Its sunday, lets have a religious debate!
Comments
-
i appreciate that sufffering in the world makes itappear like their could be no god
now i am NOT religious, but what would life be if there was no suffering? if there was no possibility that we could suffer? i dont think that you could call it life, wouldwe not all be robots?
surely all the atrocities etc cited have been th result of human action, of human choice? people who had the complete choice whether or not to do something. people in corrupt governments have choices whether to make their people suffer etc and if we didnt have choice, would we be humans or robots?
so suppose god does love us, when would he intervene to stop us suffering? would he step in and correct peoples wrong choices?where would the line be, the line that seperates excssive suffering which requires intervention and that which doesnt
it might make more sense that if god loved us, he would stop all suffering.....but then....what is suffering...surely all life could be considerred as suffering....now sorry to get all buddhist on yo ass...which woud lead you to believe that if god did stopall suffering you wouldnt exist at all.
simply food for thought not trying to tell you what to beleve, and not pretending that i have any answers. happy to clarify any points raised.like a rolling stone0 -
mfin wrote:Here's a different viewpoint then....
Lets say there IS a god then, and like so many seem to believe, this God has limitless powers, knowledge and knows everything thats going on everywhere.
If the above is true then I think with all the mass and personal suffering, emotional and extreme physical pain of millions throughout the centuries that if any decent person was in that position then they would do something about it?
But no. So if the first bit was true it would be obvious that this 'god' IS MOST DEFINTELY the most uncaring example of a total b*stard that it almost defies comprehension, what a terrible sh1t he would have to be, the very definition of evil, he'd make hitler look like ghandi ...he wouldn't lift a finger to stop an innocent child getting abused or a nice person dying in terrible agony ...but he could.
Someone who could do something about it, but doesn't want to or can't be bothered, who the hell would want to have anything to do with a complete and utter d1ck like that?
Of course, all of this is obvious to rational people, oh... and he burns people that disagree with him apparently.
That's pretty much the Old Testament view of God, that is, a spoiled child who will smite anyone who doesn't do as he wants.
The general understanding of God, theologically speaking, tends to shift with man's attitude, thus, modern God is either one whom one cannot petition with prayer (the divine force behind the world, the spark that gives us time, the universe, etc), or the God who sets us free to create our own mistakes and, hopefully learn from them and become better people.
Of course, Jesus is perhaps one of the more radical epitomes of the God figure, in that pure Christianity would teach us, much like pure Buddhism or pure Communism, or probably humanism, for that matter, to love thy neighbour, give away all one's possessions, give help to the unfortunates in life, turn the other cheek, and, importantly, not suffer the corruptions of religion (see turning over the money lenders' tables). This of course has been diluted by politics and influence (see earlier post). But at the time, in a world where life was hard enough, it was certainly a revolutionary world view.
I think one of the most important thing that Jesus is quoted as saying is "The kingdom of Heaven is within you."
In that one sentence the notion of God as avenger, as spoilt child, is cast aside, and the emphasis put on the individual to seek divinity, humanity, what you will, within and not without.
This perhaps brings Christianity in its purest sense closer to Buddhism than the Christianity we recognise today.
But, as I said, I still think too many people confuse Religion with "God".
The two are not necessarily the same.0 -
So Jesus is directly quoted as saying something now is he, bit like he's been video'ed?
Plus whatever he's said about 'being within you' we've attached some meaning to this riddle based nonsense have we?... does the kingdom of heaven exist? if it does what's that then? ...I mean it all sounds nice and flowery but what is it? Proof please, can you point me at some photos for reference?
'I think this means this, I think this means that, that's what sounds nice and meaningful to me... without my faith i'd be lost, blah blah blah...' it all sounds mental.
Jesus might have existed as some sort of historical figure but chances are he was just another religious freak who got too gobby for his own good.
I love the way anyone who believes this stuff just changes around the 'facts as they see them' when they aren't facts at all.
Plus... so god isn't all powerful or anything like that then? is that what you're saying? so he didn't create everything and he's not so sh1t hot at stuff after all? ...more of a toned down version, bit like superman but without the costume and john barry soundtrack?
Oh... and another thing, does god have a sense of humour? cos Ive never heard a decent joke he or jesus have meant to have cracked, he sounds a bit of a bore to say the least.0 -
I thought we were having a sensible debate, not a slanging match.
