FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Give me a HOLLA if you are a fervent agnostic!





SkullPizza
Gotta love agnostics. It is my decision that I can never know anything absolutely so I choose to believe in nothing. Not that there is nothing, just that I can never know.... YAY! I should start a church or something.
eznet
Yea, belief systems are good for some people (hell, even needed for some) but in the modern world (not that we are superiorly enlightened or anything) where science is prevelant it is hard to say that you know the hows and whys of life because the Bible or Koran tells you. There is too much that is opened up by science to beleive that life and all civilization is 5000ish yrs old (as suggested by the Bible). We now know that there were religions such as Dravidianism dating back 6000 years or more. So where does that place adam and eve?

It seems quite probable that religion is a creation of man who from birth is seeking out their place or role in life. What better role could man give himself than to be the center of THE beginning beings creation; the universe. Man, for some odd reason, has the inability to accept the possiblity that we quite possibly are no more important or special than the commom ant or any other form of life. All in all it seems "life" is unique to this planet.. not humans....

Maybe it is that humans all together are insignificant and that it is simply life that is so unique in the universe. We tend to think of ourselves as superior because we can dominate the species of our planet but ignore that non-living, intellegance-less things can bring about out demise such as storms (or a well placed rock such as a meteor conking you on the head) or that a living organism such as many types of bacteria can wipe our life out all-together.

Standing back it seems obvious that despite our devlopments there is only one thing that we have seem unique here to what we have observed on other near-by planets is Life... not just our life, but all life... the only thing that makes our superior is our own declaration of superiority, but without us saying it there is nothing cosmically indicating it..

We are very funny humans.. we must create systems that declair a divine right and power. There is a God because my religion that I made says so, and your religion is wrong because we didn't write it so now lets all have war for thousands of years, ending countless precious lives, to see who, if anyone, is right! Oh yea, we are superior...
SkullPizza
Well in all honesty life could just be another fundamental characteristic of the universe.

There is some evidence that suggests this.
Soulfire
People didn't make the religions, God did. Jesus, to be specific, began Christianity. And the Bible says "God does not count time as men do" so 1 day to God can be thousands of days, even millions to humans.
SkullPizza
Soulfire wrote:
People didn't make the religions, God did. Jesus, to be specific, began Christianity. And the Bible says "God does not count time as men do" so 1 day to God can be thousands of days, even millions to humans.


This would be another example of religions changing what they originally stated in order to be able to keep thier dated beliefs a little bit longer.

Hopefully all religion will die in favor of logical philosophy. Although I sincerely doubt it.
Srs2388
I seriously doubt the Christian faith will ever end, no matter how hard scientist try to prove it wrong... how hard people try to bash it, God will remain in some peoples life
my faith has been tested alot this year... but I still have faith in God and believe everything happens for a reason
eznet
Yea, I do not think that religion is an all together bad thing in the least. Many people need it, which is understanable; reality is a scary place. People have had religion nearly as long as they have had written word. It has always existed and will most likely never die. As far as God's means of tracking time I am very familiar with the thousand year/blink of an eye Judeo Christian philosophy. It's a warm and fuzzy philosophy I too like, allows me alot of room to leave grey Smile

God created Christ and Christ Christianity but what about Muhammad or Buddah or Ganesha and Maya or Zeus or the countless others who walked the earth before Christ. I wonder if all who do not accept Christ as their lord and savior will truely go to hell as the bible states. But it also states that the Christian God is a loving and compassionate God who perfers to turn the other cheek.

Why would any empathetic, caring God create people in a culture with a God every bit as real (actually more so, as it is their native God) as the Christian one to force them to go against their native beleif system and choose the Christian God so that they may not go to hell. That is practically torture (but perhaps they were evil in a past life so therefor re-incarnate into a damned existance via false gods... I know re-incarnation isn't a popular (modern) Christian beleif despite the fact John the Baptist was also John the reincarnate).

I personally beleive that most religions have it wrong. That man, as man does, has wrecked the whole philosophy behind each religion. That there have been chosen ones sent to us with divine understanding of the underlying nature of things. These people sometimes become no-bodies, simply being great people and others fall into positions where they are able to get motiavation and support behine their beleifs and teachings therefor becoming religious figures. It is possible that the important part of these mens philosophies and teachings was in their simularities and absolute goods and not the differences and contrast that every religion actually mainly focuses on.

Just an opinion, and you know what "they say about those" They are like... well you know. Mine most likely stinks.
Jack_Hammer
I cannot truely believe in something that is unprovable so I believe in whatever seems most logical, though am willing to admit they may not be right, though they are the most logical choices.
SkullPizza
Srs2388 wrote:
I seriously doubt the Christian faith will ever end, no matter how hard scientist try to prove it wrong... how hard people try to bash it, God will remain in some peoples life
my faith has been tested alot this year... but I still have faith in God and believe everything happens for a reason


oh it will die, all religions die and then are replaced by a more powerful opiate(to cite Marx).

I just doubt that logic will ever rule the fate of men. I know that christianity will die some day.
tidruG
Quote:
People didn't make the religions, God did.

I firmly believe that religion is the product of the human craving to be in control of others' lives, or the craving to try to change the world to how we believe it is to be run, or at least have become so.

But well, I can understand your point of view... Christianity holds that Jesus is God. And quite understandably so. If Jesus was not considered God, it would be quite hard to try and propagate the religion and spread the religion as most of its teachings would have been by "just another human".

Quote:
This would be another example of religions changing what they originally stated in order to be able to keep thier dated beliefs a little bit longer.

I agree... the church has to have changed the Bible and present fresh arguments for the parts of the Bible which become illogical with new scientific discoveries.

Quote:
Hopefully all religion will die in favor of logical philosophy. Although I sincerely doubt it.

I don't doubt it... I am sure of it... that religion will NOT die in favour of logical philosophy. Some people need to have a hgiher authority to dictate to them what is right and what is not... it's much easier than thinking for yourself.

As for religions dying and being replaced by newer ones... that's not likely to happen in the modern world... with the population growing so fast and high, and with the rate at which religion is crossing geographical borders and spreading to everywhere... it's not very likely that any of the (major) religions will be replaced in a loong time. (spelt "long" with 2 "o"s on purpose)
silvermesh
SkullPizza wrote:
oh it will die, all religions die and then are replaced by a more powerful opiate(to cite Mao).

I just doubt that logic will ever rule the fate of men. I know that christianity will die some day.



Mao. hehehe. Mao was looking at his own peoples past when he said that. in asia, religion and monarchy were intertwined. emporers and ancestors were deific. Every change of dynasty was generally a change in religion.
Judaism was around for THOUSANDs of years before Mao lived, and is still around today, almost entirely unchanged.

Mao was speaking from a philosophical standpoint, not a scientific one.
SkullPizza
silvermesh wrote:
SkullPizza wrote:
oh it will die, all religions die and then are replaced by a more powerful opiate(to cite Mao).

I just doubt that logic will ever rule the fate of men. I know that christianity will die some day.



Mao. hehehe. Mao was looking at his own peoples past when he said that. in asia, religion and monarchy were intertwined. emporers and ancestors were deific. Every change of dynasty was generally a change in religion.
Judaism was around for THOUSANDs of years before Mao lived, and is still around today, almost entirely unchanged.

Mao was speaking from a philosophical standpoint, not a scientific one.


ok? i'm still not sure how this discounts my point. it still serves to lull people into a false sense of security. and it still is used as a method of control over their lives.
Soulfire
For 2000+ years science has tried to prove the Bible wrong, it has failed. For 2000+ years people have bashed Christianity, yet it is still the most dominating and influential religion.
There is no end in sight. You can try as hard as you want to kill it, to quell it, to destroy it, but you CANNOT take away faith in God.

God's Kingdom has no end.

The Bible hasn't been changed, although it has been translated slightly differently, the overall messages remain the same.
SunburnedCactus
SkullPizza wrote:
silvermesh wrote:
SkullPizza wrote:
oh it will die, all religions die and then are replaced by a more powerful opiate(to cite Mao).

I just doubt that logic will ever rule the fate of men. I know that christianity will die some day.



Mao. hehehe. Mao was looking at his own peoples past when he said that. in asia, religion and monarchy were intertwined. emporers and ancestors were deific. Every change of dynasty was generally a change in religion.
Judaism was around for THOUSANDs of years before Mao lived, and is still around today, almost entirely unchanged.

Mao was speaking from a philosophical standpoint, not a scientific one.


ok? i'm still not sure how this discounts my point. it still serves to lull people into a false sense of security. and it still is used as a method of control over their lives.


It is used by people as a method of security and solidarity in their lives, having something in which to place their faith and a set of beliefs around which they can live their life. Religion provides order, and allows people to reflect on the spiritual side of life.
a.Bird
Soulfire wrote:
For 2000+ years science has tried to prove the Bible wrong, it has failed.

That's because it is hard to contest ideas based purely off of imagination. Rolling Eyes

I think what many people consider as "life" is what they percieve as a consciousness. Well our consciousness is based off of our sensory organs recieving information through nerves and sending that information to our brain in the form of electrical signals. So a dog has a consciousness, but with weaker vision (colorblind) and stronger hearing and smell. A bat has a consciousness, but with no optical vision at all, and incredible hearing. A single cell organism such as a white blood cell will use it's stimuli to attack and destroy bacteria! Whether or not the blood cell has the capacity to "know" that it's doing this, it does it because it's recieving information and responding. Is it not alive?

It seems that the only possible thing that anyone can be SURE of is the constant flow of energy, in some form or another. We can see and feel this energy. We know that a star is a burning mass of gas floating in a dark void. We know that Earth is currently spinning and revolving in the same void, and thus we are simply a collection of molecules and energy floating in space. This is the universe, it is everything.

Edit:/ I was just thinking, I've heard that any creature that does not know of the existence of God cannot go to heaven. Makes sense... So if white blood cells do not know that God exists, just like animals do not know about His existence, then how will I fight bacteria in heaven?!
SkullPizza
SunburnedCactus wrote:
It is used by people as a method of security and solidarity in their lives, having something in which to place their faith and a set of beliefs around which they can live their life. Religion provides order, and allows people to reflect on the spiritual side of life.


Ok, that is true. What I am trying to say is that there is enough known to have a flexible spiritual understanding of the Universe as a whole while still making logical sense.

Religion isn't the only way to be spiritual. It's just a way to be spiritual while not making sense.

Making stuff up to suit what you wish was true rather than what is true..... makes me mad.
SunburnedCactus
SkullPizza wrote:
SunburnedCactus wrote:
It is used by people as a method of security and solidarity in their lives, having something in which to place their faith and a set of beliefs around which they can live their life. Religion provides order, and allows people to reflect on the spiritual side of life.


Ok, that is true. What I am trying to say is that there is enough known to have a flexible spiritual understanding of the Universe as a whole while still making logical sense.

Religion isn't the only way to be spritual. It's just a way to be spiritual while not making sense.

Making stuff up to suit what you wish was true rather than what is true..... makes me mad.


Flexibility is the key. I'm all for people believing whatever they choose, just as long as they are willing to accept the science of it all.
Soulfire
a.Bird wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
For 2000+ years science has tried to prove the Bible wrong, it has failed.

