TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Australia
-- December 21st 2012...
Pages (12): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lilith You've always got a mate in Satan  |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Deeman How the fuck did 'God' manage all this creation shit when there was an 'underbelly' type red monster copping blowjobs while farting and throwing beer cans at him the whole time. Fuck who would want a God who just wasn't into shit that, imo is quite mad like titties and grog! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MiSSyM so you would only believe IF you had SCIENTIFIC proof? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by sunrise3500 if you're trying to say satan was around when god was playing with clay or however you want to put it.. then the only thing you've really said is that your extremely ignorant and are probably better off not posting in this thread to avoid looking like a fool. i pity the foo! |
FOOL! :P
| quote: |
| Originally posted by sunrise3500 FOOL! :P |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Deeman Thanks dad .. |
Ah well that's last time I get drunk and go drag racing with that guy again!! Noob 
they have found god and its called the higgs boson
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fledz I'm not against religion and I don't want to obliterate it like some people do as there are so many benefits to it as well, but it could be so much more if religious zealots actually opened their minds and were able to include science and rational thinking into their daily lives. I mean wow, some people are just unbelievable. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN [QUOTE] scientific method and "rational thought" (or reason) are part of the same language. of course science might not be predict whether pkcRAISTLIN will prefer this trance track over another one. irrelevant. |
| quote: |
| well you're hamstringing yourself in this conversation then aren't you? "there's a god because i couldn't believe there's not?" what kind of fvcked up shitty logic is that? *waves at mandi* thanks for those tits mandi |
| quote: |
| there are all kinds of things that have been part of our culture that we have shedded. you know, like slavery. or beheading. or having kings to run our countries. that is simply not true at all and i wish people would stop saying it. |
| quote: |
haha, we were only discussing this in both the COR and PDD recently  and yes, there is certainly some evidence to support that claim. but there is also an impulse to rape and pillage, doesn't mean we have to "go with the flow". |
Well I think about Science and Religion quite a lot...
I was raised as an Orthodox christian, which I think is a wonderful religion and provides a meaningful life to anyone who follows it.
But please don't think of this as similar to the crazy evangelical movements in the US and here, that construe thier own (wrong) versions of how the world began (6000 years, we rode dinosaurs etc.).
Orthodox are generally fine with evolution and so forth, as long as it doesn't exclude God.
But then science brain kicks in and I can also see a possibility that as human brain size increased, it had trouble comprehending the apparent infinite existance of the universe and other things unexplainable in early societies.
By conceiving deities (both polytheistic and monotheistic) religion produces a "self-governing" system, as morality is based on a model from a higher being.
Humans can't really think in more than 3 dimensions, and so there may be a lot of things we can't understand with current scientific knowledge. I think that if we could ever prove multi-dimensional universes or anything along those lines, it may help explain further the birth of the universe.
So, I side with scientific evidence nowadays, but try not to dismiss religion for being for the "blind beleivers".
oh and i might add I think prominent atheist figures such as Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers are BAD for science in that they polarise peoples views of science as an "alternative" to religion.
they are both brilliant scientists though.
someone asked about neanderthals, they were around ~250 000 years ago, up to about 30 000 years ago and overlapped modern humans which first arrived ~130 000 years ago.
yer, i just looked that up in my notes
I just paid $4/gallon for gas this morning. If we're still around by 2012 then one thing's for sure - I'll be stuck walking to work every day. Should only take 6 hours or so to walk 30 miles. Factor in the earthquakes, tsunamis, and tornados I'll have to walk through and it's going to take at least 8 hours to walk to work everyday 
i don't even know how i came across this post in the Australia section, i think i was originally trying to search to find out why the tranceaddict.net webmail didn't work anymore and someone i made my way over here. go figure
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Teflon_Teapot they have found god and its called the higgs boson |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by gumble oh and i might add I think prominent atheist figures such as Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers are BAD for science in that they polarise peoples views of science as an "alternative" to religion. they are both brilliant scientists though. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by EgosXII formation of 'meanings of life' are not scientific. how is a metaphysical question about leading a good life, or how to be happy, a scientific question?? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by EgosXII science USES rational thought to make it's empirical evidence make sense. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by EgosXII i meant that the concept of an external being could well be a kind of mental disposition: i didn't say it was proof of God's existence, i just said that it's an interesting phenomena. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by EgosXII that is simply not true at all: 1: those things all still exist, |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by EgosXII 2: the MEMORY of them alters our actions today. history is told so that we don't make the same mistakes that we've made in the past. we know about beheadings because they've been societally valued (as negative in this case), and we're told about them so that we never get to a place where they will happen again. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by EgosXII if you knew history, or had common sense, |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by EgosXII you would know that many of the laws that were carried thru history (murder being a crime etc) were created during times of state-religions. the church used to have massive impact over government, especially in European countries. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by EgosXII you would also be able to recognise that many of the laws that exist now, or that at least used to exist are very similar to biblical laws, and it's not too much of a stretch to assume that this is no coincidence. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by EgosXII not that it has anything to do with the point i was making, but it's still interesting. |
Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.
The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.
Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.
What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.
"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
"There are no transitional fossils."
A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.
To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human. For many more examples, see the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive, and see http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html for sample images for some invertebrate groups.
The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.
Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. If you read all this, well you'll find you must be extremely bored, and I have just copied/pasted and randomly highlighted crap. I just wanted to join in with the long posts that no one reads. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.