I think, with all due respect, you're confusing your opinion with truth. I have never said that what I may or may not believe is the truth, just one side of a debate. I also think my last post was more an attempt at a contextual description of the notion of God over the ages, and how Christiantiy, pure Christianity, that is, is perhaps more akin to Eastern religions than Western ones.
But you obvioulsy missed that.
Of course, belief, by its very nature is subjective, be it in God or science. I can believe in the Event Horizon, but I do so without any tangible proof in its existence. The same goes for a lot of things.
Like I said earlier, I don;t think many of us can prove that much, divine or earthly.It would be foolish of me to try and prove a God exists. I've never actually said that I believe one does, but rather that notions of belief are what I believe the debate is really about.
It would be the same as me asking you to prove to me that time exist. That should be a simple one. Not that I don't believe time exists, but to prove it exists past watching a clock is anther matter. I think my basic argument would be that we most of us believe blindly, and have replaced God nowadays with science. But what real proof have any of us in what we are told? Very little. We just believe the men in white, be they wearing cassock or lab coats.0 -
Gotte wrote:I thought we were having a sensible debate
Sorry, but it seems the goalposts get moved all the time, but that's religion for you isn't it... fact is, a lot of people don't know what they believe as such, cos its not based on any kind of facts, its all based on feelings they have that something's real. But its not real, if it was real it would be based on fact.
If I move back to an earlier point, I don't think that kids should be taught this rubbish, it is not fair on tiny minds.0 -
mfin wrote:Gotte wrote:I thought we were having a sensible debate
Sorry, but it seems the goalposts get moved all the time, but that's religion for you isn't it... fact is, a lot of people don't know what they believe as such, cos its not based on any kind of facts, its all based on feelings they have that something's real. But its not real, if it was real it would be based on fact.
You see, I totally agree with you there, even with your use of the word "religion", because as I tried to explain earlier, Religion, in my opinion, is just a reflection of man's desire to organize and exclude, and has little actually to do with God. If all those people who classed themselves as religious were required to actually function in the way Jesus requires them to do through the bible (which I believe to be a text mostly corrupted by the politics of the age and the desire to form a powerful religion by grandees of the movement), I bet there would be precious few believers.
Perhaps it's just the semantics. Perhaps the words "Religion" and "God" are just too loaded. Maybe a better term for God, in my opinion, anyway, would be "enlightenment".
Ironically, the statement about the Kingdom of Heaven being within you, to me, says, that fulfilment can be found not by preaching or saving souls or building the tallest churches, but rather by looking within yourself and being a better person. To me it says there is no hell or heaven in the common sense, but rather more an enlightenment of the mind in the Buddhist sense.
Not that I'm a Buddhist, but that's how it reads to me.
All the best.0 -
mfin wrote:Here's a different viewpoint then....
Lets say there IS a god then, and like so many seem to believe, this God has limitless powers, knowledge and knows everything thats going on everywhere.
If the above is true then I think with all the mass and personal suffering, emotional and extreme physical pain of millions throughout the centuries that if any decent person was in that position then they would do something about it?
But no. So if the first bit was true it would be obvious that this 'god' IS MOST DEFINTELY the most uncaring example of a total b*stard that it almost defies comprehension, what a terrible sh1t he would have to be, the very definition of evil, he'd make hitler look like ghandi ...he wouldn't lift a finger to stop an innocent child getting abused or a nice person dying in terrible agony ...but he could.
Someone who could do something about it, but doesn't want to or can't be bothered, who the hell would want to have anything to do with a complete and utter d1ck like that?
Of course, all of this is obvious to rational people, oh... and he burns people that disagree with him apparently.
It's not God that causes sufferring it's People.0 -
..hey...its not Sunday anymore...lets have a truce.....til the Sabbath, at least......
0 -
holmeboy wrote:
It's not God that causes sufferring it's People.
That's true, and I think that's one of the things which I find frustrating about Richard Dorkins arguement, which I believe boils down to Religion is bad because of the suffering it leads and has lead to, and science, being pure, is good.
But people turn whatever their belief system, god or science, to their own advantage.
I hate to bring up the Nazis, as there's that internet law which states any discussion will mention them, left long enough, but here I think it's necessary.
The Nazis had little time for religion, but instead preferred to throw their lot in with science. Their whole racial agenda used genetics and the theory of evolution as a precept for killing millions. That's not to say genetics and evolution were guilty themselves, but rather, a certain group of people decided to corrupt them and use them as an expedient to their own aims.
