TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Religious Flaws
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »
i was having a debate with a creationist and i quoted the pope who stated that evolution is undeniable. He then told me that the pope was the anti-christ, and disease is spread by sin and every other christian sect other than fundamentalism were the work of the devil etc. Opened my eyes, i thought different christian cults all worked together against the atheists, maybe the fundamentalists are preparing for civil war?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Please do. I always enjoy reading mathematical proofs for religion and stuff like that. |
| quote: |
| [Here is a pleasant little "proof" of the existence of God which appeared in a paper of Robert K. Meyer ["God exists!", Nous 21 (1987), 345-361]. (Meyer himself says he got the idea from Putnam.) Although the paper is slightly tongue-in-cheek, the argument itself is valid, though of course the question of the correctness of its premisses is non-trivial. Let S be the set of all entities that exist (or have existed). Define the relation <= on S by saying that x<=y if and only y is a cause of x. By verbal fiat we will define x to be a cause of x for all x in S (if we do not accept this definition, our assumptions will be slightly different; however, it is clear that the existence of x is necessary and sufficient for the existence of x, and that the existence of x is never strictly temporally posterior to that of x, so calling x a cause of itself is not such a bad idea.) Then, <= is transitive, and moreover if x<=y and y<=x, then x=y (i.e., there are no circles of causation). Hence, <= defines a partial ordering on S. Premiss 1: The set S is a set in a universe of sets satisfying the Axiom of Choice. Premiss 2: The set S is inductively ordered. (Definitions will be given below.) Define a God to be an element G of S with the property that if X is another element of S such that G<=X, it must be the case that X=G. Define a divine creator of an element X in S to be a God G such that X<=G. (By definition, each God is a divine creator of itself.) Theorem: If Premisses 1 and 2 hold, then a God exists and, moreover, any existent entity then has a divine creator. The Theorem is a deductive consequence of the premisses together with some appropriate axioms of set theory (just use Zorn's Lemma for the proof). No claim is made in the Theorem about uniqueness (or about the divine creator of X being the same for every X other than him). To specify the premisses further, for Premiss 1 we need an appropriate set theory in which we can embed S. Note that each element of S is to be an ens realis. This is important since if we allowed either an ens mentalis or a potential being to be in S, then it would not be clear that we can embed S in a set theoretic universe (since then the set S might contain all other sets, etc.) And we need that the Axiom of Choice should hold, which means simply that for every set T whose elements are a pairwise disjoint collection of non-empty sets, it is possible to choose a set V which contains precisely one element from each of the sets in T. (If T is finite, this is obviously true. The reason the Axiom of Choice is not completely obvious is that while for each of the sets in T we can choose an element of that set, it is not clear what is meant by making an infinite number of such arbitrary choices. Perhaps after all it might not be possible to specify a rule for making the choice, so that if sets are to be defined by rules deciding if a given element is in the set or not, then it may not be so clear that the Axiom holds.) Premiss 2, however, is the one which is metaphysically loaded. This premiss is a very strong statement of the principle that each entity has a cause. More precisely, the assumption of inductive ordering says that given a chain T in S, there exists an entity X in S such that X is the cause of every entity in the chain T. By a chain T in S is meant a set of elements of S with the property that if x and y are distinct elements of T, then either x<=y or y<=x, so that T is totally ordered by causation. One might think intuitively that given Premiss 2, it is obvious that there is a first cause for every entity, and so the Theorem is essentially of no significance. However, in point of fact, from Premiss 2 it does not seem to immediately follow that the Theorem holds: one appears to need (unless one can instead make some simplifying assumption like that S is finite, or maybe that S is countable, or some other nice assumption that would have to be metaphysically justified) Premiss 1, and the non-trivial Zorn's Lemma. Given Premiss 1 and Zorn's Lemma, the Theorem follows. If one is willing to accept S as a set and to accept the Axiom of Choice, then the proof of the existence of a God (and of the claim that each entity has a divine creator) needs only that Premiss 2 should hold. Now, Premiss 2 is stronger than the usual claim of a causal nexus, namely that every element has a cause (in our current setting, this usual claim would be trivial, since each element is a cause