If you believe in god, you're an idiot...

[theaetatus]

science is a belief system lmao

faith and belief are absolutely not synonymous, and science is a 100% faith-based system.

You don't think anything through before you type this rubbish do you? :P

Of course no one man knows all of the scientific studies that have been made, but theories are not just instantly believed, they are tested and approached from a skeptical standpoint. Evidence is required for the theory to become seen as useful.

Religion is the opposite. The theories (I use this word as a counterpoint, I realise I am demeaning it by using it in a theological context) are taken as truth to start with and questioning or testing is positively discouraged.

Certainly some belief is required in both cases, but some belief is required in every single thought due to the fickle nature of perception and our interpretation of sense-data, and to equate the two on this basis is extremely disingenuous.

[Alarti0001]

This sentence seems simply contradictory to me. Science is nothing but the repeated application of the scientific method. But maybe what you are trying to say is that you don't consider choosing the empirical answer an act of faith but instead reason.

In that case I submit that science clearly requires faith. Remember Popper: science is the set of theories that 1) are testable and 2) have not yet been proven false. So even when you make the 'logical' decision you are to some extent making a leap of faith, and those theories are falsified all the time: think grue/bleen or Newton's laws of motion or a turkey's estimate of a farmer's concern for his well-being. Even worse, you have to believe in the predictability of the universe - something you cannot by definition prove inductively.

Hence why they are called theories you use them because they are the best of what we know with the information we are able to obtain.

Scientists have trust or confidence in the scientific method because of its repeated history of solving problems or questions. There is much evidence to support this with hundreds or thousands of years of testable data.

[Darthmuhh]

Ironic you call me a bigot for wanting to see religion. Ironic in the sense that Religion creates, condones, and encourages intolerance in so far as to call for genocides and oppression.

Wait...oh, I see...yer talking about the muslims w/ the genocides and oppression. So genius Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong were not responsible for tens of millions of deaths? Umm yeah, guess you know it all though, huh? You talk out the side of yer head showing what a moron you truly are and spew the same mindless crap that you read some place on the internet trying to look like yer a cool rebel...eh, pathetic.

If you are such a free thinker then you should be above all of the religion hype with your superior intellect....eh, guess not =D Glen Beck, sends kisses.

[Darthmuhh]

WHY DO THEY CALL IT AN XBOX 360?! CAUSE WHEN YOU SEE IT, YOU DO A 360 AND WALK AWAY!!!


LOLOLOLWOWTRADECHAT!!!!RELIGIONHITLERGEARSCORENWOR D!!!!!!!

Ummm, wouldnt you be walking right for it again =D You cabt resists it pull :eek:

[Reiker000]

You don't think anything through before you type this rubbish do you? :P

Hasbinbad is an idiot, stop arguing with him.

[Hasbinlulz]

You don't think anything through before you type this rubbish do you? :P

Of course no one man knows all of the scientific studies that have been made, but theories are not just instantly believed, they are tested and approached from a skeptical standpoint. Evidence is required for the theory to become seen as useful.

Religion is the opposite. The theories (I use this word as a counterpoint, I realise I am demeaning it by using it in a theological context) are taken as truth to start with and questioning or testing is positively discouraged.

Certainly some belief is required in both cases, but some belief is required in every single thought due to the fickle nature of perception and our interpretation of sense-data, and to equate the two on this basis is extremely disingenuous.
Religion and faith are not synonyms.
Science is a faith-based system. Go ask your professor. :P

[Hasbinlulz]

Hasbinbad is an idiot, stop arguing with him.
Hasbinbad says, 'XY and Z are true because of AB and C.'
Reiker says, 'Oh yeah, well you're just stupid.'

[Alarti0001]

Hasbinbad says, 'XY and Z are true because of AB and C.'
Reiker says, 'Oh yeah, well you're just stupid.'

Hasbinbad says XYZ are true because of his ABC opinions.-- (Can not separate evidence from opinion) --

[Hasbinlulz]

Scientists have trust or confidence in the scientific method because of its repeated history of solving problems or questions. There is much evidence to support this with hundreds or thousands of years of testable data.
Without empirical results, this trust in the scientific method (inclusive of peer review) rather than trust in individual scientists, is synonymous with faith, and is a crutch used by all scientists to actually get work done instead of going around and testing everything empirically themselves, which no scientist has the time or funding to do.

[Alarti0001]

Without empirical results, this trust in the scientific method (inclusive of peer review) rather than trust in individual scientists, is synonymous with faith, and is a crutch used by all scientists to actually get work done instead of going around and testing everything empirically themselves, which no scientist has the time or funding to do.

Trust isnt faith, the definitions of rudimentary words escape you. You can say they are the same as much as you want however, you will be wrong, as usual. Trust can be synonymous with confidence however, which is why science generally develops tests within confidence intervals, ex 5 sigma.

[Hasbinlulz]

Ok wait. A scientist often accepts conclusions from peer reviewed sources without developing empirical data correct?

[Hasbinlulz]

And, in fact, scientists recognize the gap between what they perceive as data and objective reality, right???

[Hasbinlulz]

And, in fact, with our imperfect senses in mind, empirical data isn't really that good after all, is it?

[Hasbinlulz]

Eyewitness testimony being what it is..........

[Hasbinlulz]

So explain to me again how scientists don't have complete trust and/or confidence in not only the data gathered by other scientists, but their very own results. Please.

[Hasbinlulz]

From the Oxford Dictionaries:

Definition of faith
noun
[mass noun]
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something

[Hasbinlulz]

OH SHIT IS THAT THE DEFINITION OF FAITH FROM OXFORD BEING EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID IT WASNT?!?!?

