Well... You can either be on earth and get hit with a meteor and pray...well I don't know what for but yeah pray or you can manifest your imagination to a physical form and fuck that meteor out of existence with what you created with your knowledge. Not to be mean and say God wont help you from a meteor but just... highly unlikely that he/she'll save you from it..... SO instead of praying I'll take things into my own hands.
If you don't believe in the Christian God taking things into your own hands is the most reasonable thing to do. I think it would be foolish to think less of people who believe that everything happens according to a plan and then try and learn more about the planner
No, because stupidity and ignorance can't be brought into regular logical arguments. What the last slide should read is: "I know God doesn't exist and Bambi is a more believable fable, but we all need something to believe in, don't we?" But then that would just be the truth and that's not funny, it just is.
Tim Peterson do u really think that u r more advanced then the people of that time? because ur nt the reality is that THOSE ppl INVENTED math u just use it /:), we still havent figured out how the egyptians built the pyramids with their "primitive" technology so get of ur high horse and realize that they were jus as advanced mentaly as we are today we simply have the advantage of more invations to all the things the invented
or the creation part of the bible could have been the best way to describe it to people like 4500 years ago. telling people about imperfectly replicated DNA strands and disrupted ecosystems and strong and weak nuclear forces interacting at different levels is a waste of time when they're using clay and straw to make bricks.
Tika Hinds I will reply to you as you seem to have a modicum of sense unlike some other commenters so maybe what I have to say will be considered on its merit rather than straight-out dismissed.
Firstly, yes if you actually research Scientology you would see that it is just as far from actual science as is any other religion.
Secondly, I personally am very offended that you call science a religion. For someone who promotes tolerance and people being respectful, to categorise something like science in such a way because of your own beliefs is, I think, disrespectful. From what I understand, religion is a set of beliefs/faith in a particular God/Higher being/supernatural ruler, which requires certain rituals, moral codes and observances to be followed. Science has none of these characteristics. Science is a systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. It is a field of knowledge like any other such as maths, geography or languages. The fundamental principles of science are exactly the opposite of what defines religion, which is faith in the absence of evidence. Yes, of course humankind has made errors along the way in understanding the basic laws that govern our universe, but that is to do with our limitations. Science is simply the name we give these universal rules and as our understanding of how the world around us works expands, so does the field of science. I do not worship these rules, and I do not accept them as ultimate truths that I must build my philosophy of right and wrong around, I simply use this field of knowledge to further my own understanding of how the world around me works on a physical level, the same way I use the principles of mathematics to work out that 1 + 1 equals 2. I do not care what religion you or anyone else follows, but I do find it silly that certain religious groups denigrate science and categorise it in the way you do because various aspects conflict with your faith. If the Bible said that 1+1=3, would you proclaim that the entire field of mathematics is false and those that believe it are just followers of a religion different to yours? Would you call me disrespectful if I told you 1+1=2? The fact that you looked up Scientology and tied it to science the way you did because of its name and presume that science is some sort of philosophy without doing any research into what you were talking about is exactly the type of thinking that leads to offensive mockery of religion as seen above. It is pompous assumptions such as "there is a religion for everything and thus there is one for those...you know what I am going to go look it up...Scientology is what it is called" that give religious groups and religious individuals a bad name. Because you have assumed and pressed your beliefs onto everyone reading that comment, which is exactly what you purport to disagree with.
Now, I personally do not believe in the likelihood of a higher being, but I am not presumptuous enought to rule it out when I have absolutely no way of knowing that for certain. Which is exactly why I am not religious in any way, because believing in something despite lack of evidence is something I don't do. And to tell me that learning the information that has been gathered in the scientific field over thousands of years and believing it because I can apply it to the world around me makes me religious is just as intolerant and disrespectful as those mocking the church.
Gotta say this: Who said 7 days to God was the same as 7 days to us? 7 days to him could be billions of years in the cosmos. And maybe he created cro-magnon human life and we simply evolved from that? If there IS a Higher Power, he could have the power to create a species with 93% similarities.
Or he likes to mess with us and put all of the fossils and neanderthal remains in the earth as a prank; just to see what we'd do.
i'm not sure whether you're criticising people who read the bible and somehow come up with all of the above conclusions or people who figure their world view is perfectly proven and irrefutable.
The only unassailable position I know of is "I don't know, but I suspect " which is the view a lot of reasonable people have whether they believe in a god or not
I don't care what anyone believes, but to blatantly and arrogant as to completely say someone else is wrong when you don't even have the proof necessary to back it up. Stop shoving your beliefs down someone else's throat because you feel like they should be just as miserable as you.