It;s interesting that, on the whole, when religion was the greater world view, Jews could be saved from persecution by simply converting to Christianity. But after the rise of gentics (or rather eugenics) as the basis of power, a Jew was a Jew, no matter who they worshipped, and as such, doomed. This was because it was a genetic, and as such, scientific thing, rather than a cultural thing. You could be a middle class Christian German, but if your ancestors were Jewish, then you were untermensch.
This is evidence of science being corrupted in the same way it could be argued God was corrupted for other ends.
Dorkins misses that point, and prefers to see the world in black and white.
As you rightly say, it is people that do the killing, but usually with some belief system as a expedient to give it justification.0 -
So then, what do we all think we are here for?0
-
mfin wrote:Lets say there IS a god then, and like so many seem to believe, this God has limitless powers, knowledge and knows everything thats going on everywhere.
If the above is true then I think with all the mass and personal suffering, emotional and extreme physical pain of millions throughout the centuries that if any decent person was in that position then they would do something about it?
But no. So if the first bit was true it would be obvious that this 'god' IS MOST DEFINTELY the most uncaring example of a total b*stard that it almost defies comprehension, what a terrible sh1t he would have to be, the very definition of evil, he'd make hitler look like ghandi ...he wouldn't lift a finger to stop an innocent child getting abused or a nice person dying in terrible agony ...but he could..
There is a logical opposing position supporting the existence of God, as thought up by some of the greatest thinkers in History. For example Newton, Descartes, Erasmus, (arguably Einstein although his feelings on the issue are clearly not clear!) as well as many others.
First one that occured to me, Descartes. Humanist natural philosopher (scientist) who came up with many of the mathmatics basics and some important scientific discoveries (weight of air for example).
Descartes logical argument for the existence of God from Meditations on First Philosophy
Argument 1
1. Something cannot come from nothing.
2. The cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as the idea has objective reality.
3. I have in me an idea of God. This idea has infinite objective reality.
4. I cannot be the cause of this idea, since I am not an infinite and perfect being. I don't have enough formal reality. Only an infinite and perfect being could cause such an idea.
5. So God — a being with infinite formal reality — must exist (and be the source of my idea of God).
6. An absolutely perfect being is a good, benevolent being.
7. So God is benevolent...
8. So God would not deceive me and would not permit me to error without giving me a way to correct my errors.
Argument 2
1. I exist.
2. My existence must have a cause.
3. The cause must be either:
a) myself
b) my always having existed
c) my parents
d) something less perfect than God
e) God
4. Not a. If I had created myself, I would have made myself perfect.
5. Not b. This does not solve the problem. If I am a dependent being, I need to be continually sustained by another.
6. Not c. This leads to an infinite regress.
7. Not d. The idea of perfection that exists in me cannot have originated from a non-perfect being.
8. Therefore, e. God exists.
Just thought I'd add a contrast to the slightly 1 sided "rationalisitic humanist" line some people seemed to be taking."I hold it true, what'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost;
Than never to have loved at all."
Alfred Tennyson0 -
rpayn93 wrote:So then, what do we all think we are here for?
Scientifically, the answer must be to pass on your genes, no matter what. That's the why Salmon kill themselves to get up stream and mate.
On a broader scale, I have no idea. To be remembered? But even that is pointless. In your family, after a couple of generations, you'll just be a name, and then not even that. All the things we cherish, art, literature, music, all those people we fate for their contribution, even someone as great as Shakespeare or Einstein will one day be forgotten. The sun will eat the earth and it will all be gone.
Wow, Bergmanesque, or what.0 -
nolf wrote:mfin wrote:Lets say there IS a god then, and like so many seem to believe, this God has limitless powers, knowledge and knows everything thats going on everywhere.
If the above is true then I think with all the mass and personal suffering, emotional and extreme physical pain of millions throughout the centuries that if any decent person was in that position then they would do something about it?
But no. So if the first bit was true it would be obvious that this 'god' IS MOST DEFINTELY the most uncaring example of a total b*stard that it almost defies comprehension, what a terrible sh1t he would have to be, the very definition of evil, he'd make hitler look like ghandi ...he wouldn't lift a finger to stop an innocent child getting abused or a nice person dying in terrible agony ...but he could..
There is a logical opposing position supporting the existence of God, as thought up by some of the greatest thinkers in History. For example Newton, Descartes, Erasmus, (arguably Einstein although his feelings on the issue are clearly not clear!) as well as many others.