OH SHIT!!!

[Hasbinlulz]

What a maroon.

[theaetatus]

Nice try quoting half of the definition....

"2. Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof:"

As the scientific method only applies to definition 1, we can agree that 'faith' in science and 'faith in religion' are indeed two different things linked only by semantics.

[theaetatus]

Also, I pointed out the uncertain nature of our own perception and sense-data previously. As this applies to everything we know, it is hardly a reason for equating the two things.

[Hasbinlulz]

Nice try quoting half of the definition....
THAT IS NOT HOW DICTIONARIES WORK

Each definition is complete unto itself, and only one applies to a given context of a word. For instance, revolution can apply to motion or society, but they are different meanings and you would not use one definition to think of the other.

[Hasbinlulz]

That being said, you absolutely have it sort of right. Faith in the scientific method is based on it working most of the time, and faith in religion is based in chicken bones and ox blood, but they are both still faith, even tho slightly different in origin and validity.

[theaetatus]

So we can agree that the definition of 'faith' when applied to science and 'faith' when applied to religion are two totally different things, making such comments as 'science and religion are both faith-based' downright fallacious at worst and disingenuous word-play at best.

[Hasbinlulz]

Also, I pointed out the uncertain nature of our own perception and sense-data previously. As this applies to everything we know, it is hardly a reason for equating the two things.
I'm not attempting to equate science with religion. I am saying they are both faith based systems. That is not an equivalence in any way but semantically if you understand what the faiths are based in.

[Hasbinlulz]

So we can agree that the definition of 'faith' when applied to science and 'faith' when applied to religion are two totally different things, making such comments as 'science and religion are both faith-based' downright fallacious at worst and disingenuous word-play at best.
Absolutely not. They are equally faith based, but in my opinion faith placed in the scientific method is EXTREMELY valid, whereas faith placed in religion is not.

[theaetatus]

Such statements are analogous to: "Peasants and faeces are essentially the same, they are both revolting", or to use your own example, "Society and wheels are essentially the same. They are both prone to revolution."

[Hasbinlulz]

Such statements are analogous to: "Peasants and faeces are essentially the same, they are both revolting", or to use your own example, "Society and wheels are essentially the same. They are both prone to revolution."
No it's not lol. Those are different definitions being abused. The same definition of faith applies to science as it does to religion, but one is foolish and the other not so much.

[Hasbinlulz]

^opinion ;)

[theaetatus]

You're abusing two entirely different definitions of the same word in exactly the same way.

May I remind you of your own assertation not 5 minutes ago... "Each definition is complete unto itself, and only one applies to a given context of a word."

While the definitions could be construed as similar, they are not the same. This is why generally people use the separate terms 'faith' and 'belief' to distinguish between these two separate entities, rather than using the obviously ambiguous 'faith'.

[Hasbinlulz]

OMFG you're dense.

For the last time.

I AM USING THE SAME DEFINITION FOR FAITH AS IT APPLIES TO RELIGION AS I AM FOR SCIENCE. The DIFFERENCE is the amount of validity in each.

If you disagree, I'm sorry. I don't know what else to tell you.

If you could demonstrate how I am using it incorrectly or analogously to using two different definitions, I would be happy to help you understand how you're thinking about things in a different way that I am, but if you're just going to keep saying YOU'RE WRONG BLAH BLAH, I'm going to need to disengage from this conversation, at least as far as it concerns you.

[Alarti0001]

And, in fact, with our imperfect senses in mind, empirical data isn't really that good after all, is it?

Haha luckily we have developed tools to enhance our senses unless you think we discovered quarks with our eyes?

I liked your 8 rages posts though which each post becoming progressively less cogent.

[Lexical]

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/leaving-now-grandpa-simpsons.gif

[Kitsy]

I will pay for all of you. May Karana have mercy on your souls.

[Hasbinlulz]

Haha luckily we have developed tools to enhance our senses unless you think we discovered quarks with our eyes?

I liked your 8 rages posts though which each post becoming progressively less cogent.
While it is absolutely true that machines are able to collect data far more impartially and accurately than can our senses, we still rely on our senses and perception in order to evaluate data, which implies a gap in objectivity. Furthermore, we "trust" that our calibrations on machines are correct. Furthermore, YOU YOURSELF have NEVER actually done experiments to show the existence of quarks (ok, so you might have, but in that case, please assume that "you yourself" is in the generic third person), and not every scientist who needs to assume that quarks exist have empirical data that quarks exist. Even if EVERY SCIENTIST who practices science based on the existence of quarks do actually have empirical data of the existence of quarks, all of their data still passes through the sense/perception veil.

[Alarti0001]

While it is absolutely true that machines are able to collect data far more impartially and accurately than can our senses, we still rely on our senses and perception in order to evaluate data, which implies a gap in objectivity. Furthermore, we "trust" that our calibrations on machines are correct. Furthermore, YOU YOURSELF have NEVER actually done experiments to show the existence of quarks (ok, so you might have, but in that case, please assume that "you yourself" is in the generic third person), and not every scientist who needs to assume that quarks exist have empirical data that quarks exist. Even if EVERY SCIENTIST who practices science based on the existence of quarks do actually have empirical data of the existence of quarks, all of their data still passes through the sense/perception veil.

Not even close to true. Electronics can very accurately measure our results, no senses are required.
You are quibbling, and poorly.

[Darthmuhh]

I came across this, I found it pretty interesting, if you dont believe in God thats cool, but check out the science part of it and ignore the God parts. It raises some good questions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOvyuNxlovE&feature=related

I would like to see a debate between Michio Kaku and Dr. Kindell. If anyone knows of such a debate between differing views please link it.

