Calling all Atheists

[Donald Trump]

omg are you insane?
of course the christians persecuted the jews!
many nazi's were christians.
muslims were originally nice to jews. but christians accused the jews of deicice and have persecuted them for ages.

because jesus was calling himself king of the jews he was drawing to the jews, which was a bad thing as the romans began to dislike the jews

dont believe everything in the bible, okay?

i didnt say sex isnt power, infact the opposite.

america's life sytle is a christian life style, tbh it was a bit of a hyperbole

to extremist muslims they regard any other religions as infidels and if they kill infidels they go to heaven

 

[Rockman X]

omg are you insane?
of course the christians persecuted the jews!
many nazi's were christians.

Guess what? Hitler brainwashed people. Christianity had absolutely NO bearing in anything.

muslims were originally nice to jews. but christians accused the jews of deicice and have persecuted them for ages.

Yeah, um, wrong again. And "deicice" isn't a real world, I don't know what it is in your own little fabricated history.

dont believe everything in the bible, okay?

I don't. I'm not a Christian. What are you, an angry Jew?

i didnt say sex isnt power, infact the opposite.

Wrong. Look at today's culture, sexuality is so mainstream it's controlling. You either live in an Amish community or under a rock.

america's life sytle is a christian life style, tbh it was a bit of a hyperbole

My. Fucking. God. I can't believe you actually said that. You have lost all credibility now (not that you had any to begin with). You obviously have NO concept whatsoever of the Christian religion, or else you would know that it is completely opposite.

to extremist muslims they regard any other religions as infidels and if they kill infidels they go to heaven

Wooow. Go learn about Islam and GTFO this thread while you're at it. You are completely ignorant on the subject matter and have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know what idiot you learned all this stuff from, but they are completely misinformed and brainwashing you.

Do yourself a favor: go to Barnes and Noble. Pick up a Bible. Read it. Buy a book about the Koran. Buy a history book on the Middle East. Also pick up a history book on World War II so you'll understand why Hitler instigated things. Actually, scratch that, just read his book Mein Kampf.

 

[Donald Trump]

poor you. you really are ignorant arent you.

deicide= killing of a god. from the word deity, which means god, and well cide obvisously means kill.

hitler didnt really brain wash people, that was more of a stalin personality cult type thing. hitler turned germany back into a world power, no wonder people supported him.

i am an atheist.

ive read the quran and the bible, you obvisously havent.

just stfu,
america= christian,

i know your probably american so you have trouble understanding english, but i said sex was power.

my history is much better than yours believe me

mein kampf is a badly wriiten book at best, not really worth reading.

 

[Erythritol]

poor you. you really are ignorant arent you.

deicide= killing of a god. from the word deity, which means god, and well cide obvisously means kill.

hitler didnt really brain wash people, that was more of a stalin personality cult type thing. hitler turned germany back into a world power, no wonder people supported him.

i am an atheist.

ive read the quran and the bible, you obvisously havent.

just stfu,
america= christian,

i know your probably american so you have trouble understanding english, but i said sex was power.

my history is much better than yours believe me

mein kampf is a badly wriiten book at best, not really worth reading.

....Yeah. he OBVISOUSLY has trouble understanding English. In his defense, your English-- and I use the noun very loosely-- is a grammatical holocaust.

But anyway, back to how much you fail at life. Hitler brainwashed people. Plain and simple. That is why the Holocaust happened. When people are desperate enough, they will believe anything you say. And hey, blaming an entire group of people for your plight is easy. It makes you feel better; pointing the finger of blame always makes people feel better. The mass execution of all of those people had nothing to do with religion. It was brainwashing and Hitler's madness. Yeah, and Germany was SUCH a world power. That's why all of their cities were obliterated, and they had to kidnap people from France to work in their factories. They did REALLY well. That was TOTALLY going to last. P.S., I'm being sarcastic.

Your history is much better than our history. Yes, I can tell from the complete and utter lack of grasp you have on it. You think Hitler didn't brainwash people, and you think Christianity doesn't have humble beginnings.

Quite frankly, I think you're a troll. You can't possibly this stupid.

 

[Rockman X]

poor you. you really are ignorant arent you.

deicide= killing of a god. from the word deity, which means god, and well cide obvisously means kill.