First one that occured to me, Descartes. Humanist natural philosopher (scientist) who came up with many of the mathmatics basics and some important scientific discoveries (weight of air for example).
Descartes logical argument for the existence of God from Meditations on First Philosophy
Argument 1
1. Something cannot come from nothing.
2. The cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as the idea has objective reality.
3. I have in me an idea of God. This idea has infinite objective reality.
4. I cannot be the cause of this idea, since I am not an infinite and perfect being. I don't have enough formal reality. Only an infinite and perfect being could cause such an idea.
5. So God — a being with infinite formal reality — must exist (and be the source of my idea of God).
6. An absolutely perfect being is a good, benevolent being.
7. So God is benevolent...
8. So God would not deceive me and would not permit me to error without giving me a way to correct my errors.
Argument 2
1. I exist.
2. My existence must have a cause.
3. The cause must be either:
a) myself
b) my always having existed
c) my parents
d) something less perfect than God
e) God
4. Not a. If I had created myself, I would have made myself perfect.
5. Not b. This does not solve the problem. If I am a dependent being, I need to be continually sustained by another.
6. Not c. This leads to an infinite regress.
7. Not d. The idea of perfection that exists in me cannot have originated from a non-perfect being.
8. Therefore, e. God exists.
Just thought I'd add a contrast to the slightly 1 sided "rationalisitic humanist" line some people seemed to be taking.
Interesting post. It makes me realise how little I know about philosophy.0 -
djbarren wrote:guilliano wrote:I used to wonder, if God created humans as his(?) master race why did he then create all these diseases and bacteria to kill them off again? If we are all his children why does he lock us in a room with ebola and lepracy and other such nasty things? Would you do that to your kids?
Ok I have read enough crap to last me a life time, here is my take on it.
This is what I believe.
God gave man a free will, because without a free will then man could not freely love God. Man would be no more then just an automaton. As part of that free will God instructed man on what he should and should not do, more to protect the man then to keep him from something. In this case eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
When Eve let Satan deceive her and ate that fruit she disobeyed Gods' order. In other words she broke God’s law. But what about Adam, he did not disobey God until he ate the fruit Eve gave him. I feel that Adam was not deceived but took the fruit from Eve willingly since she was fallen and would die, Adam did not want to be without her so he ate the fruit and joined her in her fate. When he ate the fruit he then disobeyed God’s law. That is what sin is, disobeying God. It is that plain and simple.
The bible says in 1Ti 2:14 "And it was not Adam who was deceived. It was the woman who was deceived and became a lawbreaker".
By keeping him from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil God kept man from understanding how to break the law (breaking the law would be considered evil). Once man ate of that tree he understood that God had an absolute law and that he had just broken that law by disobeying God.
Remember God is not held by the constraints of time such as we are, God being all knowing and all seeing, already knew that man would disobey him. That is why Jesus entered the world, so God and man could be reconciled. Jesus is God in the flesh, the perfect sacrifice because he was tempted as we are but yet he did not break the laws of God. By keeping the entire law perfectly he was then able to die as a perfect sacrifice, a sacrifice that would cover mankind forever, not just for a year as the sacrifice of a perfect lamb did.
In closing, Adam by disobeying God’s law (sinning) was what caused sin (lawlessness) to enter the world. Thereby cursing the world to suffering, bloodshed and eventually death.
http://www.glorifythelord.com/adamandeve.html
I don;t want to insult anyone, but wow, that's what I'd call an archaic worldview.0 -
djbarren wrote:IF, as evolutionists claim, the earth is billions of years old, and mankind has evolved from a lower and simpler form of life, then why has mankind gone from writing upon stones to laser printers in just the past 3,500 years? When God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, they were written upon stone. It is abundantly clear that the Egyptians carved messages into stone (hieroglyphics). So why is it that mankind has only discovered better inventions in the past few thousand years? If mankind had evolved, as evolutionists claim, then why didn't man discover ink a million years ago? Think about it. This is an astonishing thought--There were NO planes, cars, computers, refrigerators, electricity, lights, gas, powered-equipment, telephones, recording devices, CD players, MP3 players, electric razors, televisions, record players, movie cameras, or a million other modern technological inventions--just a mere 170 years ago. Civilization has advanced from utter primitiveness to incredible mind-boggling achievements in just a little over 100 years. So why didn't mankind discover any of this stuff 100,000,000 years ago, or 100,000 years ago for that matter?