of itself). Meyer tries to argue that Premiss 2 is the right way of formulating the intuitive claim "Everything has a cause", because it is the one way of taking into account that explaining the position of a ball at time t in terms of the positions at times t_1>t_2>t_3>... (where t_1 To justify Premiss 2 in full generality would appear to require some metaphysical argument like the one that Aquinas or Aristotle tried to use in their versions of the Cosmological Argument. While one might think that because of this nothing is gained by Meyer over and beyond the position that Aquinas and Aristotle were in, this is not quite so. If Premiss 1 be accepted (and it is not very unreasonable to accept it), then the argument shows beyond Premiss 2 everything in the Cosmological Argument is correct. To prove or disprove Premiss 2, however, is non-trivial. Obviously, until a justification of Premiss 2 is given, the "proof" remains inconclusive. Final remark: It is interesting to note that Premiss 1, namely the Axiom of Choice, is not needed in the Theorem if we make the additional assumption that there is no causal overdetermination, namely if we assume that if A causes X and B causes X, then it follows that either A causes B or B causes A. For, fix X. Let S be the set of all entities that cause X. Then, by the assumption that there is no causal overdetermination, it follows that S is a chain. But by Premiss 2, it follows that there is an entity G which causes every entity in S. Suppose now that H causes G. Then, because G causes X, it follows that H causes X, and hence H is in S, so that G causes H since G causes every entity in S. Therefore we see that H causes G and G causes H, so that G and H coincide. This proves that G is a God, and indeed a divine creator of X. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NeoPhono ...Some people, myself included, use relgion as a philosophy...a way to live life by, not a way to explain it. Religions due tend to surround themselves with tradition and dogma, but if these do not cloud the underlying message, there is no problem with them. If religion is used primarily as a philosophy, I see no problem with it. |
I agree with a lot of what's being said in here. 
Especially agree with what NeoPhono said:
| quote: |
| These people need to look past the words and see what the message is behind them. My take on the bible, as a catholic, is that I should try my best to love everyone for who they are, and to do my part to help anyone I can. If they want to be a different religion (or none at all), it is not my job to go bible beating. I figure if I lead a good enough example and they want to join in, so be it...if not, I really don't care...what religion you are isn't important. If heaven exists, I think the only prerequisite for admittance is to be a good person, regardless of religion or any other persuasion. |
Things that agrivate me about religion.... Do you have a few days?..lol
I suppose what botheres me most is the better than thou attitude. Most religions are very good about recruitment, and preaching their word, I have no issues with you, Blessed Be! The ones I have issues with are those that must seek new memembers, must tell everyone who isn't like them that their wrong and they will pay for that mistake dearly, usually followed by "while you burn in hell".
In no way do I speak out of context I always speak from personal experiance. For instance I once went to this Christian Rave in my hometown. I had no expectations going in, but apparently they did. Once they saw my hair and body art they went crazy, they went so far as to take apart the tea bag in my tea. I've been arrested and been searched less than these people. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Despite an awkward entrance the music was incredible, the vibe not so cool. You could tell who was who in this place, the religious freaks stayed far away from us and any attempt to befriend was rebuffed. There excuse for this was they all use to be hard core scene addicts and they had finally refound god, and were going to remain clean. So it turns out I am not just at any Christian rave, but a born again Christian rave, and I find them the worst.
Even though we knew we were not welcome there we tried to enjoy ourselves, there was no smoking in the buliding but you could go outside, so when the tension grew too much for my enjoyment I went outside for a smoke... Silly me walked right into the head quaters. I made idle chit chat with the ones that were willing to talk. I've been in seriously bad situations before but this is the only that has ever ended in violence. Through chat about church and bible schools they found out I wasn't a devot Christian but in fact Wiccan, talk about the two faces of Eve! They started lecturing me, and when that got no rise out of me, I was acutally pushed to the ground where they were almost screaming at me. Before the end I'd been kicked, spat on and had a ciggarette put out on my arm. I don't want to think that badly of people but if it hadn't of been for the DJ's girlfriend who was a good friend of mine I am not sure what would of happened.
