Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Oi! This thread has seen better days......

Latest PM from the Dre himself:

------------------------------
I'll pray that you one day see true extent of your hypocracy.

You've proven, to me at least, the true extent of your ignorance and stupidity. And that's enough. So this is my last PM, or argument on the forum with you for that matter. I don't particularly enjoy arguing to a brick wall, or an ass hole for that matter.

Keep going with your flawed Catholic beliefs, not stemming from the Bible, but instead the clergymen that instructed you. See where it gets you when the Lord comes to judge, I really don't fucking give a damn any more.

I work to save, and to give justice. But you will except neither of these graces.

-------------------------------------

Sounds like my work here is done! Mission Accomplished.

At 3/4/07 07:53 PM, Ferris95 wrote: Pay attention, sience and religon are considered oppistites.
They are not. They bolth try to answer the same questions, but they do it differently.

Which means they will always oppose one another on those topics.

The sientific theory of the Big Bang has one flaw that many of noticed, what was force (Or cause) made that ball of energy implode.

That's not the question. Once started, the Big Bang was a chain reaction. The question is why it started in the first place, a question we may never be able to answer. It's possible that previous Universes existed, so the current one was trigger by the death of the last. In that case, finding the first origin is truly impossible.

The christian theory is Genis. When God said "Let their be light," and the universe was made. But the flaw to this theory is, why then?

Religion does not fill the gap in scientific theory in this situation. Whenever God becomes involved, the problem eventually becomes, "What created God?" It's an even more complex question that we started with and carries a huge number of assumptions to even reach it.

Sience and religon are like to different genii (plural form of genuis) trying to answer the same question. The problem? They hate each other and refuse to belive that they, together, can answer the same question. And another problem, they speak difernet languages and can't always understand each other.

That's not true. Many scientists are actually relgious, and science itself was born from a religious search to understand the world. The problem between science and relgion is that the answers of science indanger the established power structures of religion. It's not that Galileo discovered a flaw in the Christian view of the universe, it's that he discovered a flaw in the Catholic church's version of the Universe-- and the Catholic priests, etc. couldn't afford to be wrong on anything.

At 3/4/07 08:06 PM, Draconias wrote:
That's not true. Many scientists are actually relgious, and science itself was born from a religious search to understand the world. The problem between science and relgion is that the answers of science indanger the established power structures of religion. It's not that Galileo discovered a flaw in the Christian view of the universe, it's that he discovered a flaw in the Catholic church's version of the Universe-- and the Catholic priests, etc. couldn't afford to be wrong on anything.

True enough, religion is older and many scientists ARE religious (I actually know a few) but to say science was 'born' of religion is a little over the top. Its more like science 'evolved' from religion.

At 3/2/07 12:54 PM, Eoewe wrote: People used to have gods for everything. A god for the wind, a god for the sun, etc...
They had them so it would explain why things happened or how they happened. In todays world we have science. Now we know why the wind blows, the sun shines, and much more. Why do we still need a god? To be saved? To get laid?

I say to hell with the gods. We don't need them any more. We shouldn't worry about why we are here and just be glad that we are.

Come back when you've suffered terribly by other human beings. Genocide, war, attrition, torture, rape, murder. All require answers as to "why".

If you end up in jail, I guarantee you'll start worrying about why you're alive.......

Oh man! Dre-Man sent me a message too! he said this:

Oh Jesus! He's like Cancer! Everything he touches turns to shit and dies!!! And the fuckin cure is torture too!! FUCK!

If you want to insult me for no fucking reason, fine. But don't you dare make unfair generalizations like that just because you happen to not agree with my debating.

I see. Aparently Dre gets insulted when others make "unfair generalizations", but has NO PROBLEM addressing me as the Pagan worshipping hypocritical, atheist, saint worshipping Roman Catholic......

Dare I say it.....????
?...........ASSCLOWN!

The fact is that it doesnt matter that evolution exsists or not, because what has evolution done for humanity, evolution is a novilty science, despite being true or not.

That's a slippery slope. After all, "what have the Romans ever done for us?".......
Research on evolution will help us predict where things are going to end up in the future. If we know how the common cold is going to evolve, we can make a cure based on that evolution and rid it from the world.

Evolution can never be important compaired to things like the cure to Polio.

I think it's not even fair to compare the two. Each operates on a different strain of human importance.