You said deicice. Learn to spell.

hitler didnt really brain wash people, that was more of a stalin personality cult type thing. hitler turned germany back into a world power, no wonder people supported him.

Yes he did. He used mind control to bring the nation to his side.

i am an atheist.

Really? I would expect you to be more informed then.

ive read the quran and the bible, you obvisously havent.

Liar, it's obvious you haven't read the Bible so STFU. My mother is a Jesus-freak and I have more knowledge of the Bible then you will ever accumlate in a lifetime.

just stfu,
america= christian,

You are really fucking stupid aren't you? Christianity is no longer the dominant religion in America, as a matter of fact, it's largely RIDICULED in America.

i know your probably american so you have trouble understanding english, but i said sex was power.

Actually you never said that. Read over your own posts. And by the way, your spelling and grammar is terrible. Go back to grade school and shut the fuck up about Americans, you misinformed troll.

my history is much better than yours believe me

Really? Your history sounds pretty bleak to me, it makes the real world seem fun.

mein kampf is a badly wriiten book at best, not really worth reading.

You don't even know what Mein Kampf is, do you? I'd ask you to tell me, only you'd just google it so you could pretend you know.

 

[der Astronom]

Um, wow, the Crusades and the Inquisition were so....15th century. Maybe people can get the fuck over it soon? And big deal, there are contradictions. It's a very old text that was compiled over several centuries, and has been translated hundreds of times over. I've found that the people who bash the Bible are relatively ignorant. They generally haven't read it, or if they have, they don't really grasp it very well. But I digress.

The fact that it's old is more the reason not to trust it anymore--because it's obsolete. You even conceded that we know it rains not because God is crying.

And the fact that it's gone through so many interpretations and translations may mean there's a large possibility for errors, and people to change the things in it they didn't like, lending itself to a rather ambiguous and confusing message. Simply put, there's not much to grasp in a book that contradicts itself or plain doesn't make sense. There is a difference between difficult to understand and makes no sense whatsoever.

Oh wow, you mean it doesn't rain because God is crying? Really? Yes, science is wonderful and can explain many phenomena once attributed to God. No one will argue with that. However, you can simply say, "It was God's design."

In theory, you could, but that only shows that you might fail completely at being a scientist, and saying it was God's design is the same as admitting you have absolutely no idea how to explain a particular theory, and aren't willing to find out how. It's really ignorant and unscientific.

I'm not really religious, but I'm getting a bit sick of people who worship science as a religion calling non-atheists ignorant. The fact of the matter is, you can use your science all you want to explain how things happen, but science ultimately doesn't answer the question of WHY.

I did not advocate worshipping science as a religion, and I have no idea where you got that ridiculous idea from. It's true that science won't explain why certain things happen in a moral sense, if only because such subjective things as morality have no place in science. But if you were to ask why certain things work the way they do, they can tell you that. If you want to know why it rains, scientists have found out why.

Studying science, specifically biology, has only reaffirmed my belief in some sort of higher power. I suppose it's difficult to explain but the way that living things function so smoothly-- with autotrophs producing the chemicals necessary for the respiration of heterotrophs and vice versa-- is very impressive. Life seems to mesh unbelievably well. Yes, I know millions of years of evolution will do that to you, but that evolution exists at all is relatively astounding. The complexity of life, either at a molecular or systematic level, is amazing. To just shrug is off as random is sort of silly to me.

Perhaps you really should reconsider studying biology, since it seems you didn't study it well. No scientist to my knowledge might suggest that evolution is completely "random"--the only random ingredient in evolution is mutation, though it's been found that much of diversity is generated through genetic recombination and other similar methods, and not so much mutation. Furthermore, you are also confusing evolution, which describes the history of life and diversity with abiogenesis, the model devised by Miller that is a possible explanation for how life on Earth might have initiated.

Please get your facts straight before you judge science too harshly.

I should also warn you that science is not an easy thing to learn. Many people have misconceptions of what it is and isn't.

When I said patterns, I meant physics formulas that have been shown to be relatively constant. Math formulas too. If life/the earth were so random, things wouldn't adhere to such strict formulas and patterns. I don't really have an interest in convincing people of God's existance. I'm simply saying that to worship anything blindly is stupid, religion or science. Also, to me, claiming that God doesn't exist is as ridiculous as claiming that He/She/It does. Neither party has proof. It's sort of a moot argument.

