Green Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I think you can believe what ever you want and if you really believe it then its true to you because thats ur reality. So if you take what I'm saying to the extreme then if you believe a giant speggetti monster created the entire universe then no matter how ridicoulouse every one else thinks it is and no matter who else you can get to agree with you if you truly believe it then bam its true er then true to ur reality baby. Personaly I'm very unsure of how it all started but I find it hard not to think about and when I do Science doesnt seem to have all the answers and if I do have a soul which the bible leads me to believe I can almost feel that greater being known as god who created all this, as to the if god created everything then who created him/her well if god is all powerfull and exists beyon the boundries of time and all that other mortal stuff we have to put up with he could have created himself of coarse no problem at all. so if I have to pick a religion I go With God created all of us, and if I have to go with pure science I say cells from outer space landed on earth and started all this, where did those cells come from origanly and why do they live whats the point because it was just cool and they some how knew i would lead to stuff Link to post Share on other sites
PussInHeels Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 So if you take what I'm saying to the extreme then if you believe a giant speggetti monster created the entire universe then no matter how ridicoulouse every one else thinks it is and no matter who else you can get to agree with you if you truly believe it then bam its true er then true to ur reality baby. Ok, first of all its The Flying Spaghetti Monster and I am truly offended. I declare a holy spaghetti war on you and yours! Link to post Share on other sites
Green Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Let loose the Meat Balls of war, PussinHeels ur dead to me, drown in tomatoe sauce and eat the parsley Link to post Share on other sites
PussInHeels Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Let loose the Meat Balls of war, PussinHeels ur dead to me, drown in tomatoe sauce and eat the parsley That is quite harsh, and The FSM will not forgive your blasphemy. Link to post Share on other sites
Rooster_DAR Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I still find it amazing people believe what has been deciphered as the truth by modern religion. True, you can decipher it any way you see fit, but the way it' s now deciphered does not make sense. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think all of the magical things (and I say magical because they cannot happen in our universe due to the laws of phyisics) are even possible and certainly not just a few thousand years ago. I don't have to be a master in physics, or even a bioligist to see what's clear around me. I don't know it there is a true god that's true, but I do know what we have learned traditionally is very unlikey (in my mind it's false). Like I have been stating, religion is now trying to find ways to fuse their beliefs with evolution, but I really think that someday people will understand that religion is based on something man made up, and not reality. I think religion OTOH is and has proven to beneficial the the human race in many ways, but it's also has caused some problems, mainly war. I also believe that people who are die hard religious, are not going to be open minded enough to advance in finding the truth due to their beliefs clouding their perception of what is real. Love this debate, I hope this thread continues. Regards, Link to post Share on other sites
Green Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 To me science is magic, I mean I havent done all the expirements myself to fully understand every concept of how science works. I'm typing this message on my magic screen right now and through some mumbo jumbo magic that would take libraries to even begin to some what understand I'm sending u this message over the net. then trough some other magic called science we can begin to try to guess how you have the consiousness to understand this, chemical reactions in the brain causing a feeling of consciousness isnt good enough for me. Science is not a vail you can hide behind this is a question of pure philosophy and I make the choice to go with religion at this point in time. it was not always so I went trough some kind of cycle of in and out between science religion and at times my own made up phantasies to explain life. Link to post Share on other sites
PussInHeels Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 To me science is magic, I mean I havent done all the expirements myself to fully understand every concept of how science works. I'm typing this message on my magic screen right now and through some mumbo jumbo magic that would take libraries to even begin to some what understand I'm sending u this message over the net. then trough some other magic called science we can begin to try to guess how you have the consiousness to understand this, chemical reactions in the brain causing a feeling of consciousness isnt good enough for me. Science is not a vail you can hide behind this is a question of pure philosophy and I make the choice to go with religion at this point in time. it was not always so I went trough some kind of cycle of in and out between science religion and at times my own made up phantasies to explain life. Science has been wrong in the past, and it may make erroneous judgments in the future, but I don't think you can chalk science up to being hocus pocus just because it conflicts with some religious ideals. Science is something we all utilize, no matter what our beliefs. You may not understand it, but there are people who do, and we can all benefit from it. Edit: Unless you live in a cave and rub sticks together...although even rubbing sticks together involves the magical scientific problem solving. Link to post Share on other sites
alphamale Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Science has been wrong in the past, and it may make erroneous judgments in the future, but I don't think you can chalk science up to being hocus pocus just because it conflicts with some religious ideals. Science is based upon theory, experiment and evidence. It is a moving target that builds upon itself and evolves over time. Religion is the exact opposite in almost all respects. It does not evolve, it does not change and it requires "faith". Link to post Share on other sites
Green Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Im saying no one understands science people only pretend to, heck the way the devices work in the flynstones makes more sense to me. and science doesnt really explain anything, its cool and its fun and I'm not trying to be one of those people that says we shouldnt learn all about it but it definetly is the be all end all I just hate it when people put down religiouse people using there science, I mean religiouse people have an excuse theyre trying to save you from going to hell and stuff like that, some pure science people are just pure skeptics in the humble mans opinion, and I am a very humble man maybe I started it all... Oh yeah and most of the people who have made the greatest scientific discoveries have all been religiouse Link to post Share on other sites