That's because it is hard to contest ideas based purely off of imagination. Rolling Eyes

I think what many people consider as "life" is what they percieve as a consciousness. Well our consciousness is based off of our sensory organs recieving information through nerves and sending that information to our brain in the form of electrical signals. So a dog has a consciousness, but with weaker vision (colorblind) and stronger hearing and smell. A bat has a consciousness, but with no optical vision at all, and incredible hearing. A single cell organism such as a white blood cell will use it's stimuli to attack and destroy bacteria! Whether or not the blood cell has the capacity to "know" that it's doing this, it does it because it's recieving information and responding. Is it not alive?

It seems that the only possible thing that anyone can be SURE of is the constant flow of energy, in some form or another. We can see and feel this energy. We know that a star is a burning mass of gas floating in a dark void. We know that Earth is currently spinning and revolving in the same void, and thus we are simply a collection of molecules and energy floating in space. This is the universe, it is everything.

Edit:/ I was just thinking, I've heard that any creature that does not know of the existence of God cannot go to heaven. Makes sense... So if white blood cells do not know that God exists, just like animals do not know about His existence, then how will I fight bacteria in heaven?!

I assure you, imagination has nothing to do with it. I really didn't understand how the rest of your post was relevant, but I'd probably need to read it over a few times.
a.Bird
Soulfire wrote:
a.Bird wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
For 2000+ years science has tried to prove the Bible wrong, it has failed.

That's because it is hard to contest ideas based purely off of imagination. Rolling Eyes

I think what many people consider as "life" is what they percieve as a consciousness. Well our consciousness is based off of our sensory organs recieving information through nerves and sending that information to our brain in the form of electrical signals. So a dog has a consciousness, but with weaker vision (colorblind) and stronger hearing and smell. A bat has a consciousness, but with no optical vision at all, and incredible hearing. A single cell organism such as a white blood cell will use it's stimuli to attack and destroy bacteria! Whether or not the blood cell has the capacity to "know" that it's doing this, it does it because it's recieving information and responding. Is it not alive?

It seems that the only possible thing that anyone can be SURE of is the constant flow of energy, in some form or another. We can see and feel this energy. We know that a star is a burning mass of gas floating in a dark void. We know that Earth is currently spinning and revolving in the same void, and thus we are simply a collection of molecules and energy floating in space. This is the universe, it is everything.

Edit:/ I was just thinking, I've heard that any creature that does not know of the existence of God cannot go to heaven. Makes sense... So if white blood cells do not know that God exists, just like animals do not know about His existence, then how will I fight bacteria in heaven?!

I assure you, imagination has nothing to do with it. I really didn't understand how the rest of your post was relevant, but I'd probably need to read it over a few times.


Oh it wasn't, I should have noted that. It was a different idea all together. Wink

If you didn't have any imagination, you wouldn't be able to percieve the idea of God. Or am I wrong? Can you base your morals off of something that you cannot scientifically prove OR imagine? What is it? Is it an unguided faith or is it guided by the fact that you've been taught He exists all your life?
SunburnedCactus
Bear in mind that humans can allegedly only percieve 1 millionth of reality. Consider that.
Soulfire
a.Bird wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
a.Bird wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
For 2000+ years science has tried to prove the Bible wrong, it has failed.

That's because it is hard to contest ideas based purely off of imagination. Rolling Eyes

I think what many people consider as "life" is what they percieve as a consciousness. Well our consciousness is based off of our sensory organs recieving information through nerves and sending that information to our brain in the form of electrical signals. So a dog has a consciousness, but with weaker vision (colorblind) and stronger hearing and smell. A bat has a consciousness, but with no optical vision at all, and incredible hearing. A single cell organism such as a white blood cell will use it's stimuli to attack and destroy bacteria! Whether or not the blood cell has the capacity to "know" that it's doing this, it does it because it's recieving information and responding. Is it not alive?

It seems that the only possible thing that anyone can be SURE of is the constant flow of energy, in some form or another. We can see and feel this energy. We know that a star is a burning mass of gas floating in a dark void. We know that Earth is currently spinning and revolving in the same void, and thus we are simply a collection of molecules and energy floating in space. This is the universe, it is everything.

Edit:/ I was just thinking, I've heard that any creature that does not know of the existence of God cannot go to heaven. Makes sense... So if white blood cells do not know that God exists, just like animals do not know about His existence, then how will I fight bacteria in heaven?!

I assure you, imagination has nothing to do with it. I really didn't understand how the rest of your post was relevant, but I'd probably need to read it over a few times.


Oh it wasn't, I should have noted that. It was a different idea all together. Wink

If you didn't have any imagination, you wouldn't be able to percieve the idea of God. Or am I wrong? Can you base your morals off of something that you cannot scientifically prove OR imagine? What is it? Is it an unguided faith or is it guided by the fact that you've been taught He exists all your life?

It's something unexplainable. The proof you have is all in the Bible, that and your faith. My pastor even says he wishes he could go back in time with a video camera or something to film all of this, maybe then people would believe.

But that is the entire glorious mystery of Christianity. It's a test, to believe what you cannot see, to trust in God and know He is there. My perception of God is given to me through the Bible, He tells us all we need to know.

You can't scientifically prove it, no, but you can't scientifically dismiss it either. It's a deadly sin to believe that humans are at, or above God. Pride is dangerous.
SkullPizza
Soulfire wrote:
It's something unexplainable. The proof you have is all in the Bible, that and your faith. My pastor even says he wishes he could go back in time with a video camera or something to film all of this, maybe then people would believe.

But that is the entire glorious mystery of Christianity. It's a test, to believe what you cannot see, to trust in God and know He is there. My perception of God is given to me through the Bible, He tells us all we need to know.

You can't scientifically prove it, no, but you can't scientifically dismiss it either. It's a deadly sin to believe that humans are at, or above God. Pride is dangerous.


Many things in the Bible have been proven false by science. It's just that when these proofs become undeniable the "faithfull" then simply change their story. Example: "There is no evolution!" changed to once enough evidence was created: "Ok ok, but it's called intelligent design."

or when galileo proved that the earth wasn't at the center of the universe. he was first tortured and made to say that he was lying until the evidence was so great against the Earth being at the center of the universe that the church simply changed what it was saying because if it didn't it would've died.
SkullPizza
and on top of that i'd love to hear what the bible says about dinosaurs.
eznet
Yea, Dinos... that’s a funny one to ask in church... Most Christians discredit all forms of science that contradict the timescales and stories laid out in the bible. Carbon 14 dating has shown things that we know to have lived on earth existed millions and millions of years ago which in no shape of fashion syncs with the bibles message. I have attended many Christian seminars (my father was a southern Baptist preacher here in Alabama) where they actively teach methods to "discredit" and "disprove" the science that they do not like. Often times these methods are nothing more than dogmatic denial but yet it continues to work. Evolution, that is another funny one too.. I mean there are actually seminars and weekend workshops with no purpose other than to equip the congregation with propaganda to counter the news they see and read throughout the week. Often times these methods will even include fractions and shreds of the very science they are out to discredit. I have no doubt that Jesus (or Muhammad for that matter) actually walked the earth, it is their divine right and God mandated absolutism I doubt.

I need a Christian to actually answer what happens to all the people who are born in countries that Christianity is not their native religion. Your God will send them to hell for not going against their flock and for not abandoning their families to seek out Christ? They are to not use the inquisitive nature that “God” has endowed all beings will to assume, as Christians do, that their religion is the right one. Instead they are to pick a foreign outsider religion over that of their heritage and tradition? If Christianity were in fact the only way to God then why was Christ not sent to all regions of the world? Every individual culture is to accept an invading forces God over theirs because they are told they are going to burn for all eternity if they do not.

I just seems like that kind of God is not really a loving or passionate one at all but is instead a control freak who is bent on punishing the majority of the world for all eternally for using the free-will and judgment that he/she/it saw fit to endow all people with. Call me crazy, but “why would God want to be such an ******” (to quote Modest Mouse)? I prefer to buy into the energy deal. I know with my rational and scientific mind that there are certain innate and inherent properties of the fabric of reality. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed into another form of energy. That, to me, is eternal life. As far as pearly gates and pretty animals like seraphim’s who knows.. that seems as likely as another popular, and equally absurd sounding belief; that we will all go to a planet with 40-someodd virgins (sorry ladies, I know you had a hard time find a man who could satisfy one woman, good luck sharing them with 39 other chics). Hell, while we are at it, why don’t we discuss some insightful talking cabbage heads!
SkullPizza
There are countless ways to discount the Bible logically. Unfortunatley logic is nothing in the face of culturally reinforced fantasy.
tidruG
SunburnedCactus wrote:
Religion provides order, and allows people to reflect on the spiritual side of life.

I'd love to agree with you... however, this is true only for some people... a lot of my friends (and me) choose to question everything, and believe in something only when we get a satisfactory answer. Thus we place our faith in ideals and thoughts only when we have a really good reason, and our own reason for it.

I often reflect on the spiritual side of life... but I'm not a strict follower of my religion. I try to connect with God on my own personal level rather than depending on religion for that.

Religion would be a great thing if it was simply as simple as you stated in your post. However, it becomes more and more complex, and more and more controlling... "Don't listen to Rock Music" (I am not kidding... that quote is taken off a preacher on a religious channel)

Quote:
Bear in mind that humans can allegedly only percieve 1 millionth of reality. Consider that.

So, isn't it possible that in reality, there really is no God... what if all form of life was being created through another dimension with blue aliens?... Wink

eznet wrote:
I need a Christian to actually answer what happens to all the people who are born in countries that Christianity is not their native religion. Your God will send them to hell for not going against their flock and for not abandoning their families to seek out Christ?

I actually did kind of ask that to a Catholic friend of mine... she diplomatically said that those who believe and those who don't will be judged when He comes to Earth riding seven white horses on the day of Judgement and judge us all... that was an indirect way of saying "Yes, sorry, Gurdit, you're going to hell"
please.be.quiet
i'm agnostic...for a while i was an athiest, i didn't even believe in life after death, but then i went back to being agnostic, because this universe is too complicated to decide what's true or not (with religion)
Scaramanga
a.Bird wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
For 2000+ years science has tried to prove the Bible wrong, it has failed.

That's because it is hard to contest ideas based purely off of imagination. Rolling Eyes

I'm gonna take that a step further and say that it's IMPOSSIBLE to contest ideas that are based purely on faith/imagination. Man I could say the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may his noodly appendage bless you) is the creator of all things... my belief doesn't make it true.

SunburnedCactus wrote:
Bear in mind that humans can allegedly only percieve 1 millionth of reality. Consider that.

Bear in mind humans have no clue what makes up reality to begin with.

tidruG wrote:
SunburnedCactus wrote:
Religion provides order, and allows people to reflect on the spiritual side of life.

I'd love to agree with you... however, this is true only for some people... a lot of my friends (and me) choose to question everything, and believe in something only when we get a satisfactory answer. Thus we place our faith in ideals and thoughts only when we have a really good reason, and our own reason for it.

I often reflect on the spiritual side of life... but I'm not a strict follower of my religion. I try to connect with God on my own personal level rather than depending on religion for that.

Religion would be a great thing if it was simply as simple as you stated in your post. However, it becomes more and more complex, and more and more controlling... "Don't listen to Rock Music" (I am not kidding... that quote is taken off a preacher on a religious channel)

I completely agree with tidruG, with the exception that I don't believe in any "higher power" than myself. Also, there is a great quote by de Sade (yes, THAT de Sade) who said: "Religions are the cradles of despotism."
And I think beyond the control/'an opiate for the masses' aspect, I think religion is a fantastic thing for the weak-minded; people who NEED to believe in something outside of themselves. I mean this dates back to prehistory when man (in whatever form you may imagine) heard the thunder and thought "The gods are angry!" This is a very large and scary world, and no matter how advanced we may become, we will always be afraid of the unknown. 'God' is just our way of making the unknown a little less scary (although I've read the bible and I find the Christian god pretty scary, what with all the plagues, giving of hemorrhoids and such.)
David_Pardy
Please give an example of something in the bible that has been 100% disproven.

