Is God real post your thoughts!

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

Honestly, after listening to

, I kind of started to realize that the whole Jesus thing is pretty out there and ridiculous. I mean, walking on water, having people eat his body and all.... Seriously -.- (Don't mean to offend anyone, this is just my opinion) That, along with all the other stuff in christianity, like Noah's Ark and all that stuff, its just so out there, and it seems like someone just made up this stuff. Not to mention that according to them the earth was created in 7 days, and only a couple thousand years ago... However, we have TONS of proof that the earth has been around for billions of years.

 

As far as "god", I'm not really sure. MAYBE (and thats a big maybe) theres some sort of "higher being" out there, but I really don't know.

 

 

 

Once again, I'm not trying to offend anyone at all, just voicing my opinion.

 

There is probably some truth to noah's ark. Except for about three every single culture in the world has a story about a global flood. I have never heard about every single culture making up the same exact story.

 

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if every primitive culture had their own flood story, but that doesn't mean there was a global flood. It's much more likely that they were all local floods that were incorrectly interpreted to be global. After all, in the past a local flood would have seemed like a global flood; there was no communication with other cultures and no knowledge of high places like Everest. All these people knew was their own local area; it was quite literally the world to them.

 

Nearly every culture on the planet has/had myths about dragons, even though the cultures were fully unconnect. This does not mean dragons are real.

[/hide]

 

 

 

If I recall, the logical explanation for this is fossils of winged dinosaurs/fossils that looked like dragons. Its a bit of a stretch, but it makes some sense.

[Saru Inc]

In my opinion though, you can't really connect things like floods to dragons. Bad analogies. And while yes, they may not have had communication, I don't believe people back then were "Neanderthals" or morons, I think after the flood happened, they would have searched around to see the extent of the damage.

[Wisp]

[hide=]

Honestly, after listening to

, I kind of started to realize that the whole Jesus thing is pretty out there and ridiculous. I mean, walking on water, having people eat his body and all.... Seriously -.- (Don't mean to offend anyone, this is just my opinion) That, along with all the other stuff in christianity, like Noah's Ark and all that stuff, its just so out there, and it seems like someone just made up this stuff. Not to mention that according to them the earth was created in 7 days, and only a couple thousand years ago... However, we have TONS of proof that the earth has been around for billions of years.

 

As far as "god", I'm not really sure. MAYBE (and thats a big maybe) theres some sort of "higher being" out there, but I really don't know.

 

 

 

Once again, I'm not trying to offend anyone at all, just voicing my opinion.

 

There is probably some truth to noah's ark. Except for about three every single culture in the world has a story about a global flood. I have never heard about every single culture making up the same exact story.

 

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if every primitive culture had their own flood story, but that doesn't mean there was a global flood. It's much more likely that they were all local floods that were incorrectly interpreted to be global. After all, in the past a local flood would have seemed like a global flood; there was no communication with other cultures and no knowledge of high places like Everest. All these people knew was their own local area; it was quite literally the world to them.

 

Nearly every culture on the planet has/had myths about dragons, even though the cultures were fully unconnect. This does not mean dragons are real.

[/hide]

 

 

 

If I recall, the logical explanation for this is fossils of winged dinosaurs/fossils that looked like dragons. Its a bit of a stretch, but it makes some sense.

 

I've heard that, but who knows. A logical explanation for flood stories would just be a big flood. Not global by any means, just a big flood that happened for each culture at different times, like one of the people above me said

[Lateralus]

Actually, it's about a 50-50 amount of evidence for and against the Creation of the Earth. It's more of a if you see this data, do you have a mind set toward evolution, or creationism?

 

 

 

Who told you this? It's absolutely ridiculous.

[Jaffy1]

Actually, it's about a 50-50 amount of evidence for and against the Creation of the Earth. It's more of a if you see this data, do you have a mind set toward evolution, or creationism?

 

 

 

 

 

Indeed ridiculous. Please dó elaborate supply us of an example that supports the creationism theory.

 

 

 

Oh, and please explain why this god is a male, and who/what created "him"

[Dizzle229]

Actually, it's about a 50-50 amount of evidence for and against the Creation of the Earth. It's more of a if you see this data, do you have a mind set toward evolution, or creationism?

 

 

 

Who told you this? It's absolutely ridiculous.

 

 

 

He's pretty much right, it's all bout mindset.

 

 

 

I have to say it again. God. Science. I think it's both. But NOT SCIENTOLOGY. Scientology r noob.

