But thats the problem with religous text. Some say its figurative, others say its literal. But because its religous and has to do with an omnipotent god, your either dead right or dead.

It's a problem that people interpret things differently than others? How so? Can't any text be taken in different ways? People discuss the meaning of great novels all the time, and many people disagree with each other. I've never felt that that's a problem with the novel...

Ah, but a religous text such as a the bible is more on the lines of a law then The Catcher in the Rye.

God said many things, but the ways you interpret them are up to you. Same goes with laws. But ultimately, theres a final judgment between who got what god said and who didn't.

But with laws there people who say your wrong and this is the way it is, and people listen and thats that. But with religion, no one can be right because the ultimate judge hasn't said lip.

Again, that's silly to say. If God was around, Noah could live as long as he damn well pleased. What you just said is basically the same thing as when somebody watches a Mickey Mouse cartoon and goes: "What the hell!? How does a mouse have a dog as a pet?! THAT MAKES NO SENSE!~!!"

And you know, of course I say "What the hell? What about the fact that he talks and wears pants? You didn't notice that?"

I think it's funny how you compare the bible to a cartoon. But you're right, it's not much more than a big pile of fiction.

C'mon... Sure almost all of the stories are ludicrous, but at the same time we have to respect that there is some truth or was some truth in them. We can never be sure, it might be seen as a compilation of other cultures beliefs stated in a way that would benefit a select group. The whole affair is more of a leap of faith and the diversity of the stories is just so people can relate to one even if they don't agree with any of the others. That kind of explains why God is seen as so many things. Eh. I'm actually atheist, I just really think we should give people a chance to argue their religion. Besides not all Christians are ignorant. The most important stories to an individual are those that they experience and compare to biblical stories. Though I am sick of the Jobe references. The idea that Christians are ignorant is simply perpetuated by their sheer numbers. I mean it's not like they go for quantity over quantity, but as it moves generation to generation it just kind of declines a little. In most cases that is the case. At this point we're no better than Cnn. A Christian hasn't posted in a bit so we're able to bash their methods and they aren't doing anything. We need to wait for Christians XD

you know what would be really good...

A Christian Vs. Catholic fight of words and biblical knowledge

A Christian Vs. Catholic fight of words and biblical knowledge
but....catholics are christians. = \


I think it's funny how you compare the bible to a cartoon. But you're right, it's not much more than a big pile of fiction.

Most likely, yes. That doesn't disprove God any more than me saying "God isn't real!" though.

What I think is funny about it all is, (just looking at America) only 3 percent of america is non-religious. Looking at the whole world only 16% aren't religious. 33 percent of the world is christians. So, there are 3 ways you can look at this.

1) There is a God but Christianity is full of shit.
2) Christianity is compeltely true.
3) Fuck 84% of the world, all religions are full of shit. (Note, A hundred years ago, a lot less than 16% did not believe in god, I would say about 5%)

What I think is funny about it all is, (just looking at America) only 3 percent of america is non-religious. Looking at the whole world only 16% aren't religious. 33 percent of the world is christians. So, there are 3 ways you can look at this.

1) There is a God but Christianity is full of shit.
2) Christianity is compeltely true.
3) Fuck 84% of the world, all religions are full of shit. (Note, A hundred years ago, a lot less than 16% did not believe in god, I would say about 5%)

1) Maybe.
2) There are many ways to define Christianity. So if Christianity is true, which of the interpretations is? Imo a religion is true as long as it fits your beliefs and there's no way to turn those beliefs in something you can "know" or "be sure of"... That's why it's called belief and not knowledge!
3) I wouldn't say they're "full of shit"... "Though shalt not kill." Isn't half bad. But I'd say most religions don't make sense, then again, they aren't supposed to make sense.
Oh, and you shouldn't ignore other people just because they don't share your beliefs, as you imply in your 3. alternative ;P

What I think is funny about it all is, (just looking at America) only 3 percent of america is non-religious. Looking at the whole world only 16% aren't religious. 33 percent of the world is christians. So, there are 3 ways you can look at this.

1) There is a God but Christianity is full of shit.
2) Christianity is compeltely true.
3) Fuck 84% of the world, all religions are full of shit. (Note, A hundred years ago, a lot less than 16% did not believe in god, I would say about 5%)

You can also see it like this:

1) Christianity is the most aggresive religion
2) Christians are full of shit but are too arrogant to notice
3) Christians only think of fucking the world, being all pushy about their religion, always have been and always will be. This brings us back to point one.

1) Christianity is the most aggresive religion
I'm not really sure I'd say it like that Angelic. I'd say that Christianity has been traditionally the most powerful religion, since it's been doing so well in Europe and America for such a long time and because Europe and America have had a history of conquering and colonizing other nations. I don't really think that's a part of the religion; I'd say it's more just a coincidence that Europe and America have taken to Christianity so kindly. When powerful groups of people feel like conquering things, they'll do so regardless of what religion they belong to. They will then either use their religion as an excuse, or spread their religion as well as other facets of their culture while conquering. It's only natural.

2) Christians are full of shit but are too arrogant to notice
Again, I don't think Christians are arrogant. I don't think anyone coerces a feeling of power out of being a Christian. I'd again say it's the countries that are subscribing to Christianity that are to blame for this image; Christianity is by far the leading religion in America, and it's doing pretty well in Europe too as far as I know.

3) Christians only think of fucking the world, being all pushy about their religion, always have been and always will be. This brings us back to point one.
I think I've already responded to this indirectly through my last two points.
But yeah. I don't think religion has much bearing on your personality, haha. Especially in this day and age, where many people are only superficially religious; the kind that belong to a faith only because they were born to it and never practice their faith very often.

Oh no, he was only talking about American Christians.

Well, more the "fanatic" kind, they're available in Europe too but I think they're more common in the US.

Oh no, he was only talking about American Christians.

Americans did start the crusade, ya know?

But the fanatics now-a-days are all over America now.



Again, I don't think Christians are arrogant. I don't think anyone coerces a feeling of power out of being a Christian. I'd again say it's the countries that are subscribing to Christianity that are to blame for this image; Christianity is by far the leading religion in America, and it's doing pretty well in Europe too as far as I know.

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't doing that bad, but does that mean that its true?
You know all those urban legends children spread and say is true? They oppress those who think its ludicrous. Daddy long legs being the most poisonous spider is as popular as hell, but popular doesn't mean right.

http://www.agirlsworld.com/rachel/beat-street/reviews/pix/meangirls2.jpg

Actually Christians in that sense can't do crusades. Has to be sanctioned by the pope XD
Hooray for Catholic law.

And how many people are active christians? I mean most people are Christians from heredity...

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't doing that bad, but does that mean that its true?
You know all those urban legends children spread and say is true? They oppress those who think its ludicrous. Daddy long legs being the most poisonous spider is as popular as hell, but popular doesn't mean right.

What the hell? I think you read my post wrong. Look over it again! XD


Well, more the "fanatic" kind, they're available in Europe too but I think they're more common in the US.

If I had to guess, I'd say you're probably right. People down South in America are pretty crazy, period. And 99% of them are hardcore Catholics. XP

Oh sorry. I thought you meant that because there were many followers it was right.

haha, nah. I was just saying that people thought they were...well, you know what I was saying now. XD

So... what is our new topic here?

How many Asian religions could live together in peace? LOLOL.

Greek/Roman paganism. Put some myths up and your interpretations. there.

I prefer Nordic stories...
Does Odyssey count? I mean it was a myth. Or is that more of a legend...
I kind of like the whole season explanation of the story of Persephone...
It shows that even god's of evil need love =D

You can also see it like this:

1) Christianity is the most aggresive religion
2) Christians are full of shit but are too arrogant to notice
3) Christians only think of fucking the world, being all pushy about their religion, always have been and always will be. This brings us back to point one.

Well aren't you a good example of trying to keep a peaceful and ongoing religion thread.

But okay, my turn.

1) Athiests and the like are so fucking ignorant, if you really only have this life, why the fuck are you wasting every day of it? You need to realize the fact that you have some odd years of life left, and if what you are doing now is living it to the fullest, you got some major problems.

2) Nobody is asking you to get fucking baptized, get the fuck over it. Christians don't give a rats ass about what everyone else think. Just because christians offer to spread it to people doesn't mean we are shoving it down your fucking throat. Stop stereotyping, when was the last time, someone in real life came up to you and did all but drag you in a church and throw some water over your head? When someone offers to teach you about religion and you're not interested, tell me, how many time have they pursued you? (And I'm not talking about on the internet, cuz there are some really fucking stupid people on the internet) Open your eyes, we don't give a fuck if you don't give a fuck.

(By the way, if all you're going to do is bash christianity every time the chance arises, get the fuck out of the thread. You didn't want it in the first place so why the hell are you posting in it? I don't mind your opinions, but you can atleast be mature about the way you post them. The reason you closed the last religion thread was because people were just bashing each other and religions, well look at what you just did. This thread isn't about bashing or trying to be aggressive, its about discussion and people like you ruin it for everyone.)

Athiests and the like are so fucking ignorant, if you really only have this life, why the fuck are you wasting every day of it? You need to realize the fact that you have some odd years of life left, and if what you are doing now is living it to the fullest, you got some major problems.

That statement itself was amazingly ignorant. Who are you to decide how one should live one's life? What exactly is living life to the fullest? And why is an atheist any more obligated to "LIVE LIFE TO THE MAXX LOL" than a Christian? If anything, I'd think it'd be the other way around; Christians are accountable to God - atheists are accountable only to themselves.


Christians don't give a rats ass about what everyone else think. Just because christians offer to spread it to people doesn't mean we are shoving it down your fucking throat. Stop stereotyping....
By speaking for all Christians, aren't you, in fact, stereotyping? How would you know how often Christians shove things down people's throats? I've met my share of overly-pushy Christians; I can see exactly where Angelic is coming from.

Open your eyes, we don't give a fuck if you don't give a fuck.
There you go, assuming you can speak for two billion people again. What was Angelic's word for Christians? Arrogant?

I don't mind your opinions, but you can atleast be mature about the way you post them.
You're not acting incredibly mature right now either...come to think of it, what was Angelic's other word for Christians? Aggressive?

This thread isn't about bashing or trying to be aggressive, its about discussion and people like you ruin it for everyone.
Lmao. I didn't even read this paragraph before quoting the last one. I think it's hilarious how well that fit there. XD

Anyway. Angelic didn't phrase his last response to Christianity very well, but you're making a damned good case for what he said. Please stop talking for all Christians out there, especially if you're going to be so loud about it. ;)

Also, don't insult atheists. I take personal offense to that, as you may have gathered by the color of my post.

Stop stealing my spotlight HopelessComposer... I was about to post the same.

Hahahaha, sorry, I couldn't help it. It was just too easy to pass up! XD
You can like, quote my last post if you want to, and then stick: "YEAH!" at the end if you want to. X3

Wouldn't that make me look lame? ;) But what can I say? Guess I'm just an ignorant atheist.

Ugh, stop talking! Your ignorant heretic ways enrage and confuse me! XD
lol. X3
Anyway, we should get back on topic, before we get modded. Except I don't like the topic of the thread right now. Sigh. > <

My aethist friend is constantly reminding me of how stupid I am, being orthodox practicing Catholic and all...

I think I've proven myself a proficient arguer of this subject, though I am an atheist.

Be careful, you have to realize that most modern day "Christians" aren't Christians anymore.
Remember that most people are followers (sheep, if you will) and not leaders, and will do the least amount of thinking possible. That's probably one of the major factors that lead to the current state of affairs.

I got a call earlier this year from a Christian volunteer group who "educate" people about modern-day Christianity & the bible and whatnot. As I spoke to her, I found it amusing that even though I'm not Christian, she and I both categorically agree on everything as far as today's religions go, how most Christians aren't even Christians even more, how the whole Christian scene really isn't going that well, the teachings etc.

When an athiest and a "true Christian" completely agree on religious matters . . . we're in bad shape fellas.
Some good friends of mine are "true Christians" and they aren't anything what most people think "Christians" are.

Just a little piece for you guys to think about.


TIME FOR ENTERTAINMENT BOYS AND GIRLS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPHnXrU5JzU&eurl=

When an athiest and a "true Christian" completely agree on religious matters . . . we're in bad shape fellas.
That's not true; it just means you found a smart Christian. ;)

Or there is something obvious in front of them... like a meteor that just destroyed San Francisco.

2) Nobody is asking you to get fucking baptized, get the fuck over it. Christians don't give a rats ass about what everyone else think. Just because christians offer to spread it to people doesn't mean we are shoving it down your fucking throat. Stop stereotyping, when was the last time, someone in real life came up to you and did all but drag you in a church and throw some water over your head? When someone offers to teach you about religion and you're not interested, tell me, how many time have they pursued you? (And I'm not talking about on the internet, cuz there are some really fucking stupid people on the internet) Open your eyes, we don't give a fuck if you don't give a fuck.

Salem witch trials, the crusades, whites segregation of blacks, shankill butchers, jehovah witnesses banging at my front door.

Tv evangelists, Armageddon prophets, Cnn, C-span, Christian protesters protesting abortion, alcoholics, and the kkk...? How about... learning our perspectives and other religions. This is a place where words are used to convince. The profanity... just shows how idiotic you are being and how desperate your argument is at this point.

Aaaaaaaah, as funny as this immense ownage is...shall we move on to a new topic? I'd suggest one, but I can't think of anything good. = \

is anyone here actually a religios person?

i'm a catholic and yes, i am religious, but not over-zealous like one of our friends. but our friend is actually a born-again Christian and is TOTALLY over-zealous! i'm ok with that, but it just gets old when the same thing keeps coming up. or rather, when he starts saying everything is "because God made it that way". it's hard to have a serious discussion/debate when one side's answer is "because God made it/us that way". anyway...before i say anything that will offend anyone or offend anyone ever MORE, i'm gonna stop here. SORRY TOO ALL TO ALL THOSE I OFFENDED!! :cry:

*UPDATE*
ok, i guess i'm not going to stop there. going back on what i had said earlier...i dont think anyone is "born" Catholic, or "born" whatever religion they are practicing at moment. i believe that we're "raised" Catholic or "raised" something else. i dont agree on how parents believe that if they are practicing a certain religion their kids have to practice it as well - which is why i was Baptized and even though i don't go to church anymore, i DO call myself a Catholic.

and on that note, i've had so many arguements/discussions on this: just because one doesn't go to church or another religious service doesn't mean that he/she doesn't believe in God or another deity. that's what i believe anyway. i don't go to church and i still believe in God and i still pray every night before i go to sleep. what do you guys think about this?

another thing i was debating with our friend was the difference between Catholic and Christian. this debate came to be after he had asked me (as soon as i said i was Catholic), "so, why Catholic?" and my answer that i gave him is in the above paragraph. honestly, i don't believe there is one. both worship the same God and the only difference i can remember from school is about the second coming of the Son of God. again, if i've offended anyone, i am truly sorry! :(

So are we moving onto a new topic or... ?

Religion isn't my thing at all if i was put on a scale of 1 to Religious i would be -100 every religion has its ups and downs and none can claim to be following the "true" Religious order, i say you just do what feels right and if your scared about the world ending and you being sent to hell for eternity remember that theres free central heating all year round and you might even be able to choose which hell you go to if the scriptures are right you could choose one of the 13 maybe pick the one with the best view

My aethist friend is constantly reminding me of how stupid I am, being orthodox practicing Catholic and all...

To atheists, believing in God is the same thing as believing the little Mermaid is based upon a true story.

Well aren't you a good example of trying to keep a peaceful and ongoing religion thread.

But okay, my turn.

1) Athiests and the like are so fucking ignorant, if you really only have this life, why the fuck are you wasting every day of it? You need to realize the fact that you have some odd years of life left, and if what you are doing now is living it to the fullest, you got some major problems.

2) Nobody is asking you to get fucking baptized, get the fuck over it. Christians don't give a rats ass about what everyone else think. Just because christians offer to spread it to people doesn't mean we are shoving it down your fucking throat. Stop stereotyping, when was the last time, someone in real life came up to you and did all but drag you in a church and throw some water over your head? When someone offers to teach you about religion and you're not interested, tell me, how many time have they pursued you? (And I'm not talking about on the internet, cuz there are some really fucking stupid people on the internet) Open your eyes, we don't give a fuck if you don't give a fuck.

(By the way, if all you're going to do is bash christianity every time the chance arises, get the fuck out of the thread. You didn't want it in the first place so why the hell are you posting in it? I don't mind your opinions, but you can atleast be mature about the way you post them. The reason you closed the last religion thread was because people were just bashing each other and religions, well look at what you just did. This thread isn't about bashing or trying to be aggressive, its about discussion and people like you ruin it for everyone. Grow Up.)

No, we're not being forced into Christianity, we're only threatened to go to Hell if we don't.

That statement itself was amazingly ignorant. Who are you to decide how one should live one's life? What exactly is living life to the fullest? And why is an atheist any more obligated to "LIVE LIFE TO THE MAXX LOL" than a Christian? If anything, I'd think it'd be the other way around; Christians are accountable to God - atheists are accountable only to themselves.


By speaking for all Christians, aren't you, in fact, stereotyping? How would you know how often Christians shove things down people's throats? I've met my share of overly-pushy Christians; I can see exactly where Angelic is coming from.

There you go, assuming you can speak for two billion people again. What was Angelic's word for Christians? Arrogant?

You're not acting incredibly mature right now either...come to think of it, what was Angelic's other word for Christians? Aggressive?

Lmao. I didn't even read this paragraph before quoting the last one. I think it's hilarious how well that fit there. XD

Anyway. Angelic didn't phrase his last response to Christianity very well, but you're making a damned good case for what he said. Please stop talking for all Christians out there, especially if you're going to be so loud about it. ;)

Also, don't insult atheists. I take personal offense to that, as you may have gathered by the color of my post.

I know Hopeless, but I figured, if Angelic was going to speak for all of Christianity, hell, why not me as well? Then I'll bash Athiesism a little while I'm at it. Lol, truthfully I don't believe in most of the stuff I said.

@ RD: Kay, I'm not seeing how White segregating against Blacks and the Shankill Butchery relates to what you bolded on me... As for the first two, to be completely honest, I don't know. Though me personally, I look at them as actions of Men using Christianity, rather than Christianity using Men. At for the last one, well I bet you just said no thank you and closed the door, didn't you.

@ Angelic: Yes, and you have the right to just ignore them, as I do to all that scorn me for my belief. I understand that it gets very annoying after a while, but Christians get bashed just as much.

@ RD: Kay, I'm not seeing how White segregating against Blacks and the Shankill Butchery relates to what you bolded on me... As for the first two, to be completely honest, I don't know. Though me personally, I look at them as actions of Men using Christianity, rather than Christianity using Men. At for the last one, well I bet you just said no thank you and closed the door, didn't you.

Yeah, I was a bit bleh on the shankill one. ops. But the segregation of blacks I know I had a point. Many Christians used the bible, god and jesus as an excuse for their actions, for a reason for blacks to be less and later, an excuse for how they treated blacks and just hid behind religion when they found out treating others as less was wrong.