[theaetatus]

OMFG you're dense.

For the last time.

I AM USING THE SAME DEFINITION FOR FAITH AS IT APPLIES TO RELIGION AS I AM FOR SCIENCE. The DIFFERENCE is the amount of validity in each.


Go back to the Oxford dictionary definition you linked. Faith in science is definition 1, Faith in religion is definition 2. This should be obvious.

[Reiker000]

I liked your 8 rages posts though which each post becoming progressively less cogent.

Hasbinbad is like those Rick Ross songs where he yell-raps a phrase over and over and it slowly becomes unintelligible monkey speak.

THESE *****S WONT HOLD ME BACK!

DESE *****S ONT HOLD M'BACK!

ESE NIGAZWA OLD MBAK!

EZE NIGAYOMA BAK!

EZENIGOAMABK!

EUAHYNABOMAK!

[Reiker000]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7ujkh1itb1rcs0vjo1_500.png

[Hasbinlulz]

Go back to the Oxford dictionary definition you linked. Faith in science is definition 1, Faith in religion is definition 2. This should be obvious.
headdesk.jpg

[Hasbinlulz]

Not even close to true. Electronics can very accurately measure our results, no senses are required.
You are quibbling, and poorly.
It's almost as if you live in a fantasy world.

Ignore everything I said about how machines are very accurate and miss my point completely. GOOD JOB alarti, i'm sure everyone in TMO thinks you're just a leeeeeetle bit cooler for being opposed to me one more time.

[Alarti0001]

It's almost as if you live in a fantasy world.

Ignore everything I said about how machines are very accurate and miss my point completely. GOOD JOB alarti, i'm sure everyone in TMO thinks you're just a leeeeeetle bit cooler for being opposed to me one more time.

Support your claim with evidence instead of opinion and maybe I could agree with you!

[Hasbinlulz]

Support your claim with evidence instead of opinion and maybe I could agree with you!
What other evidence for the definition of a word do you need than the definition of the word?

It's almost as if you live in a fantasy world.

Hell I even broke it down as far as how I was using the definitions and why and provided examples of similar situations.

If you take my nuts out of your mouth for a minute and open your eyes (don't worry, I'm not close yet, I won't spooge on your face), you'd see that I already have.

Bitch.

[Alarti0001]

What other evidence for the definition of a word do you need than the definition of the word?

It's almost as if you live in a fantasy world.

Hell I even broke it down as far as how I was using the definitions and why and provided examples of similar situations.

If you take my nuts out of your mouth for a minute and open your eyes (don't worry, I'm not close yet, I won't spooge on your face), you'd see that I already have.

Bitch.


You gave out incorrect definitions and called them correct.
Its almost as if you live in a fantasy world.

[iNteg]

Support your claim with evidence instead of opinion and maybe I could agree with you!

http://i.imgur.com/blaLr.gif

[Hasbinlulz]

You gave out incorrect definitions and called them correct.
Its almost as if you live in a fantasy world.
I gave ONE definition and it was from fucking OXFORD you dolt. That is, definitively, THE source for what English words mean. So fuck you.

[Alarti0001]

I gave ONE definition and it was from fucking OXFORD you dolt. That is, definitively, THE source for what English words mean. So fuck you.

No you tried to say that trust in the scientific method is equivalent to faith. It isn't.

[azeth]

Funny this thread went 130 pages @ 40 posts per posts when in reality yes you are an absolute uneducated moron if you believe in God.

Sorry to break it you.

[Hasbinlulz]

No you tried to say that trust in the scientific method is equivalent to faith. It isn't.
Actually I didn't say that. I said that science is a faith-based system. I gave a lucid and cogent argument positing what I believe are the salient points, including oxford definition, examples, and a discussion of why I was using those words in those ways.

And you said "NUH UH, UR DUMB LOL."

But keep trying to make urself look like less of a mook by all means.

[Alarti0001]

From the Oxford Dictionaries:

Definition of faith
noun
[mass noun]
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something

See you edit the salient portions.

1.Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2.Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

If you look up the definition of Confidence or Trust faith comes up as the 4th definition.

See in the english language words can have multiple meanings depending on how they are used. Trust or confidence when used in a scientific sense has no similarity to faith when used in a religious sense.

There are really only 2 options for your methods, You are either trying to change the scope of the debate to suit your needs, or you simply do not understand the basic syntax of the english language.

Your posts are rife with fallacy. Guard youself from fallacy and you might find logic.

[Splorf22]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20249753

More liquid-water exoplanets!

[eqravenprince]

You should at least believe in the possibility of a God. There is a lot to this world that is unexplained. If you believe in God, you are simply believing in a theory. No one has proven it to be wrong. But some people have died and then resuscitated, then describing people that they didn't know, only to find out it was a relative. Or plenty of images of ghosts/apparitions, what are they, where did they come from, why isn't everyone a ghost, where do the people that aren't ghosts go?

[Hasbinlulz]

"god" is not even a proper hypothesis, much less a theory

[Reiker000]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7ujkh1itb1rcs0vjo1_500.png

[stormlord]

It's really simple. Has nothing to do with intelligence.

It's easier to believe that we have a chance to have an after-life and that there's some level of divine justice than it's to believe there's no divine justice and there's no after-life.

By easier I mean it's reassuring. Kind of like how an optimist sees a glass that's half full and a pessimist sees a glass that's half empty. We don't really KNOW, so it's advantages to be an optimist.