[Lateralus]

Actually, it's about a 50-50 amount of evidence for and against the Creation of the Earth. It's more of a if you see this data, do you have a mind set toward evolution, or creationism?

 

 

 

Who told you this? It's absolutely ridiculous.

 

 

 

He's pretty much right, it's all bout mindset.

 

 

 

I have to say it again. God. Science. I think it's both. But NOT SCIENTOLOGY. Scientology r noob.

 

 

 

If you mean that the data can be distorted by Creationist pseudoscientists, then you're correct, but this doesn't change the data itself. You only need to look at the percentage of ACTUAL scientists who stand by evolution - Believer and non-believer - to get an indication of where the truth lies. You only need to put an evolutionary scientest in a debate with a creationist to see which is the stronger theory. It makes me smile to see the creationist flounder, and it happens every single time.

 

 

 

Of course the untruth of creationism doesn't mean that there's no god, and believers are really not doing themselves any favours by indulging these wackjobs and their garbage.

[Dizzle229]

Actually, it's about a 50-50 amount of evidence for and against the Creation of the Earth. It's more of a if you see this data, do you have a mind set toward evolution, or creationism?

 

 

 

Who told you this? It's absolutely ridiculous.

 

 

 

He's pretty much right, it's all bout mindset.

 

 

 

I have to say it again. God. Science. I think it's both. But NOT SCIENTOLOGY. Scientology r noob.

 

 

 

If you mean that the data can be distorted by Creationist pseudoscientists, then you're correct, but this doesn't change the data itself.

 

 

 

Of course. If I believe in the flying spaghetti monster, that doesn't make it real.

 

 

 

Of course the untruth of creationism doesn't mean that there's no god, and believers are really not doing themselves any favours by indulging these wackjobs and their garbage

 

 

 

Exactly. Although I personally think that there is a God, that doesn't mean that anything we don't understand can be taken as a sign.

[Saru Inc]

Actually, it's about a 50-50 amount of evidence for and against the Creation of the Earth. It's more of a if you see this data, do you have a mind set toward evolution, or creationism?

 

 

 

Who told you this? It's absolutely ridiculous.

 

 

 

He's pretty much right, it's all bout mindset.

 

 

 

I have to say it again. God. Science. I think it's both. But NOT SCIENTOLOGY. Scientology r noob.

 

 

 

If you mean that the data can be distorted by Creationist pseudoscientists, then you're correct, but this doesn't change the data itself. You only need to look at the percentage of ACTUAL scientists who stand by evolution - Believer and non-believer - to get an indication of where the truth lies. You only need to put an evolutionary scientest in a debate with a creationist to see which is the stronger theory. It makes me smile to see the creationist flounder, and it happens every single time.

 

 

 

Of course the untruth of creationism doesn't mean that there's no god, and believers are really not doing themselves any favours by indulging these wackjobs and their garbage.

 

 

 

I'm not going to degrade myself by giving you information you're already going to disregard. Showing your obvious bias and unneeded hatred towards Christian Scientists. Tell me how one's faith makes them a bad scientist. Oh, and btw, unfortunately Lateralus, just because you say something is ridiculous, doesn't mean it is. And it makes me wonder what could make you despise Christian Scientists so much, if we're wrong, we're wrong. It's not like you'll go to hell, since after all, you don't believe in one, if you follow what we say. And let me give you an example:

 

 

 

[hide=A Quote From Michael Behe]

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Now, you could see this as obvious evidence for Creationism. Or, you could say it's for evolution, because since the universe has been around for "billions" of years, then maybe it just took so long it finally made a cell? Do you see what I'm saying, this is data. And based on yuor mindset, can be for or against evolution.

 

 

 

And Jaffy1, may I ask what is your perception of the idea of a "god" ? Because I believe that no one made him, and it's hard for me to fathom it when I really think about it. But as Dizzle said, while things we may not understand cannot be taken as a sign that there's a God, on the flip side, just because we cannot understand something, doesn't mean it's wrong.

[aspokaspofkjsopfkapo]

 

And Jaffy1, may I ask what is your perception of the idea of a "god" ? Because I believe that no one made him, and it's hard for me to fathom it when I really think about it. But as Dizzle said, while things we may not understand cannot be taken as a sign that there's a God, on the flip side, just because we cannot understand something, doesn't mean it's wrong.

 

So what you're saying is that you take it all on faith?

[Saru Inc]

No, and I can't see how you could ever deduce that from what I said. Did you read the quote?

[aspokaspofkjsopfkapo]

In the quote he just makes a claim that is not backed up by evidence. He does not say why that cannot happen, just that it cannot.

