ok, cool

now the real challenge
1. make everyone who reads this thread read all that
2. get them to believe all that

i mean no disrespect, btw

"you can get a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink"

listen, the truth is out there, if people want to hide in their shells and not become one with the truth, they will be left out of reality and suffer the consequences

if their arguments are worth anything, when a challenge against their slander stands up, they gotta knock it down, or else its checkmate on their intellectual beliefs.

simple as that

honestly though its already been proven who is right and who is wrong here, but like the arab terrorists, they just don't let up, keeping up with their crap spewing

___________________
TORAHTRANCE CREW!

well said

but in the vein of descartes, you have to respect those who let doubt fill their mind for it is that which makes us human

quote:

Originally posted by Perfect_Cheezit well said but in the vein of descartes, you have to respect those who let doubt fill their mind for it is that which makes us human

it is true and smart to fill our minds with doubt about what 'appears' to us, so that we can question & answer, thus turning our doubt into 100% knowledge.

this is the point of existence, to doubt, then question, and find answers. It is the absolute reason to our being. The ability to think, to discover for ourselves the truth, and the answers that lie hidden away for us to seek out.

___________________
TORAHTRANCE CREW!

quote:

this is the point of existence, to doubt, then question, and find answers. It is the absolute reason to our being.

case in point

to expand on that, where can we draw the boundaries between doubt and pointless cynicism? when can we know for certain that something like religion can be accepted as fact? When does doubt become something nagging, holding us back instead of propelling us forward?

quote:

Originally posted by Perfect_Cheezit case in point to expand on that, where can we draw the boundaries between doubt and pointless cynicism? when can we know for certain that something like religion can be accepted as fact? When does doubt become something nagging, holding us back instead of propelling us forward?

AMAZING QUESTIONS!!!!!!

YUMMY YUMMY!! THIS IS THE REASON FOR THIS FORUM IN MY OPINION!!

woo hoo!!

I am going to think about these questions for a few hours, and i'll respond with a good answer for you in a few hours

this is worthy of contemplation!
but for a brief quick answer, the idea of objectivity vs emotional subjectivity comes to mind...

'beyond a shadow of a doubt'

but i will write something nice soon

___________________
TORAHTRANCE CREW!

I wish it were the case that people's opinion could be swayed by reason alone, that factual evidence would be the basis for belief. Religion is what is wrong in todays world, it's a disease, it infects the minds of the dumb and ignorant, what's worse is the disease is not terminal.

In the past religion may have had some credibility, a way for despots to control the idiot masses, add 5000 years and you have an insidious corrupt money hungry facade. Propaganda / marketing / spreading the faith, it's all the same bullshit, only the simplistic of mind fall for it.

Christianity / judiasm / islam / hindu: They are all a pathetic amalgamation of retired religions, a syncretic blend of past forms of faith that have failed. The only reason these conceptual ideologies are still in business is that they threaten their drones with "eternal hellfire" in case they leave.

If there was no such thing as Satan (or its equivalent in other religions) would there even be religion in todays world?

I believe Robert Heinlein has provided us with some very good insight into what places of worship will be like in the future. Pubs, Poker Machines and Prostitution. The only difference between churches now and his speculative view of churches in the future, is that now the christian church is a brothel were seedy old men can sodomise underage boys. I bet Robert didn't see that one coming.

Man created god in his own image

quote:

Originally posted by Perfect_Cheezit case in point to expand on that, where can we draw the boundaries between doubt and pointless cynicism? when can we know for certain that something like religion can be accepted as fact? When does doubt become something nagging, holding us back instead of propelling us forward?

I thought intensely of these questions and here are some answers.

Where can we draw the boundaries between doubt and pointless cynicsm?

Lets define these two.