@[100001031336631:2048:Shelley Yvonne] well let's not get carried away and say it's NOT true, for it has not been proven, nor not proven. i give everything the possibility. i just doubt most things, as any sane person should. lol
i doubt until proven :P
It's more of a question of how you've constructed your world view. If it's based on the Bible you might say 'hey, why do you believe that? ' and I'd say "well the Bible says that it's God inspired"and you'd probably be like "wtf, you can't prove that the Bible us true by quoting the Bible" and I'd be like "what do you believe? " and if you say logic and reason and I asked you why, you'd probably try and give logical and reasonable reasons why you believe what you believe... Which is a little like opening your Bible
And that's one of the reasons people with different world views soot at each other and call each other dumb asses and use caps lock
Brian Rogers i see what you did there
but i should point out non-catholic christians and catholics are like and and there are a lot of differences that result from that
mostly boring things like the structure of the organisation and how much molestation is allowed
Michael Laurich *facepalm* Do you take everything you read literally? That would actually explain a lot. I understand the different parts of the bible have different ages, but it's irrelevant. It's from before the age of understanding (it was written by a bunch of bronze-age goat herders), so as a cultural relic it is invaluable, but as a guide for living your life in modern times it is practically worthless.
Secondly, just because I don't have *ALL* the answers (who does?) doesn't mean i can't be right about *ANYTHING*. I know enough to know that religion is bullshit, whether is Xianity or any other ancient mythology. Am i 100% sure of it? No, but I'm sure enough.
Mushion Den Ouden Well obviously I didn't continue reading on the subject. That was my mistake.
Just for the record I would like to respectfully disagree on paragraph 2. If you wish to further persue the subject just holler. You know my facebook.
I think you are the kind of person I was begging whoever cared to read my post to be (you know: tolerant, respectful of others, reasonable). It is always your type that answer my comments and our arguments go nowhere because they are either misunderstandings or basic differences of opinion.
Wow....Nothing else for me to say...argument resolved then?
Science isn't about having all the answers, it's about exploring and finding those answers, not just being spoon-fed something out of a 2000 year old book. Science is a journey, not a destination. Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean it's worthless.
Brian Rogers If you're going to make an argument and criticism things make sure you know what your talking about first. Also revise your last statement because it contradicts all others you have said before it.
Tika Hinds Scientology is in no way related to actual science.
I do not disrespect anyone who chooses to believe in the Bible, Torah, Qu'ran etc. I'm just saying that science is not a religion. It's the observation of reality as we can perceive it. And since technology is ever evolving, yes, science makes mistakes.
And you misunderstood my comment about editing the bible. I don't think it should be updated, as long as people don't take it too literal. There's a lot to be learned from the Bible, but I don't actually believe that Eve was created out of the rib of Adam.
I'm not trying to disrespect you or any other religious person, whether they're Hindu, Taoist, Christian, etc. I'm just trying to explain how science is different from religion. Whether you believe in God or Allah, that's your own choice and I won't find anyone on that, because it's always possible there's a creator. I think it's a small possibility, but I am but a tiny little human and I might be wrong.
Mushion Den Ouden there is a religion for everything and thus there is one for those...you know what I am going to go look it up...Scientology is what it is called. Aparantly their church is not physical.
I am not arguing my beliefs today, I just wish to see more tolerence from both sides. Rather, I do not think you understood my plea. I speak out for respect. The respect I think I should get when I tell you just because you say the world just came to be, I say that something greater than me started the process. The respect I think you should recieve when I say I believe that the bible doesn't need to be updated while you say it should. *Notice how I do not imply that any part of your ideas should change so that they should be religiously correct.
Plus to be arrogant is to believe your way is the only way. I do not deny science but I do not deny God. I believe that he could have used science to create the universe. Prove to me where all that mass came from and throw out years and years of that mass is neither created nor destroyed and crash everything done in the work of science and than I'll still believe what i want.
That is so friggin biased. Scientists have made their friggin share of incorrect findings and assumptions. Urggg I'm so tired of making the same arguements. I am a christian and I have a crapload of unchristian friends, no one is trying to shove my religion down their throats but every where I go on the internet you people are trying to tell me that my God isn't real.
I respect your opionions and beliefs whether it be atheism or that [religion] of science or the worship of nature and I emplore you (vainly maybe but optimism drives me) to perpetuate that respect to others who may not share the same beliefs/opinions as you. Not everyone will be tolorent but why number yourself with those people who aren't? It doesn't make sense to me because according to this picture and the many commentors who agree with it, they didn't appreciate the intolerence shown then or at present.