Its not the frist time something like that has happened to me, it was just the first time it had happened in a large group. If anything that experiance made me more stubborn. I don't run down the streets screaming paganism, trying to "corrupt" the youths of this generation, but I am definatly more forth coming with who I am and what I stand for now. Before I use to shy away from questions like that, now I embrace them. I'll be the first person to admit my ways are not the way for everyone. I won't lecture or demean, but if you ask questions I will answer them to the best of my abilities, and I will never judge you for beliefs
Renegade...I actually picked up Spong's book "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" almost a year ago, but haven't gotten around to it yet (too many books, too little time). I have read a wonderful book by Bruce Bawer called "Stealing Jesus : How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity," which gives bible passages followed both by how fundamentalists warp what is said to fit their own agenda, and by what he shows using historic and modern models what is meant to be learned from those passages. It gives excellent fodder for debates with fundamentalists as it can be used to turn the tables on bible quoting.
I know I'm being kind of redundant here, but to paraphrase what I've been saying...as long as religion is used as a guide for self-improvement and discovery, I have no problem. The second it becomes a platform to force people, either by fear, intimidation or other more direct means into believing what you believe, I do have a problem.
I think that religion, besides a set of morals and a philosophy to live life by, can also give a "believer" something else. There is great consolance in the thought that no matter how bad times get, or no matter how alone you feel, there is always the belief, or at least the hope that you are not truely alone, and that the sacrafices you make in the name of being a "good" person may someday have an ultimate physical reward. It may ultimately end up that the "physical" beliefs of the religous are in fact not true, but in this case I think that the means are more important then the ends and that the adherance to the "philosophical" beliefs are what is important. I also tend to subscribe to Pascal's Wager which states: "It is better to believe in God and be wrong then it is to disbelieve and be wrong".
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Dopey is anyone here a math wiz. because im pretty sure there is a proof for the existence of god. i just dont want to post it because i doubt anyone will understand it anyways. |
YO, im not taking ANY chances. in my mind, i cant see how god cant exist. ironies tell me. such as, anatomy class. a few of us students who had A's and B's in this class got to go on a field trip in the morge, and watch an autopsy. many were grossed out, but i was intrigued. everything fit perfectly together. every organ had a purpose, every vessals was in its right place, every muscle had a specific movement to carry out and nothing more, nothing less. i cant possibly see just how by chance, a few particles of dirt evolved into the many millions, maybe billions of species of animals and oragnisms, each one as complex as the next.
Another point. The Big Bang Theory. Totally false. It states that once there was nothing, then there was something. Now, some of you may say, there was a big mass of matter that exploded. Well, tell me how this mass of matter was created. It simply didnt appear out of nothing. because if it did, then that would be bad. because if nothing can explode into something, ide be scard. eating a bowl of cherrios and BOOM, im on the floor. nothing exploded into something and little universe starts to form in the middle of my living room.
the bible says god is "alpha & omega". which is a praise to him, saying that he is the beginning and end. and out of this, a scholar will come to the conclusion that god has no beginning and he has no end. therefore, evolution cannot be proved right, because how can there be a beginning from nothing. therefore think to yourself, "Heinz just proved evolution wrong, big bang too, or HAS at least gave a strong arguement for creationism against evolution and for the existance of god." really, out of the explanation ive given, this mass of atomic matter exploding, you must think of the big picture. what created this atomic matter to begin with??? cannot be explained by any scientist, and is beyond human comprehension. therefore, i can prove the existance of god by this, several times in the bible, its states that god has no beginning and no end. alpha, omega....i cant really give you specific passages because i dont really study it thouroughly, but look for yourself.
