[quote]ParanoidAndroid wrote:
I find it odd that people actualy still beleave in religion, its like people still beleave the world is flat[/quote]I find it odd that people who fancy themselves evolved and advanced enough to sneer at the existence of their own creator can’t spell “actually” or believe", but ya know oddities do come in diverse packages. Ok, “actualy” may have been a typo, I’ll give ya that one.
“No intelligent design though, that’s a load of shit” REALLY??
Then how? How can someone, anyone, look at the complexity of this world, from the soil under your feet to the sky and solar system over your head, to the hundred’s of thousands of animals, plants, fishes etc, “it” just all happened? Accidental? Look at the way nature works within itself. Accident? C’mon. Seriously?
The only good big bang theory is on TV…that’s a funny show…Thursdays this fall. Penny is hot.
Did we evolve from apes? Is that true? If so, when during that evolution did man develop his own blood and not the blood of apes and monkeys? If I need a transfusion and my blood type is O pos, I can get a transfusion from any man…white, black, yellow, red, redneck, hippie…don’t matter, if the blood is the same type. I die if you give me ape blood, or monkey blood. How did that happen? I doubt we could evolve out of blood.
Point is belief. I choose to believe in God and His hand in the whole scheme of things. There was a time I did not, so I do understand that argument. Others belief is that they don’t believe, not in the way I do, but in their own way. So be it. I don’t judge your heart. If your choice is to think that some huge explosion in the middle of nowhere at the perfect time and place created the perfect earth to be able to create its own ecostystem, complete with all needed and pertinent checks and balances, to be exactly where it needs to be in relation to the sun, and this explosion created not only man…in all his various forms, but also every type of land animal, bird, and fish and then continued to create every plant and tree and herb…all from this simple explosion…then go ahead and believe that. I think it takes more belief to accept that than it does to accept God.
[quote]69GoatMan wrote:
“No intelligent design though, that’s a load of shit” REALLY??
Then how? How can someone, anyone, look at the complexity of this world, from the soil under your feet to the sky and solar system over your head, to the hundred’s of thousands of animals, plants, fishes etc, “it” just all happened? Accidental? Look at the way nature works within itself. Accident? C’mon. Seriously?
The only good big bang theory is on TV…that’s a funny show…Thursdays this fall. Penny is hot.
Did we evolve from apes? Is that true? If so, when during that evolution did man develop his own blood and not the blood of apes and monkeys? If I need a transfusion and my blood type is O pos, I can get a transfusion from any man…white, black, yellow, red, redneck, hippie…don’t matter, if the blood is the same type. I die if you give me ape blood, or monkey blood. How did that happen? I doubt we could evolve out of blood.
Point is belief. I choose to believe in God and His hand in the whole scheme of things. There was a time I did not, so I do understand that argument. Others belief is that they don’t believe, not in the way I do, but in their own way. So be it. I don’t judge your heart. If your choice is to think that some huge explosion in the middle of nowhere at the perfect time and place created the perfect earth to be able to create its own ecostystem, complete with all needed and pertinent checks and balances, to be exactly where it needs to be in relation to the sun, and this explosion created not only man…in all his various forms, but also every type of land animal, bird, and fish and then continued to create every plant and tree and herb…all from this simple explosion…then go ahead and believe that. I think it takes more belief to accept that than it does to accept God.[/quote]
If you’ve been taught about the theory of evolution and came to the conclusion that “It all happened by accident”, then you either have a poor grasp of the concept, or you had a crappy teacher. The point of the theory is not that it all happened by accident, but that nature developed out of necessity for its own survival. It is typical human hubris to see complexity in nature, and particularly in natural history, and think “That’s complicated, it must have been created on purpose by some sort of mind that functions in the same way as mine”. You mistake the evolution of apes as human ancestors for something which took place over the timeframes of religious texts.
The strand of apes’ evolutionary chain which eventually developed into humans developed over hundreds of millions of years, which understandably removed Homo Sapiens substantially from their ancestors. This includes the compatibility of their blood. Put simply, while apes are the ancestors of the human race, they’re a different species! Of course a blood tranfusion between the two wouldn’t work!