For instance, I can (and will) make the claim that warfare substantially increases humanitarian technology far more than peacetime. In war, more GOOD things come as the result than are ever achieved during peace. Thus, war is necessary for us to improve our levels of comfort and luxury in our lives.

Good luck trying to refute that claim!

On a more related topic:

Anyone see the news about JESUS' TOMB?!?!!??!?!

Opinions on it, it's implications, etc?
It is a publicity stunt? An attack on the Church? Refutation of Christianity?

At 3/5/07 01:18 AM, Imperator wrote: Anyone see the news about JESUS' TOMB?!?!!??!?!

Opinions on it, it's implications, etc?
It is a publicity stunt? An attack on the Church? Refutation of Christianity?

I heard... it'll be interesting as all hell to see the DNA results (if they can get any) when compared to the Human Genome Project. The project found a genetic marker in Asia that's basically Ghengis Khan's biological signature (he is an apparent ancestor to something like 13% of the population of Asia... I mean whoa!)... one wonders if there is a bloodline for the J-man himself.

Wouldn't that just put the churches in a tizzy! Zomg, you mean Jeezus had teh 53><><0RZ!?

Only the weak, however, could possibly see this as the destruction in any way of their faith. If they believed that Jesus was physically ascended to heaven... then obviously they're wrong (much like they'd be wrong to believe that Noa's flood actually happened on a worldwide scale).

It's definitely going to be an interesting few months as they continue to research the finding.

Well this was true 20-10 years ago, but know with Quantum Physics we don't know what the hell is going on. Perhaps God exists in another dimension, for instance the 11th, we can see the 2nd and 1st dimension. Yet, We can't see the 4th and other dimensions. Thus God may be look at us right now but we can't know it because we are not in the same dimension.

At 3/2/07 08:58 PM, Pontificate wrote:
No. Just... No. Giraffes evolved a longer kneck to reach food that other creatures couldn't, thereby escaping competition. Giraffes with shorter knecks couldn't compete and simply died out over time. It was a gradual process, which we have the end result of (if such a thing could be said of evoloution, there is never an end really except from a subjective point of view). Besides, there is variation in neck length, but it's all relative to the standard giraffe model (I.E. long necks).

then go get me a fossil

theres plenty of competition in the trees. Elephants deforest miles after miles of trees each day.

I'm sorry, I hate using african animals as examples. I hope i never do that again.

At 3/5/07 01:18 AM, Imperator wrote:

The fact is that it doesnt matter that evolution exsists or not, because what has evolution done for humanity, evolution is a novilty science, despite being true or not.

That's a slippery slope. After all, "what have the Romans ever done for us?".......
Research on evolution will help us predict where things are going to end up in the future. If we know how the common cold is going to evolve, we can make a cure based on that evolution and rid it from the world.

The Romans- They shaped the world and brought many different peoples under there control and ruled them fairly (the greeks would say "an attack on rome is an attack on us"), thats pretty big.

Evolution- allowing us to guess at how we will devolpe slightly in hunderads of years.

Evolution can never be important compaired to things like the cure to Polio.

I think it's not even fair to compare the two. Each operates on a different strain of human importance.

Evolution isnt that important at all, its just like star-gazing or fortune telling.

At 3/5/07 05:25 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Evolution- allowing us to guess at how we will devolpe slightly in hunderads of years.

Evolution dose far more then simply allow us to guess at how humans will develop. The mechanisms of evolutionary theory enplane pretty much every thing in biology including how bacteria develop immunity to pathogens and antibiotic, how genetic disorders can form and propagate through a population, and even how social relations develop in animals (this includes humans). Without evolution you don't know how the human body works on a cellular level, why the proteins responsible for blood are nearly identical , or why things like sickle cell anemia form in humans.

Evolution isnt that important at all, its just like star-gazing or fortune telling.

I find it curious that you would make such references, while I'm quite aware that fortune telling is little more then fairy tale and make believe. Your Comparing evolution to star-gazing is quite appropriate. Just like previous and moder day astronomers use the stars and the universe as a giant laboratory, so to do evolutionary biologist use DNA, and proteins as cellular laboratory. In fact the former comparison is actually quite a complement to biophysics, and biophysicists. Thank you.

Evolution isnt that important at all, its just like star-gazing or fortune telling.

lol.....

Fortune tellers have had a far greater impact on human behavior and historical events than you think apparently....

Delphic Oracle, Sacred Chickens, Last Days.....the list goes on....