Look at the ignorance of doctors over the past few centuries. Sanitary practices, such as washing hands, were laughed at by doctors, while thousands of patients continued to die. It was unimaginable to doctors back then, that washing one's hands somehow was related to a patient's health in the operating room. Can you believe that? Evolutionists today are just as ignorant of the truth of God's Word, and of common sense itself. It's hard to imagine that millions of people were dying from a simple lack of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) just a couple hundred years ago. If evolution is true, then it took man billions of years to learn all these kindergarten lessons. And ironically, man has only learned these lessons in the past couple hundred years. You've got to be kidding me! Don't tell me that it took mankind BILLIONS of years to learn to wash his hands to prevent disease! The truth is that mankind has taken baby-steps since 4,000 B.C., and it did take him nearly 6,000 years to learn to wash his hands. This is just another undeniable PROOF that evolution is a lie. If mankind had evolved over millions of years, then men would have discovered these inventions a very long time ago.
The truth is that evolutionists are hardhearted against the truth of God's Word. The Word of God declares that God created the world at approximately 4,000 B.C.—YOU'D BE A FOOL NOT TO BELIEVE IT, BECAUSE THERE'S NO HISTORY PRIOR TO 4,000 B.C. As incredible as this fact is, it is undeniable proof against evolution.
I everyone is entitled to their views, but I can't see a rational argument in there anywhere.0 -
djbarren wrote:IF, as evolutionists claim, the earth is billions of years old, and mankind has evolved from a lower and simpler form of life, then why has mankind gone from writing upon stones to laser printers in just the past 3,500 years? When God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, they were written upon stone. It is abundantly clear that the Egyptians carved messages into stone (hieroglyphics). So why is it that mankind has only discovered better inventions in the past few thousand years? If mankind had evolved, as evolutionists claim, then why didn't man discover ink a million years ago? Think about it. This is an astonishing thought--There were NO planes, cars, computers, refrigerators, electricity, lights, gas, powered-equipment, telephones, recording devices, CD players, MP3 players, electric razors, televisions, record players, movie cameras, or a million other modern technological inventions--just a mere 170 years ago. Civilization has advanced from utter primitiveness to incredible mind-boggling achievements in just a little over 100 years. So why didn't mankind discover any of this stuff 100,000,000 years ago, or 100,000 years ago for that matter?
Look at the ignorance of doctors over the past few centuries. Sanitary practices, such as washing hands, were laughed at by doctors, while thousands of patients continued to die. It was unimaginable to doctors back then, that washing one's hands somehow was related to a patient's health in the operating room. Can you believe that? Evolutionists today are just as ignorant of the truth of God's Word, and of common sense itself. It's hard to imagine that millions of people were dying from a simple lack of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) just a couple hundred years ago. If evolution is true, then it took man billions of years to learn all these kindergarten lessons. And ironically, man has only learned these lessons in the past couple hundred years. You've got to be kidding me! Don't tell me that it took mankind BILLIONS of years to learn to wash his hands to prevent disease! The truth is that mankind has taken baby-steps since 4,000 B.C., and it did take him nearly 6,000 years to learn to wash his hands. This is just another undeniable PROOF that evolution is a lie. If mankind had evolved over millions of years, then men would have discovered these inventions a very long time ago.
The truth is that evolutionists are hardhearted against the truth of God's Word. The Word of God declares that God created the world at approximately 4,000 B.C.—YOU'D BE A FOOL NOT TO BELIEVE IT, BECAUSE THERE'S NO HISTORY PRIOR TO 4,000 B.C. As incredible as this fact is, it is undeniable proof against evolution.
So, er, what about the dinosaurs then? The Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, so does that mean that they never existed?0 -
I was going to stay out of this thread, but ...djbarren wrote:IF, as evolutionists claim, the earth is billions of years old, and mankind has evolved from a lower and simpler form of life, then why has mankind gone from writing upon stones to laser printers in just the past 3,500 years? When God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, they were written upon stone. It is abundantly clear that the Egyptians carved messages into stone (hieroglyphics). So why is it that mankind has only discovered better inventions in the past few thousand years? If mankind had evolved, as evolutionists claim, then why didn't man discover ink a million years ago? Think about it. This is an astonishing thought--There were NO planes, cars, computers, refrigerators, electricity, lights, gas, powered-equipment, telephones, recording devices, CD players, MP3 players, electric razors, televisions, record players, movie cameras, or a million other modern technological inventions--just a mere 170 years ago. Civilization has advanced from utter primitiveness to incredible mind-boggling achievements in just a little over 100 years. So why didn't mankind discover any of this stuff 100,000,000 years ago, or 100,000 years ago for that matter?
