Actually there are many examples like the bone structure of a whale that show that evolution exists >> Humans themselves have their appendix which serves no real purpose besides looking cool. XD
And the idea of cross breeding isn't covered in the bible because God ordained life a certain way and animals shouldn't act out of god's will right? Though one could say that is why hybrids can't breed... but nah... Because the thing is, Hybrids don't make up the bulk of species change. The subtle differences in humans according to geographic origin is another prime example.
Though you're right it isn't a fact, it's a theory.
Wanna know what's funny? You just used the most ignorant claim against religion against an accepted Scientific theory, "you CANT prove evolution exhists, thus it is not a FACT." XD
If that is how it's gonna be, I want God's existence proven right now!

No swearing please.

Humans themselves have their appendix which serves no real purpose besides looking cool.

vestigial evolution. If you deny the fact that the appendix has no real purpose any more, you deny that it is proof of vestigial evolution. Which is evolution. Which means the idea that the appendixes uselessness was due to evolution. Which means in some cases, evolution is a fact.

Theres many types of evolution. Evolution is also being seen as of today. The idea that many people are growing taller then the average person of 200 years ago could be one, but it may also be due to people with more "healthy" diets, though when you look at the average American, we all eat fatty foods. But that even heightens the idea that evolution is happening now, because the average America is still taller then the average American of 200 years ago even with out "healthy foods."

Erm... RD, I'm trying to argue for evolution XD
You weirdo....
Just to be clear, I think we're all targeting asuka's assumptions...
And I still love that a Christian wants facts and proof .-.

I know you were for evolution as a fact. I was just quoting you to use it as a spring board so I wasn't being totally random.

OWA, I love your name, but not your "common sense". I'm going to tell you a little story.

A man was wlking through the woods and he found a clock sitting on a tree stump. A he stood there looking at it, he began to wonder. "Who could make such a precise and complex piece of equipment, even if it has its own faults?" He then stoppeed wondering and walked away. In order for there to be a clock/watch, there had to be a clock/watchmaker. That clock did not suddenly appear out of thin air. and neither did the stump. Someone had to have made it.

OWA, I want you to study every theory (Or fact, if YOU want to call it that) of evolution and tell me where it says, "this is true". Read the Bible and tell me what you find wrong. It even stated that the world was round long before Columbus sailed the ocean blue or Magellen (tried) sailed the seven seas.

Stick it to em' .:Desaya:.

I'm too tired to refute that silly argument from irreducible complexity. Stating that there has to be a creator because "LOLolol no friggin way that the watch just assembled by random chance??!!11". This is an argument from ignorance about evolution, because evolution is everything but random. The only random element is mutation... *off to bed*

Actually there are many examples like the bone structure of a whale that show that evolution exists >> Humans themselves have their appendix which serves no real purpose besides looking cool. XD
And the idea of cross breeding isn't covered in the bible because God ordained life a certain way and animals shouldn't act out of god's will right? Though one could say that is why hybrids can't breed... but nah... Because the thing is, Hybrids don't make up the bulk of species change. The subtle differences in humans according to geographic origin is another prime example.
Though you're right it isn't a fact, it's a theory.
Wanna know what's funny? You just used the most ignorant claim against religion against an accepted Scientific theory, "you CANT prove evolution exhists, thus it is not a FACT." XD
If that is how it's gonna be, I want God's existence proven right now!

No swearing please.

Religion isn't about facts, it is about faith. Science however, is about just the opposite. A religious person looking for materialistic facts about their religion can hardly be called religious at all.

@ Asuka:So then "religious" basically means "willfully ignorant?" = \

@Raloman: your argument made no freaking sense at all.
"Watches (people) can't appear out of thin air, lol!~!! There had to be a watchmaker!!~!(God)"

GUESS WHAT. A WATCH(human) IS LESS COMPLICATED THAN A WATCHMAKER(god). YOUR ARGUMENT MAKES NO SENSE.

If the universe can't spring into existence out of nowhere, then how can something even MORE powerful and MORE unlikely to appear out of nowhere just pop out of nowhere? Adding god to the universe doesn't make the universe more plausible. IT DOES JUST THE OPPOSITE.

Stick it to em. :rolleyes:

I wish people would read what has already been said before throwing their own arguments in. We've already refuted your arguments like 100 times, but nobody seems to give a damn. They keep on saying the same things anyway. > <

Hilarious!

You should have seen my post before I edited it for vulgarity/flamboyancy. XD

A man was wlking through the woods and he found a clock sitting on a tree stump. A he stood there looking at it, he began to wonder. "Who could make such a precise and complex piece of equipment, even if it has its own faults?" He then stoppeed wondering and walked away. In order for there to be a clock/watch, there had to be a clock/watchmaker. That clock did not suddenly appear out of thin air. and neither did the stump. Someone had to have made it.


Gods ugly, imprecise and simple so no one wanted to make him, is that your saying?

Now, the typical Christian response is "God is infinite, the creator thus forever into the past, present and future. He is always and will stay as always."

Maybe the damn clock is like god. So precise and complex its been around forever in the past, present and future. Or maybe the guy never saw a Rolex in its glory.

Christians suck at making "philosophical" sayings that try and make you think. Buddha and Confucius did it better btw, they actually take time to think.

The funny thing is I was waiting for someone, in rl or on the www, to say what I've been thinking about this retarded idea. Look, an agnostic took time and thought about something!

The funny thing is I was waiting for someone, in rl or on the www, to say what I've been thinking about this retarded idea. Look, an agnostic took time and thought about something!
What agnostic and what idea are you referring to? That spoiler was confusing! O:

What agnostic and what idea are you referring to? That spoiler was confusing! O:

I, the agnostic, took time to think over the idea that a creator has to exist for every object in existence in the Christian context.

Ah, I see I see.

@ Asuka:So then "religious" basically means "willfully ignorant?" = \


It wouldn't be ignorance, since religious people (Well presumably at least) would be aware of other ideas that exist in the world, they just choose to believe in something else.



@Raloman: your argument made no freaking sense at all.
"Watches (people) can't appear out of thin air, lol!~!! There had to be a watchmaker!!~!(God)"

GUESS WHAT. A WATCH(human) IS LESS COMPLICATED THAN A WATCHMAKER(god). YOUR ARGUMENT MAKES NO SENSE.

If the universe can't spring into existence out of nowhere, then how can something even MORE powerful and MORE unlikely to appear out of nowhere just pop out of nowhere? Adding god to the universe doesn't make the universe more plausible. IT DOES JUST THE OPPOSITE.


Well obviously since God would have created the universe, he wouldn't be a part of it, and presumably his creation/birth/whatever would make a lot more sense on whatever higher plane he exists on. Not that I'm trying arguing with you Hopeless, seriously.

It wouldn't be ignorance, since religious people (Well presumably at least) would be aware of other ideas that exist in the world, they just choose to believe in something else.
It would be ;P Since one ignores contrary evidence. If not ignorance I'd at least call it closed-minded.

Ignorant:
"1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement."

Please know what simple words mean people. A religious person choosing not to believe in evolution is far from ignorant, since they know about evolution and choose not to believe in it, just like they know about their religion and choose to believe in it. Hopeless, ignorant is not a nice way to say stupid, so please stop trying to make sly insultive statements using words like ignorant, especially if you don't know the actually meaning of the word. All educated christians know about evolution, so your statement that being religious is another way for saying "willfully ignorant" is false. Sorry kid, try again next time.

close-mind·ed or closed-mind·ed:
adj.
Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.

Please know what simple words mean people. A religious person choosing not to believe in evolution is far from ignorant, since they know about evolution and choose not to believe in it, just like they know about their religion and choose to believe in it. Hopeless, ignorant is not a nice way to say stupid, so please stop trying to make sly insultive statements using words like ignorant, especially if you don't know the actually meaning of the word. All educated christians know about evolution, so your statement that being religious is another way for saying "willfully ignorant" is false. Sorry kid, try again next time.
From what I have seen this far most creationists know a shit about evolution. Only what they've read in their fancy creationism books or heard from fellow creationists... -_-
And yeh, stubbornly refusing proofs and saying "I chose not to belief in it!" is closed-minded ;)

Well obviously since God would have created the universe, he wouldn't be a part of it, and presumably his creation/birth/whatever would make a lot more sense on whatever higher plane he exists on. Not that I'm trying arguing with you Hopeless, seriously.
That's my point Pfish...if God exists, then a higher "universe" exists. Now we have *two* universes instead of one. See where "more complicated" comes in? :heh:

Whether there is a god or not, *something* appeared out of nowhere at one point. The more gods and universes we have, the less plausible the situation gets.


Hopeless, ignorant is not a nice way to say stupid, so please stop trying to make sly insultive statements using words like ignorant, especially if you don't know the actually meaning of the word. All educated christians know about evolution, so your statement that being religious is another way for saying "willfully ignorant" is false. Sorry kid, try again next time.

Matt, being the awesome guy that he is, already answered this for me. :3

From what I have seen this far most creationists know a shit about evolution. Only what they've read in their fancy creationism books or heard from fellow creationists...
Most creationists don't know shit about *anything* because they chalk the freaking universe up to God. Why think about things when God is always the answer?


Hopeless, ignorant is not a nice way to say stupid, so please stop trying to make sly insultive statements using words like ignorant
....Ahahahahahahahahaha. No no, believe me. I wasn't trying to do that at all. If I was going to call creationists stupid, I would say they were stupid by *birth,* not choice. But I didn't. I said they were *ignorant* by choice, which is exactly what I meant to say. And even then, I was only joking around; obviously there are some highly educated, very intelligent people out there, who just choose to believe in God despite all the evidence contrary to their beliefs. Judging by the Creationists I've talked to though, this isn't often the case.

Also, "insultive" isn't a word. Next time you feel like bringing up a dictionary, do so for your own posts. ;)

Well obviously since God would have created the universe, he wouldn't be a part of it, and presumably his creation/birth/whatever would make a lot more sense on whatever higher plane he exists on. Not that I'm trying arguing with you Hopeless, seriously.

That's my point Pfish...if God exists, then a higher "universe" exists. Now we have *two* universes instead of one. See where "more complicated" comes in?
:heh:
Whether there is a god or not, *something* appeared out of nowhere at one point. The more gods and universes we have, the less plausible the situation gets.
Yep, not very plausible. God is basicaly the presupposed end of an infinite regression. Someone created our universe. Who created the creator? Who created the creator of the creator? GODDIDIT! Why? Because he's infinite.
Why not go for the easiest and most plausible of all answers and say that the energy of our universe has existed forever (1. law of thermodynamics anyway). Postulating "A creator of our universe" simply makes everything more complicated and "less logical".

Matt, being the awesome guy that he is, already answered this for me. :3
My, my XD

EDIT: To pick up a thing from 2 pages ago:

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.
Hm, I've got an interesting question for you! :P How do they prove Creationism?


*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.

*sigh* You really don't get the concept of evolution. Evolution needs a LOT of time. Give those dogs a couple of years (a few MILLION years) and of course they'll change, given a proper "wild" environment, where they're effected by natural selection.

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.
Do you admit that life changed a LOT over the past? dinosaurs, mammals etc? Not admitting it is ridiculous. It's like saying, "there were no dinosaurs! it's conspiracy!" (humans did never fly to the moon btw, that was made in hollywood). How about mammoths? Saber tooths? Not to mention:
# †Homo habilis (Handy Man)
# †Homo rudolfensis (Rudolf Man)
# †Homo ergaster (Working Man)
# †Homo erectus (Upright Man)
# †Homo floresiensis (Flores Man — discovered 2003)
# †Homo antecessor (Predecessor Man)
# †Homo heidelbergensis (Heidelberg Man)
# †Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthal Man)
# †Homo rhodesiensis (Rhodesia Man)
# †Homo cepranensis (Ceprano Man)
# †Homo georgicus (Georgia Man)

It's EVIDENT that life changed greatly.
There you go. That's what's called the FACT of evolution, which the THEORY of evolution describes.
The fact that life changed over the past. The fact of evolution is in no way dependant on the theory of evolution.
Denying that life changed over the past is...well.. moronic to say the least.

Uhm, did I forget to mention anything? AH yeah! Why did God, in his omnibenevolence, create all those species just to let them die in the end? Isn't it probably part of his greater plan (we all know he has one!)? Maybe that we could find those fossils and test our faith, being confronted with overwhelming evidence? Or maybe he wasn't satisfied with his creation (I'd even believe that a theist would use that argument... disregarding his omnipotence and omniscience).

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/8625/oh20fuckth8.png

Oh my God, where did you find that comic? That made me laugh pretty hard. XD

http://www.explosm.net/ (http://www.explosm.net/comics/52/) XD
Those comics are friggin hilarious! :heh:

Heheh, thanks. X3

close-mind·ed or closed-mind·ed:
adj.
Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asuka
Please know what simple words mean people. A religious person choosing not to believe in evolution is far from ignorant, since they know about evolution and choose not to believe in it, just like they know about their religion and choose to believe in it. Hopeless, ignorant is not a nice way to say stupid, so please stop trying to make sly insultive statements using words like ignorant, especially if you don't know the actually meaning of the word. All educated christians know about evolution, so your statement that being religious is another way for saying "willfully ignorant" is false. Sorry kid, try again next time.

From what I have seen this far most creationists know a shit about evolution. Only what they've read in their fancy creationism books or heard from fellow creationists...
And yeh, stubbornly refusing proofs and saying "I chose not to belief in it!" is closed-minded


Silly goose, I only quoted Ignorance, I have no problem with being closed minded about my religion, after all, you yourself are closed-minded about evolution. Also, I purposefully said "Educated" Religous people because the majority of christian newbs on this forum are 12 year old twats.


Hm, I've got an interesting question for you! How do they prove Creationism? Trying to prove creationism is utterly pointless and you know that. Go read 100 pages of this thread, all the views of it are there.


*sigh* You really don't get the concept of evolution. Evolution needs a LOT of time. Give those dogs a couple of years (a few MILLION years) and of course they'll change, given a proper "wild" environment, where they're effected by natural selection. Prove it, if you can't then it isn't a fact.


It's EVIDENT that life changed greatly.
There you go. That's what's called the FACT of evolution, which the THEORY of evolution describes.
The fact that life changed over the past. The fact of evolution is in no way dependant on the theory of evolution.
Denying that life changed over the past is...well.. moronic to say the least.
Lol, how is life chaning evolution? Explain further.


Uhm, did I forget to mention anything? AH yeah! Why did God, in his omnibenevolence, create all those species just to let them die in the end? Isn't it probably part of his greater plan (we all know he has one!)? Maybe that we could find those fossils and test our faith, being confronted with overwhelming evidence? Or maybe he wasn't satisfied with his creation (I'd even believe that a theist would use that argument... disregarding his omnipotence and omniscience).

Why is dirt brown and not red? Why is grass green and not purple?

Silly goose, I only quoted Ignorance, I have no problem with being closed minded about my religion, after all, you yourself are closed-minded about evolution. Also, I purposefully said "Educated" Religous people because the majority of christian newbs on this forum are 12 year old twats.
He's not though. It's incredibly depressing that you can't see that.

Prove it, if you can't then it isn't a fact.
As has been stated a million times, you can't fucking prove anything. You go with the best bet. Stop saying "Prove it! Teehee!"
Your argument is so amazingly ridiculous, let me write a little parallel story to it for you:


You're staying at a hotel with three friends, Bob, Todd, and idiot. Todd and idiot kind of hate each other, and begin to get into a fierce argument in the room. You and Bob don't like confrontations, so you two start walking down the hallway to go to the lobby to get some peace and quiet. When you're about 100 feet down the hall, you hear a scream behind you! It sounds like Todd! You and Bob rush back to the room and find....Todd, laying in a pool of blood! Idiot is beside him, smiling maniacally, blood spattered all over him, a stained knife in his hands. Bob screams in fury, "Idiot, you've killed Todd! How could you!? I'll have you in jail for this, you sick bastard!"

Idiot looks at you and grins, "You can't prove it was me, you weren't here! It's not a fact that I killed Todd, right Asuka?"

You smile back, shrug your shoulders, and go, "Very true kind sir. Let's go have some fucking lunch."

Bob stares dumbfounded at you, "You agree with idiot, Asuka?!"
You look back and blink, confused, "Well, it's only natural isn't it? It's not a *fact* that he killed Todd; we didn't see it happen! It could have been *God* for all we know!"

-End.

There. I hope that story drilled my point into your head. I also hope you found it slightly entertaining and/or witty. Because I did. XD


Lol, how is life chaning evolution? Explain further.
:lol2: ....was that a joke?
Since you like dictionaries so much, let me help you out here:

ev·o·lu·tion·al, adjective
ev·o·lu·tion·al·ly, adverb

—Synonyms 1. unfolding, change, progression, metamorphosis.
—Antonyms 1. stasis, inactivity, changelessness.
XD


Why is dirt brown and not red? Why is grass green and not purple?

Yeah, the universe is kind of arbitrary like that, huh? It's almost like it all happened randomly, instead of being created by some kind of unseen, ultra-intelligent, infinitely powerful super-being.

Kekekekeke. X3

And sorry if this post was offensive. I'm only playing around. X3

Okay... Being a hypocrite here I'm gonna ignore all the posts coming before this because I was bored and read that article on Einstein and religion where he was quoted saying:
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."
"Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, Religious."
"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know hot. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimply suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

I do like how he doesn't state that God is a conscious entity, but keeps God as an ideal or concept for the mysteries that humans have yet to answer. And of course, he brings a refreshing mix of Science and Religion that is tolerable for most people I know that are Atheist. It seems that his words can be construed that things happened and for now they are unexplainable. Einstein did not chain himself to religion though he was an avid follower of the Jewish faith. Because blindly following an absolute authority that has no design that we can discern is being ignorant. The way it is now, there is no divine plan that you have put up Asuka... so I wonder what is your idea of God's will? Not even educated religious icons could tell you...

"Humans continue to evolve" is quite a common quote no? .-.

How can you honestly say that things that have proof are less plausible than something that has no proof?

That was a pretty good post, for having not read any of the posts before it, Toshi. :3

>> Perhaps I stretched the truth on not reading Any of the posts before it...

Prove it, if you can't then it isn't a fact.

Asuka. 1 Your either the biggest idiot in the world, you lacked a biology class, or you just dropped your ass out of school.

Vestigial Evolution

Do you have an appendix when you were born? Do you use it everyday? Have you used it ever? Do you know anyone who has used their appendix?

If you answered yes to any of it, you have just proven evolution. Unless you are one of the above in section 1.

Yes, you cannot truly prove anything, but things can be widely accepted because of solid facts. Though you could call the bible solid fact [I wont and will never], those who do don't say what almost all science followers say: things should be written in pencil because things change.

Evolution is just the gradual process of change organisms go through.
Diseases and viruses evolve in the sense that they adapt to new hosts and antibiotics no longer work. Immune systems are passed through descendants. .-.
Meow meow meow meow meow.

Okay... Being a hypocrite here I'm gonna ignore all the posts coming before this because I was bored and read that article on Einstein and religion where he was quoted saying:
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."
"Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, Religious."
"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know hot. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimply suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

I do like how he doesn't state that God is a conscious entity, but keeps God as an ideal or concept for the mysteries that humans have yet to answer. And of course, he brings a refreshing mix of Science and Religion that is tolerable for most people I know that are Atheist. It seems that his words can be construed that things happened and for now they are unexplainable. Einstein did not chain himself to religion though he was an avid follower of the Jewish faith. Because blindly following an absolute authority that has no design that we can discern is being ignorant. The way it is now, there is no divine plan that you have put up Asuka... so I wonder what is your idea of God's will? Not even educated religious icons could tell you...