There are references to dinosaurs in Job and other locations in the bible, although I can't think which other books off-hand.

There have been recent historical sightings of creatures which could only be dinosaurs - recent being within the last 1000 years. I'll have to find some examples, but not right now.

There is ZERO evidence of ANY missing link. If there were ever 'missing links', then we would find their fossils. None have been found. I'm not just talking about humans, I'm talking about every single animal in the world.

Evolution can NOT explain how cells suddenly decide to group together, assign each other separate tasks (ie. skin, blood, hearts, brains, etc.), and to then create an entire working system of a living plant or animal. It's simply not possible. Evolution also has no explanation for the existance of two 100% compatible sexes for most living creatures.

The bible DOES give an historical account of the world - geographically, chronologically and spiritually. People simply refuse to accept the real way the world was created because they don't want to accept that God is actually real.

I have been in so many Evolution/Creation debates and every single one of them only reaffirms the fact that Evolution is completely wrong and that Creation is the truth.

The existance of Jesus was also documented by people other than His disciples.
SkullPizza
David_Pardy wrote:
Please give an example of something in the bible that has been 100% disproven.

There are references to dinosaurs in Job and other locations in the bible, although I can't think which other books off-hand.

There have been recent historical sightings of creatures which could only be dinosaurs - recent being within the last 1000 years. I'll have to find some examples, but not right now.

There is ZERO evidence of ANY missing link. If there were ever 'missing links', then we would find their fossils. None have been found. I'm not just talking about humans, I'm talking about every single animal in the world.

Evolution can NOT explain how cells suddenly decide to group together, assign each other separate tasks (ie. skin, blood, hearts, brains, etc.), and to then create an entire working system of a living plant or animal. It's simply not possible. Evolution also has no explanation for the existance of two 100% compatible sexes for most living creatures.

The bible DOES give an historical account of the world - geographically, chronologically and spiritually. People simply refuse to accept the real way the world was created because they don't want to accept that God is actually real.

I have been in so many Evolution/Creation debates and every single one of them only reaffirms the fact that Evolution is completely wrong and that Creation is the truth.

The existance of Jesus was also documented by people other than His disciples.


please cite your claims with specific examples so that i may dispute their validity. I gave specific examples - you did not.

Your argument has no basis other than "I say so because I heard from somewhere and I can't remember exactly where right now."

This is not an arguement.
Scaramanga
SkullPizza wrote:
David_Pardy wrote:
<A bunch of stuff I've quoted below>

please cite your claims with specific examples so that i may dispute their validity. I gave specific examples - you did not.

Your argument has no basis other than "I say so because I heard from somewhere and I can't remember exactly where right now."

This is not an arguement.

Yeah, what my skelletal compadre over there said. Some of the religious types in this thread are confusing FACT with BELIEF. You may believe something is true, but that doesn't make it a FACT.

David_Pardy wrote:
Evolution can NOT explain how cells suddenly decide to group together, assign each other separate tasks (ie. skin, blood, hearts, brains, etc.), and to then create an entire working system of a living plant or animal. It's simply not possible. Evolution also has no explanation for the existance of two 100% compatible sexes for most living creatures.

Uhhh what? Either you are entirely unfamiliar with ANY biological science or you are just trolling.

Quote:
The bible DOES give an historical account of the world - geographically, chronologically and spiritually. People simply refuse to accept the real way the world was created because they don't want to accept that God is actually real.

People also refuse to accept that the Easter Bunny is real; I don't understand what your point is. Again ,belief IS NOT FACT!

People, listen, you are free to believe in whatever you want (and I fully support your right to do so.) But don't go proselytizing your belief as if it's FACT, because it ain't. Also most texts of the bible and/or the existance of (ANY) god can't be proven either.
repnosis
Basically,,,, religion is merely a tool to stop the poor from killing the rich,,, think about it,,, without religion we would live in a world of constant revolutions,,,,, with it.... we live in a world of constant war...
firebrandglass
Calling out the Christians...

I submit you are an abomination to God for eating shellfish at the Red Lobster:

Quote:

Lev 11:10 [KJV] And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you [NIV] But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales --- whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water --- you are to detest.


Likewise you are an abomination if not groomed like so:

Quote:
Lev 19:27 [KJV] Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. [NIV] Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.


Bacon for breakfast, sweetie? Forget about it!

Quote:
Lev 11:6-8 [KJV] And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. 8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
[NIV] The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divied, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcases; they are unclean for you.


Watch out for that evil cotten/poly blend!

Quote:
Lev 19:19 [KJV] Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. [NIV] Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.


And though Jesus is famous for standing up for prostitutes (he who is without sin cast the first stone) here is his Father calling for mass stoning when someone calls Him a bad name. I say He is behaving like a three year old. Now, should I in all reality be stoned to death for saying that?

Quote:
Lev 24:10-16 [KJV] And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp; 11 And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan:) 12 And they put him in ward, that the mind of the LORD might be shewed them. 13 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 14 Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. 15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. 16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.
[NIV] Now the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, and a fight broke out in the camp between him and an Israelite. 11 The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the name of the LORD with a curse; so they brough him to Moses. (His mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri the Danite.) 12 They put him in custody until the will of the LORD should be made clear to them. 13 Then the LORD said to Moses: 14 Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. 15 Say to the Israelites: If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.


It just doesn't figure.
barkman
perhaps you're looking at religion the wrong way. as a logical individual, you'll appreciate the deeper question at hand. you say religions come and go, that they simply fill a need for security, etcetera. so, let's ask why the human mind has that need in the first place. you, as an enlightened free-thinker, don't have that hole. but an overwhelming percentage of the population does, and has for millenia. one could even suggest that logic is a filler similar to the belief systems of others. of course, as a logical individual, you'll understand that i'm merely approaching this from a different perspective in an attempt to rationalize something. logic, while fundamentally separate from faith, serves to occupy a similar position when applied in the manner you have suggested. the question then becomes even more interesting, suggesting that there exists a circle into which people fit squares, triangles, and polygons.

what do you think?
SkullPizza
I suppose, as a logical individual, I would speculate that since humans are the only people who - while having a dire need to survive like all living things - realize that no matter what someday they are going to die. Since we are the only ones who realize this we then have to create something that would make it okay to die.

All religion stems from this need to live forever. At least in my opinion.
barkman
yeah, that's fair enough. while i personally can't bear the thought of living eternally (at least not with this world as a host), there is a recurring theme of life everlasting that attracts people. as you said, this desire can feed/spawn religion. i guess i could ask the same question, though, the great 'why' that could make this an endless discussion. why do people want to live forever? i can think of a variety of reasons, and it's interesting to me that there can be so many contradicting reasons creating a similar solution. the destitute want a life of eternal equality, and the wealthy want a life of eternal security. the two don't spend any time together, in most cases, and rarely agree on anything but the idea of living forever.

i'm just spitballing. i find it humorous to read the passion with which so many people write, on both sides of the board, when it comes to their beliefs. i'm sure you'd agree that some have done damage to the integrity of their own group by opening their mouths at all. nonetheless, to explore, to approach a question and try to find an answer, is always worthwhile. i suppose, though, however difficult it may be to swallow, not all of our physical world is logical. we have tried to rationalize our existence, and continually fall into disagreement. yet, we exist. perhaps our minds are not quite mature enough to truly understand. the other, less favorable option, is that we can know quite a bit, but there will continue to be unprovable things that don't care whether or not we believe in them. they will stubbornly exist, beyond our reason, and we will simply have to agree to disagree.
SkullPizza
barkman wrote:
why do people want to live forever?


Becuase if we did not we would not exist at all.
barkman
Quote:
Becuase if we did not we would not exist at all.


Interesting. How do you figure?
Lennon
Ah yes, philosophy

I Think, Therefore I Am.

Very Good.
barkman
Good philosophy and good agnosticism don't always line up. If religion is a product of the mind, then our mentally perceived existence is not something an agnostic can lean on. An agnostic would have to doubt anything beyond the existence of his own sensual experience, correct? I may be wrong. I'm still only scratching the surface. But yes, very good for you, lennon, to draw out Descartes like that.
SkullPizza
barkman wrote:
Good philosophy and good agnosticism don't always line up. If religion is a product of the mind, then our mentally perceived existence is not something an agnostic can lean on. An agnostic would have to doubt anything beyond the existence of his own sensual experience, correct? I may be wrong. I'm still only scratching the surface. But yes, very good for you, lennon, to draw out Descartes like that.


When I speak philosophically, no I cannot prove anything other than the reality of my own experience. But I was speaking scientifically.

If we didn't have a drive to survive then we wouldn't have survived and therefore we would not exist. It is that simple.
David_Pardy
I'm just going to make a few points, and leave it at that. I'm not a scientist, but I know rubbish when I see it.


Scientists have not been able to create life using the proposed theories of ammonia pools + lightning as a basis for the experiments.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3507.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i3/testtube.asp
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=77


What about flight? How did birds and insects discover how to fly, and how did they grow the appendages (ie. wings) which were the right shape and size with the muscles in the correct positions, etc.? Even over a million years, if evolution were truly possible (show me a 'missing link' which is living today - a transitional animal between two separate but similar species...) would not any stumps that may become wings be eliminated via Evolution because their only use would have been to poke stuff with?

But then there's the basis of the problem:

How does a cell transform itself from say... an 'origin' cell into a blood cell, or a brain cell, or muscle, liver, etc... How do all those cells (once they've reproduced - yet another thing that evolution can't explain) then group together, join themselves with blood vessels and various tubes, and then wrap themselves in skin and hair? There MUST have been an intelligence in the cells for that to be even remotely possible and ANY scientist will laugh at you if you suggest that cells have the intellectual capacity to perform the slightest task outside of the cell's natural function.

Again, I raise the point of having separate but compatible males and females of different species - How did they become compatible, why are we not asexual beings, how did the sexual organs provide the capability to produce identical amounts of chromosomes which would combine together during conception, etc. So many questions can be asked that Evolution cannot answer because Evolution ignores the reality of the complexity of life - it may say "Birds evolved from primitive birds!" but it cannot say HOW the birds evolved because it is a scientific impossibility which can NOT be observed in nature OR inside a laboratory.

It is ludicrous to ignore the existance of God and deny the fact that He created us. I truly hope that those who refuse to question Evolution instead of trying to belittle Christians will one day realise just how wrong Evolution actually is.

And if you want the REAL proof that God exists... Go spend some time with some Occultists and Satanists... People who work with magic. These people are real and the things they do are inspired by Satan. Satanists don't believe in God but they believe in Satan as being a metaphor for human selfishness - they tell themselves that the powers which inspire the activities they are involved with aren't from Satan, but they're only kidding themselves. I know people who are involved with this sort of thing. It is VERY real. You Atheists and Agnostics - and a lot of Christians - don't REALLY understand the true darkness that people have in their lives until you realise just how much some people allow Satan to control their lives. This is not fairytale rubbish. This is reality and we're all living in it. I strongly suggest you question your beliefs because one day those who choose to ignore God are going to pay the consequences.
Soulfire
The whole eating shellfish thing and whatnot, you are quoting Leviticus, an old testament book. The laws of Christianity are derived mostly (the 10 commandments) from the New Testament.