Then I have no idea what "randomness" you are referring to. However, there is a clear distinction between what can be explained by physics and its subsequent discoveries without the presence of God and blatantly disregarding an actual explanation of reality by substituting it with an easier-to-swallow concept of God. Simply put, these equations and formulae were not "created" by some being. They've existed all along. The fact that they work have nothing to do with God. The fact that they work is because of logic (math) and because there is evidence (science).

 

[Erythritol]

The fact that it's old is more the reason not to trust it anymore--because it's obsolete. You even conceded that we know it rains not because God is crying.

And the fact that it's gone through so many interpretations and translations may mean there's a large possibility for errors, and people to change the things in it they didn't like, lending itself to a rather ambiguous and confusing message. Simply put, there's not much to grasp in a book that contradicts itself or plain doesn't make sense. There is a difference between difficult to understand and makes no sense whatsoever.



In theory, you could, but that only shows that you might fail completely at being a scientist, and saying it was God's design is the same as admitting you have absolutely no idea how to explain a particular theory, and aren't willing to find out how. It's really ignorant and unscientific.



I did not advocate worshipping science as a religion, and I have no idea where you got that ridiculous idea from. It's true that science won't explain why certain things happen in a moral sense, if only because such subjective things as morality have no place in science. But if you were to ask why certain things work the way they do, they can tell you that. If you want to know why it rains, scientists have found out why.



Perhaps you really should reconsider studying biology, since it seems you didn't study it well. No scientist to my knowledge might suggest that evolution is completely "random"--the only random ingredient in evolution is mutation, though it's been found that much of diversity is generated through genetic recombination and other similar methods, and not so much mutation. Furthermore, you are also confusing evolution, which describes the history of life and diversity with abiogenesis, the model devised by Miller that is a possible explanation for how life on Earth might have initiated.

Please get your facts straight before you judge science too harshly.

I should also warn you that science is not an easy thing to learn. Many people have misconceptions of what it is and isn't.



Then I have no idea what "randomness" you are referring to. However, there is a clear distinction between what can be explained by physics and its subsequent discoveries without the presence of God and blatantly disregarding an actual explanation of reality by substituting it with an easier-to-swallow concept of God. Simply put, these equations and formulae were not "created" by some being. They've existed all along. The fact that they work have nothing to do with God. The fact that they work is because of logic (math) and because there is evidence (science).

*Facepalm* You completely missed what I was saying. But let's get one thing straight first, k? Do not talk down to me. I understand science. I've received all As in every science class I have ever taken. I am not stupid, and it was not "difficult" in any sense of the word. I'm also friends with several science majors in various departments including physics and biology. Maybe science is a difficult concept for you, but I understand it quite well.

Okay, that said, let me try to explain what I was trying to get at. I studied biology quite well. Believe it or not, there are MANY prominent scientists who are very devout. Do some research please. I was simply saying that life is so complex, that it is difficult not to marvel at it. Clearly, you have no appreciation for the complexity of biology. I never said I thought God waved a magic wand, and life suddenly appeared out of nowhere. I was simply expressing my appreciation for the complexity of life. For instance, the reason that some coral polyps are capable of sustaining life-- both for themselves for the ecosystem that depend upon them-- are due to zooxanthellae. Scientists aren't quite sure why, when, or how these zooxanthellae establish this symbiotic relationship with the polyps. I'm sure that, eventually, it will be explained. But it's quite amazing life meshes together so well, when on hundreds of other planets, there is absolutely no life at all.

I never said shit about morals. I was saying that science ultimately cannot answer the big why. It can explain how evolution happened, but it cannot say why. Why did it happen like that? What was the ultimate point? Why did any of it happen? Science can never answer any of these questions. Science is only a way of explaining the way the world works. In a way, it's only skin deep.

Basically, this is like we're having an entirely different conversation. I'm questioning why life exists, and you're telling me HOW it exists. It's really not the same thing.