"Humans continue to evolve" is quite a common quote no? .-.

How can you honestly say that things that have proof are less plausible than something that has no proof?

Einstein wasn't an avid follower of the Jewish faith, he didn't believe in any kind of personal god. That couldn't be further from the truth. When he used the word "God" he referred to the beauty of nature, though many theists eagerly misinterpret his word usage (the same goes for Stephen Hawkings btw). How Dan Denett puts it: "They believe in belief".

"I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it." - Albert Einstein

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Alber Einstein

One quote theist like to use to claim that Einstein was "religious" is:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
He uses the word "religious" in a way that means he "appretiated the beauty of nature". In that way you could call me religious as well. But I refrain from such confusing terminology :P

Here are some more quotes:

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion." - Albert Einstein

"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism." - Albert Einstein

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."- Albert Einstein

Quote:
Silly goose, I only quoted Ignorance, I have no problem with being closed minded about my religion, after all, you yourself are closed-minded about evolution. Also, I purposefully said "Educated" Religous people because the majority of christian newbs on this forum are 12 year old twats.

He's not though. It's incredibly depressing that you can't see that.

Quote:
Prove it, if you can't then it isn't a fact.

As has been stated a million times, you can't fucking prove anything. You go with the best bet. Stop saying "Prove it! Teehee!"
Your argument is so amazingly ridiculous, let me write a little parallel story to it for you:

Quote:
You're staying at a hotel with three friends, Bob, Todd, and idiot. Todd and idiot kind of hate each other, and begin to get into a fierce argument in the room. You and Bob don't like confrontations, so you two start walking down the hallway to go to the lobby to get some peace and quiet. When you're about 100 feet down the hall, you hear a scream behind you! It sounds like Todd! You and Bob rush back to the room and find....Todd, laying in a pool of blood! Idiot is beside him, smiling maniacally, blood spattered all over him, a stained knife in his hands. Bob screams in fury, "Idiot, you've killed Todd! How could you!? I'll have you in jail for this, you sick bastard!"

Idiot looks at you and grins, "You can't prove it was me, you weren't here! It's not a fact that I killed Todd, right Asuka?"

You smile back, shrug your shoulders, and go, "Very true kind sir. Let's go have some fucking lunch."

Bob stares dumbfounded at you, "You agree with idiot, Asuka?!"
You look back and blink, confused, "Well, it's only natural isn't it? It's not a *fact* that he killed Todd; we didn't see it happen! It could have been *God* for all we know!"

-End.

There. I hope that story drilled my point into your head. I also hope you found it slightly entertaining and/or witty. Because I did.


Quote:
Lol, how is life chaning evolution? Explain further.

....was that a joke?
Since you like dictionaries so much, let me help you out here:

Quote:
ev·o·lu·tion·al, adjective
ev·o·lu·tion·al·ly, adverb

—Synonyms 1. unfolding, change, progression, metamorphosis.
—Antonyms 1. stasis, inactivity, changelessness.




1) Who is he? Matt or religous people? Because, yes Matt is closed-minded because he is "Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas". Or if your talking about religious people, well I have a hard time believeing someone who has been educated through school about science, not know about evolution.

2) That been my whole fucking point, this whole fucking time. Ya'll keep fucking inisting that there is proof of evolution and all you keep showing me is fucking biological structures and fossils. Let me make this clear. THIS IS NOT PROOF.

3) Shut the fuck up dude, you wanna see the proof in that story? There is PROOF in that story. First...We KNOW FOR SURE that the two hate each other. Second, WE SAW WITH OUR EYES that they walked away together. Third, WE HEARD Tom scream. Fourth, WE SAW Idiot holding the bloodly knife that would match the stab wound, with Idiot's Fingerprints all over it. So, in conclusion. You are a fucking idiot.

4) Alright then, according to that definition. Me taking a piss is evolution because my body is going through changes.
Evolution
"1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See synonyms at development.

2.
A. The process of developing.
B. Gradual development.

3.Biology.
A. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
B. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements."

This is what I've been trying to tell you is not a fact. But fine, if you wanna call me taking a piss evolution, Go right ahead.

4) Have you lost all your arguements that you have to bold a typo? Shame...shame...


Quote:
Prove it, if you can't then it isn't a fact.

Asuka. 1 Your either the biggest idiot in the world, you lacked a biology class, or you just dropped your ass out of school.

Vestigial Evolution

Do you have an appendix when you were born? Do you use it everyday? Have you used it ever? Do you know anyone who has used their appendix?

If you answered yes to any of it, you have just proven evolution. Unless you are one of the above in section 1.

Yes, you cannot truly prove anything, but things can be widely accepted because of solid facts. Though you could call the bible solid fact [I wont and will never], those who do don't say what almost all science followers say: things should be written in pencil because things change.

Are you a fucking idiot? Prove that because I don't use my appendix, it is evolution. So what? Are you next going to say that birth defects are evolution? Hell Fuck, me taking a piss is evolution now.

1) Who is he? Matt or religous people? Because, yes Matt is closed-minded because he is "Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas". Or if your talking about religious people, well I have a hard time believeing someone who has been educated through school about science, not know about evolution.
There's a decent difference between being close-minded and to reasonably reject ideas. I humbly claim to do the latter.


2) That been my whole fucking point, this whole fucking time. Ya'll keep fucking inisting that there is proof of evolution and all you keep showing me is fucking biological structures and fossils. Let me make this clear. THIS IS NOT PROOF.
What the hell do you expect us to show you? Let me tell you a little something about how to make an argument.
First you state your claim. Then you justify your claim. Then you present evidence and/or examples for your idea. It's quite simple actually.
I'll tell you what you're doing (in your language):
"You fucking state stupid claims, without fucking justifying them! All you fucking say is that there's no fucking proof!!" Yeah, well. That's not a fucking argument. You basically say: "WTF THAT'S JUST ABSURD!". Wow, what reasoning! Maybe you should add in your next post WHY THE HELL IT IS ABSURD! (this is called an argumentum ad Lapidem... it is a logical fallacy where someone dismisses a statement as absurd without giving a reason why it is supposedly absurd. It is considered close to the ad hominem fallacy.)


3) Shut the fuck up dude, you wanna see the proof in that story? There is PROOF in that story. First...We KNOW FOR SURE that the two hate each other. Second, WE SAW WITH OUR EYES that they walked away together. Third, WE HEARD Tom scream. Fourth, WE SAW Idiot holding the bloodly knife that would match the stab wound, with Idiot's Fingerprints all over it. So, in conclusion. You are a fucking idiot.
Now tell me how this doesn't relate to evolution. WE SAW WITH OUR EYES that there were dinosaurs and how they CHANGED over time. We see all kind of stuff. Now you can use your well-founded counter thesis for this...: "THAT'S FUCKING ABSURD!".
Maybe... go a step further and tell us.... why?


4) Alright then, according to that definition. Me taking a piss is evolution because my body is going through changes.
Evolution
"1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See synonyms at development.

2.
A. The process of developing.
B. Gradual development.

3.Biology.
A. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
B. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements."

This is what I've been trying to tell you is not a fact. But fine, if you wanna call me taking a piss evolution, Go right ahead.
That's ridiculous... We can see the genetic composition changing over time. Please tell us why this cannot be considered as proof (the good old thesis - reason - evidence/example thing). If can't tell us why this does not account as proof, it's evident who has the better arguments.


Are you a fucking idiot? Prove that because I don't use my appendix, it is evolution. So what? Are you next going to say that birth defects are evolution? Hell Fuck, me taking a piss is evolution now.
*sigh* The appendix isn't a fucking birth defect. Anyway:
Why can't a non functioning appendix be not considered as proof for evolution? You always "argue"(haha) that it's just not possible, without justification.
If I'd say: "OLoOLol THERE'S NO FUCKING WAY THAT THERE'S A GOD°!!!!1" (that's about your level of argumentation) Then you'd probably ask:
"What makes you think so?"...
That's exactly what we'd like to know from you Asuka. Just a simple, well reasoned answer. No ad lapidem fallacies and other wicked stuff :P

And while you're at it you... maybe... just maybe, might want to tell us what supports your view of creationism...

There's a decent difference between being close-minded and to reasonably reject ideas. I humbly claim to do the latter.


What the hell do you expect us to show you? Let me tell you a little something about how to make an argument.
First you state your claim. Then you justify your claim. Then you present evidence and/or examples for your idea. It's quite simple actually.
I'll tell you what you're doing (in your language):
"You fucking state stupid claims, without fucking justifying them! All you fucking say is that there's no fucking proof!!" Yeah, well. That's not a fucking argument. You basically say: "WTF THAT'S JUST ABSURD!". Wow, what reasoning! Maybe you should add in your next post WHY THE HELL IT IS ABSURD! (this is called an argumentum ad Lapidem... it is a logical fallacy where someone dismisses a statement as absurd without giving a reason why it is supposedly absurd. It is considered close to the ad hominem fallacy.)


Now tell me how this doesn't relate to evolution. WE SAW WITH OUR EYES that there were dinosaurs and how they CHANGED over time. We see all kind of stuff. Now you can use your well-founded counter thesis for this...: "THAT'S FUCKING ABSURD!".
Maybe... go a step further and tell us.... why?


That's ridiculous... We can see the genetic composition changing over time. Please tell us why this cannot be considered as proof (the good old thesis - reason - evidence/example thing). If can't tell us why this does not account as proof, it's evident who has the better arguments.


*sigh* The appendix isn't a fucking birth defect. Anyway:
Why can't a non functioning appendix be not considered as proof for evolution? You always "argue"(haha) that it's just not possible, without justification.
If I'd say: "OLoOLol THERE'S NO FUCKING WAY THAT THERE'S A GOD°!!!!1" (that's about your level of argumentation) Then you'd probably ask:
"What makes you think so?"...
That's exactly what we'd like to know from you Asuka. Just a simple, well reasoned answer. No ad lapidem fallacies and other wicked stuff :P

And while you're at it you... maybe... just maybe, might want to tell us what supports your view of creationism...

1) Claim all you want ;)

2) Kay, take the theory of Common Descent for example. We have bone structures and biological structures from our "ancestors". Yet we have no evidence that our ancestors actually evolved into a later generation. Take my bones, and my sisters bones, end go a million years in the future. They could just as well say that my sister was actually my daughter. Do you get what I'm saying? We have old bone structures, but we don't have anything saying that the descendents of those bone strucutures is us. Or do we? That's what I've been trying to say, also, this goes for genetic composition as well. Though, there very well may be something I'm not aware of concerning genetics and biological structures because I am that well informed of those subjects.

3) We have seen bone structures of dinosaurs, thats all. We have seen many variations of dinosaurs, and that about sums it up. What change is there to be seen? That they died? Am I missing something here?

4) (so you don't get lost "That's ridiculous... We can see the genetic composition changing over time. Please tell us why this cannot be considered as proof (the good old thesis - reason - evidence/example thing). If can't tell us why this does not account as proof, it's evident who has the better arguments.") Which/what genetic compositions have we seen change over time? I'm a wee-bit confused here.

5) I never said the appendix was a birth defect. Anyways,
One of the alleged pillars of evolutionary evidence is the presence of so-called vestigial organs — body parts that are now useless, but which scientists theorize must have been fully functional in the distant past, when we were animals and needed them. Two such organs, the appendix and the thymus, are frequently used by evolutionists as proof that humans possess useless organs that were once used by our evolutionary ancestors.

As with other “proofs” of evolution, this one rests on pure assumption. The verifiable scientific facts refute evolutionary speculation regarding both organs in question. The first of these, the appendix, is now known to be a helpful organ, not a useless holdover. Studies of the rabbit appendix show that it contains large amounts of lymphoid tissue. Julie Pomerantz, wildlife veterinarian and program officer for the Wildlife Trust’s North American Conservation Medicine Initiative, explains the importance of this:


“Similar aggregates of lymphoid tissue occur in other areas of the gastrointestinal tract and are known as gut-associated lymphoid tissues….[T]hese tissues are involved in the body’s ability to recognize foreign antigens (molecules to which the immune system can respond) in ingested material” (Pomerantz 2001: 96).

She concludes with a statement that exposes the emptiness of evolutionary speculation on this issue:

“Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, a growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the body’s immune system. The appendix may be particularly important early in life because it achieves its highest state of development shortly after birth and then regresses with age, eventually coming to resemble such other regions of gut-associated lymphoid tissue as the Peyer’s patches in the small intestine” (Pomerantz 2001: 96).

The fact that this “vestigial” organ is most active in infancy, and then fades in importance as the child grows, is relevant to the second example, the thymus. This organ was also dismissed by evolutionists as useless, but it is highly necessary in infancy. I. L. Cohen, a member of the New York Academy of Sciences, remarks:

“[M]edical research ultimately realized that the thymus gland has a function — an extremely important one. It was not the leftover from some hazy evolutionary process that took place over ‘millions of years ago.’ New born babies have a large thymus gland, in perfect functioning order. As the child grows, the gland degenerates, becoming almost non-existent in the fully grown adult. But this gland plays an important role in the growth of the human body.

“The thymus produces large doses of antibodies for the protection of the newly born baby, so as to protect it against the various germs present in its new surroundings. We must realize that the child who spent nine months in the mother’s womb was protected by her immune system. All of a sudden the baby leaves that sterile ambiance and is thrust into a new world, teeming with germs and bacteria. It needs a constant, reliable flow of antibodies to defend itself and survive. The thymus gland constitutes that defense mechanism until the body can adjust and the other organs and glands can develop and take over the job of biochemical protection. When the other body mechanisms grow enough to shoulder the responsibility of protecting the body against germs, the thymus gland starts to shrink and phases itself out of existence. This is a long way from the reasons submitted by evolutionists! It did not prove the theory of evolution — it simply underscored our ignorance of our state of ignorance” (Cohen 1984: 195-196).

2) Kay, take the theory of Common Descent for example. We have bone structures and biological structures from our "ancestors". Yet we have no evidence that our ancestors actually evolved into a later generation. Take my bones, and my sisters bones, end go a million years in the future. They could just as well say that my sister was actually my daughter. Do you get what I'm saying?
No, I don't :o Your sister has the same body structure as you, it's evident that you're of the same species and radiometric dating would show that you lived at around the same time. It doesn't matter at all whether your sister is your sister or your daughter. As evolution works on much larger scales.

We have old bone structures, but we don't have anything saying that the descendents of those bone strucutures is us. Or do we? That's what I've been trying to say, also, this goes for genetic composition as well. Though, there very well may be something I'm not aware of concerning genetics and biological structures because I am that well informed of those subjects.
We can date the fossils of our ancestors. The more recent those fossils are, the more "human" they become. Starting with the first hominides.
Followed by:
* †Homo habilis (Handy Man)
* †Homo rudolfensis (Rudolf Man)
* †Homo ergaster (Working Man)
* †Homo erectus (Upright Man)
* †Homo floresiensis (Flores Man — discovered 2003)
* †Homo antecessor (Predecessor Man)
* †Homo heidelbergensis (Heidelberg Man)
* †Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthal Man)
* †Homo rhodesiensis (Rhodesia Man)
* †Homo cepranensis (Ceprano Man)
* †Homo georgicus (Georgia Man)
* Homo sapiens
o †Homo sapiens idaltu (elderly wise man — discovered 1997)
o Homo sapiens sapiens (Wise Man; modern humans)

I'm sure you don't doubt that those species grew more and more like modern homo sapiens sapiens (If you do, you deny obvious evidence).
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_%28genus%29)


3) We have seen bone structures of dinosaurs, thats all. We have seen many variations of dinosaurs, and that about sums it up. What change is there to be seen? That they died? Am I missing something here?

Yes, you forget about one thing and that is that we can date those fossils! It's not just a huge collection of random fossils of even more random species. But we can see their relations due to the fact that they have changed over time. To sum it up in an overly simple way:
old = less adapted to their environment
new = more adapted to their environment




4) (so you don't get lost "That's ridiculous... We can see the genetic composition changing over time. Please tell us why this cannot be considered as proof (the good old thesis - reason - evidence/example thing). If can't tell us why this does not account as proof, it's evident who has the better arguments.") Which/what genetic compositions have we seen change over time? I'm a wee-bit confused here.
X_X drug-resistent bacteria


5) I never said the appendix was a birth defect.
My bad I misread your sentence :P

Are you next going to say that birth defects are evolution? To a certain extent, yes ;)

I'll write something about the text of Stephen Caesar later.

No, I don't :o Your sister has the same body structure as you, it's evident that you're of the same species and radiometric dating would show that you lived at around the same time. It doesn't matter at all whether your sister is your sister or your daughter. As evolution works on much larger scales.

We can date the fossils of our ancestors. The more recent those fossils are, the more "human" they become. Starting with the first hominides.
Followed by:
* †Homo habilis (Handy Man)
* †Homo rudolfensis (Rudolf Man)
* †Homo ergaster (Working Man)
* †Homo erectus (Upright Man)
* †Homo floresiensis (Flores Man — discovered 2003)
* †Homo antecessor (Predecessor Man)
* †Homo heidelbergensis (Heidelberg Man)
* †Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthal Man)
* †Homo rhodesiensis (Rhodesia Man)
* †Homo cepranensis (Ceprano Man)
* †Homo georgicus (Georgia Man)
* Homo sapiens
o †Homo sapiens idaltu (elderly wise man — discovered 1997)
o Homo sapiens sapiens (Wise Man; modern humans)

I'm sure you don't doubt that those species grew more and more like modern homo sapiens sapiens (If you do, you deny obvious evidence).
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_%28genus%29)


Yes, you forget about one thing and that is that we can date those fossils! It's not just a huge collection of random fossils of even more random species. But we can see their relations due to the fact that they have changed over time. To sum it up in an overly simple way:
old = less adapted to their environment
new = more adapted to their environment

FYI, scientists date geological layers by the structures in them. Meaning... Fossil Y is considered an evolutionary descendant of Fossil X because Y is found in a geological layer deemed younger than the layer containing X, and this geological layer is deemed younger because it contains the evolutionary ancestor of Fossil Y.

The sedimentary rocks which enclose fossils in such variety are found all over the world as sheets of limestone, shale and sandstone of diverse extent and thickness. Originally these were, of course, deposited as horizontal or nearly horizontal beds, by the waters of oceans and lakes, by river and stream currents, by wind, and even by glaciers. During the long history of the earth such sheets of sediments, eventually hardened into layers of rock, are commonly tilted, broken and distorted by immense earth forces — the forces that are usually manifested to us as earthquakes. Moreover, sedimentary rocks are frequently cut by volcanoes and long dikes of volcanic rock that push through them from below. Many sedimentary rocks are removed from the area which they formerly occupied by erosion. Consequently the interpretation of the sediments in which the fossils are contained is a complex and exacting discipline. But such interpretation is of importance if the sequence of the fossils and the consequent evolutionary conclusions as based on this sequence are to be correctly understood. This is the study of stratigraphy, and it involves the correlation of sediments in different parts of a continent and in different parts of the world. Correlation depends primarily upon the restriction of particular fossils to particular sediments. The occurrence of similar or closely related fossils in sediments at two separated localities generally implies a similar or nearly similar age for the beds. By comparing back and forth, by making allowances for distortions of beds or the absence of beds and so on, the stratigrapher builds up a comprehensive picture of the succession of sediments the world over, and the succession of life contained within these sediments.

In other words... The ages of sediments are determined by the fossils they contain. The evolutionary sequence of life as revealed by the fossils is determined by the succession of these fossils in the sediments. Its circular reasoning. Did I interpret this right?

Also, are you not assuming that Homo rudolfensis is a descendent of Homo habilis? Even with this assumption, dating fossils from so far in the past can hardly be reliable considering the flawed method used to date them (btw, I am assuming the itlacized sentence.)

Furthermore, neanderthals may not even be direct ancestors.

Neanderthals disappeared from the fossil record 30,000 years ago. They might represent a side branch of human evolution and might not be direct ancestors of modern humans
Also, I realize that this key word here is "might" but this is also further showing less and less reliability of these fossils.



X_X drug-resistent bacteria That is an adaptation, as I've said previously, I agree with adaptation, however this bacteria is not a new species of bacteria. Enterococcus faecium and gonorrhea are still the same type of bacteria, just drug-resistant.




To a certain extent, yes ;)
Could you please explain?

Actually Matt if you read my post fully you'd understand what I was saying about how Einstein's interpretations of God differed from basic beliefs and was interesting to follow because it didn't place God as an entity. Did you even read my post? Plus~ Until the age of 13 Einstein read the full series of Jewish Texts that correspond with the religion On his own. He simply diverted away from it at the point of his Mitzvah. In fact he stated that documents of such passion have never been created in fiction and believed them to contain a great amount of truth, especially in the case of Jesus.
To simply go back to my own point, he took religion like everything else in his life, from a different perspective. At the Age of 13 he realized that it isn't about, as repeated in the quotes you showed, a personal god, but a phenomena that exists on the fringes of human understanding that we must attain, the Ideal of God. He in fact admitted in his later essay that he did not fully comprehend nor could he clearly communicate his own feelings on the subject or the nature of his ideal clearly. I'm using him as an example of someone who attained a certain amount of knowledge about faith and made that last jump to realizing it isn't about the deity but about what the deity represents.

And Einstein on several occasions stated he was not atheist for the very reasons I stated above.

Asuka in certain situations we hit anomalies in Genes, these anomalies can get passed down either as a dominant or dormant gene. If these anomalies survive and become commonplace, it is evolution~

No asuka they aren't the same, the chemical make up of diseases changes radically in short amounts of time, which is what makes them the topic of many studies of evolution. We see in certain cases that individuals suffer from extreme cases or that diseases specifically target individuals and die out, that is one of the only reasons it doesn't really spread... Otherwise no new diseases would come out, like where did the Avian Flu, Ebola Virus, and Black plague come and go from? Two of which are still in existence because we have no re prevention treatments only quarantine precautions. Sars too @_@
3 of those targeted animals and were not lethal to humans till sudden epidemics came about.

Actually, I the more popular trend is mineral samples isn't it? Carbon 14 in fossils can be misleading at sometimes so better to get some stability. And really we went through this asuka. Early fossils predate biblical dates and to top it off... we have pigmies and such as proof of human evolution in a different area.

We don't know why they died, but dinosaurs did show evolution. They infact evolved from either birds or reptiles if you remember bio. The hollowed bone structure of Raptors shows some resemblance to bird bones. There is an evolutionary chart of Dinosaurs in fact since if they are not lumped together >>
Remember there were a lot of periods before them. At one point it was all arthropods... so where did dinosaurs come from @_@ Where did dinosaur ancestors come from? That is debatable, but unless god was just practicing to create mankind... I don't think religion could explain that XD

Best example of evolution~ Sharks. They are unique in structure but are one of the longest standing species on earth.
http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/evolution/evol-image/time_chart.gif
http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/evolution/evol-image/xenacanthus.gif
Looks nothing like our current sharks does it?

And Dna testing shows relative changes in dna caused by cataclysmic events. We have several points shown in our genes that show bottlenecking of the species. We can date human life using their marrow or by filtering Dna through a series of Enzymes and acids. You get a read out like a ticker tape, but it makes sense to some people.

How is none of this proof? It's how we interpret the data, put into one simple word. Like how religious people say when people die it is the step to heaven, we observe it as just dying. You may label it transcending, but we just call it keeling over after a heart attack that probably hurt like a bitch. So. While you may just call it similarities that are linked by some unknown force, we're showing you data showing how they're linked and how there is a trend to it. That way, rather than you repeating that it is just cases of adaption, we relate to you that all these events are linked into a process called evolution.


Below are five statements that you may agree or disagree with. Using the 1-7 scale below indicate your agreement with each item by placing the appropriate number on the line preceding that item. Please be open and honest in your responding.
• 7 - Strongly agree
• 6 - Agree
• 5 - Slightly agree
• 4 - Neither agree or disagree
• 3 - Slightly disagree
• 2 - Disagree
• 1 - Strongly disagree
_____ In most ways my life is close to my ideal.
_____ The conditions of my life are excellent.
_____ I am satisfied with my life.
_____ So far I have gotten the important things I want in life.
_____ If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.


Part 2: Various Questions of Vague Importance
Please circle whichever answer seems most fitting!

What is your sex?: Male Female

How old are you in years?: 11 or less 12-13 14-18 19-24 25-30 31-36 37-45 46-60 60+


What is your ethnic background? (if you are uncertain or mixed, which ethnic culture do you most identify with?) Please select only one option.
Caucasian Hawaiian Filipino Japanese Chinese Korean Other (specify?)


On average, how much money do you think you spend on hobbies in a year?
0-$100 $100-$300 $300-$500 $500-$800 $800-$1200 $1200+


Are you from Hawaii? Yes No (where are you from?)


Questions continue on the back ⇨⇨⇨

Are any of these particular areas of interest important to you? (Circle all that apply)

Anime Cosplaying Manga
Sports or Martial Arts Fan Fiction Music Videos
Board Games (Dungeons and Dragons, Chess, etc.) Card Games (Yu-Gi-Oh, Magic the Gathering, etc.) Console Games (Playstation, X-Box, Gameboy, etc.)
Models/Figurines Yaoi/Yuri/Slash Computer Games
Computers/Electronics Doujinshi/Fan Art Movie/Music/Television Idols


What is the highest level of education you would like to complete?
High School or Equivalent Associate's Degree Bachelors Degree Masters Degree Doctorate Degree Trade School


Are you familiar with the term otaku? Yes No
If so do you consider yourself an otaku? Yes No

If I were to define otaku as "an enthusiast (a fan) who lets a few very dear hobbies take up most of their time, energy, and money" would you fit that description? Yes No

If I were to define otaku as "an enthusiast (a fan) who lets anime, manga, and/or games take up most of their time, energy, and money" would you fit that description? Yes No

Want to say anything else?

First of all, that shark is a total badass Toshi. I don't understand how something as awesome as that thing died out. (Must have been God! ;) )

Second of all...

Who is he? Matt or religous people? Because, yes Matt is closed-minded because he is "Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas". Or if your talking about religious people, well I have a hard time believeing someone who has been educated through school about science, not know about evolution.
Matt's not being close-minded, because the theory he follows actually has evidence to back it up. I can't answer that last sentence of yours, because it's so amazingly broken as to be completely illegible. Sorry.


2) That been my whole fucking point, this whole fucking time. Ya'll keep fucking inisting that there is proof of evolution and all you keep showing me is fucking biological structures and fossils. Let me make this clear. THIS IS NOT PROOF.
The fucking fuckety fuck fuck point is that it is evidence. Evolution has more EVIDENCE than creationism does. Most sane people follow the idea that has the most evidence supporting it.
"The last three people that went through the blue door screamed horrible, blood curdling screams. All the people who went through the green door cheered in what seemed to be a very happy voice. I'm going to go through the blue door anyway, because I like the color blue, and because there's no proof that there's something better behind the green door."
That's basically what your argument is. And it's slightly retarded.


Shut the fuck up dude, you wanna see the proof in that story? There is PROOF in that story. First...We KNOW FOR SURE that the two hate each other. Second, WE SAW WITH OUR EYES that they walked away together. Third, WE HEARD Tom scream. Fourth, WE SAW Idiot holding the bloodly knife that would match the stab wound, with Idiot's Fingerprints all over it. So, in conclusion.
There is no proof in that story. No more "proof" than there is backing up evolution. There is overwhelming evidence for both cases, yes, but you seem to be ignoring the evidence supporting evolution. That was my point.


You are a fucking idiot.
Hahah, that hurts so much, coming from someone with your apparent intelligence level. Sadly, I have no proof that I'm smarter than you. I suppose that's why I'll be joining Mensa in a few years. ;)


4) Have you lost all your arguements that you have to bold a typo? Shame...shame...
Lmao, I bolded that typo, to link it to the other word I bolded. To make my joke funnier. It's not my fault that you're so awful at spelling and grammar that you make hilarious mistakes every other word. But yeah, me bolding your typo was not to highlight your hilariously bad writing; your writing is funny enough in plain font. Me bolding that bit of text was for comedic value, and nothing else. ;)
Oh, and I bolded "arguements" because well...I thought that would be funny too. Wasn't it? Get it? Because it's ironic. Because you were complaining about me bolding a typo. And you were careless enough to have a spelling mistake in that very sentence! Get it?! Get it get it get it??? lol.


Are you a fucking idiot? Prove that because I don't use my appendix, it is evolution. So what? Are you next going to say that birth defects are evolution? Hell Fuck, me taking a piss is evolution now.
Now this is ridiculous. First of all, RD is a million times more level headed, and a million times more intelligent than you are. Second of all, if said birth defects are BENEFICIAL, and ARE PASSED ON TO THE PERSON'S OFF SPRING, THEN IT IS, IN A WAY, EVOLUTION. #@$(*&^@#*($^

You're killing me Asuka. Arguing with you is like arguing with a rock. Except the rock would probably understand what it was being told better, and it wouldn't be so obnoxious with it's replies. <_<

And what exactly is a "Hell Fuck?" I laughed out loud when I read that. Hahahah. XD

First of all, that shark is a total badass Toshi. I don't understand how something as awesome as that thing died out. (Must have been God! ;) )

Second of all...

Matt's not being close-minded, because the theory he follows actually has evidence to back it up. I can't answer that last sentence of yours, because it's so amazingly broken as to be completely illegible. Sorry.


The fucking fuckety fuck fuck point is that it is evidence. Evolution has more EVIDENCE than creationism does. Most sane people follow the idea that has the most evidence supporting it.
"The last three people that went through the blue door screamed horrible, blood curdling screams. All the people who went through the green door cheered in what seemed to be a very happy voice. I'm going to go through the blue door anyway, because I like the color blue, and because there's no proof that there's something better behind the green door."
That's basically what your argument is. And it's slightly retarded.


There is no proof in that story. No more "proof" than there is backing up evolution. There is overwhelming evidence for both cases, yes, but you seem to be ignoring the evidence supporting evolution. That was my point.


Hahah, that hurts so much, coming from someone with your apparent intelligence level. Sadly, I have no proof that I'm smarter than you. I suppose that's why I'll be joining Mensa in a few years. ;)


Lmao, I bolded that typo, to link it to the other word I bolded. To make my joke funnier. It's not my fault that you're so awful at spelling and grammar that you make hilarious mistakes every other word. But yeah, me bolding your typo was not to highlight your hilariously bad writing; your writing is funny enough in plain font. Me bolding that bit of text was for comedic value, and nothing else. ;)
Oh, and I bolded "arguements" because well...I thought that would be funny too. Wasn't it? Get it? Because it's ironic. Because you were complaining about me bolding a typo. And you were careless enough to have a spelling mistake in that very sentence! Get it?! Get it get it get it??? lol.


Now this is ridiculous. First of all, RD is a million times more level headed, and a million times more intelligent than you are. Second of all, if said birth defects are BENEFICIAL, and ARE PASSED ON TO THE PERSON'S OFF SPRING, THEN IT IS, IN A WAY, EVOLUTION. #@$(*&^@#*($^

You're killing me Asuka. Arguing with you is like arguing with a rock. Except the rock would probably understand what it was being told better, and it wouldn't be so obnoxious with it's replies. <_<

And what exactly is a "Hell Fuck?" I laughed out loud when I read that. Hahahah. XD


Woah dude...did you like, just ignore me and matt's chain of posts? Silly Goose, I'm not even going to bother quoting the main points.

Are you a fucking idiot? Prove that because I don't use my appendix, it is evolution. So what? Are you next going to say that birth defects are evolution? Hell Fuck, me taking a piss is evolution now.

So you do use your appendix?

Everyone call your local hospitals and news! We found a man that uses his appendix!

Vestigial evolution is evolution. Birth defects, are, per se, evolution. Though it is thought that most evolution is due to environmental factors and natural selection [which is almost one in the same], it is plausible that evolution occurs through random mutations.

And yes, taking a pee is evolution. Anaerobic organisms don't pee, though some organisms in Protoctista do excrete waste through what is similar, more of less, to anal holes [the name is also from Latin ānus]. Doesn't pee like us, so yes, evolution.

I guess you haven't took biology before [to pompous that you dropped out? maybe] because this is all rudimentary.

Woah dude...did you like, just ignore me and matt's chain of posts? Silly Goose, I'm not even going to bother quoting the main points.

Hahah, of course not. Because you can't. Because I'm right!

XD

@ RD: Once again...
One of the alleged pillars of evolutionary evidence is the presence of so-called vestigial organs — body parts that are now useless, but which scientists theorize must have been fully functional in the distant past, when we were animals and needed them. Two such organs, the appendix and the thymus, are frequently used by evolutionists as proof that humans possess useless organs that were once used by our evolutionary ancestors.

As with other “proofs” of evolution, this one rests on pure assumption. The verifiable scientific facts refute evolutionary speculation regarding both organs in question. The first of these, the appendix, is now known to be a helpful organ, not a useless holdover. Studies of the rabbit appendix show that it contains large amounts of lymphoid tissue. Julie Pomerantz, wildlife veterinarian and program officer for the Wildlife Trust’s North American Conservation Medicine Initiative, explains the importance of this:


“Similar aggregates of lymphoid tissue occur in other areas of the gastrointestinal tract and are known as gut-associated lymphoid tissues….[T]hese tissues are involved in the body’s ability to recognize foreign antigens (molecules to which the immune system can respond) in ingested material” (Pomerantz 2001: 96).

She concludes with a statement that exposes the emptiness of evolutionary speculation on this issue:

“Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, a growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the body’s immune system. The appendix may be particularly important early in life because it achieves its highest state of development shortly after birth and then regresses with age, eventually coming to resemble such other regions of gut-associated lymphoid tissue as the Peyer’s patches in the small intestine” (Pomerantz 2001: 96).

The fact that this “vestigial” organ is most active in infancy, and then fades in importance as the child grows, is relevant to the second example, the thymus. This organ was also dismissed by evolutionists as useless, but it is highly necessary in infancy. I. L. Cohen, a member of the New York Academy of Sciences, remarks:

“[M]edical research ultimately realized that the thymus gland has a function — an extremely important one. It was not the leftover from some hazy evolutionary process that took place over ‘millions of years ago.’ New born babies have a large thymus gland, in perfect functioning order. As the child grows, the gland degenerates, becoming almost non-existent in the fully grown adult. But this gland plays an important role in the growth of the human body.

“The thymus produces large doses of antibodies for the protection of the newly born baby, so as to protect it against the various germs present in its new surroundings. We must realize that the child who spent nine months in the mother’s womb was protected by her immune system. All of a sudden the baby leaves that sterile ambiance and is thrust into a new world, teeming with germs and bacteria. It needs a constant, reliable flow of antibodies to defend itself and survive. The thymus gland constitutes that defense mechanism until the body can adjust and the other organs and glands can develop and take over the job of biochemical protection. When the other body mechanisms grow enough to shoulder the responsibility of protecting the body against germs, the thymus gland starts to shrink and phases itself out of existence. This is a long way from the reasons submitted by evolutionists! It did not prove the theory of evolution — it simply underscored our ignorance of our state of ignorance” (Cohen 1984: 195-196).

@ Hopeless: Just proving how stupid you really are.

And yet, everywhere I go I read that the appendix has no use what so ever. Some people are even being born without one. If it is so important, though only at a young age, then why didn't those people die?

I like how one of your sources is over 20 years old.

Yes, and I also like how the author of that quote has a masters degree at Harvord. Some twins are born attached, how is it they survive. Some people are born with an extra finger or toe, how do they survive? Some people are born at only 3 pounds, how do they survive? Also, if your going to judge the reliabilty of a source by age, you shouldn't have any ground to stand on then.

Because the finger or toe isn't as important as the appendix supposedly is.

The fact of the matter is, the appendix is very important at a young age, and yet some people are born without one, and still survive.[/stupid]

Another fact is, those cases are very rare and furthermore, we now have the technology to cope with it.

No, no we don't.
We are very far from prosthetics.
Our body rejects most things that have to produce things and such... much of this research has been stunted by a few *Cough* Religious*cough* groups.

Hopeless: Just proving how stupid you really are.
Yes, I'm the stupid one here, which is why I'm replying to your arguments by going, "You're dumb! I'm not talking to you! D: "
Oh, wait... that'd be you, except with you it'd be more like:

"Your dum!Im not talking at you!! :( "

But really, this thread is about religion, not which one of us is smarter; that discussion would go in a new, much shorter thread. ;)


much of this research has been stunted by a few *Cough* Religious*cough* groups.
One more reason I can't stand religious groups; they're always killing people with their "good ethics" and "moral values."

Also:

The fact of the matter is, the appendix is very important at a young age, and yet some people are born without one, and still survive.[/stupid]
I lol'd.
You used the wrong tag though RD. You mistakenly grabbed the [/stupid] tag, when you meant to go for the [/retarded] tag. X3
Eg: Prove it lol! People use their appendixes! The bible says so!
See? It fits so well! XD

And Asuka, FYI, the only thing the Appendix is good for is bursting and killing people. XP

The athiests need to stop bashing and the Christians shouldnt be more understanding and accepting. Is this a fight thread where amatuer theoligians go and kill each other? Im christian as well and athiests will not go to hell. If they live there life relevant to their conscious and practice virtue and love they will not go to hell. The world needs peace so everyone should be more understanding and loving. Fights on the internet doesnt help anything.

That's not about to happen as long as people like Hopeless keep on being so condescending, you may well be right, but that doesn't mean that you should be a knob about it, because the more you do that the more people like Asuka will think that all Atheists are just a bunch of rabid Christian haters. The same goes for the Christians, only the Atheists will think you're a bunch of whacked out loonies planning to crucify all those who don't believe.

Yes, I'm the stupid one here, which is why I'm replying to your arguments by going, "You're dumb! I'm not talking to you! D: "
Oh, wait... that'd be you, except with you it'd be more like:

"Your dum!Im not talking at you!! :( "

Kay, I'll quote some things for you so you'll actually shut the fuck up.

We can date the fossils of our ancestors. The more recent those fossils are, the more "human" they become. Starting with the first hominides.
Followed by:
* †Homo habilis (Handy Man)
* †Homo rudolfensis (Rudolf Man)
* †Homo ergaster (Working Man)
* †Homo erectus (Upright Man)
* †Homo floresiensis (Flores Man — discovered 2003)
* †Homo antecessor (Predecessor Man)
* †Homo heidelbergensis (Heidelberg Man)
* †Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthal Man)
* †Homo rhodesiensis (Rhodesia Man)
* †Homo cepranensis (Ceprano Man)
* †Homo georgicus (Georgia Man)
* Homo sapiens
o †Homo sapiens idaltu (elderly wise man — discovered 1997)
o Homo sapiens sapiens (Wise Man; modern humans)

I'm sure you don't doubt that those species grew more and more like modern homo sapiens sapiens (If you do, you deny obvious evidence).
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_%28genus%29)

Yes, you forget about one thing and that is that we can date those fossils! It's not just a huge collection of random fossils of even more random species. But we can see their relations due to the fact that they have changed over time. To sum it up in an overly simple way:
old = less adapted to their environment
new = more adapted to their environment

FYI, scientists date geological layers by the structures in them. Meaning... Fossil Y is considered an evolutionary descendant of Fossil X because Y is found in a geological layer deemed younger than the layer containing X, and this geological layer is deemed younger because it contains the evolutionary ancestor of Fossil Y.




Originally Posted by Dr. Edwin H. Colbert of paleontology
The sedimentary rocks which enclose fossils in such variety are found all over the world as sheets of limestone, shale and sandstone of diverse extent and thickness. Originally these were, of course, deposited as horizontal or nearly horizontal beds, by the waters of oceans and lakes, by river and stream currents, by wind, and even by glaciers. During the long history of the earth such sheets of sediments, eventually hardened into layers of rock, are commonly tilted, broken and distorted by immense earth forces — the forces that are usually manifested to us as earthquakes. Moreover, sedimentary rocks are frequently cut by volcanoes and long dikes of volcanic rock that push through them from below. Many sedimentary rocks are removed from the area which they formerly occupied by erosion. Consequently the interpretation of the sediments in which the fossils are contained is a complex and exacting discipline. But such interpretation is of importance if the sequence of the fossils and the consequent evolutionary conclusions as based on this sequence are to be correctly understood. This is the study of stratigraphy, and it involves the correlation of sediments in different parts of a continent and in different parts of the world. Correlation depends primarily upon the restriction of particular fossils to particular sediments. The occurrence of similar or closely related fossils in sediments at two separated localities generally implies a similar or nearly similar age for the beds. By comparing back and forth, by making allowances for distortions of beds or the absence of beds and so on, the stratigrapher builds up a comprehensive picture of the succession of sediments the world over, and the succession of life contained within these sediments.



In other words... The ages of sediments are determined by the fossils they contain. The evolutionary sequence of life as revealed by the fossils is determined by the succession of these fossils in the sediments. Its circular reasoning.

Also, are you not assuming that Homo rudolfensis is a descendent of Homo habilis? Even with this assumption, dating fossils from so far in the past can hardly be reliable considering the flawed method used to date them (btw, I am assuming the itlacized sentence.)

Furthermore, neanderthals may not even be direct ancestors.



Originally Posted by Michael A. Hoggeth, PhD
Neanderthals disappeared from the fossil record 30,000 years ago. They might represent a side branch of human evolution and might not be direct ancestors of modern humans

Also, I realize that this key word here is "might" but this is also further showing less and less reliability of these fossils.
"

Now...towards his biological evolution

X_X drug-resistent bacteria

"That is an adaptation, as I've said previously, I agree with adaptation, however this bacteria is not a new species of bacteria. Enterococcus faecium and gonorrhea are still the same type of bacteria, just drug-resistant."



One more reason I can't stand religious groups; they're always killing people with their "good ethics" and "moral values."

Also:

I lol'd.
You used the wrong tag though RD. You mistakenly grabbed the [/stupid] tag, when you meant to go for the [/retarded] tag. X3
Eg: Prove it lol! People use their appendixes! The bible says so!
See? It fits so well! XD

And Asuka, FYI, the only thing the Appendix is good for is bursting and killing people. XP


since you seem to like wiki so much... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix


The appendix is rich in infection-fighting lymphoid cells, suggesting that it might play a role in the immune system

Now, this time don't ignore my arguements.

Actually Matt if you read my post fully you'd understand what I was saying about how Einstein's interpretations of God differed from basic beliefs and was interesting to follow because it didn't place God as an entity. Did you even read my post? Plus~ Until the age of 13 Einstein read the full series of Jewish Texts that correspond with the religion On his own. He simply diverted away from it at the point of his Mitzvah. In fact he stated that documents of such passion have never been created in fiction and believed them to contain a great amount of truth, especially in the case of Jesus.
To simply go back to my own point, he took religion like everything else in his life, from a different perspective. At the Age of 13 he realized that it isn't about, as repeated in the quotes you showed, a personal god, but a phenomena that exists on the fringes of human understanding that we must attain, the Ideal of God. He in fact admitted in his later essay that he did not fully comprehend nor could he clearly communicate his own feelings on the subject or the nature of his ideal clearly. I'm using him as an example of someone who attained a certain amount of knowledge about faith and made that last jump to realizing it isn't about the deity but about what the deity represents.

And Einstein on several occasions stated he was not atheist for the very reasons I stated above.
I know that you didn't want to say that Einstein was a Theist. I just wanted to underline the fact ;) I wanted to further clear up Einsteins terminology as it is quite confusing. Just to clear this up and to prevent misunderstanding from arising.
Even more so as the quote of the article you posted is limited to quotes that you can misinterpret when you don't know about Einstein's view.
That's why I posted the quotes that are non-ambiguous and clearly pointing out that he didn't believe in a personal God (in fact, it's outright wrong to say that Einstein was an avid follower of the jewish faith, when he didn't believe in a personal God. A plain contradiction.)
He may have read the jewish books and he may also have believed that there is some truth in the scripture. But nothing related to a personal God whatsoever.


I do like how he doesn't state that God is a conscious entity, but keeps God as an ideal or concept for the mysteries that humans have yet to answer. And of course, he brings a refreshing mix of Science and Religion that is tolerable for most people I know that are Atheist.
Yeah, he just defines the word God differently from "normal" religious people do.

A New York rabbi said:
"Einstein is unquestionably a great scientist, but his religious views are diametrically opposed to Judaism."

I hope I could clear that up.

Oops, a lock button.

*Opens*

Let's pretend that we're adults who can debate without crying and stabbing. Any form of personal attacks (which has nothing to do with the topic at hand) or other retardation will be reported either by the "Report" system or as a personal message to me.

People who deliberately try to ruin a perfectly fine debate topic will have their attachments chopped off. (Or by forum terms, you will be penalized with bans, infractions or other forms of punishment that we, the staff, see fit).

FYI, scientists date geological layers by the structures in them. Meaning... Fossil Y is considered an evolutionary descendant of Fossil X because Y is found in a geological layer deemed younger than the layer containing X, and this geological layer is deemed younger because it contains the evolutionary ancestor of Fossil Y.

In other words... The ages of sediments are determined by the fossils they contain. The evolutionary sequence of life as revealed by the fossils is determined by the succession of these fossils in the sediments. Its circular reasoning.

Also, are you not assuming that Homo rudolfensis is a descendent of Homo habilis? Even with this assumption, dating fossils from so far in the past can hardly be reliable considering the flawed method used to date them (btw, I am assuming the itlacized sentence.)

Also, I realize that this key word here is "might" but this is also further showing less and less reliability of these fossils.Something about the following question:
http://www.vulomedia.com/images/54569ackbar.jpg
Asuka, do you think that scientists only date geological layers by the structures in them?

I'm curious as to how many people believe the idea that our leaders are ordained by god... Never really understood god's place in democracy.

I believe that leaders are ordained by God. Actually, almost all of America's Founding Fathers were either Christian or at least Deists.

So what about the bad ones? Who says what god sanctions...? Since Thomas Jefferson had mistresses why was he so important? Hamilton was a pompous eccentric prick, but he helped ratify some of the documents that brought about the democracy of today... Why not make him a better person? I suppose this could be recognized as a balance of character or necessary evil, but still... they had extraordinary human faults, if ordained by god, why not make them saints? There are no American saints right?

If we ignore all this, we still get that God sanctions killings. Why does he kill those that only believe they act in his name =/ If ordained by God, where is our choice? If there is no choice in the governing powers of our lives, what makes humans free? That just clashes with the idea that God can't involve himself with humans. If he acted like that, then everything goes the way he planned it, and sin couldn't exist. Sin would just be people who he made doomed to suffer for eternity... that seems pretty screwed up.

Hate to do this, but this quote is so befitting to all of this.

"The last time we mixed church and state,
people were put to the stake,
and burned to a charred snowflake."

The Salem Witch Hunt proves that you SHOULD keep religion and government separate. That chapter of history is just brutal.


Also, if Leaders are ordained by God, what of President Bill Clinton whom, like many before him, committed a Christian sin by adultery?

Saying leaders are ordained by God is basically saying that God is deliberately causing war and death.

Yes, Cloud9, and one of the founding causes of the American Revolution was the fact that England's leaders were claiming absolute power by divine right to rule corruptly. Those same Christian and Deist leaders in America were the ones to create the separation between church and state.

Okay, God ordained those leaders, but they are still responsible for their own actions. I certainly don't believe that just because God ordained that Clinton would be president that He was condoning every one of Clinton's future actions. It's one of the big paradoxes of Christianity: God is sovereign, but people still have free will.

EDIT: And the whole Separation Of Church And State thing should not be construed to mean what it did not originally mean. SOCAS originally meant that the government is not allowed to govern the affairs of the church (i.e., the government cannot burn you at the stake for being a quaker just because the government favors Anglican Christianity). This is what the first amendment means when it says the government cannot make any law respecting any establishment of religion or the free exercise of that religion.

Aside from separation of church and state, England's, and some other European countries' governments went from the original monarchy to branches of government. ((I was just using the wrong term.)) This was because leaders got absolute power, claiming to be chosen by God. As you say, these people were chosen by god to rule their land. But free will led some of these people to be corrupt. As a result, some countries, France as an example, went through major civil wars because of the effects of absolute monarchy. Time passed, and separation of power was formed. The king, queen, or president no longer had all the power. ((In England's case, the Queen now only serves as an almost powerless political figure.)) Aside from that change, leaders were now elected by the people instead of chosen by God. So, if you say that God chooses who rules, and the people vote for who rules, wouldn't that contradict your statement that people have free will. ((God seems to be forcing the people to vote someone into office.))

Aside from this minor contradiction, as Noir7 said, if God gives power to all of the leaders of the world, wouldn't he in turn be creating war and/or innocent deaths?

I'll mention both my points again. It's one of the great paradoxes of Christianity that God is sovereign, yet each human has free will, and God does not necessarily condone the actions of those He brings into power. It's in the Bible, even though God chose Jehu to be king of Israel and destroy Ahab's family for their wickedness, Jehu eventually went too far and lost God's blessing.

I'll mention both my points again. It's one of the great paradoxes of Christianity that God is sovereign, yet each human has free will.

This still suggests that I am right on one matter. How, if people with free will vote for their leaders, are those leaders hand picked by God?

If we could understand God, the world would be a lot worse off. The very fact that certain attributes of His cannot be understood by the human mind is why He gets to be called God. I'm not using that as a cop-out, that is truly what I believe. There are some things about God that we cannot understand in this life. We are limited human beings trying to understand an unlimited deity, so there are going to be problems. It's kind of the same thing as trying to comprehend the mathematical concept of "infinity," which can act as a variable or a constant and breaks pretty much all the rules.

Thank you for your belief. But the next time you try to make me think the way you do, never use the word 'believe'. I just don't think that word has a place in arguments.

Lol murder, that statement makes no sense in a thread like this. All religion is, is beliefs. The only person God Ordains, in my belief, is the pope. Everyone else is the vote of the people, or whoever wins the battle. Of course, God already knows what is and what will be done. Just because he knows what is going to happen, doesn't mean he picked it. He picked us to make the decision, by giving us free will. He very well as the power to change it, but he chooses not to. Anywho, that is my philosophy on the subject.

Also, arguments are motivated by beliefs. If you don't believe in anything, you have no reason to argue.

Then what is logic, emotion, and ethics? These are the three aspects of what you can appeal to when making an argument. These have absolutely nothing to do with belief. In fact, they come from an area of philosophy that is of a higher level than the word belief.

Belief is a derivative of ``confidence in situation'', which is not defining an argument-like aspect. Rather, in this situation, belief is a term used as an end game. Even more on this, you're doing appeal to ignorance, fallacy of consequent, and ad hominem; all which are logical fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy). Thus, your point isn't all that believable.

To answer Mistrust's question,

God does not pick the leaders of the world. Politics is quite a despicable place in the world, full of Christian sins. What God rules is Church and Church alone. Everything else is extra. Created by and for convenience, often times not following the Christian rules. Christian law is almost, if not analogous, to most country's laws. The only difference is replace the governing power terms, with Christian equivalents. Then add a few suggestions --- meaning you really have to act this way or you're considered a bad Christian --- about character, and demand help for those that are needy, by way of income tax, called Tithe (lit. one tenth; you are to donate 1/10th of your annual income).

To be fair, Christians do leave this all to be voluntary and on your own word. This is why government DOES exist. To enforce that which must be. So, in a way, government is an extension off of Religious Laws, shown throughout this post by example in Christianity. I can understand co relation between the two topics, but they really are two separate entities; just in the same genera.

Also, arguments are motivated by beliefs. If you don't believe in anything, you have no reason to argue.People don't need a reason to argue. Welcome to Human Society.

@M: Actually, whether you "believe" it or not, you believe in logic and ethics. Your beliefs include what you assume to be true or trustworthy. Many people in this post-modern age don't believe in logic anymore (although how they can believe that and not end up insane is beyond me). Also, systems of ethics are different. One person subscribes to, or believes in, one set of ethics, while another person subscribes to, or believes, the opposite. For example, one person believes abortion is wrong, and another person believes there's no problem with abortion. That is two systems of ethics at odds with each other. Your actions and your views will always follow your beliefs.

FYI, scientists date geological layers by the structures in them. Meaning... Fossil Y is considered an evolutionary descendant of Fossil X because Y is found in a geological layer deemed younger than the layer containing X, and this geological layer is deemed younger because it contains the evolutionary ancestor of Fossil Y.

In other words... The ages of sediments are determined by the fossils they contain. The evolutionary sequence of life as revealed by the fossils is determined by the succession of these fossils in the sediments. Its circular reasoning.

Also, are you not assuming that Homo rudolfensis is a descendent of Homo habilis? Even with this assumption, dating fossils from so far in the past can hardly be reliable considering the flawed method used to date them (btw, I am assuming the itlacized sentence.)

Also, I realize that this key word here is "might" but this is also further showing less and less reliability of these fossils.
Asuka, do you think that scientists only date geological layers by the structures in them?Asuka, the single fact that scientists do not date geological layers solely by structures in them renders your entire argument baseless. I'd suggest that you read the Wikipedia article on archeological dating methodologies [link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_methodology_%28archaeology%29)]. There is not much more that I can say without being (even more) rude or snide.

@M: Actually, whether you "believe" it or not, you believe in logic and ethics. Your beliefs include what you assume to be true or trustworthy. Many people in this post-modern age don't believe in logic anymore (although how they can believe that and not end up insane is beyond me). Also, systems of ethics are different. One person subscribes to, or believes in, one set of ethics, while another person subscribes to, or believes, the opposite. For example, one person believes abortion is wrong, and another person believes there's no problem with abortion. That is two systems of ethics at odds with each other. Your actions and your views will always follow your beliefs.
Belief:
1. the state of believing; conviction or acceptance that certain things are true or real
2. faith, esp. religious faith
3. trust or confidence I have belief in his ability
4. anything believed or accepted as true; esp., a creed, doctrine, or tenet
5. an opinion; expectation; judgment my belief is that he'll come

However, this hinges on being unable to prove it with widely accepted fact. If you can prove something it isn't a belief, it is a fact. "I believe humans require oxygen to live." Just sounds stupid doesn't it? It's pretty obvious they do. Logic and Ethics are different.
Ethics:
1.(used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2.the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3.moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4.(usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

Yes yes, we all "subscribe" to different ethics, but what are our reasons? Religion isn't that large in today's society as a source of morals. They aren't limited to religious beliefs as we see here. If they did, no one would have questioned the Old World beliefs, and we wouldn't have divorces, mass killings in the name of god would be just, and the world would be divided by the mark of demarcation. Your example gave no backing to why they would be at odds. What if both felt they had God on their side =/

I think we asked before (and this is the heavy issue) that are you saying God controls what we think? Really you ignored the idea that a person might logically conclude abortion is the best choice. Then it is not a question of right or wrong, it is what is most favorable or realistic, depending on their aims.

Actions are not always dictated by beliefs. Does a soldier march to war on belief? Does an accident killing a child stem from belief? Can you breath underwater while on a mission from God? Chance and circumstance tend to be more a driving force than belief, which is why it is so amazing when belief yields drastic physical change. As for views... Your belief cannot distort the world. It can leave you ignorant, but not change anything physically. At some point you have to be realistic and see what's in front of you. Let's go with the joke from Pursuit of Happyness XD

There was a man who was drowning, and a boat came, and the man on the boat said "Do you need help?" and the man said "God will save me". Then another boat came and he tried to help him, but he said "God will save me", then he drowned and went to Heaven. Then the man told God, "God, why didn't you save me?" and God said "I sent you two boats, you dummy!
Being unable to see how God works, causes the man to die... That's what comes about from blindly acting on belief when reason would have gotten the man home safe. Because of his inability to perceive God as anything but a hand from the sky, he couldn't see the "divine" help he should have accepted XD
Really, that's the problem with believing and not thinking, you end up embarrassed in the end. Like how some hardcore people won't believe in any life existing before the creation of man, when evidence continually pops up.
I'll just sum it up as... What wins in action and view, belief or fact?

I think it's a shame this topic already seems to become a Christian thread, rather than a religion thread.

Christianity is the most popular of the members here. People tend to stick to what they know. What I know is that athiest is my choice as it is the choice of not selecting a god to worship.

I know I'm still stuck somewhere between Humanism and Christan. Go figure. I can't help but assure myself that holy intervention seems completely impossible. It makes more sense to have faith in a person themselves rather than on someone else whom may or may not exist to try and fix things.

Personally, I think the major religions in this world are pretty horrible. they're all more intolerant than water is over fire. If only Jews, Christians and muslims would accept eachother, this world would be so much nicer. But do they? Hell no, burn in hell, infidel!

See, the thing about that is that each religion tells you to respect another's belief. Yet, they all say you should recruit people to be "saved". Usually it's that aspect that causes the most controversy. It's the whole "Oh, but that's now how it was said," thing --- that's what a Jehovah Witness said to me when I pulled out both a King James and NRSV bible. Then there's the religious extremest that are, well.... extremists.

Fact be told, not one person believes in the very same religion. Everyone thinks of religion differently. Just enough to still be categorized, yet allomorph from person to person. Think pleochroism.

Humanism? That sounds interesting... Maybe I'll look into it.

Below is my rant about the word "believe," and some stuff about ethics when relating to science.

@Cloud9 I kind of get what you're saying, but I think I was a little misty on what I said earlier. What I meant was that it's definitely more ethical to go into an argument without putting your beliefs before evidence. When you go into an argument, you should never start with your preconceived beliefs, as like the others said, using that word can abruptly end an argument simply because there is no rebuttal to it at all. That itself is completely unscientific and unethical. Let's look at this through a very different perspective.

Pedestrian A: I have evidence that shows public in the water is actually toxic.
Pedestrian B: Really? But think about all of the people that drink water every day. No one is sick or dying.
Pedestrian A: es, but think about the increase in flus and such, couldn't the water be transporting bacteria everywhere?
Pedestrian B: What suggests that this is caused by the water?
Pedestrian A: Well, my water has tasted strange lately, and I think I'm feeling pretty down right now.
Pedestrian B: That really doesn't prove any thing... Is there any way to test this? It sounds kind of shaky.
Pedestrian A: I'm pretty sure I'm right. It's just a gut feeling.
Pedestrian B: Ok... Whatever, weirdo.

You can see in this conversation that pedestrian A is trying to convince B that his water is making him sick. Pedestrian B awaits a good point from A, but soon realizes that he has no real data that suggests his conclusion is correct. The fact that pedestrian A jumped to his conclusion by his gut feeling lost him his chance to 'prove' anything. A's preconceived beliefs about his water being bad were solely on the fact that his water was tasting strange to him, which could probably never be shown to a stranger on the street.

