Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geniegee2003

you can't say that "you'll come back as something or someone of a higher station than you are now" you can't tell or promise someone that because you dont know that is what will definately happen, it's kind of giving people false hope.

---

I think the post may have been tongue-in-cheek. ;)

Again I state:

It is a concept,lack of proof makes it just that,what one believes isn't what all believe, no one can say,with undeniable evidence,that there is a factual entity, they can, however, extend their compassion and what they have been taught by their religion to the masses( when they are so driven)

My earlier post stated,

How many atheists have come knocking on your door,asking to save you from your overt feelings of belief?

Or met you at the airport, passing out flowers in an act of? Servitude? To their religion?

Atheists(that I know) do not wish to, and are not in the habit of, judging others of their choices of religion,or others passion in their delivery of their concept of 'The Word' as dictated by their respective preachings.

They do not,however,want to be dictated to by those who have the 'Freedom of religion' and try to force their ideology on others.

If we believe, we believe, if not, live and let live.

Ken

This is getting so patheitc. Some people believe, some people dont believe. Neither person is wrong and neither is right. Let's just leave it at that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geniegee2003

This is getting so patheitc. Some people believe, some people dont believe. Neither person is wrong and neither is right. Let's just leave it at that

---

That is what debate is about,discussion between people, without 'pulling the trigger'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firmbeliever

As a believer in The Creator of the worlds, I have always wondered how an atheist comes to the conclusion that God is non existent ?
Please do not think that I am going to argue your points,just curious!!!:confused:

Thanks in advance.

---

It is a very strange point of view, atheism, considering there's no logic behind it. Nobody would say "there's no Creator" if they happened to come upon a fully-stocked, temperature controlled home during a walk through the woods... so why would someone say "there's no Creator" when you take a look at this planet, or look closer at the various cycles of the planet, or even the various systems of the human body. How can someone logically say that there was no intelligent creator or designer behind these things? It's a point of view that people ARE entitled to have, but it really doesn't appear to be any kind of logical rationale behind it.

Logic and religion do not go hand in hand, and they never will. If you choose to not get educated in evolution and physics and chemistry then that is your choice of course. Not understanding something does not logically mean that there is a god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentrascal

It is a very strange point of view, athiesm, considering there's no logic behind it. Nobody would say "there's no Creator" if they happened to come upon a fully-stocked, temperature controlled home during a walk through the woods.....so why would someone say "there's no Creator" when you take a look at this planet, or look closer at the various cycles of the planet, or even the various systems of the human body. How can someone logically say that there was no intelligent creator or designer behind these things? It's a point of view that people ARE entitled to have, but it really doesn't appear to be any kind of logical rationale behind it.

---

On the contrary,I see it as;

Science has proven the changes in human physiology,adapting to environmental needs,from eating fruits and nuts, to red meat.

Science shows,humans adaptation to survival in the arctic as well as the tropics,and succeeding in both places.

Are these an act of a higher power?A believer will think so,an atheist will say no its just evolution.

Look at the Milky way Galaxy and say this is a creation of a supreme being,and the atheist says,its natural evolution,science can show this.But religion asks to accept on words or preachings that this is creationism,Science is factual,religion is concept, Where is the logical thinking you are lost on? Facts are facts, Concepts are interpretation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KBC

On the contrary,I see it as;

Science has proven the changes in human physiology,adapting to environmental needs,from eating fruits and nuts, to red meat.

Science shows,humans adaptation to survival in the arctic as well as the tropics,and succeeding in both places.

Are these an act of a higher power?A believer will think so,an atheist will say no its just evolution.

Look at the Milky way Galaxy and say this is a creation of a supreme being,and the atheist says,its natural evolution,science can show this.But religion asks to accept on words or preachings that this is creationism,Science is factual,religion is concept, Where is the logical thinking you are lost on? Facts are facts, Concepts are interpretation.