Look at the ignorance of doctors over the past few centuries. Sanitary practices, such as washing hands, were laughed at by doctors, while thousands of patients continued to die. It was unimaginable to doctors back then, that washing one's hands somehow was related to a patient's health in the operating room. Can you believe that? Evolutionists today are just as ignorant of the truth of God's Word, and of common sense itself. It's hard to imagine that millions of people were dying from a simple lack of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) just a couple hundred years ago. If evolution is true, then it took man billions of years to learn all these kindergarten lessons. And ironically, man has only learned these lessons in the past couple hundred years. You've got to be kidding me! Don't tell me that it took mankind BILLIONS of years to learn to wash his hands to prevent disease! The truth is that mankind has taken baby-steps since 4,000 B.C., and it did take him nearly 6,000 years to learn to wash his hands. This is just another undeniable PROOF that evolution is a lie. If mankind had evolved over millions of years, then men would have discovered these inventions a very long time ago.
The truth is that evolutionists are hardhearted against the truth of God's Word. The Word of God declares that God created the world at approximately 4,000 B.C.—YOU'D BE A FOOL NOT TO BELIEVE IT, BECAUSE THERE'S NO HISTORY PRIOR TO 4,000 B.C. As incredible as this fact is, it is undeniable proof against evolution.
A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill0 -
Crapaud - with a user name like yours, why do you have a frog avatar?
Surely Mr Toad would be a better one.0 -
Meh, evolution vs. intelligent design, the answer is irrelevant. The interesting part is the debate about it. Effectively the answer cannot be KNOW, it is unrepeatable hence the scientific method is not really applicable. It is purely a philosophical argument and as irrelevant as any such discussion.
Is a man defined by where he comes from, where he has been. No, he is defined by how he reacts to things and behaves in circumstances, which is effected by the above.
Oh and djbarren, if you don't want to sound like a ranting loon, try not shouting that everyone who doesn't believe is a fool, try using sensible arguements for ID. For example so called irreducible units, objects that are not necessarily possible to evolve, for example the knee, take away any part and it stops working. Occasionally the eye is used, which IMO is a bad example as a partial eye is much more useful than the complete absence of one.0 -
oh btw, i'm not an ID nut...
I like rational debate though, and believe in the scientific method.0 -
Gotte wrote:djbarren wrote:Stuff.
I everyone is entitled to their views, but I can't see a rational argument in there anywhere.
Surely you weren't expecting someone to produce a rational argument for the existence of God?
Sadly that's the underlying flaw with these debates - no one's opinion will change as a result of them, because each camp approaches the subject from such fundamentally different points of view.
Religion could be shown to be an evolved behaviour, conferring certain advantages in terms of survival, but unlike the OP I don't think that, as a species, we're quite ready to discard it. Too many people derive important emotional support from their faith as being the only certainty in their immediate universe for that to be a possibility.- - - - - - - - - -
On Strava.{/url}0 -
I used to have a golden toad avatar, but I aspire to frogness (and I like the pic). It's just how my avatar's evolved.johnfinch wrote:Crapaud - with a user name like yours, why do you have a frog avatar?
Surely Mr Toad would be a better one.A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill0 -
Great thread!
The old philosophical arguments are best left in history.
The arguments the ranting guy has posted are best left with those weird guys wondering round cities carrying "God Loves You" sandwich boards.
Evolution is not a theory any more than smoking fags gives you lung cancer is a theory.
Answer me this though, believers, why did God bother making man? For man to worship him? For fun? What a strange guy - I'd stay clear of someone like that!0 -
Stewie Griffin wrote:Slightly OT. I went out with a Sai Baba devotee for a very short while. Very pretty Indian girl. I thought it was going quite well until she told me that she knew that I wasnt the one after 2 dates. I asked her how she knew, had I done something wrong or offended her somehow, I assured her that I hadnt meant to. Its not your fault at all she assured me, but Sai Baba hasnt appeared to me to tell me that you are the one for me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba
I listened to her explaining her religious beliefs and agreed with her that if her God hadnt appeared to her then it wasnt to be and that I fully understood. Then I ran away as fast as I could
One of my sisters met Sai Baba once. When my son was about 2, she asked him if he had met the man (she may have been p1ssed at the time).. Now this is weird: my son turned to her and said; "yes, he is brown and frilly and poo-poo ish." He could have had no way of knowing who the guy was. She sobered up pretty quickly! [He looks a bit like James Brown, if that helps!] cannot explain! :shock:0 -
djbarren wrote:johnfinch wrote:So, er, what about the dinosaurs then? The Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, so does that mean that they never existed?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -dinosaurs
Ahhhhh, now I see... all dinosaurs were vegetarians and lived at the same time as early man.0 -
Evolution is not a theory any more than smoking fags gives you lung cancer is a theory.