 

[der Astronom]

*Facepalm* You completely missed what I was saying. But let's get one thing straight first, k? Do not talk down to me. I understand science. I've received all As in every science class I have ever taken. I am not stupid, and it was not "difficult" in any sense of the word. I'm also friends with several science majors in various departments including physics and biology. Maybe science is a difficult concept for you, but I understand it quite well.

I judge you not for your credentials (and if I did, I'd be committing an ad hominem, but I have enough respect for my debate opponents not to degrade myself to such a level), but for what evidence and arguments you propose in your posts. So if you do not display clear knowledge of knowing the difference between abiogenesis and evolution, it tells me you don't understand what evolution is and isn't, and it doesn't matter if you got an A in every science class you ever took.

I should also tell you that appeal to authority in a debate does not look good.

Okay, that said, let me try to explain what I was trying to get at. I studied biology quite well. Believe it or not, there are MANY prominent scientists who are very devout. Do some research please. I was simply saying that life is so complex, that it is difficult to marvel at it. Clearly, you have no appreciation for the complexity of biology. I never said I thought God waved a magic wand, and life suddenly appeared out of nowhere. I was simply expressing my appreciation for the complexity of life. For instance, the reason that some coral polyps are capable of sustaining life-- both for themselves for the ecosystem that depend upon them-- are due to zooxanthellae. Scientists aren't quite sure why, when, or how these zooxanthellae establish this symbiotic relationship with the polyps. I'm sure that, eventually, it will be explained. But it's quite amazing life meshes together so well, when on hundreds of other planets, there is absolutely no life at all.

"Complexity" does not necessarily indicate design though. It might be explained by the fact that natural processes are inefficient, as engineers who plan to design an efficient model ideally want a design that is least complex. However, as you've already conceded, that doesn't happen in living organisms. If that wasn't the direction you wanted that argument to go into, then I'm not entirely sure why you mentioned that point. The fact that life exists on one of several hundred planets elsewhere fits within the model that life is improbable. It's analogous to having only one ticket out of hundreds being the winning ticket. There is nothing particularly "amazing" about the improbable existence of life in the sense that it is not difficult to accept--it might be amusing, but not impossible.

I never said shit about morals. I was saying that science ultimately cannot answer the big why. It can explain how evolution happened, but it cannot say why. Why did it happen like that? What was the ultimate point? Why did any of it happen? Science can never answer any of these questions. Science is only a way of explaining the way the world works. In a way, it's only skin deep.

Then perhaps you don't understand that it's not up to science to answer such questions, and cannot be blamed for it. When I mentioned "moral sense", I was referring to things having a moral purpose, as one might say evolution happened because God created it (though I sincerely disagree with this view), otherwise I have no idea what kind of an answer you're looking for when asking why things like evolution happen. I'm not even sure why it's important to know why evolution happened.

Basically, this is like we're having an entirely different conversation. I'm questioning why life exists, and you're telling me HOW it exists. It's really not the same thing.

Why life exists has nothing to do with evolution. You might ask why the history of life and diversity is such, but evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life on Earth. It really does sound like you're asking for a moral reason as to why life exists (which is not something science is concerned with), because the only thing I can think of as to why life exists without resorting to a less objective explanation is the scientific one, which you consider to be "how" it exists.

 

[Jazzel]

Well, sorry if I didn't get the memo that we weren't talking about religion in the "traditional" sense, seeing how this thread is in the, um, religion section. Also, what you're talking about has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Describing things utilizing non-scientific and more emotional terms is more of a literary thing than a religious thing. See the Romantic poets for more info

The way that you structured your post suggested that Einstein was talking about religion in the traditional sense. I pointed out this point because it was erroneous.

To further explain, when Einstein used the word religion he did mean it in that religious, Romantic literary sense of the emotions that religion makes claim to.

For example, when people have a "religious" experience, they became ecstatic, joyful, and experience a wholeness. It was these feelings that Einstein called religious, and applied to science.

Hence, 'Science without religion is lame" translates metaphorically to "Science without a feeling of wholeness and joy is not science at all". Catch my drift? That's why I pointed that out, because it seemed to me that you were implying that Einstein said that science without organized religion i.e the church was lame. That was false.