---

Sure, science can back up the facts of creation, but it cannot back up guesses as to everything coming about by chance, by the ridiculous theory of evolution, or by some big bang. Fact is that all of these things discussed CANNOT come about by mere chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentrascal

Sure, science can back up the facts of creation, but it cannot back up guesses as to everything coming about by chance, by the ridiculous theory of evolution, or by some big bang. Fact is that all of these things discussed CANNOT come about by mere chance.

---

Have you tried to create life by mere chance over several billion years? I can tell you that nobody ever has, and so what you state as "fact" is in fact nothing of the sort. It's your own assertion, an assertion that I suggest is logically inept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Have you tried to create life by mere chance over several billion years? I can tell you that nobody ever has, and so what you state as "fact" is in fact nothing of the sort. It's your own assertion, an assertion that I suggest is logically inept.

---

I have common sense and intelligence, and those things along say that you can have something come out of nothing all by itself. Pure impossibility. Logically inept would be to claim that life, this planet, and the universe came out of some chance combination of chemicals or "ooze" over billions of years and simply discounting that an intelligent creator made all things because the idea is too easy for arrogant scientific "experts" to accept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

It annoys me when people think they have a religion that only applies to them.

---

Have you thought about why it annoys you? Could it be because you want to apply your conclusion that you are "a fortuitous arrangement of salty water" to everybody else as well? Doesn't it give you pause to find yourself in bed with mountain man on this one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

If there is one true religion, then it will apply to all of us, and if there is no true religion, then the fact that we are nothing more than a fortuitous arrangement of salty water applies to all of us.

---

How can you (and mountain man) be so very sure that these are the only two possibilities? Of course, the logical mind loves unambiguous distinctions and mutually exclusive alternatives, but reality is often messier than that. I see a vast continuum between these two extremes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentrascal

I have common sense and intelligence, and those things along say that you can have something come out of nothing all by itself. Pure impossibility. Logically inept would be to claim that life, this planet, and the universe came out of some chance combination of chemicals or "ooze" over billions of years and simply discounting that an intelligent creator made all things because the idea is too easy for arrogant scientific "experts" to accept.

---

Where do the theories of the big bang, or evolution, or abiogenesis state that something comes out of nothing?

I think we should all respect eachother's beliefs, after all that's what makes us a cultural world. If everyone believed the same thing there would be no diversity and life would be so very boring :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Have you thought about why it annoys you? Could it be because you want to apply your conclusion that you are "a fortuitous arrangement of salty water" to everybody else as well? Doesn't it give you pause to find yourself in bed with mountain man on this one?

How can you (and mountain man) be so very sure that these are the only two possibilities? Of course, the logical mind loves unambiguous distinctions and mutually exclusive alternatives, but reality is often messier than that. I see a vast continuum between these two extremes.

---

I should have stated the opposite I suppose. It seems a bit silly to me for someone to say "If i believe in reincarnation, I will be reincarnated, and if I believe in a final death, then I will have a final death". Both Christianity (within it's denominations, at least) and Atheism are fairly clear about what happens after death, and are very clear that it will happen to everyone.

I don't wish to apply the "salty bag of water" to everyone, since, if it's true, it applies regardless or not of whether I want it to. People can believe as they wish but I don't believe that what they believe will change squat.

I haven't heard of a religion that states that whatever you think will happen after death will in fact happen exactly the way you believe. Although that might be a very nice religion to be a part of.

I wasn't sure about the 2 possibilities at all. I am only sure about one of them.

Nobody knows the trust about what happens to us after death, the only way we will ever know for sure is when we die. It's abit pesimistic, but it is true. Maybe there's life after death or maybe not. I don't think we should dwell on the question too much, one day we will find out so why not enjoy your life now and worry later

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Where do the theories of the big bang, or evolution, or abiogenesis state that something comes out of nothing?