Scientists everywhere have there own beliefs, and I would never say that anyone doesn't have any beliefs, but those scientists try their best to create reliable, re testable experiments that 'prove' the conclusions we now learn today in text books. If scientists go into arguments experiments with their own beliefs, they will undoubtedly come up with conclusions that are false and/or unethical.[/rant]

Anyways... Back to religion.

A soldier marches to war on the belief that he should obey his superiors. If he doesn't believe he should obey his superiors, he will be punished, but that will not necessarily deter his beliefs. No matter what your situation, you always have a choice. Sometimes, both choices go against your beliefs, and when presented with a choice of evils, selecting the lesser of two evils is a virtue. That's a matter of belief. An accident, admittedly, does not stem from belief. In fact, I have no idea what an accident stems from.

While it is true that your belief cannot distort the world, it can distort your perception of the world. This is true of any insane person. They view the world in such a way as to be totally different from that of most rational people.

@Angelic: I'm just responding to people who apparently have a problem with Christianity. I'm not knocking that, that's their choice. I simply believe (there it is again!) that I have the right and the responsibility to defend my religion.

There is no reason for you to feel responsible to defend your religion. Your religion needs no justification, so don't try to justify it.

That's why the US has the third highest desertion percentage XD
No, selecting the lesser of two evils(most of us like to say cutting losses) is based on logic. It's a nice saying and sounds religious put like that, but it's more cut throat don't ya think? Did you miss the part where I talked about how logic and ethics influence a decision? =/ I believe you did. If both things go against your beliefs, and they both seem evil, does that make religion turn people pessimistic? XD Logically one choice has to be better, ethically in the long run it has to be better some way, religion is one of those that leaves something black and white. Looking at something without color is no way of making a decision. Just saying, well being, hedonism, greed, sloth, and fear drive people way more than religion. Wrath, one of the sins, often drives acts in his name. So what decides if sin is okay?

So does this mean you haven't read about newton's law or chaos theory? Because that would help clear up some of the accidents that happen... God has an answer somewhere in someway I'm sure, spends some time and get back to me with it. I'm actually interested to hear how this one goes =D

I believe I went through that as well. Please go back and read Cloud9 =/
And the important thing here is the Evangelists and Christians think their thoughts influence things. So just to reword what you're saying, God doesn't affect things, it's our mind labeling it as God. Just so we know where you're coming from. That does help clear up a few things. It helps in our last arguments about ordaining people, people who believe that, are just psycho :D

You don't have to defend religion. Arguing is much more fun if you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Asuka is kind of right, when you start questioning religion, you get ostracized.

Where does your religion fall on video games and anime? Censorship and what not..? I mean Harry Potter was popular in the US, but like Halloween it follows pagan beliefs. How can they support that?

Founding fathers, what part of their religious beliefs were outdated? What did they change in religion? Who makes the changes in religion? What role does religion play in writing history? And which is more reliable?

I'm just Toshi, I am an altruist, but there's nothing holy about it. I believe in instinct, self preservation, and fealty to some extent. When things chance to happen, we should appreciate them, that includes birth and death. I lean towards humanism, if anything.

Because I just argue, I don't care which religion is up in the spotlight. If someone wanted to represent another religion I'd be glad to argue. Heck if anyone can convert me, I'll give them a money prize.

A soldier marches to war on the belief that he should obey his superiors. If he doesn't believe he should obey his superiors, he will be punished, but that will not necessarily deter his beliefs. No matter what your situation, you always have a choice. Sometimes, both choices go against your beliefs, and when presented with a choice of evils, selecting the lesser of two evils is a virtue. That's a matter of belief. An accident, admittedly, does not stem from belief. In fact, I have no idea what an accident stems from.

While it is true that your belief cannot distort the world, it can distort your perception of the world. This is true of any insane person. They view the world in such a way as to be totally different from that of most rational people.

@Angelic: I'm just responding to people who apparently have a problem with Christianity. I'm not knocking that, that's their choice. I simply believe (there it is again!) that I have the right and the responsibility to defend my religion.

But what is rational? To me, Christianity is irrational. Does that make you a nutball?

But what is rational? To me, Christianity is irrational. Does that make you a nutball?
That made me chuckle. I like your new set by the way. :)
I kind of want to get into this thread again, but all the little voices in my head are screaming "No, don't do it! You'll just waste your time!"
Maybe when I'm really bored...

I said the same thing in my argument T_T just wordier...

Darn, I was waiting for you to rejoin =/

If the argument keeps going like this I'll just fall off it too XD

Personally, I think the major religions in this world are pretty horrible. they're all more intolerant than water is over fire. If only Jews, Christians and muslims would accept eachother, this world would be so much nicer. But do they? Hell no, burn in hell, infidel! You forgot Buddhism. :(


But what is rational? To me, Christianity is irrational. Now you're getting to the meat. You see, most Christians aren't Christians at all.


To quote the current Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso:

All religions teach a message of love, compassion, sincerity, and honesty. Each system seeks its own way to improve life for us all. Yet if we put too much emphasis on our own philosophy, religion, or theory, becoming too attached to it, and try to impose it on other people, the result will be trouble. Basically all the great teachers, including Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, and Moses, were motivated by a desire to help their fellow beings. They did not seek to gain anything for themselves, nor to create more trouble in the world.

Being motivated by compassion and love, respecting the right of others - this is real religion. To wear robes and speak about God but think selfishly is not a religious act. On the other hand, a politician or a lawyer with real concern for humankind who takes actions that benefit others is truly practicing religion. The goal must be to serve others, not dominate them.



When you get right down to it, all major religions - including agnosticism - are ways of life whose sole purpose is to allow us to fully give our gift to the world.

That's love.

You forgot Buddhism. :(

Now you're getting to the meat. You see, most Christians aren't Christians at all.


To quote the current Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso:

All religions teach a message of love, compassion, sincerity, and honesty. Each system seeks its own way to improve life for us all. Yet if we put too much emphasis on our own philosophy, religion, or theory, becoming too attached to it, and try to impose it on other people, the result will be trouble. Basically all the great teachers, including Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, and Moses, were motivated by a desire to help their fellow beings. They did not seek to gain anything for themselves, nor to create more trouble in the world.

Being motivated by compassion and love, respecting the right of others - this is real religion. To wear robes and speak about God but think selfishly is not a religious act. On the other hand, a politician or a lawyer with real concern for humankind who takes actions that benefit others is truly practicing religion. The goal must be to serve others, not dominate them.



When you get right down to it, all major religions - including agnosticism - are ways of life whose sole purpose is to allow us to fully give our gift to the world.

That's love.

I didn't count Buddhissm as a major one, not because it ain't big enough but because it's so passive and peaceful people tend not to notice it.

Well, the celebrities sure did.

yay religion!!!
well, i've grown in a seventh day advantist family for all my life and oh how i loath it. I must go to church every Saturday for more than 8 hours and i have to listen to preacher after preacher speak about the same bullshit story,God loves you. well i'm sure he does but you can suck my cock for all i care about your bullshit words that you don't even follow.one thing that did make me laugh that Asuka said All religion is, is beliefs.if that was all religion was then i wouldn't have such a problem with it. the thing is it wants to impose a universal morality. Many people have given it a position it doesn't deserve.
i'd go into a longer rant but i'm tired and not in the mood to think.

sorry if i' insulted anybody, 'twas my last intention and if anybody would like to question me go ahead. i know quite a bit about the religion i'm being forced to accept.<_<

woot the religion thread is back! ._. Ok, my two cents!


one thing that did make me laugh that Asuka said All religion is, is beliefs.if that was all religion was then i wouldn't have such a problem with it. the thing is it wants to impose a universal morality.
The thing is there is no such thing as "objective/universal" morality. Many religious people want us to think that their personal faith is the only objective truth and basis for morality and wrongly dismiss humanistic ethics as entirely "subjective" and without foundation. Such claims can only be based on faith and authority. But faith is a personal choice. It cannot be objectively proven that god exists, nor can be objectively proven what his will is or that scripture is the word of god. Again, he must have faith that it is so.
Faith is not necessary for ethics and good behaviour and I condemn those who would impose their faith on others.

"It is true, that within atheistic philosophy there is no ultimate cosmic authority. We humans are left to our own devices. But since no one can prove that they have direct access to the ultimate cosmic authority (and everyone else who claims that they do is wrong) perhaps we should go with the answers that make the most sense, and allow everyone to participate in the discussion." - Steven Novella

If I may be so bold, One thing i dont get about religion is that there are so many and many people around the world think that there particular religion is true. How can that be so? All of them say (usually) there is only on ruleing god.
With all the diffrent religions out there, how are you supposed to be sure which one is real?
I truely don't mean to offend anyone.
That is what I don't get. With so many religions, how can only one be true. If any.

well they all have differences in doctrines and certain beliefs. some disagree with others and thats how they get into there fights about who's right and who's wrong.

yay religion!!!
well, i've grown in a seventh day advantist family for all my life and oh how i loath it. I must go to church every Saturday for more than 8 hours and i have to listen to preacher after preacher speak about the same bullshit story,God loves you. well i'm sure he does but you can suck my cock for all i care about your bullshit words that you don't even follow.one thing that did make me laugh that Asuka said All religion is, is beliefs.if that was all religion was then i wouldn't have such a problem with it. the thing is it wants to impose a universal morality. Many people have given it a position it doesn't deserve.
i'd go into a longer rant but i'm tired and not in the mood to think.

sorry if i' insulted anybody, 'twas my last intention and if anybody would like to question me go ahead. i know quite a bit about the religion i'm being forced to accept.<_<

Religion is 10% belief, 20% misguiding, 70% indoctrination

Religion is 10% belief, 20% misguiding, 70% indoctrination

According to who? You? That means a lot.

And what exactly is the First commandment of the christian church?
The first of Muslims?
The Jews?

Basically any religion that holds one deity says that he is the only one that is really god. That right there tells people that if you do not practice what they practice, you are wrong and, by teachings, you are to explain and try to make them understand this.

Basically any religion that holds one deity says that he is the only one that is really god. That right there tells people that if you do not practice what they practice, you are wrong and, by teachings, you are to explain and try to make them understand this.

To expand on that...


this is how it goes.

RELIGION SHOULD BE PRACTICED, BUT KEPT TO YOURSELF.

no one gives a fuck about what religion you are, and no one gives a fuck to listen to you talk about how your religion is good. All religions are equal because not a single one of them can be "proved". THat's what makes them religions.

Next time you someone brings up how religion is good, tell them to fuck off and that according to about 32095803496 other religions, they're going to hell ,and they're no better than those other 3469048305943 religions.

It's such a tragedy how much each religion has deviated from the original teachings of their great leaders.

Except for Buddhism.

It's been reopened...

I was watching Cowboy Bebop again, and in one episode, this guy says "God didn't create humans, humans created God." I thought that was quite good. Though, I myself am agnostic, as well as a firm believer in evolution (comes with being a biologist :))

I also agree with Zero. I think Buddhism is very cool. More people should practice it.

God makes man and religion is man made. People attacks each other in the name of God. What is the reason for that?

God makes man and religion is man made. People attacks each other in the name of God. What is the reason for that?

That's mostly Muslims anymore. I'm not being racist or anything like that, but the Koran (or the Qur'an, however you want to spell it) contains specific commands to all Muslims that they are to attack and destroy "infidels" (i.e., non-Muslims). Modern Christians don't start a holy war because God has not given them specific commands to attack someone (unlike in the Old Testament, where God gave people specific instructions on who to attack, how to attack, and why they were attacking).

EDIT: As per M's request, here are the Koran verses I referenced in my post.

Sura 9:73 "Strive hard against the unbelieversand the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, and evil refuge indeed."

Sura 9:5 "Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleager them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem."

I have also revised my comments on Christians. I was not trying to give the impression that Christianity is superior to Islam, only to point out one of the differences between the former and the latter. My remarks were written in haste, and I apologize for their negative implications.

That's mostly Muslims anymore. I'm not being racist or anything like that, but the Koran (or the Qur'an, however you want to spell it) contains specific commands to all Muslims that they are to attack and destroy "infidels" (i.e., non-Muslims). Most modern Christians know better than to start a holy war because God has not given them specific commands to attack someone (unlike in the Old Testament, where God gave people specific instructions on who to attack, how to attack, and why they were attacking).

If I could see exact quotes of this, I would endure your post; but as of right now, you just posted a straight up attack against Muslims. I don't appreciate it, Muslims don't appreciate it, the administration here does not appreciate it, and fellow Christians on your own side does not appreciate your comment. Please correct this by putting up the exact quote of what you're talking about, otherwise you should not return to this thread.

That's mostly Muslims anymore. I'm not being racist or anything like that, but the Koran (or the Qur'an, however you want to spell it) contains specific commands to all Muslims that they are to attack and destroy "infidels" (i.e., non-Muslims). Modern Christians don't start a holywar because God has not given them specific commands to attack someone (unlike in the Old Testament, where God gave people specific instructions on who to attack, how to attack, and why they were attacking).

EDIT: As per M's request, here are the Koran verses I referenced in my post.

Sura 9:73 "Strive hard against the unbelieversand the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, and evil refuge indeed."

Sura 9:5 "Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleager them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem."

I have also revised my comments on Christians. I was not trying to give the impression that Christianity is superior to Islam, only to point out one of the differences between the former and the latter. My remarks were written in haste, and I apologize for their negative implications.

Quoted from the Koran


"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and sieze them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem (of war); But if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (Sura 9:5)

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; For Allah loveth not transgressors.

"And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter;But fight them not in the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; But if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

"But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

"And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; But if they cease, let there be no hostility except for those who practise oppression."


These are war protocols in case of an attack. There's nothing in there about attacking someone, only defending yourself.

More Quotes: http://www.geocities.com/mewatch99/islamreligion.html



Again these verses are not directed towards a specific faith but to people whom the Muslims were at war with. There are historical references to these verses detailing a time when Muslims were being persecuted and brutally mistreated by the pagans of Mecca. These verses show that war is permitted in self-defense and under well defined limits. When undertaken it must be pushed with vigour, but only to restore peace and freedom for the worship of God. In any case strict limits must not be transgressed: women, children, old and infirm men should not be molested nor trees and crops cut down, nor peace witheld when the enemy comes to terms.

In general, it may be said that Islam is a religion of peace, good will, mutual understanding, and good faith. But it will not acquiesce in wrong doing, and its men will hold their lives cheap in defence of honour, justice and the religion which they hold sacred. They know that war is an evil, but they will not flinch from it if their honour demands it and it serves the needs of righteousness and justice.

Once more: http://islam.about.com/od/terrorism/f/terrorism_verse.htm

Any verse that is quoted out of context misses the whole point of the message of the Qur'an. Nowhere in the Qur'an can be found support for indiscriminate slaughter, the killing of non-combatants, or murder of innocent persons in 'payback' for another people's alleged crimes.

1) Muslim is not a race.
2) Anything can sound bad when taken out of context.
3) This is a famous, peace loving example of a Muslim. Not entirely relevant to the discussion but worth mentioning none the less. NYC hails Muslim 'Good Samaritan' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7149916.stm)

Someone's gone and reopened the Religion thread! We know what this means:
Super-happy-fun-time!


If I may be so bold, One thing i dont get about religion is that there are so many and many people around the world think that there particular religion is true. How can that be so? All of them say (usually) there is only on ruleing god.
With all the diffrent religions out there, how are you supposed to be sure which one is real?
I truely don't mean to offend anyone.
That is what I don't get. With so many religions, how can only one be true. If any.

Seeing as no one else has addressed your post, I figure I might as well. You asked a lot of rudimentary questions there, and it's unfortunate that there's no black or white answer.

First of all, the reason there are so many different religions, to my belief, is because, believe it or not, there was a time before telephones and instant messaging. People in Somalia couldn't just phone up Peru and confer upon a mutual religion. If you use the argument that one's character is influenced by their life experiences, then you could say that different groups of people around the world established religions based on their surroundings and their culture.

Then why do so many people believe their's is true? Well, that's the thing about having a religion. You have to believe yours is true. Sure, there are people out there who are all, "I'm part Christian, and part Buddhist, because I believe in Christ but I follow Buddhist principles of peace etc." No, I'm sorry, but that doesn't make you part Buddhist. That makes you a peaceable Christian, uh huh. You can't be pastafarian but not use the flying spaghetti monster as a counterproof. No, that makes you just another Atheist. When you're Christian, you believe in Jesus; when you're Muslim, you believe in Allah; when you're pastafarian you [believe in] the flying spaghetti monster.

Another thing is that humans like to be right. Part of being a human is having pride and shitting down other people's religions because of your sense of self-rightiousness.

One more thing, as humans, we've always been looking for answers. We have this insatiable desire for knowledge. Religion *tends* to come in when the answers stop flowing. Perhaps a colloquialism will assist:
"Where Science Ends, Religion Begins." Take the Ancient Greeks for example. When they couldn't explain the changes in season, the weather, and volcanic eruptions, lo' an behold, Greek mythology was born. So since we've always been looking for answers after thousands upon thousands of years of conditioning and slow-cooking in the religious crock pot, of course you're going to believe that your particular religion is true.

Why there is usually only one ruling god described by each religion? Well, take a look at modern-day politics. When has a country ever been ruled by one group of people, with all members in equal power? Even communism had a singular leader at their head. A group of people can't rule together equally. People need to have one person to put responsible for everything, one person to blame when things go wrong, one person to have the final say, to rally the masses, to act as a definite point for everyone to converge on.

Your last question is, erm, how do I put it, naïve[?].
So how can we be sure which one is real?
If you're religious, then you believe your religion is true, hands down.
If you're an Atheist, then you don't believe any is true.
If you're agnostic, ignostic, deist or whatever, well then, you can't be sure. Once you become sure that there is a true religion or no true religion, you are no longer a neutral, sceptic, or whatever: you are either Atheist or religious. Uh, I don't think I'm answering your question but I'm going to continue for the hell of it.

Religion, or "Faith", can be defined as "having faith" in a God. The thing with "having faith" is that you believe in something, even if science and the hell of people tell you otherwise. Once you have proof that your religion is true, then it's no longer "faith", you see? It's knowledge. (And yes, I know the flaw in my argument, so don't lynch me about it. I'm just throwing this out there for the sake of it.)


I don't think I really answered any of your questions as much as I did just tangent all over the place.
Well, screw it. I haven't done this in a while. But I guess that's not a good excuse.

Frisbatarianism- the belief that, when you die, your soul goes up to the roof and gets stuck there. :lol:

What do you guys think of this quote?

"It takes good men to do good deeds
It takes evil men to do evil deeds
But for Good men to do evil deeds...That takes religion"

What do you guys think of this quote?

"It takes good men to do good deeds
It takes evil men to do evil deeds
But for Good men to do evil deeds...That takes religion"Yes, I can probably make a (few) derogatory sweeping generalization about the people that believe in quotes like this one.

What do you guys think of this quote?

"It takes good men to do good deeds
It takes evil men to do evil deeds
But for Good men to do evil deeds...That takes religion"

Wait so for Jesus to destroy Earth, all he needed was religion?



Some cynical quotes are funny, some are plain stupid.


Religion divides people. It also unites people. It's the core reason for madness in the name of martyrdom, furvor and zeal, It's also why some people don't give up on life everyday.



Conclusion, its a stupid self-contradicting subject. Therefore requires a healthy serving of alcohol and carbohydrates to go with it, as well as a court jester dressed in white robe and there's singing and dancing to be had.

"Although I am a committed Christian, I believe that everyone has a right to their own religion, whether be it Hindu, Jewish or Muslim, I believe there are infinite paths to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior."

"Although I am a committed Christian, I believe that everyone has a right to their own religion, whether be it Hindu, Jewish or Muslim, I believe there are infinite paths to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior."

Why do all the paths have to end with accepting Jesus?