At 1/18/07 10:37 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: Ok, so religion has the bible, the koran, the holy scriptures and so fourth and so on, but Science has everything else plus logic.

Science has disproved many Christian theories, such as the evolution of man, contrary to the theory of Adam and Eve.

Don't lean you're back on Evolution just yet. I put my faith in Evolution but it still has holes. For now......

So! This raises several questions.
Firstly, why do people still believe that mankind descended from Adam and Eve in the face of Sheer scientific fact?

They will claim its metaphorical.

And secondly, how long will it be before Science completely disproves the theory of how god made earth and validates the big bang theory?

Exactly, however this will be a long process.

Thirdly, once that happends, would faithfuls continue to blindly ignore scientific facts and follow disproven religious texts?

If aliens came down from the skies do you think people will start to tear up bibles?

Any other questions?

Yes, how can someone be sure that the religion they follow is the right one? Are they not angering god more so by following the wrong religion?

If I was an atheist and I was hated for it. Aren’t Christians being atheists because they aren’t Hindu or Jewish?

Any answers?

At 3/4/07 07:53 PM, Ferris95 wrote: They are not. They bolth try to answer the same questions, but they do it differently. The sientific theory of the Big Bang has one flaw that many of noticed, what was force (Or cause) made that ball of energy implode. The christian theory is Genis. When God said "Let their be light," and the universe was made. But the flaw to this theory is, why then?

;
You might want to check out a copy of this months National Geographic.
There is an article called "The Cataclismic Death of Stars"
It pretty much discribes in detail how stars go BANG !
Seems nobody has to 'say' anything. Its all physics dude.
One of the items in there that I found interesting is about 1 star each second somewhere in the universe is going BANG.
enjoy.

Any answers?

Of course! You just have to know where to look.....or to whom......

They will claim its metaphorical.

Moreover, evolution still allows an Adam and Eve. There has to be a first "human", both male and female. The oldest identifiable human beings will be termed Adam and Eve, guaranteed.

Go back a few pages to the link I put with Robin Williams; God didn't just go "click".......

And secondly, how long will it be before Science completely disproves the theory of how god made earth and validates the big bang theory?

Never. Christianity has fully supported both Big Bang and Evolution as the templates for which God created Earth and Man. Think about it this way: Humans are like kids. They need kiddie stories. In 3rd grade, when you learn about the human body, you aren't learning about the complexities of your circulatory system (Big Bang), you're concerned with the facts that people have 2 eyes, 1 nose, 10 fingers and toes, and come in all sorts of shapes and sizes (Adam Eve, "God went click" Bible references).

The Big Bang and Evolution are simply the collegiate versions of what the Bible has put forth on the creation of Earth and Man.

Similarly, the same process is involved in Christopher Colombus, discovery of America, the Civil War, Revolutionary War, etc. As a kid you are taught the simplicities (In 1492, Colombus sailed the ocean blue). As an adult you discover the complexities (Columbus as a Conquistador, human rights violations of the Spanish against the natives, the fact that he didn't discover "America" per say, etc).

Exactly, however this will be a long process.

Not quite. That hole is deep and seemingly neverending. If the Big Bang is true, there needs to be a catalyst for it, and a catalyst for that catalyst, and so on. There's always a deeper level of which our understanding of God can reach to. Thus, science will never "disprove" religion.

If aliens came down from the skies do you think people will start to tear up bibles?

Why? They'd be worshipping the same God as us, wouldn't they?

Yes, how can someone be sure that the religion they follow is the right one?

Faith. Careful study. Personal choice. How can you be sure the actions you take on a daily basis are the correct ones?

Are they not angering god more so by following the wrong religion?

Doubtful. That's why there's such thing as a Golden Rule, it's universal to religion.

If I was an atheist and I was hated for it. Aren’t Christians being atheists because they aren’t Hindu or Jewish?

Well, the 3 Abrahamic religions follow the same God, so a big NO on the Jewish one. And there are ways to show the similarities between Hiduism and (insert religion here), which hypothesize that they essentially pray to the same God, perhaps just in different ways.

Some people confuse evolution with gennetics, plus just because we know how bacteria mutate to anti-bodies doesnt meen it does anything to stop. Evolution, althrough important, doesnt do much by its self, but it does help.

Althrough historialy significant like the oricle of Delfie, would most things still would have happened without it?

Evolution has made things like binomial nomencultor easier to do.