Studies show that prayer and faith act on us sort of like pets do. They relieve some of the stress. However, religion is so common that I wouldn't expect studies to be thorough in their methodology. More than likely there's a good bit of prejudice and nonchalance. 72% of americans identify as christian and 90% believe in God. I think that a full understanding of the negative effects (if any) of religion is still in our future.

I am agnostic. I would support the idea of God if it had strong supporting evidence. I think that current evidence makes a fair argument that extraterrestrial life exists. Could that mean God?

I mean, give humans 100,000,000 years to evolve and what will we become? I think common conception is that we will advance further and further. Might we become God? Or is there a cap to species advancement?

But despite all that I believe when I die I'm dead, forever. Will be worm food. Contrary to popular opinion, this conception is not something that lifts my spirits or boosts my ego. It's despairing, but maybe truer. Winning an argument against a believer in God is not something to rejoice. I don't rejoice that I'll be worm food.

My IQ is average. George Bush is a christian and his IQ is above 120. So...

...people who believe in God aren't necessarily dumber. Maybe they're smarter?

[stormlord]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20249753

More liquid-water exoplanets!
The universe is so incredibly interesting. To understand it is THE quest. The holy grail.

But like the holy grail, we'll probably never hold it in our hands...

A few days ago I read that our solar system has 139 moons. Pretty cool, eh? The fact that we've only landed on one extra-terrestrial body outside our planet is proof enough to me that we've barely begun to scratch at the first atoms on the surface layer of a great behemoth expanse. Consider that there're 200+ sextillion stars in the observable universe and numerous moons and planets and asteroids and comets for every star. And for each galaxy there're probably billions of rogue planets that're either drifting amongst them or in their wake. And who knows what's out beyond the observable universe, but it's too bad that there's a terminator point that prohibits us EVER seeing or reaching any point beyond it. There're areas of the universe we'll never see.

Never see, that's, assuming we're right about our central theories.

(btw, there're trillions of cells in the human body and billions of humans. if stars were the cells inside humans then the total number of stars is similar to the actual number of stars we calculate there to be.)

[MrSparkle001]

Why is this still a thread?

[Diggles]

Why the fuck did this get moved to Offtopic?

[Autotune]

Why the fuck did this get moved to Offtopic?

My money is on the new guide trying to feel important.

<even tho it's most likely Sirken because he started the whole "let's move threads from RnF to Off-topic" like a week ago>

[Lexical]

Probably the staff feeling that all theological and political discussions be moved out of RnF.

[feriokun]

Believing in God, and believing in a 6000 year old earth is like saying if you believe in God you MUST believe in one specific type of theology, it's one seriously cheap ass complaint against Christianity that idiots like to use to try and trip up believers with a kindergarten Sunday school knowledge of the Bible.

If you did any study on this topic at ALL before you posted your ignorant statement you would know that the original Hebrew and Greek word used for the term DAY as in "and on the sixth Day God created...." Has two different uses, one for a 24 hour period of time and one for an indefinite period of time.

There is a very large community of believers that believe in the indirect translation, and it is usually considered either belief in Old Earth or New Earth, and neither belief contradicts the Bible or Christian faith.

Quoted for truth. Many people that are Christian think this is the case. Myself included.

[feriokun]

This thread is awful. If people want to believe in magic even though there is no compelling reason, let them.

/win

:D

[feriokun]

You do know that the 'church' doesn't really function the way the Bible outlines it right? You can't blame Jesus, for what men have done. We have free will, we make our own choices and decisions. Church leaders, Pastors, Deacons, Bishops are all men, and thus corruptible based on the fact that we are all men/women that were born into a world of sin and corruption and while we take on the image of God, we are not in and of ourselves divine beings. So, just because the church in large part is corrupt (and I agree with you here) doesn't mean that Christ is corrupt.

People's misconception of "Christians" isn't really based on "Christians" It's those people who claim to be Christians because they go to church on Sunday, and Wednesday, but choose not to live a Christian life, but go because it makes them feel good. Those aren't Christians, those are impostors.


I know there are many times when I'm not the best ambassador for Christ, and I know especially in regards to the guy who created this thread I've not been, but that's not because God loves Him any less, I just have a hard time dealing with people like him, those who believe they know everything, and have all the answers, even when they're as wrong as his statement about bards not being able to CC so it didn't matter if he was using an AoE sword. But in the end, none of this really matters.

I'm flawed, and I have plenty of my own struggles, so I'm not here trying to point out everything wrong with anyone else, that's for sure, I have my own short comings to work on. But seriously, it's laughable to think that someone who "doesn't care" cares enough to fight this vehemently against something that "doesn't exist"

I guess in the end, this thread isn't going to decide anything, just going to further fragment people, and push people further away from what the true message of the Bible is.

The overly simplified version is this:

Jesus loves you, and God has a plan for your life.

I hope that everyone can someday have the assurance that I do, and can know God how I know God. It's not because of a fact I found somewhere, it's not because Mommy and Daddy told me, it's because I know that God has impacted my life. So you can argue he doesn't exist, and I can know in my heart differently, but I'm not going to help you by words, or trying to convince you, I can just hope.

In the end, if I'm wrong, I haven't really missed out on anything in life, but in the end, if you're wrong, you'll be missing out on everything, and for that, I'm truly sad for you.

QFT spree!

C-C-c-ombo!

[Hitchens]

If you believe in god, I simply disagree with you and I have no interest in changing your mind.

Seems reasonable.

[feriokun]

If you believe in god, I simply disagree with you and I have no interest in changing your mind.

Seems reasonable.

Well put good sir.

[Black Jesus]

You can't claim there is no God unless you are omniscient which ironically and paradoxically would then make you a god.