I am Catholic, which is more defined than the category "Christian". I don't really condone Evangelicism, Johavahniam etc, though I respect everyone's beliefs.

i dont really believe in anything but i do think everyone should believe whatever they think is right. the only thing that bothers me is when religious groups go door to door pushing their religion on me or other people. (it happened to me the other day and i said "i think everyone can believe what they want" and both of the woman looked at me as if i was going to hell right then and there for even thinking that)

I think that is the perfect attitude...

That was probably not the most logical thing to say.
They believe they are doing what is right in their beliefs, and if you have nothing against them, don't spit in their face about it.

But she didn't...

ME411, I agree with you that people should be allowed to believe what they wish. As long as you're not hurting me or other people with your practices, you should be able to carry on with them.

As for the "door to door" issue, they're doing that because whatever sect they belong to (Jehovah's Witnesses are most popular for that), it's taught that they should try to convert as many people as they can to their message.
Heck, I appreciate that other people are looking out for my soul. It's a bit flattering. ^_^ As long as they aren't being pushy, I try to be as polite as possible when I'm in the same situation. If they do get pushy, the "we have common ground" approach seems to work well.

@Jaso: Yes, I know she didn't spit in her face about it, and I'll bet that she would not ever mean to either. But the woman is obviously a devout Christian and probably took her comment a little too seriously. Luckily, neither of them are radicals, otherwise something serious might have come of it. And in showing her such... "insolence", if you will, that just encourages her to push her cause.
Sure, there isn't much I wouldn't give to be able to really fuck up those telemarketers that call to sell you RRSPs or whatever; but I feel that if I do, it would just cause hurt feelings and spread hate, when all they're trying to do is do their job. Even if they're a little radical, or misled.
In my opinion, if they aren't on your doorstep and all "REPENT, SINNERS! REPENT!!! Or you shall be hateful in the sight of God and He shall smite thee!!" I see no reason in causing any unneeded tension.

I am not critisizing you, ME411, or trying to make you feel bad or even trying to "SINNER, REPENT!!", I'm just exaggerating your statement to use as an example.
If that makes sense, and you don't mind. :)

I like radical religious people, as long as they aren't hurting anybody. It's cool to see people who can believe in something so strongly, when most of the world seems apathetic towards the universe. It makes me all proud and tingly on the inside, and I enjoy talking to those types of people, even if I don't agree with what they believe.

so if I were to say:

I sincerely believe there is a cup of tea revolving the sun, having a profound impact on my, and every one elses lives... even causing earthquakes!

you wouldnt call me nuts but be proud of me? =)

so if I were to say:

I sincerely believe there is a cup of tea revolving the sun, having a profound impact on my, and every one elses lives... even causing earthquakes!

you wouldnt call me nuts but be proud of me? =)

That hardly sounds more ridiculous than any of the other major religions out there. So yes, if you believed it hard enough, I'd be proud of you, even if I did think you were crazy. There's something very romantic about crazy people anyway.

Actually, that sounds less ridiculous than 99% of religions out there to me. At least your tea cup resides in this universe, unlike the gods and goddesses of other religions. ;)

why, thank you ;)

edit:btw, I love this planet, I come here, I see cow and chicken and ride little horsies. This planet has everything!

why, thank you
Heheh, np np.


edit:btw, I love this planet, I come here, I see cow and chicken and ride little horsies. This planet has everything!
Indeed, the almighty tea-cup has been treating us very well lately. :3

Then came the saucer.

Would the saucer be the devil in this case?

No, the saucer contains the mistakes of the Cup, therefore.. The saucer cannot exist since the cup does not make mistakes. Meaning that if it was angels. Angels would be useless.

The devil is the oh so seductive cappuccino cup, those things are tiny but pack a punch >_<

blech. I hate coffee. For the record, the good cup contains only tea.

Does it favor asian or english?

I must say that I thought the discussion in this topic was very nice to read, although some of the arguments presented were in my opinion more powerful than others. I must also admit that I could not spare the time to read everything here, but I did read a number of pages.

The last few posts, though, seem to be veering away from the general discussion, and the people who advocated the causes of faith have been somewhat stopping to post either because of that or because they feel their cause has been sufficiently elaborated on earlier.

I, however, would like to present something less related to the validity of faith, but more to the actual practise.

It is my belief that the biased opinion against faith comes from the modern way of viewing events as opposed to that in the contexts when many events took place. The particulars involve the knowledge of all the evil that has been conducted in the name of religion (and I'm not limiting myself to any faith, but I'd like to mention Christianity and Islam, especially).

However, and this is the point I'd like to debate, the people performing these acts are usually the tools of the action, thinking to be doing good instead of the evil that they really are doing.

When you cannot read a text, and all you have to go on is someone's word, you do not have much choice but to believe the person is he is someone who would speak the truth (like a priest, or the pope, or an Imam, or Bhudda himself). This was likely the case in the often mentioned crusades (which were more against Christians than against any other people, factually speaking. Sources: Quest, a Dutch magazine. Sorry for that, Literary texts from Medieval times, Morality plays, and in particular Everyman and The Second Shepherd's play, and the background information that goes with them. These are available if you google them and are splended examples of texts performed to educate and that were abolished by the church after they went too far from the Bible for their reckoning).

The evil by thinking you do good is - unfortunately - not a theme that is limited to the middle ages, it was carried far into modern times, up to even this day, when people believe other people's interpretations of texts, because they feel these are reliable. Most people have never read the Bible in full, yet still find themselves able to judge about it. That does not mean, however, that you need to fully study the subject to have an opinion, but it does mean that you should not claim things about the contents you do not know. I will not say that the translation of Hippo is wrong, and a dinosaur was intended. (ehm...which book is this? I don't recall. DAMNIT!)

As a closing note, I'd like to mention that I am an Atheist, although I respect the beliefs of others as long as they do not infringe freedom and are not hippocryt[sic]. I have read the Bible completely, although that was a while ago, and as you saw above, my knowledge is getting pretty rusty. I never got to reading the Koran yet, but I might. Same goes for the Tora and the rest of the Jewish book.

English i think

Well aren't you a good example of trying to keep a peaceful and ongoing religion thread.

But okay, my turn.

1) Athiests and the like are so fucking ignorant, if you really only have this life, why the fuck are you wasting every day of it? You need to realize the fact that you have some odd years of life left, and if what you are doing now is living it to the fullest, you got some major problems.

2) Nobody is asking you to get fucking baptized, get the fuck over it. Christians don't give a rats ass about what everyone else think. Just because christians offer to spread it to people doesn't mean we are shoving it down your fucking throat. Stop stereotyping, when was the last time, someone in real life came up to you and did all but drag you in a church and throw some water over your head? When someone offers to teach you about religion and you're not interested, tell me, how many time have they pursued you? (And I'm not talking about on the internet, cuz there are some really fucking stupid people on the internet) Open your eyes, we don't give a fuck if you don't give a fuck.

(By the way, if all you're going to do is bash christianity every time the chance arises, get the fuck out of the thread. You didn't want it in the first place so why the hell are you posting in it? I don't mind your opinions, but you can atleast be mature about the way you post them. The reason you closed the last religion thread was because people were just bashing each other and religions, well look at what you just did. This thread isn't about bashing or trying to be aggressive, its about discussion and people like you ruin it for everyone.)

I'm sorry, but I saw this and couldn't help but put my two cents in.

First off, I hope and pray that you don't go to church, because that mouth would surely be your downfall. There is a way to discuss with others without resorting to cursing. It's common sense, so get it the fuck right.

Secondly, if this thread is not about trying to be aggressive, I can't help but ask: Am I imagining the text above? This "I am greater than thou" BS is really getting on my nerves, and I've only just now seen this topic. I would hope you are not a Christian, because you are indeed adding to the stereotype that everyone may or may not believe. You are not above us, you don't rule us, so don't talk to us so condescendingly.

And thirdly, if this is an example of what is to be posted in the future, perhaps you should leave. :shifty: :bleh: :sweat:

And now that that is out of the way, I'll actually leave my opinion.

I am a bisexual, so therefore I am constantly worrying if I am going to burn forever or not. It's a thing that is always on my mind. I do believe that if there is at least not a God, there is a higher power that governs our existence. Hopefully, he/she/it is not as... adamant about sending homosexuals to hell. It's hard enough sorting through my feelings, but when you have the constant reminder of 'You're going to hell.' from other religious people around you, it digs into your mind. I'm not sure if that is exactly religious, but I thought I should mention it. :heh:

I'm sorry, but I saw this and couldn't help but put my two cents in.

First off, I hope and pray that you don't go to church, because that mouth would surely be your downfall. There is a way to discuss with others without resorting to cursing. It's common sense, so get it the fuck right.

Secondly, if this thread is not about trying to be aggressive, I can't help but ask: Am I imagining the text above? This "I am greater than thou" BS is really getting on my nerves, and I've only just now seen this topic. I would hope you are not a Christian, because you are indeed adding to the stereotype that everyone may or may not believe. You are not above us, you don't rule us, so don't talk to us so condescendingly.

And thirdly, if this is an example of what is to be posted in the future, perhaps you should leave. :shifty: :bleh: :sweat:

And now that that is out of the way, I'll actually leave my opinion.

I am a bisexual, so therefore I am constantly worrying if I am going to burn forever or not. It's a thing that is always on my mind. I do believe that if there is at least not a God, there is a higher power that governs our existence. Hopefully, he/she/it is not as... adamant about sending homosexuals to hell. It's hard enough sorting through my feelings, but when you have the constant reminder of 'You're going to hell.' from other religious people around you, it digs into your mind. I'm not sure if that is exactly religious, but I thought I should mention it. :heh:

Who are you to judge me? You don't know me, you have never met me. How dare you assume things out of nowhere. Who are you to state who should be and shouldn't be christian? And for the record, swearing is not a sin kid. You don't have any fucking idea why I posted that... I posted that in reply to the quote in that post. So maybe instead of just picking posts to bash you should read the previous and the following posts. So, if you are going to continue posting like this, I suggest you follow your own advice and get the fuck out. You have no idea what you are talking about. Try reading all of page 35 and 36 kid.

First off, child, don't call me a kid. I didn't judge you, I told you how you were coming off to me and a solution to rid you of the thread. I never said I knew you beyond your posting. I also know that swearing is not a sin, but it sounds barbaric when you keep on using it the way you are, so I would be... extremely happy if you could not keep proving that the human race is full of idiots that can't think beyond the cruel words of a sick mind.

And again, I never bashed you, at least not in such an offensive way to get the above response. I listed my opnion of you and said, quite plainly, that you are an asshole and you need to leave. I appreciate your arguements, as they carry a slight point, but the manner in which you do it in is disgusting. Grow up before you start posting to people who mean nothing offensive to you.

Sigh.
Anyway:

Hopefully, he/she/it is not as... adamant about sending homosexuals to hell. It's hard enough sorting through my feelings, but when you have the constant reminder of 'You're going to hell.' from other religious people around you, it digs into your mind. I'm not sure if that is exactly religious, but I thought I should mention it.

Don't be stupid. Any being intelligent enough to create a working universe is intelligent enough to not be so ignorant has to hate anyone enough to send them to hell. ;)

So you're safe in my book.
The idea of a god who sentences people to eternal suffering based on what they did during their insignificantly short 100 year or so lifespan is ridiculous. I'm surprised the notion even still exists.

I think that's a good new topic actually:
Who here believes that there is a hell? If you do, then how can you believe in a god who punishes people so arbitrarily and so extremely?

Well, I don't, but it is still an active... thought that keeps entering my mind. It's hard not to think about it, but at the same time it's like this black cloud waiting to strike you down with lightning.

And as for the god thing, I agree with you on that. I think that it is... kinda childish, actually, to send people to a lake of fire because of the choices they made in their lives. Thanks for that, by the way. It makes me feel... much better. You're cool in my book, Hopeless. :P

First off, child, don't call me a kid. I didn't judge you, I told you how you were coming off to me and a solution to rid you of the thread. I never said I knew you beyond your posting. I also know that swearing is not a sin, but it sounds barbaric when you keep on using it the way you are, so I would be... extremely happy if you could not keep proving that the human race is full of idiots that can't think beyond the cruel words of a sick mind.

And again, I never bashed you, at least not in such an offensive way to get the above response. I listed my opnion of you and said, quite plainly, that you are an asshole and you need to leave. I appreciate your arguements, as they carry a slight point, but the manner in which you do it in is disgusting. Grow up before you start posting to people who mean nothing offensive to you.


First off, child, don't call me a kid.
You get the paradox award of the day. Congrats.


I didn't judge you,
"I would hope you are not a Christian, because you are indeed adding to the stereotype that everyone may or may not believe." Lets see here, you are judgeing by my post that I am not a christian. And since I wrote my post, You are judgeing me.


I also know that swearing is not a sin, but it sounds barbaric when you keep on using it the way you are, so I would be... extremely happy if you could not keep proving that the human race is full of idiots that can't think beyond the cruel words of a sick mind.
And I would be extremely happy if you would grow up a little and realize that this is the internet.


And again, I never bashed you, at least not in such an offensive way to get the above response.
Obviously you did, which is why I posted my response. (btw, a bash doesn't have to be anything insultive.


I listed my opnion of you and said, quite plainly, that you are an asshole and you need to leave.
Again with the judgeing... I have been on this forum for three years, if I really needed to leave, the mods and admins would have done their job and removed me. Of course, you being here a whole 4 days, you would know better than them, wouldn't you.


I appreciate your arguements, as they carry a slight point, but the manner in which you do it in is disgusting. Grow up before you start posting to people who mean nothing offensive to you.
Are you like, twelve years old doing your best to act mature or something?

Though to tell you the truth, what annoys me is you didn't even read page 35 and 36 cuz otherwise you would have realized why I posted my original post that you attempted to bash. I forgive you for your ignorance, you're just new and don't know much of anything.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

@ Hopeless: If you bought a dog, but all it did was bite you, no matter how much you tried to be friendly with it, would you still keep the dog. Even though it will never like you, and always try to bite.

You get the paradox award of the day. Congrats.


"I would hope you are not a Christian, because you are indeed adding to the stereotype that everyone may or may not believe." Lets see here, you are judgeing by my post that I am not a christian. And since I wrote my post, You are judgeing me.


And I would be extremely happy if you would grow up a little and realize that this is the internet.


Obviously you did, which is why I posted my response. (btw, a bash doesn't have to be anything insultive.


Again with the judgeing... I have been on this forum for three years, if I really needed to leave, the mods and admins would have done their job and removed me. Of course, you being here a whole 4 days, you would know better than them, wouldn't you.


Are you like, twelve years old doing your best to act mature or something?

Though to tell you the truth, what annoys me is you didn't even read page 35 and 36 cuz otherwise you would have realized why I posted my original post that you attempted to bash. I forgive you for your ignorance, you're just new and don't know much of anything.


Do you think it makes you bigger than other people to put them down like you do?

Let me pick one of my favorite lines out of your post just for a second.


I forgive you for your ignorance, you're just new and don't know much of anything.

Forgive me, hmm? At what time did I lead you on to think that I needed your god damn forgiveness in the first place! What makes you think I didn't read it? The fact that I made a reasonable point?! I'm sorry if it offended you, but I don't give a damn about it now! You don't even have the fucking courtesy to be posting here or anywhere else!


Again with the judgeing... I have been on this forum for three years, if I really needed to leave, the mods and admins would have done their job and removed me. Of course, you being here a whole 4 days, you would know better than them, wouldn't you.

You're right, something must be wrong with me! Length of time anywhere does not mean a damn thing in this world or the internet. Kids have exhibited through the ages that they can be just as intelligent as a full grown adult, sometimes more so. So, the words ignorant come to mind, thanks to Angelic. And my last point in this, there is a certain member, who name will not be mentioned, that is still on despite the fact that he can't make a point, is completely idiotic and sometimes offensive in all of his posts, is still on this site despite all that. Sometimes, the mods don't get all of the weeds that grow in, do they?


And I would be extremely happy if you would grow up a little and realize that this is the internet.

Strange, I'm the one that should grow up when I can at least converse without using every other word as a curse word (and yes I know that I did further up, but it is needed.). This is the internet, which means everyone comes here, so you should be respectful in that perspective. EVERYONE sees the stuff that we post, so they will know that someone is making a fool of themselves and introducing new, flashy words into their vocabulary. Hmm, I wonder WHO that could be?


Are you like, twelve years old doing your best to act mature or something?

Hehe, that's kinda funny, seeing as I can still be mature, even if I was 12 years old. The sad thing is, you live in this sad, sickening fantasy world where everything you do is right and that one day you will be rewarded by going to heaven. Well, you might make it to the gates, but if you didn't make it in, it wouldn't surprise me in the least. Burn, asshole, burn. (I would also like to add that your age is 14. Really think you have much more to say? 4 years is a difference, and this would also explain your... outlook on life, wouldn't it?)

(And to everyone else, I am sorry that I did this. I hope that if this comes off the wrong way, that you can forgive me one day. At least I might gain some that I deserve.)

Somone reaaly needs to set a character limit in this thread 0.0

Do you think it makes you bigger than other people to put them down like you do?

Let me pick one of my favorite lines out of your post just for a second.



Forgive me, hmm? At what time did I lead you on to think that I needed your god damn forgiveness in the first place! What makes you think I didn't read it? The fact that I made a reasonable point?! I'm sorry if it offended you, but I don't give a damn about it now! You don't even have the fucking courtesy to be posting here or anywhere else!



You're right, something must be wrong with me! Length of time anywhere does not mean a damn thing in this world or the internet. Kids have exhibited through the ages that they can be just as intelligent as a full grown adult, sometimes more so. So, the words ignorant come to mind, thanks to Angelic.



Strange, I'm the one that should grow up when I can at least converse without using every other word as a curse word (and yes I know that I did further up, but it is needed.).
NOT FINISHED!


"Do you think it makes you bigger than other people to put them down like you do?"
Nope, its the internet, it doesnt make me feel better to put down internet people.


"Forgive me, hmm? At what time did I lead you on to think that I needed your god damn forgiveness in the first place! What makes you think I didn't read it? The fact that I made a reasonable point?! I'm sorry if it offended you, but I don't give a damn about it now! You don't even have the fucking courtesy to be posting here or anywhere else!"

Well you know, I was just trying to be mature and end this... I didn't think you read, because if you had then you would have read

I know Hopeless, but I figured, if Angelic was going to speak for all of Christianity, hell, why not me as well? Then I'll bash Athiesism a little while I'm at it. Lol, truthfully I don't believe in most of the stuff I said.
And then you wouldn't have adressed my post at all becuase well, others already had and have already accomplished anything you though you would have. (I assume, please correct me on this if you will, I may not be seeing all of your intentions)



"You're right, something must be wrong with me! Length of time anywhere does not mean a damn thing in this world or the internet. Kids have exhibited through the ages that they can be just as intelligent as a full grown adult, sometimes more so. So, the words ignorant come to mind, thanks to Angelic."

