Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I believe in church

I go church regularly

Rarely go church

I use go church but not anymore

I been one few times in my life

never went to church

[Crazy]

I'd rather say He is everywhere, flowing through the universe, through us.

Remind me of Obi Wan Kenobi.

[Solar]

Christians' beliefs don't collide with science. Actually, these two are pretty much filling eachother up.

There are tests being done on fundamental beliefs? People are willing to accept that God does not exist until there is evidence found for him? No.

Religion is completely illogical, it does not accept tests and does not accept the fact it may be total nonsense. The are in no way complimentary.

Religion is a lot more closely linked to a fantasy novel.

I don't perceive Him that way. I'd rather say He is everywhere, flowing through the universe, through us.
Try to first understand the concept of God, then argue.

The advantage of being made up is that you can be different things to different people. Its why Lord of the Rings being made into a film was a double edged sword - now I can't imagine Sauron or Frodo in any way which is not coloured by the film. I guess you are lucky in that way, noone has done the definitive version of god to ruin your story.

Also, you keep using Science as an argument. To develop something, a man first had to come up with an idea. Then he proves others that it's correct.
If you can't reach out for Him, think of Him as an idea that wasn't yet proven nor disproven. Just like Science, huh?

Correct. He is a hypothesis. There is just no evidence to back it up after much searching, so its a failed hypothesis.

Some day you're gonna step on evidences. The thing you do wrong is assuming in advance that He doesn't exist

Haha, let's get passed 2012 and the end of the Mayan calander. One crack pot theory at a time please.

You are criticising it, but you're acting exactly the same way.

Untrue. I accept that even the best model we have is probably an approximation. I accept that even the most fundamental theory has the potential to be totally wrong. I even accept there is a remote chance that Lion-O and god are playing Poker in Valhalla as I type this.

All just a matter of proof.

[Ganado]

Total nonsense.
"snip"

Yes, you're right in the sense that Scientific theories come a lot closer to "the beginning" than any religion does.

I don't even really care for the book of Genesis, but my point was that even if you try to trace the beginning, neither side can give you an exact answer. Science can get a really close answer, but still isn't the exact beginning. I don't think the exact beginning will ever be found, because it seems to be infinite.

But I don't know much about the 11th dimension, so I can't debate with you about that, sorry. 

[cogliostro]

The beauty of Science is that it isn't a closed book that claims to have the answers, it says "This is our best understanding of our reality, use evidence to prove it wrong". The exact opposite of religion which says "This is exactly what happened, please ignore the fact we've got absolutely nothing to back this up". 

I must agree. Fact to blame religion blindly, while not to science, that let us learn if from our mistakes it's necessary.

[Sius]

At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.

And I agree with someone who mentioned it before, that man is just another animal driven by instincts. No matter how high our IQ may go, no matter how noble we may get, no matter whenever we have souls or not, we are just animals as any other.

Just search for another topic here in offtop section, it was something like "what would you do if the world is about to end". And I would say majority of people there let their "inner beast" out and wrote down the truth or at least part of it. Simply my point is that only thing that differs us from animals right now is a fear of punishment. Remove that from equation and you will be amazed what would our precious little society here on Earth turned out to be. Only strong will survive. Also with our numerous gadgets it would be a little more complex than fistfights but strong does not discriminate between muscles or mind. Simply we would get back to natural selection that mankind seems to avoid quiet successfully these days (which is imho the main source of our doom=overpopulation). We've reached such absurd point that even those who don't want to be anymore (now I mean f.e. extreme cases of paralysis, when man becomes trapped inside his body and absolutely dependent on others) are kept alive no matter what.

We consider our lives as something precious, something more, yet we slaughter endless numbers of animals every day with no remorse - arguing, that they are just mindless animals with no souls. But we were at the exactly same point in our evolution as they are now in theirs. At the point that we were HOMO-something we were literary just another animals on the surface of the planet. So by this logic if some more intelligent race came back then and started to breed us for meat, skin or labor, then it would have been ok right? We were just mindless animals with no souls therefore the life of the member of that "upper" race is worth more than life of the animal(=man).


To get back to topic about religion, then my general opinion is that most (if not all) religion were made as a tool to control masses. Make them obey, make them fear, make them pay... And in modern times like these religion is slowly passing this role onto media.

And to somehow end this brainstorm of mine, I'll leave you with something to think about:

Is God able to create object so heavy that he won't be able to lift it?
- If yes, then he is not almighty.
- If no, then he is not omnipotent.

[cogliostro]

Simply my point is that only thing that differs us from animals right now is a fear of punishment.

We only differ from the rest of the animal kingdom in our rational way of think.

Simply we would get back to natural selection that mankind seems to avoid quiet successfully these days (which is imho the main source of our doom=overpopulation). We've reached such absurd point that even those who don't want to be anymore (now I mean f.e. extreme cases of paralysis, when man becomes trapped inside his body and absolutely dependent on others) are kept alive no matter what.

I agree. We are getting weaker and weaker, while confort kill us, as our lives pass.

