First  Prev  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  125  126  127  128  129  130  Next  Last
Post Reply are you religious? if so, why?
6058 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / NY
Offline
Posted 9/21/13 , edited 9/21/13

ResistNormal wrote:

I'm not to religious at all.

However I do respect Jesus for being a positive gay rolemodel. :D
Why else would he spend so much time hanging around 12 guys creating a religion that is misogynistic. :D


Don't forget he hung out with a prostitute as well.
6058 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / NY
Offline
Posted 9/21/13

Elektrawnik wrote:

I believe in an old man who threw one of his eyes in a well for knowledge.

Guess who.

My reason being that I have a certain bloodline running through me.


god promised to rid the world of evil.

Odin promised to rid the world of frost giants.

I don't see any frost giants.

OR

My God has a hammer, your god was nailed to a cross...any questions?

Rohzek 
9395 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 9/22/13
I'm religious. Wasn't always that way. I questioned my faith when I was like 18 years old. I had always been pretty hard on myself whenever I sinned (18 yr old male, you figure out what I was feeling bad about). Eventually I got tired of it, and snapped. I still have trouble describing the whole moment. At first, I tried to believe God didn't exist. That lasted for about three weeks. It was then I decided that I was just running away. I felt like to deny the existence of God because I didn't like some things was pretty dumb and what a coward would do (I know the reverse could probably be said). So I decided that I would believe in God because I honestly wanted to, but life seemed too shitty at the time, so I thought He must have it out for me. It was then that I decided that I would simply do what I want, and give Him the middle finger. And so I did for about a year and half. Was a pretty depressing time of my life too. Eventually I snapped out of it, and decided to quit blaming others for making me feel bad. I was too hard on myself from the very beginning, and I had none other to blame than myself, not God. So I've rekindled my faith a bit. I don't think it is as strong in devotion or practice today as it was when I was 17. But I think it is better overall in quality.
Bajii 
15036 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Indiana, USA
Offline
Posted 9/22/13
I'm not religious just simply because if I was lied to about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny then the whole God thing being a fake entity designed to enforce morals into an otherwise savage society isn't too far fetched to me.
Posted 9/22/13 , edited 9/22/13

kamaitachi5587 wrote:


Elektrawnik wrote:

I believe in an old man who threw one of his eyes in a well for knowledge.

Guess who.

My reason being that I have a certain bloodline running through me.


god promised to rid the world of evil.

Odin promised to rid the world of frost giants.

I don't see any frost giants.

OR

My God has a hammer, your god was nailed to a cross...any questions?



Either way, you have an interesting story.
142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/22/13

kamaitachi5587 wrote:


Elektrawnik wrote:

I believe in an old man who threw one of his eyes in a well for knowledge.

Guess who.

My reason being that I have a certain bloodline running through me.


god promised to rid the world of evil.

Odin promised to rid the world of frost giants.

I don't see any frost giants.

OR

My God has a hammer, your god was nailed to a cross...any questions?



LOL love your post
65997 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 9/22/13 , edited 9/22/13

kamaitachi5587 wrote:

god promised to rid the world of evil.

Odin promised to rid the world of frost giants.

I don't see any frost giants.

OR

My God has a hammer, your god was nailed to a cross...any questions?



Don't worry God's gonna keep that promise; actually He also promised to wipe out the entire universe and start from scratch, maybe we can get some frost giants this time ...that would be cool. First time, it was a cross ...the second time - a rod of iron; one final rebellion, then evil goes bye forever.
142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/22/13

dougeprofile wrote:


kamaitachi5587 wrote:

god promised to rid the world of evil.

Odin promised to rid the world of frost giants.

I don't see any frost giants.

OR

My God has a hammer, your god was nailed to a cross...any questions?



Don't worry God's gonna keep that promise; actually He also promised to wipe out the entire universe and start from scratch, maybe we can get some frost giants this time ...that would be cool. First time, it was a cross ...the second time - a rod of iron; one final rebellion, then evil goes bye forever.


you speak of that as fact. wheres the proof
65997 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 9/22/13

MadDog0 wrote:


dougeprofile wrote:


kamaitachi5587 wrote:

god promised to rid the world of evil.

Odin promised to rid the world of frost giants.

I don't see any frost giants.

OR

My God has a hammer, your god was nailed to a cross...any questions?



Don't worry God's gonna keep that promise; actually He also promised to wipe out the entire universe and start from scratch, maybe we can get some frost giants this time ...that would be cool. First time, it was a cross ...the second time - a rod of iron; one final rebellion, then evil goes bye forever.


you speak of that as fact. wheres the proof


On the way ...but God won't say when ...the nerve.
3430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 9/22/13 , edited 9/22/13

dougeprofile wrote:


Syndicaidramon
Not including Intelligent Design in science class and refusing to peer review anything related to ID at all are two entirely seperate things.
Try again.