 

[Rockman X]

Why life exists has nothing to do with evolution. You might ask why the history of life and diversity is such, but evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life on Earth. It really does sound like you're asking for a moral reason as to why life exists (which is not something science is concerned with), because the only thing I can think of as to why life exists without resorting to a less objective explanation is the scientific one, which you consider to be "how" it exists.

I think it's a human trademark to want to know the why of things. Such as why evolution occurred, why it picked humans to be the dominant species, etc. With the why comes a feeling of purpose, I suppose. Science will likely never answer these questions, but then again, neither will religion. It's a hodgepodge of ideas that many humans need to believe in so that they feel they have a purpose. Me, I'm perfectly happy just knowing the how, I don't feel it necessary to have a purpose given to me by a higher power.

For example, when people have a "religious" experience, they became ecstatic, joyful, and experience a wholeness. It was these feelings that Einstein called religious, and applied to science.

Hence, 'Science without religion is lame" translates metaphorically to "Science without a feeling of wholeness and joy is not science at all". Catch my drift? That's why I pointed that out, because it seemed to me that you were implying that Einstein said that science without organized religion i.e the church was lame. That was false.

Don't people get those same feelings from things besides a religious experience? And lets not forget that half the people who have "religious experiences" are not completely right in the head. Speaking in tongues, anyone? I would think a truly passionate scientist who loved what he did would take just as much joy in his work as he would if he had religion to go along with it.

 

[der Astronom]

I think it's a human trademark to want to know the why of things. Such as why evolution occurred, why it picked humans to be the dominant species, etc. With the why comes a feeling of purpose, I suppose. Science will likely never answer these questions, but then again, neither will religion. It's a hodgepodge of ideas that many humans need to believe in so that they feel they have a purpose. Me, I'm perfectly happy just knowing the how, I don't feel it necessary to have a purpose given to me by a higher power.

This is what I mean when asking "why" as a moral purpose. The "moral purpose" is not something that's up to science to find the "answers" to--that's left up to you to interpret. All we know is that what's there is there and the evidence. That's what science shows us. As for "why", there's not enough evidence that suggests it's significant enough to mean anything. But you are free to make up whatever reason you want to believe as to why it's there. Just don't expect everyone to take you seriously if they don't agree.

 

[Dazz]

I agree with everything else you said bar this:-

And Nihilism is stupid. I wish all the Nihilists would just kill themselves if they think life is so random and pointless. Or y'know, write some poetry that doesn't rhyme about it.

I can't beleive that there is a point to our existance and I do beleive it was by chance. If there is a higher being out there what reason has he gone through billions and billions of centuries of life and evolution? Maybe we are not even halfway there who knows but I can't see there being a purpose or anything like that for all living organisms in the universe. If there was what would be this 'point', to see something or get something, perhaps God has a bet with satan (Yes gambling is a sin I know I was joking) or Maybe this higher being is just a bit curious with a hell of alot of patience.
Don't get me wrong i'm not saying life is pointless and that we are all pointless. We now individually have a point as we are somebodys friend or son, daughter, father, wife or simply somebody who has to give us our plane ticket for France every year. So we each individually have a reason to live. But life itself is existing for a reason..nah can't see it
I also like to beleive that there is a god out there.

 

[Rockman X]

This is what I mean when asking "why" as a moral purpose. The "moral purpose" is not something that's up to science to find the "answers" to--that's left up to you to interpret. All we know is that what's there is there and the evidence. That's what science shows us. As for "why", there's not enough evidence that suggests it's significant enough to mean anything. But you are free to make up whatever reason you want to believe as to why it's there. Just don't expect everyone to take you seriously if they don't agree.

Pretty much, science is the how and religion is the why. Unfortunately, religion doesn't provide any conclusive evidence to support any of the conceived why's. As you said, it's simply up to interpretation, and then ideas spread because others think it sounds good, and before you know it you've got a church or a cult.

It's kind of a shame, "religion" would be a much nicer, simpler thing if it were just a general, shared belief with no specifics or guidelines.

 

[Dazz]

Well it's like the bible. It hasalot of stories and ideals to live by but people take it out of context and create rules that they the bible says to live by.

 

[Laro]

God is actually visible. We cannot see it because it is all around us. God is a powerful spirit with a mind of its own. The conciousness started acting and stuff, the mind was so powerful it made a huge explosion.
God wasn't there all the time. It created itself.

I'm bad at long speeches

 

[Rockman X]

You ninja'd my last post, Dazz, so I didn't see this

I agree with everything else you said bar this:-

I can't beleive that there is a point to our existance and I do beleive it was by chance. If there is a higher being out there what reason has he gone through billions and billions of centuries of life and evolution? Maybe we are not even halfway there who knows but I can't see there being a purpose or anything like that for all living organisms in the universe.

Maybe God got bored in watching planets orbit suns and wanted to make a science project. Maybe it's like South Park depicted and we're the universe's favorite reality TV show, where the Joozians have taken species from different planets and dumped them on Earth to watch the hilarity ensue.

If there was what would be this 'point', to see something or get something, perhaps God has a bet with satan (Yes gambling is a sin I know I was joking) or Maybe this higher being is just a bit curious with a hell of alot of patience.

Ever read the book of Job? Satan made a bet with God, and God accepted it.

God is actually visible. We cannot see it because it is all around us. God is a powerful spirit with a mind of its own. The conciousness started acting and stuff, the mind was so powerful it made a huge explosion.

I think you're talking about The Force, there.

 

[Erythritol]

I judge you not for your credentials (and if I did, I'd be committing an ad hominem, but I have enough respect for my debate opponents not to degrade myself to such a level), but for what evidence and arguments you propose in your posts. So if you do not display clear knowledge of knowing the difference between abiogenesis and evolution, it tells me you don't understand what evolution is and isn't, and it doesn't matter if you got an A in every science class you ever took.

I should also tell you that appeal to authority in a debate does not look good.



"Complexity" does not necessarily indicate design though. It might be explained by the fact that natural processes are inefficient, as engineers who plan to design an efficient model ideally want a design that is least complex. However, as you've already conceded, that doesn't happen in living organisms. If that wasn't the direction you wanted that argument to go into, then I'm not entirely sure why you mentioned that point. The fact that life exists on one of several hundred planets elsewhere fits within the model that life is improbable. It's analogous to having only one ticket out of hundreds being the winning ticket. There is nothing particularly "amazing" about the improbable existence of life in the sense that it is not difficult to accept--it might be amusing, but not impossible.



Then perhaps you don't understand that it's not up to science to answer such questions, and cannot be blamed for it. When I mentioned "moral sense", I was referring to things having a moral purpose, as one might say evolution happened because God created it (though I sincerely disagree with this view), otherwise I have no idea what kind of an answer you're looking for when asking why things like evolution happen. I'm not even sure why it's important to know why evolution happened.



Why life exists has nothing to do with evolution. You might ask why the history of life and diversity is such, but evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life on Earth. It really does sound like you're asking for a moral reason as to why life exists (which is not something science is concerned with), because the only thing I can think of as to why life exists without resorting to a less objective explanation is the scientific one, which you consider to be "how" it exists.

I might point out to you that being a condescending douchebag doesn't make you look good in debates either. It just makes it look like you masturbate to the thought of yourself. But let's move on.

Holy shit, will you just stop it with the abiogenesis thing and the evolution thing? What I was describing WAS evolution. Maybe you should step off your little pedestal for a moment and learn to read? Abiogenesis (congrats on throwing around fancy science terms, btw, it impresses everyone) is the creation of life from the "primordial soup." Evolution, what I was talking about, is the various mutations of organisms throughout the millions of years. (Ex: Humans losing gill slits and developing lungs). But um, last time I checked, my dear, this was in the religion forum, not the biology forum. We aren't here to argue about biological semantics. I know, I know, you want to throw around your uber impressive biology knowledge, but save it. I don't care and neither does anyone else.

Well, the biological processes are efficient enough to have brought life through millions of years. I'm not complaining. I guess that having a great respect and appreciation for the complexity of life means that I'm not "scientific." The funny thing is, I understand how life works quite well, yet I still believe in God and have a great respect for life. And I do find it amazing that life exists at all. I was once told the odds of any life existing on earth-- never mind the highly complex and varied ecosystems that we have-- and it was staggering. I think that's a little more than "amusing." I'm sorry that you can't really see the beauty in life. All you seem to be able to do is regurgitate little scientific facts about how things function. I'm not particularly interested in how things function. Anyone can read a book to find that out. No one can open a book and discover why it functions like that. The best answer is evolution. Yes, but then what? Why evolution? Why abiogenesis? You don't know why this question is important? Then why are you in the religion thread to begin with? Without evolution we'd, arguably, still be little one-celled organisms floating in the sea. But we aren't. Doesn't that intrigue you in the slightest? I guess not. Well, have fun with your science books in any case.

