this thread is point less, debating over religion is like debating over politics...

It's not pointless; it's interesting to see the diversity of beliefs on the forum. If you can't appreciate it then just stay out like you did for the first 4 or 5 pages.

Pagan.

Why is this so hard to explain? It isn't any harder to explain than our having a sense of smell, really. It's so brutally simple, unless there is something here that I am entirely missing. Naturally, the organisms with the right genetic instructions are going to have a better survival rate than those with flawed genetic instructions. Organisms that survive longer are going to have a much better chance of reproduction. Eventually, the organisms with the flawed DNA no longer exist or exist only rarely. This is truly basic stuff we're dealing with. There isn't a flaw in what we are dealing with. There could be and perhaps are flaws regarding evolution, but your example is far from one of them. The funny thing is, my knowledge of lower level organism (i.e. anything out of the Eukarya) is relatively poor, yet I'm still able to see the answer as clear as day based on the most basic biological knowledge.

It's a lot easier for me, on the other hand, to poke holes through the ideas proposed by conventional religion. For example, if God did, in fact, create us (and the entire world), and he did not create us through evolution, how did he create us? Why did he decide to invent countless variations on the most simple, complex, and intermediate organisms? More importantly, why do we share so many of the characterstics of higher level organisms? Why do we share a similar or nearly identical biological system to these animals?

Limbs, check.
Stomach, check.
Intestines, check.
Heart, check.
Brain, check.
Eyes, check.
Nose, check.
Hair, check.
Bones, check.
Blood, check.
DNA, check.

Have you also noticed we share the exact same senses as all of the higher level animals? Let's see...

Hearing, check.
Vision, check.
Smell, check.
Taste, check.
Touch, check.

Why is it we share these things with animals? Why did God create us so similarly to higher level animals? I thought, after all, that God created us in his own image, didn't he? Is God, almighty, the lord himself, so similar to animals? Or were animals thrown in as an afterthought? I'd like to see you (or anybody) try to explain that using science or even logic. I'm also entertained by the fact that you put quotation marks around DNA, as if it were completely nonexistent just because the bible doesn't mention it. Prove to me it doesn't exist, then get back to me and the rest of the real world.

When this post first came around, I figured the weakness of the argument did well enough to destroy itself, but there were a couple of people who were interested in seeing a rebuttal, so here you are. And to think, if it was this easy for me, imagine how badly this argument would have been destroyed by somebody with a masters or PhD!

__________________

Well, you didn't actually poke a hole in anything, you asked a question. Plus, I dont even think that the quesion can be taken as a critical or negative one. so what, God made us with similar things as animals. If he didnt do u know how retarded the earth would be? If there were no two species on the entire earth with the same senses we wouldnt be able to communicate with animals or interact with them in any sort of productive way.


Also you took "in his own image" out of context. Moat christians take this as having the same thoughts in our heart as God, like love and innocence but the when Adam/Eve sinned there hearts were seperated from God and were no longer in is image.

__________________

And that is what is fundamentally wrong with the Bible. It has double, triple, quadruple and most likely quintuple meanings built into it. Basically, all bases are covered in order to rebuke the naysayers.

Besides, the Bible itself has been rewritten on numerous occasions to incorporate the political motivations of the time. To say that there is a hefty dose of 'spin' involved is entirely correct. A programme recently aired on Channel Four over here and it concerned one theologian's search for who actually wrote the Bible. You can read a medium sized synopsis of the two-hour programme at the following link:

http://www.channel4.com/culture/mic...rnot/bible.html

Sure, science has been rewritten - viz-a-vie Newton and Einstein's gravity - but there is an enormous difference between the rewriting of the Bible and the rewriting of science. Science, through the act of superceding theories has increased our level of understanding of the universe whereas the 'upgrading' of the Bible is entirely down to the political motivations of the men who commissioned the rewriting. Has it furthered our understanding of God and why the universe is here like breakthroughs in science have? Of course not.

Oh and as an aside, I haven't seen one person of religious belief answer the question I posed a few pages back. Here's a refresher just in case anybody has forgotten: Consider an asteriod on a collision course to obliterate all life on Earth. Would you place your faith in God or science to save mankind?

__________________

If God does indeed exist, natural disasters and diseases are its methods of population control. I wouldn't place faith in anything though, because I think it would be mighty cool living in a post-apocalyptic world.

That goes to show how much He loves us, doesn't it? What a wonderful God! Instead, say, of making a percentage of the population infertile, He wipes the whole planet out! Smacks of swatting a fly with a nuclear bomb to me.

I know you're only sort of half kidding, but you really, really wouldn't want to live in a post-apocalyptic world.

__________________

I would think that just knowing the kind of person God is would be enough to show that the Buy-Bull is BS and that its a silly fairy tale. I mean were talking about a God that sacrifices himself, to himself, to save us from the wrath of himself. It just doesn't make sense.

Oh, yes, I'm sure most Christians don't bother to interpret this literally, because interpreted literally, the whole bible is bullshit. So naturally enough, I'm sure people find their own meanings, because of how nonsensical the bible is and how desperate they are to believe in it, they'll desperately search for some sort of hidden meaning. I do love how you threw in that I took it out of context, considering the only context I put it in was to interpret it literally, the way I thought it was meant to be interpreted.

Interestingly enough, if God created us in his same image in the way you said, which is that he filled our 'hearts' will love and innocence, why did he also put in our 'hearts' the ability to 'sin'? You know, considering the fact that God is himself incapable of sin. Interesting translation you have there, especially considering the only thing in our hearts is blood and various tissue.

Also, interestingly enough, God is all knowing. Yet, in the bible, he destroys Sodom & Gomorrha out of anger that there was so much 'sin' (to be read, naturally enough, as non conventional sex) involved with the two cities.

This brings up two questions- first off, if God is all knowing, why did he become so angry over something he already knew was going to happen, and something he knew there was no way to possibly avoid? Secondly, why would a loving, nurturing God destroy an entire region out of anger? A region, that I might add, was full of innocent children who had never engaged in such awful, atrocious sins as *gasp* sodomy! What did the children do to piss off God? An all loving God, who is pretty much the antithesis of the vengeful God so often portrayed in the Bible.

Also interestingly enough, why has God yet to eradicate San Francisco, CA and Provincetown, MA? Since both of those cities are along the coast, and since California and the entire east coast will be disposed to doom far quicker than the inland bible belt, I'm sure when the natural disasters do finally occur, some bible beating midwesterner is going to say, "Durn it, there goes God again! Gettin' rid o' those east and west coasters, destroying innocent children... er... wicked evil doers!"



Beside the fact that your explanation isn't even gleaned from anywhere in bible, it is factually incorrect. We are largely or entirely dissimilar from plants, minerals, and other inanimate objects (some of which we ourselves created), yet we still interact with those. We still use those in productive ways. What makes animals any different? Your 'explanation' doesn't make any logical sense. God didn't make us similar to animals. If he made us at all, he made us animals. We are no different from animals than different animals are from each other, that is a fact that I'd be very interested in seeing you (or anyone) try to refute. Your explanations thus far have been bush league, and the holes in them are large enough for me to land a Flying Fortress through. I suppose there's no way to refute such critical evidence as "if he didnt do u know how retarded the earth would be?"...

...which brings me to a new requirement I have for anybody who wants to have a constructive debate with me- you must know how to spell and punctuate. This shows me two things- first off, that you'll be able to produce an intelligent argument against mine (something I've yet to see in this post), and secondly, it shows that you at the very least put enough effort into your posts to be considered seriously. I mean, even a person of average intelligence can punctuate and spell right, just put some effort in, that's all I ask. This goes for the people I'm currently 'debating' with, spell correctly and punctuate (or at least try!) and you are back in.

__________________

HAHAHA! Great point.

__________________

Simple "proof" that God doesn't exist:
If he did exist, he would have made sound travel faster than light so you could see all the fireworks on new years eve.

__________________

The difference between sodom and gomhorra and all those gay communities you've mentioned is sodom and gomhorra had gay RAPISTS.

I've been reading the di vinci code, people try and dispove it but it's just a fucking novel, why does it have to be incredibly historically accurate, it's just based on some theories that may or may not be true. Damn well written one at that, the catholic church feels so threatened by it.

(off topic...)
what the hell is that book about? i see alot of people readin it

__________________

it's not necessarily off topic because alot of it has to do with christianity:

Basically, it's a historical fiction about secret messages left in lianardo di vinci's art work, mostly anti-christian. It has to do with a secret brotherhood (consisting of many major artists including di vinci) holding a secret and passing it down (read it to find out more). Basically, a college professor and a female french cop are trying to fallow clues and messages while searching for this secret the female cop's grandfather left for them.

Yep... it's not like any other community has those. It's not like San Francisco has gay rapists. It's not like P-Town has gay rapists. Are you fucking dense? BOSTON HAS GAY RAPISTS, and it's gay population density isn't even close to that of P-Town or San Francisco. If you don't believe me, I DARE you to walk by through the park at Back Bay Fens every night around 1AM for a month. A rapist is a rapist, what fucking difference would it make if he were a gay rapist or a straight rapist? The only difference is if they are a child rapist, which is obviously slightly worse.

Fuck, last summer, somewhere out on the Cape some guy was raped and murdered by a registered sex offender. Your explanation couldn't be any dumber if you honestly tried to make it worse. The fact that you don't believe SF or P-Town or anywhere else has gay rapists makes me seriously wonder what kind of fairytale land you are living in. Gay rape (man on gay AND man on straight) is apparently a lot more common than you would like to pretend.

EDIT: Just as an aside, in case anybody is wondering, the bible doesn't support any serious evidence for Sodom and Gomorrha being a haven for gay rapists, anyway. It only vaguely refers to what might possibly be translated as acts of homosexuality and bestiality, and it also refers to one scene of heterosexual rape. So, even if his argument made sense, which it doesn't, the bible itself doesn't refer to male on male rape.

__________________

Not to mention all the man-on-man rapes that happen in prisons...

No, I didn't explain myself clearly enough, everybody in sodom and gahmorra was a gay rapist. Have you even read the Bible? They tried to rape an angel for godsake....geez....

And Lot said unto them: Do not rape my guests. Rape my daughters. Just fuck the hell out of them. It's cool; I do it too.

I'm pretty sure you aren't serious, so sorry for taking what you said so seriously. I didn't realize you were joking.

If for some reason I'm wrong, and you aren't joking, it's impossible for everybody in Sodom and Gomorrha to be gay, nevermind a gay rapist. They were real cities with real families with real women and real children. Somehow I doubt every single man in the city was a gay rapist, considering the bible itself doesn't even say anything of the sort. I know for a fact that the women and children weren't all gay rapists. Why? Well, let's just say it's rather uncommon for 7 year olds to forcibly rape 32 year old men. You really haven't read the bible if you believe what you are saying. Let's face it, you didn't even spell half of the word 'Gomorrha' right.

Anybody who wants to keep bullshitting about Sodom and Gomorrha, I'll tell you what. Quote the exact verses in the bible that clearly state Sodom and/or Gomorrha were filled with gay rapists (or even homosexuals, for that matter).

By the way, I'm still waiting for somebody to fill me in on how a gay rapist is worse than a child rapist. Naturally, nobody will answer me because there is no rational explanation.

Just out of curiosity, does anybody else find it interesting that angels and prophets stopped appearing around the same time the bible was done being written? I wonder where they all went...

__________________

No, they didn't disappear, they just appear exclusivly to deranged, Bible-Belt survivalists with 8 wives and 24 children who don't actually read the bible, just the encoded parts that their Virgin Mary hood ornament tell them to decipher (and, in fact, can only read those passages as they learned to read in an outhouse with such fine pieces of literature such as Homemade C4, Homemade Grenade Launchers and Hitman).

Yeah, that's what makes the Old Testament fu*ked anway.

And yeah chris, I didn't actually mean that God was was really justified in his dealing with the 2 cities, but it's very different than Province town and San Fransisco.

...in which case you are still wrong because there is no evidence to support that it was different at all from P-Town or San Francisco. Like I said, nowhere is it clearly stated that Sodom & Gomorrha or the surrounding regions harbored hordes and hordes of rapists, gay or otherwise. Rape is very common and always has been. The bible itself doesn't show that rape was any more common there than it was anywhere else or is anywhere today. Even if the bible did say that, it goes against conventional logic. The region was full of women, children, and normal families.

It's also illogical to believe that 'God' would have assaulted a region because it was full of rapists, because a region in complete disarray (such as one ravaged by war, hit with a natural disaster, or a disaster like that supposedly sent down by God) is a haven for looters, murderers, and rapists. It doesn't make any sense that God would set seige to the area because of a problem that would only be multiplied by the aftermath of the seige.

This is just illogical on so many different levels. It's utter tripe, literary sewage at best.

As I said before, anybody who disagrees with my assessment could partially prove me wrong by quoting the exact verses in the bible where it clearly states that Sodom & Gomorrha were crawling with either gays, rapists, or both. It can't be done.

__________________

It's from downtown Genesis and the "Faggots-Go-Home" version is simply an interpretation:

13:10 And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar.
13:11 Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east: and they separated themselves the one from the other.
13:12 Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent toward Sodom.
13:13 But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.

Problem is, there have undoubtably been many re-translations, interpretations, slants, cants, spins and editions of something like that. And as none of us happen to be Hebrew biblical scholars, I move that we all shut the fuck up.

(Especially anyone with an opinion, because you're wrong.)

__________________

I don't know shit about anything.

Far Beyond Sane says it best I believe....none of us know the true interpretation of anything....

There is no such thing as a 'true' interpretation. An interpretation is just the meaning one single person gets from it, like an opinion it can not be universaly right or wrong, just right or wrong for any given person.

__________________

Oh for fuck's fucking sake...

We're not talking about the transitive and personal nature of truth, we're talking about the Bible. So smack me up with your own special translation of the Tanach, you goon. I'm sure your Ancient Hebrew skills are up there with your missing-the-freaking-point ability.

__________________

I'm not sure if this was intended to rebut or support my argument. I'd appreciate if you'd clarify. I'd imagine this was intended to back up my argument, because it does back up my argument by showing that in the bible it is clearly stated nowhere that Sodom & Gomorrha had more homos and rapists than any other place then or today. Rather, like the rest of the bible, it leans on vague descriptions that people desperately draw their own conclusions from, because they want to believe in it so badly. The bible is so worthless it's pathetic. I mean, it could be useful, if anything in it were right. Even if there were no God, the bible could still be useful historically. It could also be useful like a book of fairy tales, but it is far too boring.

I know I'm making shit up right now, because the bible does have one very good use (and no, not just as a coaster). The bible must be amazing for modern sociologists and people interested in learning the sociology of ancient cultures. Sadly, the sociology of ancient cultures hasn't changed much today. People are still as barbaric. Rulers are still war mongering pilferers. People are still hopelessly vain, with an exaggerated sense of self-importance, pretending as though they are the center of the universe, and that they are so important, the whole world and everything in it was created exclusively for their use. We are still desperate to believe there is a God because we want to pretend like unidentified serial killers and child rapists will get their comeuppance in a different world. And people today, just as then, are so desperate to believe there is a God, because they never want to cease to be, they want to be immortal, they want to believe in a mystical land full of happiness. We are still desperate to believe in God, period.

I've always found the concept of heaven to be one of the biggest lies in the bible. How could there be one place where everyone is always happy and full of joy? That makes no sense. I could never be happy living on a cloud, or any other farfetched notion of what 'heaven' is like. Where are the forests, where are the swamps, where are the fields, the abandoned farm acres, the deserts? I can't go snakehunting up there, that's bullshit. Where the fuck is my guitar? Is God going to let me listen to Morbid Angel? I would never be happy without those things. Heaven is bullshit, deep down you all know that. The sooner you come to terms with it, the better for the human race.

__________________

I understand what your saying. I don't believe in God the same way most poeple do, as a "powerful creator", but more of just a universal force. Heaven and Hell are what I think are metaphors, for what is around us today. If there is just NOTHING after you die, it won't even matter, there won't be any emotions to care or not. People infact have used the bible for alot of hate and superiority, just as they've used it for good purposes. They've used it alot for the thing you describe about feeling like the earth is made for thier use and fuck everything.

Yep.

__________________

I got your point, but you worded it terribly. I don't know how you got that I'm saying I'm a Hebrew scolar and cabable of translating the bible out of me pointing out that you worded your post in such a way that some people could easily miss the point.

It's nothing you need to get all fussied up about, youre the one that missed my point...

I'd like to bring up that point of people who say things like "My idea of God is different than [insert denomination]". I find this insane. Atleast most denomination have some sort of "proof" or "reason"(atleast to them) for thier belief. For example you have the Bible or the Torah, something that is considerd the word of God, something divine that told humans what God is and how to worship and what to believe. People who come up with thier own notions of God are pretty funny to me, eitehr they are saying 1. "Yes, God speaks to me in some way, that's how I know this." or 2. "I'm making a complete and total assumption with no basis whatsoever that I know how a supernatural, divine, omnipotent being works." To me, both of these are laughable.

Religion is quite the thing because basicly you can come with your belief of what you would want God to be like and make that your belief with no basis at all. Its kind of like saying "I don't like how modern math works, so I think 7 + 3 = 15." not to insinuate that religions like Christianity have the same cedibility as math...

Religion is all about easy cop-out...

__________________

Your missing the point again, when people say "my idea of god" they are INTERPRETING the bible ect. in thier own way, and basing it on other religions such as buddhism/hindu ect. who have "proof" also. I'm just trying to look for a central meaning in all of it, I'm not making an assumption off of nothing, people are aloud to think of most apparent spiritual encounters in history and piece it together in a way that makes since to them.

Ok essay time:

Religion.
my view on religion is very simple.
what do you get if you take a shit load of people with human instincts and
put them in the same place, throw in interaction, feelings, and a knack for
telling stories? heres your answer. if you listen closely to your primitive child-
like mind, you get to hear a whole heap of shit you didnt want to. it all comes
down to first instincts. for example, to stay alive. but we are intelligent
so you can add to that to get along in a group.
now this is important: Religion is the natural next-step. think about it, every
body has questions which plague their everyday existence.
what happens when i die?
this stems from the basic wish to stay alive and reproduce. "i dont want to die"
leads to thinking about death which leads to worrying about it.
what is right and wrong?
this one is more complex, but comes from the need to get on as a group, and
goes on to a realisation of thinking about other members of a group and how
to treat them. which leads to "i shouldn't bash his head in?" or "i shouldn't
steal that food?" which are very difficult questions obviously, but they have
very difficult answers. probably reching three paragraphs infact.
now difficult answers arent nice, so we invent nice easy answers eg

bob: i wanna bash his head in!
tim: why?
bob: so i can steal his food!
tim: you shouldnt do that.
bob: why not?
tim(who knows the real answers, but doesnt have Johns articulation):
uuuuhhh because its wrong.
bob: says who?
tim: me
bob: i dont care im gonna bash your head in too
tim: ok then uuuhh god
bob: who's god
tim: well, in the beginning there was dark....

from this tim may not recite the bible, but is quite capable of laying down the
ground rules. hey may not even be aware he is making it up. he could just be
trying to describe his concious to his pal, who seems to lack one. but things
like this get out of hand, and soon enough god is an all powerful beard who
can read your mind(to stop you tinking bad thaughts) , and will judge you
after the fact. its also quite easy using mock conversations like that one to
come up with ideas such as life after death, and creation of all things.
the bottom line is, religion is the answer to all of your problems and worries.
all of them. any question you have can be answered, with social implications.
is it right to hurt that guy who punched me?
no
but shouldn't he be punished?
god will punish him.
will i be punished for half inching that car last week?
no, god will forgive you.
does anybody like me?
god loves you.
will i die?
no, you go to heaven for ever
and so on.
even more complicated stuff.
religion is an answer to everything. its "how to get on in life for dummies"
a perfect solution.
this however doesnt mean it isnt true.

science.
this is just as bad. no really.
i have infact spent the last six months in the company of an american
CREATIONALIST. beware this word. they have convincing scientific proofs
for the bible. (im not going to get into my whole anti creationalist shit
because it would take too long) and not just the bible, the literal bible.
the flood. the earth being six thousand years old. dinosaurs would you believe
are mentioned in the bible, and they lived with man! they even have proof as
to why carbon dating actually prooves the world is 6000 yrs old. they have
arguments for why you can see stuff millions of light years away. they have
geological proof that diamonds and fossils have all been created in the last
6000 years. but the worst part is that its all sound scientific evidence to
anyone who doesnt have 500 different degrees. and lets face it, you have no
more reason to believe these scientists over others.
if you want visit www.answersingenesis.org
so anyway, science as we know it is just as reliable as this.
i dont really have a point with this one its just interesting.


if youve got this far, its time to take the next step.
i invite you all to join my religion. apethism.
does god exist?
ill never know untill its too late so... i dont care.

__________________

Well my religious beliefs are based on the life of the polynesian warriors and stories passed on from generation to generation. Not many people go by these any more by i like to keep the tradition.

but the one thing i do believe in is karma, you be a fuckhead all your life and you will get yours back, and if u be good all your life somethin good will happen to you, its that simple.

__________________

You couldn't be more wrong. Science is nowhere near as fallacious as conventional religions. You try to show that science is bullshit by associating it with creationists. I'm amazed you can't see how erroneous that is. Creationists are not scientists, they are hardcore Christians desperately trying to prove the Bible was right by manipulating true science. They don't practice science, they try to change science to fit the Bible. Science isn't fallacious, religion is, and this is proven just by reading any creationist material. Creationists have no relevance to science, and this makes your assertion itself irrelevant.

You are also wrong in your assertion that you'd need '500 different degrees' in order to see right through the creationist bullshit. All you need is the most basic understanding of biology. Seriously. I don't have any degrees, and I can shoot creationist theory to shit. I actually am sorry that you feel the need to soil the name of science by associating it with the crackpots that are creationists. Creationists are people who try desperately (and fail) to manipulate science to show how the bible is, in fact, accurate. The problem arises in the fact that their theories only appeal to those with piss-poor understanding of biology (or even science in general). Anybody with even a basic education in the area of biology can easily see through their bullshit.

__________________

You have to be as bad a Christian to need Creation 'science' as you would have to be a bad scientist to buy it. Most of it's put together like a reverse puzzle:

'What do we know about Science Theory X?'
'Well, it says this, that, and, in addition, the other.
'Hmm. Maybe we can find some outlandish way those would be blocked, and then justify them with "God can do anything"?'
'Brilliant!'

It's got the antithetical spirit to what science should be. It's also fairly antithetical to what faith should be.

Just read Kierkegaard. Then you'll know why you need to shut up, quit trying, and realize that the people who are going to believe in god are going to even if you don't tell them about all the cool 'what if' scenarios you've deduced from the limited options you allowed yourself.

Hey, I just got my bollocking pants on and then I read below and that BASTARD Chris already did it. Christ, Chris, stop that shizz.



*Chorus*
NO-ONE WILL TAKE THIS ADVICE!
BECAUSE EVERYONE IS TOO DUMB!
TO TAKE THIS ADVICE!
BECAUSE S.K. IS FOREIGN AND DANISH AND SHIT!
READING THINGS WITH VOWELS AND SHIT!

But you spelt realise with a 'z' because you are a Yankee oaf. Still, it's so forgivable.

__________________

Mormans don't deserve to live!!!!
They all should be lined up and shot

Wrong, my poor, misguided friend. He spelled realize properly because he, like I, speaks true and proper English. Not that improper drivel spoken in the UK, South Africa, Northern/Central Europe, or even worse, down under in that vile land of Australia. You people are stuck on the bottom of the planet for a reason.

I'm so fucking awesome. I will be emperor of the universe one day. If it makes you feel better, I'll refer to myself as the 'Prime Minister', but you and I both know that proper Prime Ministers couldn't make owning ICP paraphernalia a capital offense. Just sayin'.

__________________

PST88: i think you are insinuating that i am trying to convert you lot to christianity. no. i know that nobody with any intelligence will believe what they believe and not change thier mind for some twat on the internet.

cris:
dont get me wrong, im not attacking the philosophy of science, but im not attacking the philosophy of religion either.
science as in the quest for knowledge is a good thing, without it we would have not gotten anywhere.
and the fact that these particular scientists and infact christians is an irrelevant point. actually i should probably clear up my

beliefs before we get any further.

i do not believe in god. in any way whatsoever. i do however accept the possibility that there is one. which is why i dont allow science to be the be-all and end-all of my belief structure. i realise that there is no way to proove either way, or for that matter, that we are all indeed living in test tubes in some crazy proffessors lab. but these pointless theories go on and on. i think organised religion is good, because it helps those of us who do not have common sense and decent morals to achieve acceptance in society. it is however not for me, or world leaders. or any leaders. it is for followers. i believe that if there is a god, then when i die, i will be accepted for being a relatively good person. and if im not accepted for that, then he doesnt
deserve my worship anyway. i wouldn't mind being in hell, according to some medias they play death metal all day long. if there isnt a god, then thumbs up to me for enjoying life and not living in fear of something imaginary. and to sum it all up: i have thaught about this all too much to the point where i dont care what the answer is.

now the fact that the science i talked about is put forward by christians is less important than that it is ideas from learned gentlemen of the scientifical field. they are no less inteligent or studied than those who they argue with. and yes, they manipulate science to show what they think is right, but so do others. i saw something yesterday about tape recorders, where if you leave them on in an empty room recording, and then play them back, they hear voices. supposedly of the dead. even relatives of thiers passed on. you may think this is rediculous, but there are scientists who are convinced. there are also scientists who would not believe this for a second. somebody mentioned earlier about the discovery of the spherical world. this turned science upside down on its head. and im guessing around that time there were some who put their faith in science and wanted to believe that it was not true, and probably had exactly the same viewpoint of whoever decided this as you have of creationalist scientists.
now the point i am getting at here is that all scientists twist thier findings and thoerys around what they want them to show. its human nature. yes there are some good scientists who will not do this, but they are in the vast minority. most scientists will not try to disproove thier thoeries because it goes against themselves. unfortunately i can only recount more stories from the creationalist world, but according to them, there are many scientists who have set out to try and prove the bible wrong (laughable that it needs proof) and ended up doing the opposite and hiding their findings. i say yes some scientists do persue the quest for knowledge, however most of them trust the modern scientifical world and were they to discover something shattering they would undoubtably announce it to the world, but first they have to look for it. and who sets out to disprove something they have grown up believing. i am guessing you would not devote a great part of your time to prooving the bible. also they may uncover a fatal flaw in their lifes work. what would you do if it turned out you had spent the last 50 years working on something that was wrong from the beginning?

as far as the basic understanding of biology goes, i would like to turn to the unlikely hand of a man called Micheal Behe



this happens to be an excerpt from a book entitled darwins black box. which claims to proove inteligent design and disproove evolution. it is ofcourse a rehash of the thomas aquinas argument, and the subject of heavy debates throwing insults at the author on the internet. BUT
even with a fairly high level of biology could you dispute what you read? i am aware that there are very different levels of intelect swimming around in our gene pool, but even stephen hawkins could not verify or dispute this explanation of sight for the first few steps (i could have repeated the entire section and condensed it to over 5 pages) without some studying of the subject. and even then he would only be repeating what he has read in text books and articles in scientific journals. i dare say you could understand it. but if this were put forward in schools as the official silibus, you would believe it. as it is, it was not, and you do not.

__________________

I'm not talking about people who are taking thier beliefs from thier own person interpretation of the bible, I'm talkinga bout people who just come up with whatever idea of god they want in thier heads and defending it with "Well it's my religion" when it is completely irrational and stupid.

YOU missed the point, sir.

__________________

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's the first time I've ever heard anyone come to that same conclusions I have.

Yet, your partially wrong, because religion is the reason for much mass murder over the century. It is the reason for alot of mass genocide. Why are there terrorists who wish to kill americans? Religion! Crusades? Religion! Abortion clinic bombers? Religion, mostly. But in another way your right, if we didn't have anybody who believed in a God, alot of people would kill and do wrong to others would be doing these things because they would think "ehhhh...nothings happening after I die." Instead "OH MY GOD, IM SO SORRY I HURT YOU, PLEASE GOD, DON'T SEND ME TO HELL!"

ahh Dead sorry for misinterpreting you, I just thought you were saying that if you don't interpret the way things are literally as they are in the bible, then your beliefs are meaning less.

no because that is a direct result of the very same.
religion keeps people in check because the people feel like they are working for a reason. not just "someone said so"
this means there must be a higher power (be it gedaffi, blair, or god). which in this case has to be so powerful there is only one (because they are unseen and unprooven). and when people disagree on which one comes bloodshed.

__________________

I just want to establish for the benefit of future conceited twats who seem to think I'm talking to them: unless I address you, I am not speaking to you. At that point, I was speaking to the type of people who come up with Creation science, or its equivalent throughout the generations.

Damn, you are kvlt! Good work, jackass! You are the dumbest person who ever joined this board. You don't deserve to ever post again, you worthless piece of shit. You didn't even spell Mormon right, you stupid waste of flesh and organs. I sincerely hope you are gang raped by a gay biker gang and contract AIDS. Leave here now, people here simply aren't interested in making conversation with a retarded chimpanzee with his head lodged so far up his own ass he watches his own food digest.

You would never have the balls to shoot a Mormon. You would never have the balls to shoot anyone. You are a puerile idiot trying to prove yourself on an online forum by trying to show how brutal you are. Look at me! I hate Christians! Kill the mormons!

I have a new proposal. Don't kill the Christians. Kill the fucking idiots. Kill every moron on this planet. You'd be the first in line, you imbecilic piece of subhuman waste. It's so easy for me to picture you right now, a stupid redneck kid who lives in your parents basement, you probably have a swastika on your wall. You probably drive a pickup, if you even drive at all. I bet you love hummers and wish you were in the military, but you were too pussy to actually join. You probably have a convenient excuse, "I was too fat to join". I'll bet you have the hots for your mom, who I sincerely hope doesn't pump out anything as stupid as you ever again. You should have been aborted, your parents really could have used a hanger or my boot.

Regardless of whether anything I imagine is right or not, the one thing we here can all be sure of is your overall worthlessness to the rest of mankind and the fact that you and your substandard intelligence will never amount to anything.

__________________

Last with Pagan blood.

You are wrong. These people are Christians, not legitimate scientists. The point you are missing, and I'm afraid will continue to go right over your head, is that their only reason in science is to prove the Bible was right. That's it. They are not, I repeat, NOT credible scientists by any means. I guess you can't see this because you are not a scientist. A real scientist, or somebody who follow true science, can easily see this. Science is about furthering human knowledge and understanding. They do not follow this criteria, and therefore, are not scientists by any means.

Your story of people recording so called 'ghosts' holds neither any relevance to this story nor any credibility with science.



You are also grossly wrong in your assertion that all scientists manipulate science. I can only hope John Mansley sees that you wrote that. He should have some interesting things to say! A true scientist always reveals his findings, regardless of whether or not they back up his arguments or theories. I can't even remember how many articles I've read of biologists disproving their own theories. This is the essence of science. I'm sad that you and so many others will never see that because you can't.

You don't understand science or even know enough scientists to know whether or not scientists would 'hide their findings', this is mere conjecture on your part, and conjecture certainly doesn't add credibility to your argument.

Now, let's focus on the part of your quote in bold. This story holds no credibility whatsoever, because as you nearly admit, it was fabricated by creationists. As I've said, true scientists don't hide their findings, regardless of whether or not it supports their original argument. Real science-minded people know this.

Also, until you change something, this will be the last post of yours I respond to. I made it a point a while back to tell people I will ignore them if they fail to use proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation. The reason for this, as I've already pointed out, is because people who don't bother to do those show they are not capable of having a decent argument. It shows a decided lack of knowledge that I simply won't tolerate from people who are supposed to be trying to add credible points to an argument. I would have let this slip somewhat, but your posts are truly a chore to read because of this, and simply aren't worth my time. It's simple enough, though, just go back to spelling and punctuating and using proper grammar the way you would as if you were in school and performing at your own age level, and you will have my full attention.

__________________

That...was...the...best insult ever! And the great thing about it is that the cretin deserved every word.

yeh i never realised how funny he was

__________________

'Twas a good one, I especially liked the coathanger abortion bit.

In other news, it's good to see the oil-rich lads from the middle east handing out a whopping $50 million in tsunami aid relief to their Muslim brothers in Indonesia. Jesus, us non-muslims are real bastards, considering we only gave them $1 billion. No wonder they want to blow us up.

__________________

Deary me! Physics and chemistry are inextricable intertwined with mathematics. I'll repeat - equations do not lie. Most of the equations behind more complex theories have many solutions and sure, one could choose one solution over another, but real scientists match their equations to observed data and then choose the relevant solution.

I would also argue that the scientists who manipulate their findings are the ones in the minority, not the majority. Actually, I would go as far as to say that it is the many authors of the Bible over the years who have moulded it to further their own political agendas. Religion is shaped into what its authors and preachers want it to show, not science.

__________________

Hahaha...I would agree with alot of that, but you went a little too far with that one...

I suck majorly at chemistry, I always get a numerical error some point in the equation, or I don't label it correctly, and then I get about 50 points taken off.

I am sorry you feel this way.



there is one major difference between scientists and mathematicians. Proof. if a scientist does an experiment to test a theory, he will carry out the experiment a set amount of times and if a decent percentage of these experiments have the same conclusion(which fits his postulation), then a proof of his theory can said to be reached. however a mathmatics proof is fundamentally different in that it would have to hold true an infinite amount of times before it was considered prooved.

though that is an interesting discussion, the scientists we are talking about are biologists geologists and bio-chemists.



i agree with you about religion. it has been moulded to be a controlling force in soceity, only recently replaced in england by democracy and government. (which performs much the same task with much less success).

of the scientists i would say this.
i just watched a documentary on global warming with louis theroux's brother. he didnt dwell on the subject, but he did mention that for the last ten years, scientists have hummed and haahed about global warming, and if it exists or is dangerous. now it appears some prominant scientists are saying it is very urgent that we all start using solar powered cars and appliances.
also i would imagine that most scientists today work for a company or a government, and very few are able to research what they want. most of those probably work for various universities.
in the same documentary, the head of shell (petrol / oil company) was about to say that fossil fuels were highly damaging (something his scientists probabyly told him) when he was hushed up by the PR agent sat next to him, and the subject was changed.

but i feel i must say that i said "that most scientists twist their findings" to illustrate my point, rather than as a point in its self, and i admit that it is just conjecture based on very little hard facts.
the point in itself, was that religion and science are two very different things and definately do not defy each other and cannot and should not replace each other.
science is fine so long as you know it for what it is, but there are one or two on this forum who seem to be treating it like a religion. which should not be done for obvious(to me atleast) reasons.

when you treat science like a religion, it is just as bad as one

__________________

The best sentence you've written is your last.

In general, if one scientist can prove his own theoreom, others can as well. I'm drunk and realize this. If you don't, you can't use it as an argument. Sorry to be a prick, but really, it's not like these people pull shit out of their assholes and don't let anyone else confirm it. Even if they're sucking the corporate teat, they have to let their results be reviewed; if they're full of shit, another scientist will come along and say 'Hey, you're full of shit!' in a complex way. There will never be a point at which very intelligent mathemeticians will stop questioning the world as they know it, so there will never be a point at which science decided it's set and is no longer subject for review. That's the best thing about it. It's designed to compensate for our inadequacies, so long as we give it time.