---

Basically "big bang" says that there was a big explosion from gases and whatever... now how did those gases or materials come about? Were they simply always there? It offers no answers for that, just the blind conjecture that these things were there, they came together, and BANG. Evolution, depending on which person you're discussing it with, says that everyone came together after billions of years of being in some primordial soup... yet it doesn't explain where those elements came from, again assuming they were just always there. People put a lot of stock into these ridiculous theories and push and push and push them as fact simply because scientists word these things in a way so as to make them sound intelligent and plausible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Sparkle

Nobody knows the trust about what happens to us after death, the only way we will ever know for sure is when we die. It's abit pesimistic, but it is true. Maybe theres life after death or maybe not. I dont think we should dwell on the question too much, one day we will find out so why not enjoy your life now and worry later

---

What we KNOW about death is that when someone dies, they have zero functions body wise... no brain activity, no working respiratory or circulatory systems, and eventually the body crumbles back into dust (of which the human body possesses many of the same elements). From what we can see, when a person or animal dies, that's it. There's only the speculation that anything additionally happens that people cling to.

Hello silent:

The big bang came from a singularity, not "gasses and whatever". The big bang and evolution have nothing to do with each other.

Criticism is fine, but base it on facts. Of course, that would involve study and you're probably not going to do that. Especially if you think it's ridiculous.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentrascal

Basically "big bang" says that there was a big explosion from gases and whatever.......now how did those gases or materials come about? Were they simply always there? It offers no answers for that, just the blind conjecture that these things were there, they came together, and BANG. Evolution, depending on which person you're discussing it with, says that everyone came together after billions of years of being in some primordial soup......yet it doesn't explain where those elements came from, again assuming they were just always there. People put a lot of stock into these ridiculous theories and push and push and push them as fact simply because scientists word these things in a way so as to make them sound intelligent and plausible.

---

No, it doesn't, please go and study big bang theory, stellar formation theory, planetary formation theory, and evolutionary theory. Then we can have an intelligent discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

No, it doesn't, please go and study big bang theory, stellar formation theory, planetary formation theory, and evolutionary theory. Then we can have an intelligent discussion.

---

Yes it does. Go study it yourself... and forget the discussion.

Haha this has been quite a topical debate :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello silent:

The big bang came from a singularity, not "gasses and whatever". The big bang and evolution have nothing to do with each other.

Criticism is fine, but base it on facts. Of course, that would involve study and you're probably not going to do that. Especially if you think it's ridiculous.

excon

---

Sorry, excon, but I'm not going to take your word for it. I've heard the "big bang" theory in many different versions and forms, one of which I mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentrascal

Basically "big bang" says that there was a big explosion from gases and whatever.......now how did those gases or materials come about? Were they simply always there? It offers no answers for that, just the blind conjecture that these things were there, they came together, and BANG. Evolution, depending on which person you're discussing it with, says that everyone came together after billions of years of being in some primordial soup......yet it doesn't explain where those elements came from, again assuming they were just always there. People put a lot of stock into these ridiculous theories and push and push and push them as fact simply because scientists word these things in a way so as to make them sound intelligent and plausible.

---

And the same can be said about religions,Who is pushing what?

By examination,study,factual evidence,and experiences in our lifetimes,documented and validated,even by the non scientific society, we can see evolution in process.Including the 'theory' looked at concerning the 'Big Bang'

Education and research are not 'ridiculous theories',they are based on fact, not concept.

To have bias towards the scientific community is shortsighted,not taking all possibilities into account,again, who is right? The creationist or the evolotionist,one is FACT, one is CONCEPT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentrascal

Yes it does. Go study it yourself.....and forget the discussion.

---

I have been studying it for the past 6 years. You're wrong, sorry. I knew that the opportunity for an intelligent discussion would be one that you would happily ignore.

This is getting fun now:):):)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KBC

And the same can be said about religions,Who is pushing what?

By examination,study,factual evidence,and experiences in our lifetimes,documented and validated,even by the non scientific society, we can see evolution in process.Including the 'theory' looked at concerning the 'Big Bang'

Education and research are not 'ridiculous theories',they are based on fact, not concept.

To have bias towards the scientific community is shortsighted,not taking all possibilities into account,again, who is right? the creationist or the evolotionist,one is FACT, one is CONCEPT.