PussInHeels Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Im saying no one understands science people only pretend to, heck the way the devices work in the flynstones makes more sense to me. and science doesnt really explain anything, its cool and its fun and I'm not trying to be one of those people that says we shouldnt learn all about it but it definetly is the be all end all I just hate it when people put down religiouse people using there science, I mean religiouse people have an excuse theyre trying to save you from going to hell and stuff like that, some pure science people are just pure skeptics in the humble mans opinion, and I am a very humble man maybe I started it all... Oh yeah and most of the people who have made the greatest scientific discoveries have all been religiouse I'm sure that is true. But religion is not what made them good scientists. In fact, the Scientific Movement of the 18th century was in part a reaction to people being fed up with the Church's grasp on technological advancement, and many good findings were made from that movement. Of course scientists and doctors can have a religion, but that just proves my point. These are RELIGIOUS people that see science as something that can be very productive, they don't see it as a veil. Link to post Share on other sites
Green Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 So where do u think life came from? and make sure your answer is all encompasing such as god Life came from god and god came from himself the end. simple sentance.. do I understand god and now how to do what he/she can nooo do I personaly always believe in god yeah in one way or another although I am bad ass enough to write **** YOU GOD cause I dont think hes going to strike me down but who knows this could be my undooing Link to post Share on other sites
Author Fun2BMe Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 Religion is the exact opposite in almost all respects. It does not evolve, it does not change and it requires "faith". As more scientific facts are discovered and more learned about the world we live in, about animals, the earth and the universe, and our understanding of them evolves, so too does religion. Not for everyone. Some people base their religion on the straightforward reading of the bible. Others incorporate what we learn into their religion, such as incorporating evolution. Whereas faith is a pre-requisite for religion, some religious beliefs also may or may not incorporate change and evolvement. You are full of generalizations today! Link to post Share on other sites
Green Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 As more scientific facts are discovered and more learned about the world we live in, about animals, the earth and the universe, and our understanding of them evolves, so too does religion. Not for everyone. Some people base their religion on the straightforward reading of the bible. Others incorporate what we learn into their religion, such as incorporating evolution. Whereas faith is a pre-requisite for religion, some religious beliefs also may or may not incorporate change and evolvement. You are full of generalizations today! bravo that was great, I mean priests were the first real scientists for god sakes religion is part of the total person u cant just have science. Link to post Share on other sites
Rooster_DAR Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 When I present my beliefs, I am basing them on what I was brought up on. I do think it's possible there was a great creator, but I am not convinced of it and I am certainly convinced it's nothing like we were brought up to believe. For me to believe or have faith in something that has not revealed itself, that makes me question who is telling the story. A question that changed my mind a long time ago is this. Why in the world would a perfect spirit (God) create an imperfect world or allow his creation to create an imperfect world. To me this sounds like playing a new game I created, or some sort of experiment to keep me entertained. I would tend to think that true perfection would beget perfection, and not waste time with playing some kind of game with stick figures. I was also brought up to believe "Who so should not believe in me, will perish". That sounds like the mind of a selfish child who if doesn't get what that want they are going to punish you. There are many people who are atheists, agnostic, and whatever else you want to call them that are great people and benefit mankind by their actions. Should these people suffer some firey death sentence just because they didn't undertand who god was? nonsense. I certainly don't know the answers and neither does anybody else at this point, but we must consider science and all the benefits it provides to help us get a better understanding of where we come from. If god is real, then perhaps science in the end will lead us to him. Regards, Link to post Share on other sites
magichands Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 This thread has A LOT to do with evolution because most (not all) people who believe in God do not believe in evolution and most (not all) who believe in evolution don't believe in God. Some religions and sects even ban the study of evolution. Others incorporate it into their beliefs. It would be unusual if a discussion on the origins of life excluded evolution especially since the origins can be traced back through evolution, giving hints or opinions as to how it may have developed, I guess I see your point. I'm going to refer to a previous post. The point is that "evolution" doesn't explain jack (or jill) about the origin of life. Well...maybe it will help us "trace back" to LUCA (last universal ancestor) - but then we have to go back even further. You could be right in saying that "tracing back" will give us insight. But I still think that one could understand evolutionary processes very well, and yet not have the slightest clue as to where life came from. I may of course be wrong.Who cares...it's your thread. Link to post Share on other sites
konfused Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 In the 1920's experiments were done involving inorganic molecules. These molecules were allowed to be bombarded by normal sunlight. Over time, seven amino acids were formulated. Three of these are among the 20 that are associated with life. It seems, however, that most would regard life as having a soul. So the question must be defined before it can be answered. Link to post Share on other sites