Amon rA: The only area of science that isn't governed by mathematics is biology and even then mathematics appears sporadically. I also fail to see how conducting an experiment is not inextricably connected to mathematical proof. Experiments test hypotheses that, particularly in physics and chemistry, are predictions borne out of mathematical equations.

I don't think that science is treated as a religion. Most people who take an interest in it see it as a quest for knowledge rather than instruction. Science cannot tell a person how to live his or her life in the correct manner but it can, eventually, tell us how we and the universe came into existance. The Bible was formulated to answer this question along with providing a moral code by which people should live their lives.

Science has disproved the vast majority of the Bible's claims as to how we came into existance and modern laws govern how we should conduct ourselves in society. In my eyes, these advances in science and social politics have rendered the Bible and its teachings obselete.

__________________

i will try to explain myself as best as possible.
the distinction between science and maths is reality. science is forever trying to attach rules to the environment whereas maths lives in its own detached existence. maths cannot be applied to the real world. only in a mathematical reality could anything ever be completely accurate. nothing you could lay your hands on will ever mesure exactly one metre. even if it is 1 Angstrom longer or shorter, if you mesure it accurately enough it will never be exact, because however small your mesurements there will always be a higher level of accuracy. this means science is only accurate to a given degree of accuracy.

say a physicist has a theory about gravity.
"if i drop this ball, from shoulder height, it will fall to the ground"
of course he attaches all the relevant equations and applies all the relevant restrictions.
now he tests his theory one hundred times, and one hundred times his ball falls to the ground. is it prooved?
the scientist may be satisfied with this, or he may want to test it further, but eventually his arm will get tired, he will write down all the results in a little chart and go to bed sleeping soundly dreaming about his thesis and the awards that will surly follow.
but a mathematician would not accept this as proof.
maths does not allow the fact that something happens over and over again to state that it will happen indefinitely. he could drop the ball thousands of times, and even though the same thing happens over and over, how does he know it won't be different next time?
of course scientists could not think like that because they would never proove anything, but a mathematician in his virtual world is able to shy away from real life.
science forever tries to impose maths on the real world, and prooves by demonstration, where as maths, well doesn't

__________________

Of course it can - it's called applied mathematics! A lot of pure mathematics exists in the mind and the mind alone but there is a huge section of mathematcs that describes the relationship between one physical, measurable quantity and another. Statistics is another field of maths that is applied to the real world and since Quantum Mechanics is almost entirely founded on statistical processes, our best understanding of the universe as of today can also be applied to the real world. This may sound like quite a sweeping statement but in QM, if one sets Planck's constant to zero, we get all the results of Newtonian mechanics, ie, classical physics is a subset of Quantum Mechanics.



This is only a fault of measurement not the underlying mathematics. Besides, their is a minimum length - The Planck length. Nothing can exist that is shorter than this length. So theoretically, if we could observe such a length then we could construct an immensely accurate length of material. However, there is no way we will ever be able to observe something as minuscule as the Planck length as it is approximately equal to 1.6 x 10^-35 metres. To put this into perspective, a proton is 100 million million million times larger. Similarly, there exists a Planck area, volume and time.



Mathematics is probably the most rigourous of all the scientific schools and you are right on the money when you say that proofs have to encompass all possible eventualities. The method of proof that mathematicians employ to do this is Mathematical Induction. In the gravitation example that you provided, induction would prove that the equation holds for all possible heights that the apple could be dropped from.

I'm not comfortable with your ascertation that you can't prove that your results will be the same under repetition. Consider the act of multiplying a number by two. I could prove that every number that is multiplied by two is even (by induction) but by your statements I would have to prove that every time I multiply, say three, by two I get an even answer. This is clearly futile.

However, there is a mathematical process called Hypothesis Testing that will test how accurate a theory is when compared to empirical data. Usually if one can say that a theory is accurate with at least 95% confidence then it is acceptable.

Every equation is proven mathematically - there's no getting around that fact - and the vast majority of equations are backed up by observations taken during experimentation (only some of the more metaphysical theorems of Quantum Mechanics escape experimentation). They are then subsequently tested against the observations by further mathematical methods. I'd say the equations in science are rigourously proven and more reliable than you give credit.

In an ideal world, mathematics would explain everything perfectly, but the world (and indeed the universe) is not ideal and to incorporate every nuance of nature into equations would render them disgusting ugly and impractical to solve.

__________________

Horay, you read the first page of "Communist Manifesto"?

__________________

please correct me if i am wrong, but doesn't all maths eventually resort back to numerical order? including applied maths? would this therefore mean that applied maths is fitting the real world into a virtual model. my applied maths is not great but what i remember alot of it is very clever guess work(to use a particularly unflattering phrase).
doesn't maths start with counting, progress onto pure maths, and then dabble with the real world?
i ask these questions because it is along time since i have troubled myself with these fields and in anycase my mind is better suited to pure maths.




if i get nothing else from this discussion, this paragraph has changed my view of the world. it is a strange feeling to know that something like this exists, and that the world is not infact infinite and therefore measurable. i have found nothing on the internet to suggest this is an unproven theory except that i read somewhere that a planck measurement relies on quantum theory.

however you said yourself that for now a planck is unmeasurably small. I never said that inaccurate measuring was the fault of the underlying mathematics, just that it made the theorys and proofs based on those measurements inaccurate. if the planck is a theory, then this holds true. if not, then this hold true untill we can measure them.
remember that this bit is about actual current scientific proofs being different from mathematical proofs.



EXACTLY. here it is. nail on the head. but lets look at a few things.
1. we are dealing with numbers here. nothing more. numbers are essentially an order given names and symbols, which differ across the languages. if you strip them of thier attributes they become just ideas in an order. and ideas are only in our heads. the ideas are "this is a quantity" and "this quantity fits into an order of quantities"
or rather this is a number which has a number after and before it.
the very nature of numbers insist that they must belong to an infinite string of numbers all in order, and that by either increasing or decreasing the number by one slot in the string, you will eventually reach all other numbers. also, for anything else to be encountered, something must be added to the idea, like a symbol or a name or a piece of fruit (often the case in classrooms).

2. the act you describe is appyling the idea of multiplication(in this case by 2 or doubling) to the idea of 3. the result is another idea.

3. now re-attach the names and symbols and you get 3x2=6 however, the names and symbols are only a means of communicating.
sometimes 3x2 will equal six, sometimes it will equal XI, and sometimes it will equal sechs, but its all the same idea when you strip it of its names.

4. now consider the possibility of a different idea. the idea of a fish. supose somebody decided (decided because we are dealing strictly with this persons ideas) that just once 3x2=a fish. where do we go from there? here we encounter the idea of insanity, because to encounter a fish (or atleast the idea of one) in our number system, something in the nature of numbers has to change. they therefore are not numbers anymore (or atleast the idea that we associate with the word numbers). put simply, the idea of numbers prohibits the answer to 3x2 being anything other than 6. unless you have different ideas than the rest of us. and since we are all taught the same idea to start with, to genuinely think like this is well, mentaly unstable. atleast in my eyes.