Besides evolution is getting away from the subject of this thread, unless anyone here thinks relligion and evolution are incompatible, i suggest we move on.

At 3/4/07 08:02 PM, Imperator wrote: Latest PM from the Dre himself:
------------------------------
I'll pray that you one day see true extent of your hypocracy.

... I don't particularly enjoy arguing to a brick wall, or an ass hole for that matter.
------------------------------

hypocrisy and brick walls eh?

At 3/5/07 08:05 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 3/4/07 08:02 PM, Imperator wrote: Latest PM from the Dre himself:
------------------------------
I'll pray that you one day see true extent of your hypocracy.

... I don't particularly enjoy arguing to a brick wall, or an ass hole for that matter.
------------------------------

hypocrisy and brick walls eh?

Is he saying that he has arguments with brick walls with ass holes?

:I would like to live in his world for gust a moment to see what its like...

At 3/5/07 08:07 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

------------------------------
I'll pray that you one day see true extent of your hypocracy.

... I don't particularly enjoy arguing to a brick wall, or an ass hole for that matter.
------------------------------

Is he saying that he has arguments with brick walls with ass holes?

He's saying I don't listen to him, hence I'm the "brick wall"......
I'm also the "ass hole" (with a space!).......
Not to be confused with Dre-Man, who is an assclown......

I would like to live in his world for gust a moment to see what its like...

I'm not that brave......

Althrough historialy significant like the oricle of Delfie, would most things still would have happened without it?

Probably not. Religion had a powerful influence on the greeks, religion, portents, and auspices also had important roles in Rome. There are wars, political decisions, army movements, etc that are based solely around religion.

Sparta not participating in Marathon is one such example.

At 3/2/07 12:15 PM, Togukawa wrote:

At 3/2/07 01:58 AM, fastbow wrote: With a Christian world view, you practice science to appreciate and understand God's world. With any other world view, why practice it?

Ask the Ancients...

Which ancients? All of them practiced it to gain a better understanding of their gods. And the ones who didn't practiced it, like Aristotle or Plato, practiced it to find truth...

At 3/5/07 08:21 PM, fastbow wrote:

At 3/2/07 12:15 PM, Togukawa wrote:

At 3/2/07 01:58 AM, fastbow wrote: With a Christian world view, you practice science to appreciate and understand God's world. With any other world view, why practice it?

Ask the Ancients...

Which ancients? All of them practiced it to gain a better understanding of their gods. And the ones who didn't practiced it, like Aristotle or Plato, practiced it to find truth...

Finding "truth" depends on your oppinion, finding 'truth' can mean finding God or a philosophy of life. There once was a greek philosophy of love that said that the only "true" love can exsist between 2 men, or a man with a boy. What truth are you talking about?

At 3/7/07 10:12 AM, Grammer wrote: I am honestly saddened that many people believe science is "against" religion, or vice versa. The two are polar opposites, science is simply not good enough to test the supernatural, and the supernatural is not good enough to test science.

So stuff it.

The supernatural is fictional. Nothing can be "above" nature if it occurs naturally, and if it occurs at all it can be dealt with by science. Only stories invented by humans can't be explained because they aren't real.

At 3/5/07 08:21 PM, fastbow wrote:

At 3/2/07 12:15 PM, Togukawa wrote:

At 3/2/07 01:58 AM, fastbow wrote: With a Christian world view, you practice science to appreciate and understand God's world. With any other world view, why practice it?

Ask the Ancients...

Which ancients? All of them practiced it to gain a better understanding of their gods. And the ones who didn't practiced it, like Aristotle or Plato, practiced it to find truth...

Yes, their gods were certainly part of the christian world view... Or could it be that there are plenty of reasons to practice science with a lot of other world views than the christian one? Oooh, thinking on the edge!

And Grammer, since when does anyone have to prove that outrageous claims are false, instead of the maker of these claims proving that they have some merit :/

Until there's any sort of indication to the contrary, it's perfectly reasonable to say that pink unicorns don't exist. Because scientific facts aren't absolute, but relative to our current knowledge.

And by the very definition of the word real, invented stories aren't real. Not opinion, but fact.

At 3/7/07 10:35 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 3/7/07 10:32 AM, Togukawa wrote: And Grammer, since when does anyone have to prove that outrageous claims are false, instead of the maker of these claims proving that they have some merit :/

Failure to prove existance is not proof of non-existance. If we found evidence tomorrow that showed pink unicorns existed, that means they always existed, even though we didn't have evidence for them yesterday. Get it?