Judiasm follows only the old.
illini319
SkullPizza wrote:
barkman wrote:
Good philosophy and good agnosticism don't always line up. If religion is a product of the mind, then our mentally perceived existence is not something an agnostic can lean on. An agnostic would have to doubt anything beyond the existence of his own sensual experience, correct? I may be wrong. I'm still only scratching the surface. But yes, very good for you, lennon, to draw out Descartes like that.


When I speak philosophically, no I cannot prove anything other than the reality of my own experience. But I was speaking scientifically.

If we didn't have a drive to survive then we wouldn't have survived and therefore we would not exist. It is that simple.


Heady tangent here. Not quite sure where you are going and how Descartes' philosophy is particularly supportive of science in general. Since, it is equally plausible to support religion with the same statement. I think religion, therefore it exists...

Anyway, perhaps another way to think about the 'gap' between religion and science is to consider how each explores 'truth'. Faith is something between yourself... and yourself. i.e. faith requires you to fully believe; not necessarily because you can sense something. But rather because you don't... as some people have mentioned.. it's a test. It is an internal commitment to a belief that, no matter the external circumstances, you hold fast to your conviction. Science, ELIMINATES 'self.' In fact nearly all scientific endeavors requires you to design controls just to eliminate the possibility of any bias created by the experimenter. In this way, science relies solely on externalized observation to build its belief structure. Ah.. but there is the meat of it. It's a belief structure.... JUST like religion.

Any scientist can tell you that, with a multitude of experiments, they can 'prove' that DNA exists. And sure enough... with countless, well designed, experiments he/she can show you data consistent with the notion that DNA exists... But has anyone actually seen one? A piece of DNA? Not an electronic image of it. Not the consequence of it... but the real thing. One single strand of DNA? The simple fact is that no one has. A scientist can only say that given all the data, the most likely conclusion is that DNA exists, it codes all life... and so on. But at the end of day... it is an INTERPRETATION of a set of hard data. i.e. purely objective observations are internalized... thought over... and an interpretation, that is inherently subjective, comes out. This is how any two scientists can look over the same set of data and come up with different interpretations that are both equally logical.

With a subject line that mentions agnosticism, it disappoints me that most in this thread are too zealous to jump around and say that a God does not exist. Where is your proof? One must always remain skeptical. Skeptical of ALL things, including science... lest they risk being equally dogmatic as the religious they criticize.
illini319
David_Pardy wrote:
I'm just going to make a few points, and leave it at that. I'm not a scientist...


Here's a tip: Do not argue against science by professing ignorance on the subject and then proceed to 'point out' its shortcomings. I assure you there is evidence for much of what you ask.

Stick to your guns and what you know. No true scientist should refute your convictions because no evidence exists that disproves your faith. BUT, as equal a concession a scientist must make... so too should those that are religious realize that blind faith is equally foolish. There are enough interpretations of the bible within the Christian faith itself, notwithstanding the other major religions of the world. Are you to tell me that only your religion's interpretation is correct? Do not be so dogmatic.
Soulfire
It's not blind faith, it's God-induced, it's from the Bible. The facts are presented for you there, it is your choice whether to ignore them or not, and I cannot force it upon you, but I am NOT ashamed to profess my faith.
SkullPizza
illini319 wrote:
Heady tangent here. Not quite sure where you are going and how Descartes' philosophy is particularly supportive of science in general. Since, it is equally plausible to support religion with the same statement. I think religion, therefore it exists...


Ummm... well I was hoping I wasn't going to have to spell it out for anyone.

Thought Experiment: Say you didn't have a desire to survive- what would you do all day? Mmmm maybe nothing? Considering all meaningful actions come from a basic need to survive. I. E. eating, sleeping, breathing, taking a dump, having sex, staying warm...... ect.
So if you were doing nothing long enough you would die- Thus ceasing to exist.

I said nothing of Decartes, that was someone elses interpretation of what I said.

illini319 wrote:

Anyway, perhaps another way to think about the 'gap' between religion and science is to consider how each explores 'truth'. Faith is something between yourself... and yourself. i.e. faith requires you to fully believe; not necessarily because you can sense something. But rather because you don't... as some people have mentioned.. it's a test. It is an internal commitment to a belief that, no matter the external circumstances, you hold fast to your conviction. Science, ELIMINATES 'self.' In fact nearly all scientific endeavors requires you to design controls just to eliminate the possibility of any bias created by the experimenter. In this way, science relies solely on externalized observation to build its belief structure. Ah.. but there is the meat of it. It's a belief structure.... JUST like religion.


Hmmm belief structure you say? I'd have to say that a belief structure that requires scrutinized experiment and observation to derive it's beliefs is more reliable than a belief structure based upon something that just assumes that its true because people like to believe it.

illini319 wrote:
Any scientist can tell you that, with a multitude of experiments, they can 'prove' that DNA exists. And sure enough... with countless, well designed, experiments he/she can show you data consistent with the notion that DNA exists... But have anyone actually seen one? A piece of DNA? Not an electronic image of it. Not the consequence of it... but the real thing. One single strand of DNA? The simple fact is that no one has. A scientist can only say that given all the data, the most likely conclusion is that DNA exists, it codes all life... and so on. But at the end of day... it is an INTERPRETATION of a set of hard data. i.e. purely objective observations are internalized... thought over... and an interpretation, that is inherently subjective, comes out. This is how any two scientists can look over the same set of data and come up with different interpretations that are both equally logical.


Even if you do observe something with your own eyes that doesn't mean that it happened anyway. Experiments, if well designed and executed, are more reliable than human observations in the first person.

To prove that human observations aren't reliable in all situations just look at how many optical illusions you can look up on google.

Also if they can make a monkey glow in the dark, which they have through the manipulations of DNA. It pretty much proves that it exists.

illini319 wrote:
With a subject line that mentions agnosticism, it disappoints me that most in this thread are too zealous to jump around and say that a God does not exist. Where is your proof? One must always remain skeptical. Skeptical of ALL things, including science... lest they risk being equally dogmatic as the religious they criticize.


I never said that specifically. Although I don't give this idea of how things became any more credit than the infinite others possible to the imagination.
SkullPizza
David_Pardy wrote:
People who work with magic. These people are real and the things they do are inspired by Satan.


you believe in magic. this alone makes you not worthy of an intelligent response. i was going to spend three hours typing out a response to what you said till i read this and it made me totally lose all respect for you.
horseatingweeds
SkullPizza wrote:
David_Pardy wrote:
People who work with magic. These people are real and the things they do are inspired by Satan.


you believe in magic. this alone makes you not worthy of an intelligent response. i was going to spend three hours typing out a response to what you said till i read this and it made me totally lose all respect for you.


I get the same feeling when I read over all of these mangled and misused bible quotes….

I have been following the discussion but without the energy to add.

One thing Agnostics, remember you have been around for a while. You have been using these “facts” and the current “science” to prove and disprove much.

Evolution is not unlike many religions. It is actually more like your favorite one, Christianity, than one of your less favorite such as Buddhism.

Christians believe in God and are waiting for his son to return, evolutionists believe in evolution and are waiting for science to be able to prove it.
SkullPizza
horseatingweeds wrote:
Christians believe in God and are waiting for his son to return, evolutionists believe in evolution and are waiting for science to be able to prove it.


Yeah there's a defining difference here, one is convinced because of what an old book says and nothing else - and the other bases it's beliefs off of recent scientific discoveries numbering in the thousands.

Here is some evidence for evolution:http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

Please at least watch some of the videos contained on the page. All the evidence contained on this page is a small fraction of the evidence for evolution.
horseatingweeds
SkullPizza wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
Christians believe in God and are waiting for his son to return, evolutionists believe in evolution and are waiting for science to be able to prove it.


Yeah there's a defining difference here, one is convinced because of what an old book says and nothing else - and the other bases it's beliefs off of recent scientific discoveries numbering in the thousands.

Here is some evidence for evolution:http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

Please at least watch some of the videos contained on the page. All the evidence contained on this page is a small fraction of the evidence for evolution.


I didn’t say there where not differences, just similarities. It is also unfair to say Christianity is based on an old book and nothing else. Also, one must realize that these scientific discoveries are simply our current understanding of observations.

There certainly is a lot of evidence for evolution. There is a lot to explain. Evolution means to explain how the most complicated thing we are hardly able to comprehend, life it’s self, has come to being. Similarly, so does religion.
SkullPizza
Riiight, but religion does it without using logic.

You can draw arbitrary parallels between anything if you try hard enough. The truth is the two are extremely different.
SkullPizza
also here is something you religious folks should take a look at:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/
horseatingweeds
SkullPizza wrote:
Riiight, but religion does it without using logic.

You can draw arbitrary parallels between anything if you try hard enough. The truth is the two are extremely different.


Logic indeed, but religion, as I see it as the search for truth, reaches many of the same conclusions as logic.

Furthermore, religion goes beyond what we can comprehend. Without comprehension we can make no logic so certainly here logic would not be used.

Such parallels I would not call arbitrary.
eznet
Sorry to have abandoned you SkullPizza but the thread quickly headed where they always do...
"Jesus is real. No hes not"

Who cares? It always turns into the pissing contest with the christians. I think that many will agree in that whatever existance (IF any) is in fact after this one, what structured all knowing being would set a basic requisit of life to be to not only beleive that this being exists but also that people must know what ONE out of the potentially thousands of "prophets" or "sons of god" to follow.

Whether this being actually is real or not is nether here nor there, as I have no real reference to answer that. Even if I knew the whole of this planet, earth, I would not have 1/100th billionth of the whole of the info that I would need to even possibly make a semi 1/2 uneducated guess at it.

It is funny, this thread looks so much like many actual (rapidly degenerating) conversations that I have had in real life in the past (yes, usually with alabamian christians). Like I said at the beginning of the thread, Christians actually hold meetings for the sole reason of spreading 1/2 truths and "scientific evidence" often consisting of little more than a christian crackpots take on some scientific reasearch projects prileminary results (because they never pay attention to the scientific process before jumping to conclusions... test...test again...test some more... keep testing till someone smarter than you proves something more real).

Quote:

David_Pardy
Scientists have not been able to create life using the proposed theories of ammonia pools + lightning as a basis for the experiments.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3507.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i3/testtube.asp
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=77


Its always great when people start quoting places with names like answersingenesis and slogans that state they are here to uphold the authority of the bible!

Quote:

eznet
I mean there are actually seminars and weekend workshops with no purpose other than to equip the congregation with propaganda to counter the news they see and read throughout the week. Often times these methods will even include fractions and shreds of the very science they are out to discredit.

Hey heres an idea... since I said that David_Pardy would happen can I claim myself a prophet and start a religion? I told the future. I will tell you a bush or holographic angel told it to me.

Spirituality is not a bad thing. It is nice to beleive in things. Hell, it even helps some people but then religion comes along and messes the whole deal up. When I see people citing nessy as evidence ....
Quote:
Some Genius
There have been recent historical sightings of creatures which could only be dinosaurs - recent being within the last 1000 years. I'll have to find some examples, but not right now.