*runs like mad*

Because Christian is the belief of which Christ died and saved us from death.

Now, if you don't want Jesus, then you have Jewish. If you don't want anything to do with the bible, there's Islam. If you don't want one god, there's Taoist. If you want no gods, there's Buddhism. If you don't want any guidelines or demands of yourself, there's Atheism.

Because Christian is the belief of which Christ died and saved us from death.

Now, if you don't want Jesus, then you have Jewish. If you don't want anything to do with the bible, there's Islam. If you don't want one god, there's Taoist. If you want no gods, there's Buddhism. If you don't want any guidelines or demands of yourself, there's Atheism.

Or Agnosticism :bohaha:!

Or Agnosticism :bohaha:!

Agnostics: Atheists without balls.

Actually, Agnostics are classified as those that think there's a higher power or some correct religon, but don't know what to practice and thus don't. Atheists flat out don't believe in a higher power. So it's not right to group the two together, as this point is kinda key in terms of religion.

"Although I am a committed Christian, I believe that everyone has a right to their own religion, whether be it Hindu, Jewish or Muslim, I believe there are infinite paths to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior." Colbert. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/ZeroIchigo/emot-unsmith.gif



Agnosticism is simply doubting the existence of god(s).

Atheists subscribe to a-theism, rejection of the existence of god(s).

Agnostics: Atheists without balls.
No, Agnostics are the people who aren't pretentious enough to pretend they know the secrets of the universe. Instead of saying "You're all going to hell if you don't believe what I believe," or "you're going to enter nonexistence upon dying," they're reasonable enough to say, "I don't really know anything on this subject, sorry. Let's hope for the best, lol."

Or at least, I think I'm Agnostic. Is my definition wrong?

Agnostics: Atheists without balls.

Religious person: human with no will of their own.

Actually, Agnostics are classified as those that think there's a higher power or some correct religon, but don't know what to practice and thus don't. Atheists flat out don't believe in a higher power. So it's not right to group the two together, as this point is kinda key in terms of religion.

And so Han became an agnostic :shifty:

People interested in Atheism/Agnosticism might want to read [A Blunt Atheist's FAQ (http://www.helsinki.fi/~ssyreeni/atheist/no-ghost-c-04)]. Short and light.

Hahah, thanks DB. Looks like I'm an Empirical Agnostic then. If there is a god lurking around somewhere, I trust that humans will root him out eventually.

"Although I am a committed Christian, I believe that everyone has a right to their own religion, whether be it Hindu, Jewish or Muslim, I believe there are infinite paths to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior."

No...Can you send me a direct quote from the bible where it says jesus saves everyone...Cause I don't have a bible and I'm curious to what it actually says.

The following link is not meant to offend but to amuse. These are apparently quotes from a hardcore Christian chat room. This is not a generalization. Christians are just as normal as the rest of us. The people in these quotes are a few beads short of a rosary though.

Warning: A few of these have naughty language in them.

Click me! (http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:http%3A//www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx%3Farchive%3D1)

The bible doesn't say Jesus saves everyone.

I might be wrong, but doesn't it say somewhere something alike "Choose Jesus as your something, and you will be saved". <--- Something in this spirit.

There are many lines in the bible that follow that, however, not everyone believes in Jesus, or worships him.

There are many lines in the bible that follow that, however, not everyone believes in Jesus, or worships him.
But...every Christian does. Hence...Christian. And I've had plenty of stupid Christians tell me that people who don't accept Jesus as their one and only savior are going to burn/freeze/rot for all eternity.
Personally, I find that idea silly. What kind of god sends people to hell, anyway?

Personally, I find that idea silly. What kind of god sends people to hell, anyway?

Wouldn't you burn all the people who told you you don't exist? :P

But...every Christian does. Hence...Christian. And I've had plenty of stupid Christians tell me that people who don't accept Jesus as their one and only savior are going to burn/freeze/rot for all eternity.
Personally, I find that idea silly. What kind of god sends people to hell, anyway?

Well, i've been going to a Catholic school for more than half of my life and this was what i was told...
"If you accept Jesus, love and believe in him then he will love and care for you and will forgive your sins... if you do not believe in him then he will be sad and you will not be able to go to heaven. But.... it was pointed out that he will always be ready to forgive you when you have faith in him."

Wouldn't you burn all the people who told you you don't exist? :P

No. I'd tell them they were wrong and I'd put them next to the Impossibly high Cupcake shelf and a TV that only had The View.

:P

Hah I should read the bible :P Just so I at least know what I'm talking about :heh:

Oh yah and I remember being taught Christianity when I was young. I didn't believe a word of it :P Somehow I had a mindset that it was all magic like a novel or something...

Personally, I find that idea silly. What kind of god sends people to hell, anyway?

Many, like the God of Old Testament mentioned in the Christian Bible.

Wouldn't you burn all the people who told you you don't exist?
Yeah, that's why I'm an asshole, not a god, lol.

Well, i've been going to a Catholic school for more than half of my life and this was what i was told...
"If you accept Jesus, love and believe in him then he will love and care for you and will forgive your sins... if you do not believe in him then he will be sad and you will not be able to go to heaven. But.... it was pointed out that he will always be ready to forgive you when you have faith in him."
I went to Catholic school my whole life too...the stories my religion teachers gave me didn't make any sense. Basically, we choose to go to hell, hahah. It's not god's fault; he loves us, we're just stupid. Kind of ridiculous, along the lines of saying "the parent loved their three year old, they just allowed him to wander into the oven because they didn't want to take away his free will."

Many, like the God of Old Testament mentioned in the Christian Bible.
That's why I'm not a Christian, I guess. X3

Ya'll realize that Christianity isn't the only religion where the God sends its people to hell, or an equivalent.

Yeah... i realised, for most religions, it's more like if you do something bad you're going to hell

Ya'll realize that Christianity isn't the only religion where the God sends its people to hell, or an equivalent.
Of course. Those religions are silly to me too. ;P

Yeah... i realised, for most religions, it's more like if you do something bad you're going to hell
That makes slightly more sense, but still not much. At least in this case, we aren't calling a being perfect while calling the same being cruel enough to send people to eternal torture.

Wouldn't you burn all the people who told you you don't exist? :P

In other words a fascist dictator amirite?



In the meantime, I'm going through some old transcripts of teachings the Dalai Lama gave in London a few years back.

One of the things he mentioned was being undefiled by the "eight mundane concerns," which are the attitudes that tend to dominate our general lives. They are:
becoming elated when someone praises you, becoming depressed when someone insults or belittles you, feeling happy when you experience success, being depressed when you experience failure, being joyful when you acquire wealth, feeling dispirited when you become poor, being pleased when you have fame, and feeling depressed when you lack recognition.

He then recites a teaching that goes: "May I be gladdened when someone belittles me, and may I not take pleasure when someone praises me. If I do take pleasure in praise then it immediately increases my arrogance, pride, and conceit; whereas if I take pleasure in criticism, then at least it will open my eyes to my own shortcomings."

Don't have to be an asexual monk, but there's some pretty profound information in there.

In other words a fascist dictator amirite?



In the meantime, I'm going through some old transcripts of teachings the Dalai Lama gave in London a few years back.

One of the things he mentioned was being undefiled by the "eight mundane concerns," which are the attitudes that tend to dominate our general lives. They are:
becoming elated when someone praises you, becoming depressed when someone insults or belittles you, feeling happy when you experience success, being depressed when you experience failure, being joyful when you acquire wealth, feeling dispirited when you become poor, being pleased when you have fame, and feeling depressed when you lack recognition.

He then recites a teaching that goes: "May I be gladdened when someone belittles me, and may I not take pleasure when someone praises me. If I do take pleasure in praise then it immediately increases my arrogance, pride, and conceit; whereas if I take pleasure in criticism, then at least it will open my eyes to my own shortcomings."

Don't have to be an asexual monk, but there's some pretty profound information in there.

Sounds alot like "Ordinary life is full of suffering. This suffering is caused by our desire to satisfy ourselves. The way to end suffering is to end desire for selfish goals and to see others as extensions of ourselves. The way to end desire is to follow the middle path."

well i guess one thing is.. with christianity.. or religion in general.. gives someone a purpose in life.. rather than just dying at the end

well i guess one thing is.. with christianity.. or religion in general.. gives someone a purpose in life.. rather than just dying at the endOr you could donate your organs and save other people's lives even after life (without religion)! D:

Or you could donate your organs and save other people's lives even after life (without religion)! D:
Or you could devise your own reason for living, instead of blindly following the laws of dusty old books! D:
I don't see why people need to live forever to live right now. = \
Edit: And lol, I just remembered I had this, and it sums up my views on the Christian god (and other gods like him) quite nicely:
http://eterna-soft.com/images/1200606509179.jpg
Makes sense to me!

I
love
that
poster

:O

I'm an Atheist, how can I convert to being as Athiest? T_T

[/nitpicks]

I'm an Atheist, how can I convert to being as Athiest? T_T
What's that a response to? My response to you, or the poster? I was agreeing with you in my response; I already knew you were an Atheist. O:
Or are you just saying you wish you could convert to Atheism because of the poster?

What's that a response to? My response to you, or the poster? I was agreeing with you in my response; I already knew you were an Atheist. O:
Or are you just saying you wish you could convert to Atheism because of the poster?Read the poster carefully. :3

lol, ah yes, typos. My brain never catches any of them; if it weren't for spell check, I'd fail all of my papers. :heh:
Atheists follow their own moral codes. Why not follow their own spelling codes as well? :3

Because that would be stupid :P

Because that would be stupid
Are you saying we should leave stupidity purely with the religious people? =D
Kekekekekeke.
And I'm just joking. I know lots of smart religious people. > >

But...every Christian does. Hence...Christian. And I've had plenty of stupid Christians tell me that people who don't accept Jesus as their one and only savior are going to burn/freeze/rot for all eternity.
Personally, I find that idea silly. What kind of god sends people to hell, anyway?


If God is good, then by nature, he will not overlook your sins, but will do everything in his power to see that justice is served and that you are punished.


In response to that poster, it says:

"Is He both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?"

Evil comes from Satan, the father of lies.

God is able to prevent evil, but He gave us a free will. He doesn't want to force us to do anything, hence ‘free will’ xD

OBJECTION!!!~!


God is able to prevent evil, but He gave us a free will. He doesn't want to force us to do anything, hence ‘free will’ xD
Which, once again, is a ridiculous idea. "I didn't want to infringe on my child's free will, so I let him jump into that pit of snakes."
Or how about, "I didn't want to infringe on that old pervert's free will, so I let him rape that eleven year old girl to death."
YEAH, HOW BENEVOLENT! THANKS GOD!
Except you know, god keeps us in the pit of snakes for all eternity apparently, instead of just letting us die like that kid.

If that's what god is, then he's an asshole, and deserves to go to hell more than anybody who's ever lived on Earth.

Your response to the poster also makes no sense. Why doesn't god just get rid of the devil, if he is both able and willing? You haven't answered the question at all; you just replaced the word "evil" with "Satan." And where did Satan (and evil) come from, exactly? Didn't god create everything? Why would a perfect being go around creating evil, exactly?

And:

If God is good, then by nature, he will not overlook your sins, but will do everything in his power to see that justice is served and that you are punished.
Only an idiot punishes people because it is "just." The only real reason to punish people for their crimes is to deter others from committing those same crimes. After death, there is no need for punishment, as nobody on Earth will be around to bear witness to our eternal torture anyway. Basically, any god who punishes anybody for anything is a moron.
Also, one hundred years of sinning doesn't even come close to earning someone infinite years of punishment. That's retarded.

Case closed! God is found
. . . .
GUILTY!

Evil comes from Satan, the father of lies.Where did Satan come from? :mellow:

First king of the First Earth before God made the universe nothing. Then creation starts. It's not talked about in the Canonical Bible whatsoever.

Case closed! God is found
. . . .
GUILTY!

Of course (s)he is. Think of what would happen today. Some loon decides he wants to create a new race and develops one through bioengineering that can take over the planet. Wouldn't be too many people happy with him...

OBJECTION!!!~!


Which, once again, is a ridiculous idea. "I didn't want to infringe on my child's free will, so I let him jump into that pit of snakes."
Or how about, "I didn't want to infringe on that old pervert's free will, so I let him rape that eleven year old girl to death."
YEAH, HOW BENEVOLENT! THANKS GOD!
Except you know, god keeps us in the pit of snakes for all eternity apparently, instead of just letting us die like that kid.

If that's what god is, then he's an asshole, and deserves to go to hell more than anybody who's ever lived on Earth.

Why does God allow evil men and women to live? Should He instead kill them before they do evil deeds? Should He judge murderers and rapists now? What about thieves and liars, adulterers, fornicators, those who lust, and those who hate? If God judged evil today, all unconverted men and women would perish under His wrath. Thank God that He is patiently waiting for them to turn to the Savior and be saved from His terrible wrath.


OBJECTION!!!~!

Your response to the poster also makes no sense. Why doesn't god just get rid of the devil, if he is both able and willing? You haven't answered the question at all; you just replaced the word "evil" with "Satan." And where did Satan (and evil) come from, exactly? Didn't god create everything? Why would a perfect being go around creating evil, exactly?

And:

Only an idiot punishes people because it is "just." The only real reason to punish people for their crimes is to deter others from committing those same crimes. After death, there is no need for punishment, as nobody on Earth will be around to bear witness to our eternal torture anyway. Basically, any god who punishes anybody for anything is a moron.
Also, one hundred years of sinning doesn't even come close to earning someone infinite years of punishment. That's retarded.

Case closed! God is found
. . . .
GUILTY!

"In Dr. Robert Morey’s book The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom, he talks with an atheist about this issue. The atheist assumes that everything is relative, and there are no absolutes (he is absolutely sure of that). Morey replies that the first thing an atheist must do is prove the existence of evil. By what process can an atheist identify evil? He must have a universal absolute to do so. Without an absolute reference point for "good" (which only God can provide), no one can identify what is good or evil. Thus without the existence of God, there is no "evil" or "good" in an absolute sense. Everything is relative. The problem of evil does not negate the existence of God. It actually requires it.

Many assume that because evil still exists today, God has not dealt with it. How can atheists assume that God has not already solved the problem of evil in such a way that neither His goodness nor omnipotence is limited? On what grounds do they limit what God can and cannot do to solve the problem? God has already solved the problem of evil. And He did it in a way in which He did not contradict His nature or the nature of man. We assume God will solve the problem of evil in one single act. But why can’t He deal with evil in a progressive way? Can’t He deal with it throughout time as we know it, and then bring it to the climax on the Day of Judgment?

God sent His Son to die on the cross in order to solve the problem of evil. Christ atoned for evil and secured the eventual removal of all evil from the earth. One day evil will be quarantined in one spot called "hell." Then there will be a perfect world devoid of all evil. If God declared that all evil would, at this moment, cease to exist, you and I and all of humanity would go up in a puff of smoke. Divine judgment demands that sin be punished.

By Ron Meade"
^
:
:
That explains it better than I ever could.


First king of the First Earth before God made the universe nothing. Then creation starts. It's not talked about in the Canonical Bible whatsoever.

.....what?


Where did Satan come from? :mellow:


He used to be Lucifer, an angel, but then he got this idea in his head that he could be like God, rallyed some other angels who agreed with him, went to God, who then sent him and his buddies downward.
Lucifer became known as Satan and his fellows that went with him where called demons

Hurrah, that was my long post for the day.

He used to be Lucifer, an angel, but then he got this idea in his head that he could be like God, rallyed some other angels who agreed with him, went to God, who then sent him and his buddies downward.
Lucifer became known as Satan and his fellows that went with him where called demons

Such a rip-off off The Lion King if you think about it.

The difference is, God came first =P

He used to be Lucifer, an angel, but then he got this idea in his head that he could be like God, rallyed some other angels who agreed with him, went to God, who then sent him and his buddies downward.
Lucifer became known as Satan and his fellows that went with him where called demonsIf God is omnipotent, he would've known that Lucifer would become evil. Why did he make Lucifer?

.....what?

There are two beings that are called "the Devil" or "Satan" in the Christian Theology. Lucifer, the previous king of worlds (Babylonian King), whom existed before the first Armageddon and complete animation upon God's first existence; as depicted in the Apocrypha (http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/index.htm) (Don't remember the chapter or book). This occurred BEFORE Genesis in the Canonical Bible. There's Sachiel, which is the fallen angel from the Second Choir of Angels, whom rebelled against God, and impregnated Lilith, leading to the creation of devils and hell angels; as stated in the Book of Adam in the Apocrypha. This is the more popular of the two views, and also occurred before Genesis.

Either one or both are correct in Christian Theology.

The difference is, God came first =P

True, they thought him up thousands of years ago.

If God is omnipotent, he would've known that Lucifer would become evil. Why did he make Lucifer?
Thing is, God’s omnipotent, and we’re not. We can’t possibly understand his motive for doing things. All we can do is study the Bible and create theories based on what it says. Those who accept Christ and go to Heaven will someday find out, all those that sin will find out the other end

Thing is, God’s omnipotent, and we’re not. We can’t possibly understand his motive for doing things. All we can do is study the Bible and create theories based on what it says. Those who accept Christ and go to Heaven will someday find out, all those that sin will find out the other end.

So either way, we'll learn something when we die. I don't see what the fuss is about. Just do what makes you happy in life. If God is so great, why should (s)he care what one measly human does as long as it's not hurting anyone? ^_^

Thing is, God’s omnipotent, and we’re not. We can’t possibly understand his motive for doing things. All we can do is study the Bible and create theories based on what it says. Those who accept Christ and go to Heaven will someday find out, all those that sin will find out the other end
The poster already explained his motives using common sense. If god is omnipotent, then he is also obviously malevolent, otherwise evil wouldn't exist in this world.

The difference is, God came first =P

The god you thinking of didn't come first. It was, in fact, many thousand animist gods that humans thought up. Then came a person that thought "Hey! Perhaps all these different gods are one god!" Or, in a more Christian like way, humanity bore witness upon God's splendor and came to realize of his benevolence or malevolence to those that worship or deny him. This is the beginning of an organized monotheistic religion called Judaism. It wasn't until a prophet by name of Jesus Christ that Christianity was formed and the outlook on what/who this God character is was changed yet again.



I do believe that there's something out there that's superior to our being. That being said, how are we to worship that which we cannot understand? Try this example:

There are two people in a room. One is a teacher (God). The other one is a student, a first grader (humanity). The teacher starts to spew off material in the quantum mechanics field. Obviously a first grader would even be able to take that material in.

That being said, when it comes time to apply this knowledge (say our "religious practice"), the first grader has absolutely no understanding of the material and wanders around aimlessly, and effectively uneducated as the material is above the scope of the mind of the child.

There is, nor never will be, any form of understanding of that which is above us; thus any derivative of that item is incorrect because of this lack of limit from a level above. As we cannot understand "God"s action, nor can we even begin to rationalize any form of the entire topic.

Does God exist? It's above us. There's no way we can or can't prove this. It just so happens there's an overused word used in religion that is just downright idiotic.

Faith. A belief in something that has no possible explanation. Religion uses this term to justify their theoretical "understanding" and creates what they Faithfully believe is what their god wants. That very same god that is beyond our own mind's capacity. And that, my friend, is what I feel is the Fallacy of Religion.

And building on that, gods don't make mistakes right (ok. That's a lie, but ignore those mythological ones that were designed to be flawed with hamertieas)? Humans make mistakes. Thus, is religion even valid for us to practice? It's obviously a human creation designed for the human.