Of course. But that doesn't mean it's reasonable to assume they exist today. We've got to keep in mind that we might find evidence that they exist tomorrow, which means they've probably always existed, but until we do, there's no reason whatsoever to assume that they existed at any point in time.

There's no proof of non-existance, nor does there need to be to assume that something doesn't exist. You don't even need proof to assume that something does, all you need is evidence and indications. Since "proof" is simply not possible, there are no axioms in natural science, at the basis of everything single theory there's an assumption. Even things like the laws of thermodynamics are "assumptions". There are very good reasons to assume they are valid, but no proof. Evidence and reasoning is the best we can do.

Until there's any sort of indication to the contrary, it's perfectly reasonable to say that pink unicorns don't exist.

I bet at one point thinking the earth was flat was "perfectly reasonable". Until, you know, science came in and proved it wasn't. But does that mean the Earth was flat while science was unable to prove that the Earth was round? Of course not.

Which means that we always have to look for the things we consider perfectly reasonable and try and falsify them. Which is what happened with the Earth, it was assumed it was flat, attempts at falsification were made, and succesfully, which lead to the discovery that the earth wasn't flat at all.

This doesn't mean that the opinion of a deranged caveman shouting "the earth is round" suddenly becomes valuable. Making unfounded claims is not a way to gain knowledge. Even though he happened to be right.

God is metaphorical. He is a figment of the imaginative minds of what is called the modern Homo sapiens. If a Deer brain size and complexity grew over the next 1000 years and it became more intelligent. Do you think this little deer is going to question the existence and origins of itself? Now since the human race didn’t suddenly become as intelligent as we are today and even more intelligent in the future. So questions without answers is a very frustrating thing, especially when you don’t have the resources or intelligence needed for the task. Hell we've only scratch the surface of this question.

This is where religion comes in.

Imagine it. The sun rises and sets and you have no fucking idea why or how. All you can do is vaguely guess. Your life is purely based upon making up your own mind of things work and what they are there for.

So someone says a man/men in the sky did it. And so people think
'Makes sense'

But you can’t just say "This guy did it" And leave it at that. And you’re understanding of the world is MUCH different. You don’t know how rocks become rocks, you don’t know how clouds form etc. So things like 'miracles' and 'praises' thousands of years ago could probably be explained away with a 21st century scientist.

"God makes the sun rise and set"
"No good sir gravitational pull does that. You see the Earth revolves around the sun at 19 miles a second because the sun being so big has a lot of gravity and it rotates causing us to rotate with it"

That man will think you are mad.

Its understanding, things in the Bible are becoming more and more metaphorical because they don’t make sense or can disproved. Like Noah’s ark for example. Yeah I'm going to fit 5000 different species of mammal on one boat!

When you take away all the things in the bible that don’t make sense or can be disproved away all you have left is a book with the title and a page where you can write down quotes.

You try to understand the world around you and it spirals into a madness frenzy called religion.

But I don’t really care so this huge text you have just read means nothing to me.

At 3/7/07 11:02 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 3/7/07 10:44 AM, Togukawa wrote: Of course.

Then you should be able to admit I'm right and you're wrong.

About? You're dabbling in absolute facts, but those aren't workable. Absolute facts about nature are not something we as humans can ever get, so it's useless to require that.

But that doesn't mean it's reasonable to assume they exist today.

Give me one good reason why not. New species are discovered all the time, if you wanna be ignorant and just say "oh, it'll never happen, because we can't prove it", then you're really setting humanity back a century or two.

I'm not saying it'll never happen... I'm saying that until you have some sort of evidence to show that something like a pink unicorn exists, it isn't reasonable to claim they exist. I'm not saying that means you can't look for said evidence. Though I doubt you'll find many sane people wanting to fund such research.

We've got to keep in mind that we might find evidence that they exist tomorrow,

So therefore gravity doesn't exist, because there's no proof of it.

Right.

Wha? There's no proof for gravity, no. As for whether gravity exists, that depends how you want to define it. Gravity as Newton originally envisioned it is definitely not the whole story.

which means they've probably always existed, but until we do, there's no reason whatsoever to assume that they existed at any point in time.

Then you're ignorant of the possibilities of science. We just discovered Jesus' tomb, before that people would say he never even existed, and they would be wrong to do so. So why the Hell should I close my mind to new possibilities, when I'm probably just setting myself up for being wrong.