The Big Bang, “a simple explosion”? This suggests to me that you also have no grasp of either the nature of The Big Bang, or the immense timeframe over which science can prove our universe, and our planet, was formed.
I agree that it does take a measure of faith to subscribe to it. The key difference is that my faith in the theory of evolution is based in observable fact, whereas any belief that I may have in a divine deity is not. If you have read my previous post, you would see that for me, science is by no means the be-all and end-all. I do believe in some sort of regulating force in what we perceive as reality. Again, the key difference here is that I am honest with myself about the fact that these gut feelings are totally unsubstantiated. Is there an observable fact that you can point to which proves the existence of God in your eyes? I can accept if there isn’t - my own beliefs are based sheer gut feeling, and feelings in my heart. But don’t try to tell me that an intelligent mind was responsible for things which science has explained in observable and measurable empirical fact.
Uninformed and poorly thought out posts such as yours make me question the feelings I have towards spirituality and side with the atheist point of view.
Nutshell conversations here, not into overly drawn out thesis as to the length of time it takes to build a world, hence the all too short synopsis of the Big Bang. Sorry to offend and not delve into the broader picture. I do see evidence of God, I have explained that in previous posts. I too have gut feelings as to the nature of us and just how does it all come together. I don’t think that the world was created a few thousand years ago, science tells us otherwise and can show us that, I don’t ignore science or its discoveries. Some do that as they would think it weakens their faith, but why can’t the two have bearings on each other?
While I do a great deal of study in the Bible and try to dig from every angle, I have lingering questions.
Lots of those “What would you ask God” if you had a chance questions. Yes it takes a lot of faith to believe in the unseen, which is a good definition of the word. It also takes a great deal of faith to believe, even over the time span given us, that out of nothing, life as we know it and see it, exists. Both are huge leaps.
More so for those of us that only understand what our feeble minds will let them…and it has been decades since I sat in a classroom.
You don’t know me, I don’t know you. Nor do you understand the heart from which these posts are made.
I am not trying to “win” or to “lose” any of these posts, only to raise an interest in further study.
If your reference in your last comment suggested that I think all science and their discoveries are nonsense, then you misread. My suggestion was the amount of faith it takes to believe whatever one believes.
Atheists “believe”. Christians “believe”. Muslims “believe”. Buddhist “believe”. Scientists “believe”.
Just in different things and ways.
It is not my place or desire in life to judge right or wrong, but to press on with what I have to come to believe and to understand. You say you have gut feelings and feelings in your heart, so do I. Some days it would be easier to not believe.
LMAO - what does it say about the religious views of people when a discussion of religion leads to the positing of evolution as established fact . . . hmmm . . . I thought the scientific method was based on reason and not mere unprovable assumption.
Ok, as much as I’d totally loooooove yet ANOTHER evolution thread, could we please not do that here? Let’s keep this thread for philosophy and rational basis for faith/one true religion vs. no one right religion questions.
Speaking of philosophy, it bothers me a great deal when people say things like “my belief in evolution is based on observable fact whereas any belief in a diety is not” as if observation and philosophy are mutually exclusive. They are not. They go hand in hand, albeit in a different way. Or when said quote is posited as an argument that science is ipso facto superior to philosophical logic. It is not. They are simply different. And there are things no science can solve, or likely ever will. They once were considered two sides of the same coin with regard to human rational thought and in my humble opinion still should be.
It bothers me that people speak in this manner as if, if one were to show some completely sound and valid deductive proof of God’s existence it would still somehow be disputable because it was not based on “science”. Speaking as an academically trained scientist, someone taking this position speaks of a serious misunderstanding of science. …Now, if one can admit that this would not, in fact, be the case for any rational human being, then the door is opened necessarily to the question of whether an exceedingly likely (very great chance of being true) inductive proof of God’s existence would be acceptable as rational. The question thus becomes one of “what amount of likelihood” or “what amount of reason” is acceptable as rational thought.
This to my mind is a far more accurate way to frame the question of rational belief–which is an integral part of the “right religion” question. It is not the only accurate way, but it is far more accurate to my mind.
On a very related note to my post above, one should UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES mistake the argument over whether belief in God is rational as one over whether belief in God is TRUE. This is an exceedingly common–and extraordinarily irritating–mistake in these sorts of discussions or debates.