Atheists belong in an asylum because they have severe cases of nihilism, narcissism, and assburgers. Their (lack of) moral grounding is a menace to society and civilization.

[Faywind]

You can't claim there is no God unless you are omniscient which ironically and paradoxically would then make you a god.

Atheists belong in an asylum because they have severe cases of nihilism, narcissism, and assburgers. Their (lack of) moral grounding is a menace to society and civilization.

Spoken like a true loser....

[Ames_]

You can't claim there is no God unless you are omniscient which ironically and paradoxically would then make you a god.

Atheists belong in an asylum because they have severe cases of nihilism, narcissism, and assburgers. Their (lack of) moral grounding is a menace to society and civilization.

If there was a god I'm sure he would of not made someone as retarded as yourself.

[Quiksilver]

You can't claim there is no God unless you are omniscient which ironically and paradoxically would then make you a god.

Atheists belong in an asylum because they have severe cases of nihilism, narcissism, and assburgers. Their (lack of) moral grounding is a menace to society and civilization.

WIN

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uWVaTX_OzBs?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uWVaTX_OzBs?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[Quiksilver]

IMHO we live in pretty interesting times. By that I mean we're capable of actually looking into space and seeing how small and insignificant we are in comparison to the entire universe (or to some, the entire "multi-verse"). I think the answer to the question if God(s) does or does not exists is becoming more and more complex. Sure the science behind evolution has become mostly accepted in the general public. But, going further back into the evolutionary chain begs the question,"But where did that come from?" Which can apply to virtually everything. But the further and further we investigate, scientifically, the chain leads back to the cosmos.

So I don't think it's a matter of science vs. faith. It's my opinion that those two can remain separate. One can easily accept the science and a belief system which allows God to have created the earth in a universe already set in motion. Even the origins of scripture can come into question simply by asking, if God is the "supreme being" then His message could have easily have been misinterpreted by the creationist's own logic. That we cannot understand a being that omnipotent and powerful. So what makes us think that His word is accurate when it was given to us humans with limited knowledge and understanding about how all this fucking works?

The end.

[Doors]

Stupid thread.

[chtulu]

Still the best thread ever made.

Also, let's move this back to RnF.

[Kagatob]

IMHO we live in pretty interesting times. By that I mean we're capable of actually looking into space and seeing how small and insignificant we are in comparison to the entire universe (or to some, the entire "multi-verse"). I think the answer to the question if God(s) does or does not exists is becoming more and more complex. Sure the science behind evolution has become mostly accepted in the general public. But, going further back into the evolutionary chain begs the question,"But where did that come from?" Which can apply to virtually everything. But the further and further we investigate, scientifically, the chain leads back to the cosmos.

So I don't think it's a matter of science vs. faith. It's my opinion that those two can remain separate. One can easily accept the science and a belief system which allows God to have created the earth in a universe already set in motion. Even the origins of scripture can come into question simply by asking, if God is the "supreme being" then His message could have easily have been misinterpreted by the creationist's own logic. That we cannot understand a being that omnipotent and powerful. So what makes us think that His word is accurate when it was given to us humans with limited knowledge and understanding about how all this fucking works?

The end.

The 'god' the OP is referring to is the god (or gods, there's 3 of them right? They can't figure it out so how could I?) of Christianity. Which is a very different argument. You can be an atheist and still recognize the possibility that greater beings may exist.

Christianity on the other hand. They've put enough holes and hypocrisy in their own faith, I need not poke any more.

[Hasbinbad]

http://i.imgur.com/Hd7C4Bw.jpg

[Hasbinbad]

Let's get this thread moved back to RnF!

[Hasbinbad]

Fuck TMO!

[Kagatob]

Fuck TMO!

Are you implying that TMO is a pile of flat-earth creationists? That would explain a lot actually.

[Kevynne]

http://i.imgur.com/Hd7C4Bw.jpg

[Kevynne]

Wiccan for life.

[Noselacri]

Religion is like Santa. Kids need santa as their first moral compass, their first tangible reason to be good even if they don't quite understand the real reason for it. Religion served the exact same purpose in the infancy of humanity, guiding people towards behaviour that helped everyone get along a little better. I said a little--I know religion didn't exactly create peace on Earth, but it was a nudge in the right direction and was effective where it mattered: people's immediate society. Santa doesn't guarantee good behaviour in kids, but it encourages it.

However, as humanity is long past its infancy and no longer needs religion's guiding hand to steer them towards things like compassion, rules and neighbourly peace, it has served its purpose. Today's religious people are like seventeen year-olds still clinging to belief in Santa and living by what was taught to them at the age of four. It's unhealthy and irrational, damaging and destructive, and not at all helpful today like it was back when it actually had its place. Religion has become a sort of collective mental instability and should be treated like you would a teenager who still believes in Santa and tries to force that belief on everyone around him.

[Hasbinbad]

Wiccan for life.
By the circle, blessed be.

[pharmakos]

You also believe the world is only 6,000 years old and think evolution is a conspiracy theory against Jesus.

if you believe that believing in god means you have to believe in everything the modern church says, then you're an idiot

religion is bullshit, but the divine cannot be denied. something cannot come from nothing.

in all likelihood, though, god doesn't give a fuck about this world. god just watches us and laughs.

[Hasbinbad]

the divine cannot be denied. something cannot come from nothing.
Why not? Also, why do you believe there was "nothing" at some point? Because Genesis said all was formless and void? LuLz, runteldat to ur sunday school friends who will give credence to your bullshit.
in all likelihood, though, god doesn't give a fuck about this world. god just watches us and laughs.
Oh shit, the believer knows the mind of god.

