|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
posted June 02, 2008 08:05 PM |
|
|
Ow, ow, Creationism doesn't completely rule out evolution...
God can be creator
and his "good" creation has the ability to evolve.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 02, 2008 08:08 PM |
|
|
Well, whatever the basis may be, there are a whole bunch of ignorant people going around where I live who say that evolution is a lie.
Quote:
Creationism doesn't completely rule out evolution...
That's true. Young Earth creationism, however, does.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
e-lysander
Known Hero
Lysander
|
|
posted June 02, 2008 10:08 PM |
|
|
TitaniumAlloy, you're about the most similiar to me as I've seen, as far as upbringing, ideas about everything, etc.
It really makes me laugh when people say, "prove there ISN'T a god"... it's basically the same as asking "prove there aren't dinnerplate-sized pink elephants with wings flying around everywhere".
I have not had one experience in my life that would even cause me to consider the possibility of a god. While, like you, I was brought up on it and believed it, I remember exactly nothing that even makes me question my views on reality. Prayer has been proven to not work, the laws of the universe are consistant, and everything can be explained through science... while there are still some things we've yet to learn, there are many things we discover every day that are explainable scientifically. It's a very primitive mindset -- thunder and lightning, which was unexplainable at the time, was seen as god(s)'s wrath. Rainbows were seen as "God's sign to Noah", but they are perfectly natural, scientific occurences.
Also, this has all been my opinion. And if you disagree, that's great, but I don't recommend you argue with me, unless you have some substantial proof. And no, the idea that "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John's books from The Bible were so similiar without having contact" is ridiculous. How do you know The Bible wasn't crafted by one person? Or a group of people who were actually in direct contact? All I'm saying is, you cannot take anything from The Bible as proof.
|
|
Gallow
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
Avenger
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 02:21 AM |
|
|
|
*sigh* oh my god people still with this over and over again..you wont convince anybody here and either change the minds or thoughts of the others if its that the purpose,if its not then I or other could use that time typing for other better things than lose the time here discussing what the other should believe.If he believes in god then its good and if the other no,whatever..then he doesnt what you should care so much if he does or not,taking care or thinking about our own problems and family its enough than being chatting in a forum with unknow ppl who you dont even care.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 06:22 AM |
|
|
Ok, lets stop for a moment and take a breath. Did it? Good.
First to Corribus, I am sorry about making generalizations, that was never my intention. Science is a good thing, if handled properly. My issue has been, and will remain to be..double standards. Those scientist (however few or many there maybe) who say. "We are not wrong, just the test we used are wrong. We can adapt our techniques." Then turn around and say "Oh I'm sorry your religion says this, but you can't gain understanding and knowledge and adapt your views. Sorry." then think people have to blindly follow religion without questioning.
I do believe, but not without questioning. It is actually good to question, regardless of what you believe. Even questioning science.
I gain knowledge and understanding in our discussions because I ask questions. If that is wrong, sue me.
Science is about figuring out our world, but it seems more then a few have put blinders on. Let me explain.
A man goes and sees a movie a thousand times (He REALLY likes the movie). It is called, Aliens. He knows the movie by heart. Then on the 1001 time there is a mix up and instead of Aliens, The Mummy plays. He would know instantly that something is wrong, and complain.
Now in the audience is somebody who never watched either show, nor heard anything about either of them. The marque said Aliens, and he watches the movie. Now, he is going to associate The Mummy whenever somebody mentions Aliens. At least until he is corrected.
It is my contention that something similar is going on with our observation of the universe. We don't have all the information, and are making observations without all the factors. Now this is not wrong, but we have to keep an open mind that what we think we know may not be true.
Like the age of the universe, where and how it started, and how life on earth came about. We only have a very small view of the matter, but we are assuming that we have the whole picture. Whatever method of dating the earth/universe/etc maybe vastly mistaken. It doesn't matter if it is carbon dating or what.
Now I could give very good analogies all day, but it would not matter. How we could be mistaken about many things. Instead I will pose a few questions to those more intelligent then I.
Have you ever considered that the information you have could be incorrect? If not why?
Please no response with the straw arguement about hypothetical situations.
There are a million different questions, but unfortunately I may never get them. Because a bunch of books says so is not good enough for me. I am looking for answers. Statistics, quotes of scientific jargon, and 'because this or that text said so' isn't good enough for me. I will seek my answers elsewhere. Probably never should have reentered the conversation.
____________
Message received.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 06:56 AM |
|
|
May be I have said this in the past; anyway,
science
is different from
Science
____________
The empty set
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
posted June 03, 2008 07:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Because a bunch of books says so is not good enough for me.