... and the say there hasn't been any leads on a missing link and that evolution is debunked.. well, I have to scratch my head, wonder what chemical reaction in the brain causes that form of intentional ignorance (which is not meant offensive; just uneducated - the Bible doesn't count), and walk away.... Funny as hell to read tho... good late night laughs all week.

Oh yea, David_Pardy, missing link references...

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s877478.htm (people)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/04/AR2005050401397.html (dino)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec98/bones_12-10.html (human)
http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/2001-07/ddoe-ehd062002.php (human)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/326037.stm (human)
tired of pasting from google....
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=75Z&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=missing+link+fossil+bones+found&spell=1

I know they may not be as reputable as answersingenesis but there might be something to them... I mean after all they are scientist and its their job and unlike the "teachers" that people choose to follow these guys are in it for the truth (or at least at a higher precentage than those of the cloth) instead of simply for having their way being the right way.
SkullPizza
horseatingweeds wrote:
Logic indeed, but religion, as I see it as the search for truth, reaches many of the same conclusions as logic.

Furthermore, religion goes beyond what we can comprehend. Without comprehension we can make no logic so certainly here logic would not be used.

Such parallels I would not call arbitrary.


Goes beyond what we can comprehend? Please give an example of this.

I'm not sure what you mean, it certainly takes all those things that we can't explain yet and lumps it all together and just assumes that God is the reason things exist this way and that we shouldn't try to understand.

And religion is not a search for truth. It is supposedly THE truth.

My truth is that I will never know any type of truth.
horseatingweeds
SkullPizza wrote:

Goes beyond what we can comprehend? Please give an example of this.

I'm not sure what you mean, it certainly takes all those things that we can't explain yet and lumps it all together and just assumes that God is the reason things exist this way and that we shouldn't try to understand.

And religion is not a search for truth. It is supposedly THE truth.


Not so, Buddhism is simply the search for truth or enlightenment. In Christianity there are many truths handed down from the creator, such as love your neighbor etc., but much is left up to the creation to find the best way to live. Confucianism similarly searches and finds the same truths but with the use of reason and logic and is very similar to science and during its day was regarded similarly as we currently regard science.

As for things we can not comprehend. These things would consist of pre existence, the sole, afterlife (actual), and such things.

Quote:
My truth is that I will never know any type of truth.


An agnostic can not believe in agnosticism and maintain his agnosticisity.

Wink
Jack_Hammer
firebrandglass wrote:
Calling out the Christians...

I submit you are an abomination to God for eating shellfish at the Red Lobster:

Quote:

Lev 11:10 [KJV] And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you [NIV] But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales --- whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water --- you are to detest.


Likewise you are an abomination if not groomed like so:

Quote:
Lev 19:27 [KJV] Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. [NIV] Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.


Bacon for breakfast, sweetie? Forget about it!

Quote:
Lev 11:6-8 [KJV] And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. 8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
[NIV] The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divied, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcases; they are unclean for you.


Watch out for that evil cotten/poly blend!

Quote:
Lev 19:19 [KJV] Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. [NIV] Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.


And though Jesus is famous for standing up for prostitutes (he who is without sin cast the first stone) here is his Father calling for mass stoning when someone calls Him a bad name. I say He is behaving like a three year old. Now, should I in all reality be stoned to death for saying that?

Quote:
Lev 24:10-16 [KJV] And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp; 11 And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan:) 12 And they put him in ward, that the mind of the LORD might be shewed them. 13 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 14 Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. 15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. 16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.
[NIV] Now the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, and a fight broke out in the camp between him and an Israelite. 11 The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the name of the LORD with a curse; so they brough him to Moses. (His mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri the Danite.) 12 They put him in custody until the will of the LORD should be made clear to them. 13 Then the LORD said to Moses: 14 Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. 15 Say to the Israelites: If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.


It just doesn't figure.


I love your arguments there man!, excalent making it very hard to be Christian in a western civilisation!
illini319
SkullPizza wrote:
illini319 wrote:
Heady tangent here. Not quite sure where you are going and how Descartes' philosophy is particularly supportive of science in general. Since, it is equally plausible to support religion with the same statement. I think religion, therefore it exists...


Ummm... well I was hoping I wasn't going to have to spell it out for anyone.

Thought Experiment: Say you didn't have a desire to survive- what would you do all day? Mmmm maybe nothing? Considering all meaningful actions come from a basic need to survive. I. E. eating, sleeping, breathing, taking a dump, having sex, staying warm...... ect.
So if you were doing nothing long enough you would die- Thus ceasing to exist.

I said nothing of Decartes, that was someone elses interpretation of what I said.

illini319 wrote:

Anyway, perhaps another way to think about the 'gap' between religion and science is to consider how each explores 'truth'. Faith is something between yourself... and yourself. i.e. faith requires you to fully believe; not necessarily because you can sense something. But rather because you don't... as some people have mentioned.. it's a test. It is an internal commitment to a belief that, no matter the external circumstances, you hold fast to your conviction. Science, ELIMINATES 'self.' In fact nearly all scientific endeavors requires you to design controls just to eliminate the possibility of any bias created by the experimenter. In this way, science relies solely on externalized observation to build its belief structure. Ah.. but there is the meat of it. It's a belief structure.... JUST like religion.


Hmmm belief structure you say? I'd have to say that a belief structure that requires scrutinized experiment and observation to derive it's beliefs is more reliable than a belief structure based upon something that just assumes that its true because people like to believe it.

illini319 wrote:
Any scientist can tell you that, with a multitude of experiments, they can 'prove' that DNA exists. And sure enough... with countless, well designed, experiments he/she can show you data consistent with the notion that DNA exists... But have anyone actually seen one? A piece of DNA? Not an electronic image of it. Not the consequence of it... but the real thing. One single strand of DNA? The simple fact is that no one has. A scientist can only say that given all the data, the most likely conclusion is that DNA exists, it codes all life... and so on. But at the end of day... it is an INTERPRETATION of a set of hard data. i.e. purely objective observations are internalized... thought over... and an interpretation, that is inherently subjective, comes out. This is how any two scientists can look over the same set of data and come up with different interpretations that are both equally logical.


Even if you do observe something with your own eyes that doesn't mean that it happened anyway. Experiments, if well designed and executed, are more reliable than human observations in the first person.

To prove that human observations aren't reliable in all situations just look at how many optical illusions you can look up on google.

Also if they can make a monkey glow in the dark, which they have through the manipulations of DNA. It pretty much proves that it exists.

illini319 wrote:
With a subject line that mentions agnosticism, it disappoints me that most in this thread are too zealous to jump around and say that a God does not exist. Where is your proof? One must always remain skeptical. Skeptical of ALL things, including science... lest they risk being equally dogmatic as the religious they criticize.


I never said that specifically. Although I don't give this idea of how things became any more credit than the infinite others possible to the imagination.


no need to spell out anything. I believe I understood you satisfactorily. Whether you strive to survive or not. One thing is certain; you will die. Sometimes sooner, sometimes later. Not all things meaninful can find their root in survival instinct. First of all... meaningful is a value word; with your definition, in your world, you are consistent. Many people, myself included, find music a meaningful expression of life. What part of music, would you say, is rooted in survival? I apologize for having quoted you specifically on the Descartes matter. You just happen to be the last person discussing the issue in question. However, my assertion remains on that quote...

Science, no matter how you cut it, is still a belief structure. And while, it relies solely on empirical evidence, conclusions are still made by the beholder. Therefore its INTERPRETATION is still subject to inaccuracy. Do not underestimate this pont. In order to attenuate morning sickness, scientists and doctors recommended the use of thalidomide to pregnant women. It was a neat medication and performed as promised. Nausea was dramatically reduced. Science, it seemed, enhanced one of the most basic aspects of our existence: the process of procreation. Except for one thing. Thalidomide causes severe developmental defects, with many infants born with malformed limbs. According to all the data at the time, this unfortunate incident wasn't suppose to happen. According to science, such a conclusion was an unlikely event. It was marketed in many European countries. It was the INTERPRETATION of scientists and doctors alike, given the same set of data, that thalidomide was a safe drug. On hindsight, one could argue that they clearly didn't know enough about this drug. I ask you, do you think science knows enough to say, in absolute terms, that a god doesn't exist? (psst.. Hint: rhymes with know -- all pun intended Smile)


I am actually a man of science who prides himself on being truly agnostic; AND considers that both science and religion are just approximations of the truth with each having strengths and weakneses. Personally, I agree with you that basing your conviction on science is a fairly sound way of living. Having said that, do you think basing a life on religion is an unfortunate way to live? In a purely Darwinist point of view, do you consider that basing your life on science makes you any more fit to survive than a religious person? One could argue, with census data, that religious peoples tend to procreate at a faster rate than those less religious. Extrapolate this rate; doesn't that make them the fitter group, as they are far outpacing the more secular among us? Now there's a strange, and undeniably real, twist of fate...
firebrandglass
Quote:
The whole eating shellfish thing and whatnot, you are quoting Leviticus, an old testament book. The laws of Christianity are derived mostly (the 10 commandments) from the New Testament.

Judiasm follows only the old.


WHAT? God's word is eternal! What he said in Leviticus must still be true, or else, we might have to begin questioning other old books like... Genesis. And there goes your Psalms. And that sexy tome "song o' solomon". All invalid? Or do we now, as Christians, get to pick and choose? It's awful convient to pick and choose which books you will and will not include in your belief structure.
horseatingweeds
illini319 good posting. Enjoyed reading. Very valid points!
SkullPizza
illini319 wrote:
What part of music, would you say, is rooted in survival?


The fact that music greases social interaction would play a large part as to why it has become a staple of our existence. Also it allows for the expression of negative emotions without overt action being required.

We being social creatures have found this practice very conducive to overall survival as a species.

This does not encompass all the reasons why music has survived and why it helps us survive, it is but a sampling. But it is enough reason to say why.

illini319 wrote:

Science, no matter how you cut it, is still a belief structure. And while, it relies solely on empirical evidence, conclusions are still made by the beholder. Therefore its INTERPRETATION is still subject to inaccuracy. Do not underestimate this pont. In order to attenuate morning sickness, scientists and doctors recommended the use of thalidomide to pregnant women. It was a neat medication and performed as promised. Nausea was dramatically reduced. Science, it seemed, enhanced one of the most basic aspects of our existence: the process of procreation. Except for one thing. Thalidomide causes severe developmental defects, with many infants born with malformed limbs. According to all the data at the time, this unfortunate incident wasn't suppose to happen. According to science, such a conclusion was an unlikely event. It was marketed in many European countries. It was the INTERPRETATION of scientists and doctors alike, given the same set of data, that thalidomide was a safe drug. On hindsight, one could argue that they clearly didn't know enough about this drug. I ask you, do you think science knows enough to say, in absolute terms, that a god doesn't exist? (psst.. Hint: rhymes with know -- all pun intended Smile)


I have never asserted that God doesn't exist. I have simply stated that there is no more evidence for God than any other possibility as to why the universe came to be. And you are correct, science can be incorrect, and when it is it is then researched again and changed. This is not the case for religion.


illini319 wrote:

I am actually a man of science who prides himself on being truly agnostic; AND considers that both science and religion are just approximations of the truth with each having strengths and weakneses. Personally, I agree with you that basing your conviction on science is a fairly sound way of living. Having said that, do you think basing a life on religion is an unfortunate way to live? In a purely Darwinist point of view, do you consider that basing your life on science makes you any more fit to survive than a religious person? One could argue, with census data, that religious peoples tend to procreate at a faster rate than those less religious. Extrapolate this rate; doesn't that make them the fitter group, as they are far outpacing the more secular among us? Now there's a strange, and undeniably real, twist of fate...