Please tell us more about the motivations of deities.

[Hasbinbad]

Something about Hubris.

[Peatree]

There has to be a God cause there is pie, and pie, is good.

[Pico]

thank rodcet for athist

[OforOppression]

tunare bless u

[pharmakos]

Why not? Also, why do you believe there was "nothing" at some point?

i believe in logic, quantum physics, and the big bang theory.

Because Genesis said all was formless and void? LuLz, runteldat to ur sunday school friends who will give credence to your bullshit.

did genesis even say that? the common monotheistic belief is that god is eternal. like i said though, religion is bullshit.

in my idea of god, there was a time where god didn't exist, or at the very least wasn't self-aware.

Oh shit, the believer knows the mind of god.

probably not

Please tell us more about the motivations of deities.

imo loneliness and excitement

if you had infinite power, what sort of universe would YOU create?

[OforOppression]

if you had infinite power, what sort of universe would YOU create?

one where people weren't quite as dumb as you.

[Pringles]

If He didnt exist, there would not be breasts. I'm just sayin....

[Kevynne]

By the circle, blessed be.

[pharmakos]

one where people weren't quite as dumb as you.

would you allow your universe's inhabitants to know everything, or would they have to labor through learning in order to gain knowledge?

would everyone be given a shot at attaining life's best material possessions (possibly through some sort of rotation?), or would your universe's inhabitants have to compete against each other for the best stuff (resulting in some winners and some losers)?

[Clark]

************************************************** ************

If He didnt exist, there would not be breasts. I'm just sayin....

************************************************** ************

Truth

[Kevynne]

************************************************** ************



************************************************** ************

Truth

They exist because we are mammals and possess mammary glands.

[Tenlaar]

Wiccan for life.

Wiccianity is pretty sweet, I studied it a bunch. Watched The Craft at least five times.

[Kevynne]

Wiccianity is pretty sweet, I studied it a bunch. Watched The Craft at least five times.

It's like eq but real.... And not so nerdy!

[Tenlaar]

And not so nerdy!

I don't know about that. It's just casting magic missile at the darkness with more makeup.

[Knuckle]

one where people weren't quite as dumb as you.

excess fat tissue can cause premature degeneration of brain matter and the ability of a synapse to make new connections is directly correlated to proper food intake.

[pharmakos]

excess fat tissue can cause premature degeneration of brain matter and the ability of a synapse to make new connections is directly correlated to proper food intake.

i blame the drugs more than i blame my diet

[Hailto]

Wiccan for life.

Confirmed fat or lesbian, or both.

[Hasbinbad]

Wiccianity is pretty sweet, I studied it a bunch. Watched The Craft at least five times.
What the fuck is wiccianity?

[Tiggles]

I'll just leave this here

[Mandalore93]

At least I can respect Christianity for becoming a dominant force on the world scale. Wiccans have all the retardation that the major religions share combined with the fact it basically seems like a LARP type deal.

Which I suppose is fine if you're weird as fuck and into that kind of thing, I really don't mind as long as your bullshit doesn't get mixed into public policy.

[myriverse]

Becoming dominant is nothing to respect.

[smokemon]

1. Spontaneous Generation

“Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment. No, there is now no circumstance known in which it can be affirmed that microscopic beings came into the world without germs, without parents similar to themselves.” Louis Pasteur, addressing the French Academy of Science in the 19th century

“…the how part has everyone stumped. Nobody knows how lifeless chemicals organized themselves into the first living cell.” Paul Davies, quoted in article “Born Lucky” in New Scientist, 7/12/03, p32

“I think we have to admit that we're looking through a glass darkly here . . .

We don't know how life started on this planet. We don't know exactly when it started, we don't know under what circumstances. It's a mystery that we're going to chip at from several different directions.” Andrew Knoll,Harvard paleobiologist, Fisher Professor of Natural History, Dept of Earth and Planetary Sciences, author of “Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billion Years of Life,” interviewed 5/3/2004 on PBS NOVA



“The chemical steps that led to life on Earth remain a matter of intense speculation.” An article “Geochemical Influences of Life’s Origins and Evolution,” Elements, (vol 1, June 2005), p151

In order for Darwin to be right, then the most solid law of biology would have to not be right—the Law of Biogenesis—often called “the cornerstone of modern biology.”



2. Prokaryote to Eukaryote (said like “pro-care-ee-oat” and “you-care-ee-oat”)

“Gradual accumulation of mutations is never the way eukaryotes evolve … the Cambrian Explosion was caused by symbiosis—not mutation. All symbionts are new species.” Prof. Lynn Margulis, U of Mass-Amherst, in a lecture at U of Cincinnati, 3/1/07

This is a “missing link” that is second only to the origin of life, in the nightmares of the evolution-believers. How did bacteria turn into cells hundreds of times bigger than them, which have things inside them like the nucleus and other organelles? There is a giant total blank in the evolution story right here. Evolutionists will tell you and teach you that mutations did it all—but there is no way to even imagine how mutations could ever create new and original genetic information that would be needed to make the jump from bacteria to cells like amoebas, and then on to creatures made of many such cells, like fish, lizards, and people.



3. Cambrian Explosion (said like “came-bree-in” explosion)

"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs…” Stephen Jay Gould, in his book, The Panda's Thumb (1980) p238-9

“As Darwin noted in the Origin of the Species, the abrupt emergence of arthropods in the fossil record during the Cambrian presents a problem for evolutionary biology.” American Scientist, May/June 1997, p244

The Creation Model says that all life forms were created during the same week. The Evolution Model says it took three and a half billion years. What do we find in the deepest layers that contain fossils?—just bacteria. What do we find in the deepest muds today?—just bacteria. What do we find in the fossils just above the bacteria? We find representatives from every one of the Phyla (said “fye-lah”; singular Phylum) of living things, even the vertebrates. The sudden boundary-line of so many living things, with no “missing links” leading up to them, only goes along with the Creation Model—and only goes against the Evolution Model. The data says Darwin is wrong.