Rooster_DAR Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 In the 1920's experiments were done involving inorganic molecules. These molecules were allowed to be bombarded by normal sunlight. Over time, seven amino acids were formulated. Three of these are among the 20 that are associated with life. It seems, however, that most would regard life as having a soul. So the question must be defined before it can be answered. Yes, this is what I was referring to earlier in this post. I initially stated the life was reproduced, but corrected myself stating that the building blocks of life were simulated. Link to post Share on other sites
konfused Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Yes, this is what I was referring to earlier in this post. I initially stated the life was reproduced, but corrected myself stating that the building blocks of life were simulated. I don't understand why you felt the need to correct yourself. What exactly is life to you? I haven't read your posts nor do I know you, but I assume you must relate 'life' to the insertion of a soul of some sorts. I'm a materialist, so building blocks are all I need. Link to post Share on other sites
Rooster_DAR Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I don't understand why you felt the need to correct yourself. What exactly is life to you? I haven't read your posts nor do I know you, but I assume you must relate 'life' to the insertion of a soul of some sorts. I'm a materialist, so building blocks are all I need. I'm fairly convinced this is the case as well. But, you know something did not crawl out of the hole, but I'm not sure it really matters cause we all know by now life developed from the materials. Regards, Link to post Share on other sites
Author Fun2BMe Posted November 9, 2006 Author Share Posted November 9, 2006 I don't understand why you felt the need to correct yourself. What exactly is life to you? I haven't read your posts nor do I know you, but I assume you must relate 'life' to the insertion of a soul of some sorts. I'm a materialist, so building blocks are all I need. If building blocks are all you need, then if we can create a corpse like body equivelent to what we understand to be 'dead' which is undeniably made of building blocks, that would answer your question as to where life comes from? (From what you say I take it that you mean building blocks to be the material of organic matter of animals as opposed to inorganic like a chair or rock.) Aside from a soul which you don't believe in and many argue animals don't possess anyways, what does life mean to you? I would like to know. Link to post Share on other sites
ely Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 In a recent discussion over Public Radio, one of the participants made the remark that it was strange that if there is a Creator God, He has not left some evidence of himself. But he has indeed left evidences of himself. His footprints are all around us in the beautiful plants and animals we see. Also love, humor, development of male and female (sexuality), appreciation of beauty, the conscience, etc. are difficult or impossible for evolution to explain. Evidences exist for both Creation and for evolution. We cannot prove one or the other because we are dealing with historical science and we cannot go back in time and really see what happened and we cannot experiment with the past. Our decision has to be based on which evidences we find the stronges. I believe that Creation narrative in Genesis is true and that evidence for Creation is far stronger than that for evolution. But of coourse we cannot make intelligent decisions unless we are acquainted with the evidences on both sides. Unfortunately, most evolutionists know almost nothin about the evidences for Creation. Link to post Share on other sites
ely Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 In a recent discussion over Public Radio, one of the participants made the remark that it was strange that if there is a Creator God, He has not left some evidence of himself. But he has indeed left evidences of himself. His footprints are all around us in the beautiful plants and animals we see. Also love, humor, development of male and female (sexuality), appreciation of beauty, the conscience, etc. are difficult or impossible for evolution to explain. Evidences exist for both Creation and for evolution. We cannot prove one or the other because we are dealing with historical science and we cannot go back in time and really see what happened and we cannot experiment with the past. Our decision has to be based on which evidences we find the stronges. I believe that Creation narrative in Genesis is true and that evidence for Creation is far stronger than that for evolution. But of coourse we cannot make intelligent decisions unless we are acquainted with the evidences on both sides. Unfortunately, most evolutionists know almost nothin about the evidences for Creation. Link to post Share on other sites
Rooster_DAR Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Unfortunately, most evolutionists know almost nothin about the evidences for Creation. That's called "lack of sufficient evidence to support the theory". Link to post Share on other sites
a4a Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 In a recent discussion over Public Radio, one of the participants made the remark that it was strange that if there is a Creator God, He has not left some evidence of himself. But he has indeed left evidences of himself. His footprints are all around us in the beautiful plants and animals we see. Also love, humor, development of male and female (sexuality), appreciation of beauty, the conscience, etc. are difficult or impossible for evolution to explain. Evidences exist for both Creation and for evolution. We cannot prove one or the other because we are dealing with historical science and we cannot go back in time and really see what happened and we cannot experiment with the past. Our decision has to be based on which evidences we find the stronges. I believe that Creation narrative in Genesis is true and that evidence for Creation is far stronger than that for evolution. But of coourse we cannot make intelligent decisions unless we are acquainted with the evidences on both sides. Unfortunately, most evolutionists know almost nothin about the evidences for Creation. His footprints also left us with anthrax, aids, homosexuals (who I like in general as a group of people), natural disasters, desire to kill and maim....... or is that the devil who is behind all that. As for biological reasons for feelings; those have been discussed in many threads...... chemical reactions in the brain to mate/ breed and so on. If you are saying the bible itself is the proof of a creator, there are other religions that make much more sense and give more proof of a creator supported by their beliefs...... like FSM. True fact...... less pirates on the planet= more global warming. This is a fact. Link to post Share on other sites
Rooster_DAR Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 I believe that Creation narrative in Genesis is true and that evidence for Creation is far stronger than that for evolution. You are joking right? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts