Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[Tiwaking!]

I don't "blindly adhere" to "scientific mantra"

This seems to be the main point of JayKay's posts, that you do. And is a point of contention

And eastern religions are alot worse? Hmmm, if you say so. That's an opinion based one. I have certainly not heard of any eastern religions inciting the bullshit that western and the middle-eastern religions have. Not to say shit hasn't gone down, just that its effect on the world hasn't been nearly as noticeable.

You mean the effect on the WESTERN world hasnt been nearly as noticeable. For example: The entire kingdom of Tibet layed down arms and became pacifist buddhist and a very similar occurance in the kingdom of Bhutan. Actually, that was a good thing.
Hinduism has had quite an effect on a small country called India. The seperation of castes could be construed as as an early method of apartheid.
Eastern religion needs its own thread, not a post here which will probably be unread

And it is the point of the thread. This is a religion "megathread".

Yeah sorry about that. The posts were all about evolution/creation and I forgot about the whole religion thing.

So you're implying that 2000 years from now, people will regard him as such? Lets not forget that Jesus Christ had an immediate impact on history. I mean, He did RISE FROM THE DEAD! Or did you miss that part?

People will NOT view Ghandi as a Jesus like figure for the simple fact that a) He claimed he was only a man. b) He claimed he was a Buddhist, and a Christian, and Hindu AND a Jew. c) He never claimed divine holiness or divinity. d) We have both is writings AND video footage of him i.e Proof of existence.

The point of my post was not to discredit the possiblity of Christ. In fact it was in response to the idea that Jesus was merely a "Martin Luther King" figure, which is entirely correct. I was merely to pointing out that given the lack of FIRST-HAND information about his TRUE teachings anyone could become an influential figure in biblical times.
Even Musilims give Jesus credit, but do not believe him to be the son of God.

Its actually closer to around 8000 years, according to the latest biblical-based estimates. The latest scientific estimates place it at closer to 4.7 billion years - just a slight difference.

That was in response to Laurasaur's posts. Her sources estimate it to be 5000 years

Centuries? You mean like the 3000+ years since it was originally written?

Yes I mean centuries. As in 300 centuries. More than that in fact, but cant go to far back. Only have 5000 years to play with human history.

Awesome - quote a fictional character when trying to prove a real point

Obviously the irony of quoting a Fictional character in reponse to Factual information eludes you. I think I'll just use them on Zarkov then

states that currently people who don't believe in God or don't subscribe to any particular religion are only numbered at 1.1 billion people worldwide. So really, I should say "I've 5 billion people who disagree with you" and then you say ...

Do Jedi count?

Okay on a more serious note: Could anyone actually give a summary on the position everyone is taking? The only truths I've found in this whole thread is:
1. Creationists and Evolutionists agree on non-mutually exclusive points i.e Life was created
2. The premise of Creationism discredits Evolutionism, but Evolutionism does NOT discredit Creationism, BUT Creationists believe that it is a direct attack on belief
3. Evolutionism's premise is self-existence. That is: If disproven(but NOT to Creationism) it ceases to exist and a whole new(third method) theory would come about.
4. Fundamentalist Creationists are 'muddying the waters' with unjustifiable claims and responding to inquiries with "Naturalism" and non-scientific endeavouration.

[Black Heart]

evolutionists would not like your first point at all. 'created' pfft...

the word makes one immediately think there was a creator.

I think your GF is smarter than you're giving her credit for.

[Arnifix]

This seems to be the main point of JayKay's posts, that you do. And is a point of contention

Using JayKay as a basis for an evaluation of my character makes me lol. Why not have a serial rapist judge a flower arranging contest? Or have a couch read Proust on live-to-air radio? JayKay doesn't know anything about me, except that I don't beleive a word of his psuedoscientific creationist propaghanda. I might come across as blindly adhering to scientific dogma, but that's bullshit. I put my faith, if you will, in science, because science can actually explain the how and the why of the world, not because I'm so blind that I cannot make decisions for myself and need an imaginary friend to guide me. If science proved that God existed and that I was a sinner and going to hell, well crikey, I'd be the first one down at the church getting anointed in holy water or whatever.

But until that day, I'll continue my immoral ways.

[Tiwaking!]

One mans opinion. My opinion is that religion is founded on the truth of, and a personal faith in, a higher spiritual being - God. The rules and heirachy was invented solely by man and goes against the metaphorical "grain" of what God wanted for His people.

Is this what you really believe? Then perhaps you should consult the bible again.

The pinnacle of the Heirachy is God, the creator and destroyer, the beginning and end. Are you trying to say that when you die you become God's EQUAL? Thats blasphemy! You will always until the end of time be BELOW God. In actual fact, you'll be below his Arch-Angels too!

Heirachy is not a metaphor, its undisputable fact. Its Human Nature. In fact: Perhaps the 'forbidden knowledge' that the metaphor of the apple was not knowledge, but the fact that people could advance the notion that one day they could become God! But instead of destroying his creation, perhaps God thought he would punish us forever by allowing freedom of ideas until we realize our true place in the universe.

Thats a pretty frickin scary thought, that all human endeavour means NOTHING. And its exactly this idea that science fights against: The notion of divinely ordered universe

EDIT: @Arnifix - The usage of JayKay as a basis to evaluate you was meant to make you laugh Doesnt change his opinion though

[Arnifix]

Okay on a more serious note: Could anyone actually give a summary on the position everyone is taking? The only truths I've found in this whole thread is:
1. Creationists and Evolutionists agree on non-mutually exclusive points i.e Life was created
2. The premise of Creationism discredits Evolutionism, but Evolutionism does NOT discredit Creationism, BUT Creationists believe that it is a direct attack on belief
3. Evolutionism's premise is self-existence. That is: If disproven(but NOT to Creationism) it ceases to exist and a whole new(third method) theory would come about.
4. Fundamentalist Creationists are 'muddying the waters' with unjustifiable claims and responding to inquiries with "Naturalism" and non-scientific endeavouration.

Note: My girlfriend was reading what I wrote and criticized point 1 for 'not-making sense'. I told her that it makes perfect sense and she said it was hard to understand. I told her that 'Then you're not the target that the message is intended for, and that your response is exactly that one which I am attempting to provoke and avoid'. She took offence at me insulting her intelligence

Yeah, 1 is iffy. Creationists, as generally refered to in this thread, believe that life was created in a similar state to the one we find it it.
2. Pretty much spot on. That's what always gets me about the fundies. I have no problem with the idea that the big bang might have been god saying "let there be light". I do have a problem with the earth being magically created within the past 10000 years.
3. What the hell? Micro-evolution has been proven to occur. It is scientific fact. However if macro-evolution is proven to be false, then yes, a new theory would be needed.
4. Fundamentalist creationists frequently use misleading quotes, facts and other information to advance their position. However I would like to point out that pretty much every creationist is a fundie, as creationism only exists as a platform to promote jesus-worship.

Creationism is no science, nor is it a religion. It is a psuedoscience based on religious texts.

[Zarathrustra]

As with 'before', the word 'cause' is also related to time, therefor the concept of cause and effect is part of our universe. The Big bang cannot have a cause, because 'cause and effected' was created at the big bang.

Good point.

I've read arguments before on this sort of thing, and the theory of there being 'nothing' also being impossible, as the idea of nothing must exist for there to be nothing...

Circular arguments make my head hurt these days, so I stopped caring.  Much like David Humes 'Principal of the Uniformity of Nature'.... That nub was a retard.  I hate him.  He owes me $ for the panadol to fix the headache.

"Today a young man on acid realised that all matter was really energy
condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness
experiencing itself subjectively, there's no such thing as death,
life is only a dream, and we're the imaginations of ourselves.
Here's Tom with the weather ..."

If there was a 'god', then ideas of god like this make more sense to me.

Bill Hicks rocks.

[njjvk]

Since this thread is TL;DR this may have already been stated but...

read this it makes sense oh yes

[Tiwaking!]

3. Evolutionism's premise is self-existence. That is: If disproven(but NOT to Creationism) it ceases to exist and a whole new(third method) theory would come about.

3. What the hell? Micro-evolution has been proven to occur. It is scientific fact. However if macro-evolution is proven to be false, then yes, a new theory would be needed.

What I mean is: Evolution is self-serving. Its a theory invented as an attempt to explain the creation of biological life using scientific method. From a Creationist point of view: Evolution is its own existence(or beast) whereas Creation advances nothing new and merely is a retooling of the old.

Good point.

I've read arguments before on this sort of thing, and the theory of there being 'nothing' also being impossible, as the idea of nothing must exist for there to be nothing...

Circular arguments make my head hurt these days, so I stopped caring.  Much like David Humes 'Principal of the Uniformity of Nature'.... That nub was a retard.  I hate him.  He owes me $ for the panadol to fix the headache.

"Today a young man on acid realised that all matter was really energy
condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness
experiencing itself subjectively, there's no such thing as death,
life is only a dream, and we're the imaginations of ourselves.
Here's Tom with the weather ..."