True agnosticism would not give credit to anything as being "the absolute truth" not science or religion. This is true. But as a logical human being I base my decisions on what is logical, not what is written in a old book that claims to be true for whatever reason.
Science, however, is the ultimate in agnosticism. Look at the scientific process- infact here is a key quote from the wikipedia definition of the scientific process:
"Karl Popper, following others, has argued that a hypothesis must be falsifiable, and that a proposition or theory cannot be called scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false."
This is agnosticism at it's finest.

I will not give one idea of the state of the universe any more credit than any other possible state of being unless there is empirical evidence otherwise.

On a purely philosophical tangent however, I cannot truley prove anything so I give nothing credit because this existence I am experiencing now could all be a ruse just to fool me into something that isn't true. The possibilities are endless.

However I am compelled to make decisions based upon my own interpretation of the universe and i am more inclined to go with what seems to be more consistent with my experience than just what I would like to be true.. Ex: empirical evidence
illini319
SkullPizza wrote:
illini319 wrote:
What part of music, would you say, is rooted in survival?


The fact that music greases social interaction would play a large part as to why it has become a staple of our existence. Also it allows for the expression of negative emotions without overt action being required.

We being social creatures have found this practice very conducive to overall survival as a species.

This does not encompass all the reasons why music has survived, it is but a sampling. But it is enough reason to say why.

illini319 wrote:

Science, no matter how you cut it, is still a belief structure. And while, it relies solely on empirical evidence, conclusions are still made by the beholder. Therefore its INTERPRETATION is still subject to inaccuracy. Do not underestimate this pont. In order to attenuate morning sickness, scientists and doctors recommended the use of thalidomide to pregnant women. It was a neat medication and performed as promised. Nausea was dramatically reduced. Science, it seemed, enhanced one of the most basic aspects of our existence: the process of procreation. Except for one thing. Thalidomide causes severe developmental defects, with many infants born with malformed limbs. According to all the data at the time, this unfortunate incident wasn't suppose to happen. According to science, such a conclusion was an unlikely event. It was marketed in many European countries. It was the INTERPRETATION of scientists and doctors alike, given the same set of data, that thalidomide was a safe drug. On hindsight, one could argue that they clearly didn't know enough about this drug. I ask you, do you think science knows enough to say, in absolute terms, that a god doesn't exist? (psst.. Hint: rhymes with know -- all pun intended Smile)


I have never asserted that God doesn't exist. I have simply stated that there is no more evidence for God than any other possibility as to why the universe came to be. And you are correct, science can be incorrect, and when it is it is then researched again and changed. This is not the case for religion.


illini319 wrote:

I am actually a man of science who prides himself on being truly agnostic; AND considers that both science and religion are just approximations of the truth with each having strengths and weakneses. Personally, I agree with you that basing your conviction on science is a fairly sound way of living. Having said that, do you think basing a life on religion is an unfortunate way to live? In a purely Darwinist point of view, do you consider that basing your life on science makes you any more fit to survive than a religious person? One could argue, with census data, that religious peoples tend to procreate at a faster rate than those less religious. Extrapolate this rate; doesn't that make them the fitter group, as they are far outpacing the more secular among us? Now there's a strange, and undeniably real, twist of fate...


True agnosticism would not give credit to anything as being "the absolute truth" not science or religion. This is true. But as a logical human being I base my decisions on what is logical, not what is written in a old book that claims to be true for whatever reason.
Science, however, is the ultimate in agnosticism. Look at the scientific process- infact here is a key quote from the wikipedia definition of the scientific process:
"Karl Popper, following others, has argued that a hypothesis must be falsifiable, and that a proposition or theory cannot be called scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false."
This is agnosticism at it's finest.

I will not give one idea of the state of the universe any more credit than any other possible state of being unless there is empirical evidence otherwise.

On a purely philosophical tangent however, I cannot truley prove anything so I give nothing credit because this existence I am experiencing now could all be a ruse just to fool me into something that isn't true. The possibilities are endless.

However I am compelled to make decisions based upon my own interpretation of the universe and i am more inclined to go with what seems to be more consistent with my experience than just what I would like to be true.. Ex: empirical evidence


your interpretation of how music is integral to our lives is a good one. Given today's musical diversity, music also plays a very divisive factor. Perhaps music allows us to explore our emotions, as you put it, 'in the comfort of our own homes.'

I also agree that if empirical evidence were the deciding factor, then science wins hands down. This is an inherently unfair comparison, since science lives only through empirical evidence and faith requires none. Of course you could ask, who would knowingly ascribe to beliefs without seeing some kind of evidence for it? Well, many of the religious, as they have already, would argue that the Bible (or any other theological book) is enough evidence for them. And certainly, for their own emotional/spiritual well-being, this 'evidence' is perfectly fine. And beyond this, they require no other proof.

While you were browsing wikipedia, you may have stumbled upon the term agnosticism. 'True' agnosticism has nothing to do with science. It is simply a point of view arguing that the existence of a god is something which cannot be discounted nor supported. It is a skeptic's point of view. It is not necessarily how science conducts itself. (the popular philosophy to which many scientists flock to is atheism - hence the reason why 'scientists' are so opposed to intellligent design; an agnostic would welcome the idea of intelligent design since it isn't any less a possibility than the other two assertions).

To clarify, Popper's assertions fails to include many natural phenomena which are thought to exist but, given current technological limitations, haven't been fully tested; i.e. determined falsifiable. Additionally, nowhere in any of his assertions is the philosophy of an agnostic ever mentioned.

But, I agree with you. The fine line an agnostic must walk is indecision.... as many agnostics are accused of. In attempting to see all the detail, one can be overwhelmed to the point of inaction. i.e. not being able to see the forest for the trees. So how should agnostics conduct themselves? The same way I suggest a true scientist should approach any phenomenon. Not pretend they know the answer before they are done testing all possibilities. And even when they have tested all the possibilites they could think of.... they must still concede that other possibilities (still unthought of) may remain. This will prevent agnostics, and science, from being dogmatic. This will prevent the same blind fervor scientists use in trying to eliminate all other explanations on creation... the same zealotry they accuse the religious of.

Perhaps I can distill our entire conversation in two words that most succinctly explains the path to being agnostic:

Be open-minded.
illini319
SkullPizza wrote:
And you are correct, science can be incorrect, and when it is it is then researched again and changed. This is not the case for religion.


I don't want to follow this line of thought any further than this. I just want clarify your statement. Religion has, and continues to, change. It may not change as fast as society may like, but it certainly does. Unless, of course, you can show me pictures of a good 'ol inquisition and the burning of heretics Smile .
SkullPizza
illini319 wrote:
I also agree that if empirical evidence were the deciding factor, then science wins hands down. This is an inherently unfair comparison, since science lives only through empirical evidence and faith requires none. Of course you could ask, who would knowingly ascribe to beliefs without seeing some kind of evidence for it? Well, many of the religious, as they have already, would argue that the Bible (or any other theological book) is enough evidence for them. And certainly, for their own emotional/spiritual well-being, this 'evidence' is perfectly fine. And beyond this, they require no other proof.


I not sure if I'm concerned with fairness in an argument.... I'm not sure if that really has any signifigance. Life isn't fair, get used to it.

To me and any other person that I respect - unbiased observations are the only deciding factor when haveing an intelligent discussion.

I understand that people require no other evidence than a book with nothing backing it up. Perhaps it is my limitation because I cannot comprehend why this is. It boggles my mind.

illini319 wrote:
While you were browsing wikipedia, you may have stumbled upon the term agnosticism. 'True' agnosticism has nothing to do with science. It is simply a point of view arguing that the existence of a god is something which cannot be discounted nor supported. It is a skeptic's point of view. It is not necessarily how science conducts itself. (the popular philosophy to which many scientists flock to is atheism - hence the reason why 'scientists' are so opposed to intellligent design; an agnostic would welcome the idea of intelligent design since it isn't any less a possibility than the other two assertions).


Well I suppose I'd fall more under the branch of agnosticism known as ignosticism. However agnosticism isn't just concerned with the Judeo-Christian form of God but any type of deity or dieties. This is why I am not just referring to God. In my mind agnosticism also is doubtful of any other origin of the Universe. So focusing on any particular theology is giving one unproven idea more recognition than another. I don't understand the point of this.

I would have to disagree with your point on intelligent design vs. evolution however. There is no (shall I say it again?) empirical evidence that suggests divine intervention. All evidence suggest that it just happened. Especially when you look at the evolution of bacteria and how we can induce such evolutions. It is a simple extension of this idea that makes it apply to all successful changes in DNA as a whole. At least this will be the case until we observe otherwise.

illini319 wrote:
To clarify, Popper's assertions fails to include many natural phenomena which are thought to exist but, given current technological limitations, haven't been fully tested; i.e. determined falsifiable. Additionally, nowhere in any of his assertions is the philosophy of an agnostic ever mentioned.


Well, to be sure that it is never mentioned you or I should probably read the books he wrote. We probably aren't going to do that. But I wasn't saying that he said anything about agnosticism specifically, just that the statement that I quoted was agnostic in it's spirit. Would you argue this?


illini319 wrote:
So how should agnostics conduct themselves? The same way I suggest a true scientist should approach any phenomenon. Not pretend they know the answer before they are done testing all possibilities. And even when they have tested all the possibilites they could think of.... they must still concede that other possibilities (still unthought of) may remain.


So were we arguing about something?

illini319 wrote:
Be open-minded.


I cannot dispute this statement.
SkullPizza
illini319 wrote:
SkullPizza wrote:
And you are correct, science can be incorrect, and when it is it is then researched again and changed. This is not the case for religion.


I don't want to follow this line of thought any further than this. I just want clarify your statement. Religion has, and continues to, change. It may not change as fast as society may like, but it certainly does. Unless, of course, you can show me pictures of a good 'ol inquisition and the burning of heretics Smile .



Yes it changes, but unlike science- which never claims to be the truth but simply a complex explanation of our current observations that has, as a founding principle, the ability to change- religion instead says that it IS the truth, and so when it is FORCED to change it proves that it is not the truth and is therefore irrelevant.
EVILSKAAP
Religion was the only way primative humans could explain things around them, mostly the elements aod death and so on. But luckly we have a modern "religion", SCIENCE! And it science that gives us all the answers! ALL HAIL SCIENCE! NJOY
David_Pardy
Saying science gives us ALL the answers is a true sign of ignorance.

So is assuming that I'm an idiot because I believe in magic. I don't just believe in it, I know it exists. I know people who have been involved with it, witnessed it and experienced its effects. If you don't believe me, then look up witchcraft and Satanism. Learn how to do a seance - after all, if God, spirits and magic, etc. don't exist, then you've got nothing to be afraid of, right?

Have a look at http://www.spellsandmagic.com/

Just because you haven't witnessed something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I've never seen one of those jets which can take off vertically do it, but I know they exist.
SkullPizza
David_Pardy wrote:
Saying science gives us ALL the answers is a true sign of ignorance.


I have never said this, I have simply said that it has the only answers worth giving any credit because of it's method of finding those answers.

No one has all the answers and no one ever will. (I can't wait till someone comes up and says that their religion does. I know someone will.)

I refuse to have a conversation about magic.
illini319
SkullPizza wrote:
I not sure if I'm concerned with fairness in an argument.... I'm not sure if that really has any signifigance.