Who said I thought the length of time on this forum contribtued to your intelligence off of the internet? I was merely pointing out that the longer you are on this forum, the more you know about the people on it and well, more about the forum itself.


"Strange, I'm the one that should grow up when I can at least converse without using every other word as a curse word (and yes I know that I did further up, but it is needed.)."
If a little swearing is too much to bare, leave.

The both of you are ruining the point of this forum... I mean not offence, but this thread is meant for oppinions, not fighting... Yes I have read through the entire argument and it would be better if it reverted back to a discussion. And no Lost Rain I am not against you, I would just rather you or anyone else for that matter not get kicked off because he/she offended the wrong person. And offending someone is all that this heated debate will accomplish... so let's just throw some ice on the whole situation and attempt to get along.

Agreed, Lost Rain, please pm me if you have further comments towards me. I apologize to all, I should have done that in the first place. So, back to the debate:

Well I think there is a hell, naturally, since I'm catholic. Back to what I asked Hopeless: If you bought a dog, but all it did was bite you, no matter how much you tried to be friendly with it, would you still keep the dog. Even though it will never like you, and always try to bite.

I believe in God and the whole Heaven and Hell concept (only because there is no way thet the big bang theroy is true, and there is also some pretty good evidence in the bible that god creating the earth and all the other stuff that happened might be true) but I don't quite agree with all of it. Who's to say that the wrong people didn't get ahold of the original biblical donuments and change them, not to mention that during the early years of the Roman Catholic Church (no offence meant) that some priest changed some of the information to benefit himself and his religion. When christianity was just starting to spread across europe, no one but the high priests and the Pope were allowed to see an accual copy of the documents and any one of them could have tampered with them...

Hopeless: If you bought a dog, but all it did was bite you, no matter how much you tried to be friendly with it, would you still keep the dog. Even though it will never like you, and always try to bite.

That's a ridiculous analogy for a few reasons.
1.)I'm not God. As amazing as I am, I am not quite intelligent enough to create a universe as complex as the one we live in. eg, I'm not perfect.
Because I'm not perfect I:
2.)Do not have infinite wisdom.
3.)Do not have infinite compassion.
4.)Do not have infinite understanding of all things and creatures in this universe.

But you know what? Despite all that, if I bought a dog and took it under my protection, then yes, I would keep it no matter how badly it behaved. Because as far from perfect as I am, I am still good enough to understand that not all dogs will behave the way I want them to.

If you're suggesting that I am wiser than your god, then feel free to stop being a Christian and start worshiping me; I can always use more followers. You'd apparently be better off under my wing anyway. ;)

Honestly, suggesting that God is stupid enough to send people to hell is amazing to me. It's an insult to God, an insult to humanity, and an insult to whomever suggests such a thing. God weeps! ;3

I couldn't think of anything more dramatic to say. Blah! My brain isn't running as smoothly as I'd like right now.
Kekekekeke. X3

Also:

I believe in God and the whole Heaven and Hell concept (only because there is no way thet the big bang theroy is true
How can you say that? There's more evidence for the big bang theory than there is for god existing. Either the universe just popped out of nowhere, or god popped out of nowhere and then created the universe. Either way, the universe doesn't make any sense.

Agreed, Lost Rain, please pm me if you have further comments towards me.
That's the best idea I've ever heard.

I believe in God and the whole Heaven and Hell concept (only because there is no way thet the big bang theroy is true, and there is also some pretty good evidence in the bible that god creating the earth and all the other stuff that happened might be true) but I don't quite agree with all of it.
*cough* *couuugh* *coouuuuuuuugh!*
What the hell? (sorry, couldn't resist :heh: )
Why is there no way that the big bang theory is true? If you do some thinking
(yep, christians are allowed to think) and you know that the universe is expanding, it should appear quite obvious that everything started very small... Maaaaan, I'd like to beat some physics in you, but I'm sure you wouldn't accept what I say.


How can you say that? There's more evidence for the big bang theory than there is for god existing. Either the universe just popped out of nowhere, or god popped out of nowhere and then created the universe. Either way, the universe doesn't make any sense.
Yeah. ^_^

Hopeless...it IS possible to be Catholic and accept the Big Bang Theory. There's no predestination involved, so God also does not "send people to hell". You know the whole free will concept. We are allowed to make our own decisions and accept the consequences for them . According to the Christian sects, performing certain deeds prevent you from entering Heaven(depending on your interpretation of it as a location or a state of mind or idea). Also, the idea of "creation ex nihilo" (creation from nothing) does fit in with the big bang to a certain extent.

As for evidence of God, it depends what you mean by "evidence". If you're talking in the empirical, scientific sense...I can't help you. However, if you want philosophic reasoning as to why (a) God does or must exist, there's a number of sources you could look at. Faith and science are not incompatible, but you should not try to prove one via the other.

Edit: Lost, though it's by no means Canon, if you look at Dante's works it is entirely possible to be bi- or homosexual and not be sent to hell. As long as you're trying to be a good person(love, compassion, not killing, the basic things), you'll be fine.

There's no predestination involved, so God also does not "send people to hell". You know the whole free will concept. We are allowed to make our own decisions and accept the consequences for them .
A longer, more annoying way to say what I've already disagreed with. Saying "it's not God's fault you go to hell, you decide to go there yourself" is just as stupid as saying that God sends people to hell, as it's basically the same thing.

If a parent has a small child and said small child burns itself to death because said parent "gave them the choice to play inside the stove," does that make the parent any less stupid? I mean come on, they were only letting the kid make his own choices! It was the three year old's fault, not the parents'!

How obnoxious. <_<
I've already got the arguing stick out ryan. Don't make me take out the arguing sword, machine gun, or nuke. >:3
Don't listen to Knight, Lost; do whatever the hell you want. It won't make a difference when you die anyway. ;)


However, if you want philosophic reasoning as to why (a) God does or must exist, there's a number of sources you could look at.
Could you quote a few? :3

Hopeless, you know better than to make any suggestion pertaining to someone's life.

Since god is infallible in your sense, though there must be a certain sense of "final predestination" where all life leads to something though the individual doesn't. Also I've always wanted to know where human life continually spawns from in Christian belief. If the soul is something sacred, why is it being created enmasse?

I would also like to hear these quotes.

Hopeless, you know better than to make any suggestion pertaining to someone's life.

Since god is infallible in your sense, though there must be a certain sense of "final predestination" where all life leads to something though the individual doesn't.

Eek, say that again please, in a slightly different way? I'm sorry but, my stupid brain just isn't catching what you were saying there. :heh:

Did the child figure out how to operate the stove, then climb in, then close the stove? Or did the parent turn the stove on while the child was inside? I don't understand that comparison.

No, I'd rather make you read them yourself.
-Plato's "The Laws" and Aristotle's "Metaphysics" (prime mover)
-Thomas Aquinas, "Summa Theologica" (first cause)
-Kalam cosmological argument
-"Ontologoical Argument" of St. Anselm and Descartes
-Immanuel Kant, "The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God" (trancendental argument)
-the Anthropic Principle

Then of course, you have Deism, which if the belief in God based solely on reason. Names like Hobbes, Locke, Voltaire, Hume, Madison, Paine, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington.

Knight, kind sir, if you're just going to tell me to go read books, then why doth thou bother me on this forum? I could go find books myself if I wanted to; I don't. Enlighten me, or don't waste my time. Nay, don't waste the time...of the world! O:

That whole your sense area was not directed at you hopeless XD

No offense, but many of those authors are outdated. The founding fathers were just barely competent by today's standards.

Please choose someone recent. Someone that we couldn't disprove in 10 minutes with present day examples.

Sometimes to get an answer, we have to look to the past. But that's all of my philisophical side can handle. :heh: I'm just a bit tired, so...

only because there is no way the the Big Bang theory is trueI'd like to know your rationale behind this statement.

That whole your sense area was not directed at you hopeless
Ah, that makes me much less confused. ;)

No offense, but many of those authors are outdated. The founding fathers were just barely competent by today's standards.

Please choose someone recent. Someone that we couldn't disprove in 10 minutes with present day examples.

Can I take that to mean you're a historicist?

I myself don't believe in the big bang theory, mostly because I believe God created it all. Though God very well may have created the earth with a big bang, but to me that is just scientist trying to find an answer to a question that one can only solve with God (in my opinion).

Knight, if I was to take a guess, I'd say that, since he is 18, he is probably working at some low paying job part time so that when he gets out of highschool (or if he is already in college) he will have some pocket money. Correct me if I'm wrong?

I don't believe in the Big Bang theory because it is a theory. There is no conclusive evidence to prove that the theory is valid.

This is precisely the same reason why I don't believe in your God, Asuka.

In the end, God is even less than a theory. A theory still has logic backing it up,
God doesn't. God just has blind followers.

I don't believe in the Big Bang theory because it is a theory. There is no conclusive evidence to prove that the theory is valid.

This is precisely the same reason why I don't believe in your God, Asuka.

As I said before, there is absolutely no "valid" theory in science, because science is based on "falsification" not on "validation". We know that we don't know everything. So we can't say something is "true"... but we can use our brain and tell whether a theory makes sense to us or not. And yes, I prefer using that brain of mine to take a look at those theories, rather than sitting idly in my room and believe all those theories are wrong.

As I said before, there is absolutely no "valid" theory in science, because science is based on "falsification" not on "validation".I do not understand this sentence. What are you trying to say?


We know that we don't know everything.How do you know this?

EDIT: Do you mean to say that we know that we don't know everything now, or do you mean to say we that can never know anything?


So we can't say something is "true"... but we can use our brain and tell whether a theory makes sense to us or not.What do you intend to convey by placing quotation marks around true?

Also, a theory that makes sense is still a theory, and not a fact.


And yes, I prefer using that brain of mine to take a look at those theories, rather than sitting idly in my room and believe all those theories are wrong.Theories are proven or disproved, not inherently right or wrong. If you cannot prove your theory with evidence, it remains a theory. If you can prove your theory with evidence, it becomes a fact.

Relevant to the topic:

"STRANGE RELIGION
STRANGE RELIGION
HOW CAN ONE THINK THIS IS SUCH A DECISION? TO FOLLOW
A PATH THAT’S SHED SO MUCH BLOOD…

WHO IS THIS LEADER?
AND WHERE IS HIS CLUB?
STRANGE RELIGION, STRANGE RELIGION:
WHY ARE SOME LEFT IN SUCH INDECISION?

TO CHOOSE WHAT IS RIGHT.
TO LOVE
AND NOT FIGHT
NOR KILL IN HIS NAME,
THEIR ENEMY TO BLAME.
(THEY MADE US KILL! DESPITE OUR GOOD WILL.
NOW THE ENEMY IS DEAD BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY SAID.)

IF ONLY THEY WERE LED
IN THE PUREST WAY
THEN THEY TOO WOULD SAY:
STRANGE RELIGION,
STRANGE RELIGION."

As I said before, there is absolutely no "valid" theory in science, because science is based on "falsification" not on "validation".

I do not understand this sentence. What are you trying to say?
I'm saying that we can never proof that a theory is right, we can only proof that they're wrong. Because our knowledge is limited.

EDIT: Do you mean to say that we know that we don't know everything now, or do you mean to say we that can never know anything?
I mean that we don't know everything now (I don't like pointing out the obvious though) and that there is a limit to what we can understand. I'm not saying we know nothing, we just don't know everything in it's entirety.

What do you intend to convey by placing quotation marks around true?
If you read my post carefully it should be obvious.

Also, a theory that makes sense is still a theory, and not a fact.
Exactly.

Theories are proven or disproved, not inherently right or wrong. If you cannot prove your theory with evidence, it remains a theory. If you can prove your theory with evidence, it becomes a fact.
No, as I stated before, a theory can't be "proven" as in the very meaning of the word. We can come to the conclusion that it is not in conflict with what we see, but that doesn't mean the theory is "right". The "evidence" you're talking about is just a match of the theory and what we see, but could be wrong if we took a closer look.

We can come to the conclusion that it is not in conflict with what we see, but that doesn't mean the theory is "right".
Give me an example of a fact (i.e. proven theory) that is in conflict with what we can observe.


The "evidence" you're talking about is just a match of the theory and what we see, but could be wrong if we took a closer look.Our later observations is the evidence by which we reject the theory. It is evidence against the theory.


No, as I stated before, a theory can't be "proven" as in the very meaning of the word.A proven theory is a fact. Or did you meant to say something else?


I mean that we don't know everything now (I don't like pointing out the obvious though) and that there is a limit to what we can understand. I'm not saying we know nothing, we just don't know everything in it's entirety.What you like is none of my concern. Clearly defining the premises of the argument is essential to prevent the waters from being muddied.

We only need to know everything that is relevant to the subject to know if it is true. We do not have to know everything to know if something is true.

Example: Geometry proof questions. In these questions, you do not need to know anything about arts and humanity to prove the hypothesis posed by the question. You don't even need to know everything about maths. You just need to know the relevant maths.


I'm saying that we can never proof that a theory is right, we can only proof that they're wrong. Because our knowledge is limited.See above.

Dark Bring...

Give me an example of a fact (i.e. proven theory) that is in conflict with what we can observe.
He can't. What he's saying is that "facts" are sometimes proven wrong when our knowledge base expands. The Earth being center of the universe was considered "fact" once, not theory. Now it's considered idiocy. See what he's saying? I thought it was fairly obvious what his point was, but apparently not...

Our later observations is the evidence by which we reject the theory. It is evidence against the theory.
Again, he's saying that even if we do get enough evidence to "prove" something, there's always the small chance that we're wrong, and may end up disagreeing with the "facts" we have in place now. A trillion years from now, when technology and knowledge has expanded so much that the human race consists of gods, we may decide that two plus two does not in fact, equal four. It sounds crazy, but you have no way to disprove what I'm saying, because you do not in fact understand the entire universe. That is Matt's point. Until we know EVERYTHING, we know nothing. At least not with 100% certainty.

The point of Matt's argument is this:
it doesn't matter whether something is called a "theory" or a "fact," because nothing is really certain anyway. All we have to go by is reasoning. Theories may be less convincing than facts, but they're of the same breed - they're both fallible. He's saying that just because something isn't totally proven doesn't mean we can't believe it if it's the best "theory" or "fact" we have to go on.

Maybe we should change the word "theory" to "weak fact," and the word "fact" to "strong fact." ;)

Disclaimer:
I'm not Matt, so don't go mistaking my words for his later on; I can't be sure I got his argument perfectly right. X3

Dark Bring... you didn't understand a word I said, did you?
HopelessComposer... you understand me..! :cry: Yep you got exactly what I mean. I though it was pretty clear :P

Give me an example of a fact (i.e. proven theory) that is in conflict with what we can observe.
why the hell should I? read my posts carefully dammit. But if you want to have an example for a proven theory (it once was), that is in conflict with what we observe now... ISAAC NEWTON'S LAWS OF MOVEMENT AKA KINEMATICS...
see what I mean, huh? I guess not. We considered this PROVEN theory to be right, right? Until a so called guy named Einstein appeared and told us that space and time isn't absolute. It was quite obvious the whole time, wasn't it? That all of our readings of mass and calculations of velocities were WRONG by 0.000[..]01 See what I mean? That so called fact, wasn't a fact, it was simply wrong. We only know this because our understanding of the universe expanded and it will continue to expand and we'll continue to falsificate theories based on our LIMITED knowledge until our knowledge isn't limited anymore, which prolly will never happen.

Can you confidently say that a theory you know of is 100% "true"? Can you claim to know everything about the entire universe to proof that nothing differs from that theory? How amazingly arrogant that would be.

A proven theory is a fact. Or did you meant to say something else?
Yes :)

EDIT: Now, this was unlike me sorry. I got kind of carried away. Read HopelessComposer's post if you don't understand what I mean...

In the end, God is even less than a theory. A theory still has logic backing it up,
God doesn't. God just has blind followers.

Actually, that is not true. While the actual being of god cannot be expressed or proven as human in nature or being, the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics highly support a common connective or higher layer that could be expressed as a god, or what we humans consider a god. Even further, there's holistic theories made by scientists that also support the concept of a higher being. The most notable scientist being: David Bohm, Rupert Sheldrake, and Andrew Newberg.

So from these theories, we derive more theories. The more that theories support one general concept, the likelyhood of a theory being born is high. Thus to say that there is no theory on the concept of god is invalid.

Now to say the bible is true, that's another story and another argument.

So...basically...no-one read my earlier post? :cry:
Am I undervalued for not having many other posts before? Is lurking wrong?
I found my post far more sensitive than those of the flame war that followed shortly thereafter...

Ontopic:
The problem with creation is the question of how something can come from nothing, and how God came to be if he/she/it/they exist(s).

And in relation to what was discussed earlier I wonder why a perfect being cannot enjoy creating man and be pleased when they follow his image and weep when they don't. Just because God - assuming the perfect being theory - doesn't have to do this, does not mean that God cannot do it, right?

Furthermore I say that scientific conclusions can in some part be proven. Gravity, for instance, is something not many people doubt. And you can say that you doubt gravity, but you would still fall down like any other person, no matter how much you'd claim that the research there is false.

So...basically...no-one read my earlier post? :cry:
Am I undervalued for not having many other posts before? Is lurking wrong?
I found my post far more sensitive than those of the flame war that followed shortly thereafter...

There's a tendancy not to heed to distractions when amid a heated discussion.


Ontopic:
The problem with creation is the question of how something can come from nothing, and how God came to be if he/she/it/they exist(s).

One can say the same for the big bang theory.


And in relation to what was discussed earlier I wonder why a perfect being cannot enjoy creating man and be pleased when they follow his image and weep when they don't. Just because God - assuming the perfect being theory - doesn't have to do this, does not mean that God cannot do it, right?

I'm afraid I do not understand what you mean to see.

So...basically...no-one read my earlier post?
Am I undervalued for not having many other posts before? Is lurking wrong?
I found my post far more sensitive than those of the flame war that followed shortly thereafter...

Well, I personally didn't read your post for three reasons:
1.)You have a Kingdom Hearts ava. Kingdom Hearts is a good game, but 99.99% of strong KH fans are total nubs at life.
2.)Your post was inconcise and kind of rambly. I got bored about 5 seconds in.
3.)What you were saying didn't seem to have much to do with what I was talking about at the time, so I didn't really care about reading/answering you. It's kind of like when you're talking to a friend and some random third person walks over and tries to get in on the conversation...usually the third person gets ignored, just because they're not on the same page as the other two.

So no, we don't hate you. What you were saying just wasn't especially relevant to what we were talking about. To me anyway. X3
Also, you can't see post counts on this forum. I doubt anyone's discriminating against you for not posting much. ;)

Just because God - assuming the perfect being theory - doesn't have to do this, does not mean that God cannot do it, right?
lol, kind of wrong. If someone is perfect, they have perfect understanding of why everything is the way it is; this would also mean that God knew how the universe was going to end up when he created it. Which means he should be rather impassive/content with his creation - what's there to be sad about if things are going perfectly according to plan? What's there to be happy about if there was never any danger of anything going wrong?