"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994
I like big words 
whenever you talk about religion you just go off on rants that show your opinion on the topic rather than anything objective
the biggest problem with ur argument here is that u seem to base your concept of religion purely on christianity and the bible
religion and law have existed in various forms way before jesus came along and have no doubt helped shaped each other and peoples moral compass thru the ages
you pick 4 of the commandments which would be hardest to police, therefore making a law against them pointless as you couldnt police those things
also im pretty sure i read somewhere that it was illegal to commit adultery and to worship false idols at some point in time, the laws we have now haven't all been around since the beginning of the concept. Law just seems to have evolved with society where as religion has remained steeped in tradition.
and if u wanna go off at how crap the rules in the bibles are im pretty sure you would appreciate thou shalt not kill and steal, which are pretty much included in most religions, as 2 fairly good rules which are also law. You could say people knew better than to kill each other before religion came along but i think you'd find it hard to prove that.
tbh i dont get why your so against religion, it's man-made, and its stupid only becoz people are stupid, if religion didnt exist everyone would be finding other reasons for acting like retards.
everything else looks ok
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im not sure you're understanding the nature of this discussion. i'm not talking about metaphysical questions. they are irrelevant to the topic. science has never, and will never, attempt to answer those questions. they are questions for philosophers, and they'll never be definitively answered. who and where are these scientists that predict science could answer these questions? so? how does that negate me using "science" and "rationality" (or reason) kind've synonymously? that pre-disposition has absolutely nothing to do with using one's rational mind to pretend god doesn't exist for the point of answering a simple question. which you STILL haven't answered by the way. really? could you name the slavery act that regulates slavery in australia? or is it something our king decides for us? of course these things still exist somewhere - and you know what? the countries that still have these problems often have harsh religious rules and regulations, or are so stunted by religious nonsense that they are afraid to vote for fear of the computer watching them, or are burnt or slaughtered for being witches. everyone aboard the irrelevant train!! toot toot. right, we're going to play it that way are we? its not my fault you have a sincere lack of understanding concerning the argument and the points that i am making. it is getting really quite difficult to argue with you because you seem unable to grasp the nature of the debate. it is your poor logic that leads you to err that religion created "morality" (whatever the fuck that means) not my lack of historical knowledge or common sense. yes, religion has had a wonderful experience influencing laws and the way it can subjugate the citizenry. besides that fact, are you really telling me that you think human societies had no concept of right and wrong before established state religion? religion has influenced the "morality" debate because it evolved (and i use that term fucking loosely) alongside concepts of right and wrong. surely you're not saying that something like murder was not considered wrong, or against the law before the bible was written? where are our laws that govern coveting thy neighbour's donkey? our society is fucking driven by consumer greed. where are the laws making it illegal to disobey my parents? where is the law forbidding the worship of false idols? against adultery? and this is just from the 10 big rules, let alone the other standards and measures that are pure nonsense outlined in the bible the fact is, human beings have decided by reason and rationality what laws to pick and choose from the bible, even if we are to assume that laws came from the bible. the romans seemed to cope ok with social infrastructure without the bible. indeed, the laws that HAVE been influenced strongly by religious doctine are probably the very worst laws man has ever forced upon itself. how do you like those apples? how do you argue that religion has been a benefit to law when its almost always the opposite? at least you got something right this guy is hilarious. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1czXvHSjDac |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ_Ballistic whenever you talk about religion you just go off on rants that show your opinion on the topic rather than anything objective |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ_Ballistic the biggest problem with ur argument here is that u seem to base your concept of religion purely on christianity and the bible |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ_Ballistic religion and law have existed in various forms way before jesus came along and have no doubt helped shaped each other and peoples moral compass thru the ages |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ_Ballistic you pick 4 of the commandments which would be hardest to police, therefore making a law against them pointless as you couldnt police those things |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ_Ballistic also im pretty sure i read somewhere that it was illegal to commit adultery and to worship false idols at some point in time, the laws we have now haven't all been around since the beginning of the concept. Law just seems to have evolved with society where as religion has remained steeped in tradition. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ_Ballistic You could say people knew better than to kill each other before religion came along but i think you'd find it hard to prove that. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ_Ballistic tbh i dont get why your so against religion, |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJ_Ballistic if religion didnt exist everyone would be finding other reasons for acting like retards. |
has anyone watched the new indiana jones movie? it seems to solve all our problems regarding the mayans lol
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MiSSyM Firstly, I cannot imagine a world without God. Amen. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by EgosXII i agree with bateman: think there's a lot not answered, and what's not answered is pretty open: i don't think science can answer everything, but i think it says it can. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by batemanscott Seriously tho dude - i don't buy in to any of the conspiracy theories around and you know im pretty right winged with most things. I (wrongly) supported the war in iraq, I vote liberal and love big corporations for the most part. I am to a large extent (tho not entirely) pro US so not the 'type' to go screaming 'Its a conspriacy!'. But i also think that there is a lot of good evidence presented by many of these people that is quickly shut down by the conspiracy denialists using much of what was written above. I dont think conspiracy theorists put their case forward better than those that deny them in any way at all but from what i have seen those that deny them do not do so in a manner different to the way i edited what you had posted. does that make any sense? I guess what i am saying is that i agree with what you posted but think that the points you posted apply equally to the other side of the argument. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fledz Err....as far as I've gathered from this thread, there's only 2 actual scientists here. Myself and Gumble. Anyone else? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Philby not to mention published journal article |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.