A person who doubts accepts the proof they recieve when they can see it is provable beyond a reasonable doubt.

someone who is cynical is someone who has a knack towards seeking the negative no matter what the proofs are. They are not willing to accept 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

ex: the sun rises and sets everyday. We do not know 100% if it will rise tomorrow, but it is beyond a reasonable doubt.
a cynic will say we don't for sure, or for whatever reason throw out the statement "the sun WILL rise tomorrow" because of their emotionally motivated answers.

next question, which further clears the confusion ->

when can we know for certain that something like religion can be accepted as fact?

if we look at the structure of the court, we ask for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The person will be sentenced, not by the fact that the jury SAW HIM DO IT, but they have seen enough evidence to suppor that claim.

i'd like to add on this forum, this is true about the whole discussion regarding israel. People make claims, and they are disproven beyond a reasonable doubt, but still people continue to spew their filthy lies, because they are based not on a reasonable doubt, but on subjective rationalization, because they will dismiss anything contrary to their beliefs.

third question which further clarifies everything

When does doubt become something nagging, holding us back instead of propelling us forward?

this question was a little hard to understand fully, but here is my take on it.

As long as we are emotionally attached to something that we see as true, then any evidence that contridicts this will make you WANT to doubt it.

At this point, where you are uneasy about accepting evidence because it supports something that you DON'T LIKE, THIS will hold you back from discovering the objective truth.

case in point ---> people who blame israel for the crisis. ie: cyrusking. [had to add that in ]

so i hope that clarifies all this. Lets continue with this discussion, i'm enjoying the intellectual stimuation for a change!

___________________
TORAHTRANCE CREW!

quote:

Originally posted by tathi Man created god in his own image

And that's the crux of it all right there.

All ID arguments run, basically, along this pattern:

1) Nature is complex
2) Everything that is complex requires a creator
3) Therefore nature has a creator

Take the watch-maker argument you provided, for instance, the most overused anology in theistic apologetics:

1) Both the watch and nature are complex
2) Everything that is complex requires a creator
3) Therefore, both the watch and nature require a creator

What the argument fails to take into account, though, is that the universe and the watch possess different types of complexity. The watch contains artificial, mechanical moving parts none of which can be explained or created via a natural process. The cogs, the springs, the watch-face, the hands - none of these things can be created "naturally" on their own, let alone assemble themselves in the exact form necessary to function as a "watch". If we were to find a watch while strolling along the beach we could only assume that it must have been created by an intelligent designer because the facticity of the watch (that is, the sum of all its properties) possess a complexity far different to that which we find anywhere else in nature.

"Natural complexity" though - which we can view in the form of the "laws" of nature, especially in seemingly more "complex" bodies such as living things - is far different. Whereas a watch is made up of components that are entirely artificial - i.e. that cannot be created via a natural process - there is nothing artificial about the composition of life. Similarly, while it would be impossible for the components of a watch to come together and function "naturally", the components of a living organism require no creator to either come together nor function harmoniously.

Besides, what strikes you as more odd? That a dead, blind, purposeless universe could exist without a creator, or that an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient super-being with the ability to create beings of complexity ex nihilo at will can exist without a creator? You can't have it both ways: either all complex beings require a creator or you concede the possibility that some don't. If it's the former, then I can only ask what created God (or point to the flaw in the argument which essentially implies the necessary existence of an infinite number of "creators" - a view that would be nearly impossible to justify) or if it's the latter, then I can only ask why you believe that the universe requires a creator but an even more complex being like God doesn't?

Intelligent Design is bunk, and to understand why I suggest you read the following article (though I doubt that, even if you open it, you'll make any effort to understand it):

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=308

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Ok, let's analyze the first part of your post, and that is the existance of a god. You are saying that the fact universe is organized and it exists is an evidence of a god. But what you're doing here is attempting to explain one unexplainable entity by making up another unexplainable entity and saying it created the first one. You can't explain how the universe came to be, so you're saying it was made by a supreme being. The thing is, you simply can't explain how that supreme being came to be, just as you can't explain how the universe came to be. Basically, you can go on forever like that, and explain that supreme being's creation as a pet project of an even more supreme being. Maybe the universe is a pet project of some supreme being, who knows, but that doesn't bring us any closer to the real answer. When you think of such an idea, it seems like you're moving in solving the puzzle one step further each time, but what you've done is you've just created an infinite loop whose ultimate solution is nowhere closer than it was before.

Now, you may limit yourself to just one supreme being, or a god. So when you look at the universe, you see it has no reason or logical purpose, and therefore you attribute its existance to some sort of higher purpose that we aren't able to understand. But what is the purpose of the creator of the universe? It has no purpose. It just is. So why is it so acceptable for you to have a purposeless uberentity that simply existed forever and which created this universe with a purpose, while it is impossible for you to accept the probability this universe itself existed forever and had no purpose at all?

And now about the second part of your post which deals with evolution. While the first part was understandable, because there'ss no way to definitely prove you're right or wrong, the second definitely isn't very intelligent. Yes, it is true that the likelyhood of a human being emerging from nothing is basically equal to zero. But, let's look at it from a different point of view. There are 9 planets in this solar system, there are more than a hundred billion stars in our galaxy. The number of galaxies that are out there we don't even know. Since we've recently discovered that stars usually have many planets, that's about a trillion planets in our little galaxy alone. Now, let's come back to our own little planet. It's almost certain that out of such a vast number of planets, some will have conditions and materials needed for life to emerge. Now, the only thing that is needed for life is to have some sort of self-replicating molecule, or in our case the first DNA or RNA. As soon as such a molecule appears, if it has enough resources around itself, in a very short time the world will be covered with those molecules. Some of them will have mistakes in them that will prove to be fatal, while some will be neutral or beneficial. Since our planet is pretty big, and it is also full of nutrients needed for life, imagine how much molecules that is. It's somewhere along the lines of 10^40 (my quick approximation). And all that is needed is that some of those molecules interact between each other in a right way. Those interactions are infact not that uncommon, as some discoveries have shown that some clouds of gas in the universe contain large amounts of amino acids. What that means is those reactions needed for life are quite common because those molecules react well with each other. Now, let's say your article is correct and the odds for a bunch of those molecules coming together really are 1 040 000 to one. That's one in 10^6. Since there are 10^40 molecules out there, that chance is pretty likely. And the 747 analogy is quite wrong. You see, molecules don't connect in completely random ways. If you put together same molecules under same thermal conditions together, you'll get the same result each time. If you put 747 parts together and mix them up, you'll get a different shape each time.

From that point on, evolution is no longer a random play, as your article seems to suggest. The reason why species are improving at a staggering rate is natural selection. Without it, it would truly be unbelievable that a human, or any higher animal evolved. Infact, it would all dissipate and we'd sooner or later devolve to the primordial ooze we came from, because harmful mutations are much more common than the positive ones. But when you have the constant struggle for life and death, the situation is a little different. Those species with even minor edge over the others will be greatly rewarded, while those with even the slightest defects will most likely perish. Imagine an antelope that runs 10% slower than other antilopes. It's not such a large difference, and yet it will be eaten as soon as the first lion attacks the herd.
If we look at our brain development, we see the same thing. There are many more people with mental diseases and handicaps than there are geniouses. And yet those few geniouses will procreate, while the idiots most likely won't. Now, we do know for a fact that mutations are happening. On average, a child has about 10 mutations in its genetic code that aren't inherited neither from the father, nor from the mother, but are instead created by an accident. Most are neutral, many are negative, and only a few show improvement over the original DNA. However, only the neutral and improved will be able to procreate further. Therefore evolution is infact directed by external forces, but those forces are not divine, they're of rather logical nature. Here's an interesting thing that's soon gonna be on the Discovery channel that proves my point. This guy whose name I forgot was working on the AI systems and multiprocessor interaction. He made a test in which a computer simulation connected the processors in a random way. Many of those systems were flawed or didn't work, many were just as good as the original versions, but a few showed improvement over the original human made design. Now since there's an external force choosing which of those systems should be multiplied (natural selection/benchmark results), only the best systems will remain while the bad ones will soon be forgotten.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by tathi I wish it were the case that people's opinion could be swayed by reason alone, that factual evidence would be the basis for belief. Religion is what is wrong in todays world, it's a disease, it infects the minds of the dumb and ignorant, what's worse is the disease is not terminal.

lets do this point by point ok?

why can't people be 'swayed' or convinced or something based on fact and objective logical conclusion? i agree that today religion is totally corrupted. But there are venues of religious observance that are not corrupt. If you say that religious corruption is a microcosm, then the world as we know it corrupt and we cannot accept the world if we cannot accept religion.

how is religion disease? because we give, and get nothing? sounds like your religion is not fulfilling you my friend.

quote:

In the past religion may have had some credibility, a way for despots to control the idiot masses, add 5000 years and you have an insidious corrupt money hungry facade. Propaganda / marketing / spreading the faith, it's all the same bullshit, only the simplistic of mind fall for it.

unfortuntely what was once pure and strong ethically, through corruption and the establishment of a bridge between man and G-d which is the idea of a living 'bridge' being the heirarchy of the modern day major religions [excluding judaism because there exists no such heirarchy] corruption and bending of the truth has taken place. It is no magical wonder why today everyone laughs at the idea of religion. When you have the catholic church accused of molesting little boys, what can you expect?

quote:

Christianity / judiasm / islam / hindu: They are all a pathetic amalgamation of retired religions, a syncretic blend of past forms of faith that have failed. The only reason these conceptual ideologies are still in business is that they threaten their drones with "eternal hellfire" in case they leave.

please back this up with sources.

from my clear understanding, judaism was around way before the other mentioned religions, and is also the spiritual base for both christianity and islam. Both religions are 'hybrids' based of the old bible given to the Jews at Mt. Sinai. Once people changed around the original bible and the laws of it, resulting in both christianity and islam, a manmade aspect came into being. Even though there is some truth to what they say, the eventuality of corruption became evident within the middle ages as the church began to take over europe, and as we even see in modern day, the islamic leadership is all religious, and they say what they want, and the people believe what they say. This is not true observance to the word of G-d. this is observance to the word of MAN. TOTAL CORRUPTION, which is worth nothing in the eyes of any intellectual. So we do have an agreement on this.

quote:

If there was no such thing as Satan (or its equivalent in other religions) would there even be religion in todays world?

what do you mean if there was such thing as satan? what does satan have to do with religion in todays world?

i dont understand how satan connects with the reality of there being a G-d who requests people to follow his commands?

quote:

I believe Robert Heinlein has provided us with some very good insight into what places of worship will be like in the future. Pubs, Poker Machines and Prostitution. The only difference between churches now and his speculative view of churches in the future, is that now the christian church is a brothel were seedy old men can sodomise underage boys. I bet Robert didn't see that one coming.

this man sounds like he has a point. it is true that with the corruption of the church, and the personal ambiitions of the hierarchy of the major religions that have take presedence over the supposed 'word of G-d' they preach and the evidence we can gain from powerful computers and science, anything that is said by the church or anyone else for that matter (the universe goes around the earth! not the otherway around you heretics! LOL) has to go a long way in their claims. To date for myself, who has been on this search for years, I found one thing that no matter what stands the tests of time in its unique truth that is unbreakable.

here is my conclusion. Tathi if you want to be amazed, before you subjectively throw this out, check out www.aish.com they are a huge organization dedicated to seeking the truth. They use tons of science, accreditted sources, and I promise you will be amazed.

This is actually the school I learn at. You find anything that is not true there, anything that you cannot say proves something 'BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT' and i will go over it with you, and bring it to the sources themselves.
[/QUOTE]

quote:

Man created god in his own image

this is too true today. With the disgusting lack of ethics in todays world I agree 100%. Religion is a way for smart men to control the ignorant masses.

but what if those smart men said, 'dont take my word for it. go research it yourself!'

this is why I am so keen into judaism. You are not ALLOWED to take the anser and just accept it. You must research it, and know it, and question it.

for people who are not jewish, G-d says just follow the 7 laws of noah and you'll be fine!

want to know more? go research it for yourself!!! I'm no preacher!

___________________
TORAHTRANCE CREW!