How open-minded...

SkullPizza wrote:

I would have to disagree with your point on intelligent design vs. evolution however. There is no (shall I say it again?) empirical evidence that suggests divine intervention. All evidence suggest that it just happened. Especially when you look at the evolution of bacteria and how we can induce such evolutions. It is a simple extension of this idea that makes it apply to all successful changes in DNA as a whole. At least this will be the case until we observe otherwise.

You over-interpret NEGATIVE data. NEGATIVE data is uninterpretable; period. Ask any other scientist. Absence of evidence IS NOT evidence of absence.

SkullPizza wrote:

illini319 wrote:
Be open-minded.


I cannot dispute this statement.


see first response above.
SkullPizza
illini319 wrote:
SkullPizza wrote:
I not sure if I'm concerned with fairness in an argument.... I'm not sure if that really has any signifigance.


How open-minded...


I'm not sure what fairness has to do with open-mindedness. I will review evidence as to whether or not it is relevant, that is me being open-minded.

Fairness is a metaphysical human creation, it has no signifigance in logic other than to say it is logical for humans to act fair with one another in their interactions because this allows them to act as a team which helps overall survival rates.

illini319 wrote:
SkullPizza wrote:

I would have to disagree with your point on intelligent design vs. evolution however. There is no (shall I say it again?) empirical evidence that suggests divine intervention. All evidence suggest that it just happened. Especially when you look at the evolution of bacteria and how we can induce such evolutions. It is a simple extension of this idea that makes it apply to all successful changes in DNA as a whole. At least this will be the case until we observe otherwise.

You over-interpret NEGATIVE data. NEGATIVE data is uninterpretable; period. Ask any other scientist. Absence of evidence IS NOT evidence of absence.


You are correct, the absence of evidence is not evidence. But the fact that we can cultivate and observe evolution in microscopic organisms suggests that we have control over it and it is therefore not something delegated to divinity. Furthermore these experiments are examples of what could happen randomly in the environment which rules out the need of any intelligence to manipulate the variables in order to achieve evolution.

This would then not be the absence of evidence but fairly clear evidence that evolution requires no intelligent cultivation to progress. Life forms are very good it would seem, through the process of elimination, at making themselves better without any help.
David_Pardy
SkullPizza, my comment was directed at EVILSKAAP, the post just above me. I was not attempting to misquote you Wink.

Anyway, my points about magic was that if you see what those people, you'll realise very quickly that it DOES exist because those guys are not joking around with the stuff they do. A lot of people simply don't realise just how widespread witchcraft actually is.

Now on the completely opposite end of the scale - all Evolution vs Creation arguments aside (although this is another strike against E), is that not only have I HEARD of healings by the power of God, but I have recieved, seen and provided said healings. The first time it happened was in the case of some minor scoliosus. I felt the base of my spine actually twist around as my back straightened - it was the most unnerving yet amazing thing I'd ever felt! The next time was (I think it was actually the same not) when my right leg was lengthened to be the same length as my left leg. I didn't feel it happen, but we checked the length before and after it happened and there was definitely a difference. After it happened, it took a while to get used to because it felt like I was walking with a shoe on my right foot and not on my left.

(I was clued off to one of my legs being short because I had difficult walking properly and tended to get backaches at a certain point).

The time when I actually provided healing for someone else was an interesting one. My fiance (who is one of the people I know who used to participate in witchcraft until she became a Christian) badly injured her knee while rock climbing a couple of years ago. It was a school excursion and the teacher was completely clueless and didn't know how to wrap it up properly. Anyway, she finished the climb, but by the time her knee healed it was never quite the same. Anyone who has had a bad knee injury that hasn't properly healed will know what it's like (Fortunately I don't know myself!). God told me one night "send her a text message and tell her her knee is healed". I was like... Ok God, one of those act of faith things. Right.

So I sent her the message. To cut a long story short, by the end of the next night (after we'd had two conversations) her knee had been completely healed. She plays football (soccer) and prior to the healing you could see she struggled with her running and stuff. The next night she had soccer practise and you could see a complete change in her movement. She said her knee felt weak, which we attribute to the muscles not being used equally (she would favour her left leg because it was difficult to walk properly) and today she can run and walk symmetrically with no trouble at all.


You can believe it or not, but I have no reason to lie about it. You ask anyone, I'm not a good liar so I don't even pretend to try Wink. I'm not putting this information out here to convince you to BELIEVE what I believe, I'm putting it out here to show you that God IS real and that if the God of the Bible who I believe is real is helping me, then everything else about Him must be the truth. This is just a couple of things involving God that have happened to me over the years. This is reality and I have seen it. I've been alive long enough to question my beliefs but I no longer have any reason to question them because I know those beliefs are true (on a foundational level, there are some doctrinal things which I am unsure of).
SkullPizza
David_Pardy wrote:
Anyway, my points about magic was that if you see what those people, you'll realise very quickly that it DOES exist because those guys are not joking around with the stuff they do.


How many times do I have to say it. I refuse to have a conversation about magic.

All of your arguements are based upon hearsay and/or conjecture and are therefore not relevant to the present discussion. I will not validate such assertions.

Since you have nothing to add that is based upon tested information that is documented and accepted by logical thinking individuals you do not have anything to say to me.

Also all of these things that you have mentioned could be attributed to the placebo effect. This is a tested and logically verifiable concequence of thinking positively.

Read about it if you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_effect
David_Pardy
SkullPizza, YOU are the individual who refuses to accept that out of the entire hugeness of the entire universe that God exists. You are ignorant of what is really out there and you refuse to believe it because you don't see it written down on paper.

My arguments are perfectly valid to the current discussion. The placebo effect is NOT a valid argument because I have seen people healed who did not expect it or even want it.

You are more than welcome to choose to be ignorant, but one day you are going to regret it and that day is not far off. I suggest that you reevaluate the expression 'open your mind' and take your own advice. I am not a liar and I do not appreciate your insinuation that I am one. I know what I have seen and experienced. If you want to argue logic, then here's an argument for you: Have a look at the hugeness of the Universe, have a look at the complexity of life, and then have a look at the concepts of Creation and Evolution. Which one is the logical belief? Evolution assumes that infinite levels of random chance created our world as it is today, with all its elements, weather, chemical reactions, LIFE.... Creation assumes that our world was created with all its complexity.

The logical answer is NOT Evolution and if you even try to say that it is I will laugh in your face.
SkullPizza
David_Pardy wrote:
SkullPizza, YOU are the individual who refuses to accept that out of the entire hugeness of the entire universe that God exists. You are ignorant of what is really out there and you refuse to believe it because you don't see it written down on paper.


Everyone sees the world through their own tiny keyhole. No one truly knows anything in it's entirety. Those who say they do are lieing to themselves. I simply choose not to lie to myself and accept that I cannot know. I do not assume that science is absolutley correct, just that it is the best way at present to find any type of truth about anything on a purely physical level.

David_Pardy wrote:
My arguments are perfectly valid to the current discussion. The placebo effect is NOT a valid argument because I have seen people healed who did not expect it or even want it.


Prove it. Oh, and here's a source to back my claim that what you believe in is a fantasy: "In Faith Healing [Penguin Books 1971], he concluded, "I have been unsuccessful. After nearly twenty years of work I have yet to find one 'miracle cure'; and without that (or, alternatively, massive statistics which others must provide) I cannot be convinced of the efficacy of what is commonly termed faith healing." [1]"

I found this citing at: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/faith.html

I suggest you visit it and read it with an open mind as I have visited and read each of your citings. Find holes in it and try to show me those holes that you have found and we will have a discussion instead of me citing examples of things with documentation and you stating your opinion as fact.

David_Pardy wrote:
You are more than welcome to choose to be ignorant, but one day you are going to regret it and that day is not far off.


uh oh!

David_Pardy wrote:
I suggest that you reevaluate the expression 'open your mind' and take your own advice. I am not a liar and I do not appreciate your insinuation that I am one. Creation assumes that our world was created with all its complexity.


But it doesn't say how or why in any type of detail, this is unacceptable. Things are not simplified through sciences view, you would not think this if you really knew anything of what you speak against. And besides, the only reason I think evolution happened is because all present data suggests this. I will not restate my claims because they are written above in plain english.

I did not insinuate that you were a liar, just that you were misinterpreting evidence.

David_Pardy wrote:
The logical answer is NOT Evolution and if you even try to say that it is I will laugh in your face.


The logical answer is evolution if you look at all the present evidence. Arguing that it is not because things are too complex for evolution to occur shows your basic underlying ignorance of science. Look at the second law of thermodynamics for example. It states that all things prefer to move from a state of order to disorder. It would seem that science has the complexity end covered. Laugh in my face all you want, I am not making a personal attack at you, rather an attack at your rationalization of believing in something that has no evidence backing it up.

That fact of the matter is that with each claim I have made about the state of the Universe I have offered concrete evidence. You have offered nothing but a site about magic and another site that has an obvious bias to interpreting information given to it. Bias are bad for correct conclusions to be drawn.
Jack_Hammer
It all boild down to the fact that you can't actually prove anything so no-one truely knows (One can believe all they want) but never truely know of what is real.
SkullPizza
Jack_Hammer wrote:
It all boild down to the fact that you can't actually prove anything so no-one truely knows (One can believe all they want) but never truely know of what is real.


Well that's how it started in the first place. Agnostics can't be sure about anything. I dispute when people are sure about something because they are diluting themselves.
David_Pardy
Skullpizza, I should have also said that you are more than welcome to desire a logical viewpoint on how the world exists, HOWEVER:

Quote:
"Look at the second law of thermodynamics for example. It states that all things prefer to move from a state of order to disorder. It would seem that science has the complexity end covered."


I'm sorry, but doesn't Evolution do the complete OPPOSITE of that? From disorder TO order. Doesn't make sense and that is just one complete contradiction. Before I even read the link below all I had to do was think about what you said for a moment and realise it was a complete contradiction and definitely NOT an argument supporting Evolution.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html

One origin of life theory for Evolution (and what seems to be the most prevalent one) is that lightning struck ammonia pools (where'd the ammonia and hydrogen come from?) and created life. Ok then, so you have a 'simple' living cell, with it's however many thousands of proteins. This 'simple' living cell then buddies up with the other cells which got zapped to life at the same time and they form a blob of simple cells. Now what? Something happens and they mutate! You get an amoeba! Now there's your first problem: There is no evidence of ANY mutation ADDING information - only removing or rearranging.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp
I don't care if you don't consider AiG a credible source, but if want scientific fact then there it is.

So then this amoeba is formed, and then again - a mutation, and you get some sort of primitive fish! Let's assume this fish has some sort of a digestive system, some sort of brain, some sort of heart, gills, etc. How many mutations does it take for the amoeba's cells to transform into heart, brain, stomach lining, etc? Oh wait, back to the previous problem - mutations only remove or rearrange existing information.

Then all of a sudden, some waaaaaay down the line fish decides to try to live on the land out of the ammonia pool which has become water. It manages to bounce itself out onto land where it suffocates and dies. Its buddies in the water say "hey that's a good idea!" and over time through many years of fish jumping onto land out of water one little fishy says "I'm gonna grow legs and lungs, that'll do it!" and voila - you get a walking fish which can survive out of water.

Now, you again come back to the original problem of mutations. How the hell did the fish grow legs and convert from a gill respiratory system to a lung respiratory system? Any fish which was born with lungs instead of gills (a scientific impossibility) would have drowned the moment it was born.