5. im not going to address mistakes, because anyone who makes a mistake with this sum probably has very limited ideas.

conclusion:
the rather long and drawn out point here is that if 3x2 does not equal 6, however we choose to display it, then we should probably be commited.
many of the definitions of numbers are changed by the statement 3x2=a fish
and by definition, they would not be considered numbers by anyone else other than the idiot who does not know how to catagorise animals.

i will admit that this is a philosophical argument, but then how else can you talk about your own head?
the real world now, thats different.
our own perception of our own ideas has to be one hundred percent accurate again by definition because the perception is the idea. but our own perception of the real world does not. these arguments could not be put towards the apple scenario.

an interesting point is that sometimes 3x2 will legitemately give a different answer, if you use modular arithmetic, or clock maths. (where numbers are arranged like a clock to give a continued string of repeating numbers. )
this also applies to base 4. (however, though base 4 would return the value 12, it is still the idea of six)







hypothesis testing is used for statistics. my argument can only stay with this statement:
untill somebody accurately measures a planck, any mathematics in the real world must have some element of inaccuracy. i don't doubt that science today is far more accurate than it needs to be for most equations.
but while there is inaccuracy, there is no room for the real world inside the perfect visualisation of the mind.



i must once more admit that i am a bit stumped.
before i read this i thought that there was such a thing as infinitely small.
some of the things i have written have been very quickly formulated in my head. nevertheless, the world still works the way it did yesterday.
actually, a planck(once measured) would put a greater stretch between mathematics and real life, because maths would be able to concieve a shorter distance than possible in the real world.

right. im gonna drink a beer and smoke a ciggarette and think about that one.


http://paul.merton.ox.ac.uk/science/maths-proofs.html

__________________

what? im too tired

__________________

Amon, I may be wrong but I'm getting the idea that you hold a philosophical idea which i can't remember the name of. But basicly it is saying that one believes that we can not possibly know absolute truth in the world around us. That we can't trust our mind or our senses basicly. I didnt really read every one of your posts, but for some reason that is the impression I'm getting from you, though I could way off.

What you said before was basicly something Marx says in teh begining of "Communist Manifesto", the whole bit about measurements and not being accurate.

__________________

These facts will continue to go ignored, there's really not much point in reiterating over and over again when people seem so cognitively incapable, either naturally or artificially.



He got that from me, when I facetiously said that science is my religion. This I said because my understanding of the world we live in comes from science, as opposed to religion, which is based entirely on superstition and conjecture. That was my response directly in this thread, it seemed obvious enough to me that it would read "I don't need religious superstition to teach me about life, Earth, and the universe, because I use a system based on facts and evidence known as science." I thought it would have been perceptible enough considering the content of my posts, and I have no idea why it was translated so literally when it is impossible for science to be comparable to religion on several levels.



I would have assumed that those facts would have made it obvious that science isn't literally my religion, but they weren't. It's impossible to treat science like a religion, because science doesn't force you to live your life a certain way.

Science is never as bad as religion, I'll never understand what that statement was supposed to mean. Unless billions of people have been slaughtered in the name of science over the years, that's the most nonsensical thing I've heard in a long while. Maybe I've been wrong about that, though. After all, Bin Laden was probably just mad at the US because he disagreed with our theories about avian evolution. He probably feels birds didn't evolve directly out of the Dromaeosauridae, and rather, the Troodontidae. I can understand his frustration, but gee, did he really have to kill 3000 people to get his point across?



Again, these words will fall on deaf ears. I'm not sure whether people just repeatedly ignore what we say or are incapable of understanding it. Either way, there's not much sense in allowing it to frustrate us, because there's absolutely nothing we can do to fix it.

__________________

'Fraid not. Mathematics, essentially, doesn't even concern numbers directly: it's best to describe maths as quantifying the relationships between an infinite number of numerical sets and the commutive and non-commutive mathematical operations that can occur between those sets. Number theory is but an (immeasurably!) small aspect of mathematics.



Well, it's the measurments that are innacurate because in the mathematical proofs, one Planck length is as exact as any other length within the equations. Planck lengths, volumes, etc are borne out of Quantum Mechanics and as such are proven to exist unless the most successful theory that humanity has ever devised is fundamentally flawed. [The term Quantum derives from the Greek for the plural of 'small packet' and Quantum Mechanics is entirely based on the premise of indivisible length, area, etc.]

Scientific proofs will work to a set degree of accuracy and even at the atomic scale a passably accurate degree can be obtained. There is simply no need to be more accurate at this stage. Of course, we somehow need to delve deeper at some point but at the moment the smallest we can resolve an image to is the frequency of an electron.



Would it not be equally mentally unstable of a scientist to postulate that it is possible for an apple to float into the sky when it is released from his hand on Earth? Or for the apple to propogate horizontally for eternity at a velocity that tends to the speed of light?

Besides, we have equations that can deal with non-absolute spacetime: General Relativity. Within the equations in GR, the only physical quantity that is absolute, that stays the same, is the speed of light. Everything else changes at rates proportional to the motion of the observer relative to the object being observed. Strange things happen, yet we still have equations to quantify them courtesy of Mr Einstein.



This applies for all number bases. I encountered this in my first year of university and wondered how it could ever be applied to the real world besides binary code and clock arithmetic but it is employed in Chaos Theory quite a bit. In the scientific world though, using base 4 as opposed to base 10 (decimal) is akin to using imperial measures over metric measures - the answers may be different but the equations operate in exactly the same way.



I have to disagree: Hypothesis testing is a statistical process that tests whether a theory can be matched to the empirical data that it is supposed to predict. For example, say I have a theory that one in every three smokers will develop cancer. Let the number of possible cancer victims be y and the population of England be x then we have an equation: y = x/3. This is not a statistical equation, yet it can be hypothesis tested against the observed data to see if it is an accurate theory.

There will always be some level of inaccuracy in all scientific experments - it is inescapable but we have gone a long way to erradicating it from meaningful experiments. Our scientists are good enough to erradicate all background radiation and other external influences so that one atom can be lined up against another when using Quantum Tunnelling Microscopes - that's pretty impressive. However, Planck-level accuracy is simply not possible and the good thing is that it doesn't need to be possible.



It's a difficult concept to formulate metaphysically. For instance, how can time possibly come in discrete packages? Yet it does. The universe is a funny place, but science will eventually fathom it out. Maybe not today, maybe not in a thousand years, but eventually it will.

__________________

i admit its not a very good example, but it was meant for the education level of a ten yr old. My I.Q. has been battered down since I left colledge by mundane jobs and the lack of education needed to make music.
so given that, it would be almost as mentally unstable except for the first time the experiment was done.
if let go of an apple, having no experience of gravity whatsoever, you could be forgiven for thinking all sorts of things.
but having no experience of arithmetic the idea of numbers would still come to you in the correct form. (it would take a bloody long time, maybee years, but i think anybody with an iq over 99 could formulate an order of counting)

doesnt the speed of light change under certain cercumstances?
isn't that why water bends light at an angle?
(i just realised thats a really stupid question. because the fact that its a constant refers to a vacume state)

PS. notice how i cleverly avoided everything else you said? thats because i know nothing about physics, and you have me beaten to a pulp with knowledge on that one.
i need to take that long overdue university course, then read the superstring theory thread, then come back and talk about it.

__________________

You're probably right.