If there was a 'god', then ideas of god like this make more sense to me.

Bill Hicks rocks.

God's Debris - Mr Hicks is abit late
David Hume is very very......'wordly preachy'. That is, he uses too many words for Gnosis and too few for....non-Gnosis(?) Unfortunately, I cant recommend any philosphers that are in a similar vein.

Since this thread is TL;DR this may have already been stated but...

Russel's Teapot that man was an absolute genious. Of course, the flying spaghetti monster falls well short of the brilliance of: The Church of the Sub-Genius

[Arnifix]

What I mean is: Evolution is self-serving. Its a theory invented as an attempt to explain the creation of biological life using scientific method. From a Creationist point of view: Evolution is its own existence(or beast) whereas Creation advances nothing new and merely is a retooling of the old.

An understanding am I.

[Tiwaking!]

I'm sure Maxis has an explanation for all of this.

One day millions (billions) of years ago before Earth existed, God was playing on his Atari 1 (yes thats even before any other thing was invented) and he was playing The Soms City, which is much alike the Sims and SimCity combined, yet in this game you create the world.

You mean he was playing SPORE

also you say everything finite has cause an effect, isn't the universe considered infinite?

The universe is only as finite as our understanding allows. In a six dimensional manifold model the universe is both effectively finite and infinite with regards to volume. Unfortunately theories such as this can be subject to the idea of infinite-regression. In fact: Most if not all Universal theories are unfortunately subjected to this unprovable falsehood. I'll leave it at that since this is a RELIGION and EVOLUTION thread.

[njjvk]

On another note... why hasnt the spore website been updated since August 2006?  Religious high up's fighting to keep it from being released?!?! :O

[Arnifix]

You mean he was playing SPORE

The universe is only as finite as our understanding allows. In a six dimensional manifold model the universe is both effectively finite and infinite with regards to volume. Unfortunately theories such as this can be subject to the idea of infinite-regression. In fact: Most if not all Universal theories are unfortunately subjected to this unprovable falsehood. I'll leave it at that since this is a RELIGION and EVOLUTION thread.

The manifold of my universe is massive. I also had it lowered and put in a bigger blowoff valve. It's a totally riced universe.

[ThaFleastyler]

The manifold of my universe is massive. I also had it lowered and put in a bigger blowoff valve. It's a totally riced universe.

I LOL'd

[KiLL3r]

Lets just face it god isnt real! If you still believe in him in this day and age your an idiot.

A guy at work is brainwashed by all you dam god lovers to the extent he thinks dinosaurs existed only thousand of years ago while man was around not millions  :cussing:

[KiLL3r]

Evolution ftw  :rnr:

[Tiwaking!]

Lets just face it god isnt real! If you still believe in him in this day and age your an idiot

God is dead.

Sorry. I cant get over how funny Zarathrustra is

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Lets just face it god isnt real!

Prove it!

[alpha-zero]

*Observes in awe*

o:

[Tiwaking!]

Prove it!

Could someone who has studied or has understanding of the five proofs of God's existence please reply to this or at least post what they mean? I have no knowledge of Aquinas's writings

[Zarathrustra]

Could someone who has studied or has understanding of the five proofs of God's existence please reply to this or at least post what they mean? I have no knowledge of Aquinas's writings

I read that a few years back, and forget the detail, but it just leads to more silly circular arguments.

I also believe (form vague memories) it seems to disregard the shear size of the universe in regard to the 'chance' factor.  It also lacks in the modern knowledge of evolution/adaptation that we hold today... but I guess we can't blame him for that.  :disappoin

Prove it!

Disprove it!

[Arnifix]

Prove it!

Fine then, let's correct kill3r.

Let's just face it, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that god is real.

[Zarathrustra]

Fine then, let's correct kill3r.

Let's just face it, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that god is real.

Yep.  And, its obvious why early man adopted/invented the idea of gods... it was the only way they had to explain things.  The fact that the beliefs have lasted so long isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think there are a lot of people who, if lacked a 'fear of god' and 'fear of eternal damnation', do not have the basic compassion/humanity needed to live in society.  In other words, if the whole world believed the obvious, i.e. there is no god, and when we're dead thats it, then there'd be a lot of terrible shit happening in the world, more so than what religion is now causing.

"God is dead" - Nietzsche said that... personally, I think he's still on his death bed, and everyones too scared of him to turn off his life-support... I for one wont be attending his funeral.

[Black Heart]

http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_48306.shtml

[BerG]

I hate Americans.

Laugh at them here:

[Simon_NZ]

fucken religious homos

fuck ur shit grrrrrrr