, all those equations we as Geologists and Physicists have do not account for human kind and where it all started.

That's why we have biologists and chemists...

jabulani

31-10-2006, 04:08 PM

“Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on very few facts” In view of that, it can hardly be classified as “science.”

Well what is scientific "knowledge"? Science consists of theories and even "myths" that explain the known observed world. But these theories can be completely wrong, to be replaced with new ones. Newton's laws are incorrect, or at best a special case of Einstein's theories. The theories and myths differ from religion in that they allow predictability and are falsifiable. Religion is just theoretical mush, mostly. Except of course for the one true FSM!

dlk001

31-10-2006, 04:09 PM

That's why we have biologists and chemists...

True,I forgot about them. How do biologists and chemists fit into the evolution theory? I seriously would be interest to know how it all ties up with a "Big Bang" theory.

jabulani

31-10-2006, 04:12 PM

True,I forgot about them. How do biologists and chemists fit into the evolution theory? I seriously would be interest to know how it all ties up with a "Big Bang" theory.

Well I don't know about those, but Lawyers and Economists don't fit in to evolutionary theory because they have not evolved, and I wish they would all end in a big bang. :p

Rkootknir

31-10-2006, 04:26 PM

Its entirely untrue that "Big Bang Theory is supported by independent observation and measurement". The Big Bang Theory is without validity as Genesis. To me, both are equally hard to believe.

Big Bang has the support of neither genuine science nor responsible biblical exegesis. The Big Bang cosmology postulates a Universe that is near 20 billion years old, with the human race evolving only 3 or 4 million years ago. According to this view, a vast period of time separates the origin of the Universe from that of mankind.
Are you insane? It's one of the best supported scientific theories out there.

-Friedmann used the General Theory of Relativity to show that the universe must be expanding if Einstein's theory was correct.

-Wilson & Penzias discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) while not knowing what they've found, but thereby supporting Alpher, Bethe and Gamow's theory (The Big Bang Theory).

-Edwin Hubble discovered that the further an object is away from us in the universe, the faster it moves away as predicted by Lemaitre & ABG.

-Fred Hoyle (who hated the Big Bang Theory BTW) explained how nucleosynthesis accounts for the precise amounts of Hydrogen, Helium and lesser elements found in the universe today.

-COBE & WMAP found variations in the CMB as predicted (and required) for galaxies and "lumps" of matter to form. Mathers and Smoot won the 2006 Physics Nobel for this.

There are oodles more...

I recommend reading Simon Singh's: Big Bang for the basics.

kilo39

31-10-2006, 04:27 PM

GavinMannion

31-10-2006, 04:32 PM

arf9999

31-10-2006, 04:45 PM

True,I forgot about them. How do biologists and chemists fit into the evolution theory? I seriously would be interest to know how it all ties up with a "Big Bang" theory.

Ok... slowly now (I'm not a scientist).

Cosmology is the study of the universe.
Physics is the science of matter and energy and their interactions
Biology is the study of life
Chemistry is the science of matter; the branch of the natural sciences dealing with the composition of substances and their properties and reactions
Geology - sciences relating to the Earth

So, in order to understand where humans come from, you need to understand the Universe (Cosmo), natural laws (Physics), the Earth (Geo), the chemistry of life (chemistry), and life itself (biology).

All these fields are inter-related tho'. So I suggest, as some light reading, that you get hold of Bill Bryson's "A short history of nearly everything". It isn't a heavy scientific tract and it answers a lot of the questions that you may have. Also, it's quite funny.

dlk001

31-10-2006, 04:53 PM

Are you insane? It's one of the best supported scientific theories out there.

-Friedmann used the General Theory of Relativity to show that the universe must be expanding if Einstein's theory was correct.

-Wilson & Penzias discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) while not knowing what they've found, but thereby supporting Alpher, Bethe and Gamow's theory (The Big Bang Theory).

-Edwin Hubble discovered that the further an object is away from us in the universe, the faster it moves away as predicted by Lemaitre & ABG.

-Fred Hoyle (who hated the Big Bang Theory BTW) explained how nucleosynthesis accounts for the precise amounts of Hydrogen, Helium and lesser elements found in the universe today.

-COBE & WMAP found variations in the CMB as predicted (and required) for galaxies and "lumps" of matter to form. Mathers and Smoot won the 2006 Physics Nobel for this.

There are oodles more...

I recommend reading Simon Singh's: Big Bang for the basics.

What the Big Bang has told us is that the universe is, in fact, finite, with a beginning, a middle, and a future. In the middle of it, human evolved from "somewhere". Now, if the whole Theory is true, why does it not explain how human race came about.

arf9999

31-10-2006, 05:06 PM

What the Big Bang has told us is that the universe is, in fact, finite, with a beginning, a middle, and a future. In the middle of it, human evolved from "somewhere". Now, if the whole Theory is true, why does it not explain how human race came about.

Because they're unrelated, perhaps. The Big Bang Theory is concerned with the origin of the universe, not the origin of humans... That's like asking why McDonald's doesn't use 11 herbs and spices.

rwenzori

31-10-2006, 05:29 PM

Now, if the whole Theory is true, why does it not explain how human race came about.

What a wierd question! It also doesn't explain why my pet duck has one yellow fin.

Highflyer_GP

31-10-2006, 06:00 PM

What the Big Bang has told us is that the universe is, in fact, finite, with a beginning, a middle, and a future. In the middle of it, human evolved from "somewhere". Now, if the whole Theory is true, why does it not explain how human race came about.

Dude did you even read what the theory states? It has nothing to do with the evolution of humans and everything to do with the origin of the universe. Also somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but nowhere did I see that it states the universe being finite.

kilo39

31-10-2006, 08:30 PM

Man why do people keep saying we all agree? I don't agree that the world around us is not the real world.

It is the real world. You might be able to break it down into different things but it does not make it real.The world around you is not the real world. The world around you is an interpretation made by the connect between your eyes and brain and some software in-between. The world around you is pure energy of which we see a very narrow band. Other insects and animals see, experience a different band, IR for example. If the world around you is only an interpretation of energy (fields/or electromagnetic waves/or even quantum particles) - then the world you experience is not the real world. And if you don't agree then you are saying you do not believe in Electromagnetism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism) (a fundamental force of the universe.)

No, it is not "different things," ultimately it is one thing = energy.

kilo39

31-10-2006, 08:31 PM

What the Big Bang has told us is that the universe is, in fact, finite, with a beginning, a middle, and a future. In the middle of it, human evolved from "somewhere". Now, if the whole Theory is true, why does it not explain how human race came about.I would certainly argue against the universe being finite; in any number of realms - starting with this one: "There are some very speculative ideas about the future of the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy)."

Alan

31-10-2006, 08:43 PM

Yes I've always objected to that sort of argument.

Atheist: I don't believe in God or the bible.
Basher: But the bible says you must!
Atheist: But why?
Basher: Because the bible says so!

I don't normally participate in 'religious" debates but I don't think this is entirely correct.

As far as I know christians believe that it is a person's choice whether to believe in God or not. :confused:

Also as this forum attests it is the other way around. Christian and Basher.;)

TELESPHORE

31-10-2006, 08:45 PM

What always amazes me about these debates about religion is the complete discounting of the world around us: in other words - new worlds are constantly being discovered on a macro, micro level. If 'modern science' is constantly discovering new worlds (quarks, quasars, string theory, new planets) then what (or who) is to say there is not some force or discovery that will ultimately lead to god?

We all agree that the world around us is not the real world - the real world consists of force fields, forces of electromagnetism - ultimately pure energy. Who are we to decide the ultimate makeup of reality, when our understanding of the world, the universe, etal, is so limited?

We are mere pagans in any grand design (or not) - ultimately who knows what will be discovered?
I do have to agree. You summed it up. It would have been crazy to have the bible talk about carbon dating, fossils, genes, atoms, electrons, quantum physics etc. It was written so people BEFORE our knowledge would have some grasp of the greatness of creation. It formed the base for science to discover the mysteries of God. That curiosity encouraged humankind to explore and discover and be amazed on how little we know and would know. And I do believe we have not even started to discover the secrets of the God of creation. In my humble believe I accept that God is all around, because creation in its wonderful design IS.

arf9999

31-10-2006, 10:16 PM

I do have to agree. You summed it up. It would have been crazy to have the bible talk about carbon dating, fossils, genes, atoms, electrons, quantum physics etc. It was written so people BEFORE our knowledge would have some grasp of the greatness of creation. It formed the base for science to discover the mysteries of God. That curiosity encouraged humankind to explore and discover and be amazed on how little we know and would know. And I do believe we have not even started to discover the secrets of the God of creation. In my humble believe I accept that God is all around, because creation in its wonderful design IS.

Ah, but there's the rub. There is no design. Science cannot discover the mysteries of God, 'cos then they wouldn't be mysteries and there would be no God.

To (mis)quote Douglas Adams: "I don't see why I can't just appreciate the beauty of the garden, without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it"

arf9999

31-10-2006, 10:19 PM

As far as I know christians believe that it is a person's choice whether to believe in God or not. :confused:

Also as this forum attests it is the other way around. Christian and Basher.;)
As far as I can see this thread is about religion in general, not Christianity. Christians just seem to be the most defensive.

kilo39

01-11-2006, 12:22 AM

QUOTE=arf9999
Ah, but there's the rub. There is no design. Science cannot discover the mysteries of God, 'cos then they wouldn't be mysteries and there would be no God.

Um no, science discovers the mysteries of God daily (the grand design, so to speak,) but God is ever elusive and forever recedes beyond the grasp of science.

To (mis)quote Douglas Adams: "I don't see why I can't just appreciate the beauty of the garden, without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it"

Um, you mean there aren't faeries at the bottom of it? Aah shucks. :p

(there are a few threads running on aspects of all this: life, death, the makeup of the universe) - We need a Grand Unifying Theory Thread! :D

Debbie

01-11-2006, 03:29 AM

STILL ON THE TOPIC, Do you believe God created earth or do you believe in the "Big Bang"? Where did it all start?

Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Why do you present it as a choice of 'either' God created earth, 'or' the 'Big Bang' actually happened ... ...?

Is it not possible that maybe God created earth through the mechanism of the 'Big Bang'?

And what if the creationists are also right- that God created mankind on one day, the sixth day of creation? The Big Bang theory is not necessarily inconsistent with Creationism:
The two comments below are from the thread- http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?p=727911#post727911

*If you take the amount of time that the universe has been in existence, lets say that time line would wrap around your suburb,
*then take the amount of time that our galaxy has existed, that should wrap around your block,
*then take the amount of time the world has existed, that should be about the circumference of the property of your house.

Now take your life time into account, it wouldn't be a milimeter on that scale that wraps around your suburb.

our life time is but a 0.000000000000000000000001 sec, if compared to the universe time
Infinity

Mankind, figuritively speaking, came into being on the sixth day of a total of six days of creation....... Perhaps when the author of Genesis wrote the word "day" what he really wanted to say was "billions of years" but he couldn't because (being, as it was, the Bronze Age) the term "billions of years" wasn't a concept he could really understand......? (Do not forget that the notion that the earth is one very very very old rock is a relatively 'new' notion. As recently as 150 years ago, 'science' said that the earth was just a few thousand years old.....now imagine a Victorian-age scientist's intellect compared with a Bronze-Age hunter-gatherer's and you get the picture).

Of course, Big Bang and Creationists are only both 'right' if we allow for a non-literal interpretation of the bible. If you (i.e. anybody) believe in a strict, literal translation of the bible, then I dare you to interpret literally the instructions about: women who wear pants; genitally-disfigured men worshipping God; what to do with an illigitimate child's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson; and other expressions of a manic-depressive, angry, unforgiving God.

I remember learning a parable as a kid. I've no doubt bastardised it, but hey, it was a parable after all. The parable told of some people being stuck out on a lake in a boat that was slowly but surely sinking. In an effort to please God by prooving their absolute faith in Him, these people refused the help offered to them from three different sources, each time saying "no need to worry, our God will surely save us!" Well, it turned out there was no giant forefinger and thumb that reached down from the sky and plucked them out from the sea. When upon death they confronted God about all this, they received the reply "But I kept my promise when you called for me in your time of need. I sent you THREE SEPERATE offers of help, and each time you rejected..."

With the above parable lingering in mind, what if God created man through the mechanism of evolution? An evolution that started on the sixth day of creation....?

Maybe.......?

pip

01-11-2006, 05:37 AM

With the above parable lingering in mind, what if God created man through the mechanism of evolution? An evolution that started on the sixth day of creation....?

What about the Neanderthals then ( with bigger brains than us )? Was G0d practising? Or did he just cock it up?

Nod

01-11-2006, 07:31 AM

What about the Neanderthals then ( with bigger brains than us )? Was G0d practising? Or did he just cock it up?

What if he wasn't the only god? ( Enki & Enlil (http://www.halexandria.org/dward184.htm), also here (http://www.illuminati-news.com/ufos-and-aliens/html/anunnaki.htm) )

simple_simon

01-11-2006, 07:52 AM

i'm into the whole cosmic seed thing.....we were evolving nice and slowly until about a hundred thousand years ago when some ET's popped up and decided to upgrade our DNA. thus ensuring there is only one type of human on the planet...which is completely against nature. we are the only species on the planet with only one type....thousands of different dogs, cats, insects, more than one elephant type...etc. you get the idea

jabulani

01-11-2006, 08:02 AM

In answer to the anti-evolutionary Intelligent Design lot, jabu's new theory of Unintelligent Design:

G0d CANNOT have created man ( in his own image or not ) because no creator having even a smidgin of compassion and intelligence could have brought Manto Tshabalala-Msimang and Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri into existence.

Now the Flying Spaghetti Monster admits to the odd mistake, and in some cases spilled linguine into brain cavities when creating humans, and hence the existence of such people.

Ramen!

Padded Mouse

01-11-2006, 08:07 AM

Are you "this" "Gavin Mannion" ?

http://ezinearticles.com/?Where-are-the-Family-Bathrooms&id=281362

GavinMannion

01-11-2006, 08:48 AM

Padded Mouse: Why yes I am, nice to see you are looking for me :), even if it is a bit stalker like :P

IC: Seriously if you wanted a thread on debating religion start your own. I started one on Bashing religion and never tried to hide that. Why did you change my subject line?

Debbie: As I mentioned earlier in this thread, science and religion can work together if you don't follow the bible literally. But who gets to decide which parts you can skip? Once you leave one part out you are on a slippery slope all the way down to atheism. I welcome you in advance :)

Simple_Simon: There are many different kinds of humans, many have gone extinct and we still have Aborignes, Orientals, Europeans, Africans roaming around. They are all very very similar but different none the less.

Does a Dolmation look like a poodle? No but they are both still dogs. Same thing. Humans just found the best body layout....

ghoti

01-11-2006, 09:00 AM

What about the Neanderthals then ( with bigger brains than us )? Was G0d practising? Or did he just cock it up?

Firstly there was more than just the Neanderthals. There are well over 20 species of humans and parts in the evolutionary stage that we have discovered in recent years. Including a race of tiny people (about 4 foot tall and with no chins).

I think the 6 "days" Debbie2 was reffering to was a metaphore for the whole evoltionary time table. If you went to a bunch of okes in a tent thousands of years ago and tried to explained evolution to them they would have thought you were insane. Current evidence of this can be found in Christians today, who despite having billions of pieces of evidence... still dont believe it.

So if people are still so stupid today, imagine them 5000 years ago.

By believing in Evolution you do not have to disbelieve in God. Its just the Christian version of God seems to carry less substance if you take Genisis literally. God is the major player in Evolution, and his no where near done. The problem is simple folk cant seem to grasp the concept of macro time. Their tiny brains can not understand the time evolution takes (over millions of years) and honestly think that their current form is the end result of evolution, not merely just another step on the accention ladder.

However, you are talking about people who believe in a God that is a bigot a sexist and a mass murdering omnipotent omnipresent entity that they decided just had to be male.

I put those type of people in the same boat that the idiots who support Mugabe from the ANCYL should be in. They both have this completely blind faith in something they have no concept about.

To honestly think that god is as trivial as what its been made out to be is really scary.

For those of you who are looking for an alternative belief structure taoism seems to have some very valid concepts http://www.religioustolerance.org/taoism.htm At the very least its an interesting read.

rwenzori

01-11-2006, 09:13 AM

By believing in Evolution you do not have to disbelieve in God. Its just the Christian version of God seems to carry less substance if you take Genisis literally. God is the major player in Evolution, and his no where near done.

One assumes God to be omnipotent and omniscient. He therefore has no need for evolution, unless he is bored and likes watching very slow games, in which case he sure don't give a **** about you and me. An omnipotent being could create the world and mankind perfectly in one flash of a moment lickety split. Evolution implies experimentation by God, and a lack of perfection ( over 99% of all species that ever existed on our planet are extinct I believe ). There is the contradiction - a perfect being can create only imperfection.

But Jehovah will strike down the blasphemer!

GavinMannion

01-11-2006, 09:18 AM

One assumes God to be omnipotent and omniscient. He therefore has no need for evolution, unless he is bored and likes watching very slow games, in which case he sure don't give a **** about you and me. An omnipotent being could create the world and mankind perfectly in one flash of a moment lickety split. Evolution implies experimentation by God, and a lack of perfection ( over 99% of all species that ever existed on our planet are extinct I believe ). There is the contradiction - a perfect being can create only imperfection.

Exactly, so you either have to believe that God placed all these 'facts' in the ground and around us to confuse us, which leads to the question of why, or that he is no omnipotent. Or my favourite of the lot... He does not exist.

But Jehovah will strike down the blasphemer!

And there in lies the rub, I am still here. The website www.evilbible.com is still around even after blatantly challenging God to convert him. So maybe he is not so omnipotent. Hell there are over a billion atheists in the world maybe God is just working his way down the list.

Just remember we where supposedly made in his image, then why are we so fu*(^d up? Maybe he is or maybe he abandoned us like he did his only begotten son, or maybe he doesn't exist. Pick a side :D

rwenzori

01-11-2006, 09:20 AM

There is no purpose.
There is no meaning.
There is no right and no wrong.
Death means dust.

So I'll just sit back and enjoy some great Jamaican coffee and a smoke.

ghoti

01-11-2006, 09:21 AM

One assumes God to be omnipotent and omniscient. He therefore has no need for evolution, unless he is bored and likes watching very slow games, in which case he sure don't give a **** about you and me. An omnipotent being could create the world and mankind perfectly in one flash of a moment lickety split. Evolution implies experimentation by God, and a lack of perfection ( over 99% of all species that ever existed on our planet are extinct I believe ). There is the contradiction - a perfect being can create only imperfection.

But Jehovah will strike down the blasphemer!

Umm... no. Sure if you personalize god like you seem to have done then prehaps then I can see your point. However I dont have the concept of god as a big kid with a magnifying glass.

Life is full of contradiction... just try understand the quantum level and you will get an ilk of what I mean. Also your argument was used in the first council of nicea on a slightly different level.

At the first council of nicea they were debating *****, and what books should go into the bible and which should not. There was a group of christians who believed in the trinity as you know it now. (they won that political debate). In the current version of the trinity all 3 are equal.

However there was a group that believe ***** was less than god. Even if he was/is the son of god, he was still created after god and therefore not as perfect as god and therefore less than god.

PS Jehovah still has not struck me down. Should I prehaps give him my google map co-ordinates to help?

GavinMannion

01-11-2006, 09:23 AM

So can you only abide by social rules because you believe in a higher being? Why would that be?

Strange that most of the inhumane and disgusting things that happen in the world are perpetrated by religious folk, these would be the same people that say we need religion to be good. You don't see atheists blowing themselves up or flying into buildings or sending armies to massacre the infidels.

Seriously religion has no leg to stand on when talking about abiding by society. How many doctors have been killed by christian religious fanatics because they perform abortions in accordance with the law of the land? No leg at all.

Paul_S

01-11-2006, 09:25 AM

Firstly there was more than just the Neanderthals. There are well over 20 species of humans and parts in the evolutionary stage that we have discovered in recent years. Including a race of tiny people (about 4 foot tall and with no chins).

There are lots of types of dogs too - all different sizes and colors. Some with flat pug noses, some with long pointy faces. Your point is?
A minivan doesn't have a chin on it like a 3 series BMW - that proves that the one evolved from the other.

I think the 6 "days" Debbie2 was reffering to was a metaphore for the whole evoltionary time table. If you went to a bunch of okes in a tent thousands of years ago and tried to explained evolution to them they would have thought you were insane. Current evidence of this can be found in Christians today, who despite having billions of pieces of evidence... still dont believe it.

The whole evolution idea is an insult to rational thinking.
A complex being such as man evolved from a rock purely by chance? That's an insult to anyone's intelligence.
Besides the whole geological column is a fraud - there's thousands of pieces of evidence pointing to the fact that fossils aren't millions of years old but evolutionary scientists refuse to look at the evidence and instead just keep adjusting their theories.
Like human footprints with dinosaur ones, man made tools found in rock layers that are so old that monkeys couldn't have even existed in the evolution time table, etc. but man thinks he's so clever by reasoning that we all evolved from a rock. :rolleyes:

So if people are still so stupid today, imagine them 5000 years ago.

Are you referring to stupid people like the Egyptians or the people in modern day Iraq who had electricity (batteries) 2000 years ago?

Their tiny brains can not understand the time evolution takes (over millions of years) and honestly think that their current form is the end result of evolution, not merely just another step on the accention ladder.

Please explain to me how we're ascending when everything in this world is actually degrading. Species are dying off at an alarming rate and this planet is in one sorry mess already? What exactly are you personally busy evolving into?

However, you are talking about people who believe in a God that is a bigot a sexist and a mass murdering omnipotent omnipresent entity that they decided just had to be male.

Yeah a mass murdering God who's biggest goal is to reconcile man to himself?
God isn't male nor is he female - he has no need for reproductive organs - most people think of him as male but find me one scripture that says "God is a male".

rwenzori

01-11-2006, 09:28 AM

Umm... no. Sure if you personalize god like you seem to have done then prehaps then I can see your point. However I dont have the concept of god as a big kid with a magnifying glass.

Life is full of contradiction... just try understand the quantum level and you will get an ilk of what I mean. Also your argument was used in the first council of nicea on a slightly different level.

At the first council of nicea they were debating *****, and what books should go into the bible and which should not. There was a group of christians who believed in the trinity as you know it now. (they won that political debate). In the current version of the trinity all 3 are equal.

However there was a group that believe ***** was less than god. Even if he was/is the son of god, he was still created after god and therefore not as perfect as god and therefore less than god.

PS Jehovah still has not struck me down. Should I prehaps give him my google map co-ordinates to help?

I know f-all about this nicea thing. Perhaps you could elucidate your concept of God, as you claim we are wrong but give no alternative conception ( not in the immaculate sense hem hem ).

PS Yes! ( Anything is worth a shot! ) ;)

GavinMannion

01-11-2006, 09:34 AM

You can't get an alternative conception to something that does not exist. That's actually not true if you want alternatives take a look at Islam, Hindu, Budhist, blah blah blah.

Paul_S: Where did anyone say we evolved from a rock? Humans are still evolving all the time, How many people are born currently without things like wisdom teeth or appendix? That is evolution in the making.

How about the way that different humans in different parts of the world are changing shapes? We (SA) are getting taller whilst the English are getting smaller. Evolving to our surroundings.

They discover new creatures and animals all the time, are you just saying that noone has seen them before? What about the new type of Super Mosquito in Greece that has evolved to see colour and sense blood from a further distance? Evolution. It is happening all the time.

If God created us he would have done it right the first time and we wouldn't still be changing.

jabulani

01-11-2006, 09:35 AM

Life is full of contradiction... just try understand the quantum level and you will get an ilk of what I mean.

Yes at a quantum level you find "strings" which have been mis-named as they are actually "Noodles", made as the basis of everything, in his own image, by His Noodliness the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

ghoti

01-11-2006, 09:37 AM

There are lots of types of dogs too - all different sizes and colors. Some with flat pug noses, some with long pointy faces. Your point is?
A minivan doesn't have a chin on it like a 3 series BMW - that proves that the one evolved from the other.

Are you sober? What the hell are you trying to say here?

The whole evolution idea is an insult to rational thinking.

Um no. Just to simple folk. But I dont expect you to understand.

A complex being such as man evolved from a rock purely by chance? That's an insult to anyone's intelligence.

I agree with you 100%. Only the bible claims we came from dirt. Not me or anyone else. Which side of the fence are you on again?

Besides the whole geological column is a fraud - there's thousands of pieces of evidence pointing to the fact that fossils aren't millions of years old but evolutionary scientists refuse to look at the evidence and instead just keep adjusting their theories.

Please point me in the direction of THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence. I think you are doing the normal religious thing here and lying through your teeth. Im sure some fossils are not as old as we think, and some species could have survived longer than we thought. However, I am guessing you did not read my LAST response to this SAME topic. Remember the crocodile oom.

Like human footprints with dinosaur ones, man made tools found in rock layers that are so old that monkeys couldn't have even existed in the evolution time table, etc. but man thinks he's so clever by reasoning that we all evolved from a rock. :rolleyes:

Stop lying, it makes you look stupid. Your religion claims we came from dirt, name once place a scientist has said we came from rock. Also another common christian lie I see you clinging to is that we came from Monkeys. Um... sorry to tell you this that no scientist will say we came from monkeys. They will say we shared a common ancestor along with all the other primates. Its a common christian lie to go around telling people that scientists say we came from monkeys... and now apparently rocks.

Are you referring to stupid people like the Egyptians or the people in modern day Iraq who had electricity (batteries) 2000 years ago?

no

Please explain to me how we're ascending when everything in this world is actually degrading. Species are dying off at an alarming rate and this planet is in one sorry mess already?

There were trillions of species that got wiped into extinction before we even popped onto this earth... um.... I dont get where you are going with this.

What exactly are you personally busy evolving into?

Try think macro. I know its hard, but try think beyond your selfish little existance. Did you know that men today are taller on average than they were during world war 2? Did you also know that in developed nations kids are getting smarter with every generation? Now this is whats known as MICRO evolution.

Once you understand this get back to me, and I will talk to you about MACRO evolution. Im trying to take baby steps here so you follow clearly.

Yeah a mass murdering God who's biggest goal is to reconcile man to himself?
God isn't male nor is he female - he has no need for reproductive organs - most people think of him as male but find me one scripture that says "God is a male".[/QUOTE]

ghoti

01-11-2006, 09:39 AM

I know f-all about this nicea thing. Perhaps you could elucidate your concept of God, as you claim we are wrong but give no alternative conception ( not in the immaculate sense hem hem ).

PS Yes! ( Anything is worth a shot! ) ;)

Yes I did. Please READ my posts. Note the link on taoism? There you go!

rwenzori

01-11-2006, 09:41 AM

You can't get an alternative conception to something that does not exist.

I'm with you Mr Mannion most of the way, but did not get that one. If something does not exist there are an infinite number of possible conceptions. Hence all this religion twaddle!