I'm just wondering here for the people who don't belive in religion: If it is indeed false, then why have they found manualscrpts from that time, why have they written in history books that those people existed and why (if the people existed) would they waste their time to make up some thing as big as a book that has over 1000 pages? were they on crack when they wrote whatever book of the Bible? I'm pretty sure not.

I'm just wondering here for the people who don't believe in religion: If it is indeed false, then why have they found manuscripts from that time, why have they written in history books that those people existed and why (if the people existed) would they waste their time to make up some thing as big as a book that has over 1000 pages? were they on crack when they wrote whatever book of the Bible? I'm pretty sure not.See Scientology.

I'm just wondering here for the people who don't belive in religion: If it is indeed false, then why have they found manualscrpts from that time, why have they written in history books that those people existed and why (if the people existed) would they waste their time to make up some thing as big as a book that has over 1000 pages? were they on crack when they wrote whatever book of the Bible? I'm pretty sure not.

No, they were on crack.

I generally don't put much faith into people that believe in witches and think the earth is flat, without much proof to back up either one.

I'm just wondering here for the people who don't belive in religion: If it is indeed false, then why have they found manualscrpts from that time, why have they written in history books that those people existed and why (if the people existed) would they waste their time to make up some thing as big as a book that has over 1000 pages? were they on crack when they wrote whatever book of the Bible? I'm pretty sure not.
weeeell, founding a religion has many good sides. Might as well make my own one. :3
you gain power.. you can tell other people what to believe and justify your own actions. Afterall you're just acting on command of a "higher being".
It makes things easier for leaders, doesn't it? Some bad people might stop killing and stealing and whatnot, if you threaten to send them to hell if they don't.


Furthermore I say that scientific conclusions can in some part be proven. Gravity, for instance, is something not many people doubt. And you can say that you doubt gravity, but you would still fall down like any other person, no matter how much you'd claim that the research there is false.
I don't feel like heating up the discussion again... yes, we know that gravity exists... but that doesn't say anything about the concept of gravity. The mere fact that there's gravity is no theory and hence, not a proven one.

I'm just wondering here for the people who don't belive in religion: If it is indeed false, then why have they found manualscrpts from that time, why have they written in history books that those people existed and why (if the people existed) would they waste their time to make up some thing as big as a book that has over 1000 pages? were they on crack when they wrote whatever book of the Bible? I'm pretty sure not.
Ugh, I am enraged by the...of this question.
There are like 5 million religions out there. If the bible's true, then the other religions are all false. Therefore, your question pisses me off for making absolutely no sense and obviously having no thought whatsoever behind it.
#@&*($^@#&$^

I'm in a bad mood. Sorry. X3
And yes, the people who wrote the bible were probably on f!cking crack. The New Testament contradicts itself about a thousand freaking times, and the Old Testament is about a god who arbitrarily slaughters entire cities. The Old and New Testaments are also totally contradictory to one another, unless I missed the part where they mention that God is a total schizophreniac.

also:

I'm just wondering here for the people who don't belive in religion: If it is indeed false, then why have they found manualscrpts from that time, why have they written in history books that those people existed

Here's a better question. Why haven't they written in history books that all these miracles happened? If they are indeed true I mean.

Wow, that question angered me so much for some reason. :heh:


I don't feel like heating up the discussion again
Aye, no use throwing that one in the microwave, since the person who it was directed to walked away from it *cough*refraining from saying something bitingly witty*cough cough* and let it grow cold. Might as well throw it into the forum garbage disposal of oblivion now. X3

I'm in a bad mood. Sorry. X3
And yes, the people who wrote the bible were probably on f!cking crack. The New Testament contradicts itself about a thousand freaking times, and the Old Testament is about a god who arbitrarily slaughters entire cities. The Old and New Testaments are also totally contradictory to one another, unless I missed the part where they mention that God is a total schizophreniac.
kya, so true :lol:

I'm in a bad mood. Sorry. X3
Dun worry :o

Aye, no use throwing that one in the microwave, since the person who it was directed to walked away from it *cough*refraining from saying something bitingly witty*cough cough* and let it grow cold. Might as well throw it into the forum garbage disposal of oblivion now. X3
Nah! I said some nifty things :3 would be too much of a waste (lol sorry couldn't resist) throwing it into the forum garbage disposal of oblivion

Aye, no use throwing that one in the microwave, since the person who it was directed to walked away from it *cough*refraining from saying something bitingly witty*cough cough* and let it grow cold. Might as well throw it into the forum garbage disposal of oblivion now. X3I certainly hope that you did not intend to refer to me! As much as I love arguing, it is my filial duty to attend to my parents, who travelled half the world (11 hours flight-time) to see me for three days. Now, to business!


Dark Bring... you didn't understand a word I said, did you?Not until I read HomelessComposer's post.


Why the hell should I?It'll help me understand your point.


Read my posts carefully dammit.I did, and two times at least.


Can you confidently say that a theory you know of is 100% "true"?Easily. All the proven maths theorems.


Can you claim to know everything about the entire universe to proof that nothing differs from that theory?I don't have to. See the next post.


How amazingly arrogant that would be.Arrogance doesn't prove or disprove theories. The delivery of the argument should not distract you from the argument itself.

But if you want to have an example for a proven theory (it once was), that is in conflict with what we observe now... ISAAC NEWTON'S LAWS OF MOVEMENT AKA KINEMATICS...
see what I mean, huh? I guess not. We considered this PROVEN theory to be right, right? Until a so called guy named Einstein appeared and told us that space and time isn't absolute. It was quite obvious the whole time, wasn't it? That all of our readings of mass and calculations of velocities were WRONG by 0.000[..]01 See what I mean? That so called fact, wasn't a fact, it was simply wrong. We only know this because our understanding of the universe expanded and it will continue to expand and we'll continue to falsificate theories based on our LIMITED knowledge until our knowledge isn't limited anymore, which prolly will never happen.You chose an excellent example to demonstrate that you have a cursory understanding of the subject of our debate.

What is a "proven" theory?
The term "proof" belongs in axiomatic logical systems. I "prove"/"disprove" a mathematical theorem by showing that it is consistent with the axioms of the mathematical system. It is only the logical consistency of the theorem with those axioms that is important. But I am free to setup whatever axioms I choose. As an example, there are several self-consistent geometries related to traditional Euclidean geometry. Euclidean geometry ASSUMES parallel lines never cross, another "geometry" on the surface of a sphere ASSUMES (correctly) that parallel lines (at the equator) cross (at the North Pole) and (at the South Pole). One isn't "right" and the other "wrong" - they are just different.

Earlier on, I stated that "Clearly defining the premises of the argument is essential to prevent the waters from being muddied". The premises of an argument are the equivalent of the axioms of a theorem. Unsurprisingly, the same applies to scientific theories.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena.

This "specific set of phenomena" is the context of the theory.

Just like how Euclid's axioms do not apply to other self-consistent geometries, Newton's Laws of Motions had a very different context from Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.

The "specific set of phenomena" that Newton's Laws of Motions seeks to describe, is the behaviour of objects in motion at small velocities (a small fraction of the speed of light). The context of Newton's Laws of Motions, is “massive objects” and “at small velocities”. The "specific set of phenomena" that Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity seeks to describe, is the behaviour of particles in motion at relativistic velocities (a significant fraction of the speed of light). The context of Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity, is “particles” and at “relativistic velocities”.

You claim that “all of our readings of mass and calculations of velocities were WRONG by 0.000[..]01”, but your claim is both baseless and misleading. Newton’s Laws of Motions gives 100% accurate readings for objects moving at small velocities, and the inaccuracies were due to scientists applying Newton’s Laws of Motions out of context on particles and at relativistic velocities.

Newton wasn’t wrong. People who applied his theories out of context were wrong, because they assumed that the context was the same, when it wasn’t . Einstein didn’t make that assumption. Einstein saw that Newton’s theories were being applied to a different set of phenomena, one that Newton’s theories were not intended to describe, and came up with the Theory of Special Relativity to describe the new set of phenomena.

If we do not consider the axioms of a mathematical theorem, the theorem becomes a nonsensical jumble of numbers and symbols.
If we do not consider the premises of an argument, the argument becomes a meaningless debate.
If we do not consider the context of a scientific theory, the theory becomes a distorted representation of reality at best, and illogical nonsense at worse.

We do not learn all there is to learn, just to learn some of it.
We do not have to know all there is to know, just to know some of it.
We do not define all there is to define, just to define some of it.

As illogical as it is to assert that we have to learn everything to learn something, as senseless it is to suggest that we have to know everything to know something, is to claim that we have to define everything to define something.

And, as Newton and Einstein have shown us, we make progress, we learn, one thing at a time.

maybe I'll answer this post in full length tomorrow.
1) you like hearing yourself talk nice-built sentences, don't you? I'd appreciate a little reason/knowledge backing up your rhetorical skill though.
2)
I "prove"/"disprove" a mathematical theorem by showing that it is consistent with the axioms of the mathematical system. It is only the logical consistency of the theorem with those axioms that is important. But I am free to setup whatever axioms I choose. As an example, there are several self-consistent geometries related to traditional Euclidean geometry.
Please... don't come with that "Hey, but it's possible to proof mathematical formula!!!"-argument, as it has nothing to do with our discussion about the trueness of physical theories.
3)
You claim that “all of our readings of mass and calculations of velocities were WRONG by 0.000[..]01”, but your claim is both baseless and misleading. Newton’s Laws of Motions gives 100% accurate readings for objects moving at small velocities, and the inaccuracies were due to scientists applying Newton’s Laws of Motions out of context on particles and at relativistic velocities.
So you want to disprove my "baseless and misleading"-statement by using rhetorical pettiness. What's up with all this talk about contexts, you don't have a clue about the theory of relativity at all. Even though you normaly don't use the theory of relativity for small and slow objects, because the results are only marginally different from Newton's laws of motions, but the theory still applies for ALL masses disregard their speed. Breaking down nature in thousands of "contexts" is ridiculous... Maybe that works for maths, but not for physic, not at all.

Newton’s Laws of Motions gives 100% accurate readings
This statement is simply wrong. Rather than criticising my "cursory understanding of the subject", you should at least read up the essential of what we're talking about. :)

PS: We're off topic. If you want to discuss this matter further (I don't), post your further arguments in the science thread. :topic:

Kay, @ JF7X: There are multiple thousand page books for each religion, which are as old, or older than the old testament, what makes the old testament so much more true than the others?

Maybe I'll answer this post in full length tomorrow.Sure.


You like hearing yourself talk nice-built sentences, don't you? I'd appreciate a little reason/knowledge backing up your rhetorical skill though.I do like hearing my own voice, and I think that reading my own words is a poor substitute.

I like how you immediately dismiss my post as rhetoric, but I suspect you will address the difference between reason/knowledge and rhetoric tomorrow.


Please... don't come with that "Hey, but it's possible to proof mathematical formula!!!"-argument, as it has nothing to do with our discussion about the trueness of physical theories.Care to elaborate why is has got nothing to do with physical theories?


So you want to disprove my "baseless and misleading"-statement by using rhetorical pettiness. What's up with all this talk about contexts, you don't have a clue about the theory of relativity at all. Even though you normally don't use the theory of relativity for small and slow objects, because the results are only marginally different from Newton's laws of motions, but the theory still applies for ALL masses disregard their speed. Breaking down nature in thousands of "contexts" is ridiculous... Maybe that works for maths, but not for physic, not at all.What is the point of applying a theory to a set of phenomena it was never meant to describe?

Why do you say that I don't have a clue about the theory of special relativity at all? You do know that the theory of special relativity is a theory as I have explained in my long post, right?

Science breaks down nature into thousands, if not millions of contexts. To say that it is a monumental undertaking to describe Nature as a whole is a slight understatement. Not even Einstein bothered to attempt this task.


This statement is simply wrong. Rather than criticising my "cursory understanding of the subject", you should at least read up the essential of what we're talking about. :)Feel free to provide sources backing up your initial claim that "all of our readings of mass and calculations of velocities were WRONG by 0.000[..]01".

I certainly hope that you did not intend to refer to me! As much as I love arguing, it is my filial duty to attend to my parents, who travelled half the world (11 hours flight-time) to see me for three days. Now, to business!
Aye sir, sorry to have ever doubted your eagerness for debate. I am truly shamed! X3
Now then...ON TO SHAMING YOU! (;))

I do like hearing my own voice, and I think that reading my own words is a poor substitute.
Aye, then do us all a favor, and trim your encyclopedia-sized posts of all the pretty, but superfluous extra text. We all know it's fun to be dramatic and deliberate when posting, but it's also unnecessary. Wading through extra text with no other real purpose than to make one look clever makes the debate slow and cumbersome. Let's keep it light and quick! Instant death debating! No extra words! Not a single wasted keystroke! ;D

I like how you immediately dismiss my post as rhetoric, but I suspect you will address the difference between reason/knowledge and rhetoric tomorrow.
Why wait?! I can address this point right now! And I will! Matt's saying what I just echoed; you don't need to type so much! Though half of your last big post contained logical arguments, the other half was just repetition of what you'd already said earlier in said post. The members of Ichigos are not stupid; they'll get what you're saying the first time. Anyway, stupid people are irrelevant to this argument. Don't worry about catering to their needs! ;)

Care to elaborate why is has got nothing to do with physical theories?
I'm sure Matt does, but honestly, I don't, as I'm too lazy.
I will comment anyway though. You keep on saying that these mathematical "facts" are facts because they work "in their own context." This has god damned nothing to do with the argument at all, because the "context" we were discussing was the universe. Hence why to "understand" anything "fully" we'd need to understand everything. Because like you said, those facts are facts because they were proven in their context right? We can't prove anything in the context of the universe until we understand said universe. I don't see why you didn't catch that. > <

Science breaks down nature into thousands, if not millions of contexts. To say that it is a monumental undertaking to describe Nature as a whole is a slight understatement. Not even Einstein bothered to attempt this task.
Yes, indeed it does. That's why science is imperfect and doesn't really prove anything. Of course understanding nature as a whole is a monumental task; since when has coming to understand the universe something you'd do over the weekend for a bit of fun?


Anyway, sorry for such a short, sloppy reply. I'm kind of busy at the moment, so I probably won't be saying much of any real weight in here for a bit either...

also:

See Scientology.
I lol'd. X3

Care to elaborate why is has got nothing to do with physical theories?
Sure, I'll quote Feynman's Lectures on Physics:
"From our viewpoint (a physicist's viewpoint) mathematics is not a science, as it is not a natural science. The criterion of it's validity is not the experiment."

You see? Maths is not based on empiricism like physics. We can proof mathematical equations just by solving them. We can't do anything like that in physics, because physics IS the thing that tells us HOW to use maths. The maths we use may be right, but the way we use it can be wrong. Easy enough to understand? Ok next.

What is the point of applying a theory to a set of phenomena it was never meant to describe?
That's exactly what I'm saying. There is no point in applying a theory to a set of phenomena it was never meant to describe, because the difference of the result is marginal. It's rather stupid to use the theory of relativity to solve normal kinematics. Doesn't change the fact that relativity applies to all kinds of movement though.

Why do you say that I don't have a clue about the theory of special relativity at all?
Because obviously you don't. If you did you wouldn't state false informations here.

You do know that the theory of special relativity is a theory as I have explained in my long post, right?
I'm confident that I know quite alot about the theory of relativity.
And no, I don't know the theory of special relativity as you've explained in your long post.
The context of Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity, is “particles” and at “relativistic velocities”.
The "context" of the special relativity is much deeper and more universal. Also including the mass-energy equivalence as one of the greatest achievements in modern science.

Science breaks down nature into thousands, if not millions of contexts. To say that it is a monumental undertaking to describe Nature as a whole is a slight understatement. Not even Einstein bothered to attempt this task.
See HopelessComposer's post.

Feel free to provide sources backing up your initial claim that "all of our readings of mass and calculations of velocities were WRONG by 0.000[..]01".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity
"In particular, the relativistic mass increases with observed speed while the invariant mass is an invariant property of an object: it does not change with a change of reference system."
E = mc² applies to all velocities/kinematic energies. This means an object becomes "heavier" when it's being accelerated. Thus, if we use newtonian mechanics, we only use the invariant mass, not the relativistic mass. Thus my statement that all newtonian calculations are wrong, though they're good enough for our purposes at small velocities.

Feel free to browse wiki on your road to englightenment.

I'm just wondering here for the people who don't belive in religion: If it is indeed false, then why have they found manualscrpts from that time, why have they written in history books that those people existed and why (if the people existed) would they waste their time to make up some thing as big as a book that has over 1000 pages? were they on crack when they wrote whatever book of the Bible? I'm pretty sure not.

I see. Troy is a historic place that has existed, so that must mean the Iliad is true!!!

The bible, by the way, is not written by a single person, but by many different people. It is a collection of letters and such from over the centuries.

The bible, by the way, is not written by a single person, but by many different people. It is a collection of letters and such from over the centuries.

Agreed in that, and besides, there have been alterations made to it and books left out. Let's also include that we ourselves are flawed, and therefor we have surely changed it as the passage of time has flowed. What was the original is no more in this day and age, if there ever was a true original of the Bible in existance at any known time. What we have now is a cut up, shoddily remade version of the Bible, meant to entertain and frighten children.

I found this lovely parody, haha I laughed so hard :heh:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0OWqoBemyE&NR=1

Well, I personally didn't read your post for three reasons:
1.)You have a Kingdom Hearts ava. Kingdom Hearts is a good game, but 99.99% of strong KH fans are total nubs at life.
2.)Your post was inconcise and kind of rambly. I got bored about 5 seconds in.
3.)What you were saying didn't seem to have much to do with what I was talking about at the time, so I didn't really care about reading/answering you. It's kind of like when you're talking to a friend and some random third person walks over and tries to get in on the conversation...usually the third person gets ignored, just because they're not on the same page as the other two.

So no, we don't hate you. What you were saying just wasn't especially relevant to what we were talking about. To me anyway. X3
Also, you can't see post counts on this forum. I doubt anyone's discriminating against you for not posting much. ;)

lol, kind of wrong. If someone is perfect, they have perfect understanding of why everything is the way it is; this would also mean that God knew how the universe was going to end up when he created it. Which means he should be rather impassive/content with his creation - what's there to be sad about if things are going perfectly according to plan? What's there to be happy about if there was never any danger of anything going wrong?

Basically, that stuff about the avatar means that you judge people based on appearance of avatars? I should hope this is not the case.

And did you assume in my picking an avatar that I found appealing from a list of ones I did not know that I am a fan of Kingdom Hearts with no experience in real life?

I know not whether I should be offended or laugh at this assumption, but I presume that must be my lack of experience in this forum.

If you did not care about reading the post, then how could you know it was a digression? There seems to be a flaw in the reasoning there. Furthermore, how can you know about the structure if you did not read it?

Now, as for the actual argument, is perfect equal to omnicient? Does a perfect being have to be omnicient or can he or she or it simply create something not perfect for the sake of earlier mentioned enjoyment?

I still do not see why someone who is perfect has to create only that which is perfect. Is it not a choice he/she/it has to make something unperfect and unpredictable?