That being said, when it comes time to apply this knowledge (say our "religious practice"), the first grader has absolutely no understanding of the material and wanders around aimlessly, and effectively uneducated as the material is above the scope of the mind of the child.
You forgot to mention the part where the student fails the teacher's exam miserably, and the teacher tortures the student for all eternity for his ignorance. If you were still referring to the Christian god in your analogy, I mean.

Actually, you're describing God from the Torah, found in Old Testament, used by Christians and the Tanakh, used by the Jews. The God from New Testament is all forgiving, and graceful; yet cares not what happens in the present world. At least, not until the Armageddon mentioned in the taboo Book of Revelations.

...how the fuck did that get in the bible and not the Gospel of Mary?




Regardless, I feel as though I need to study the Qu'ran a bit more. I know so little of what's written in it. Even less than that of Craft T_T

I read somewhere that Star Wars had its own official religion. New Zeeland, 2004 census:

* Christian: 58.9%
* No religion: 29.6%
* Object to answering: 6.9%
* Jedi: 1.5%
* Buddhism: 1.2%
* Hindu: 1.2%

The thing is, what makes "Jedi" less of a religion than Islam, Christianity or Hindu? The last mentioned ones have simply had a better marketing strategy over the last hundred and thousand years.

The thing is, what makes "Jedi" less of a religion than Islam, Christianity or Hindu? The last mentioned ones have simply had a better marketing strategy over the last hundred and thousand years.
You're exactly right; Jedi(ism?) is just as valid a religion as any other religion.
If I was forced to subscribe to any one religion, I'd probably declare myself a Haruhi-(ist?).
Take that, organized religion!

Jedi-ism and haruhi-ism make more sense than Christianity, if you ask me.
Check back in a few thousand years, and see where the world's major religions are then. :3

awww, religious discussions <3 Wisp said some wild stuff a few posts ago, that passed unchallenged, so I'll pick up on that topic. :)

"In Dr. Robert Morey’s book The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom, he talks with an atheist about this issue.
Unfortunately I haven't read this book myself, I've read some reviews however. It appears to be... not a valuable source, when you genuinely try to learn something about the atheist/theist position. I rather recommend the Cambridge Companion to Atheism (http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Companion-Atheism-Companions-Philosophy/dp/0521603676), which analyses the historical development of atheism and it's philosophical stance, rather than a straw man. Let my cite one passage of the review (which I think is dead-on) just for illustration.

but here is one last piece of Morey reasoning.(pg. 151)

(Atheist)-What do you mean that _I_ have proved the bible! I don't want to prove the bible.

(Morey)-Well, do you feel that the gospel which I have shared with you is foolishness?

(Atheist)-Of course it is!

(Morey)-Then you just proved 1 Corinthians 1:18 which says that the gospel is foolishness to those who are lost.

He's making a case for the bible by showing simple self-fulfilling prophecies. Of course a person will be prophesized to be "lost" if they don't believe in the bible, because by the simple act of not believing in the bible the person will be considered lost by the bible (circular reasoning...). Here's another brilliant prophecy by Morey a little bit further down the page - "Do you believe in the ten commandments? If you don't, and I know that you don't, then the bible predicts that you will probably engage in immorality." Wow! What a brilliant prediction!
.. anyway, back to topic. :3

The atheist assumes that everything is relative, and there are no absolutes (he is absolutely sure of that).
It's not the atheist who "assumes that everything is relative", it's the theist who assumes that absolute values must exist, which is an unjustified believe. As Steven Novella said... "Even if there is a God who has an objective morality, it doesn’t matter, because no one knows objectively if God exists or, if he does, what his will is. Therefore, even in a world with objective morality we would still only have subjective morality because us mere humans do not have access to objective knowledge of such morality. In fact, all claims to objective morality are actually based upon faith and authority." Amen.


Morey replies that the first thing an atheist must do is prove the existence of evil. By what process can an atheist identify evil? He must have a universal absolute to do so. Without an absolute reference point for "good" (which only God can provide), no one can identify what is good or evil. Thus without the existence of God, there is no "evil" or "good" in an absolute sense. Everything is relative. The problem of evil does not negate the existence of God. It actually requires it.
This argument is circular reasoning (he seems to love that) based on the premise, that "If God exists, there must be objective morality". So, to actually fulfil Dr. Morey's request we have to assume that God exists in the first place or there couldn't be objective morality.


Many assume that because evil still exists today, God has not dealt with it. How can atheists assume that God has not already solved the problem of evil in such a way that neither His goodness nor omnipotence is limited?
First of all, it is neither possible to prove nor to disprove this, so it's a rather irrelevant question. How can you assume that God has already solved those problems? What if the the FSM, K.O.ed Jesus in a heavenly fistfight first?

On what grounds do they limit what God can and cannot do to solve the problem? God has already solved the problem of evil. And He did it in a way in which He did not contradict His nature or the nature of man.
How?

We assume God will solve the problem of evil in one single act. But why can’t He deal with evil in a progressive way? Can’t He deal with it throughout time as we know it, and then bring it to the climax on the Day of Judgment?We assume that God will solve the problem of evil in one single act, yeah. For what reason would he prolong our suffering? Just to crescendo towards the Day of Judgement? In what way does this progressive way of dealing with evil, not infringe our free will?

I read somewhere that Star Wars had its own official religion. New Zeeland, 2004 census:

* Christian: 58.9%
* No religion: 29.6%
* Object to answering: 6.9%
* Jedi: 1.5%
* Buddhism: 1.2%
* Hindu: 1.2%

There is another religion... Matrix Religion. ;)

Edit: Somewhere on the internet my Bro found last year a page that was looking for people to join to their Matrix religion.

awww, religious discussions <3 Wisp said some wild stuff a few posts ago, that passed unchallenged, so I'll pick up on that topic.
Thanks Matt. When I first saw Wisp's long post, I planned to answer it on the spot, but then I ended up being busy until the following day. By the time I remembered the post, I'd lost most of my desire to bother with it.
The small voice in my heart was still crying "Nonsense! Argue against that nonsense!" though, so thanks for taking care of that for me. :heh:
Reason is victorious once again! Hurray for logic and rational thinking!

There is another religion... Matrix Religion.

Edit: Somewhere on the internet my Bro found last year a page that was looking for people to join to their Matrix religion.
Bah, the Matrix didn't have a very good story. Not worth subscribing to that religion. XD

Same for Haruhi.

Wasn't Haruhi that "effeminate" character from Ouran? :think:

Isn't worshiping a cartoon character a little odd? We -know- it's not real.

Well, who knows the Christian God is real? For all I know, he's a lead character in a bestseller.

Wasn't Haruhi that "effeminate" character from Ouran? :think:

Isn't worshiping a cartoon character a little odd? We -know- it's not real.

It seems some people consider Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuuutsu good enough to be the basis of a religion.

Same for Evangelion, actually.

It seems some people consider Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuuutsu good enough to be the basis of a religion.

Same for Evangelion, actually.

Don't forget the flying spagetti monster one, and scientology.

But I'd have to give that some of those do sound more religion-y than the standard ones. What gives, all a religion requires is fanatics and a place of worship.


So how about ya'll turn to my newly made religion(I just thought of it as I was writing this), The Holy Order of Ichigos Strawberry?




:lol2::lol2::lol2::lol2::lol2:

So how about ya'll turn to my newly made religion(I just thought of it as I was writing this), The Holy Order of Ichigos Strawberry?

Done!

Though we can probably shorten it to Ichigoism or something. Ooh! Do I get a robe?? :lol:

Ooh! Do I get a robe?? :lol:

Hm.. I was thinking of that. But then to distinguish our superior 'True Believers of The Order' from the rest of the ignorant masses that need to be (eventually) saved from the oblivion to come, I think we should equip ourselves with a doggy leash and a frisbee, to tie in with the other issue going on at general chat. Yeah, that'd be superb.

Collars come in all colours now days. Pink would be simple enough to find :lol2:

Wait a sec. Will I have to cut off my testicles for this religion? I might need a day or two to think about it if that's the case.

So how about ya'll turn to my newly made religion(I just thought of it as I was writing this), The Holy Order of Ichigos Strawberry?
Sorry, but I invented that religion about two months ago, and I've been following it since then. = \

Same for Haruhi.
Pah, what do you like? I need something to watch, so I'm open to suggestions. Have any favorites?

"Religion has no monopoly on morality ... I care about not someone's religion, but what their moral compass is." - Jim Wallis on The Daily Show last night.

Sorry, but I invented that religion about two months ago, and I've been following it since then. = \

Pah, what do you like? I need something to watch, so I'm open to suggestions. Have any favorites?

Something that makes sense. Something with a scientific base.

Something that makes sense. Something with a scientific base.
So....The History Channel? =D

I prefer Discovery Health. The autopsy shows are quite interesting. And in a way, I do worship my television so this is kind of on topic for me. :P

religon is ok.. it's the prayers i don't like.. boring!

But then, without prayers.... what are religions for then?
I mean, some of the most important things in religion is praying....

Praying isn't important at all. Religion is about believing something, about having faith in something. You don't have to pray in order to believe.

Unless your Christian or muslim.

A question to the religious: Do you think that Scientology is a religion?

Praying isn't important at all. Religion is about believing something, about having faith in something. You don't have to pray in order to believe.

Unless your Christian or muslim.

^Not to be stingy, that phrase was accurate. Not many religions actually require regular prayer like those to (moreso Muslim) do, and this is their right as it is their practice.

Well, I know that my pastor likes to say "anything is a religion; it just matters what intensity and ordination it follows". If you consider something to be "religious" you can either make it or intend it to be. "I religiously go to particular websites." That's the same form as "she religiously practices Islam". I could make my visits to something a Religion if I had others start to follow me (though most call this a Cult, to differ it from Holy Religion).

Now do people that practice religion realize that this word simply means a belief in form of practice and ritual actions in a group? Most likely not. I know my family genuinely thinks religion involves a Church, a Mass, and a God (not gods). But that's Holy Religion, not just Religion. I try to correct them, but they honestly detest me when it comes to my belief system and throw my opinions to moot.

(though most call this a Cult, to differ it from Holy Religion).
Cults are just religions that haven't been around long enough. X3

I try to correct them, but they honestly detest me when it comes to my belief system and throw my opinions to moot.
Hahah, sounds like the rest of your family is a notch or two lower than you when it comes to intelligence. :3

^Not to be stingy, that phrase was accurate. Not many religions actually require regular prayer like those to (moreso Muslim) do, and this is their right as it is their practice.


There are many people who believe in the god and do not pray. Saying you have to pray in order to believe in god is silly. We pray because we believe in god, not vice versa.

You contradicted yourself.

You must be reading my statement wrong then.
Let me clarify.
We believe in god because we pray.
We pray because we believe in god.

Three words.

Escapism, Scapegoat, Hypocrisy.

You must be reading my statement wrong then.
Let me clarify.
We believe in god because we pray.
We pray because we believe in god.
I freaking lol'd.
Nice job, Asuka.

>.> Not sure if you quoted without the strike out on purpose or not.

We pray because we believe in god.Surely you don't speak for all of us!

Well, me being raised catholic, being in 11 different parishes, (7 across the U.S. and 3 outside of it), with all of them having nearly the exact same view points, I feel it is safe for me to generalize. And sure sure, there are different christian denominations, and I am only catholic, but I still feel it safe for me to generalize. Of course, feel free to decide my generalizations not valid, I have no intention on forcing my beliefs and opinions onto others. I am merely trying to correct someone in what I feel is right. I know that I cannot speak for all Christians, but from my experience, the majority of us stand the same on a view point such as this. Besides, it's just common sense. You don't buy a hotdog, then get your pay check. You get your paycheck, then buy a hotdog.

Actually the UK national average for money is negative. Many people live on credit and loans. For example. Students.

Actually the UK national average for money is negative. Many people live on credit and loans. For example. Students.

If you take into account a lot of people have a mortgage, then that makes sense.

>.> Not sure if you quoted without the strike out on purpose or not.
No, that was an accident. I was lol'ing with your post, not at it.

<snip> I feel it is safe for me to generalize. <snip> I know that I cannot speak for all Christians, but <snip>You're knowingly doing something that is wrong?


Besides, it's just common sense. You don't buy a hotdog, then get your pay check. You get your paycheck, then buy a hotdog.I don't understand how this relates to your argument. Please explain more.

*****

Also, for those of us that have to fend off pushers in real life: the Christian Proselytizer Questionnaire. [link (http://whichreligion.com/christian_questionnaire.html)]

*****

Lastly, what is this nonsense? (more Scientology stalking craziness) [link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPol_m8wm8Y)]

1)When you generalize, you are speaking for a majority, when you speak for all, you speak for the minority and the majority. Atleast, that is what I meant when I said generalize.

2) The hotdog is prayer, the paycheck is God. Normally, you don't start out not having a god, then praying in order to believe in one, I'd say the normal sequence is, You believe in a god, and so you pray. You don't just pray [have a hotdog] in order to believe in god [get a paycheck]. You believe in god [get a paycheck] then pray because you wish to speak to your god [buy a hotdog because you have money]

If you still don't get my analogy, here is another one for you.
You don't just pray [have some taters] in order to believe in god [get a paycheck]. You believe in god [get a paycheck] then pray because you wish to speak to your god [buy some taters because you have money]

You use exactly the same analogy but replaced one object with another object. That's rubbish. Then say, you don't get your car fixed before it breaks down, or something. I get your point, however, I don't see how it relates to what I said. Part of Christian religion is praying. When you go to church, people pray. It's part of the religion. Maybe some people choose to do otherwise, but the average Christian prays to their God. Same for muslims.

You use exactly the same analogy but replaced one object with another object. That's rubbish. Then say, you don't get your car fixed before it breaks down, or something. I get your point, however, I don't see how it relates to what I said. Part of Christian religion is praying. When you go to church, people pray. It's part of the religion. Maybe some people choose to do otherwise, but the average Christian prays to their God. Same for muslims.

But you CAN believe in the Christian / Islamic God without praying...It just means your not following your religion very well <_<

Angelic didn't state anything about Christians or islams...Just stated about believing @.@

1)When you generalize, you are speaking for a majority, when you speak for all, you speak for the minority and the majority. Atleast, that is what I meant when I said generalize.Good, I just wanted to clarify your definition.


2) The hotdog is prayer, the paycheck is God. Normally, you don't start out not having a god, then praying in order to believe in one, I'd say the normal sequence is, You believe in a god, and so you pray. You don't just pray [have a hotdog] in order to believe in god [get a paycheck]. You believe in god [get a paycheck] then pray because you wish to speak to your god [buy a hotdog because you have money]

<snip>This makes a lot more sense now. Is prayer a way of re-affirming your believe in your deity of choice, or do you see it more as a ritual to honour your deity of choice?

You don't have to pray in order to believe.

Unless your Christian or muslim.


Part of Christian religion is praying. When you go to church, people pray. It's part of the religion. Maybe some people choose to do otherwise, but the average Christian prays to their God. Same for muslims.

I agree with your second quote, but I was merely trying to correct the first quote. We don't have to pray to believe. Many believe, yet do not pray.



This makes a lot more sense now. Is prayer a way of re-affirming your believe in your deity of choice, or do you see it more as a ritual to honour your deity of choice?
Personally, I myself do not see prayer as a way of re-affirming my belief in my deity. Prayer for me, is honouring and thanking. To tell you the truth, I don't pray nearly as much as I use to, but in my past years I would pray just to ask for things, but I've matured and came to the conclusion that god isn't a Christmas Tree.

Hey guys ^^

Prayer is a way to talk to God.
A lot of religons have ritual prayers or certain ones you say in certain situations, but christianity is about having a personal relationship with God and like any relationship you have to talk to the other, thus prayer.
You can ask for things, or you can just let out all your troubles, griefs, victories, happiness, ask forgiveness, and other such things.

You can ask for things, or you can just let out all your troubles, griefs, victories, happiness, ask forgiveness, and other such things.It sounds pretty much like ancient psychotherapy, just that you're not lying down. ;)

I agree with your second quote, but I was merely trying to correct the first quote. We don't have to pray to believe. Many believe, yet do not pray.


I stand corrected on my first quote.

There is much lolling and lmaoing to be done.

somehow the discussion drifted into whether prayer is neccessary or not in religion (sadly, there was too much redundant junk in there and in midst of all the lmaoing and lolling, I couldn't read the posts word for word and besides - there was no "general idea" to get there.)

The point is, regardless of whether you as a person pray or not while believing (insert your religion here), the system as whole prays. a lot of it. and enforces it. and bitches if you don't. Specifically Christianity, Judaism and Islam.


That was what Angelic meant originally (or as I see it at least - he was generalising just like EVERYBODY ELSE here is doing), and Asuka decided to take him on that topic, like he does against Angelic on pretty much every comment ever made, and starts somewhat semi serious sounding yet utterly stupid and pointless argument that resulted in... five minutes of entertainment before I decide to round things up.

Just to piss everybody off, I'm gonna bitch at Asuka's lame analogy(fuck this word is so anal)

Getting a paycheck and then buying a hotdog is order specific. Praying and believing isn't. The entire possibility of you praying, then beliving because you pray is completely feasible. In fact, I'm sure a good lot of people prayed during their hard times then figured maybe they're religious after all.



God I hate religion. Oh no, I used the word "God" in vain. Are all the Holy Christians of Ichigos gonna shoot me now?

JFC Have the decency to NOT take everything literally. That's just like the tards of Jehovah's Witnesses (... Although I'm not against any religion in particular (as long as I'm not concerned), I hate that one branch of let'sbelievetheholycrossguyism. They take the bible way too literally and prooved themselves to be assholes)



So can we continue with ranting about the stupidity of online cults based off anime/novel/whatever that's getting closer to a religious system(and let's include scientology in this one, cuz that's just plain stupid - like the holywood people)

Or in the case that the former topic is well dead and buried, How about we move on to blaming Evangelists for spreading evil words that caused everybody in the third world countries to realise that they were in fact living like shit and life sucks and they have to believe to be redeemed?

1) read post number 955.
2) Please quote a post from anyone where it said something similar to "it is impossible to pray and then believe in god. No one has ever done it, it is just a complete bullshit thought." All I ever said or implied was that it is not a requirement to pray in order to believe - for the majority of Christians that I have generalized in the previous posts.

Good day.

And so you've missed the entire point.

But if you intend to keep arguing for argument's sake that the wording of how you say... let's say for example, "religion is bullshit" oh wait, I meant "bullshit, religion is" is important on a thread where we're more concerned with larger concepts,


Sure go ahead and ramble alone

And so you've missed the entire point.

But if you intend to keep arguing for argument's sake that the wording of how you say... let's say for example, "religion is bullshit" oh wait, I meant "bullshit, religion is" is important on a thread where we're more concerned with larger concepts,


Sure go ahead and ramble alone

I ramble not, and I am sorry that you do not have the maturity to evaluate and reply to a post in a civil manner that leads to a discussion. I got your entire point, I just only addressed the parts relevant to my posts. If you are looking for a flame war, I suggest you go to another thread because another flame war is the last thing this thread needs. I will attempt one last time to reply to your post, giving you the benefit of the doubt and trusting you will grow up a little and actually discuss, instead of just assuming and pretending.




The point is, regardless of whether you as a person pray or not while believing (insert your religion here), the system as whole prays. a lot of it. and enforces it. and bitches if you don't. Specifically Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

In present time, and from what I have seen (if I am wrong, please show me a valid source to prove me wrong), Christianity does not enforce their beliefs, nor have I ever witnessed or heard of a Christian "bitch" at another Christian for not praying.




That was what Angelic meant originally (or as I see it at least - he was generalising just like EVERYBODY ELSE here is doing), and Asuka decided to take him on that topic, like he does against Angelic on pretty much every comment ever made, and starts somewhat semi serious sounding yet utterly stupid and pointless argument that resulted in... five minutes of entertainment before I decide to round things up.