 

[Koloth]

I might point out to you that being a condescending douchebag doesn't make you look good in debates either. It just makes it look like you masturbate to the thought of yourself. But let's move on.

I do not think Angelus is being condescending. I just think that she is defending her stand. You, on the other hand, are getting defensive. You should not feel threatened because somebody is suggesting you get more education on a certain subject. It might help you to debate your point better.

As for whether God exits, who really knows? Religion comes out because people are trying to explain how the world around us started. So people create stories for why things happened. As the human race got more educated, more logical explainations came up. As we gain more knowledge, many of the old beliefs are proven wrong.

I am actually an Agnostic. I do not have any confirmed beliefs. I need to see more to make up my mind as to whether there is a higher being involved in the creation of life or there isn't. There is just so much that I do not know. That is why I love research.

 

[Erythritol]

I do not think Angelus is being condescending. I just think that she is defending her stand. You, on the other hand, are getting defensive. You should not feel threatened because somebody is suggesting you get more education on a certain subject. It might help you to debate your point better.

As for whether God exits, who really knows? Religion comes out because people are trying to explain how the world around us started. So people create stories for why things happened. As the human race got more educated, more logical explainations came up. As we gain more knowledge, many of the old beliefs are proven wrong.

I am actually an Agnostic. I do not have any confirmed beliefs. I need to see more to make up my mind as to whether there is a higher being involved in the creation of life or there isn't. There is just so much that I do not know. That is why I love research.

I'm being defensive, really? Maybe that's because she told me that because of my studies in science reaffirming my faith in a higher power and my appreciation for the complexity of life, I'm terrible at science and should reconsider studying it. Hmm...let's see, that's not only condescending but highly insulting!

I'd like to just point out that this isn't a grand debate on biology or physics, or really science. All I said is that science and religion can coexist peacefully. This is evidenced by the fact that there are MANY prestigious scientists-- yes, ones who believe in abiogenesis and evolution!-- who believe in God. Maybe if Angelus got off her little scientific high horse, and realized that religious people aren't idiots who believe that thunder is caused by God being angry, she'd realize that religion and science really don't have to be at odds with each other.

 

[der Astronom]

I might point out to you that being a condescending douchebag doesn't make you look good in debates either. It just makes it look like you masturbate to the thought of yourself. But let's move on.

Please do not mistaken debating advice for being condescending. I have no desire to either insult my opponents or belittle them, regardless of what you think. Perhaps you should just calm down and stop attacking me like I'm offending you, because I really have no intention of doing so.

Holy shit, will you just stop it with the abiogenesis thing and the evolution thing? What I was describing WAS evolution. Maybe you should step off your little pedestal for a moment and learn to read? Abiogenesis (congrats on throwing around fancy science terms, btw, it impresses everyone) is the creation of life from the "primordial soup." Evolution, what I was talking about, is the various mutations of organisms throughout the millions of years. (Ex: Humans losing gill slits and developing lungs). But um, last time I checked, my dear, this was in the religion forum, not the biology forum. We aren't here to argue about biological semantics. I know, I know, you want to throw around your uber impressive biology knowledge, but save it. I don't care and neither does anyone else.

That's not quite right still. Evolution is not just about mutation; as I mentioned, it was only a small part of evolution that farthers diversity, and you also neglected to mention a very important mechanic of evolution--namely, natural selection. Furthermore, it is genetic recombination, not quite mutation, which does this. If you are not impressed by my knowledge of science (and I don't really care if you are; I'm not presenting my knowledge of science to prove how I'm better than you; I'm presenting it to get the facts straight so that we can have a more accurate argument to work with) perhaps you should hesitate to flaunt about how you aced every science course you took or about how your friends are science majors. If you really believe nobody cares about how great my knowledge in science is, why should anyone care about yours?