4. Missing Links

“The number of intermediate varieties, which must have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” Charles Darwin, “Origin on the Species” (1859)

“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record.” Stephen J. Gould, in article “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History, (1977) 86(6): p22-30

“The evidence for the big transformations in evolution are not there in the fossil record. It’s difficult to explore a billion-year-old fossil record. Be patient!” William Provine, biology professor at Cornell University, The Washington Post, May 15, 2005, p D6

Everyone has heard the term “missing link” so many times that we tend to forget what it really says to us. Fossils that could show the evolution of any one original kind of life into any one new kind of life are—missing! Evolution requires these “missing link” fossils to be real, for the theory to have any proof from the fossils. All arguing aside—there really aren’t any that have ever been found. Darwin-followers have even quit trying to find the “missing links” for land plants and for all of the many kinds of insects.



5. Stasis of Living Things

“Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution).” Stephen J. Gould, "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p15

Evolution-believers don’t like to talk about this problem—so they usually don’t mention stasis. The Creation Model says that all of the kinds of living things should stay pretty much the same, up until the time when they might go extinct and then just disappear forever. The Evolution Model says that all kinds of living things should constantly be changing! That’s how worms turned into us, according to their theory. The ancient coelacanth fish (said like “see-luh-kanth”) is just one example. Its fins have small bones in them. So, evolutionists thought those might have evolved into fingers by the time the coelacanth evolved into us. Then we found coelacanths alive in the Indian Ocean—and they look exactly like their fossils do! Sad and disappointed, evolutionists picked another fish-cousin of the coelacanth, to be our great grandfather. They forgot to think about one problem though. Why and how could evolution take one fish and turn it into dinosaurs, birds, rats, elephants, seagulls, turtles, whales, horses, and hummingbirds, and leave the coelacanth totally the same all through this same period of time? There is no answer—except that Darwin is wrong. As a matter of fact, all life forms on the growing list of “living fossils” cause this same contradiction for an evolutionist. These “living fossils” have never changed —never “evolved” at all—since the beginning of the world. And they are not rare. They are “overwhelmingly prevalent” in the fossil record. They are the rule, not the exception.


6. Ancient Biomolecules

“I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.” Mary H. Schweitzer, in an article, “Dinosaur Shocker” By Helen Fields http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/may/dinosaur.php

"I am quite aware that according to conventional wisdom and models of fossilization, these structures aren't supposed to be there, but there they are, and I was pretty shocked." Mary H. Schweitzer, evolutionary paleontologist at North Carolina State U, in Science, vol 307, no 5717, p1952-55, 3/25/2005 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/01.html

“… it was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But of course I couldn’t believe it…the bones after all are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?” from article “Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype,” Science, July 9, 1993, p60

“Ohio State University geologists isolated the oldest complex organic compounds found in a fossil. They found the compounds in 350-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures known as crinoids.” www.researchnews.osu.edu/archive/foscolor.htm 10/23/2006

Here is another big problem for Darwin-believers. Scientists have discovered preserved bits of the original flesh, blood, and bone of forms of life that the Evolution Model says went extinct—way too long ago for these things to still be around without having petrified into rock first. Such molecules have been verified in the remains of Neanderthal humans, mammoths, moa birds, dinosaurs (t-rex, triceratops, maiasaur), and even creatures that the Evolution Model says should be five times older than the dinosaurs! Biological molecules like collagen, hemoglobin, and color pigments, should have been rotted away by now if the fossils really are very much older than the time of Noah’s Flood (less than 4400 years ago). But they aren’t—they’re not millions of years old, and they’re not decayed into dust. That’s why they are still around to be discovered. Darwin is wrong about his whole time scale of things, which goes completely against the findings of science truth—and makes evolution a science-fantasy.



7. DNA fingerprinting for Adam & Eve

They “…looked at an international assortment of genes and picked up a trail of DNA that led them to a single (individual) woman from whom we are all descended.” “We are finding that humans have very, very shallow genetic roots which go back very recently to one ancestor.” Michael Hammer, University of Arizona, Newsweek, 1-11-1988

“That indicates that there was an origin in a specific location on the globe and then it spread out from there.” U.S. News and World Report, 12-4-1995

“Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that ‘mitochondrial Eve’—the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old. No one thinks that’s the case…” Ann Gibbons, “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock,” Science, Jan. 2, 1998, page 28.

“By analyzing DNA from people in all regions of the world, Wells has concluded that all humans alive today are descended from a single man also known as Y-chromosomal Adam.” Wells wrote the book The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey (2002). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_Wells

Darwin said we would find millions of monkey fossils showing how they all gradually evolved into humans. That’s the Evolution Model. The Creation Model says the human race began with only two people (and hasn’t changed much since). The science of DNA has now proven—all humans come from one man and one woman. Is that really a surprise? Biblical Creation is right!



8. Four Human Gene Pools

The evolutionist book and documentary mentioned above in #7 by Darwin-believer Spencer Wells, also contains the finding that all humans come from only one of four distinct gene pools. The significance of this has slipped past the evolutionists. It has not slipped past the creationists. Think about our ancestors. There was one time in the history of mankind when everybody was killed—all except for just eight humans. These were Noah’s family—including his three sons and their wives. The Noah gene pool was on the Ark—plus the three extra family blood lines from the three wives. That makes four. DNA proves that the Biblical history of Noah’s Ark is right.