lastly, scientific evidence for creationism. the Ice Ages. Noah's Ark. the Great flood that left noah inside of his ark. now, think about it. a great flood that covers the highest mountain and reaches for the sky. think about the drastic ecological changes brought on by such a catastrophic event. plants....wiped out, mass extinction of all life, (except for the ark animals), massive land changes. grand canyons, lakes, oceans, everything changing drastically in the extreme. such a phenomenon could cause an Ice Age, and is very likely to have. just think of how deep the water must have been. AT LEAST 16 MILES DOWN. think of how strong the currents must have been. you watch floods on tv, and see how the currents take cars away and drag people under. think of a flood that covers the entire earth and how geologically these currents would change the shape of the earth.
the dinosaur theory, of how an astroid collided with earth and killed off all the dinosaurs, but SOMEHOW early mammals survived and not the dinosaurs. that cant be explained by these scientists. the flood as we know it, killed everything except what was on noah's ark. the world would have been entirely different from the pre-flood days. many species of animals would have become extinct on the outset, for how can an animal living in a warm tropical climate, humid, now all of a sudden enter into this totally different world away from its intended habitat. many would die off of course. the humongous dinosaurs of the pre-flood era the first. as since everything died off in the flood. the food supply is cut so dramatically that it cant support such massive animals. the book of JOB in the bible describes such an animal, "a behemoth(very large object/animal) with a tail that swayed like a cedar tree." now back in the times of JOB, the area now called lebanon, there used to be gaint forests of humongous cedar trees, now all destroyed but rivaling that of the red woods of california.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Heinz YO, im not taking ANY chances. in my mind, i cant see how god cant exist. ironies tell me. such as, anatomy class. a few of us students who had A's and B's in this class got to go on a field trip in the morge, and watch an autopsy. many were grossed out, but i was intrigued. everything fit perfectly together. every organ had a purpose, every vessals was in its right place, every muscle had a specific movement to carry out and nothing more, nothing less. i cant possibly see just how by chance, a few particles of dirt evolved into the many millions, maybe billions of species of animals and oragnisms, each one as complex as the next. Another point. The Big Bang Theory. Totally false. It states that once there was nothing, then there was something. Now, some of you may say, there was a big mass of matter that exploded. Well, tell me how this mass of matter was created. It simply didnt appear out of nothing. because if it did, then that would be bad. because if nothing can explode into something, ide be scard. eating a bowl of cherrios and BOOM, im on the floor. nothing exploded into something and little universe starts to form in the middle of my living room. the bible says god is "alpha & omega". which is a praise to him, saying that he is the beginning and end. and out of this, a scholar will come to the conclusion that god has no beginning and he has no end. therefore, evolution cannot be proved right, because how can there be a beginning from nothing. therefore think to yourself, "Heinz just proved evolution wrong, big bang too, or HAS at least gave a strong arguement for creationism against evolution and for the existance of god." really, out of the explanation ive given, this mass of atomic matter exploding, you must think of the big picture. what created this atomic matter to begin with??? cannot be explained by any scientist, and is beyond human comprehension. therefore, i can prove the existance of god by this, several times in the bible, its states that god has no beginning and no end. alpha, omega....i cant really give you specific passages because i dont really study it thouroughly, but look for yourself. lastly, scientific evidence for creationism. the Ice Ages. Noah's Ark. the Great flood that left noah inside of his ark. now, think about it. a great flood that covers the highest mountain and reaches for the sky. think about the drastic ecological changes brought on by such a catastrophic event. plants....wiped out, mass extinction of all life, (except for the ark animals), massive land changes. grand canyons, lakes, oceans, everything changing drastically in the extreme. such a phenomenon could cause an Ice Age, and is very likely to have. just think of how deep the water must have been. AT LEAST 16 MILES DOWN. think of how strong the currents must have been. you watch floods on tv, and see how the currents take cars away and drag people under. think of a flood that covers the entire earth and how geologically these currents would change the shape of the earth. the dinosaur theory, of how an astroid collided with earth and killed off all the dinosaurs, but SOMEHOW early mammals survived and not the dinosaurs. that cant be explained by these scientists. the flood as we know it, killed everything except what was on noah's ark. the world would have been entirely different from the pre-flood days. many species of animals would have become extinct on the outset, for how can an animal living in a warm tropical climate, humid, now all of a sudden enter into this totally different world away from its intended habitat. many would die off of course. the humongous dinosaurs of the pre-flood era the first. as since everything died off in the flood. the food supply is cut so dramatically that it cant support such massive animals. the book of JOB in the bible describes such an animal, "a behemoth(very large object/animal) with a tail that swayed like a cedar tree." now back in the times of JOB, the area now called lebanon, there used to be gaint forests of humongous cedar trees, now all destroyed but rivaling that of the red woods of california. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Dopey ... |
debunk me right now. both of you. you told me you could do it so do it. prove and explain how a ball of matter came out of nothing and exploded into an extremly complex universe so complex we cant comprehend it.