---

I think you should realise that both evolution and creationism are theories. Just like Newtonian gravitation and General Relativity are both theories. Just that one fits the evidence more closely, makes more meaningful predictions etc than the other.

I completely agree :) You guys may have differing opinions but at least you have them. Many people don't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

There you go again. You'd get a lot better reception for your ideas if you could just avoid that word "all" when referring to people. Stick with "I" or "some" and you'll be amazed at how much more receptive people will be. Try it. The next time you're tempted to write "we will all" or "we are all" or "we all have" such and such, just say "I" instead. What you believe goes for you, and those who agree with you. Nobody else.

---

Thank you for your fantastic insight about how to respond... obviously what I write is what I believe and I believe all will be judged by the one true and just God. I am not going to compromise the use of the word all to not offend you or someone else. That is what I believe and that is how I wanted it to come across. You or anyone else can receive me however they want to.:)

There is no need to be nasty to people is there? We're all good people and all deserve respect

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

I have been studying it for the past 6 years. You're wrong, sorry. I knew that the opportunity for an intelligent discussion would be one that you would happily ignore.

---

No, I'm not wrong, whether you think so or not. It makes no difference to me whether you studied it for 5 minutes, 6 years, or 30 years. Your condescending tone and arrogance do not lend an air of credibility to your statements. It appears you likewise ignore such opportunity for intelligent discussion.

You are full of good advice and your wife is so blessed to have a husband like you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentrascal

No, I'm not wrong, whether you think so or not. It makes no difference to me whether you studied it for 5 minutes, 6 years, or 30 years. Your condescending tone and arrogance do not lend an air of credibility to your statements. It appears you likewise ignore such opportunity for intelligent discussion.

---

Do you have to turn everything into an argument

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by albear

do you have to turn everything into an argument

---

I'm sure that question is posed to the wrong individual. My responses are to the one(s) starting the argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentrascal

No, I'm not wrong, whether you think so or not. It makes no difference to me whether you studied it for 5 minutes, 6 years, or 30 years. Your condescending tone and arrogance do not lend an air of credibility to your statements. It appears you likewise ignore such opportunity for intelligent discussion.

---

I'm not starting an argument, I just wanted to ascertain if you knew what you were talking about. Since you don't, we can't have an intelligent discussion about the issues, and so I'm done with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

I'm not starting an argument, I just wanted to ascertain if you knew what you were talking about. Since you don't, we can't have an intelligent discussion about the issues, and so i'm done with you.

---

Apparently I'm not the one here who doesn't know what he's talking about. And again, you don't encourage anyone to want to discuss anything with you by your condescending and insulting tone. You may want to work on your people skills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

I think you should realise that both evolution and creationism are theories. Just like Newtonian gravitation and General Relativity are both theories. Just that one fits the evidence more closely, makes more meaningful predictions etc than the other.

---

Hmm. I can't agree with that. Evolution, gravity, and relativity are scientific theories, based on loads of evidence (a coherent body of knowledge), whereas Creationism is not a scientific theory. In the Dover, Pennsylvania, intelligent design case, a federal judge (Judge Jones) listened to both sides and ruled that neither intelligent design nor creationism was science. Judge Jones himself is a conservative judge with religious beliefs, but he said that Intelligent Design was basically the same as Creationism and they are both religious.

There are a lot of people who accept evolution without fully understanding how it works. That is, they accept it on faith--just as I accept on faith that engineers know how to build bridges. Not everyone can know everything. But the important point is that engineers have a coherent body of facts and theories that help them understand how to build bridges strong enough to support cars, trucks, and even trains.

In the same way, biologists understand how species form and change over time. They have a coherent body of facts and theories that explain what actually happens and they can predict how living organisms will behave based on that knowledge. Just because a lot of Americans don't understand the science doesn't mean it doesn't exist. All of modern biology, including modern medicine, is based on our understanding that organisms change over time.