The underlying problem under what I'm trying to say is not as simple as "over time the fish grew legs and lungs and walked and breathed", it's far more complex and that is what Evolutionists IGNORE. It is the PROCESS of growing the extra appendiges and organs. I can't sit here and decide to grow a third arm and neither can you. I can't program the mechanics of flight and physics into my mind and expect my firstborn child to be born with wings - so how did birds evolve?



Quote:
another site that has an obvious bias to interpreting information given to it. Bias are bad for correct conclusions to be drawn.


And the books you read by so-called 'logical thinkers' are not biased? You attack the AiG foundation because they are biased AGAINST Evolution and use science to support their claims. Many of those involved in AiG are people who realised that Evolution is impossible and they turned their beliefs around because of the research they had done to prove otherwise. If you want to accept the works of some scientists and researchers but not others because they don't agree then you are completely contradicting the view of pretty much every respectable scientist in the world. The difference between the AiG scientists and Evolutionist scientists is the initial assumption of how to interpret the data they are given.

Here's some links of so-called 'missing links' and fossils.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/bones.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0612sapiens.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i4/human.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/263.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/iceman.asp



Now that I'm well and truly late for bed Wink I'll try and post more tomorrow. I apologise that I have not provided any links in the past (I've got more up my sleeve once I find them) but usually I've posted when its been awkward for me to look anything up. A lot of the stuff we're going through at the moment is rehashing stuff I've debated in the past (I've been in quite a few debates) so I tend to get a little bored of posting the same stuff over and over, so I apologise if I seem a little hostile at times.
eznet
As great as the links are... see page 1 of the discussion.... providing links that contain answering genesis in the webaddress are... well... I will be polite about this... questionable and most likely bias... thats like citing www.magicIsreal.com as a source to prove that magic is real.

As I said on page one, most of these types of resources use bad science to discredit good science... Little tidbits of information (propoganda) are given out to christians so that they may use them to create doubt in the proven science. When I was younger and carbon dating was the hot topic the christian science committee refuted the validity of carbondating based on a living clam having a shell dating 50,000 years old. When one looks into this claim the only support for it comes from christian ran sites with names like bible and genesis in the webaddress....

hmmm.... the tactic is simple.. science often acknoledges the finite-ness of their tests, sometimes the results are unpredictable... that is where averages come into play... test, re-test, test some more... make an EDUCATED guess... test it... repeat process..
Christians on the other hand take one test that has questionable results to mean the whole method is bunk despite there being thousands of undisputed applications of the science in successful dating.

Selective science... thats what it is all about... where scientist search, find answers then search some more; never actually having faith they have found the final answer. Christians take the science that affirms their faith and declaires all other to be false or bad. I do not supposed to know the answer to if there is a God or not. I hope that there is but I have no compacity to know that. The amount of information that you and I are privy to is a small cluster of rocks in a small orbit on a small arm of a medium size galaxy in a really really really(x n000000000000000000) large universe... we dont even have a percent of a percent to base our beleifs on. The best anyone can claim is a personal guess.

The Christian religion is not "bad" or at least no worse than the rest of them.. Some people need religion or otherwise they would have to lay in bed thinking about the infinate universe (or multiverse) full of mostly empty space and lifeless bodies (planets) instead of talking to their devine creator or dead relitives... for many this brings about sanity as life without it is just too scary. It is modern (and old, who am I kidding) christians who kill the religion.. not just christians are guilty here as many (most) religions get far,far away from the base teachings of their religious leaders and focus on the differences betweem themselves and other beleif groups instead of relating on the simularities between them. Counter productive from the greater good for the sake of being the right and declaired winner of religions... If I were god I would strike you all down for screwing up what tidbit of goodness I had sent to you all to live on (if there was a god and he did that... just felt I should clairify that statement in jest and was not meant as a concession - I know you all like to be victorious Very Happy )

An afterlife would rule but I aint holding my breath as it is proven, scientifically to be vital to my survival that I breath semi-regularly.
SkullPizza
David_Pardy wrote:
I'm sorry, but doesn't Evolution do the complete OPPOSITE of that? From disorder TO order. Doesn't make sense and that is just one complete contradiction. Before I even read the link below all I had to do was think about what you said for a moment and realise it was a complete contradiction and definitely NOT an argument supporting Evolution.


Actually what I stated had nothing to do with evolution but more your assumption that science doesn't allow things to be complex. I showed you an example of how your statement was false. Infact I found a Christian science site that advocates the opposite of what you claim. Infact it goes so far as to say: "This page explains, one more time, using logic rather than wishful thinking, why this claim — that the Second Law is a "conclusive argument against evolution" — is not scientifically justifiable."

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/thermo.htm

You bring up an interesting point however. It made me look into ways that the spread of heat(AKA molecular velocity) can facilitate an ordered structure rather than a disordered one. Some interesting quotes against your argument:
"Thus, in many cases living systems actually create less entropy, than comparable non-living
systems operating across the same potential gradient over a given period of time. It seems
that the second law cannot be violated, but it can be stalled. In that sense life could be
regarded as an energy "kiting" scheme."

This would suggest that life coming from non-living matter would not be against entropy but simply bend the law a bit, something fine with science.

"The Benard cell....the heat will be dissipated more rapidly through the formation of a
coherent pattern of hexagonally arrayed convection cells than through turbulent boiling.
In this case we have a system in which energy moving across a potential
gradient spontaneously gives rise to an ordered pattern or structure."

"The key observation appears to be that living, and perhaps even pre-living, systems tend to
drive the planet away from its previous condition of maximum entropy."

I got these quotes from an interesting term paper from a man applying for his PhD:http://www.geoman.com/jim/entropy.html

I would also make you aware the the second law of thermodynamics is only in regards to a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. THere is energy constantly being added to it by the sun. This is essentially why evolution is possible.

David_Pardy wrote:
One origin of life theory for Evolution (and what seems to be the most prevalent one) is that lightning struck ammonia pools (where'd the ammonia and hydrogen come from?) and created life.


This is not in anyway definitive - just a theory that has no way of testing itself until we do it ourselves. If we do do it it proves you wrong. If we don't do it yet it doesn't prove you right, just that we have an incomplete theory. As I have stated before - there are infinite possibilities possible to the imagination in regards to the origins of things.

David_Pardy wrote:
There is no evidence of ANY mutation ADDING information - only removing or rearranging.


This is true in the case of perhaps one bacteria dividing. But I guess I'll cite a term paper I wrote-"These two bacteria interact, exchanging RNA, and possibly create a new strain of strep-throat causing bacteria. "

Bacteria can share their RNA between species, this is due to the ADDITION of genetic material. Your point has been countered. I guess I'll have to show you the source of this information considering I wrote the paper and you don't have access to it :

Prescott, Lansing. Microbiology. Ed. Donald Klein. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002.

The addition of DNA can occur in humans during the conception of a child.
When two gametes collide to form a zygote dysfunctions can arise that cause additive mutation whereby the embryo has additional chromosomes.
An interesting side note would be that you don't really use all of your DNA anyway. You have many dormant traits that aren't used that can be found in your DNA. As an example- 70% of your DNA is identical to that of a banana. But you wouldn't call yourself a banana would you? Infact you are very diffrerent from a banana because many of these triggers that would make you more banana-like that are contained in your DNA aren't activated because the process of how your cells react to the information in your DNA causes parts that they read first to skip over other parts. This is an oversimplification but I don't imagine you want a course in molecular biology so i'll stop there.
David_Pardy wrote:
So then this amoeba is formed, and then again - a mutation, and you get some sort of primitive fish!


Your points that were drawn out to three paragraphs are summed up in this sentence. Obviously the transition from Amoeba to fish, assuming fish evolved from amoebas, had many intermediary steps. Your ignorance of this stems from your gutteral rejection of evolution without reading the evidence for it.
Here is yet more evidence for evolution:
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVcontents.html

I just love when people keep trying to disprove something to prove their own ideas. Do I have to say it again? Just because you show that a theory, while still very convincing, has holes because we have only been studying it since the late 1800's - unlike many other more established scientific pursuits like physics, math, chemistry... ect. - this does not prove that you are correct in your assumption of creationism. That would be like saying a dog is not an ant so it must be a donkey.... it just doesn't add up. If we are given a few hundred more years to collect data the argument against evolution will most likely be like the argument against how the world is round. Of course those crazy ****** still refuse to die:http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm

David_Pardy wrote:
And the books you read by so-called 'logical thinkers' are not biased? You attack the AiG foundation because they are biased AGAINST Evolution and use science to support their claims. Many of those involved in AiG are people who realised that Evolution is impossible and they turned their beliefs around because of the research they had done to prove otherwise.


Well to be honest there is no scientific literature supporting intelligent design whatsoever. Infact the very argument that it should be taught in science class is not fair in scientific terms because there have never been any experiments developed to be able to prove this theory.

For a interesting discussion between those advocating intelligent design and those favoring evolution in video look at:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/july-dec05/evolution_8-05.html#
Make sure you click on the discussion link to get right to the discussion.

And these are not so called "logical thinkers". I am curious what makes you think that the majority of scientists that accept evolution are all biased. These are people following a specific guideline called the scientific process. Through testing we have yet been able to find anything wrong with this scientific process. There are thousands upon thousands of ways that we have tried to eliminate human disruption from our laboratory experiments to the point where we can manipulate and percieve a single photon and collide it with a single electron. - just as an example. This was because of the precision and dedication to the founding principles of science. All of which can be found here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

I am sorry it took me so long to respond. I have had alot of work at school to do. Being a Chem major means more work and less credits than most ppl because of labs. I would write more but I guess I'll save more arguements for later discussion. I have to go to bed anyway.

Besides this was supposed to be a forum for agnostics. What are you doing here?
SkullPizza
This specific page of the evolution evidence proved most enlightening:

http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage16.html
David_Pardy
Ok well it appears as though I've reached the limit as to what information I can provide/counter Wink.

As I've said previously, I'm not a scientist and I'm not going to pretend to be one. My recommendation to you would be to email AiG and deliver your points to them if you want better answers than what I can give you.

By the way, they DO provide information on arguments that Creationists should not be making. AiG ARE trying to make a positive contribution to the scientific community and they're not just trying to pick and choose which results to believe in. You might just be surprised as to how much information and knowledge they have.

But I'll leave it with you.

By the way, that 'Evidence for Evolution' page has no references, making it questionable - whether the information is correct or not.
SkullPizza
Well honestly I realized this and I thought that you might say something but at the same time I wasn't concerned because if you brought it up I could find another onehundred sights, all with the same data, like this one:

http://newton.nap.edu/html/creationism/

or this one:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/lessons/lesson3/act2.html

or these:

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookEVOLII.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evolution/blfaq_evolution_evidence.htm

and a thousand more.

Some are referenced, some are not. All have the same basic information.
SkullPizza
David_Pardy wrote:
By the way, that 'Evidence for Evolution' page has no references, making it questionable - whether the information is correct or not.


the information on the counter arguments against the arguments against evolution require no sources because they are either:

A.) Logical inference that you can tell is true or not by the statement made.

B.) Something that you can find out easily on your own.
Ex: The specific 2nd law of thermo dynamics or the transitional forms of animals found in the fossil record.

Also the first page I referenced if you move around on it it tells you exactly who wrote it and he is Dr. George B. Johnson, Biology Professor at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri 63130.
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.