 

 

 

Here's a much more in depth rebuttle of that argument.

[Lateralus]

 

I'm not going to degrade myself by giving you information you're already going to disregard. Showing your obvious bias and unneeded hatred towards Christian Scientists. Tell me how one's faith makes them a bad scientist. Oh, and btw, unfortunately Lateralus, just because you say something is ridiculous, doesn't mean it is. And it makes me wonder what could make you despise Christian Scientists so much, if we're wrong, we're wrong. It's not like you'll go to hell, since after all, you don't believe in one, if you follow what we say.

 

 

 

I make by bias and hatred obvious because I feel that it's necessary. My bias is not from ignorance, nor is my disgust. The term alone is enough to make one wretch. Christian Scientist. The fact that there's a qualifier already shows that these people do not have the impartiality that the scientific method requires. If your faith gives you the picture that the jigsaw makes when finished and requires you to force the pieces to fit, then it absolutely makes you a bad scientist. I've already stated that there are plenty of good and honest theist scientists out there (highly respected and influencial ones at that), but these are ones who observe the method that has served us so well.

 

 

 

The second half of this paragraph is completely asinine. Do you expect me to put 'in my opinion' before everything I say? What is it going to be other than that? I despise Creationists because they spew misinformation and stunt intellectual growth. I feel that this is a massive problem, not just for myself, but for everyone. What kind of morality would it be for me to ignore a problem that I feel so strongly about?

 

 

 

And let me give you an example:

 

 

 

[hide=A Quote From Michael Behe]

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Now, you could see this as obvious evidence for Creationism. Or, you could say it's for evolution, because since the universe has been around for "billions" of years, then maybe it just took so long it finally made a cell? Do you see what I'm saying, this is data. And based on yuor mindset, can be for or against evolution.

 

 

 

I was hoping for something so much more than irreducible complexity. The argument has been picked apart by the scientific community.

 

 

 

I want to make it absolutely clear that I'm not some kind of crazed 'evolutionist'. The fact is that evolution is the best answer that we have - by a huge margin - and people are being led astray by desperate attempts at science by religions that have been rapidly losing credibility. The best thing that Creationism can say for itself is that it has encouraged thousands of real Scientists and freethinkers to try and get the facts out there.

[Saru Inc]

Because that was simply a summary I got from googling it. What it's saying, is that there are somethings you simply can't just break down to smaller parts. No matter how many scenarios it went through in nature, time alone simply couldn't.

 

 

 

Another example of how it's mindset over matter:

 

 

 

There aren't any fossils of of animals in a "transitional" state. Now Creationists take this as Evolution is a farce. But Evolutionists may just say, that it just means we haven't found any yet.

 

 

 

A good movie you may want to watch is "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" it's pretty good, semi boring though.

 

 

 

And just so you know, that argument that since they're called christian scientists means they're biased, is no different from someone saying Athiestic Scientist. No difference, Atheists ARE predisposed to Evolution. Which obviously shows bias, and questions the validity of a scientist. And don't act like Christians are out there to kill all knowledge, good grief. That's childish, it makes me wonder, what could possess a Christian Scholar to only pursue the career so they could kill intelligence? Need I remind all of the religious Scientists that have brought about so much of what we know today? Notice I didn't say Christian, but religious. As in Deist, Muslim etc. They're all still religions, and no different from Christianity.

 

 

 

And at least post an example of how it's disproved, instead of saying it; like a poster did above you.

[fastortoise]

Saruman, have you heard of 'emergent properties'?

[Saru Inc]

Actually no, I'm not a scientist, and find it quite boring. And I'm aware Behe was disproved, as someone posted above, the whole point of that quote, was how it was about your mindset. Sheesh.

[Wisp]

One major thing that bothers me with religion and those who follow a specific one, is how many religions there are. The only reason (barring the occasional convert from other religions, a very small percentage of people) you follow your religion is because that is what you grew up with or what you were taught. If you grew up in a different situation, you could have grown up following any number of different religions, each with claims no more ridiculous than your own. There is no evidence that your religion has that another religion doesn't have, the majority of religions have scripture, which is pretty much the only "proof" of religion.

 

 

 

Secondly, my answer to anyone asking where the universe came from if god didn't make it: We don't know. But that doesn't mean I'm going to make up something to fill in the things I don't know.

[fastortoise]

Actually no, I'm not a scientist, and find it quite boring. And I'm aware Behe was disproved, as someone posted above, the whole point of that quote, was how it was about your mindset. Sheesh.