For that matter, is perfect predictable? Is perfect without emotion, or can a perfect being have emotions, even if these will likely always be the perfect ones for the ocasion...or not affect judgement of said perfect being.

Again, I mean no offense to you as a person or anyone else for that matter, nor will I be overly shocked if my posts ARE ignored, but I was rather curious about the mentioned issues, and the opinions of those that dwell in the realm of music.

Basically, that stuff about the avatar means that you judge people based on appearance of avatars? I should hope this is not the case.
Of course I judge people I don't know on appearances. What else is there to judge on? Like I said, 99.99% of the people I've met with KH avatars are not worth talking to. Those odds aren't in your favor. ;)


And did you assume in my picking an avatar that I found appealing from a list of ones I did not know that I am a fan of Kingdom Hearts with no experience in real life?
::shrug::
Maybe.

I know not whether I should be offended or laugh at this assumption, but I presume that must be my lack of experience in this forum.
Neither. You should learn that appearances matter, and accept that. Even if your "appearances" are only in avatar form. XD

If you did not care about reading the post, then how could you know it was a digression? There seems to be a flaw in the reasoning there. Furthermore, how can you know about the structure if you did not read it?
There's reading, and then there's skimming. Skimming your post took me about a second at the most, and I got all the information I needed out of my quick skim to see that your post didn't concern me. Reading your post would've taken me a little bit longer, but since I'd already skimmed your post, I knew reading it would only be a waste of my time anyway, since your post was going off on a tangent from the main argument. So no, no flaws in reasoning there. ;P

Now, as for the actual argument, is perfect equal to omnicient? Does a perfect being have to be omnicient or can he or she or it simply create something not perfect for the sake of earlier mentioned enjoyment?
No, not necessarily. Perfection is in the eye of the beholder; anything can be considered perfect if you're optimistic enough. That piece of shit broken table? It's not really a piece of shit example of a table - it's a perfect example of a broken table! That psychopath who murdered 10 people? He's not a horrible example of a human being - he's a perfect example of a psychopath! Etc etc.


I still do not see why someone who is perfect has to create only that which is perfect. Is it not a choice he/she/it has to make something unperfect and unpredictable?

For that matter, is perfect predictable? Is perfect without emotion, or can a perfect being have emotions, even if these will likely always be the perfect ones for the ocasion...or not affect judgement of said perfect being.
That'd depend on how you see "perfect." In the Christian view of a "perfect God," I'd have to say that yes:

a.God is predictable.
b.God makes only things which are perfect.
c.God is emotionless, save for love, which is what God is.
d.God never changes. Ever.

Of course, that's only one view of a "perfect being." If you asked a Satanist, you might get a different answer. (Or you might not, depending on what kind of Satanist you're talking to. ;) )

Soooo, question answered?

Has anyone here ever heard of the "problem of evil"? I'll quote what William Lane Craig has called the "atheism's killer argument."

"The argument is that the presence of evil in the world disproves the existence of any god that is simultaneously benevolent and omnipotent, because any benevolent god would want to eliminate evil, and any omnipotent god would be able to do so. Theists commonly respond by invoking free will to justify evil (cf. argument from free will). However, this leaves unresolved the related argument from nonbelief, also known as the argument from divine hiddenness, which states that if an omnipotent God existed and wanted to be believed in by all, it would prove its existence to all because it would invariably be able to do so. Since there are unbelievers, either there is no omnipotent God or God does not want to be believed in."

I'd love to hear what christians think about this :O

As someone who attended Catholic school for 12 years, I can take a guess:

My guess is that they'd say something along the lines of:
God cannot make people believe in him, as that would undermine their free will. If God say, performed an open miracle (which he's apparently done many times in the past, so I don't see how this works..) then he'd basically be "forcing" people to believe in him. So he chooses to just...float around in heaven. Or something. My religion teachers could never give me a very good argument. :rolleyes:

Cept for my religion teacher last year, who was awesome. I forgot what his reasoning was, but it was actually pretty solid. X3

aww, I'd like to hear that argumentation :\

Kay, my arguement is, God IS going to come to earth and destroy all evil, which in the end, he WILL be believed by all because there will be no one else to not believe in him :D He just hasn't done it yet. Haven't you read revelations? God is just giving the world time to believe in him because he wants us to want to love him, not be scared into it.

Now, this is my CHRISTIAN reply. Do not bash me for using the bible as a source, since he clearly stated that he wanted a christian's reply on it.

God IS going to come to earth and destroy all evil, which in the end, he WILL be believed by all because there will be no one else to not believe in him :D
so everyone who doesn't believe in god is evil? ;P Hehe, guess I am. :torch:

Kay, my arguement is, God IS going to come to earth and destroy all evil, which in the end, he WILL be believed by all because there will be no one else to not believe in him :D He just hasn't done it yet. Haven't you read revelations? God is just giving the world time to believe in him because he wants us to want to love him, not be scared into it.

Now, this is my CHRISTIAN reply. Do not bash me for using the bible as a source, since he clearly stated that he wanted a christian's reply on it.

Well, I'm just one of those doubting non believers, I imagine, but how do we know what is actually true and not in the Bible? I mean, it's all well and good that you say he exists, but how do we know that Revelations wasn't another man-made creation? It's just a question that everyone could go through *like me*.

So do we know when God is coming to smite us all ?

I believe the real question is,
"So do we know when America is coming to smite us all ?"

XD Meth you crack me up

I believe the real question is,
"So do we know when America is coming to smite us all ?"

As soon as we finish building this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rods_from_god >:3

"Rods From God"
God being...well, you know. Kekekekekeke XD

Wow that sounds like it could be a nasty way to sneak through all the mass destruction stuff and you really wouldn't see it coming

@ Matt: Lol, I didn't mean it like that. I really don't mean to judge any one here, so (to everyone) please take it the wrong way :)

@ Lostrain: Hehe, that whole paragraph you wrote is pretty much the difference between believers and non-believers. "Well how do we know this is real"

"The idea is not to know everything is true, but to believe that it is."

Though, just curious. To Athiests, do you believe that there is no afterlife? If so, then do you believe that everything you do in life, ultimately amounts to nothing? (Of course you could do something great and change the world, but...you'll be dead...and non-exhistant(sp?)

I think there has to be something after life... but i can't be sure because i havn't died yet and have no recolection of ever dying before so that rules out being reborn but my petty brain cannot contemplate non-existance a plain of nothingness a end to life and recognition and everything around me

Hm, I don't really believe in afterlife, I think it's best to accomplish as much as possible in your life and then die without regrets... if there was an afterlife it would be a nice extra though ;) and what's so bad about falling asleep and never waking up again? Not quite as good as heaven, but hey :O

Though, just curious. To Ath[ei]sts, do you believe that there is no afterlife? If so, then do you believe that everything you do in life, ultimately amounts to nothing? (Of course you could do something great and change the world, but...you'll be dead...and non-exhistant(sp?)

My opinion on the matter goes pretty much along the same lines as Matt's.

It is also worth noting that I am quite lazy and I find that thinking is tedious and takes an awful lot of effort. If I had to keep my mind active for the rest of eternity, that would be one hell of a pain in the arse.

[Edit: *nonexistent. :)]

(Of course you could do something great and change the world, but...you'll be dead...and non-existent)I don't need promises or threats of a continued existence in other planes to motivate me to do great things and change the world.

But I can see how some people need that type of motivation.

Thats not what I meant by that. God isn't asking anyone to do anything great and change the world. I was just eliminating the arguement of "Well if I do something worthwhile, my life wouldnt have been meaningless" But... your still dead, so you're whole life still did ammount to nothing in the end.

Thats not what I meant by that. God isn't asking anyone to do anything great and change the world. I was just eliminating the arguement of "Well if I do something worthwhile, my life wouldnt have been meaningless" But... your still dead, so you're whole life still did ammount to nothing in the end.
The reward we get for our life is the life itself, to see what we have accomplished and to see that there WAS a meaning in our life.
And anyway, what worthwhile things do you do in heaven were everything is perfect already? Not much to accomplish, isn't there? :unsure:

That's not what I meant by that. God isn't asking anyone to do anything great and change the world. I was just eliminating the argument of "Well if I do something worthwhile, my life wouldn't have been meaningless" But... your still dead, so you're whole life still did amount to nothing in the end.Your argument has two premises.
1) That I think that my life is meaningless because I didn't do something worthwhile.
2) That whatever I do amounts to nothing because I'll die anyway.

Premise No. 1
I hereby challenge you to do nothing worthwhile and live a meaningful life.

Premise No. 2
Do you believe this, Asuka? Do you believe that anything and everything you do with your life amounts to nothing because you'll die anyway?

Ah, Dark Bring is back in the religion thread. While you're here, would you mind answering Matt and my own arguments from a few pages back? :)


Do you believe this, Asuka? Do you believe that anything and everything you do with your life amounts to nothing because you'll die anyway?

Will you be taking any of your accomplishments to the next life Dark Bring? XD

Ah, Dark Bring is back in the religion thread. While you're here, would you mind answering Matt and my own arguments from a few pages back? :)Yes, I do mind.
PS: We're off topic. If you want to discuss this matter further (I don't), post your further arguments in the science thread. :topic:I shouldn't have missed this little nugget of joy.


Will you be taking any of your accomplishments to the next life Dark Bring? XDI don't believe in the next life, HopelessComposer. Do you?

I shouldn't have missed this little nugget of joy.
yep, shouldn't cause a massacre here in the sacred religion thread should we ~

Yes, I do mind.
Heheh, if I were you, I'd mind too. It's nice to see that your survival instincts, if not your manners, are alive and well. ;)

I shouldn't have missed this little nugget of joy.
Nope, you shouldn't have. :3

I don't believe in the next life, HopelessComposer. Do you?
Not especially, no. I try not to think about it. :)

Neither do I.
Do you guys believe in the greater sub-conscious?
The idea that even below our sub-conscious there are some thoughts embedded in our minds that we automatically associate with?
CG Jung used it to explain that religion might be simply people justifying life through these symbols that exist imprinted in our minds for some unexplained reason.
The Snake, even for those that are not religious, represents pain and is found in many dreams. In the most recurring dream, the snake bites the heel of the dreamer. Unlike most dreams, this one often results in physical pain. It corresponds not only with the genesis passage "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." but also with reference in some Egyptian texts and Asian texts.

Heheh, if I were you, I'd mind too. It's nice to see that your survival instincts, if not your manners, are alive and well. ;)I don't understand. What do you mean?


The Snake, even for those that are not religious, represents pain and is found in many dreams. <snip>Do people who has never seen a snake before have this dream?

No idea.

I like the idea that deep rooted memories connect us and explain religion.

Neither do I.
Do you guys believe in the greater sub-conscious?
The idea that even below our sub-conscious there are some thoughts embedded in our minds that we automatically associate with?
CG Jung used it to explain that religion might be simply people justifying life through these symbols that exist imprinted in our minds for some unexplained reason.
The Snake, even for those that are not religious, represents pain and is found in many dreams. In the most recurring dream, the snake bites the heel of the dreamer. Unlike most dreams, this one often results in physical pain. It corresponds not only with the genesis passage "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." but also with reference in some Egyptian texts and Asian texts.
Hm, reminds me of Plato's innatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innatism if you happen to be interested ;)). But I don't really believe in it either... Is the sub-subconcious you're talking about rather something like Plato's innatism or like a genetical memory? If it's the latter I'm sure we'll find out more about it sooner or later :)


I don't understand. What do you mean?
Obviously that your arguments were quite shallow (I don't want offend you with this comment, my argumentation is not always perfect either :)). But let's not talk about this here any longer -> pointless

Is the sub-subconcious you're talking about rather something like Plato's innatism or like a genetical memory? If it's the latter I'm sure we'll find out more about it sooner or later :)Looks like the truly interested will have to do their own research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_memory

I have a rather unique religious view.

I utilize the values of Buddhism and Daoism, but I don't believe in souls. Once you die, you're gone.

I don't understand. What do you mean?
Heh, nothing. I was only jokingly saying that you were refusing to argue because you know you'd lose the argument. I was seriously saying that your "I do mind" post came across as rude.

I was seriously saying that your "I do mind" post came across as rude.How would you refuse without coming across as being rude? Show me.

I'm just wondering here for the people who don't belive in religion: If it is indeed false, then why have they found manualscrpts from that time, why have they written in history books that those people existed and why (if the people existed) would they waste their time to make up some thing as big as a book that has over 1000 pages? were they on crack when they wrote whatever book of the Bible? I'm pretty sure not.

I just had to say something about this...

first of all I want you to take a look at a history book from ,say 1950.
now, does our current history book have the same content? no? I wonder why?

with your way of reasoning the Iliad must be absolute truth too right? because its old and thick.

Jesus has surely existed the real question is: Was he the son of a god or a really good speaker, and an influential person?

something I have to stress is this: Just because someone has a white coat you cannot trust everything he/she says, And just because something is writen in your schoolbooks doesnt mean its the absolute truth. We find out more and more about our history every day and things would be alot easier if the "old" folks always sticked to the truth, but they didnt.

And in a recent case of news pertaining to history changing in text books...
http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/402369

So... all those "books" mean nothing. That's like saying Rowling will one day be taken seriously and that droves of wizard lovers- oh... wait...

Seriously though Jf7x do you really believe all of those stories are real? Or did you just fail to read the other pages of the religion thread in which we talked about how false they are.

Aand... as far as crack... no, but possibly opium and alcohol. Snuff came quite a bit later. Mushrooms were the rage back then. Though that is different. Science was birthed from a hallucination that people accepted after evidence was shown. Religion was a hallucination and then shoved down people's throats.

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=truthmakesfree

Take a look at this!
What do you think?
He has a white coat so everything he says must be true right? =)

yeah... right :) Seems like he is a highly-qualified... chemist. I like how he... talks... and talks... and talks... =) He says some highly amusing stuff! I can only... recommend you.............. watch... all of them! And of course he only says "scientific correct" (yeh, he uses those words) things.

EDIT: sheesh! I'd really like to be a YouTube admin sometimes...

Many of my (female) friends say that they wanna pull off what Mary did.

"I didn't cheat on you! God impregnated me!"

I had a discussion about the origin of the universe with one of my classmates.

"God is outside of time and infinite. How can energy just appear without God?"
Imo this is a very biased view... My respond was somewhat around this line:
How can god appear without energy? IMO it's more likely that MATTER or ENERGY pops up out of nowhere rather than a complex omniscient, omnipotent being...
Isn't it just awfully easy to say "God is infinite" or "Reason can not describe God"?

It's just the easy thing Christians keep at hand when you doubt god. They'll just say that humans can't compregend it.

Scapegoating.!

Can humans comprehend much at all ? let alone the huge complexity of "god".

Can humans comprehend much at all? Let alone the huge complexity of "God".How complex is God?

my petty human mind can not comprehend the thought of god so i couldn't tell you >.<

My petty human mind can not comprehend the complexity of God so I couldn't tell you >.<Fixed.

If you cannot comprehend the thought of God you wouldn't be talking about Him, heh.

Is there anything else that is so complex, that you cannot comprehend how complex it is?

I can comprehend the word "god" but the ideal behind it is far from reach

I can comprehend the word "God" but the ideal behind it is far from reachWhat is the difference, between the meaning of the word, and the ideal behind it?

I'm just wondering here for the people who don't belive in religion: If it is indeed false, then why have they found manualscrpts from that time, why have they written in history books that those people existed and why (if the people existed) would they waste their time to make up some thing as big as a book that has over 1000 pages? were they on crack when they wrote whatever book of the Bible? I'm pretty sure not.

You can believe in God without believing in a religion. You can't talk about religion as a whole, because each one varies very much. Some have one god, some have many, the ideals are different, the people are different. I like to think that one can have faith in God without being chained to one certain religion.

By the way, the Christian bible had many supporting authors in it, so it wasn't one person who wrote the whole thing, many people helped build it with what they thought of God, along with lots of historical events and stuff. Each of these people had a different viewpoint, (and don't you dare tell me they didn't, they were still human,) and therefore, you can't say that it was amazing how they wrote 1000 pages. (Look at some Steven King's books, so you think everything HE says is true?)

My viewpoint on God is that he doesn't really exist. I believe that the creation or destruction of energy or matter IS God itself. The laws of conservation of matter/energy/charge state that none of those can be created or destroyed, they just change form. So; how did our entire universe get here? Maybe the big bang was really just an appearance of the force that we like to name God? Maybe everything was created by God, and he really is a thinking entity? Maybe there is a teacup flying around the sun that greatly impacts our planet? Who really knows?


(A little off of the argument between One_Winged and Dark Bring, but I had to get it out.)

This is so interesting, I have to put my 2cents in!
In my opinion, of course there is a God. How else would be able to get here? And I believe that He is still around because if people were completely in control, we would basically kill ourselves. Can you honestly think that people can go by without someone watching them? I just think it's pretty simple. God's here, we just refuse to listen to him.

What about all those people in jail they go on by themself >.< expesh if they are in solitary XD

And as for a word and a meaning to go with it....
What word would you say has the most meaning behind it ? and how did that word gain meaning... i thought man created this dialogue that we use.

Can humans comprehend much at all ? let alone the huge complexity of "god".

The complex bit about God is that there is no God, yet many people believe there is a God.

Basically Christians are just big children, and instead of Santa or the Easter Bunny they believe in God. In the end, it's all the same, and if you ignore that, you're stupid. Just think of it, when you were a kid, you'd believe against all logic that a fat dude would fly over the world in ONE night and deliver presents to all GOOD children. How did he know which were the good children? How did he fly over the world in just one night? Where did the presents come from? Did you ever doubt that as a kid? Maybe, but then you'd figure it was something you wouldn't be able to understand. Now instead of santa, there's god, and when you doubt him, you wonder the same thing as with santa. Basically, God is nothing more than Santa Clause for grownups. It's to keep people at bay and make them listen, or they'll go to hell (just like bad kids won't get pressies).

God is nothing more than a device made up by the Christian church to make people listen.

Thats exactly what i was going to say.... maybe not with the santa thing and all but other than that angelic kinda sums everything up, because without order and obidience the world would be too free a place.

(A little off of the argument between One_Winged and Dark Bring, but I had to get it out.)We're not arguing. Yet. http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a16/RedPharmacist/emot-devil.gif


In my opinion, of course there is a God. How else would be able to get here?Welcome to the Religion thread, Desaya! :)

In your opinion, where did God come from? http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a16/RedPharmacist/emot-devil.gif


And as for a word and a meaning to go with it....
What word would you say has the most meaning behind it? And how did that word gain meaning... I thought man created this dialogue that we use.I'm sorry, I did not understand your reply. What do you mean?

As a Christian, I find that very insulting... We don't get treated by God, we believe we are taken care of by Him.

And answering the language question, people are too stupid to 'invent' a language. Seriously, we have to teach our own children to speak. And a language doesn't just spontaneously come out of nowhere. Every language has a root. I believe that people were given their languages from God, it was kinda always there because it was put there. Like how an animal has instincts.

oh and the solitary confinment question: They aren't left alone COMPLETELY.
They are still taken care of.

And God was always there!