Answer me this though, believers, why did God bother making man? For man to worship him? For fun? What a strange guy - I'd stay clear of someone like that!
Firstly, it is a theory because it is untestable, you cannot prove it, anymore than you can prove the existence of god. As for fags and lung cancer, strong statistical evidence not necessarily proof. Look at stress and stomach ulcers, up until fairly recently the strong statistical evidence was used to suggest treatment, until an INSANE scientist gave a better explanation backed up by giving himself an ulcer.
That's how the scientific method works, thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Coupled with paradigm shift.
As for god being strange, we ride bikes... 'nuff said! god is clearly odd and a bit of a bastard.0 -
djbarren wrote:IF, as evolutionists claim, the earth is billions of years old, and mankind has evolved from a lower and simpler form of life, then why has mankind gone from writing upon stones to laser printers in just the past 3,500 years? When God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, they were written upon stone. It is abundantly clear that the Egyptians carved messages into stone (hieroglyphics). So why is it that mankind has only discovered better inventions in the past few thousand years? If mankind had evolved, as evolutionists claim, then why didn't man discover ink a million years ago? Think about it. This is an astonishing thought--There were NO planes, cars, computers, refrigerators, electricity, lights, gas, powered-equipment, telephones, recording devices, CD players, MP3 players, electric razors, televisions, record players, movie cameras, or a million other modern technological inventions--just a mere 170 years ago. Civilization has advanced from utter primitiveness to incredible mind-boggling achievements in just a little over 100 years. So why didn't mankind discover any of this stuff 100,000,000 years ago, or 100,000 years ago for that matter?
Look at the ignorance of doctors over the past few centuries. Sanitary practices, such as washing hands, were laughed at by doctors, while thousands of patients continued to die. It was unimaginable to doctors back then, that washing one's hands somehow was related to a patient's health in the operating room. Can you believe that? Evolutionists today are just as ignorant of the truth of God's Word, and of common sense itself. It's hard to imagine that millions of people were dying from a simple lack of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) just a couple hundred years ago. If evolution is true, then it took man billions of years to learn all these kindergarten lessons. And ironically, man has only learned these lessons in the past couple hundred years. You've got to be kidding me! Don't tell me that it took mankind BILLIONS of years to learn to wash his hands to prevent disease! The truth is that mankind has taken baby-steps since 4,000 B.C., and it did take him nearly 6,000 years to learn to wash his hands. This is just another undeniable PROOF that evolution is a lie. If mankind had evolved over millions of years, then men would have discovered these inventions a very long time ago.
The truth is that evolutionists are hardhearted against the truth of God's Word. The Word of God declares that God created the world at approximately 4,000 B.C.—YOU'D BE A FOOL NOT TO BELIEVE IT, BECAUSE THERE'S NO HISTORY PRIOR TO 4,000 B.C. As incredible as this fact is, it is undeniable proof against evolution.
So the fact that it takes a while to develop as a race is proof that evolution happened? Really! Surely you can see that development doesn't just happen it takes a while to gather pace. Some fairly important discoveries where made by the ancient greeks etc. don't write off ancient civilisation as unscientific and stupid. They laid the scientific foundations. Anyway once they had been laid organised religion often got in the way of science, perhaps if it hadn't been for that, science would have progressed faster. Anyhow, once the 20th centuary got going some particularly important events happened. WW1 and WW2 in particular spurred mankind on. Furthermore once travelling/communicating across large areas became development speed up incredibly as scientists could exchange ideas quickly. These factors meant that everything came to a head rather quickly.
What does evolution say about stuff like the appendix and the tailbone. As far as I'm aware (engineer not a biologist) both of them add little to the human body other than problems.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
djbarren wrote:archaic. How so? The use of a form of speech or writing that is no longer current?