However, if you are going to discuss something as scientific in nature as evolution and the concept of how life exists, then that clearly is a realm of science, and needs to be discussed here, even if you consider this to be a "religion" forum. It is not uncommon for religious and scientific topics to be in conflict with each other.

Well, the biological processes are efficient enough to have brought life through millions of years. I'm not complaining. I guess that having a great respect and appreciation for the complexity of life means that I'm not "scientific." The funny thing is, I understand how life works quite well, yet I still believe in God and have a great respect for life. And I do find it amazing that life exists at all.

That's not quite what I said. I said it was unscientific to claim that "God did it" is an explanation to anything without investigating any sort of cause, event or evidence that might explain how something works. If you prefer things that way, then that's your choice. Nobody's forcing you out of it.

And when you say you believe in God, yet you're not religious (

I'm not religious by any means, but I think Christianity tends to take a lot of badmouthing that it doesn't really deserve.

) I hasten to wonder what it is you mean.

I was once told the odds of any life existing on earth-- never mind the highly complex and varied ecosystems that we have-- and it was staggering. I think that's a little more than "amusing." I'm sorry that you can't really see the beauty in life. All you seem to be able to do is regurgitate little scientific facts about how things function. I'm not particularly interested in how things function. Anyone can read a book to find that out.

I'm not entirely sure where you read about the odds of life existing on Earth because there are lots of interpretations out there on that--many of them are incorrect interpretations. You might want to step around that one carefully.

And perhaps I don't see the beauty in life the same way you do, but none of us live the same lives. I could appreciate the fact that we won the lottery ticket out of hundreds of possible lottery tickets and lived. But I value the concept of knowing that life isn't impossible; just improbable and how the lottery ticket concept illustrates that and life quite beautifully. I appreciate this view, probably because I'm more mathematically inclined, but I don't pity those who don't enjoy math. Everyone enjoys different things.

No one can open a book and discover why it functions like that. The best answer is evolution. Yes, but then what? Why evolution? Why abiogenesis? You don't know why this question is important? Then why are you in the religion thread to begin with? Without evolution we'd, arguably, still be little one-celled organisms floating in the sea. But we aren't. Doesn't that intrigue you in the slightest? I guess not. Well, have fun with your science books in any case.

If you were to ask why evolution and no other scientific model, it would be because it fits the evidence that we see presently best. No other model that might have been proposed accurately describes what we see in the diversity and history of life as well as evolution does. Perhaps there might be a better model; it might even be similar to evolution, or it is evolution, but with a few tweaks on it. But if the question of "why" that you were asking is more similar to the moral why that VengefulRonin and I have been discussing, then I still have no idea why you think it's important. Perhaps I don't agree with you, and it might be best to agree to disagree on that point, but it doesn't make evolution any less valid. You might even be searching for a "why" that doesn't even exist. Perhaps that sounds nihilist, but I never eliminate any possibilities unless there's a good reason. So, if such a reason did not exist, then what would you do?

I'd like to just point out that this isn't a grand debate on biology or physics, or really science. All I said is that science and religion can coexist peacefully. This is evidenced by the fact that there are MANY prestigious scientists-- yes, ones who believe in abiogenesis and evolution!-- who believe in God. Maybe if Angelus got off her little scientific high horse, and realized that religious people aren't idiots who believe that thunder is caused by God being angry, she'd realize that religion and science really don't have to be at odds with each other.

I am well aware that there are scientists who believe in religion, thank you very much. Faraday and Newton were both prominent scientists who had religion, but were careful enough not to confuse faith with objective evidence. And I am also familiar enough with the different flavors of Christianity. However, more often than not, some of these nicer Christians veer off from the bible and choose not to believe certain things being said there. The only thing they share with other Christians is belief in God.

But to believe that religion and science could coexist completely is nearly impossible because of what religion says--you can't really reconcile a contradiction (ie, the flat 6000 year old Earth vs the spherical 4.5 billion year old Earth) unless one side conceded defeat and admitted they were wrong--to my knowledge, the bible is an authoritarian piece of literature, and might not give way to a different description of Earth. People might change their views from what the bible has told them, but if people were to pick and choose what they were to believe, then that defeats the point of reading the bible.