*huge smile* The difference with bible is that if you are actually interested in learning something and really willing to give up a significant part of your time, then in the end you 'll figure out that scientific books are not simply stating things. They reason for them. And that's a huge difference. There is no "divine authority" that you can blindly trust. Of course, if you find a mistake you are free to say so, and if your observation is correct, it will be acknowledged.
____________
The empty set
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 07:06 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 07:14, 03 Jun 2008.
|
The things is, I do not follow Christianity. I have studied many different religons, and have found some..interesting similiarities. Enough that mere coincidence just does not explain (imo).
____________
Message received.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 07:13 AM |
|
Edited by dimis at 07:14, 03 Jun 2008.
|
Probably, because in essence what religion tries to enforce is "a good/proper way of life". And usually what is right and what is wrong is more or less understandable. It's a matter of ethics. For example, are you a blood donor? Are you an organ donor? (<-- These might actually be forbidden in some religions - dunno for sure ...) Do you help others? I don't give a **** whether you believe in something or not, as long as you actually do something to change the world for the better. Of course some people hope for afterlife ... That's romantic. As well as physics (aka Science) and this is usually the reason that Physics is messed up with science.
____________
The empty set
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 07:16 AM |
|
|
There was an invisible, undetectible, ungageable force in the universe. One day, a certain scientist was sitting under a tree, and it just hit him (with an apple it is claimed). It was called gravity. What other force that we can't currently see, detect, or gage awaits us? Or maybe we should not count gravity, after all..we can't see it.
That is all I am saying. That there might be forces yet for us to discover. We just don't know about them yet, and disregard them. That force we have yet to discover might just be a 'higher power'.
____________
Message received.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 07:55 AM |
|
|
You know, the worst part, especially with adults, is that they "imagine" things. They have some thoughts about how the world is supposed to be and how things are supposed to work. The point is, that *countless* times they are wrong. Haven't you noticed it from your own experience? Some times you believe A and it turns out that the very same thing has little to do with A or nothing at all. Bottom line, if you want to criticize science, spend some time first to understand it. This statement might seem mean but it isn't. It's just the truth from my viewpoint. And besides, science is open to discussion a whole lot more than *any* religion. 
____________
The empty set
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 08:18 AM |
|
|
Again, I don't have a thing against science. ((feeling like a broken record here)). Don't know how to say it any other way, nor express this any clearer. My one main issue is double standards.
Keeping an open mind should be the first rule of science. The fact is, we have discovered forces that before we couldn't see, touch, taste, or measure before we stumbled on them. For some reason, however, we keep saying that there is no other forces we can't see, touch, taste, or measure. Guess people don't learn from the past.
If we ignore any possibility that there are forces that we can not yet see, touch, taste, or measure we might not notice if it hits us on the head next time. After gravity was 'discovered' (though it had been there a LONG time before 'discovery') we figured out how to measure it. If Newton (and all the scientist after) had just said...nope it can't exsist because we can't see, touch, taste, or measure it..then what? We'd know a lot less about things now.
Yet, I can't convince you or anybody else that this is the case. Science doesn't prove, or try to prove, that something else can be out there. Those people who think the universe is billions of years old think it does, just because it doesn't coincide with religious beliefs. They don't seem willing to consider that the way we date things might be off. Heck even with a variation of 1% it changes drastically. 1% is not a lot, and for all we know it can be off by much much more then that.
I am not saying it is the case. Personally I do believe the universe is billions of years old, and that the bible was wrote by man who is prone to mistakes.
Let me ask you something, however. If you were to try to explain things to say..a monkey. One that had never encountered a man..ever. How much could you convey that they might understand? So, man may have gotten what a higher power told them a bit wrong. Dates and time might even be a foreign concept to a being that might have lived billions of years. Just because TIME might be wrong (because of communication problems) doesn't make the message wrong.
If I wrote you and told you I was somewhere, doing something at 4:14 monday but was that place doing that thing on 4:14 sunday..does that mean I wasn't there and didn't do it?
____________
Message received.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 08:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Again, I don't have a thing against science.
But what you are saying is against science (which is different from Science and for which I don't care no matter what you say - lol). You can also wonder if there are pink elephants that fly at night between 2 and 4...
I said that we should spend some extra time on science, not because we are against science, but because this might lead us to the right questions and hopefully to *some* answers (probably on other intermediate questions). I am feeling like a broken record as well...
____________
The empty set
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 08:47 AM |
|
|
Somewhere in this big universe, there might just be pink elephants that fly between 2am and 4am. Regardless, no need to be a broken record. No need to hit my head against walls, just gives me a headache. May all your paths lead to enlightenment. Peace.