Scientists indeed are wrong a lot of the time. I agree with you there. Which is why the scientist catch phrase is: 'We don't know!' In science, as more research gets done and more things get discovered, views are adjusted on what is observed.
People who are Bible-Literalists (which is not a word, but you get point) deny these findings, because it's not in their holy book. And I'm very certain in the past 2000 years no one has edited the bible so that it is scientifically correct.
I'm not going to discuss whether God is real or not. But you can't tell me science is a religion.
Religion is an excuse to control mankind. It was made so that all higher power kings and rulers would have something to fear. If we could all stop believing in a higher power, and start believing in each other as HUMAN BEINGS, maybe we would achieve a lot more!
The whole side for "science" is an appeal to authority. Throw out a bunch of names and theories without much in the way of facts. The whole side for the "church" is a straw man. Use the historical sayings of the catholic church, one of the more screwed up branches of Christianity that misrepresents the Bible anyway(many of those sayings came from catholic misinterpretation of the Bible). Doesn't matter which side is correct. The use of fallacies just makes the accuser("science") look bad. I don't want to start a fight, just pointing out the problems here.
@[100001032373820:2048:William Alexander Dodd] Also Stephen Hawking is generally acknowledged to have some really whacked-out theories that don't make sense, not to mention that his field is essentially just hypotheses with little to no proof.
What about human beings is there to believe in? The history of man is full of war and hate, plenty of which were caused by people who didn't believe in a god(Hitler, Stalin, Zedong, etc). Also pretty much no rulers believe in a god anymore so if that is the problem then your point is invalid. And the only people that believe in God are considered to be fools and all the smart, reputable people do not believe in a god, so how could the human race achieve more if all the people believed to be making a difference are already free from religion?
Cory Mason ACTUALLY, if you had read Mein Kampf it details Hitler's religious views as being a DEVOUT CHRISTIAN. So much so, that he wanted to PURGE the world of Judaism.
Sure there has been lots of hatred and war, but if you're basing your information on the 2 world wars, then understand that these have started with only a few persons having too much power.
There are MANY rulers who still believe in their religion, just not so much so in Western society.
All I'm saying, is open your vision to the possibility of their being no god of any form or religion, and to understand that although few having tainted the books of history with what some would call "pure evil", that there are many who do just the opposite and enlighten our world (Gandhi, Dalai Lama, Buddha, etc.) I personally live by the words of Gandhi, he was always unbiased (although being a Hindu). My main issue with religion, are the sacrifices some require people to take rather than enjoying the life we have. These sacrifices are to be granting entrance to a garden of Eden or "Heaven". Some religions (such as Islam) believe that dying in battle protecting your country is honourable and will grant you 30 virgins in the heavens. This almost removes the ability for self preservation in most Islam believers and can be found by most Taliban. The list goes on and on and this could go back and forth forever (which it has before) so I will end it with; Just know that the technology we have today enables us to save countless lives and protect even more, it was no god that found this technology, but us Humans.
Dale Mercier Hitler may have claimed he was a Christian, but anyone can claim Christianity or any other religion, it doesn't necessarily mean that their behavior reflects on that religion. For example, the Catholic church claimed the Crusades were God's will, but that doesn't mean the Crusades actually were God's will or that the horrible acts perpetrated in the Crusades reflect on God or Christianity. No, I haven't read Mein Kampf, but there is nothing in the Christian faith that details the purging of Judaism. I'm not trying to be insulting, but you said that I need to open my eyes to the possibility of no God, yet you seem to be closed to the possibility that there is a God just because you don't like the fact that if God does exist then you can't live any way that you want. But I have a qualifier for that: I agree with the point on Islam and various other religions that promise the world if you kill yourself or other people, etc. However the Bible, if interpreted properly, doesn't ask for any wild sacrifices. All that's asked is that a person live his or her life in a responsible and healthy way. Sure, you can't sleep around, but that prevents STDs, unwanted pregnancy, heartache, etc. Human law agrees with much of the rest, no theft, no murder, etc. The list goes on. In fact, there are things that are not deemed wrong by the Bible that a lot of people think are, such as piercings and tattoos. I don't expect you to change your mind, I just want it to be clear that Christianity isn't what most people think it is.
without religion the world would be a better place for there isn't anyone to fight and argue about which goddamn useless religion is better... other than religion usually color is the next speed bump that the human race has to get over.
without religion the world would be a better place for there isn't anyone to fight and argue about which goddamn useless religion is better... other than religion usually color is the next speed bump that the human race has to get over.