One, don't flatter yourself. Two, I only attempt to correct people on things that I feel are incorrect. If you saw someone making false statements (accidental or not) about you or your beliefs, would you not correct them?



Just to piss everybody off, I'm gonna bitch at Asuka's lame analogy(fuck this word is so anal)

Getting a paycheck and then buying a hotdog is order specific. Praying and believing isn't. The entire possibility of you praying, then beliving because you pray is completely feasible. In fact, I'm sure a good lot of people prayed during their hard times then figured maybe they're religious after all.

As I said earlier, I never said "praying and then choosing to believe is impossible and never happened." All I said was that it is not a requirement to pray in order to believe.

Good day.

The "good day" at the end of your last posts is really stupid. Seems like you're trying to make a point but it just makes you look frustrated XD

I am frustrated; he just ignored my post and repeated the same thing twice and then acted all cocky as if he was the shit, and now I have to dumb it down for him.

I believe that God is immoral for the following reasons:

He commands rape.
He commands genocide.
He punishes innocent people.
He condones slavery.

If anyone feels the above can be considered moral in any situation, I'd like to hear the reasoning. I do not understand how Christians can consider their god morally perfect when such atrocities are committed by him. Would anyone care to respond with why they disagree?

*gets the fire going*

Satan, the fallen archangel commands rape.
Satan also commands genocide.
Your idea of innocence may be is contrary to the Lord's.
Read the bible about slavery.

Yet, God created Lucifer the Angel. Angels were made for the sole purpose in doing Gods will. Because God is all-knowing, he knew Lucifer would turn against him, he knew Satan would command rape and genocide. If God doesn't command rape and genocide, he sure as hell created a being whose sole purpose was to command rape, genocide, and evil.

Yet, God created Satan, so in doing so, God commands rape and commands genocide. If he does not command it, he sure as hell created it.

But note that God does not command Satan. He lets Satan roam free, as a test to humans to choose the right path; and despite all the wrongdoing and all evil in the world, we trust in God and love Him; and call this faith: and it guides us to overlook human logic and arguments to see His logic and to see His arguments; for surely someone who sacrificed his own son to save billions of mortals that are insignificant in the face of His son would not be lying when He says He will wipe our tears one day and that He has our best interests at heart, if only we believe in Him.


This logic that you are arguing is human logic, Satan's logic, not God's. Hear me: You can sit and ponder all of this human logic, sit and argue if the Lord is truly a moral Lord with human arguments, or stop wasting your time and accept the Lord and His truths, and someday, He will explain this all to you, and make sense of it, for His ways are not our own.

But note that God does not command Satan. He lets Satan roam free, as a test to humans to choose the right path; and despite all the wrongdoing and all evil in the world, we trust in God and love Him; and call this faith: and it guides us to overlook human logic and arguments to see His logic and to see His arguments; for surely someone who sacrificed his own son to save billions of mortals that are insignificant in the face of His son would not be lying when He says He will wipe our tears one day and that He has our best interests at heart, if only we believe in Him.

The funny thing is, even if you do believe in God, you are not promised salvation. Those who choose the path of God are still tempted by the devil to do wrong. So, why would a God want to drive away its believers?

Why is it that instead of God just ceasing our existence if we don't believe in him and follow his words, he damns us to eternal torture? Wouldn't it be more merciful to just end us?




This logic that you are arguing is human logic, Satan's logic, not God's. Hear me: You can sit and ponder all of this human logic, sit and argue if the Lord is truly a moral Lord with human arguments, or stop wasting your time and accept the Lord and His truths, and someday, He will explain this all to you, and make sense of it, for His ways are not our own.

So in other words, blindly accept an intangible god as my savior and hope I get something out of it when I die?

So in other words, blindly accept an intangible god as my savior and hope I get something out of it when I die?This is like the 2nd Coming of Christ, only sooner.

So in other words, blindly accept an intangible god as my savior and hope I get something out of it when I die?

Exactly. We call this faith. And yes God did perhaps know what Lucifer was going to do, but the Bible tells us that this is a test.

The funny thing is, even if you do believe in God, you are not promised salvation. Those who choose the path of God are still tempted by the devil to do wrong. So, why would a God want to drive away its believers?

Why is it that instead of God just ceasing our existence if we don't believe in him and follow his words, he damns us to eternal torture? Wouldn't it be more merciful to just end us?


You seem to think that your knowledge is the eternal truth. Can you accept the fact that God has his own ways?

And here it is folks! Our new religious extremist.

Flaunting around the word God is useful, but do try to think about how much pressure you're putting on him. Give him do-cause and place the burden elsewhere like a person whom lives with sin, not against sin.

@Post number 970: Perhaps Lucifer is the one testing god, instead of God testing us.
@Post Number 971: My knowledge is eternal truth. I am god, it is in a book written thousands of years ago. The god you worship is false, I am the true god. Accept this as fact, I have my own ways.

btw, in the lower right hand corner of your post, there is an edit button.

They really ought to close this thread

Why? Because you base your arguments on nothing and cannot come with any other response besides, "it is god's way, just accept it."

Anyways, I was reading up on Shinto cuz I was studying it briefly in History. Though, I need some clarification. What role does the Japanese Emperor play in the Shinto belief? And does the emperor play any role in it today?

Why? Because you base your arguments on nothing and cannot come with any other response besides, "it is god's way, just accept it."

Anyways, I was reading up on Shinto cuz I was studying it briefly in History. Though, I need some clarification. What role does the Japanese Emperor play in the Shinto belief? And does the emperor play any role in it today?

If you can't accept the Christian God, fine. But please post with maturity. This thread is about religion, not Shicoco blasting. If you notice, your arguments are always based on human logic. If God tells us to murder, than murder is moral and correct.

Now it is MY turn to use human logic. Using human logic, you have come to the conclusion that my God is immoral. He is still the supreme being, so logically I will still follow him, as he can throw me in hell. And logically, since he is the ruler, he makes the rules, and he cannot break the rules he created, so therefore he cannot be immoral.

Wow, human logic makes me feel stupid.

Listen, Asuka, I am no preacher, and you do have good arguments. The answers are all in the Bible. If you state one of your arguments again, I will try to find it in that massive book.

If you can't accept the Christian God, fine. But please post with maturity. This thread is about religion, not Shicoco blasting. If you notice, your arguments are always based on human logic. If God tells us to murder, than murder is moral and correct.

If murder is moral and correct, why is it that it is against the law in America to do so? Keep in mind that America's Founding Fathers were Christian.



Now it is MY turn to use human logic. Using human logic, you have come to the conclusion that my God is immoral. He is still the supreme being, so logically I will still follow him, as he can throw me in hell. And logically, since he is the ruler, he makes the rules, and he cannot break the rules he created, so therefore he cannot be immoral.

You cannot prove there is a god, I cannot prove there isn't. You can follow your god blindly, I will not stop you.



Now, I am tired of this circle, you may reply if you wish, but I will no longer reply to your posts on this topic. I still seek knowledge of the Shinto religion in my previous post if anyone is interested in answering for me.

This thread is about religion, not Shicoco blasting.If you've not noticed, this thread is about bashing religious extremists.


If you notice, your arguments are always based on human logic.What's wrong with that?


If God tells us to murder, than murder is moral and correct.Come again? What. The. Fuck.


And logically, since he is the ruler, he makes the rules, and he cannot break the rules he created, so therefore he cannot be immoral.Hahaha. If He cannot break the rules he created, how is He Omnipotent? Even politicians can break the rules they create.


Wow, human logic makes me feel stupid.Perhaps years of blindly believing in your religion has atrophied your ability to think and reason for yourself. Maybe you have become stupid.

You cannot prove there is a god, I cannot prove there isn't.
Think of it this way:

When you look at a painting, you know there is a painter.
When you look at a building, you know there is a builder.

The same is the way with creation. When you see creation, you know there has to be a Creater.

When you look at a painting, you know there is a painter.
When you look at a building, you know there is a builder.

The same is the way with creation. When you see creation, you know there has to be a Creater.
Your analogy is completely broken. It's so broken that I'm using almost all of my will power to remain civil. (My temper is as quick to fire as your analogy is quick to...be broken. X3 )

Okay. Basically, saying a god created the universe makes the universe more complicated, not less.
Atheist view:
Nothing -> Universe.

Christian view:
Nothing->God->Universe.

You're not really explaining anything at all. You're just making the universe more complicated than it needs to be, by adding another step to its creation. You say God created the universe, so who created God so that he could create the universe?
Of course you'll answer "God always existed lawl!" Which isn't an answer at all.
How about just saying "The universe always existed!" instead?
That makes the whole thing less complicated by one step, at least.

So no, when I see creation, I don't "know that there has to be a creator." I actually find the idea laughable, as it doesn't make any sense at all. I wish I was a more articulate person, so that I could grind how utterly nonsensical your last post was into the skulls of all those who agree with the analogy you just presented, but I'm afraid my acidic tongue is a little base today. God damnit.

I read somewhere that the japanese emperor wasn't allowed to put his feet on the ground.

If you can't accept the Christian God, fine. But please post with maturity.

Let's see here... Who first took off on Satan?


This thread is about religion, not Shicoco blasting.

I can and will point out faults in logic in an insulting fashion if the situation approves it.


If you notice, your arguments are always based on human logic. If God tells us to murder, than murder is moral and correct.

I don't see a linkup between these two sentences, but, according to what you say, IF you have faith in God THEN you will happily do as he commands. After all, we're just slaves (loosely) beneath him.


Now it is MY turn to use human logic.

Oh boy...


Using human logic, you have come to the conclusion that my God is immoral. He is still the supreme being, so logically I will still follow him, as he can throw me in hell. And logically, since he is the ruler, he makes the rules, and he cannot break the rules he created, so therefore he cannot be immoral.

Wow, human logic makes me feel stupid.

You didn't prove anything with that statement. More or less you made a bunch of conjectures which illustrate what you feel (thus not logical, as logic is purely symbolic and not tokenized), and stuck the word "logically" in to make it sound logical.


Listen, Asuka, I am no preacher, and you do have good arguments. The answers are all in the Bible. If you state one of your arguments again, I will try to find it in that massive book.

The bible is NOT a one stop source for Christian Theology. It's just the only books that a few scholars picked and deemed a powerful teaching utility for teaching the Theology. Hell, the Bible -- Irony for the closeness of those two terms -- used to be the only textbook a school used to teach children.





Anyways, I was reading up on Shinto cuz I was studying it briefly in History. Though, I need some clarification. What role does the Japanese Emperor play in the Shinto belief? And does the emperor play any role in it today?

Long ago, the Japanese Emperor was considered the decedent of Amaterasu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaterasu), thus was considered the "ruler of man", or Ikigami (living god). Thus, the Emperor is very important to them.


As for today... That's something I'd need to ask a Shinto themselves, which I don't think I'll be able to find on this side of the puddle.

Think of it this way:

When you look at a painting, you know there is a painter.
When you look at a building, you know there is a builder.

The same is the way with creation. When you see creation, you know there has to be a Creater.Man-made objects are made by men, I'll grant you that. How do you know that things not made by men are made by God?

Listen, Asuka.

Most know that there was a Jesus. History teaches that there was, and we also know that he did die on a crucifix. Jews agree, and so do the Muslims, and even some eastern religions recognize the existance of Jesus. Even the history textbooks at my school say there was.

But I think the agreement ends there. We know that there was a Jesus, and that he let himself die, claiming it to be for mankind. But as humans we don't know nor can we prove on a human basis how that affected us spirtually or how it affected our ability to get into [a] heaven.

So, I cannot, for the life of me, prove that heaven exists; but I can, through the life of Jesus, say that non-existance does have an entrance and a welcome mat.

I apologize to people in this thread: I am a devout Christian, and like to sway people that way.

Asuka, I don't know which "Idiot's Guide to Christianity" you've been reading, but He in no way condones rape, murder, etc. He let's Satan do these things to the world. It is a test of faith for Christians.

Example: my friend isn't from the richest family. She didn't receive anything for Christmas. Her birthday was a few days ago, and her parents were able to get her a keyboard like she wanted. She loves it. She keeps asking me to teach her things. As I'm writing this message, she messages me and tells me that her baby brother spilled soda all over it, and now it doesn't work. A human would think, "What kind of God let's this happen?" God is NOT here to pamper us and make our lives easier, at least not in this life.

Asuka, I saw your profile, and saw that you were pretty young; however, I don't think you're dumb. Surely you've heard the story of Jesus walking on water. He then told Peter that he could too. "So Jesus invites Peter to come. Peter gets out of the boat and begins walking on the water toward Jesus. But when Peter takes his eyes off Jesus and sees the wind and waves, he begins to sink. Peter cries out to the Lord and Jesus immediately reaches out his hand and catches Peter. As they climb into the boat together, the storm ceases. Then the disciples worship Jesus, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God.""

See, it's a matter of faith. Take your eyes off the Lord to listen to these sorts of arguments, and you will fall. My life has been better ever since I truly became a Christian. But you can't see that. Only I can. You won't know until you try, and what have you got to lose?

But I am going to stop. I can't change you. I can't win an argument on here; if I do, you come up with more reasons and logic disproving God. Believing is something you have to do. But, as long as you remain insecure about yourself, and continue to listen to your arguments, this won't happen.

But hey, you DO have legitmate questions, and you DO make good arguments. There are some VERY nice priests/pastors out there, that will listen to your arguments, and tell you what I can't. Or go online, to Yahoo! answers and discuss your logic there. You might find a counterargument that you like.

Also, if you go to a school, and are ever in a history class, suggest that the instructor allow a debate. You'd be very decent at it.

And everyone, keep in mind, God's purpose is greater than your problems.

Shicoco, I am a devout Roman Catholic.

Shicoco, I am a devout Roman Catholic.
lol, the dramatic twist at the end of the season. Cue the orchestra! ;D

This logic that you are arguing is human logic, Satan's logic, not God's. Hear me: You can sit and ponder all of this human logic, sit and argue if the Lord is truly a moral Lord with human arguments, or stop wasting your time and accept the Lord and His truths, and someday, He will explain this all to you, and make sense of it, for His ways are not our own.

OMG god's logic is something we'd never understand lol.

Seriously, God's logic? If he exists, he has zero logic. The only logic he has is that of a cruel dictator. God is just a dictator like Hitler, Stalin and all the others. Obey and don't complain or you'll be punished (Hell).

Besides, how many people have died in the name of God (or Allah)?

Long ago, the Japanese Emperor was considered the decedent of Amaterasu, thus was considered the "ruler of man", or Ikigami (living god). Thus, the Emperor is very important to them.
Dammit, you beat me to it M. :( Let me add that Amaterasu is the sun goddess, thus one of the most important mythological figures in the Shinto religion.

Example: my friend isn't from the richest family. She didn't receive anything for Christmas. Her birthday was a few days ago, and her parents were able to get her a keyboard like she wanted. She loves it. She keeps asking me to teach her things. As I'm writing this message, she messages me and tells me that her baby brother spilled soda all over it, and now it doesn't work. A human would think, "What kind of God let's this happen?" God is NOT here to pamper us and make our lives easier, at least not in this life.
I think, when people talk about the evil that god allows, they don't about broken keyboard. They talk about children starving in Africa and millions of Jews being executed in the second world war (and hey, Jews believe in god).

lol, the dramatic twist at the end of the season. Cue the orchestra! ;DSometimes you gotta love the moderate ones :3

EDIT: Since Angelic brought up the topic of logic again, let me add a very good quote:
"Rationality pertains to discovering and validating new knowledge and governing one's actions according to such knowledge. But this god is said to be omniscient, which means it has no need to discover or validate knowledge. Furthermore, the Christian god is said to be perfect, immortal, indestructible and complete. Thus it has no needs and therefore cannot value anything (being perfect and complete it already has everything it could need) nor could it know threat (since it is immortal and indestructible). Frankly, such a being would not need to act in the first place. Any actions it would take would be actions motivated completely by whimsy, i.e., it is irrational."

Shicoco's posts should be included in all textbooks on logic and debating.

However, here are two gems that are too good to pass up:


Asuka, I don't know which "Idiot's Guide to Christianity" you've been reading, but He in no way condones rape, murder, etc. He let's Satan do these things to the world. It is a test of faith for Christians.


And everyone, keep in mind, God's purpose is greater than your problems.

Listen, Asuka, I am no preacher...



I am a devout Christian, and like to sway people that way.

Sounds like a contradiction.

I apologize to people in this thread: I am a devout Christian, and like to sway people that way.

People like you are the reason I hate religion threads. If I even get the idea you're trying to use these forums as a platform to convert people, you're out, gone and done for. Just keep that in mind.

*Hugs Angelic*

Believe what you want, but don't push it on others. It's nobody's business telling who to worship what.

Paganism FTW! *runs away*

No, but seriously.... isn't this meant to be a thread about discussing different religions, not about arguing what is/isn't the point of certain things in them? Personally, I call myself a Pagan, and I find the earth-based religions fascinating ones to study, and I have read about many paths of them. However, I have also read about Christianity, Islam, Hinuism, Judaism, etc - and I can respect each of these.

Howsabout the rest of you try as opposed to saying that Christianity is the be all and end all and we're cretins if we don't believe in the Christian idea of God ;)

To be honest, I'm not religious. My mother tried, she really did to bring me up a nice Anglican Christian child, but for some reason she failed. I find all religions to be equally facinating, as all have very profound ideas and views. I used to be really interested in Pagan ritual, and for a long time that's how I identified myself (much to my mother's chargrin). But I think that was just a phase. At the moment I call myself agnostic, and identify with some Buddhist beliefs (but really Buddhism is more philosophy than religion).
Undoubtedly, my views will change later on as well.

I'm not religious at all either. I went to sunday school once or twice with my friends as a kid, but only because everyone else was doing it. I never bought into that whole "jesus saves your soul" thing.

If I HAD to choose a religion, I'd probably go with Paganism, Wicca or Buddhism. Oprahism and Voodoo would be my fallbacks. :P

Wicca is a form of Paganism :P

See how much I don't care about religion?

My playschool was in a church, as was boys brigade. Also the same vicar would come to my school every week for years to sing and prayer. Yet I never had any interests in Christianity. Instead I was a man of science but even that failed to make much sence in my beliefs. So now I just forget about it all and let people walk the path they walk. No point in trying to convert or debate.

Angelic: God is like a parent. He spanks you when you play with matches and rewards you when you follow in his footsteps.

Dark Bring: The funny thing is, I actually believe there is an "Idiot's Guide to Christianity".

Hiei: If preachers were the only ones who preached, the world would be dramtically different. Or just more Catholic :D

Also, everyone, I enjoy these debates, and some of you are making good points, but I'd appreciate it if we could keep the debating in this thread. So far, no one has PMed me yelling at me about how much of an idiot I am, or flamed me in another thread, so that's good :D

My stance on religion is Ignosticism, since I am someone who is fond of logical reasoning and coherence in arguments. A proposition has to be consistent before one can take it seriously. I also agree with David Hume that we cannot verify assertions about the metaphysical (it's impossible, otherwise we'd call it physical). Hence any talk about metaphysical concepts that cannot be falsified is a waste of time and pure speculation that has to be taken on authority and authority alone. :)


If I HAD to choose a religion, I'd probably go with Paganism, Wicca or Buddhism. Oprahism and Voodoo would be my fallbacks.
Norse paganism is so much cooler! They wrote top notch fantasy, just think about it! We wouldn't have elves and dwarfs and trolls. The Norse mythology is so creative, just think about the fabric of fate the Norns weave with the life threads of people, at the foot of Yggdrasil, the tree of the world. Most of the fantasy novels we have today are based on Norse mythology. ;)