Not only human DNA, but also goat and sheep DNA—all living goats are descended from five ancient females. All sheep come from four ancestral ewes (Science News, 10/14/06, p245). But didn’t Noah take “two of every kind” on the Ark? No—not all. He took more of the “clean” animals. If all goats came from just one female, it might make the Ark history seem to be in question. If all came from twenty goats, then it could actually prove that Noah’s Ark was just a fairy tale. But science truth verifies the claims of the Creation Model time and time again. So Bible-believers need not fear the newest scientific findings. Science truth is on our side! Science truth shows Darwin-believers are wrong. “They did not like to retain God in their knowledge.” Romans 1:28



9. Phylogerontology (said like “fye-loh-jaron-tah-loh-jee”)

The terms “geriatrics” or “gerontology” might sound familiar. They involve the study of old age. Phylogerontology is the study of the aging of family lines. In biology, this means the aging and the decaying of the DNA in any line of ancestors leading up to the living members of any kind of living thing existing today. The DNA of Adam & Eve was perfect. But since the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, decay has been happening. Not only did humans gradually begin to experience sickness and death, but the DNA of the entire human race soon began to become filled up with mutations—in the form of copy-mistakes in the DNA of every new generation. Since everyone has two versions of most of their chromosomes, we’ve all got a “spare” for most of our genes. So if one becomes non-functional because of the gradual buildup of mutations in the human genome, the other one can do the whole job alone. Since people in the same families will have more of the same mutations, it is not good to marry a close relative and have children with them. This is called “inbreeding.” Until there were large numbers of bad mutations in the genome, inbreeding would not have been so much of a medical problem. In early Bible times, inbreeding was not forbidden until the time of Moses. Before that, Abraham married his half-sister Sarah. All of Adam & Eve’s children married their brothers and sisters (or at least their nieces and nephews). It was not forbidden before Moses, and it would not have been medically dangerous yet, either. Now today, people cannot even marry their distant cousins without being in danger of expressing lethal mutations in their children. This would be true after only 600 generations. That’s how many there have been in the 6000 years since Adam & Eve. According to the Evolution Model, there has been 200,000 years of time for humans to buildup bad mutations in their DNA—and over three billion years of us evolving and mutating from bacteria before that! None of our DNA should still be able to work if that was true. The wear-and-tear from mutations would have ruined it all by this time—if Darwin was right.



10. Information in DNA

“Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism that fails to take account of this will not survive one day.” Norbert Weiner (1894-1964), MIT mathematician and the “Father of Modern Cybernetics”

“DNA is like a computer program, but far far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” Bill Gates, in the book “The Road Ahead” (Boulder: Blue Penguin, 1996), p228 http://www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm

Most people have heard of DNA, and many know that it is a complex molecule found in our chromosomes, deep inside the nucleus of every cell in our bodies. It was a great breakthrough in science when we finally discovered the structure of the DNA molecule. It was an even greater breakthrough when we translated the code for the information storage system in DNA. These things are amazing. But there is something hundreds of times more impressive about the DNA molecules in the chromosomes of all living things—they contain information! The molecule and its code have been used to do a job “by someone”—to carry a message. That message contains instructions on how to make protein molecules and how to coordinate their manufacture throughout the life-stages of all of the living things known to man. It is against all of the known principles of information science that these instructions might have happened all by themselves, and by accident. That is impossible. That is illogical. This is perhaps the most scientifically important proof of all of the Top Ten that—Darwin is wrong.

[Swish]

Wiccans have all the retardation that the major religions share combined with the fact it basically seems like a LARP type deal.

Which I suppose is fine if you're weird as fuck and into that kind of thing, I really don't mind as long as your bullshit doesn't get mixed into public policy.

I find palmistry and tarot very engaging...

[Mandalore93]

Becoming dominant is nothing to respect.

I would disagree, in a religion vs religion sense it is respectable to beat out your competition. While I'm completely at odds with the "morality" that Christianity espouses, the fact that it's beaten out so many of it's competitors is noteworthy. That being said within its own field it looks like Islam is the best religion in the sense of gaining and retaining followers. But then again hard to judge since Islam generally only has majorities in countries that aren't secular so a little hard to compare the two apples to apples in modern time.

Although I do find Islam funny since they're the ones who have actually put in the practice of extinguishing other religions by taxing it. And what's more humorous than something discovering its own extinction event?

[Swish]

Although I do find Islam funny since they're the ones who have actually put in the practice of extinguishing other religions by taxing it. And what's more humorous than something discovering its own extinction event?

Yeah its nothing new - the Ottoman Empire (muslim based) was doing the same thing through the millet system. Quite an interesting read, they tolerated Christians and other religions but they were taxed higher to try and get people to convert to Islam. They also enslaved Europeans, but lets not cause a shitstorm by talking about it, only white people are evil folks...

[Mandalore93]

The Ottoman Millet System seems to have been based off the earlier Caliphates (I want to say Abbasid off the top of my head) Jinza tax. Jinyu? Jixu? Can't remember at the moment the English translation of it...I recall reading it in particular concerning its application in Egypt

[gotrocks]

0_0 137 pages seems to contradict the first reply of 'in b4 someone cares'

[Shugoran]

People walked among dinosaurs.

[formallydickman]

0_0 137 pages seems to contradict the first reply of 'in b4 someone cares'

holy shit 137 pages! Last I check was like page 7.. Apparently this IS a hot button topic.