They share this in common: a refusal by evolutionists to allow debate on the issue of evolution. Teach the controversy.


No, they refuse to TEACH intelligent design in science-class. Not at all the same as refusing to debate the issue.







dougeprofile

Syndicaidramon
No. You THINK you have evidence when you really don't. That's the kind of thing that people like Kent Hovind and Answers In Genesis specializes in. Yet if you consult someone that are ACTUAL scientists, they can debunk everything as easy as that.
Here's one of many series devoted to doing just that. Feel free to watch it.


Of course I have evidence - you just don't accept it. I'm not citing Kent Hovind and Answers in Genesis YOU did. I would cite Michael Behe (scientist), Charles Thaxton (scientist), Stephen Meyer (Scientist); I even read a really good book by some evolutionists Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee called "Rare earth: why complex life is uncommon in the universe" (don't agree with all their conclusions, but it was a fascinating book). Great, another YouTube vid from the evolutionary perspective, joy; now a video of a debate between Stephen Meyer and an evolutionist of your choice - that would be interesting ...and informative.


"Icon's of Evolution: science or myth" by Jonathan Wells (endorsed by Michael Behe and Dean H. Kenyon (scientists). Yae, the man made intelligent design experiment with proto cells and the "we need to expand the definition of life" speal? Sorry it didn't come close to making the case that life could arise without an intelligent cause - it was a joke, right? But hey, maybe someone will do a Nova special on it - keep your fingers crossed.


Are you going to dismiss a video simply on the ground that it's based on a different perspective? Then how can you hope to ever gain new perspective?
And if it didn't make the case that life could arise without an intelligent cause (even though it demonstrates it on camera even), you have to explain WHY it doesn't. If you can't, then you have no ground to make such an accusation.

As for all those scientists, could you cite something specific? I don't have the time to go snooping around.




dougeprofile

Syndicaidramon
And no, just because a person includes elements from reality, doesn't mean that a story becomes real. Having real things in an otherwise made up story doesn't lend credibility to the made up story. If that was the case, this Boondocks episode would lend credibility to the idea Martin Luther King Jr. survived the assassination. Or indeed, the Space Obama example. If you don't think those can't be compared, then you have to explain WHY they can't be compared.


I didn't say the story becomes real, I said it lends credibility to the story. It certainly doesn't prove the story is made up or did not happen. I'll let someone else determine if your space Obama has any credibility - the burden is on you to defend it (sounds like you can't).


I never said my Space Obama thing had any credibility. I merely used a totally ridiculous setting to illustrate the point that just because someone includes the name of a real historical person in their story, doesn't mean the story itself really happened.
So using that as an argument makes no sense.






dougeprofile

Syndicaidramon
And of course, just because science cannot verify something, doesn't mean it's not true.
But for an idea to be taken seriously, it must have some scientific merit, which creationism, and CERTAINLY 6-day creationism does NOT have.


I have repeatedly stated a literal 6 day creation has no scientific basis - we AGREE - why do you keep bringing it up?


Because you keep believing it happened, despite repeatedly going on about how evolution isn't right because it has no evidence to support it.
I don't understand how you can think in such contradictory ways.






dougeprofile

Syndicaidramon
There's no bias to be had there. Either it is possible for layers to form during a flood, or it isn't. There's no room for ambiguity there.


There is a bias to be had in the evolutionary theory's interpretation of the geological evidence. It is possible for layers to form during a flood - ever stick solution of dirt and water in a glass? It forms layers. If it did happen, it would have been a major event - continental displacement, volcanic activity, climate change, cavitation. Intelligent design follows the evidence wherever it leads, but I'm not sure what it has to say (if anything) about a possible flood.


No. There isn't. Because it's not necessary to keep an evolutionist/creationist mindset when doing the experiment.
The experiment can be as simple as "okay, is it possible for there to form distinctive layers of dirt when mixed in a body of water, yes or no?". That's as simple as it is. And if you saw the video I posted, you saw the results of the video yourself. If you didn't, then here's the video again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5ElhX38w3Q
There is no room for ambiguity on it.





dougeprofile

Syndicaidramon
You're speaking as if "reptile" and "mammal" are just ambiguous terms with no real distinction between them.
You are REALLY grasping for straws here...
And it does. because we know that it's a reptile that was previously only laying eggs. But has now started to give live birth. That's evolution.


I am not speaking as if "reptile" and "mamal" are just ambiguous terms - they are man made classifications and imperfect. The Platypus is a mammal that lays eggs. You still haven't proven anything, maybe it is a genetic defect? I'm more than a little dubious as to its authenticity - maybe if a real scientist cited the example in a peer reviewed journal? There is not really enough information to make an accurate assessment.