And answering the language question, people are too stupid to 'invent' a language.I... see. Is there anything else that humans are too stupid to invent, and was given to us by God?


And God was always there!Interesting. Is there anything else that was always there, too?

By believing in God, you disrespect my beliefs of God not being real! I'm so insulted!

The simple complexity of our language should be enough to stump the wisest of wisen. But thats more about language than religion i was simply trying to show how hard it can be to differentiate between a belief that claws back to the start of time and our ability to pull a name out of nowhere and worship it as a truth.... i thought our dialogue started with some grunts and mumbles surely back in that time people would have of had another name for god, if they believed in such things at all. Then you also have the jesus side of things which just makes thigs harder, i have met a fair number of people that worship jesus even though "god" come forth as a flaming bush proclaimed that he should be the one worshiped and appraised and that no idols should be erected because they are all faulse... i swear last time i was in a church i came across that jesus fello on a cross... who are we following into the next life ??? jesus or god...??? and did not "God" proclaim that all that worshiped godly figures other than himself would end up in hell ?

OneWinged4ngel, there are many speculations as to the origin of language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language

Okay let's drop the question about the difference between the meaning of the word and the ideal behind it. ;)

okie dokie its just a nother silly complexity anyway

and did not "God" proclaim that all that worshiped godly figures other than himself would end up in hell ?

Hitler and Stalin did the same thing \o God's the ultimate dictator.

XD
Well in the sense that he wants us to all serve him and his purpose I suppose so...

And I believe that He is still around because if people were completely in control, we would basically kill ourselves.

So basically, we, the people, by ourselves, bereft of God, are psychotic, suicidal barbarians.
That's about the jist of it, right?


Can you honestly think that people can go by without someone watching them?

Yes, I can. I do not believe we have need of an omnipotent being over our shoulder, to constantly guide us, because, evidently, we are too weak and stupid to think for ourselves.
What a thought that is. We're all pawns. :teeth:


I just think it's pretty simple. God's here, we just refuse to listen to him.

So shouldn't we be killing ourselves (each other)? :torch:

Can you honestly think that people can go by without someone watching them?

As children we were watched over, soon it will be our turn to watch over someone else. Do you believe that someone will still be watching you during that time?

I believe some people are so great they are gods.

Like Kristin Chenoweth. <3s her.

This is so interesting, I have to put my 2cents in!
In my opinion, of course there is a God. How else would be able to get here?
Through evolution by natural selection (same goes for the language btw). But you probably don't belief that. Maybe the earth is less than 10000 years old afterall?


And I believe that He is still around because if people were completely in control, we would basically kill ourselves. Can you honestly think that people can go by without someone watching them? I just think it's pretty simple. God's here, we just refuse to listen to him.
I, at least, don't need a big surveillance camera in the sky to act morally correct. If you only do good because you fear hell and want to ensure your ticked to heaven, I'd say I'm acting more moral. Without religion. And please don't come with the "We get our moral from the holy scripture!"-argument. If we did, we'd go around stoning our children to death for misbehaving. Same goes for our wifes =P

EDIT: oh I forgot to mention what we do after we stoned them. We accept Jesus into our heart! So his sacrifice will become ours and we'll be forgiven by God and go to heaven! :heh: Really the bible doesn't make any sense. The best way to deconvert a Christian is to make him read the bible!

I believe some people are so great they are gods.

Like Kristin Chenoweth. <3s her.

XD

That should be like a rule of the world
Never talk about Religion!
Every time someone does, it turns into an argument (if not already)
I just wanted to say
Thank you for your B)

reminds me of John Lennons song "Imagine" (a great song btw :))

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

now now guys, be a little merciful on christians new to this forum, don't tear their posts apart too much, they haven't yet learned about how to post intelligently about their religion :)

now now guys, be a little merciful on christians new to this forum, don't tear their posts apart too much, they haven't yet learned about how to post intelligently about their religion :)
that's true haha, I'm sorry :/ I'm sure jesus will forgive me though (am I stressing the humour of this..?)

I think the song is communistic with the no possession and no religion thing.

I disagree with the never talk about religion and there should be no religion. Firstly, there are already many religions in the present society to remove or ban religion is denying basic human rights. Everyone definitely have the right to believe in God if they want to.

If banning or erasing the existing of religion is the best way to solve the issue of religious arguments, every country would have followed China and have a Culture Revolution to wipe out most of the religious beliefs and practices. Instead that resulted in more deaths, wait and religions are revived again as the country became more open.

There should be more religious talk in some sense so that people of the different religions can have open discussions about the various religious practice and understand each others religion better so that they can be more tolerant. It is definitely better then " Hey, that person is preaching, KILL HIM!"

Also if people talk about religion rather than keeping mum about everything, they will start realising that religion isn't just christianity. Most importantly, atheists will LOSE all their purpose in life, or maybe they will start fighting with nihlists or something.

I think the song is communistic with the no possession and no religion thing.
I think it's both, atheistic and communistic. But it's still a nice dream :)

disagree with the never talk about religion and there should be no religion. Firstly, there are already many religions in the present society to remove or ban religion is denying basic human rights. Everyone definitely have the right to believe in God if they want to.

If banning or erasing the existing of religion is the best way to solve the issue of religious arguments, every country would have followed China and have a Culture Revolution to wipe out most of the religious beliefs and practices. Instead that resulted in more deaths, wait and religions are revived again as the country became more open.

There should be more religious talk in some sense so that people of the different religions can have open discussions about the various religious practice and understand each others religion better so that they can be more tolerant. It is definitely better then "Hey, that person is preaching, KILL HIM!"
To get facts straight here, no ones trying to "overthrow" the freedom of religion here, if I attack religion, attack my statements, not the person who made the statement. It's like when Richard Dawkins gave that lovely response in one of his Q&A sessions. The guy with the question said: "Seriously I've never been so insulted and amused at the same time."
Dawkins replied: "I don't understand why you should be insulted.. I insulted God! Not you!". Obviously it's correct to criticise everything, but not religion.
And I agree that there has to be much more talk about religion.
In fact I'd love that. I love talking about religion. The problem is that theists don't like arguing with atheists ;P Give them arguments why you think religion is bad and many, not all, but many (own experience) will attack YOU instead of your arguments.

Also if people talk about religion rather than keeping mum about everything, they will start realising that religion isn't just christianity. Most importantly, atheists will LOSE all their purpose in life, or maybe they will start fighting with nihlists or something.
Thanks for fitting perfectly in the stereotype ;)
Obviously atheists have no purpose in life other than fighting religion (please don't claim that we're only fighting christianity). Oh, we don't have morals and hope either btw.

I think the song is communistic with the no possession and no religion thing.

Well sure, if you want to take it to the extreme like that. :mellow:


I disagree with the never talk about religion and there should be no religion. Firstly, there are already many religions in the present society to remove or ban religion is denying basic human rights. Everyone definitely have the right to believe in God if they want to.

I agree with your disagreement.
But the truth of the matter is that, unfortunately, many people can't grasp that concept.


If banning or erasing the exist[ance] of religion is the best way to solve the issue of religious arguments, every country would have followed China and have a Culture Revolution to wipe out most of the religious beliefs and practices.

It's not the best way. (I know you know that, I'm just stressing the point)
There probably isn't a way to relieve society of religious argument at all.


There should be more religious talk in some sense so that people of the different religions can have open discussions about the various religious practice and understand each others religion better so that they can be more tolerant. It is definitely better then " Hey, that person is preaching, KILL HIM!"

So how do you propose we spread religious tolerance?


Also if people talk about religion rather than keeping mum about everything, they will start realising that religion isn't just christianity.

If you think Atheists only bash Christians (when they bash at all) then you're a little misconcieved.


Most importantly, atheists will LOSE all their purpose in life, or maybe they will start fighting with nihlists or something.

Then they wouldn't be Atheists anymore. More like anti-nihlists.
And who's saying religious people don't have something to say against nihlists?

A funny thing I've noticed is that all you guys are only bashing Christianity. Anyone want to explain that? It's not a challenge, I'm just curious.

Because the only people who come here are either Christians or Atheists, so everyone goes against eachother. If there are other religions present here, they keep themselves quiet. We have had some really loud "OMG U R GOING 2 HELL" Christians, so I think it's safe to say that the religion thread is roughly divided in Christians, those who are against Christianity and some people who don't really care.

But anyway, in short, the lack of other religions and the wish of Christians to indoctrinate others with their ideas (or we'll all go to hell) is pretty much the reason this is more a Christian thread than a religion thread.

The only reason I watch ths thread is to wait for a Bhuddist to come along so (s)he can get flamed by both :)

Hello...


The only reason I watch ths thread is to wait for a Bhuddist to come along so (s)he can get flamed by both

No Buddhist here......:shifty:

Actually, I would consider myself more of an agnostic then anything but I did grow up with Buddhist/eastern/south east influences.

I think the main anger towards Christianity is because they actively try to spread their beliefs and convert people, and put down science. Such as not wanting evolution to be taught in school and etc, though this is mostly in the West. But then, since most of internet goers are from the West, that would explain the hate towards Christianity.

But the only thing worse then endless arguments between Christians and Athiests are the debates between Christians and other religions on christian forums. Two sides arguing over which book is more "plausible" then the other.

But the only thing worse then endless arguments between Christians and Athiests are the debates between Christians and other religions on christian forums. Two sides arguing over which book is more "plausible" then the other.
haha :lol:

Oh that would be a sight to see, indeed.

Hello...

I think the main anger towards Christianity is because they actively try to spread their beliefs and convert people, and put down science. Such as not wanting evolution to be taught in school and etc, though this is mostly in the West. But then, since most of internet goers are from the West, that would explain the hate towards Christianity.


Lol, show me one instance where a christian complained to the school, or went to court over teaching evolution in school.

I can't come up with a claim for that exact situation, but I have had several complaints about the lack thereof a Christian class in school. *goes to fetch religion in schools paper*

Because the only people who come here are either Christians or Atheists, so everyone goes against eachother. If there are other religions present here, they keep themselves quiet. We have had some really loud "OMG U R GOING 2 HELL" Christians, so I think it's safe to say that the religion thread is roughly divided in Christians, those who are against Christianity and some people who don't really care.

I could consider myself a lazy Buddhist. : |

I love Buddha's teachings, but I wouldn't consider myself a Buddhist straight out. Though the main structure of Buddhism is based off of well thought out philosophy and really basic, common sense ideas, there is still the spiritual side which causes confusion to many people, leaving a wide gap for interpretation which is why theres already three main denominations. Any religion that gives room for denominations, thus interpretations, I don't acknowledge as "pure and 100% good", because then people argue, fight and to a point, kill.

Buddhism and its teaching makes me happy though. Unlike most other religions, the savior of Buddhism isn't telling you that he is the perfect one and that you cannot be like him and that you have to follow him or go to hell for eternity, instead hes saying you can be like him, and that there is no light at the end of the tunnel but instead the light is everywhere, and that if you do fail to follow him its okay because you basically get as many tries as you want and need.

Half the Buddhists in the world are not Buddhist, and half the people who are not of a religion are probably Buddhist in spirit. Caring for all life, self respect, lack of greed and want and happiness is all Buddhism really is when you get down to it.

Lol, show me one instance where a christian complained to the school, or went to court over teaching evolution in school.

Don't know what the "Lol" added to the discussion. Besides that, there have been plenty of complaints about how evolution is taught in schools.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/politics/03bush.html?ex=1280721600&en=8bbf73d2f5204260&ei=5088&partner=r
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/04/creationist_teaching_evolution.php
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/03/08/creationism.vs.evolution/

And then we have the Christian sites like this:

http://www.rae.org/

Of course, I never suggested that the majority of Christians act this way.

yeah, it's a fact that the fundamentalist groups are quite influential in the US. There are a lot of cases, in fact, were people went to court (and lost). Then there is also stuff like this: State of Oklahoma. 2003. House Bill HB1504 (http://www2.lsb.state.ok.us/2003-04hb/hb1504_int.rtf)

A. All textbooks used by school districts in the state in which evolution is discussed shall include the following disclaimer:
“This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory which some scientists present as scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants and humans."
It's really ridiculous....

SECTION 3. It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval.

EDIT:
Buddhism and its teaching makes me happy though. Unlike most other religions, the savior of Buddhism isn't telling you that he is the perfect one and that you cannot be like him and that you have to follow him or go to hell for eternity, instead hes saying you can be like him, and that there is no light at the end of the tunnel but instead the light is everywhere, and that if you do fail to follow him its okay because you basically get as many tries as you want and need.
I like Buddhism :) It's contemplating and soooo more down to what life really is compared to other religions.

It's contemplating and soooo more down to what life really is compared to other religions.

This kind of stuff is actually very common in eastern religions and south Asian religions. For example, ancient Hindu writings were the first to mention the idea of having no God figure, and many philosophical writings never even mention the existence of a personal divine being, though they mention some metaphysical aspect. This carried onto Buddhism. I wouldn't even call them religions. Religions implies a strict belief system that must be adhered to. Then again, some recent "versions" of these have become that way.

Don't know what the "Lol" added to the discussion. Besides that, there have been plenty of complaints about how evolution is taught in schools.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/politics/03bush.html?ex=1280721600&en=8bbf73d2f5204260&ei=5088&partner=r
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/04/creationist_teaching_evolution.php
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/03/08/creationism.vs.evolution/

And then we have the Christian sites like this:

http://www.rae.org/

Of course, I never suggested that the majority of Christians act this way.



yeah, it's a fact that the fundamentalist groups are quite influential in the US. There are a lot of cases, in fact, were people went to court (and lost). Then there is also stuff like this: State of Oklahoma. 2003. House Bill HB1504

It's really ridiculous....

Wow, bad on me then, shoulda done background information on it before I even posted. Fair enough, though, it really is ridiculous. I myself don't mind learning about evolution and all that, I'll never believe in it, but it's always good to have an open mind.

I am also alright with religion was taken out of school, it leads to too much division. If people want their kids to be taught religion, send them to a private christian school.

I think it's just a shame people need to attack something like science just because their religion was taken out of school. It's not like the books say it is a fact that evolution ocurrs, they always say that it is just a theory. Hell, creationism is a theory as well, people shouldn't have a problem with it. It's a shame that they do.

In my opinion, Atheism is a little pathetic. I don't mind the fact hat there are people who worship no God - there is nothing wrong with that *(and I can't remember the name for it because it is surprisingly rare), but it upsets me to see many of those people challenging the religions just to put them down and ultimately "prove them wrong" (aka Atheists) - particularily using "Science" (though I believe that Religion and Science can co-exist... mostly).

Anyone know the name for non-worshippers? I have completely forgotten it...

alas Jaso, but the reverse is fine?

well...

let me put it this way,

"In my opinion, Christinaity is a little pathetic. I don't mind the fact that there are people who worship God - there is nothing wrong with that *(and I can remember the name for it because it is surprisingly common), but it upsets me to see many of those people challenging science just to put them down and ultimately "prove them wrong" (aka Christians) - particularily using "Religion" (though I believe that Religion and Science can co-exist... mostly)."

See what I did there?

Technically, if a worshipper tries to prove another worshiper's (or non-worshipper's) beliefs wrong they are just as bad - if not worse - although they have a special name too...

In my opinion, Atheism is a little pathetic. I don't mind the fact hat there are people who worship no God - there is nothing wrong with that *(and I can't remember the name for it because it is surprisingly rare), but it upsets me to see many of those people challenging the religions just to put them down and ultimately "prove them wrong" (aka Atheists) - particularily using "Science" (though I believe that Religion and Science can co-exist... mostly).

Anyone know the name for non-worshippers? I have completely forgotten it...

Lol, there's nothing pathetic about atheist proving the bible wrong - there's a lot of stuff that proves the bible wrong but Christians just ignore that. now THAT is pathetic. Hi, I'm Christian, the Earth is flat. Even if science says otherwise, Earth is flat. And its the centre of the universe too.

This was proven wrong a long, long time ago, yet the Catholic church kept denying it, saying it was wrong. They still say that condoms don't stop STD's. How fucking retarded is that? Also, they keep shouting that God exists. Then fucking prove it, if you can't, then stfu.

Hell, creationism is a theory as well,

I hate to jump on this but I don't feel that evolution and creationism can be compared to one another. Evolution is a theory but it is based on evidence found in fossils and remains, in fact, evidence has led to scientists being able to reconstruct the lineages of those species. Creationism is a theory too, but it is an abstract one. They are different.

As to the whole "athiesm" pathetic thing, name calling gets us nowhere. I don't consider myself an "athiest". I consider myself an open minded individual who bases his opinions on reason. I don't hold strict belief in a religion because there is no evidence which compels me to do so. I also don't hold the strict belief that there is no God, because technically that hasn't been proven either.

Then again, it hasn't been proven that there isn't an invisible purple teacup floating in the atmosphere, either.

:o Teacupism :o

Paradox - that post wasn't the opposite, as Christians are not the opposites of Atheists... also before you editted that I discondoned (?) ANYONE who purposefully tries to disprove other's beleifs - especially to promote their own religion.

I think religion should be a private thing - not a huge campaign to convert the world to your religion asap...

Angelic - You seemed to aim towards Christianity too - perhaps Atheists particularily enjoy disproving Christianity? What about disproving Judaism? It's all a similar act.

Also, you generalise too much - I firmly believe that the Earth is almost Sperical, and that it revolves around the Sun. Also, I beleive that condoms can prevent STD and pregnancy. I am Catholic. I have not once in this thread (or ever) told someone God exists. Doing so is hypocritical of one's own religion. I respect all peoples beleifs including those who beleive there are no Gods.

Jaso, once again, use a word only if you kow how to use it.

And again, there are largely only two groups of people on this thread: Christians and Atheists.
Why would an atheist argue about the verity of Buddha with a Christian?


I think religion should be a private thing - not a huge campaign to convert the world to your religion asap...

I finally agree with you on something! o/


As to the whole "athiesm" pathetic thing, name calling gets us nowhere. I don't consider myself an "athiest". I consider myself an open minded individual who bases his opinions on reason. I don't hold strict belief in a religion because there is no evidence which compels me to do so. I also don't hold the strict belief that there is no God, because technically that hasn't been proven either.

So basically... you're agnostic. ..?


Then again, it hasn't been proven that there isn't an invisible purple teacup floating in the atmosphere, either.

Well I think the universe is ruled by a llama and a giant leek, and hell, what d'you know? I could be right.

alas Jaso, but the reverse is fine?

well...

let me put it this way,

"In my opinion, Christinaity is a little pathetic. I don't mind the fact that there are people who worship God - there is nothing wrong with that *(and I can remember the name for it because it is surprisingly common), but it upsets me to see many of those people challenging science just to put them down and ultimately "prove them wrong" (aka Christians) - particularily using "Religion" (though I believe that Religion and Science can co-exist... mostly)."

See what I did there?

You want to know something? I can't stand those "fire and brimstone" people anymore than you guys can.

That's typically the same brand of people who try to "disprove" science - the Bible doesn't disprove science, it goes hand in hand with it. Science, in effect, proves the Bible.