 

So, your mindset (which you share with those of Creationists) includes completely ignoring strong scientific theories?

 

 

 

Sounds about right.

[Saru Inc]

Actually no, I'm not a scientist, and find it quite boring. And I'm aware Behe was disproved, as someone posted above, the whole point of that quote, was how it was about your mindset. Sheesh.

 

So, your mindset (which you share with those of Creationists) includes completely ignoring strong scientific theories?

 

 

 

Sounds about right.

 

 

 

Stop making cryptic nonsensical messages, all I stated is that I'm not saying the Wiki article is wrong, I'm just saying I wasn't trying to disprove Evolution, but prove that it's what your mind is biased to. And I think you might be referring to how I find Scientist boring. I find Church boring, it doesn't mean I'm going to hell. I find Physics boring, it doesn't mean I'm stupid. I find Jazz Music boring\in bad taste. that doesn't mean that I am not a good musician. Clearly, if you're talking about what I stated, then me saying watching a show about the progression of an atom is boring, doesn't mean I'm a belligerent ignorant Intelligence-hating god extremist. Which you're trying to paint me to be. Why do I even get involved.

[Lateralus]

Because that was simply a summary I got from googling it. What it's saying, is that there are somethings you simply can't just break down to smaller parts. No matter how many scenarios it went through in nature, time alone simply couldn't.

 

 

 

Another example of how it's mindset over matter:

 

 

 

There aren't any fossils of of animals in a "transitional" state. Now Creationists take this as Evolution is a farce. But Evolutionists may just say, that it just means we haven't found any yet.

 

 

 

A good movie you may want to watch is "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" it's pretty good, semi boring though.

 

 

 

And just so you know, that argument that since they're called christian scientists means they're biased, is no different from someone saying Athiestic Scientist. No difference, Atheists ARE predisposed to Evolution. Which obviously shows bias, and questions the validity of a scientist. And don't act like Christians are out there to kill all knowledge, good grief. That's childish, it makes me wonder, what could possess a Christian Scholar to only pursue the career so they could kill intelligence? Need I remind all of the religious Scientists that have brought about so much of what we know today? Notice I didn't say Christian, but religious. As in Deist, Muslim etc. They're all still religions, and no different from Christianity.

 

 

 

And at least post an example of how it's disproved, instead of saying it; like a poster did above you.

 

 

 

Please stop misrepresenting my argument. I even went as far to say that there are many good theist scientists out there, but that they don't feel the need to call themselves Christian Scientists. Taking offense to things I never said is a waste of time. Christians who do not stand in the way of the pursuit of knowledge are fine with me. Creationists, who try to ban the teaching of evolution and burn books and disguise obviously religious literature under the guise of Intelligent Design are the people with whom I have a bone to pick.

 

 

 

Do you really need me to post links for you? Google "irreducible complexity" and "transitional fossil" - It's all there, and it's the same way that I learned about the arguments creationists make.

 

 

 

I appreciate the suggestion but I don't think I'll watch that film. I think I'd be close to hanging myself if I didn't have something better to do than watch Ben Stein waffle for a few hours. I know the arguments that Creationists make and why they make them, so I am well armed for this debate.

[Saru Inc]

I think Lateralus, we just need to agree to disagree. Because I think we're both not undertsanding each other they way we want us to be understood. I'm only backing up my argument that it's about mindset over matter. That's it. Please don't take offence to this, and I'm not trying to be callous, but I don't really care if you believe in Evolution or not, it doesn't affect me.

[Lateralus]

Don't do that. This is interesting and we'll never get anywhere by agreeing to disagree.

[Saru Inc]

Well it's hard for there to be any point in an internet debate, since usually both sides already aren't willing to give any ground for their minds.

[mmmcannibalism]

Well it's hard for there to be any point in an internet debate, since usually both sides already aren't willing to give any ground for their minds.

 

 

 

I dont know, me and mage had a good abortion debate a good while ago.

 

 

 

on topic--I dont think I have ever heard someone describe themself as an atheistic scientist

[Saru Inc]

Well it's hard for there to be any point in an internet debate, since usually both sides already aren't willing to give any ground for their minds.

 

 

 

I dont know, me and mage had a good abortion debate a good while ago.

 

 

 

on topic--I dont think I have ever heard someone describe themself as an atheistic scientist

 

 

 

 

 

Well if you're not religious, including agnostic, what else are you but an atheist? So if you're not a creationist, you're either evolutionist or anything else. But if Creationism is faith, aka theism, and you don't believe in it then you're A-theism or atheistic. Right?