Totally irrelevant. The point is that the animal is going from one type of reproduction, to a completely different one. That's not merely a genetic defect. That is evolution. If you don't understand that, then you are being intentionally ignorant.






dougeprofile

Syndicaidramon
You are overlooking a crucial detail. I suggest you go back and watch it one more time.


Back at you. What crucial detail? That it is a great example if Microevolution (which Creationists, and those in the IE movement both accept) but not Macroevolution - which only Evolutionists accept.


What? I don't understand what you're saying.






dougeprofile

Syndicaidramon
Could you rephrase that?


Why?


Because I didn't understand what you were trying to say.






dougeprofile

Syndicaidramon
And it IS a problem. Because you say that something complex cannot emerge from nothing, and yet that is the requirement for God as you describe him to be.
The word "eternal" doesn't exempt God from logic.


There is no Scientific evidence something complex can emerge from nothing. Science can't prove or disprove the existence of an eternal God. There is nothing illogical about that.


Once again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YF-RSpd9S0
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufCsSgZRPJo (with sources provided in the video description).




dougeprofile

Syndicaidramon
True. But it's still both more probable, AND more supported by scientific evidence than the other alternative.


Intelligent Design? Yea, that is more supported by scientific evidence than the evolutionary alternative.


How so?






dougeprofile

Syndicaidramon
They have made it. They're called "creationwiki" and "conservapedia".
Here's an explanation of the best things that site can muster.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mjmGbfyPPU


That is the best case against evolution you could find? That was as crappy as most of the videos you cite. Good job at linking one of the worst videos making the case against evolution - your kindness, your fair mindedness knows know bounds.


No. It was merely an example of the degrees of stupid that these sites will go to in order to try and justify their stupendous idiocy.






dougeprofile

Syndicaidramon
So if the "only" was not meant to be understood, then why:
1) Did you write it in all caps?
and
2) Did you even bring it up in the first place?


I said "evolutionary THEORY", caps for emphasis - because it IS a THEORY.


Which, by the definition of what a scientific theory is, is completely and utterly irrelevant.
You're trying to imply that it's a theory in the same sense as a non-scientific theory. Which it isn't.
How about you go back and re-read the definition of a scientific theory?





dougeprofile

Syndicaidramon
So then why don't you?


Because I reject it as divinely inspired; happy as a Christian, thank you.


On what grounds do you reject it as divinely inspired?





dougeprofile

Syndicaidramon
Is that article trying to suggest that DNA and the complexity of life in general is a testament to there being an intelligent creator?
Because it's not.

So says scientists. You know, the people who devote their lives to studying these things.


And other scientist (not referenced by Wikipedia), you know, the people who devote their lives to studying these things say otherwise. Course, studying something your whole life doesn't make you right.

Actually referenced by Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#cite_note-Newsweek_1987_Martz_McDaniel-24
As an answer to that, I'll leave this video, made by one scientist as a response to two others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufCsSgZRPJo
Illustrating to us common Joes the difference between scientists and why they are wrong, with sources provided in the video description.






dougeprofile

Syndicaidramon
"As we have seen from the acceptance within science of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence and also of the general methodology of forensic science, neither the scientists nor the culture are opposed in principle to the notion of intelligent cause. "
Which is just incredibly, unbelievably dumb.

How? How are they related in any way?


The quote seems pretty self-explanatory to me, if you don't understand or agree, I can't help you.

Intellectual dishonesty if I ever saw it.





dougeprofile

Syndicaidramon
It also seems to think that Isaac Newton's belief in God is in any way still relevant. Which it isn't

So? That doesn't mean that their beliefs were accurate. Especially concidering that they lived several hundred years ago, when there was no scientific alternative to creation at all.



Scientists like Kepler (and Newton) saw science as a means to "think God's thoughts after Him." Their belief in God let them to conduct scientific research.

It doesn't mean their beliefs were not accurate either; accurate or not, those beliefs did motivate and inspire them to pursue sicence. There are certainly alternatives to creation now. Intelligent Design is still pretty new but scientific knowledge continues to grow - the time for evolution to reign without any serious scientific challenge is over.