____________
Message received.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 09:02 AM |
|
|
Dagoth:Quote:
google= the (modern) oracle of Delphi
wikipedia= the library of Alexander/athena
youtube= coliseum/ Opera/ God of fun (more or less Dionysus)
We all ask them things and I think you rarely ever questioned them... So don't start saying that religion is that different from the sources from which we get science.
You get... science from google, wikipedia and youtube (?) ?
Quote:
About America... Yeah, right... One religious candidate for presidency was almost immediately ruled out (I admit, he was mormon)
I can't remember the stats but I remember seeing one thing where more americans would rather see a gay president than an atheist, and an otherwise qualified atheist candidate would only be voted for by something like 20% of America.
I'll try find the numbers.
Quote:
the greatest minds once thought that there was only one kind of atom from which everything was built (before that elements and before that... I dunno)
There kinda is.
Go down to the sub-atomic level and you'll find they are pretty similar, it's only the numbers and proportions which start to count (just like the number of bricks determines the house )
@Mytical:
Quote:
No need to hit my head against walls, just gives me a headache.
I wonder how many times you've said you won't post in this thread
Quote:
For some reason, however, we keep saying that there is no other forces we can't see, touch, taste, or measure.
Wait, who said that?
If we can't see etc them then we wouldn't know if they were there or not So anyone claiming this is just absurd.
@E-Lysander
Quote:
TitaniumAlloy, you're about the most similiar to me as I've seen, as far as upbringing, ideas about everything, etc.
It really makes me laugh when people say, "prove there ISN'T a god"... it's basically the same as asking "prove there aren't dinnerplate-sized pink elephants with wings flying around everywhere".
Finally, someone gets it 
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 09:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I can't remember the stats but I remember seeing one thing where more americans would rather see a gay president than an atheist, and an otherwise qualified atheist candidate would only be voted for by something like 20% of America.
I'll try find the numbers.
You can find a "study" to show just about anything, but that doesn't make it true.
____________
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 09:21 AM |
|
|
Are you saying that a christian candidate in America would not be preferable to an Atheist candidate?
You know better than that Binabik, you'd likely know better than I do.
I knew people would get jumpy when I mentioned statistics. No one likes them
Like in a good book I recently read, titled 'In the Lake of the Woods' by Tim O'Brien, the main character is getting into politics, talking to his advisor.
"You've got religion, I hope to Christ."
"I'll find it."
"Lutheran."
"Fine with me."
"Terrific. Church once a week, ten o'clock sharp. I got this feeling we're gonna have a god-fearing Lutheran for lieutenant governor." 
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 09:30 AM |
|
|
No, I'm not saying that. A Christian would be a better candidate than an athiest. But I don't think the ratio would be nearly as great as what you cited. I think the large majority of people wouldn't care and it wouldn't affect the vote one way or the other. I think the percentage of people who wouldn't vote for an athiest is a minority. Since most elections are close, it might be enough to change the outcome. But any number of other issues could also change the outcome. It's always the whole package that really matters.
____________
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 09:33 AM |
|
|
Afterwards I do take a good deal of time off usually. I then return trying to gain further knowledge. Maybe foolishly. *shrugs*. I just can not comprehend ignoring any possibility, no matter how minute. Wise man once said. Once all else has been eliminated, then whatever remains no matter how improbable, is the most likely solution (or something similar).
____________
Message received.
|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
|
posted June 03, 2008 10:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Faith is based purely on the imagination.
I don't really want to get into a long, pointless argument -as I've writen before- but this one is a little hmmm... "dim".
Fantasy, daydreaming and superstition are based on imagination. Eg. so called "Fantasy books" or "Science-Fiction"; dreams like the desire for a Parliment without corruption () are based on imagination or in other words: Fantasy/Fancy or may Creativity [please spare me of cheap jokes like Creation is Creativity or sg. similar]. This is imagination. So if you were right I would make myself believe in sg. I created. Much like a (pagan) idol. Or it were sg. like daydreaming. Sitting near the snowy window of my flat and imagining myself to the warm beach of Florida, nearly feeling the sun on my skin -nearly!!!
Faith is not "pure imagination". Rather the "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". NOT the Hope of things not seen or the evidence of things hoped for. Because that would be cognition, sense, science.
ps. However, before you misunderstand, I'm not saying "science be Baad". I'm a university student. I'm waiting for the results of my exam of genetics. But science is not the opposite of faith. Ergo shall not be used to prove faith is delusion. This is like proving raspberry an illusion because strawberry exist. You can't measure weigh in meters. Science is not for the understanding of Faith or God. Nor is Faith to understand material things. The brain is. However brain and soul can not be divided into two. But please not brand me "stupid". Thank you.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