We consider our lives as something precious, something more, yet we slaughter endless numbers of animals every day with no remorse - arguing, that they are just mindless animals with no souls. But we were at the exactly same point in our evolution as they are now in theirs.

We are the same as the rest. I think no soul there for any animal, nor vegetal...

At the point that we were HOMO-something we were literary just another animals on the surface of the planet. So by this logic if some more intelligent race came back then and started to breed us for meat, skin or labor, then it would have been ok right? We were just mindless animals with no souls therefore the life of the member of that "upper" race is worth more than life of the animal(=man).

We STILL are Homos, Homo-Sapiens. And the reason why Cromagnon prevails over Neanderthal is SOCIABILTY, the Cromagnon used to hunt in groups, use dogs to help the job. They used to save their supplies too, meanwhile Neanderthals were living the present, without expecting the possible lack of food in the future. This despite Neanderthals more big craneal capacity, ignoring the surface of his brain, being compared to the one of the Cromagnon.

[cogliostro]

Another thing that let us develop our brain greatly, is the creativity of our ancestors, and the people who continue doing art, the way it may be expressed. And there we have all religions, as a product of the creativity and desire to rule of the human being.

[Ganado]

And I agree with someone who mentioned it before, that man is just another animal driven by instincts. No matter how high our IQ may go, no matter how noble we may get, no matter whenever we have souls or not, we are just animals as any other.

Just search for another topic here in offtop section, it was something like "what would you do if the world is about to end". And I would say majority of people there let their "inner beast" out and wrote down the truth or at least part of it. Simply my point is that only thing that differs us from animals right now is a fear of punishment. Remove that from equation and you will be amazed what would our precious little society here on Earth turned out to be. Only strong will survive. Also with our numerous gadgets it would be a little more complex than fistfights but strong does not discriminate between muscles or mind. Simply we would get back to natural selection that mankind seems to avoid quiet successfully these days (which is imho the main source of our doom=overpopulation). We've reached such absurd point that even those who don't want to be anymore (now I mean f.e. extreme cases of paralysis, when man becomes trapped inside his body and absolutely dependent on others) are kept alive no matter what.

Yes, but we ourselves created this "fear of punishment" or "system of rules". Animals can't grasp that. If something were to go wrong like a nuclear war or something, and human advancement is pushed back, it is still in our nature to progress and form societies.

But I agree that overpopulation will become a major problem as the earth reaches 10 billion by like 2050 or 2100, whatever the estimate is.

[Sius]

We only differ from the rest of the animal kingdom in our rational way of think.

You did not get me. My point is that most of us, no matter how noble mankind could be, would not hesitate when it comes to "natural selection scenario". Those who would hesitate => would be weak => would have to pass the right to live to stronger ones.

We STILL are Homos, Homo-Sapiens. And the reason why Cromagnon prevails over Neanderthal is SOCIABILTY, the Cromagnon used to hunt in groups, use dogs to help the job. They used to save their supplies too, meanwhile Neanderthals were living the present, without expecting the possible lack of food in the future. This despite Neanderthals more big craneal capacity, ignoring the surface of his brain, being compared to the one of the Cromagnon.

I know that we are Homo sapiens, but again you did not get it. I meant that by our own logic if we could timetravel and bring back our prehistoric ancestors and then as said breed them for meat/skin/labor, then it should be completely ok with everyone (except vegetarians/vegans). Because where is the crime? Its just an animal, so what? What difference does it make whenever it is sociable or not? Killer-whales are capable of sociability, such as many other animals. Yet do you see us trying to save every single one of them even those crippled ones? Does whole families dedicate their lives to feed crippled animals, that won't be able to live on their own ever again?

Through seeing ourselves as something more, something with soul, something created by god to his own image we have set out a journey on deadly path.

We only differ from the rest of the animal kingdom in our rational way of think.

Which will ultimately be not just ours but their doom too.

Yes, but we ourselves created this "fear of punishment" or "system of rules". Animals can't grasp that. If something were to go wrong like a nuclear war or something, and human advancement is pushed back, it is still in our nature to progress and form societies.

Just because one species happened to choose the right time between meteor showers and had good conditions to develop uninterrupted does not make them superior to others. Where could dolphins be in a quadrizilion years from now? They could rule the galaxy as far as I'm concerned.

I would call mankind being advanced in progress/thinking just a lucky coincidence.

So long and thanks for all the fish

[JustGreat]

Was the big bang a collision of branes along the 11th dimension? Are we holographic projections from the edge of the universe? Does a photon travel along EVERY path avaialble to it until its observed, at which point the history of that photon is decided and the history of the universe changes (Which can mean you can effect things which happened 13 billion years ago)

String theory is not even properly normalizable yet, let alone using de Sitter space to explain the origins of the universe. Photons travel along the path of least action (both classically and quantum mechanically), what does their path traveled have to do with them being observed?

A lot of people, more so evident in atheists, is their belief about the superiority of science when it comes to the metaphysical. From my point of view this is amusing considering science still has trouble to explain the physical. 