So we can just discard them, because they have no relevance.
And sure, you can say that. But there's nothing that indicates it.
I'd call wishful thinking on that last remark.
3201 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23
Offline
Posted 9/22/13
The concept of intelligent design is real intellectual laziness.
"I don't understand, therefore God."
27104 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/22/13 , edited 9/22/13


christian was a misunderstood religion to me because of believing in prophet as a god.
christian because of jesus he was one of the messenger and i havent research the rest of religion cause in the quran it says many about jesus
u must understand we muslim ,we do love jesus as a prophet and we dont hate him.
why would we need to know how old is the earth? how old is the dinosaur? is that necessary in hereafter?
i dont understand a single thing what ru taking about the cottonswab part @.@





Oh, since according to Christianity the earth is only around 6000 years old, proving it is older (by a couple of billion years) proves that Christianity is not entirely true. As well as proving that animals weren't created, but evolved. And since we can prove quite a few things in the bible are certainly not true, we can assume the rest isn't either.

I haven't researched islam that much, but I can say it seems to be just another propaganda religion (those are far from being rare). As in, you get people to do what you want _now_ by promising that they get something _later_. Like, go and blow yourself up, and you'll somehow get 72 star trek nerds to hang around with in the next life. Of course, there is no way of proving anyone has ever gotten their virgings (and while there isn't a way to disprove that claim either, I wouldn't rely on it.) And it certainly seems to be one of the most unforgiving religions around, which doesn't appear to increase the quality of life, rather decrease it.
For example these 3 tweets: "I love many things about you and hate others, and there are many things about you I don't understand.", "I won't bow in front of you, I won't kiss your hand. Instead, I will shake it as an equal..." and "No Saudi women will go to hell, because it's impossible to go there twice." got Hamza Kashgari arrested and deported from Malaysia back to Saudi Arabia, where he will be charged with Blashphemy. A lot of muslims seem to be demanding that he is executed... So yeah, there has got to be something wrong with that. Oppression certainly does not equal better quality of life.
11128 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 9/22/13
Syndicaidramon

You have very good points in your discussions... You take things seriously, and you think logically without throwing out other possibilities.

As for everyone else...

I try to get myself to only believe in what we know, which makes me believe in little to nothing... The big bang is a good theory as the next, and many religious theories also have some merit. We have little to no proof for all of the above, but so far, we have hints.

I think it is wrong, knowing how little we know, and assuming all that is came to be a certain way. A certain way such as a creation, or a realm of continuity. Either way, we are here, we know that much.

When it comes down to religion, I think it is best to allow people to believe in what they must, as long as their actions do not harm others in any sort of way. Another thing is that I think it is wrong to have blind faith. Believing in something solely because it makes you a better person to believe in the truth, and since it was told to you since you were born to be the truth, you believe in it. Hearsay, rather, each individual without truth should question their beliefs, and ask themselves "How do I know this?". If everyone did that, then discussed it, we would find better theories that would be closer to the truth, since it would include truths within itself.

Think a little about the world... you'll learn we know very little about it...

Thinking of you,

-Emerald













12256 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 9/22/13
Oh I see, it's become one of those discussions... boring.
21962 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 9/22/13

Sanzennin wrote:



christian was a misunderstood religion to me because of believing in prophet as a god.
christian because of jesus he was one of the messenger and i havent research the rest of religion cause in the quran it says many about jesus
u must understand we muslim ,we do love jesus as a prophet and we dont hate him.
why would we need to know how old is the earth? how old is the dinosaur? is that necessary in hereafter?
i dont understand a single thing what ru taking about the cottonswab part @.@





Oh, since according to Christianity the earth is only around 6000 years old, proving it is older (by a couple of billion years) proves that Christianity is not entirely true. As well as proving that animals weren't created, but evolved. And since we can prove quite a few things in the bible are certainly not true, we can assume the rest isn't either.

I haven't researched islam that much, but I can say it seems to be just another propaganda religion (those are far from being rare). As in, you get people to do what you want _now_ by promising that they get something _later_. Like, go and blow yourself up, and you'll somehow get 72 star trek nerds to hang around with in the next life. Of course, there is no way of proving anyone has ever gotten their virgings (and while there isn't a way to disprove that claim either, I wouldn't rely on it.) And it certainly seems to be one of the most unforgiving religions around, which doesn't appear to increase the quality of life, rather decrease it.
For example these 3 tweets: "I love many things about you and hate others, and there are many things about you I don't understand.", "I won't bow in front of you, I won't kiss your hand. Instead, I will shake it as an equal..." and "No Saudi women will go to hell, because it's impossible to go there twice." got Hamza Kashgari arrested and deported from Malaysia back to Saudi Arabia, where he will be charged with Blashphemy. A lot of muslims seem to be demanding that he is executed... So yeah, there has got to be something wrong with that. Oppression certainly does not equal better quality of life.


The earth is not 6,000 years old according to Christianity, but according to Young Earth Creationists. Animals can very well be created by evolution, as the various species come about. On Islam, if you judge it based on what you hear on the news, that is really not a good idea, because the nations are at war with Islamic nations.
First  Prev  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  125  126  127  128  129  130  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.