It's true that the Catholic church had a bad habit of killing people that disagreed with them, but that's still just the Catholic church, which is a really Biblically messed up religious sect that shouldn't even be considered related to Christianity. The Catholic church executed people for trying to translate the Bible in languages other than Latin because they liked having that leverage over the people, being able to claim the Bible said whatever they wanted it to say. This prevented anyone from learning for themselves and forced them to ignorantly follow superstitions set over them by the priesthood. So in short, the Catholic church isn't a legitimate point of argument against Christianity.
i understand what you are saying and disagree vehemently. the catholic church is a facet of christianity as sure as jehovas witnesses and apistolics are. i dont know of anyone who can draw the dividing line
I haven't studied the Apostolics, but there is a big difference between Jehovah's witness and Christianity too. There are many beliefs the Jehovah's witnesses hold that aren't Biblical. The Jehovah's witness and Catholicism may be distant branches of Christianity at best, or totally separate from Christianity at worst. The dividing line is the extra-Biblical beliefs and practices that they've adopted(and those extra-biblical ideas are what cause all the contradictions in and confusion about Christianity). But really whether they're related to Christianity or not doesn't matter all that much here. I just don't want people to target specific Catholic, JW, or any other denomination or sect's beliefs and use them as the focal point of their argument against all of Christianity, because not all Christians believe the same things Catholics do or the things Jehovah's witnesses do, etc.
again, i do understand what you are saying, but methodists, like JW or catholics also have extra ceremonies that arent exactly biblical, and i dont know that you could make a case for them being unrelated to christianity. however, we have strayed fairly far from my original statement saying that the church, as a whole, and not just catholics have persecuted those who do not share the same beliefs. for example
"While a dissenter from its official Church was only faced with fines and imprisonment in Protestant England, six people were executed for heresy or blasphemy during the reign of Elizabeth I, and two more in 1612 under James I."
this was protestant england and not catholic at all. this is cited from wikipedia. not necessarily the athourity by any means, but the citations i read did seem very valid. there are several mentions of other persecutions by other sects, so claimng that it was done by the catholics is far to absolute of a statement as many religions have been putting "blasphemers" and heretics to death since religion was first dreamed up.
also, i agree that you cannot target a specific branch of religion, it seems that all of them are capable of atrocities, equally perhaps. lol with perhaps the exception of the jedi church or buddhism. they seem pretty peaceful.
I'll grant you that. People will have done and still do some terrible things in the name of religion. I think I had this discussion with someone else, who said that Hitler claimed to be doing all the things he did as a Christian(I haven't studied so I don't know personally). Perhaps we can just agree that even though a religion teaches one thing, the religion itself can't be blamed if a member or members of that religion choose to act contrary to the teaching?
religion teaches one thing, and cant be blamed if people do things in the name of religion is something i can certainly agree to. in fact i dont blame religion for anything, i prefer to assign the blame to the individual. in my first comment i only said "the church" because i don't know which people specifically ordered the scientists with opposing views to be executed. i think the royalty was more to blame than the church, possibly because as you stated the church was a tool used by the monarchy to control masses. That seems more in keeping with what i understand about the monarchy.
Untrue, without religion we would just find some other stupid shit to fight over to prove that we are better than those people over there. *points* Those bastards over there are clearly inferior, we must kill them and take their land.
Note: Those are valid insults against the catholic church... not religion in general, or even the bible. 1- The bible taught the earth was round long before science (Isaiah 40:21-22). 2- The biblical creation account never suggests that the earth was created in 168 hours. It gave 7 steps of creation with no specified unit of measurement. Catholics decided they must be 24 hour periods. They could have been instantaneous, trillions of years... or anything in between. Don't blame God for men making stupid assumptions. 3- Read up on Einstein... the earth IS the center of the universe. As is any point in the universe from which you measure your reference frame. In an infinite universe, there's is equally infinite space in all directions at any given point in time... therefore, you literally are the center of the universe... from your frame of reference.... although science makes that pressupposition... the bible never suggests it. 4- The bible directly states that there is intelligent life outside of earth. If God and angels existed before earth, obviously they're not FROM earth. Who's to say "angels" don't have a home planet (or system+), thus are simply aliens? Lastly... Yes, intelligent design is a matter of faith. Creationists acknowledge this. However, sure evolutionists are of how the process works once started... any serious evolutionist will admit that the theory makes no postulates as to how the process started. Whether you believe something magically put life on earth... or life magically put itself on earth... the idea is a question of faith. The choice is, do you believe it's more likely that this mysterious event had a cause or not?
Science doesn't support blind faith in an evolutionary process people accept solely to escape an alternative theory they don't like.