dont give me bullshit DigiNut. give me truth. i gave you evidence that made sense. its all comes together. im not laughing the face of science. actually science is supporting my theory. gigantic flood=gigantic ecological changes that cant be brought on by an astroid.
.....again, dont give me bullshit, give me your evidence. i wont even bother reading it, if i see anything personally critisizing me, for its worthless garbage, and i can see that ive already wont he battle. thank you
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Heinz YO, im not taking ANY chances. in my mind, i cant see how god cant exist. |
| quote: |
| ironies tell me. such as, anatomy class. a few of us students who had A's and B's in this class got to go on a field trip in the morge, and watch an autopsy. many were grossed out, but i was intrigued. everything fit perfectly together. every organ had a purpose, every vessals was in its right place, every muscle had a specific movement to carry out and nothing more, nothing less. i cant possibly see just how by chance, a few particles of dirt evolved into the many millions, maybe billions of species of animals and oragnisms, each one as complex as the next. |
| quote: |
| Another point. The Big Bang Theory. Totally false. It states that once there was nothing, then there was something. Now, some of you may say, there was a big mass of matter that exploded. Well, tell me how this mass of matter was created. It simply didnt appear out of nothing. because if it did, then that would be bad. because if nothing can explode into something, ide be scard. eating a bowl of cherrios and BOOM, im on the floor. nothing exploded into something and little universe starts to form in the middle of my living room. |
| quote: |
| the bible says god is "alpha & omega". which is a praise to him, saying that he is the beginning and end. and out of this, a scholar will come to the conclusion that god has no beginning and he has no end. therefore, evolution cannot be proved right, because how can there be a beginning from nothing. therefore think to yourself, "Heinz just proved evolution wrong, big bang too, or HAS at least gave a strong arguement for creationism against evolution and for the existance of god." |
| quote: |
| really, out of the explanation ive given, this mass of atomic matter exploding, you must think of the big picture. what created this atomic matter to begin with??? cannot be explained by any scientist, and is beyond human comprehension. therefore, i can prove the existance of god by this, several times in the bible, its states that god has no beginning and no end. alpha, omega....i cant really give you specific passages because i dont really study it thouroughly, but look for yourself. |
| quote: |
| lastly, scientific evidence for creationism. the Ice Ages. Noah's Ark. the Great flood that left noah inside of his ark. now, think about it. a great flood that covers the highest mountain and reaches for the sky. think about the drastic ecological changes brought on by such a catastrophic event. plants....wiped out, mass extinction of all life, (except for the ark animals), massive land changes. grand canyons, lakes, oceans, everything changing drastically in the extreme. such a phenomenon could cause an Ice Age, and is very likely to have. just think of how deep the water must have been. AT LEAST 16 MILES DOWN. think of how strong the currents must have been. you watch floods on tv, and see how the currents take cars away and drag people under. think of a flood that covers the entire earth and how geologically these currents would change the shape of the earth. |
| quote: |
| the dinosaur theory, of how an astroid collided with earth and killed off all the dinosaurs, but SOMEHOW early mammals survived and not the dinosaurs. that cant be explained by these scientists. |
| quote: |
| the flood as we know it, killed everything except what was on noah's ark. the world would have been entirely different from the pre-flood days. many species of animals would have become extinct on the outset, for how can an animal living in a warm tropical climate, humid, now all of a sudden enter into this totally different world away from its intended habitat. many would die off of course. the humongous dinosaurs of the pre-flood era the first. as since everything died off in the flood. the food supply is cut so dramatically that it cant support such massive animals. the book of JOB in the bible describes such an animal, "a behemoth(very large object/animal) with a tail that swayed like a cedar tree." now back in the times of JOB, the area now called lebanon, there used to be gaint forests of humongous cedar trees, now all destroyed but rivaling that of the red woods of california. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Heinz debunk me right now. both of you. you told me you could do it so do it. prove and explain how a ball of matter came out of nothing and exploded into an extremly complex universe so complex we cant comprehend it. |