I'm not saying to close the mind for possibilities... It's just that, possibilities, with high or low likelyhoods, but definitely not facts. As for Jesus' existence, I thought most scholars agreed that a man called Jesus did in fact exist and start the sect of christianity. Tacitus mentions him.

There's no proof of non-existance, nor does there need to be to assume that something doesn't exist.

It's not good science to say something doesn't exist, simply because we can't prove it. That closes your mind off to what science can discover next.

It's perfectly good science. You can't prove that there isn't an invisible wall of sharp spikes in front of you every time you take a step forward, but that doesn't stop you from doing so. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that you won't be impaled with the next step you take, even though you can't prove it. If you didn't assume that, you shouldn't move for the rest of your life, which wouldn't get you very far at all...

You don't even need proof to assume that something does, all you need is evidence and indications.

If you're waiting for your girlfriend to show up on time at the movies, is it wrong to have faith that she'll make it on time, even though you can't prove that? Should you close your mind off, and assume she simply won't make it, because there's no proof?

Why should you assume she won't make it? There's no proof of that either. You can base your assumption on other things, like her punctuality in the past for instance. If she's been half an hour too late every single time for the past year, it's pretty reasonable to assume she won't make it, if you don't have any other information.

In the same way, of all the imagined things like pink unicorns and invisible spike walls, very few have actually turned out to be real. So without any other information like evidence indicating existence, the logical thing is to assume the 7541413.4th imagined object probably doesn't exist either.

Sorry, but your logic makes no sense whatsoever.

I think the same about yours :)

Until there's any sort of indication to the contrary, it's perfectly reasonable to say that pink unicorns don't exist.

Which means that we always have to look for the things we consider perfectly reasonable and try and falsify them.

Which is why science should always keep an open mind to the possibility to God's existance, even though we'll never see proof of it.

Nor evidence. But there's a difference between keeping an open mind about the possibility, and basing decisions on the situation that would be if the possibility were an actual fact. If the natural habitat of the pink unicorn is the smoldering ruins of huge cities, that still doesn't mean that we should start nuking a couple of cities for the sake of the invisible pink unicorns. In the same way, God considering clothing with mixed fibres a sin, still doesn't mean that we should refrain from wearing them. Nor can we reasonably make any other decision based on God. We don't make decisions relating to the pink unicorn or the purplestriped cyclops, so we shouldn't make decisions based on God either.

Which is what happened with the Earth, it was assumed it was flat, attempts at falsification were made, and succesfully, which lead to the discovery that the earth wasn't flat at all.

but if we used your logic, we would all keep assuming the Earth was flat, because close our mind off to new possibilities because "there's no proof of that". We need to keep searching for new answers, and if you just say "let's just assume one way, until there's proof", then you're probably just settting yourself up for being wrong.

Do you know what the words "Which means that we always have to look for the things we consider perfectly reasonable and try and falsify them" mean?

I KNOW that science is setting itself up to be wrong. I certainly should hope so. If science were always right, then there wouldn't be any progress in our knowledge. If we say "the elephant doesn't exist", then discover an elephant and change our knowledge to "elephants do exist", we've made relative progress. If we keep saying "Elephants might, or might not exist" all the time, we're never progressing. Because even if we discover an elephant, it might just be an illusion, no way to prove it isn't.

In order to progress, we've got to establish "facts", things that are beyond reasonable doubt. If we keep doubting EVERYTHING for no reason, then you can't make progress. We don't have the resources to research every single thing over and over again. We need to prioritize, consider a few things as "facts", so we can use them as a foundation to get more knowledge. Every now and then one of these foundations will be shown wrong, which leads to a revolution in science (like relativity caused).

Making unfounded claims is not a way to gain knowledge.

Having faith in an unproven possibility doesn't mean you're stupid, either.

Nope. However, making important decisions on said faith is unwise.

I'm sure one day, when Jesus comes back, all the people with your mindset will say "Oh, now we can believe in him, now that there's proof", but by then it's too late, because Jesus has already come to judge the living and the dead :)

Or that day never comes, and when you die there's nothing, and you never realize you were wrong all your life :). I hope that the Hindus have it right though, I've always wanted to see life through the "eyes" of a tree.

Just accept that I'm right. There's nothing wrong with believing in the unproven, I don't know many scientists who say if you believe in God you're stupid.