=0 I already posted my paper here before.

http://forums.ichigos.com/showpost.php?p=311405

So basically... you're agnostic. ..?

That's the term I used in my first post, but I really hate labels. I'm just a guy who uses rational thinking.


the Bible doesn't disprove science

How could the Bible disprove science anyways? Science is formed with experimentation and evidence leading to conclusions, which can be proven if desired. How can the Bible disprove what can be proven?


Science, in effect, proves the Bible.

Well, since you said it, please explain.

Pick a topic.

I said that about the Bible not disproving science because Paradox said something about it, too lazy to quote it.

It's not like the books say it is a fact that evolution occurs, they always say that it is just a theory.
DOH! The books say that it's a fact that evolution occurs. That's the problem creationist have with those books... Please not this "Evolution is just a theory argument" again... :/
Let me tell you what "Theory of Evolution" means:

"The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948)."

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory.
The "Theory of Evolution" is as much a scientific fact as the "Theory of Gravitation". We don't everything about it, but we know that it's a fact. As much as we know that a stone will fall down when we drop it.
It's a shame that people don't know what the word "theory" means, when applied to science. I'm sure you agree that they'd call it "Hypothesis of Evolution" if there was any uncertainty involved.

Hell, creationism is a theory as well, people shouldn't have a problem with it. It's a shame that they do.
No, creationism is not a theory. It's a claim, not supported by any evidence. A realm where the "God of the Gaps" tries to sneak in on every opportunity.


That's typically the same brand of people who try to "disprove" science - the Bible doesn't disprove science, it goes hand in hand with it. Science, in effect, proves the Bible.
Heh, it goes hand in hand with science. It's evident that one can cut oceans in half and rise from the dead. I mean just swing around your scientific calculation and you can walk on water (sorry for my sarcasm, I can't stand so ignorant claims)

EDIT: I forgot to mention the virgin birth.. :)

Here's something interesting. People used to cut themselves regularly (in fact, some still do, but for different reasons). It was apparently of some sort of social value, since they didn't know blood is necessary for life. >_<

wow, what's that got to do with anything we're talking about here? Is that a religious tradition?

No, it's not. People did it for the heck of it.

The interesting thing is that Moses, of all people, knew that blood is vital for life, because God told him so. (Leviticus 17:11)

And this is the Torah we're talking about here - there definately is proof that those were around long before Jesus.

what the fuck... believe it or not, I think even the Neanderthals knew that blood was a bad thing to lose. Just cut someone and watch him die and you have impirical evidence. That's so damn stupid! I don't need a "GOD" to tell me that, sheesh -__- Makes the bible appear even more logical. Gotta love Leviticus :3

No, it's not. People did it for the heck of it.

The interesting thing is that Moses, of all people, knew that blood is vital for life, because God told him so. (Leviticus 17:11)

And this is the Torah we're talking about here - there definately is proof that those were around long before Jesus.

Aye, I'd have to agree with Matt on this and say that this is a pretty silly example.

"Moses knew that if you got stabbed, and bled everywhere, you would die! Because God told him!"

I'm pretty sure people kind of already knew this. Hence, you know, spears and swords and such designed to cut/stab/create blood loss during wars.

I don't think I'd need the bible to know that losing liters of blood would suck. It's kind of common sense after you see it happen to someone/have it happen to yourself.

Edit:
Just read Mies' paper. Nice job sir!

The interesting thing is that Moses, of all people, knew that blood is vital for life, because God told him so. (Leviticus 17:11)

I knew it was bad to bleed when I was three years old, before I read any verse from any religious book. I cut myself while experimenting in the way kids all do, and saw blood. I felt pain in my body, in the area the blood was coming from. I didn't like the pain, so in the future, I didn't want to bleed.

I suppose religion is funny in the way that you can use it to justify anything without really... justifying it. :\

"Why am I doing this?" "Because God meant for me to do it!"

"Why does this make me happy?" "Because God said it would!"

"Why does his face look funny?" "I dunno. God must have meant for it to be like that!"

"Why are they hurting me?" "I dunno. I must've done something wrong and now God is punishing me!"

What happened to just pure logic?



Edit:

Going off on a tangent here. Hehe.

Em. That reminds me. Read the Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver.
Smashing good read, if I do say so myself.

Anyways, in the story there's an evangelical preacher who takes his family with him from the US to start a Christian missionary in the Congo.

Well I don't want to spoil you too much, because, of course, you're going to read it. But what's sad is that misfortune after misfortune befalls the poor family and the entire time the preacher reasons, "God is testing my faith."

People (family) die.
"God is testing my faith."
Famine.
"God is testing my faith."
Disease.
"God is testing my faith."
Political coup d'état.
"God is testing my faith."

Finally, he dies believeing himself a martyr and that all his perseverence through the hell he went through (and put his family through) is God's work, towards a reward in the Afterlife.

It's sad, really. Not pathetic-sad. But heart-breaking.

Technically, if a worshipper tries to prove another worshiper's (or non-worshipper's) beliefs wrong they are just as bad - if not worse - although they have a special name too...

Thus is the problem with religion. How about opinions altogether?


Lol, there's nothing pathetic about atheist proving the bible wrong - there's a lot of stuff that proves the bible wrong but Christians just ignore that. now THAT is pathetic. Hi, I'm Christian, the Earth is flat. Even if science says otherwise, Earth is flat. And its the centre of the universe too.

This was proven wrong a long, long time ago, yet the Catholic church kept denying it, saying it was wrong. They still say that condoms don't stop STD's. How fucking retarded is that? Also, they keep shouting that God exists. Then fucking prove it, if you can't, then stfu.

There are many great scientists of our history and present that are Christians. Though I would only assume they pick and choose what they will take literally, against my ideas of religion giving no room for interpretations. Also, of religions that allows room for interpretations, theres room for denominations, so because someone is Christians, doesn't mean they believe that the world is flat and condoms don't stop STD's. If anything, because those religious leaders and even the followers are changing their ideas, interpretations and views over their religion, maybe they are seeing wrong in their religion and trying to fix them.

Or maybe they are ruining that right that was righted by previous members of their religion. Thats another great example of why religion shouldn't allow room for interpretations. ∞


I do enjoy how we got of Christianity for a beef moment. brief <3

I'm pretty sure I've said it here before, but science that disproves the existance a god is the old sciences, and the newer sciences (such as -- and especially -- Quantum Physics) DO prove such an existence.

I'd like to see how quantum physics proves god? First of all, it's impossible to prove or disprove the existance of god, that's why there are so many agnostics.
Anyway, I'd rather say the concept of determinism was completely pwned by quantum mechanics as it proves that you can't be 100% sure of the future, only of a "likely" future. Then again, god sure has some experience in overcoming laws of nature...

If anything, because those religious leaders and even the followers are changing their ideas, interpretations and views over their religion, maybe they are seeing wrong in their religion and trying to fix them. Or maybe they are ruining that right that was righted by previous members of their religion. Thats another great example of why religion shouldn't allow room for interpretations.
:O I'd rather not have no room for interpretation in Christianity ._. That's be quite deadly.

When Jesus's dead body is found, I will denounce him.

Look all you like - you won't find it. It ain't around.

When Jesus's dead body is found, I will denounce him.

Look all you like - you won't find it. It ain't around.
Errrr, ok.

DOH! The books say that it's a fact that evolution occurs. That's the problem creationist have with those books... Please not this "Evolution is just a theory argument" again... :/
Let me tell you what "Theory of Evolution" means:


The "Theory of Evolution" is as much a scientific fact as the "Theory of Gravitation". We don't everything about it, but we know that it's a fact. As much as we know that a stone will fall down when we drop it.
It's a shame that people don't know what the word "theory" means, when applied to science. I'm sure you agree that they'd call it "Hypothesis of Evolution" if there was any uncertainty involved.

No, creationism is not a theory. It's a claim, not supported by any evidence. A realm where the "God of the Gaps" tries to sneak in on every opportunity.


Gravity isn't a theory, it's a fact. You drop an apple, it falls toward the earth. Evolution cannot be proved like so. What facts do you have about evolution? Fossils? For example, if monkeys were not yet around, and I died and my bones remained, then two million year later, monkeys came about. Would that mean that humans evolved into monkeys? There is no way you could know that for sure, just like you can't know for sure that we evolved as well. Nobody was around to watch a monkey turn human.

You say evolution occurs because a really old bone or fossil has been found.
I say creationsim occured because I have a really old book that says so.

What makes your source more valid than mine? Nobody knows for sure how old the bible really is, or when then stories of the bible were first verbally told. Just like we don't know 100% how old those bones or fossils are. Just an estimate.

I'll have to answer this tomorrow as I'm busy with school work at the moment (and it's 10pm here). Sooo be prepared ;)

When Jesus's dead body is found, I will denounce him.

That is such flawed thinking, I can't even begin to think of how to respond to it.

When you can prove to me that invisible teacups don't circle the Earth, then I will stop believing that the world is inhabited by invisible flying teacups.

This kind of logic is ridiculous, and gets us nowhere.


You say evolution occurs because a really old bone or fossil has been found.
I say creationsim occured because I have a really old book that says so.

Many, many fossils have been found, from many, many periods, all which can be proven to have a connection to one another, which has led scientists to be able to pinpoint their times and to map out evolutionary chains based on the evidence of these fossils.

Anyone can write a book. No-one can create hundreds and thousands of fossils, all showing patterns and connections, which match all sorts of scientific testing. The key difference in your two examples is that the "book" is manmade.

Besides that, the Quran also is a book which says something. Why don't you believe in the Quran? South Asian religious writings are far older then the Bible. Why don't you believe in them? What about Zeus and Thor? They're from "old books" as well, why not believe in them?


What facts do you have about evolution? Fossils? For example, if monkeys were not yet around, and I died and my bones remained, then two million year later, monkeys came about. Would that mean that humans evolved into monkeys?

To gain a full understanding of the complex evidence of evolution, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution

What you posted is not a fair representation of the facts/evidence of evolution.

What you posted is not a fair representation of the facts/evidence of evolution.
It's ignorance to sum it up in one word. And an appeal to emotions (more specific: an appeal to ridicule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule)). But anyway, I'll write a complete and in-depth refutation tomorrow.

Many, many fossils have been found, from many, many periods, all which can be proven to have a connection to one another, which has led scientists to be able to pinpoint their times and to map out evolutionary chains based on the evidence of these fossils.

Anyone can write a book. No-one can create hundreds and thousands of fossils, all showing patterns and connections, which match all sorts of scientific testing. The key difference in your two examples is that the "book" is manmade.

Besides that, the Quran also is a book which says something. Why don't you believe in the Quran? South Asian religious writings are far older then the Bible. Why don't you believe in them? What about Zeus and Thor? They're from "old books" as well, why not believe in them?



To gain a full understanding of the complex evidence of evolution, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution

What you posted is not a fair representation of the facts/evidence of evolution.

1) The fossil index is no where near complete, there are gaps of 100 million years. Just because many animals have homologous structures doesn't mean evolution occured. Many animals have Pentadactyl limbs, so? How does that prove evolution? Also note, I have skimmed through and thoroughly read certain parts of that wikki page you told me to look at, though really all it talked about was a bunch of fossil records and about homologous structures.

2) Exactly! There are many very old books that all lean towards creationism.

That is such flawed thinking, I can't even begin to think of how to respond to it.

When you can prove to me that invisible teacups don't circle the Earth, then I will stop believing that the world is inhabited by invisible flying teacups.

This kind of logic is ridiculous, and gets us nowhere.

Except that if there were invisible teacups everywhere, we should be able to tell they were there, since man's technology makes him such a bis screaming deal.

And if it's that easy to disprove the Bible, show me one solid piece of evidence that absolutely destroys the Christian faith.





Many, many fossils have been found, from many, many periods, all which can be proven to have a connection to one another, which has led scientists to be able to pinpoint their times and to map out evolutionary chains based on the evidence of these fossils.

Anyone can write a book. No-one can create hundreds and thousands of fossils, all showing patterns and connections, which match all sorts of scientific testing. The key difference in your two examples is that the "book" is manmade.

Besides that, the Quran also is a book which says something. Why don't you believe in the Quran? South Asian religious writings are far older then the Bible. Why don't you believe in them? What about Zeus and Thor? They're from "old books" as well, why not believe in them?

You misunderstand. These teachings are far older than Christianity. The Bible is far older than Christianity. Just ask a Catholic.



Oh, so this is all about evolution? I'm all for evolution. I believe God used evolution to create the world.

(off topic: be careful that you only attack the statements, not the person. This ain't a free-for-all.)

Except that if there were invisible teacups everywhere, we should be able to tell they were there, since man's technology makes him such a bis screaming deal.
Duh! They're invisible you can't detect them! In fact they are pink, but it's really hard to tell.

You misunderstand. These teachings are far older than Christianity. The Bible is far older than Christianity. Just ask a Catholic.
How can the bible be older than christianity? The people who wrote down the bible (the OT a few centuries B.C.) were christians (well, not really "christ"ians, since that guy came a bit later).

Oh, so this is all about evolution? I'm all for evolution. I believe God used evolution to create the world.
Yeah, sure...he used it to "create the world". I'm sure he let the stones and oceans evolve... the hardest stones survived. The most aqueous oceans stood strong in the continuous struggle for existance. If a stone was not "stony" enough it would simple not survive the fight for existance :)
Dude, you should get your terminology straight.

PS: I didn't forget you Asuka, the refutation is going to be a bit lengthy~

And if it's that easy to disprove the Bible, show me one solid piece of evidence that absolutely destroys the Christian faith.

First of all, I have no interest in "destroying the Christian faith" or playing some kind of win-lose game. I have no reason to attack people's beliefs, and I don't necessarily believe there can never be a God. I just use my rational thinking skills to form reasonable conclusions.


Except that if there were invisible teacups everywhere, we should be able to tell they were there

But they're invisible. Magical invisible teacups. They exist beyond the laws of the physical world. Prove to me they don't exist.

And back to this:


And if it's that easy to disprove the Bible, show me one solid piece of evidence that absolutely destroys the Christian faith.

Then you'd have to define for me what the Christian faith is. Belief in a supernatural entity? It is impossible because the people who believe in it will claim that "God" is above any of the physical laws of the real world.

Here's the difference in how I, personally, form opinions. I say to others "You have made a claim. Prove it and I will believe it.", but what you're asking me with that question is "This is what I believe. Disprove it and I won't believe it anymore". Which position is the logical one? The burden of proof isn't on everyone else to disprove any claim people come up with. Just like a person may feel silly being asked to disprove my theories about the magical teacups, or the spaghetti monster dwelling 500 feet below the ground.


(off topic: be careful that you only attack the statements, not the person. This ain't a free-for-all.)

I don't recall attacking any person here. If you're referring to my use of the words "Why don't you believe", since this is a topic about people's beliefs, I think it would be inevitable that the topic of a person's beliefs would become involved in the topic.


You misunderstand. These teachings are far older than Christianity.

Tell me how I misunderstood. No matter how old you say they are, there are other texts that have existed too, which contradict the teachings of Christianity. So the argument that, "it is correct because it is very old" does not make much sense when supporting a certain religion. Why not believe in the others which is just as old, then?

--------
And now, person No.2: :heh:


The fossil index is no where near complete, there are gaps of 100 million years. J

The only gap of 100 million years that exists, according to the article, is between the Cambrian period and the later Ordovician period. These kind of gaps are inherent when you realize how rare it is in the first place for a something to become fossilized.

http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/evolution/bldef_analogous.htm


Exactly! There are many very old books that all lean towards creationism.

But the others have very different stories about creation, or about God. Some texts from India don't even mention "God "at all. My point, though, was, how can you believe in something because it's very old? Doesn't mean that every other religion is true as well?

Gravity isn't a theory, it's a fact. You drop an apple, it falls toward the earth. Evolution cannot be proved like so. What facts do you have about evolution? Fossils? For example, if monkeys were not yet around, and I died and my bones remained, then two million year later, monkeys came about. Would that mean that humans evolved into monkeys? There is no way you could know that for sure, just like you can't know for sure that we evolved as well. Nobody was around to watch a monkey turn human.

You say evolution occurs because a really old bone or fossil has been found.
I say creationsim occured because I have a really old book that says so.

What makes your source more valid than mine? Nobody knows for sure how old the bible really is, or when then stories of the bible were first verbally told. Just like we don't know 100% how old those bones or fossils are. Just an estimate.

Still, the evolution theory has more backing it up than Christianity, so as long as you believe in God, you have no right to critisize the evolution theory.

This thread makes me giggle and gives me a headache at the same time. > <

This thread makes me giggle and gives me a headache at the same time. > < Lol, on some forums I visit, it takes one post to end a religion "thread."

Religion makes me giggle and gives me a headache at the same time~ \o\o/o/

Gravity isn't a theory, it's a fact. You drop an apple, it falls toward the earth. Evolution cannot be proved like so. What facts do you have about evolution? Fossils? For example, if monkeys were not yet around, and I died and my bones remained, then two million year later, monkeys came about. Would that mean that humans evolved into monkeys? There is no way you could know that for sure, just like you can't know for sure that we evolved as well. Nobody was around to watch a monkey turn human.


Theory. To prove WHY and How gravity happens makes it one, because you just can't. An apple falls. But it falls because magical hemp ropes made by the elves of the moon pull them down. We just can't see the ropes. Feel it. Smell it. Taste it. Nor the elves. But its there. Can you prove it? No, but you also cannot disprove it also. Even if you can't, its ludicrous and I would assume 100% of the world thinks so too, but the fact it 100% doesn't. Though it may not be in the context of hemp ropes and elves of the moon, its in the context of god.

The apple will never cease to fall.

Tell us M, how quantum's proves god?

*is working on a massive post about it* It'll be up soon. Within the end of the week.

*makes note not to check religion thread for a month*

Religion would die out quickly if the parents stopped teaching religion to the children.

Parnets would die out quickly if they didn't scare the poop out of their children with tales of hell and the sort

Still, the evolution theory has more backing it up than Christianity, so as long as you believe in God, you have no right to critisize the evolution theory.

I'm not trying to prove god exhists, I'm just trying to prove the evolution is not a fact because someone posted that it was. I'm not trying to critisize evolution, I'm just saying that it isn't a fact. You can't prove evolution no more than you can prove god exhists.

I hope the length doesn't scare you guys, I don't want this post to go to waste :P

I'm not trying to prove god exhists, I'm just trying to prove the evolution is not a fact because someone posted that it was. I'm not trying to critisize evolution, I'm just saying that it isn't a fact. You can't prove evolution no more than you can prove god exhists.
I did say it is a fact and I'll stick to it. :)

There is no way you could know that for sure, just like you can't know for sure that we evolved as well. Nobody was around to watch a monkey turn human.
"Were you there?" Since that's one of the most common "arguments" against evolution, it's been refuted about a million times. I shall quote on this.
Were you there?

1. Yes, because "there" is here. Events in the past leave traces that last into the present, and we can and do look at that evidence today.

2. If this response were a valid challenge to evolution, it would equally invalidate creationism and Christianity, since they are based on events that nobody alive today has witnessed.