Archaic def: marked by the characteristics of an earlier period; antiquated: an archaic manner; an archaic notion.
I suppose you could argue that if you hold that view, then it can not be archaic, as you live in the present, and as such, you view is current. But what I mean, I suppose, if I must spell it out is that it is a view which goes against the generally held precepts of modern theological belief. To whit, the Bilble, the Old Testament especially is not a reliable historical text but rather a series of stories, some with a historical grounding, granted, which were handed down to explain the creation and functioning of a world that was, at the time, unexplainable in any other way.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning your belief in god - that's your right. I would just question the rigidity of your belief in the Bible as a historical text.0 -
DesWeller wrote:Gotte wrote:djbarren wrote:Stuff.
I everyone is entitled to their views, but I can't see a rational argument in there anywhere.
Surely you weren't expecting someone to produce a rational argument for the existence of God?
Sadly that's the underlying flaw with these debates - no one's opinion will change as a result of them, because each camp approaches the subject from such fundamentally different points of view.
Religion could be shown to be an evolved behaviour, conferring certain advantages in terms of survival, but unlike the OP I don't think that, as a species, we're quite ready to discard it. Too many people derive important emotional support from their faith as being the only certainty in their immediate universe for that to be a possibility.
No. I meant a rational argument as to why evolution is not the way we evolved. Even if he couldn;t have furnished us with any scientific backup for his view that God created Adam and Eve, a philosphical argument about the nature of human belief or the progress of understanding might have been interesting.
Maybe next time I should just go down the WTF route, but I like to keep it civil.
FWIW, I agree wholeheartedly with what you say in your post.0 -
djbarren wrote:IF, as evolutionists claim, the earth is billions of years old, and mankind has evolved from a lower and simpler form of life, then why has mankind gone from writing upon stones to laser printers in just the past 3,500 years? When God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, they were written upon stone. It is abundantly clear that the Egyptians carved messages into stone (hieroglyphics). So why is it that mankind has only discovered better inventions in the past few thousand years? If mankind had evolved, as evolutionists claim, then why didn't man discover ink a million years ago? Think about it. This is an astonishing thought--There were NO planes, cars, computers, refrigerators, electricity, lights, gas, powered-equipment, telephones, recording devices, CD players, MP3 players, electric razors, televisions, record players, movie cameras, or a million other modern technological inventions--just a mere 170 years ago. Civilization has advanced from utter primitiveness to incredible mind-boggling achievements in just a little over 100 years. So why didn't mankind discover any of this stuff 100,000,000 years ago, or 100,000 years ago for that matter?
Look at the ignorance of doctors over the past few centuries. Sanitary practices, such as washing hands, were laughed at by doctors, while thousands of patients continued to die. It was unimaginable to doctors back then, that washing one's hands somehow was related to a patient's health in the operating room. Can you believe that? Evolutionists today are just as ignorant of the truth of God's Word, and of common sense itself. It's hard to imagine that millions of people were dying from a simple lack of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) just a couple hundred years ago. If evolution is true, then it took man billions of years to learn all these kindergarten lessons. And ironically, man has only learned these lessons in the past couple hundred years. You've got to be kidding me! Don't tell me that it took mankind BILLIONS of years to learn to wash his hands to prevent disease! The truth is that mankind has taken baby-steps since 4,000 B.C., and it did take him nearly 6,000 years to learn to wash his hands. This is just another undeniable PROOF that evolution is a lie. If mankind had evolved over millions of years, then men would have discovered these inventions a very long time ago.
The truth is that evolutionists are hardhearted against the truth of God's Word. The Word of God declares that God created the world at approximately 4,000 B.C.—YOU'D BE A FOOL NOT TO BELIEVE IT, BECAUSE THERE'S NO HISTORY PRIOR TO 4,000 B.C. As incredible as this fact is, it is undeniable proof against evolution.
Probably a little late in the discussion..... but to me that is a classic learning curve. In the early stages of life a child learns little and slowly. As the knowledge base grows and they learn how to take knowledge on board the rate at which they learn increases dramatically. They then plateau and the rate at which they learn drops as the mind fills with information. The same curve can be applied to the human race. in thousands of years they learned how to use the materials around them. Then over the last few hundred years they have learned how to manipulate them and as such technology and knowledge has advanced massively compared to the previous many thousand years. But progression is now starting to slow down.... the rate of learning is decreasing as is the rate of technological progression.0