"Just accept that I'm right". Hah. The middle ages have been over for a while now :)

At 3/7/07 11:06 AM, Grammer wrote: I hate your mindset, I really do. It's this whole "There's no reason to believe in God until there's evidence" bullshit. If that's the case, you can never have faith in anything until there's proof.

No believing your girlfriend will make it to the movies on time, no believing that coin flip will end up as heads, no having hope period. Because to have hope, you have to have a lack of proof, and we simply can't have that.

Hope is different from faith. I can hope something is true, but that doesn't mean I'll consider it true. Every time I fill in the lottery form, I hope I'll win it big, but I don't have any faith in it. I would never fill in a lottery form, and then take a huge loan and buy lot's of stuff, just because I have "faith" I'll win it. I don't see it as a handicap though...

At 3/7/07 11:35 AM, I-have-2-arms wrote: [..]

The "God did it" will probably be an ubiquitous answer for many centuries to come. Hopefully the god of the gaps will find the gaps becoming ever smaller.

Its understanding, things in the Bible are becoming more and more metaphorical because they don’t make sense or can disproved. Like Noah’s ark for example. Yeah I'm going to fit 5000 different species of mammal on one boat!

When you take away all the things in the bible that don’t make sense or can be disproved away all you have left is a book with the title and a page where you can write down quotes.

The Bible shouldn't be taken literally, if you don't do it you have a work with lots of stories illustrating certain points about life, like other great ancient works like Illias, Odyssea, Satyricon and so on. It still has a lot of value as a literary work, and as an inspiration source. But not as the "great book containing all the answers to the great questions of life".
The Noah story could mean that no matter how badly we fuck up, our great divine protector will never abandon us.
La Fontaine's (and Aesop's) fables don't have value when taken literally either...

You try to understand the world around you and it spirals into a madness frenzy called religion.

Heh. Religion is a curious anthropological phenomenon to say the least.

Heh. Religion is a curious anthropological phenomenon to say the least.

VERY least. I think belief in the supernatural is an innate behavior hardwired into our brains as well. Where and how I dunno, but it brings up the fact that we are born with the ability to believe in God and religion, a seemingly worthless behavior in Darwinian survival thoughts.....

At 3/7/07 11:06 AM, Grammer wrote: I hate your mindset, I really do. It's this whole "There's no reason to believe in God until there's evidence" bullshit. If that's the case, you can never have faith in anything until there's proof.

No believing your girlfriend will make it to the movies on time, no believing that coin flip will end up as heads, no having hope period. Because to have hope, you have to have a lack of proof, and we simply can't have that.

Flipping a coin and making it is an uncalculated guess. So are you saying Religion is an asortment of guesswork?

At 3/7/07 02:56 PM, Imperator wrote: VERY least. I think belief in the supernatural is an innate behavior hardwired into our brains as well. Where and how I dunno, but it brings up the fact that we are born with the ability to believe in God and religion, a seemingly worthless behavior in Darwinian survival thoughts.....

Psh, there'd be a lot more suicides if everyone thought that life was, "in the grand scheme of things", essentially pointless.

At 3/7/07 11:35 AM, I-have-2-arms wrote:

Imagine it. The sun rises and sets and you have no fucking idea why or how. All you can do is vaguely guess. Your life is purely based upon making up your own mind of things work and what they are there for.

So someone says a man/men in the sky did it. And so people think
'Makes sense'

It makes more sence to say god made gravity and every other law of the universe than to say it exsisted forever or that its there 'just because it is', witch is the atheist idea on things, not very logical realy how can you think like that?

But you can’t just say "This guy did it" And leave it at that. And you’re understanding of the world is MUCH different. You don’t know how rocks become rocks, you don’t know how clouds form etc. So things like 'miracles' and 'praises' thousands of years ago could probably be explained away with a 21st century scientist.

no, we dont know, all we know is that it happens and the patterns of it happening.

"God makes the sun rise and set"
"No good sir gravitational pull does that. You see the Earth revolves around the sun at 19 miles a second because the sun being so big has a lot of gravity and it rotates causing us to rotate with it"

God cant make the sun rise, thats just silly, but an invisible force that has no origen and magicaly levitates big things to small things just because it does makes much more sence!

When you take away all the things in the bible that don’t make sense or can be disproved away all you have left is a book with the title and a page where you can write down quotes.

You try to understand the world around you and it spirals into a madness frenzy called religion.

I thought trying to understand the world around you was called 'science'.