3. A more useful and more general question is, "How do you know?" If the person making a claim can not answer that question, you may consider the claim baseless (tentatively, as someone else may be able to answer). If the answer is subjective -- for example, if it rests on the person's religious convictions -- you know that the claim does not necessarily apply to anyone but that person. If you can not understand the answer, you probably have some studying to do. If you get a good answer, you know to take the claim seriously.
I especially like point 2! ^_^

they always say that it is just a theory.
Besides the theory of evolution (see the definition of scientific theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)), there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.

You say evolution occurs because a really old bone or fossil has been found.
I say creationsim occured because I have a really old book that says so.
Do I even have to answer this? I guess I do for the sake of my credibility.
Bones are neutral objects. We can examine them and always get the same results, not much room for interpretation. Those bones alone would be devastating evidence for evolution. But you seem to think that those "really old bones or fossils" are the ONLY evidence for evolution.
The whole of biology supports evolution. In fact if it didn’t there wouldn’t be a “theory” of evolution (“A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence” (see scientific method)), because contradictions would immediately:
a) change the theory
b) falsify the theory

Not only paleontology (physical anthropology, transitional fossils, fossil record), but genetics (we can compare the DNA of different species to see their degree of kinship), molecular biology (for example bacteria mutation etc), physiology and anatomy, botany, ecology and population biology, development biology and systematics all support the theory of evolution fully.
Makes me wonder why an over 2000 year old book should be preferred as reference.
Anyway, so what does creation explain? It effectively explains nothing. Here’s a quote I reckon to be quite on the point (I cut out some bits, check here (http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/6412)for the whole thing)

As far as I'm aware, all we know about the supernatural is that it's not natural. We don't know anything about what it is. So to say that an event like abiogenesis or the creation of the earth was supernatural is to simply say that it has no natural cause. So significant evidence towards supernaturalism would be to:
1) Have considered all of the possibilities.
2) To have eliminated every last one of these possibilities.
I'm not sure if condition 1 will ever be satisfied as it requires some kind of omniscience. (the difficulty in proving a negative) […]
If you say that abiogenesis was caused by a supernatural event then you need to explain what a supernatural event is. As far as I know, (perhaps you can correct me) we have no idea of what supernaturalism is, rather we just know what it isn't - we know that it isn't natural. It's like saying:
"It must've happened by magic"
"Really? What's magic?"
"Dunno... it can't be explained..."
Creationism says the earth was created by God (which should have been around 6000 years ago).
This time it’s Religion vs. Geology, and it’s the same thing again. Tell someone who studied geology that the earth is 6000 years old and he’ll most definitely laugh at you.
Again the theory that the earth is around 4 billion years old is supported by the whole of geology (Geochronology, Sedimentation, Evaporation, Glaciation, Mountain building, Erosion, Geophysics and Plate Tectonics) also supported by theories about climate change (the thing with the ice drilling cores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaciology)).
Not to mention all theories about cosmology, more precisely “Planetary formation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_formation)”. To note here is that we can observe the zones in nebulas where new solar systems form with telescopes. So this isn't all just some sort of speculation and random guessing.

Anyway you wanted to show that it's equally likely for creationism to be correct, compared to evolution:

What makes your source more valid than mine? Nobody knows for sure how old the bible really is, or when then stories of the bible were first verbally told. Just like we don't know 100% how old those bones or fossils are. Just an estimate.
This "estimate", even if it's just that, an estimate (very very old fossils can vary by a few ten million years), this estimate still differs from creastionists' claims by a few hundred million years (early lifeforms) and a few billion years when it comes to the age of the earth :heh:
This "Just like we don't know 100% how old those bones or fossils are." is quite the ridiculous statement, since, even though we don't know the age of the fossils 100 percently, we do know the estimated age (which is quite accurate considered how very old the earth is. See geochronology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geochronology)).
"Nobody knows for sure how old the bible really is, or when then stories of the bible were first verbally told."
Yeah, so? Does it make a book more reliable when it is older? I'd say it's rather the opposite :think: I'm not an expert when it comes to the origin of the Bible. The argument has no real weight whatsoever anyway, to say "they both (evolution / creationism) are equally likely, because they're both based on old things (fossils / Bible) is logical bankrupt.

I hope you went through the pain of reading the whole thing :o

I hope the length doesn't scare you guys, I don't want this post to go to waste :P

I did say it is a fact and I'll stick to it. :)

"Were you there?" Since that's one of the most common "arguments" against evolution, it's been refuted about a million times. I shall quote on this.
Were you there?

I especially like point 2! ^_^

Besides the theory of evolution (see the definition of scientific theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)), there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
Do I even have to answer this? I guess I do for the sake of my credibility.
Bones are neutral objects. We can examine them and always get the same results, not much room for interpretation. Those bones alone would be devastating evidence for evolution. But you seem to think that those "really old bones or fossils" are the ONLY evidence for evolution.
The whole of biology supports evolution. In fact if it didn’t there wouldn’t be a “theory” of evolution (“A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence” (see scientific method)), because contradictions would immediately:
a) change the theory
b) falsify the theory

Not only paleontology (physical anthropology, transitional fossils, fossil record), but genetics (we can compare the DNA of different species to see their degree of kinship), molecular biology (for example bacteria mutation etc), physiology and anatomy, botany, ecology and population biology, development biology and systematics all support the theory of evolution fully.
Makes me wonder why an over 2000 year old book should be preferred as reference.
Anyway, so what does creation explain? It effectively explains nothing. Here’s a quote I reckon to be quite on the point (I cut out some bits, check here (http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/6412)for the whole thing)

Creationism says the earth was created by God (which should have been around 6000 years ago).
This time it’s the Religion vs. Geology, and it’s the same thing again. Tell someone who studied geology that the earth is 6000 years old and he’ll most definitely laugh at you.
Again the theory that the earth is around 4 billion years old is supported by the whole of geology (Geochronology, Sedimentation, Evaporation, Glaciation, Mountain building, Erosion, Geophysics and Plate Tectonics) also supported by theories about climate change (the thing with the ice drilling cores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaciology)).
Not to mention all theories about cosmology, more precisely “Planetary formation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_formation)”. To note here is that we can observe the zones in nebulas where new solar systems form with telescopes. So this isn't all just some sort of speculation and random guessing.

Anyway you wanted to show that it's equally likely for creationism to be correct, compared to evolution:

This "estimate", even if it's just that, an estimate (very very old fossils can vary by some million years), this estimate still differs from creastionists' claims by a few hundred million years (early lifeforms) and a few billion years when it comes to the age of the earth :heh:
This "Just like we don't know 100% how old those bones or fossils are." is quite the ridiculous statement, since, even though we don't know the age of the fossils 100 percently, we do know the estimated age (which is quite accurate considered how very old the earth is. See geochronology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geochronology)).
"Nobody knows for sure how old the bible really is, or when then stories of the bible were first verbally told."
Yeah, so? Does it make a book more reliable when it is older? I'd say it's rather the opposite :think: Anyway I'm not an expert when it comes to the origin of the Bible. The argument has no real weight whatsoever, to say "they both (evolution / creationism) are equally likely, because they're both based on old things (fossils / Bible) is logical bankrupt.

I hope you went through the pain of reading the whole thing :o

1) long ass post...but I read it.
2) Those bones aren't devistating evidence for evolution though! Compare the bone structure of a frog to a turtle and what do you get? Turtles evolved from frogs. Am I being too shallow here? I'm I missing something? My main point here is that similar biological and bone structures does not mean evolution. Kay, I'm breaking out my 8th grade science book here. There is a diagram in my book that shows this: Key: ( - ) = Evolved into

Raccoon (40 mya) - Giant Panda (15-20 mya) - Spectacled bear (2 mya) - Sloth Bear - Sun bear - Black bear - polar bear - brown bear.

Whaaaat???? Not in a billion years (literally) will a raccoon ever evolve into a polar bear much less 38 million years.

3) Personally, I have a seperate belief about the age of the earth, but its off topic. But, to be more on topic, would someone please direct me to a passage in the bible which states the age of the earth 6000 years old? I believe many people think christianity says the earth is only 6000 years old, but it very well may be that God created man only 6000 years ago, not the earth. Though I really don't pay much attention to that kind of stuff because it really doesn't relate very much to the whole idea of god.

Kay, I'm probably missing some points you made, but it's really hard to keep it all straight, I understand the idea behind your whole biology stuff but not so much how it proves evolution. The key point in that is that species have very similar biological structures to a species older than them, correct? Could you please clarify your point with it all? Thanks

1) long ass post...but I read it.
I'm glad you did. :)

2) Those bones aren't devistating evidence for evolution though! Compare the bone structure of a frog to a turtle and what do you get? Turtles evolved from frogs. Am I being too shallow here? I'm I missing something? My main point here is that similar biological and bone structures does not mean evolution. Kay, I'm breaking out my 8th grade science book here. There is a diagram in my book that shows this: Key: ( - ) = Evolved into

Raccoon (40 mya) - Giant Panda (15-20 mya) - Spectacled bear (2 mya) - Sloth Bear - Sun bear - Black bear - polar bear - brown bear.

Whaaaat???? Not in a billion years (literally) will a raccoon ever evolve into a polar bear much less 38 million years.
Well, what's up with your argument? It's just your personal opinion "that it's not possible" without anything backing it up.
You're simply presenting an argumentum ad lapidem, which is absolutely worthless in a debate. Also bear in mind that a million years is really quite some time for small changes to accumulate. Evolution is afterall a smooth and gradual process


3) Personally, I have a seperate belief about the age of the earth, but its off topic. But, to be more on topic, would someone please direct me to a passage in the bible which states the age of the earth 6000 years old? I believe many people think christianity says the earth is only 6000 years old, but it very well may be that God created man only 6000 years ago, not the earth. Though I really don't pay much attention to that kind of stuff because it really doesn't relate very much to the whole idea of god.
There are several different sub-categories of creationism, I wasn't sure which version you believe, so I just took the common "6000 years old" one.
Of course many creationists claim that humans were created much later compared to the earth (I have no clue how this works with the creation story in genesis though, maybe the 7 days week was a few billion years long back then?).
As for your question. It doesn't say "6000 years ago" in the bible (I'm not the one who made up that age anyway, creationists did), but it's about the time humans first recorded history. And cause the bible couldn't be all that old, there should be a direct relation between the creation story and the creation itself.
Anyway, even if creationists claim, let's say, that humans were created 20.000 years ago. That would still be way off compared to the radiometric datings we have of early humans (not to mention what came before the homo sapiens sapiens).


Kay, I'm probably missing some points you made, but it's really hard to keep it all straight, I understand the idea behind your whole biology stuff but not so much how it proves evolution. The key point in that is that species have very similar biological structures to a species older than them, correct? Could you please clarify your point with it all? Thanks
Basically yes. Our DNA, for example, matches primate DNA by about 98% I think (they're not our ancestors, but they came from the same ancestors as we did. I'm too lazy to look up the exact percentage). You can also see the "old" and the "new" genes. To clarify this, the genes that come from way back, can be recognized by their relative position in the DNA. This way you can draw relations in all genetic lineages. The same way you can see the changes of body structure in the fossil record.

I'm glad you did. :)

Well, what's up with your argument? It's just your personal opinion "that it's not possible" without anything backing it up.
You're simply presenting an argumentum ad lapidem, which is absolutely worthless in a debate. Also bear in mind that a million years is really quite some time for small changes to accumulate. Evolution is afterall a smooth and gradual process


There are several different sub-categories of creationism, I wasn't sure which version you believe, so I just took the common "6000 years old" one.
Of course many creationists claim that humans were created much later compared to the earth (I have no clue how this works with the creation story in genesis though, maybe the 7 days week was a few billion years long back then?).
As for your question. It doesn't say "6000 years ago" in the bible (I'm not the one who made up that age anyway, creationists did), but it's about the time humans first recorded history. And cause the bible couldn't be all that old, there should be a direct relation between the creation story and the creation itself.
Anyway, even if creationists claim, let's say, that humans were created 20.000 years ago. That would still be way off compared to the radiometric datings we have of early humans (not to mention what came before the homo sapiens sapiens).


Basically yes. Our DNA, for example, matches primate DNA by about 98% I think (they're not our ancestors, but they came from the same ancestors as we did. I'm too lazy to look up the exact percentage). You can also see the "old" and the "new" genes. To clarify this, the genes that come from way back, can be recognized by their relative position in the DNA. This way you can draw relations in all genetic lineages. The same way you can see the changes of body structure in the fossil record.

But still, how do all those bone structures and biological matches prove evolution? Personally, I believe in alot of what they say about adaptations and variations but only to a certain extent. What I don't believe is evolving into totally new species.

Also, my arguement does have something to stand on. I'm not trying to prove that evolution is definately not exhistant, I'm just trying to prove that it isn't a fact. There is a lack of evidence to actually show evolution, there is no way to actually prove evolution because we aren't able to see it. For all we know, aliens could have come to earth millions of years ago, cloned a neanderthal then changed its dna to make it like we are present day.

But still, how do all those bone structures and biological matches prove evolution? Personally, I believe in alot of what they say about adaptations and variations but only to a certain extent. What I don't believe is evolving into totally new species.
Oh my fucking God. If you believe that species change and adapt, then how can you not believe in evolution?! Do you think species just stop adapting at some point, saying "I don't want to change anymore. If I do, I'LL BECOME A NEW SPECIES!~!!!"???!


Also, my arguement does have something to stand on. I'm not trying to prove that evolution is definately not exhistant, I'm just trying to prove that it isn't a fact. There is a lack of evidence to actually show evolution, there is no way to actually prove evolution because we aren't able to see it. For all we know, aliens could have come to earth millions of years ago, cloned a neanderthal then changed its dna to make it like we are present day.
This is freaking ridiculous. Of course evolution can't be proven 100%. NOTHING CAN BE PROVEN 100%. (Unless we know everything. Which we don't.) You say evolution can't be proven because "lololol, aliens might've done it!~!!~ :3 "Is that a valid possibility? Of course. Is it a likely possibility? Of course not. It's impossible to prove anything; science only disproves things. We follow the ideas that make the most sense based on the knowledge base we currently hold. That's how things move forward.

Gravity is pretty commonly accepted to exist right? Well I don't agree with it. I mean, you can't PROVE gravity. IT MIGHT JUST BE INVISIBLE DEMONS PULLING THINGS TOWARDS THE GROUND!!! HAHAHAHA!!~!!! SCREW EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, I CAN JUST MAKE CRAZY SHIT UP AND CHOOSE TO FOLLOW THAT, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PROVE ME WRONG!~!!!! Can you see how silly your argument is? That's basically what you just said a minute ago. It's kind of ridiculous.

So sure. Ignore all the evidence suggesting that evolution occurs. Make up crazy excuses like "aliens did it! To trick us!!!"
Ah wait. You don't really believe that; that was just your example. The funny thing is, your joking example is actually more plausible than what you really believe. Hahahahahah. X3

and sorry this post is so....angry..... XD
And sorry it's so unorganized and unfinished. I had a few more points to throw in there at the end, but I forgot what they were in my overzealousness in showing how ridiculous your argument sounded. XP

Anyway, believe in God if you want to. It's a nice idea, and like you said, we can't prove that God in fact didn't create the universe, humanity, etc. Just don't try saying that God is more plausible than natural selection. Because he isn't. ^ ^"

And don't say common sense things like "you can't prove it!" Because everyone already knows that. And if that's your argument, then there's no point in you arguing. :heh:

Oh my fucking God. If you believe that species change and adapt, then how can you not believe in evolution?! Do you think species just stop adapting at some point, saying "I don't want to change anymore. If I do, I'LL BECOME A NEW SPECIES!~!!!"???!


This is freaking ridiculous. Of course evolution can't be proven 100%. NOTHING CAN BE PROVEN 100%. (Unless we know everything. Which we don't.) You say evolution can't be proven because "lololol, aliens might've done it!~!!~ :3 "Is that a valid possibility? Of course. Is it a likely possibility? Of course not. It's impossible to prove anything; science only disproves things. We follow the ideas that make the most sense based on the knowledge base we currently hold. That's how things move forward. Gravity is pretty commonly accepted to exist right? Well I don't agree with it. I mean, you can't PROVE gravity. IT MIGHT JUST BE INVISIBLE DEMONS PULLING THINGS TOWARDS THE GROUND!!! HAHAHAHA!!~!!! SCREW EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, I CAN JUST MAKE CRAZY SHIT UP AND CHOOSE TO FOLLOW THAT, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PROVE ME WRONG!~!!!! Can you see how silly your argument is? That's basically what you just said a minute ago. It's kind of ridiculous.

Sorry this post is so....angry..... XD
And sorry it's so unorganized and unfinished. I had a few more points to throw in there at the end, but I forgot what they were in my overzealousness in showing how ridiculous your argument sounded. XP

You're Silly :)

But still, how do all those bone structures and biological matches prove evolution? Personally, I believe in alot of what they say about adaptations and variations but only to a certain extent. What I don't believe is evolving into totally new species.
In reality there is no such thing as "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Those are just terms made up by creationists to undermine the credibility of evolution. ^_^
What Hopeless says is right, when something keeps on changing and you admit that it changes, someday it won't be able to replicate with the original species, thus a new species is created.


Also, my arguement does have something to stand on. I'm not trying to prove that evolution is definately not exhistant, I'm just trying to prove that it isn't a fact. There is a lack of evidence to actually show evolution, there is no way to actually prove evolution because we aren't able to see it.
You admit that life changes over time and yet you say that there's not enough evidence for evolution (the theory about how life changes over time)? That doesn't make sense XD
And I actually refuted all of this already xD Maybe you should:
a) read my article again or
b) stop ignoring the arguments I stated ;)

You're Silly
Hahah. I know. ;)
Being a flippant jackass is a luxury I've earned through years of being correct.

Kekekekekeke.

Even though my post was silly, it still made sound points. If I don't make my posts a little ridiculous, I get bored and stop arguing. It's really for your own benefit. XD

Also, I edited my last post right before you posted. You may or may not want to read it again, I dunno.

In reality there is no such thing as "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Those are just terms made up by creationists to undermine the credibility of evolution. ^_^
What Hopeless says is right, when something keeps on changing and you admit that it changes, someday it won't be able to replicate with the original species, thus a new species is created.


You admit that life changes over time and yet you say that there's not enough evidence for evolution (the theory about how life changes over time)? That doesn't make sense XD
And I actually refuted all of this already xD Maybe you should:
a) read my article again or
b) stop ignoring the arguments I stated ;)

*sigh* My whole point has been is that they DONT change so much that they are a new species. Take Dogs for example. Dogs breed and create variations of dogs, thats why we have so many types of dogs, but they are still dogs! Wolves can still breed with dogs, and dogs can breed with wolves (technically) But a dog will never be a bear. This is what I meant when I said "To a certain extent" Dogs breeding is not evolution. And furthermore, you CANT prove evolution exhists, thus it is not a FACT. This is all i've been trying to argue with ya'll about. I don't give a shit one way or another about disproving evolution.