In contrast, there is no scientific evidence to support Creationism. Creationists have lots of questions about evolution and sometimes they are good questions (though often not), but their criticisms of evolutionary biology don't provide any facts that are evidence for Creationism. There are no scientific journals of creationism, no scientific papers on creationism, etc. Creationists only offer criticisms of evolution, and all of their criticisms are either wrong or picking at small details that don't affect the big picture. (It would be like arguing about what kind of paint to put on a bridge. The bridge is still strong enough to support a train.) Without studying evolution seriously, it's hard for the average person to see why the religious criticisms don't matter or are wrong. It would be as if a large group of people said that all of engineering theory was wrong. All the engineers can do is shrug and point to the bridges, because the math is hard to explain to someone who doesn't know anything about engineering. That's how biologists feel sometimes.

To my knowledge there are only two men with any serious training in biology who have supported Intelligent Design, out of hundreds of thousands of biologists. These are Michael Behe, who is a biochemist, whose latest book backs away from his earlier assertions because his ideas have been disproved. That is, he has all but given up attacking evolution. The other is Jonathan Wells who enrolled in graduate school and got a PhD in biology specifically so that he could use his knowledge to attack evolution. He has said that he planned to attack evolution even before he had studied it. Everything he learned about biology he has used to try to make evolution look untrue to people who don't know what he knows.

Evolution is a scientific theory, but creationism is a religious idea, not different from the virgin birth, the idea of hell, and so on.
Asking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentrascal

Basically "big bang" says that there was a big explosion from gases and whatever.......now how did those gases or materials come about? Were they simply always there? It offers no answers for that, just the blind conjecture that these things were there, they came together, and BANG. Evolution, depending on which person you're discussing it with, says that everyone came together after billions of years of being in some primordial soup......yet it doesn't explain where those elements came from, again assuming they were just always there. People put a lot of stock into these ridiculous theories and push and push and push them as fact simply because scientists word these things in a way so as to make them sound intelligent and plausible.

---

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait...

If something doesn't come from nothing--where the heck did your God come from? YOUR theory doesn't explain where THAT element comes from! If something doesn't come from nothing, and your God is something--who created Him? He can't have ALWAYS been, not if thoses gases and stuff couldn't have ALWAYS been! NOTHING could have ALWAYS been!

So... using YOUR logic--where did your God come from? How can I possibly believe that he was always there, if nothing else was always there?

(psssst... the answer you're looking for here is "I take it on faith. I believe because I believe it, just like other people believe what they do because they have faith in it, whether it's God or Goddess or Flying Spaghetti Monster or primordial soup.")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait....

If something doesn't come from nothing--where the heck did your God come from? YOUR theory doesn't explain where THAT element comes from! If something doesn't come from nothing, and your God is something--who created Him? He can't have ALWAYS been, not if thoses gases and stuff couldn't have ALWAYS been! NOTHING could have ALWAYS been!

So...using YOUR logic--where did your God come from? How can I possibly believe that he was always there, if nothing else was always there?

(psssst....the answer you're looking for here is "I take it on faith. I believe because I believe it, just like other people believe what they do because they have faith in it, whether it's God or Goddess or Flying Spaghetti Monster or primordial soup.")

---

Why can't God have ALWAYS been? Is it because there is no "proof" or because human finite minds can't logical grasp "always" or for another reason?

Asking, you make an interesting point. I believe that every theory is entitled to some scientific investigation. It may well turn out that some theories are very obviously not fitting with the evidence, and some theories may blow open a whole new field of science, but both of these theories are, at the beginning, scientific and worthy of investigation.

For example, string theory, it fits no evidence and it makes no observable predictions, is this not a scientific theory?

I think you may be able to get me to agree with you on the falsifiability front, that the existence of a god is not falsifiable and so is not a scientific theory. But I'm not utterly convinced of that, at the moment, string theory is not falsifiable, although it may well be with the newer colliders coming in the next few years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mountain_man

Why can't God have ALWAYS been? Is it because there is no "proof" or because human finite minds can't logical grasp "always" or for another reason?

---

If God can have always been, then why does he (and you) have an issue with these "gasses" having always been?