| quote: |
| dont give me bullshit DigiNut. give me truth. i gave you evidence that made sense. its all comes together. im not laughing the face of science. actually science is supporting my theory. gigantic flood=gigantic ecological changes that cant be brought on by an astroid. |
| quote: |
| .....again, dont give me bullshit, give me your evidence. i wont even bother reading it, if i see anything personally critisizing me, for its worthless garbage, and i can see that ive already wont he battle. thank you |
again, you strike me with your knowledge. i didnt see digi's link, so ill see it now, ill post a repsonse in a little while.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Heinz again, you strike me with your knowledge. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Heinz YO, im not taking ANY chances. in my mind, i cant see how god cant exist. ironies tell me. such as, anatomy class. a few of us students who had A's and B's in this class got to go on a field trip in the morge, and watch an autopsy. many were grossed out, but i was intrigued. everything fit perfectly together. every organ had a purpose, every vessals was in its right place, every muscle had a specific movement to carry out and nothing more, nothing less. i cant possibly see just how by chance, a few particles of dirt evolved into the many millions, maybe billions of species of animals and oragnisms, each one as complex as the next. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Heinz Another point. The Big Bang Theory. Totally false. It states that once there was nothing, then there was something. Now, some of you may say, there was a big mass of matter that exploded. Well, tell me how this mass of matter was created. It simply didnt appear out of nothing. because if it did, then that would be bad. because if nothing can explode into something, ide be scard. eating a bowl of cherrios and BOOM, im on the floor. nothing exploded into something and little universe starts to form in the middle of my living room. |
| quote: |
Another point. The Big Bang Theory. Totally false. It states that once there was nothing, then there was something. Now, some of you may say, there was a big mass of matter that exploded. Well, tell me how this mass of matter was created. It simply didnt appear out of nothing. because if it did, then that would be bad. because if nothing can explode into something, ide be scard. eating a bowl of cherrios and BOOM, im on the floor. nothing exploded into something and little universe starts to form in the middle of my living room. |
| quote: |
the bible says god is "alpha & omega". which is a praise to him, saying that he is the beginning and end. and out of this, a scholar will come to the conclusion that god has no beginning and he has no end. therefore, evolution cannot be proved right, because how can there be a beginning from nothing. therefore think to yourself, "Heinz just proved evolution wrong, big bang too, or HAS at least gave a strong arguement for creationism against evolution and for the existance of god." really, out of the explanation ive given, this mass of atomic matter exploding, you must think of the big picture. what created this atomic matter to begin with??? cannot be explained by any scientist, and is beyond human comprehension. therefore, i can prove the existance of god by this, several times in the bible, its states that god has no beginning and no end. alpha, omega....i cant really give you specific passages because i dont really study it thouroughly, but look for yourself. lastly, scientific evidence for creationism. the Ice Ages. Noah's Ark. the Great flood that left noah inside of his ark. now, think about it. a great flood that covers the highest mountain and reaches for the sky. think about the drastic ecological changes brought on by such a catastrophic event. plants....wiped out, mass extinction of all life, (except for the ark animals), massive land changes. grand canyons, lakes, oceans, everything changing drastically in the extreme. such a phenomenon could cause an Ice Age, and is very likely to have. just think of how deep the water must have been. AT LEAST 16 MILES DOWN. think of how strong the currents must have been. you watch floods on tv, and see how the currents take cars away and drag people under. think of a flood that covers the entire earth and how geologically these currents would change the shape of the earth. the dinosaur theory, of how an astroid collided with earth and killed off all the dinosaurs, but SOMEHOW early mammals survived and not the dinosaurs. that cant be explained by these scientists. the flood as we know it, killed everything except what was on noah's ark. the world would have been entirely different from the pre-flood