One can quite rationally believe things that turn out to be untrue. The truth of the matter does not necessarily dictate the rationality of belief, particularly when the truth of the matter is unknown.
A definition of BELIEF: a chronic thought.
Nothing more, nothing less.
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
A definition of BELIEF: a chronic thought.
Nothing more, nothing less.[/quote]
“A” definition. Certainly not “the” definition. And really doesn’t address the thought being held as a truth. I think you could come up with a better definition, yes?
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
A definition of BELIEF: a chronic thought.
Nothing more, nothing less.[/quote]
amazing how posts are self-discovery . . .
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
For example, Hinduism is fundamentally “pantheistic.”[/quote]
Monotheistic depending on what sect you jive with.
Also, fundamentally stupid and hilarious.
I’d run with batshit crazy.
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
A definition of BELIEF: a chronic thought.
Nothing more, nothing less.[/quote]
“A” definition. Certainly not “the” definition. And really doesn’t address the thought being held as a truth. I think you could come up with a better definition, yes?[/quote]
Ha. Sorry to disappoint you. It’s not even MY definition. Just “A” definition that I liked.
I am going to go with “belief” being defined as that motion of the will whereby an object of knowledge is regarded as veracious and factual. Belief can be present whether said object is actually veracious and factual or not. The actual veracity and factualness of a potential object of knowledge does not dictate whether “belief” will follow or not in a given individual in itself. It is also possible to refuse “belief” regarding an object of knowledge even in the presence of the evidence of overwhelming veracity and factualness.
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
A definition of BELIEF: a chronic thought.
Nothing more, nothing less.[/quote]
“A” definition. Certainly not “the” definition. And really doesn’t address the thought being held as a truth. I think you could come up with a better definition, yes?[/quote]
Ha. Sorry to disappoint you. It’s not even MY definition. Just “A” definition that I liked. [/quote]
Not disappointed, but now I’m a little confused I guess. What then was the point of adding “nothing more, nothing less”, if it was just “A” definition? In adding that, it kinda adds a more definitive nature to your definition than just “a definition that I liked”.
[/quote]Not disappointed, but now I’m a little confused I guess. What then was the point of adding “nothing more, nothing less”, if it was just “A” definition? In adding that, it kinda adds a more definitive nature to your definition than just “a definition that I liked”.[/quote]
It’s just part of the definition dude. And I still like it. It’s simple and I believe, mostly accurate.
[quote]orion wrote:
No offense, but that vid SUCKED, entirely.
Maybe God created us to take care of that crap, or to not allow it to happen in the first place.
There is the theory that we need the crap, as a necessity, to see contrast (good-evil), to choose and create the ‘good’.
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
No offense, but that vid SUCKED, entirely.
Maybe God created us to take care of that crap, or to not allow it to happen in the first place.
There is the theory that we need the crap, as a necessity, to see contrast (good-evil), to choose and create the ‘good’.[/quote]
So you have a theory why it is all ok anyway and how you God only puts it out there to make us grow by overcoming obstacles.
Good for you, I guess.
You are sure that you watched the video?
Yeah I watched the video. It’s like hey God why did you do this to us? Why won’t you save us? Why aren’t you answering? It was a very passive, look what you’ve done to me/us, victim voice. God’s the bad guy. (Don’t worry, I’ve been there)
I’m just suggesting, that maybe, possibly, we could grow a spine, stand up and clean up the mess ourselves. As the saying goes…God helps those that help themselves.
That’s what I saw anyway. Everyone is going to have their different take on it because everyone looks at it through their own lens. No view is wrong. Even the passive, victim view is valid to someone. I just wouldn’t choose to stay in that place very long because well, it SUCKS.
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
A definition of BELIEF: a chronic thought.
Nothing more, nothing less.[/quote]
Oh how I love people that think a statement is all that is needed in an ARGUMENT. Give you a definition of argument just encase you forgot.
MADE OF PREMISES WITH ONE PREMISE AS THE CONCLUSION, AND THE OTHER PREMISES AS THE LOGICAL PROOF TO PROVE THE CONCLUSION LOGICALLY CORRECT.