Science is much like religion more than you would like to believe. Scientists are hostile to new ideas if they go against very established principles and a lot of theory is very hard to show wrong (you can get correct results and have the wrong theory  ), much like it is very hard to show the existence of god as wrong.

[Floodnik]

There are tests being done on fundamental beliefs? People are willing to accept that God does not exist until there is evidence found for him? No.

Didn't I mention experiencing God in your life already? Someone who did, doesn't need more proofs. He is gonna believe. You're not gonna "touch" Him if you don't try. You won't understand.

Religion is completely illogical, it does not accept tests and does not accept the fact it may be total nonsense. The are in no way complimentary.

Religion is a lot more closely linked to a fantasy novel.

Religion being total nonsense isn't a fact. It's a statement you, eniemies of religion created. And going to stand by it.
I already said religion doesn't collide with science and your beloved facts. That's what I think.

Correct. He is a hypothesis. There is just no evidence to back it up after much searching, so its a failed hypothesis.

Again: it's personal.

Haha, let's get passed 2012 and the end of the Mayan calander. One crack pot theory at a time please.

And who mentioned that? The only Christians who claim they know when the world is ended are the so called "Jehovah's Witnesses"(if that's how you call them in english). But nowhere in Bible is there a clear date given.

All just a matter of proof.

Indeed. Proof you have to search for if you want to find it 

[Colombo]

Many of you should study biology more, because:

We are not only one with creativity.
We are not only one with rational thinking.
We are the only one that make those important things (antropic princip)

About evolution, evolution is more about "survival of the luckiest" so only antropic princip gives good answer for "why we are here?"

Science have made great progress. Many of those arguing "science can't explain all things" should study more, because they would realize, that many of those things that science can't explain were already explained.

[cogliostro]

You did not get me. My point is that most of us, no matter how noble mankind could be, would not hesitate when it comes to "natural selection scenario".

I get what you said but, what that have to do with this? Obviously If we are a sane animal, wouldn't hesitate. No?

Those who would hesitate => would be weak => would have to pass the right to live to stronger ones.

I understand your point of view. What are you trying to inculcate with that? Why If we choose the one of our own selection, are we being weak? Living for the stronger? I think not.

I know that we are Homo sapiens, but again you did not get it. I meant that by our own logic if we could timetravel and bring back our prehistoric ancestors and then as said breed them for meat/skin/labor, then it should be completely ok with everyone (except vegetarians/vegans).

No exceptions, I doubt in the past when humans used to hunt more for survival have been vegetarians, when they ate basically meat. Agriculture happens later (Sedentary), when earlier was the hunting, but also harvesting berries (Omnivore).

Because where is the crime? Its just an animal, so what? What difference does it make whenever it is sociable or not? Killer-whales are capable of sociability, such as many other animals. Yet do you see us trying to save every single one of them even those crippled ones? Does whole families dedicate their lives to feed crippled animals, that won't be able to live on their own ever again?

Then you are writting about what we are or could be. Killer whales kill because of food, same as we, If there were nothing more else to do. I do not know about the life of a whale to answer If they feed crippled who are going to die, or are being left for dead.

Through seeing ourselves as something more, something with soul, something created by god to his own image we have set out a journey on deadly path.
Which will ultimately be not just ours but their doom too.

The term god has been created by Hominids, old prophets of Asia Minor invented for a purpose added, product of their creativity, power and the use of it over the other populations, who respected them and believe every single word coming out of: their mouths/manuscripts, and using that power and respect to take advantage and restrict their actions, now working as laws. Meanwhile they were giving answer to people of why they exists (but prophets can't), so they invented god as the creative force. There you have the dual-task conducted so well.

We are not only one with creativity.

But we have more creativity than other animals. There has never been said other animals weren't creative at a certain point.

We are not only one with rational thinking.

As well as hominids act very irrational at times. But this is based most in the fact we can restrain before perform something, thinking about benefits and consequences. It's about the level that fact holds.

We are the only one that make those important things (antropic princip)
About evolution, evolution is more about "survival of the luckiest" so only antropic princip gives good answer for "why we are here?"

I don't know about that principle, If you could explain more about the correlation between it and the thread, would be great.

[Colombo]

But we have more creativity than other animals. There has never been said other animals weren't creative at a certain point.

Yeah, and horse have bigger penis. Does it mean that horse is better than human? That it is not animal? Creativity is only important for humans.

As well as hominids act very irrational at times. But this is based most in the fact we can restrain before perform something, thinking about benefits and consequences. It's about the level that fact holds.

Even when you think you behave rationale, in most times you only rationalize what you subconsciousness ordered to do.

I don't know about that principle, If you could explain more about the correlation between it and the thread, would be great.

It is quite simple.

Questin many people ask: "Why there is universe and everything so we could live, breed childrens and be happy? Why we have such inteligence and free will to be good or evil?"
answer through (weak) antropocentric principl: if universe was different, you wouldn't ask that question.

Creativity is important only for human, from evolution point of view, it is something like bigger penis for horse. It helps to breed more and survive (breeding is waaaay important than survive, the survival should be "survive till can breed")

[T-888]

My programing does not include this " god ".