days. many species of animals would have become extinct on the outset, for how can an animal living in a warm tropical climate, humid, now all of a sudden enter into this totally different world away from its intended habitat. many would die off of course. the humongous dinosaurs of the pre-flood era the first. as since everything died off in the flood. the food supply is cut so dramatically that it cant support such massive animals. the book of JOB in the bible describes such an animal, "a behemoth(very large object/animal) with a tail that swayed like a cedar tree." now back in the times of JOB, the area now called lebanon, there used to be gaint forests of humongous cedar trees, now all destroyed but rivaling that of the red woods of california. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NeoPhono My problem is when religions take their sacred writings literally, an example being creationism. In my opinion religions are nothing more than philosphies with rituals and a strong study of their own history. Therefore, the most important thing a religion can give someone is its underlying philosophical message, not a step by step guide to "salvation." I'm catholic, but I consider relgion to be a philosophy I live by, not a set of instructions. I don't believe in creationism, hell even if half the stuff in the bible didn't happen, I wouldn't care. It's about the overall message it's trying to show. I don't see any difference between someone practicing a religion in this way and someone who reads Nietzsche or Confucious or any other philosopher and tries to live their life in that way. At least I don't think there should be any difference. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Sigh, so how did God arise out of nothing? Apply the same circular reasoning to any concept and you arise at the same answer. The intelligent answer is that nobody knows. Physics changes on a constant basis. Perhaps there is NO origin of any sort. Time is AS RELATIVE as matter is. Why do people not understand this???? |
Pose this question to a religous person and you'll hear of Adam and Eve, certainly sounds more credible than any Big Bang
Can't do it...
Must resist the temptation......
Must stay away from thread!!!!!!!!!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Natural selection favors complexity as the more complex species usually survive more easily and are therefore capable of having more offspring. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Not always the case - NS doesn't have to necessarily favor complexity per se. Just favors that which is fittest to survive, more often than not that species is "complex", though not always so. Sorry for being anal. I'm done now. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, if we're going to be anal, then I'll have to point out to you that I said usually, not always. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DigiNut Congratulations, you did a fantastic job of consolidating all the ridiculous logical fallacies and debunked Christian science theories that make up dogmatic Creationism. The flood especially - Noah's ark - is a complete joke: Noah's Ark - a sinking ship. You have to be truly stubborn - not faithful - to deny all that and believe in an ark. THAT is the problem with religion. People who laugh in the face of science just because they want to believe in something else. You find science, which relies on facts and reason, suspicious and dubious - but you think Genesis, which is nothing more than a bunch of interconnected stories, all of which are fully unsubstantiated, might be true? Right, somehow you just "know" better than all the nonbelievers... Let me say it again - if you want to believe in religion, FINE - but please don't try to present "evidence" of why you think it has to be true, because it's all been totally debunked in the past. The only relevance of religion in today's world is to teach people morals, not the origins of a 5000-year-old universe and definitely not the explanations of well-understood scientific phenomena. |
| quote: |
| hey you try to sound so smart. if you're so smart, why don't you disprove the proof i posted on the existence of god. |
| quote: |
| Step 1: Let a=b. Step 2: Then a^2 = ab Step 3: a^2 + a^2 = a^2 + ab Step 4: 2a^2 = a^2 + ab Step 5: 2a^2 - 2ab = a^2 + ab - 2ab Step 6: 2a^2 - 2ab = a^2 - ab Step 7: reduced to 2(a^2 - ab) = 1(a^2 - ab) Setp 8: cancelling (a^2 - ab) on both sides leaves 2 = 1 |
| quote: | ||
| Originally posted by NeoPhono If you like some "fun" proofs that also are a little wacky, try this classic.
There's also a similar proof using complex numbers, but I thought this one would be more "kid friendly." |
The only problem is, it's mathematically invalid to "factor out" a zero, so the whole proof is invalid, just like the God proof. 
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.