Light propogates at a slower velocity through more dense mediums due to it constantly being 'buffeted' from molecule to molecule. A light beam's path is effectively an infinite - although microscopic - zig-zag through anything other than vacuum and simple geometry tells us that a zig-zag will take longer to reach a certain point than a straight line.

__________________

However, Chritianity has done that too. Every time someone (usually catholics) get out of line someone else is there to say, "wait a minute, thats not in the bible." like the reformation, the pope had been telling all the good peope of europe to pay him for salvation and someone (martin luther) came along and told him he was wrong. Or American slavery, the very first abolitionists were (i dont remembr exactly but i think it was the) Quakers. Same thing happened in the nazi germany and the crusades. The only difference here is that the people in power don't care what is in the bible they're just using religion to support themselves and their own personal agenda. People keep saying how religion is responsible for all the genocides ain history and stuff like that. Religion doesnt do that; people who misenterpret religion do that. Kind of like 9/11 despite what micahel moore wants you to think, neither 9/11 nor the war in iraq were the result of the religion its self. 9/11 was a group of dumbass racist middle easterners who dont know the first thing about islam. Iraq is a whole other topic for a different forum.

Christians and religous folk dont just make up whatever they want to suit them (usually). Paul (the apostle) says quite a few times to beware of false prophets who will teach things that arent in the bible. Just becasue someone says they are of a belief system doesnt make it so. like the KKK they calim to be christain when anyone not using LSD can clearly see that they areny.

__________________

The Quakers were the first abolitionists, because, to a Quaker, there's nothing more disgusting than owning another person. I mean, you could say that about anybody, but not back then.

You misunderstood what I said. Religion and science function differently and shouldn't be expected to function in the same way. The only time either function in the same way is when they're misfiring and giving us slavish dogmatism rather than their respective intended ends.

So who is to say that Jesus was telling the truth?

__________________

did anybody talk about Luddites?
Nnow that was a novel belief system!

__________________

The Luddites weren't so much a religion as a group of whiney, out of work craftsmen vandalizing factories under the direction of the probably fictitious Ludd.

yes, intersting mentality, and with me working in a factory I see people who hold similar beliefs to this day.

__________________

Yes! A Dickensian name if ever there was.

__________________

entirely atheist, thats all i will say. i have no interest in an online argument about religion.

thats a good point
But
Keep in mind at first the bible was not meant to be taken literaly(sp) the passages were sopposed to be metaphors (sp) on how one should live but then some ass wang decided that it SHOULD be taken literaly and doomed humanity...(well no but i think its stupid to take that shit literaly)

anyways i dont think the teachings are obselete, i think that they looked at the wrong way by many

The people who believe him are.

__________________

My point is that how can we believe them? For all anybody knows, Jesus could've been a false prophet. Why believe one man over another?

__________________

all i believe in bout jesus is that this is something smart he sayd in the bible:

dont do sumtin to someone that u dont want someone to do to u

he probaly didnt say it like this in the bible or whatever but its damn right if u ask me, this is the only rule from the bible i follow (its basicaly every rule in one).

btw i believe in spirits, good spirits, bad spirits. Its not i believe i know its true and for the one who dont , just wait and see sumday

hails

__________________

I've read this thread a few times and restricted myself from posting, mainly cos i'm becoming abit of a major post whore as of late...mainly cos i don't like getting into religious arguments...bad expreriences.
Number 1. the one true religion in the world is our ideas, morals, ethics etc.etc.etc. But unfortunatly mankind is so blind to each others strengths, that we only see the weakness and wrongs in one another. And another unfortunate is; that it takes a catastrophe to pull us together as a world (e.g. indian ocean tsunami), if we weren't so power hungry as nations (paradoy of religions) then the world and our civilisation would not be doomed as it seems to be.
Number 2. False prophets. Jesus DID exist. I do not believe in god or an afterlife, having died once already due to overdose i can't believe that, but i cannot concede that after such a long time, (and scientific proving from datings of manuscripts & scrolls), he did not exist. BUT, he was no creation of any god, any intelligent person would know this straight away. He was a prophet, a human being, just like rasputin could of been a prophet and was a human being...had he not been insane. Which leads me to my third point of, comparison.
Number 3. If i were to say today, "I am the son of god". I would be classified as insane, unless i perform some divine miracle which would leave g**rg* b*sh shitting his cock. Rasputin cured the Tsar's son. Nuff said, HE DID. Some blood disorder which i forget the name of, he cured it. Rasputin had a gift, I believe Jesus of the time had a gift too, which was to cure people. But in a world so wrapped up in religious feasts and foreign wars, why not believe that someone who can cure people in such a way isn't the son of god?

People the were so willing to believe in anything then, that they wrote a book about it. That book continued through the ages, that book & man created a religion, that book has led to genocide, that book started wars, that book controlls the beliefs of the most powerful man in the world. That book will lead to our doom.
nuff said.
I'd prefer rasputin to be honest with you.

__________________

lolz cant give u wrong man

__________________

Sars, I don't know which point you're trying to make.

I'm just here to say religion is bullshit. sure I believe in something devine, how the hell would we all be here without that? But I'm not convinced to a certain direction as in religion wise. I believe in myself, love and honor.

I'm saying, we (humans as a whole) could've believed anyone we wanted. We chose to believe someone, we put his name in history. That faith has ruled a majority of mankind for 2004 years. So, when someone else like Jesus comes along...why do we cast that person asunder? Because of the teachings of a book....which is what modern religion comes down to. Not one religion has experience divine intervention in the past 1000, or at least none on record.
Hitler, devout in his faith. Hitler, devout in his hatred few Jews. B*sh, freakishly devout in his faith. B*sh, "I am a war president". That's scary.
I'm just saying that, i can't believe that...we are the people who flew to the moon, invented the most horrific weapon know to our galaxy, bred people like Einstein....yet we choose to follow religion's so shallow in their conception's that they're gonna destroy us all. The bible is right, there will be an apocalypse, an apocalypse of our own creation though.
What else i find hard to grasp is, as is with the above (we choose to follow words in a book), yet seemingly we cannot choose to follow our own faith in each other. Humanity as a whole should be the only religion. If people ask why we are here, that should be our holy grail.

__________________

ah, I see now.

and yes, I do understand your point. though your conception of a 'shallow' belief is probably made up by your view on christians in general. And I do agree, christians in general ruined it. As in, keeping their credibility.

I'm not a religous person though there must be 'something' out there, I do not believe in material terms.

But yeah, I get your point and its nice to see a view like that reflected on a fucking internet site for metal, a decent conversation at last. shame I can't participate due to the ammounts of alcohol I had this evening but this is all worth the read anyway. Cheers to you.

*toasts a bottle of white wine*....*falls over....throws up*
hmumz, mom's bday. i'm amazed i can still tupe.

__________________

haha. I should get my ass in bed, it's 2:33 here.

Happy birthday, Sar's mom!
Good night, grand father def!

fuck dude, tis like 1:37 here....stay and joim teh partoie

__________________

have a good one on your mum!

I'm off to bed, 2:39 (at night) here and I've got college tomorrow. goodnight lads.

Jesus was black thats all im saying cuz my fingers hurt. And no I am not dissing religion, even though i do not believe.

__________________

Wasn't he jewish?

There are Black Jews

__________________