My god's better than your god
My god's better than yours
Mine's got a trinity, and a lekker heaven
My god's better than yours!
:D

rwenzori

01-11-2006, 09:43 AM

Yes I did. Please READ my posts. Note the link on taoism? There you go!

Your posts are getting rather long. I'll check out the taoism thingy.

ghoti

01-11-2006, 09:43 AM

My god's better than your god
My god's better than yours
Mine's got a trinity, and a lekker heaven
My god's better than yours!
:D

The muslims god gives them 70 odd virgins! beat that.

simple_simon

01-11-2006, 09:44 AM

Simple_Simon: There are many different kinds of humans, many have gone extinct and we still have Aborignes, Orientals, Europeans, Africans roaming around. They are all very very similar but different none the less.

Does a Dolmation look like a poodle? No but they are both still dogs. Same thing. Humans just found the best body layout....

i should have been more clear.....there are only homosapiens on the planet at moment......there were quiet a few other types a 100k years ago, homo erectus, homo africanas, the classification for neanderthal.

Paul_S

01-11-2006, 09:45 AM

Paul_S: Where did anyone say we evolved from a rock?

Because that's where life started. The first proteins.

Humans are still evolving all the time, How many people are born currently without things like wisdom teeth or appendix? That is evolution in the making.

How about the way that different humans in different parts of the world are changing shapes? We (SA) are getting taller whilst the English are getting smaller. Evolving to our surroundings.

That's called micro evolution or adaptation. No one has ever witnessed macro evolution or the changing of species.

They discover new creatures and animals all the time, are you just saying that noone has seen them before? What about the new type of Super Mosquito in Greece that has evolved to see colour and sense blood from a further distance? Evolution. It is happening all the time.

So just because something is discovered it means it evolved?
Maybe the Super Mosquito has been around since time began but was never documented? "New" species are found all the time but that's no logical reason to assume that they evolved. That just means no one found them yet or that no one wrote anything down about them.

If God created us he would have done it right the first time and we wouldn't still be changing.

Bodies adapt to the environment to some scale - what's the problem with that?
Last time I checked the Egyptians were pretty similar to us.

Paul_S

01-11-2006, 09:47 AM

i should have been more clear.....there are only homosapiens on the planet at moment......there were quiet a few other types a 100k years ago, homo erectus, homo africanas, the classification for neanderthal.

homo erectus was proven to be a fraud yet they still teach it in school books.
But scientists are incapable of lying so we'll keep teaching it.

ghoti

01-11-2006, 09:48 AM

That's called micro evolution or adaptation. No one has ever witnessed macro evolution or the changing of species.

Yes, most people dont live for millions of years. I cant believe you used this as an argument. LOL.

rwenzori

01-11-2006, 09:50 AM

Taoist concepts, beliefs and practices:

* Tao is the first-cause of the universe. It is a force that flows through all life.
* "The Tao surrounds everyone and therefore everyone must listen to find enlightenment."
* Each believer's goal is to harmonize themselves with the Tao.
* Taoism has provided an alternative to the Confucian tradition in China. The two traditions have coexisted in the country, region, and generally within the same individual.
* The priesthood views the many gods as manifestations of the one Dao, "which could not be represented as an image or a particular thing." The concept of a personified deity is foreign to them, as is the concept of the creation of the universe. Thus, they do not pray as Christians do; there is no God to hear the prayers or to act upon them. They seek answers to life's problems through inner meditation and outer observation.
* In contrast with the beliefs and practices of the priesthood, most of the laity have "believed that spirits pervaded nature...The gods in heaven acted like and were treated like the officials in the world of men; worshipping the gods was a kind of rehearsal of attitudes toward secular authorities. On the other hand, the demons and ghosts of hell acted like and were treated like the bullies, outlaws, and threatening strangers in the real world; they were bribed by the people and were ritually arrested by the martial forces of the spirit officials."
* Time is cyclical, not linear as in Western thinking.
* Taoists strongly promote health and vitality.
* Five main organs and orifices of the body correspond to the five parts of the sky: water, fire, wood, metal and earth.
* Each person must nurture the Ch'i (air, breath) that has been given to them.
* Development of virtue is one's chief task. The Three Jewels to be sought are compassion, moderation and humility.
* Taoists follow the art of "wu wei," which is to let nature take its course. For example, one should allow a river to flow towards the sea unimpeded; do not erect a dam which would interfere with its natural flow.
* One should plan in advance and consider carefully each action before making it.
* A Taoists is kind to other individuals, in part because such an action tends to be reciprocated.
* Taoists believe that "people are compassionate by nature...left to their own devices [they] will show this compassion without expecting a reward."

For those too lazy to follow the link.

rwenzori

01-11-2006, 09:52 AM

The muslims god gives them 70 odd virgins! beat that.

If you have been a naughty sinner you get fat ugly ones with shrill carping voices!

ghoti

01-11-2006, 09:53 AM

homo erectus was proven to be a fraud yet they still teach it in school books.
But scientists are incapable of lying so we'll keep teaching it.

Cant stop the lying can you? Its okay, one step at a time. Prehaps you would like to google : Homo erectus skull, Peking Man. Also known as Pithecanthropus pekinenses (Sinathropus).

Also research: Homo floresiensis , H. habilis, H. ergaster, Homo georgicus.

Wait im wasting my time here arnt I? Please read this link http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html

Goodness you are a laugh.

The first creationist response to the Dmanisi fossils was made in the Institute for Creation Research's radio show on November 23, 2002.

ICR's 'experts' start off by recounting the stories of Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Orce Man, and a particularly obscure fossil discovered in Java in 1926 which was briefly claimed by its finder to be another Pithecanthropus (Java Man), but was quickly shown to be from the knee of an elephant. This is all rather pathetic: none of these have the slightest relevance to the currently accepted evidence for human evolution. In fact, apart from Piltdown Man, none of them ever had any relevance: they were all quickly and correctly identified as non-hominid.

Paul_S

01-11-2006, 09:53 AM

Yes, most people dont live for millions of years. I cant believe you used this as an argument. LOL.

Well it proves that no one has conclusive proof.
They see creatures that look similar and conclude that they had a common ancestor.
I can't believe people use that as an argument.

icyrus

01-11-2006, 09:54 AM

The whole evolution idea is an insult to rational thinking.

Well done. You get the prize for the dumbest statement of the month, probably the year. You've had a lot of competition so you must be really proud.

Evolution is an insult to rational thinking, but believing in a super magical space fairy that was devised by primitive man is completely rational. Oh dear...

GavinMannion

01-11-2006, 09:54 AM

homo erectus was proven to be a fraud yet they still teach it in school books.
But scientists are incapable of lying so we'll keep teaching it.

Okay I am getting bored of you saying the same thing without ever backing it up.

You have been asked before to back up your claims of lies so please if you want to debunk something then we need some proof.

Like this... First attempt

Homo erectus (upright man) is an extinct species of genus Homo. Dutch anatomist Eugene Dubois (1890s) first described it as Pithecanthropus erectus based on a calotte (skullcap) and a modern-looking femur found from the bank of the Solo River at Trinil, in central Java. However, thanks to Canadian anatomist Davidson Black's (1921) initial description of a lower molar, which was dubbed Sinanthropus pekinensis, most of the early and spectacular discovery of this taxon took place at Zhoukoudian in China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

Damn must type faster. At least we didn't get the same info :)

ghoti

01-11-2006, 09:57 AM

If you have been a naughty sinner you get fat ugly ones with shrill carping voices!

As long as its not a bunch of blithering idiots dancing around and shaking on the floor speaking in tounges. Im happy.

ghoti

01-11-2006, 09:59 AM

Well it proves that no one has conclusive proof.
They see creatures that look similar and conclude that they had a common ancestor.
I can't believe people use that as an argument.

How old are you? You make no sense. Once again you are lying. According to you scientists just "look". Damm... so those geno machines that universities purchased were all a waste of time!

Gavin... how many time do you recon Paul_S has blatently lied in this debate? I have lost count.

Reason

01-11-2006, 09:59 AM

I have linked to this before Paul_S

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CC300

It covers all the points you have brought up, from "evolution hoaxes" to "evolution leads to an immoral" worldview, from "dinosuars & people co-existed".

Lying for the lord?

EDIT: Wow, lots of response on the latest lie

GavinMannion

01-11-2006, 10:06 AM

Gavin... how many time do you recon Paul_S has blatently lied in this debate? I have lost count.

Well I generally just ignored the first batch but it has become a worrying trend. Lets just lie about it and hope someone doesn't try check up on it.

Dude we are all on the net and Google is right here, if you want to make sweeping accusations and lies then first type them in google and see what happens. That's how easy it is for us to prove you are lying :D

Like I said before religion is suffering now because of the internet, they have always tried to keep the masses uninformed so that their lies would not be found out but that is not possible anymore.. Come on Paul you must have something better than that?

rwenzori

01-11-2006, 10:07 AM

Pithecanthropus pekinenses (Sinathropus).

Also research: Homo floresiensis , H. habilis, H. ergaster, Homo georgicus.

Yes - and Homo Phobilis ( Pithonyou uphooftahs ).

Paul_S

01-11-2006, 10:13 AM

Cant stop the lying can you? Its okay, one step at a time. Prehaps you would like to google : Homo erectus skull, Peking Man. Also known as Pithecanthropus pekinenses (Sinathropus).

Pithecanthropus erectus (homo erectus)
Dutch scientist Dr Dubois went to Java, Indonesia on a search for the missing links between ape and man.
He took an ape's skull cap, 3 human teeth and a thigh bone found 50 feet away a year later and informed the world that he had found the missing link.
He hid the fact that he also found two human skulls in the same area.
He was found out 30 years later but they still use it as evidence for evolution and put it in text books.

Peking man
A bunch of crushed monkey skull bones were found in cave along with a whole bunch of human tools. They concluded that the monkeys were making tools.
What isn't told is that 10 human skeletons were found in the same area.
Uh ... humans eating monkeys is what it sounds like to me.
All evidence has vanished since WWII.

Piltdown man was also a fraud, so was "Lucy" among others.

"There are not enough fossil records to answer when, where, and how homo sapiens emerged." Takahata, Molecular anthropology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1995, pg 355

Goodness you are a laugh.

I could say the same but I prefer to not resort to mocking since that's just childish.

icyrus

01-11-2006, 10:25 AM

ghoti

01-11-2006, 10:26 AM

Pithecanthropus erectus (homo erectus)
Dutch scientist Dr Dubois went to Java, Indonesia on a search for the missing links between ape and man.
He took an ape's skull cap, 3 human teeth and a thigh bone found 50 feet away a year later and informed the world that he had found the missing link.
He hid the fact that he also found two human skulls in the same area.
He was found out 30 years later but they still use it as evidence for evolution and put it in text books.

Peking man
A bunch of crushed monkey skull bones were found in cave along with a whole bunch of human tools. They concluded that the monkeys were making tools.
What isn't told is that 10 human skeletons were found in the same area.
Uh ... humans eating monkeys is what it sounds like to me.
All evidence has vanished since WWII.

Piltdown man was also a fraud, so was "Lucy" among others.

"There are not enough fossil records to answer when, where, and how homo sapiens emerged." Takahata, Molecular anthropology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1995, pg 355

I could say the same but I prefer to not resort to mocking since that's just childish.

Hellooooooooooooooo *knock knock* did you _read_ my post or reasons?
Do you know how many bones they have found? So you found a couple where mistakes were made. Okay, now for the thousands of other bones? There are dozens of sub groups, and you have debunked one. All you have done is talked about a couple of bones that were under contraversy. What about the rest? You are talking about a discovery that happened in 1912 by Charles Darwin. Thanks to religion science was not as precise as it is today.

The Piltdown story is a great tool for the Christian in witnessing; not to try to denigrate evolutionists as foolish (Christians get taken in by all manner of hoaxes)

GavinMannion

01-11-2006, 10:28 AM

Okay so you reitterated what W1zard said. There have been some mistakes.

Finding proof of Homo Erectus is easy enough but finding proof that Lucy was a fake is a bit more difficult? Reference please.

Also where do you find the reference to the 10 human skeletons with Peking man?

Full details of Homo Erectus can be found here with a million references http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homoerectus.htm

Paul_S

01-11-2006, 10:36 AM

This will be my last post.

Why :

1. Because people only want to see things their own way (me included) and all you end up with is an endless argument that goes round in circles.
Everyone is always going to have "evidence" to back up their viewpoints and there is plenty of mud to sling from both sides.

2. This thread has just degenerated into name calling and personal attacks and I won't resort to using that tactic.

3. I know that this will be taken as a sign of failure but I'm just not willing to waste more time on the topic.

However I pray that all you skeptics will come to know the truth.
Yes, I know you think it's a lot of fairy tales but I hope that one day before it's too late you'll discover what you were created for.
Not for my sake, nor my ego, nor my selfish ambitions but for your sake, your future and your destiny.

Here are two scriptures - I leave them with you to trash, burn, use as toilet paper or do whatever you wish to do with them. ;)

2 Peter 3:3 "... in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires."

Romans 1:18 "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
The rest of the chapter is an eye opener if you look at the mess our society is in today but you can read it in your own time.

This isn't meant as a nasty farewell - I really, really mean it.
I've done what I can, as best as I can - the rest is up to you.
I pray that you won't land up on the wrong side for the rest of eternity.

All the best
Paul

GavinMannion

01-11-2006, 10:46 AM

I've done what I can, as best as I can - the rest is up to you.
I pray that you won't land up on the wrong side for the rest of eternity.

I think the best idea is for you to stop posting because by the fact that you posted 'scriptures' to try and help us proves that you refuse to enter into a rational dialogue about religion and the flaws in creationism.

I feel sorry for you, you are living your entire life in a dream world and when you die there is nothing left so you had once chance and blew it.

I do feel you will realise the error of your ways as you get older and wiser, but it all depends on how badly your brainwashing was... some people are beyond helping.

Yes I see it as you failed if you where wondering.

rwenzori

01-11-2006, 10:49 AM

This will be my last post.

This isn't meant as a nasty farewell - I really, really mean it.
I've done what I can, as best as I can - the rest is up to you.
I pray that you won't land up on the wrong side for the rest of eternity.

Esdras 5:21 "The evil man runneth away from the work of the L0rd, and from His works, but the L0rd will smite him down."

simple_simon

01-11-2006, 10:49 AM

still didn't post your sources.

GavinMannion

01-11-2006, 10:52 AM

Esdras 5:21 "The evil man runneth away from the work of the L0rd, and from His works, but the L0rd will smite him down."

ROFL.... classic I need to read my Bible more obviously

rwenzori

01-11-2006, 10:58 AM

ROFL.... classic I need to read my Bible more obviously

LOL! Don't take it too seriously. Unless you are a Russian Orthodox you won't find that book - I make that shyte up as I go. :D

simple_simon

01-11-2006, 11:05 AM

LOL! Don't take it too seriously. Unless you are a Russian Orthodox you won't find that book - I make that shyte up as I go. :D

so did the early catholics

GavinMannion

01-11-2006, 11:22 AM

So did the early [insert religion of choice]s.

That's what gets me about religion it is all just written by humans, and everyone knows that they only put in the parts they wanted in....

icyrus

01-11-2006, 11:22 AM

GavinMannion

01-11-2006, 11:25 AM

So how many religious people have run now? We should keep a count :D.

Who was it that mentioned Atheism is only 5% of the population and then got proven wrong and never came back?

web

01-11-2006, 11:35 AM

You can not win an argument with a religious person. So why try ?

jabulani

01-11-2006, 11:37 AM

So how many religious people have run now? We should keep a count :D

Flying Spaghetti Monsterists are still hanging in here! Until lunch at least - when it will be time for some macaroni.

GavinMannion

01-11-2006, 11:40 AM

jabulani

01-11-2006, 12:06 PM

Jabulani: Please can you give us some proof of this flying spaghetti Monster? I am very interested in attacking every piece of it and making you run for cover :D Or do you already accept that he isn't really real and you just use him to annoy religious bigots?

No no I myself AM a religious bigot! Proof is vast and my macaroni for lunch is almost al dente - I'll have to reply later, but why not take a look at this video evidence ( after all seeing is believing! ):

http://www.venganza.org/2006/10/31/fsm-sighting.htm

GavinMannion

01-11-2006, 12:14 PM

I am now converted :) . I am now an official FSM member for the next 5 minutes then I am converting to FHM instead. They have more proof and it's prettier. sorry dude.

ghoti

01-11-2006, 12:14 PM

This will be my last post.

Here are two scriptures - I leave them with you to trash, burn, use as toilet paper or do whatever you wish to do with them. ;)

Normally as Rizla from what I hear anyways... moving along...

2 Peter 3:3 "... in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires."

Romans 1:18 "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
The rest of the chapter is an eye opener if you look at the mess our society is in today but you can read it in your own time.

I can also quote from the bible!

1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6
2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48
3. God dwells in light
Tim 6:16
God dwells in darkness
1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2
4. God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16
5. God is tired and rests
Ex 31:17
God is never tired and never rests
Is 40:28
6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things
Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all
things
Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8

However its pointless.

GavinMannion

01-11-2006, 12:19 PM

My favourite of the bunch

God is tired and rests

Very powerful being that one :D

arf9999

01-11-2006, 02:47 PM

homo erectus was proven to be a fraud yet they still teach it in school books.

Proven as a fraud? when? where? by whom?

GavinMannion

01-11-2006, 02:49 PM

arf, Paul_S decided against using proof and rational in this discussion.

It wasn't a very successful tactic :D

arf9999

01-11-2006, 03:09 PM

arf, Paul_S decided against using proof and rational in this discussion.

It wasn't a very successful tactic :D

:)

I liked his parting words.... loosely translated as "nyyaa, nyaaa, nyaaa, you're going to hell and I'm not!"

Highflyer_GP

01-11-2006, 03:11 PM

jabulani

01-11-2006, 03:19 PM

simple_simon

01-11-2006, 03:20 PM

people don't normally like being "wrong". when it comes to religion and spirituality. people have been brainwashed into having to have one...and the one you have is the "right" one.....now imagine challenging his/her foundation of their spiritual belief.

circular logic will be employed to make sure you're mentally "right" and everone else is wrong. or else their world crumbles

some people can't handle that.

never forget, a lot of people like being sheep and prefer for other people to do their thinking for them

chiskop

01-11-2006, 03:22 PM

Perhaps now that we have this thread to ourselves, we should reserve it as an oasis of common-sense.

:D

[edit] Damn, forgot about jabulani :D

Highflyer_GP

01-11-2006, 03:25 PM

Hey! Don't lump us Flying Spaghetti Monsterists in with *ugh* christians *ugh*! If you are willing to let the FSM into your heart ( and tum ) you too can look forward to a heaven that has beer volcanoes and a stripper factory!

Nah us Pastafarians don't live in denial ;) Although the stripper factory does sound good.

Alan

01-11-2006, 03:26 PM

Bwahahahaha

* Just when you thought it was safe *

Hi

jabulani

01-11-2006, 03:27 PM

Yes - and Homo Phobilis ( Pithonyou uphooftahs ).

LOL! :D

Highflyer_GP

01-11-2006, 03:28 PM

Bwahahahaha

* Just when you thought it was safe *

Hi

Oh no, he's gonna add us to his list :rolleyes: run

Debbie

01-11-2006, 03:30 PM

Debbie: As I mentioned earlier in this thread, science and religion can work together if you don't follow the bible literally. But who gets to decide which parts you can skip? Once you leave one part out you are on a slippery slope all the way down to atheism. I welcome you in advance :)

Instead of pointing out all the differences between science and religion, I was pointing out similarities. I don't see science as "competition" to the bible, and I equate those who do to the people on the sinking boat, convinced their God will save them by plucking them put the sea by way of giant forefinger and thumb. To me, science is starting to reveal some of the mysteries of God, life and the universe- the majesty of all that is is being shown to us before our very eyes through science..... but unfortunately many regard this as 'blasphemous'.

One assumes God to be omnipotent and omniscient. He therefore has no need for evolution, unless he is bored and likes watching very slow games, in which case he sure don't give a **** about you and me. An omnipotent being could create the world and mankind perfectly in one flash of a moment lickety split.

IMHO, God has no need for anything. God neither requires your praise nor your adoration. God is not dependent on anything, nor is God affected by anything man does or does not do. God is not 'offended' by ANYTHING.

IMHO, "Life" in it's individual forms and in its totality is an expression of God. More than that, the 'physical' things that make up Life (and EVERYTHING else) ARE God. Life is, in so many ways, a synonym for 'God'. 'Life' (as a verb) is the mechanism through which God gets to feel what it's like to be God. *Life is a process by which life informs life of the process of life itself.* Life is, quite simply (and extraordinarily) God 'be-ing'. (This is all, as always, simply my opinion at my current level of understanding).

Evolution implies experimentation by God, and a lack of perfection ( over 99% of all species that ever existed on our planet are extinct I believe ). There is the contradiction - a perfect being can create only imperfection.

You say that evolution 'implies experimentation by God'? Think of the weight of that statement. Not that I disagree with it, in fact I couldn't agree more since I think the whole of LIFE is an "experiment" of God's (although that is a crude/rough way to term it). But to jump from a place where "God is experimenting" to a place where "God is experimenting and failing along the way" is quite an intellectual leap. You pre-suppose that when something changes form permanently and by intervention, that this suggests an imperfection in the previous state of being. Looking at the logic used alone, you essentially use religion to disprove religion - ironically, this is not unlike a Christian using the bible to proove the existence of God.

When something changes form, this is neither 'good' nor 'bad', 'perfect' nor 'imperfect' in itself. It simply is what it is - a change.

Which brings us to the matter of the word 'perfect'. By current definition, 'perfect' is the state in which there are no flaws (And I Tell You there Are No Flaws in The Universe). For something to be 'perfect', the very least we require is for the theoretical possibility of a state in which this something can be not perfect. The state of 'perfect' is therefore by definition dependent on the possibility of a state of 'imperfect'. 'Perfect' is, by my reasoning, those conditions of "truly perfect", "near-perfect", "far-from-perfect", "perfect", and "imperfect" all rolled into one. The contradiction is not that a perfect being can create only imperfect beings, the contradiction is that 'the perfect being' is inherently imperfect BECAUSE of His/Her/It's inherent 'perfect-ness'. When you fully understand and appreciate the paradox in it's complexity, if only for a nanosecond, it is then that you are in communion with God.

Exactly, so you either have to believe that God placed all these 'facts' in the ground and around us to confuse us, which leads to the question of why, or that he is no omnipotent. Or my favourite of the lot... He does not exist.

'Either' God's confusing us on purpose, 'or' God doesn't exist, 'or' God is not omnipotent? I choose 'none of the above'.

God does not confuse people. People who hold on to antiquated, mythological expressions and stories of God confuse themselves. The facts of science are revealing parts of God, and it's time to open up to a new understanding of what God is, and what Life is, and how we can personally and individually AND collectively understand our place in the Universe.

Just remember we were supposedly made in his image, then why are we so fu*(^d up? Maybe he is or maybe he abandoned us like he did his only begotten son, or maybe he doesn't exist. Pick a side :D

We are not f**cked up. We are perfect. It is organised religion that teaches that human are innately imperfect beings. It is organised religion that teaches that God has 'needs' and 'wants'. But God (IMO) is in want for nothing.

It is organised religion that preaches that we are separate from God. IMHO, we are not, and never could be, separate from God. The illusion of a separation from God is the single most destructful myth perpetuated by organised religion. Once you have people believing that they are separate from God, you create the need (indeed, you create the spiritual requirement) for a 'way' back to God. Here is where exclusivist religion steps in, proclaiming to offer a path 'back' to God ("do A, B, C; think D, E, F; don't do G, H I, and if you follow these steps then you may be a candidate for a place in Heaven").

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the idea that any form of life is separate from God. A person is no more separate from God than a finger is separate from the hand (in fact, doesn't the bible itself use a similar analogy?) A finger doesn't need to be 'told' how to work in harmony with the hand, or how to follow the hand's wishes. Whatever the finger does, it is doing it as part of the hand. The finger cannot go 'against the hand's wishes'. A finger also doesn't need another finger to instruct it or teach it about it's relationship with the hand. The finger already knows this.

Likewise, a person doesn't need another person or a religion to define God for them. Organised religion tries to do just this. Organised religion claims exclusive access rights to God (and the 'afterlife'). Organised religion is about the privatisation (and too often, the commercialisation) of God. Organised religion tries to put a copyright on God, and all matters to do with God. Use this copyright out of turn and you are a 'blasphemer'. Show a humourous advert depicting God making amusing statements about cellphone contracts, and the radical Christians essentially deem you to be violating their copyright on God.

jabulani

01-11-2006, 03:33 PM

Can someone do a precis please?

rwenzori

01-11-2006, 03:38 PM

Sheesh! If you jumble enough words together at great length and in random order you'll convince yourself of anything! Even if just to get some peace!

Debbie

01-11-2006, 03:38 PM

:( Sorry!

Debbie

01-11-2006, 03:46 PM

I'm just sick and tired of a religious framework that dictates that either you believe in a petty, angry, vengeful, childish God; or you are an athiest.

What about us inbetween, who subscribe to both or neither, or a combination thereof?

Religion in it's modern form has created a spiritual gap instead of filling the spiritual gap. Worse even, modern religion robs people of the chance to full their own gap through their own understand of God. Religion has hijacked mankind spiritually as that is it's very purpose.

rwenzori

01-11-2006, 03:49 PM

Well, having tried to understand your post I admit I have not gotten any further than that you believe in God, you feel you can be in communion with him, but you have no evidence other than your own thoughts, beliefs and feelings. If God does exist, I figure you would be correct. Either that or God is matter = energy = whatever-other-funny-matter-stuff-they-find.

When you are in communion with him what does he tell you?

teraside

01-11-2006, 03:52 PM

All the religious folk (more specifically christian) have left this thread because there's no way for them to back up their claims other than using circular logic by making reference to their scriptures. They enter a discussion without any hint of objectivity, and when they realise that they have no answer (or that they were called on their various lies such as man evolving from apes) then they retaliate by saying that they will pray for us and hope that their god shows us the way.

What baffles me is why they refuse to admit that there may not be a god. Are they that scared of death that they feel a need to suck up to an invisible being with the hope of a good afterlife?

I haven't replied to this thread, except to say I'd pray for you guys. That's an act of love I would hope. Whatever reasons you may have to believe what you do is your own, same goes for me, it's all about conviction. I have been convicted of what I believe in, I have first hand experience with God. He has revealed many things be they small to you or great to me, it doesn't matter. God is active in this world amongst Christians, be they non denominational or not, it doesn't matter. Yes there are miracles and great acts, it falls on deaf ears of the unbeliever, it's mocked at spit at and laughed at. It doesn't bother us.

I think Debbie2's response was more than brilliant. I don't mind sticking up for God, I actually do have to stick up for Him. But should we, who call ourselves Christians take you guys on, in a match to see who's right or wrong? I don't think so, we don't call you names, we don't say the soup where you spawned from stinks, no, we'd rather pray for you.

It's all about conviction, believe what you want, no matter what it is, if it gives you peace, so be it. I get worked up responding here, it takes alot of guts for me.

;) :D :sick: :sick: