|
Do You Think There is a God ? (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| davinox |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
WHY DO YOU BELIEVE. |
In what? I don't believe in anything. I'm not going to stake my life on anything, including evolution. If the scientific community disproves evolution, I won't my pants. Another theory will pop up.
I do believe that the possibility of us, (as human beings) of knowing the details of our maker, if the maker does have a will, is practically nothing. The only such prove of such details has come from humans. (there have been countless ammounts of belief, speculation, prophecies, prophets....much like UFO sightings.)
Therefore, I believe we should keep discovering, rather than just assuming our existance.
And if it turns out that our existance is a cruel purgatory and there is a Christian God; and I am sent to Hell, I'm going down with 4/5ths of the World.
Orbax, on a more positive note, I do respect you. You are not willingly ignorant, like most of the world. All people "casual" in religion or not in religion are ignorant, they need to go with something that's presented to them.
Our existance is everything to us, most people brush the question aside. At least you have taken a path, and have stayed mostly true to it. (although I think you are wrong... ;))
Michael Russo, a member of these boards, is Christian as well, and I respect him a great deal. he has probably the smartest view on Christianity I've seen. (although I think he's wrong.... ;)) |
|
|
| Sarcoman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
Of course you agree with him hes on your side. And who cares about reverse usage. People with a belief use a theory to support it. Theories dont use beliefs. Evolutionists dont use atheism because what the hell is there to use. Technically its nothing. The belief in nothing cannot be used as it is nothing. But the belief of nothing can be justified by using a theory that states there is nothing out there... so yes they do go hand in hand. |
Huh??? They do not go hand in hand. Evolutionists are not necessarily Athiests, and atheists are not necessarily evolutionists. Take me, for example, I am an evolutionist, but Not athiest.
| quote: |
That is OUR definition. The greeks had a different calendar, so did the Romans, Aztecs, Mayans, Israelites, Sumerians, Mesopotiamians, etc. EVERYONE used a different calendar it wasnt until recently that a universal time schedule was created. |
Calendars are on a yearly scale, a day is sunrise to sunset, or some variation on that.
| quote: |
exactly. it isnt meant to be taken literally in OUR language. It is merely the bast translation we can find. Again, this is coming from someone who reads, writes and speaks hebrew and arabic. |
The bible was not written in either language. Wasnt it written in Aramaic???
| quote: |
You can determine the age of mountains. The mountains predated the fossils. So that theory is out. |
Fish dies on sea floor which is older than fish itself. Sea floor is risen over many years and plate techtonics to become a mountain. Theory is still in???
| quote: |
You said that one day the genes make a photosensitive spot?!! WOW! because thats impossible! Do you have any idea of what that means? Do you know how genes are BUILT |
Do you even know what a gene is??? The complex system does not have to arise spontaneously. You said yourself that starfish have a photosenstive spot on them in which they can detect light. Imagine that photosensitive spot undergoing years of evolution and natural selection (oh, thats right you cant).
| quote: |
Im not speaking of cell records, Im speaking of mathematical impossibilites. DONT EVEN RESPOND TO THIS UNTIL YOU READ AND UNDERSTAND THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION. Then you get to come back and try to explain how that many species popped up from that few of species in that short of time. |
Cambrian explosion: See info in blue below found on the web...
A hostile environment of tectonic activity causing earthquakes and volcanoes to erupt ensued. The continents of Gondwanaland were just waiting to break apart and come crashing back together. Huge mountains speared from the earth and the world experienced great climatic change. These extreme conditions helped pave the road to the Cambrian Explosion not only by mixing oxygen into the ocean, but forcing creatures to adapt quickly to the harsh surroundings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
History
The word ‘Cambrian’ came from the Roman name for Wales where the first geological studies were conducted on the period’s strata or layers of soil where its fossils are found. It began 543 million years ago and ended 43 million years later. The Cambrian Period is also known as Biology’s Big Bang and the Cambrian Explosion because of its great diversity of life. Here was the first appearance of limbs and segmented bodies. The first organisms to be predators, and to develop shells, jaws, claws, and teeth appeared here as well. We see varied multicellular and complex life that spent most of the time on the muddy sea floor. No creatures traveled by land, all were aquatic. It was during this time that ancestors of all animals which fly, swim, and crawl evolved and appeared in less than 10 million years; few new structural models emerged from Cambrian bodies. But scientists estimate that evolution requires 75 million years to show change. ‘Explosion’ seems a fitting word to describe the speed at which life evolved during the Cambrian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cambrian Period was strange and exciting, but it was also a time of confusion. A confusion that has lasted for 150 years with scientists baffled over the Cambrian’s sudden explosion. No widely accepted theory explaining the burst of life exists and thus, it is fitting that we end with these questions. Can you find an answer to the problems? What caused biology’s Big Bang to occur so rapidly? Why haven’t there been any repeats of successful evolution and diversity? Why are there no new phyla after Cambrian?
Hmmm. Although it is a mystery (which nobody is denying) doesnt mean that it will never be solved. It may take more that 150 years to discover what happened millions of years ago (some forensic scientists have trouble with things that happened last year). Give it time, you will see. Just because all the answers are not there, doesnt mean that it isnt possible.
Also, it is possible that the techtonic activity and volcanoes spewed mutagenic substances into the atmosphere, increasing the rate of mutation. A comet from space could also have contributed to mutagenic rates. (Could that also explain why seagoing animals survived, and land animals did not... Flood is not the only option now is it?)
What I said was "If you want to tell everyone else that they are wrong because they disagree with your belief, you are WRONG." What I mean by this is: You would be wrong for condemning others beliefs.
I have never written that God doesnt exist, or that Creation theory is not possible. But you have written that evolution theory is wrong, just because you are not able to explain complex organs etc.... I am not saying you are wrong, and that I am absolutely correct.. I just want you to admit to the possibility that Evolution could be happening, and has been happening for millenia. Or are you too narrow minded to acknowledge a possibily that you cannot outright proove to be wrong?? |
|
|
| drizzt81 |
pleas guys.. cool down. i know religions are a very 'senstive' issue to many people (including myself), but please keep the personal comments out..
i am impressed with the knowledge many people have brought into the discussion, and while i might not be contributing right now, i am still happy to see the dialogue...
just wanted to say:
Relax, take a breath and keep it civil..
this is not supposed to be attacking anyone, I just feel a little bit of hard feelings coming in and i want to cool it down, before the flames start :) |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | | I am an evolutionist, but Not athiest. |
So you think there is a God because anything other than atheist means some form of belief in a higher power. So where does you God come in.
| quote: | | Wasnt it written in Aramaic |
Thats the root of Hebrew and arabic. If you know one you can learn the other in a matter of days. Aramaic hardly changed, its more a matter of dialect than language difference.
| quote: | | Theory is still in??? |
no, i mean literally how long it has been a mountain. Its hard to date dirt because it moves around quite a bit.
| quote: | | Imagine that photosensitive spot undergoing years of evolution and natural selection (oh, thats right you cant). |
Yes I can, all i have to do is smoke some crack and it makes perfect sense. You are missing the point that the photosensitive spot had to come from somewhere. It wasnt the starting point. I can see a progression FROM the spot, but no TO it.
| quote: | | Give it time youll see |
Im not going to risk going to hell on a maybe.
| quote: | | I have never written that God doesnt exist, or that Creation theory is not possible. But you have written that evolution theory is wrong, just because you are not able to explain complex organs etc.... I am not saying you are wrong, and that I am absolutely correct.. I just want you to admit to the possibility that Evolution could be happening, and has been happening for millenia. Or are you too narrow minded to acknowledge a possibily that you cannot outright proove to be wrong?? |
The fact you support evolution intrinsically denies my belief. And I can explain complex organs perfectly. You seem to be mixing two terms: Complex, and System. They have very different import in the realm of evolution, one being possible, and the other being impossible. I suggest re-reading what I spoke of.
Side note: I probably forget more each day about evolution than you will ever know. As something I have to face constantly, I have researched it as though I was someone trying to prove it. I could make most Christians acquiesce to the fact of evolution. I have had so many conversations about this its ridiculous. Nothing I have seen has ever made me question for one second. Evolution is a beautiful dream to some, and it looks like the right answer from afar, but the deeper you dig the more impossible it is to keep finding support. honestly I want everyone here to read Darwins Black Box: The Biochemical challenge to evolution. It isnt a Christian book, the scientist who wrote it merely is saying that evolution cant work. I like to read both sides, because there are some huge gambles you are taking if you dont understand what it is you are choosing, and what it is you ARENT choosing.
*********************************************************
Hehe thanks Dav, I hold respect for those of you who have made arguments more strongly than simply "I believe/Dont believe". I said this earlier, but im just here to make people think, and maybe look into some things they hadnt previously considered. I DO want you all to convert but that probably isnt going to happen hehe. Hey, just tryin to save your immortal soul and such. Remember this, I like to debate. I LOVE it. I do it all the time. I like arguing against evolution because, besides the fact that its anti-christian in the sense of opposite, people get into it and put forth the knowledge they have. Sometimes people will surprise you. People also get riled up to the point where they speak from anger instead of reason, and then you can really rip apart their arguments :) hehe. Its all for fun and games though. I say stuff to piss people off on purpose so they made the aforementioned mistakes. If you ever want to win an argument of logic, pat someone on the head condescendingly, smile, and say that was the cutest little argument i ever did hear. Anything they say after that is going to be so poorly thought out that you almost win by default. Just exploring tactics here with you guys. Not being able to talk and gesture makes this interesting on a certain level. |
|
|
| Sarcoman |
That is correct. I dont feel that I am an athiest, because I beleive in a higher power. Whether or not that higher power is GOD, I dont know, and I am not about to be convinced by anyone else to change my belief, because I have formed my belief over the past 10 years, with the education I have received. In my belief, I beleive that the higher power (whom I will call God, for this arguments sake), made possible the physical and chemical conditions for the big bang, and for all that followed it. However, I do not think that God had Human Beings as the grand design in all of this. I think that we are a random occurence. Thinking otherwise would be arrogant (not saying you are arrogant, just saying that if humans felt that they were the reason for everything, that would be arrogant).
I didnt know that about aramaic, just knew that the bible was not written in hebrew or arabic. Nice to know, Thanks.
I think your answer about not wanting to go to hell is funny. You dont want to beleive the possibility of evolution because you feel the church (and therefore your interpretation of God is against it). It shows your level of faith, which I have a lot of respect for. Whatever anyone believes, do not be easily convinced to change your beliefs... educate yourself first (I think we both agree here, because you have done that yourself as well --- common ground at last). What I do not like, is anyone that says that others will go to hell if they do not change their beliefs. I think that people should not be threatened into believing one thing over another, especially in controversial topics such as this one... let people choose what they will.
Further to the eye argument, I believe eye cells to be fundamentally simple. The Rod for example containes Rhodopsin (combination of Opsin and Retinal aka vitamin A). Light hits rhodopsin, and the energy received from the photon causes retinal to release from rhodopsin, leaving just Opsin. The active opsin (because retinal is no longer there to block its action) then activates Tranducin (Transducin is a G Protein, which is very common in biology - I have a Honours degree in it, trust me). The transducin elevates levels of cGMP (cyclic Guanine MonoPhosphate), which closes Sodium channels in the cell (also common in biology), and the membrane of the cells hyperpolarizes to -70 mV, creating an action potential. This is a simple structure. The G Protein cascade is mimmicked in many biochemical pathways. The fact that Opsin is what triggers the pathways is what is unique to this cell.
Opsin itself is merely a protein. A specific sequence of nucleotides (DNA) will create this protein, and only certain cells have the necessary activators for this DNA sequence. Opsin itself likely has similarities to other proteins, and scientists are able to compare this sequence, and the proteins itself to determine who related it is to other proteins, which could indicate a common linkage in evolution to non sight proteins.
Just a little evidence to support my argument that the eyeball can arise from evolution, random mutations can create any protein. Proteins that do not have to be in the body, are, so the system does not have to evolve together. It can evolve peice by peice over time, until it is all there. 3.5 billion years is like saying that if you get a million monkeys on a million typwritters for a millioin years, they will eventually write War and Peace... that is because evolution involves random genetic changes, coupled with Natural and Sexual selection over long period of time. From the evidence I see, I see evolution as the more likely explanation, whereas you see creation as more plausible. I fully realize that I will not change your mind, and I guarantee you will not change mine. |
|
|
| Orbax |
Just a minor correction. The idea that humans are the center and glory of creation isnt what Christianity teaches. The old geocentric idea of the universe was an idea sprung from the corrupt catholic church to control people. All the Bible says is that we were created in His image. Cross examination of the Bible says this is not a physical representation, but a spiritual one. We are loving, curious, forgiving (or supposed to be). I do believe that there is life out in the universe and that God loves those creatures as much as humans.
When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal (a picosecond is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a human hair) The change in the shape of the retinal molevule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The proteins metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein called transducin. before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhopodpsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to cut a molecule called cGMP. Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphdiesterase lowers its concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the level of water in a bathtub. Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a seperate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ion in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of the cleavage by the phophodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell that causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain.
If the reactions were the only ones that operated in the cell, the supply of 11-cis-retinal, cGMP, and sodium ions would be quickly depleted. Something has to turn off the proteins that were turned on and restore the cell to its orignal state. Several mechanisms do this. First, in the dark the ion channel also lets calcium ions into the cell. The calcium is pumped back out by a different protein o that a constant calcium concentration is maintained. When cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channel, calcium ion concentration falls too. The phosphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMP, slows down at lower calcium concentration. Second, a protein called guanylate cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when calcium levels start to fall. Third, while all of this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically altered by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase. The modified rhodopsin then binds to a protein known as arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from activating more transducin. So the cell contains mechanisms to limit the amplified signal started by a singel photon.
Trans-retinal eventually falls off of rhodopsin and must be reconverted to 11-cis-retinal and again bound by rhodopsin to get back to the starting point for another visual cycle. To accomplish this, trans-retinal is first chemcially modified by an enzyme to trans-retinol-a form containing two more hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then converts the molecule to 11-cis-retinol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previously added hydrogen atoms to form 11-cis-retinal, a cyle is now complete.
**
That is what happens when a single photon of light strikes the eye. That isnt getting into color differentiation. The anatomy of the eye doesnt really matter. Neither does the fossil record. It doesnt matter that there are huge gaps in the record. It doesnt matter if the gaps can be explained plausibly. It doesnt tell us about whether or not the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step by step. Niether do the patterns of biogeography, or population biology, nor the tradition explanations of evolutionary theory for rudimentary organs or species abundance. This is not to say random mutations is a myth, or that darwinism fails to explain ANYTHING, or that large-scale phenomana like population genetics dont matter. They do. Until recently however evolutionary biologists could be unconcerned with the molecular details of life because so little was known about them. Now that we do know, the infintesimal world that is revealed must be explained. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| And actually im always open to new ideas. I just need something more convincing than the information I currently have. I dont pick a route then blind myself to all others. For instance, I used to think drinking alcohol was wrong both physically and morally. Then I wrote a 40 page paper on the affect of alcohol on your neuro-chemistry and I changed my mind about it being unhealthy. I then read the Bible and saw things like (not exact quote but close) "Drink , Man, and forget your misery and your poverty". And I looked up the other quotes of "Kings do not partake of the wine" and people then said Christians were kings, and we werent supposed to show a bad example.. I looked it up and the whole thing was King solomon telling his son not to drink wine before passing judgement in court lest he forget the law. I change my mind all the time on new and better information. |
|
|
| Sarcoman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal (a picosecond is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a human hair) The change in the shape of the retinal molevule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The proteins metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein called transducin. before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhopodpsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to cut a molecule called cGMP. Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphdiesterase lowers its concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the level of water in a bathtub. Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a seperate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ion in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of the cleavage by the phophodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell that causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain.
If the reactions were the only ones that operated in the cell, the supply of 11-cis-retinal, cGMP, and sodium ions would be quickly depleted. Something has to turn off the proteins that were turned on and restore the cell to its orignal state. Several mechanisms do this. First, in the dark the ion channel also lets calcium ions into the cell. The calcium is pumped back out by a different protein o that a constant calcium concentration is maintained. When cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channel, calcium ion concentration falls too. The phosphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMP, slows down at lower calcium concentration. Second, a protein called guanylate cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when calcium levels start to fall. Third, while all of this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically altered by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase. The modified rhodopsin then binds to a protein known as arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from activating more transducin. So the cell contains mechanisms to limit the amplified signal started by a singel photon.
Trans-retinal eventually falls off of rhodopsin and must be reconverted to 11-cis-retinal and again bound by rhodopsin to get back to the starting point for another visual cycle. To accomplish this, trans-retinal is first chemcially modified by an enzyme to trans-retinol-a form containing two more hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then converts the molecule to 11-cis-retinol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previously added hydrogen atoms to form 11-cis-retinal, a cyle is now complete.
**
That is what happens when a single photon of light strikes the eye. That isnt getting into color differentiation. The anatomy of the eye doesnt really matter. Neither does the fossil record. It doesnt matter that there are huge gaps in the record. It doesnt matter if the gaps can be explained plausibly. It doesnt tell us about whether or not the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step by step. Niether do the patterns of biogeography, or population biology, nor the tradition explanations of evolutionary theory for rudimentary organs or species abundance. This is not to say random mutations is a myth, or that darwinism fails to explain ANYTHING, or that large-scale phenomana like population genetics dont matter. They do. Until recently however evolutionary biologists could be unconcerned with the molecular details of life because so little was known about them. Now that we do know, the infintesimal world that is revealed must be explained. |
Essentiallthy, this is exactly what I said in my post. A lot is known about the molecular details of life, and more is being discovered each day. You say that evolutionary biologists coule be unconcerned with the molecular details fo life because so little was known about them, yet you provided an even more complex chemical explanation of what I explained one post earlier, showing that you either understand that a lot is known about the complex chemical reactions of rhodopsin, or that you were able to find a site and cut and paste the information here.
Could it be possible that it is an commentary on darwins black box???
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues...ws/johnson.html
One should not limit all their saying from one book, or few books. That person would risk exposing themselves to the mistakes and prejudices of few people. Expand your horizons. Try reading scientific journals from people that agree with evolution, and chemical processes that contribute to it, and see if you can explain why that would be wrong. By simply cutting and pasting and excerpt from the book. You obviously didnt have it in your own words, so I doubt if you understand the system very well.
Id like to refer you to another website, which i found by pasting your post in a search engine (the exact phrase you posted, listed in blue above, yeilded many exact results, which tells me you cut and pasted the material). This site discusses Evolution, and Creation both being led by blind faith, and it states that no historical event can be proven (see Introduction, section C and D). We both have to admit, that either of us could be right in our arguments, or both of us could be wrong as well (if we are honest). Although I do not beleive in a judgemental God, I choose to live a good life, which includes honesty as part of its backbone. You will see by my previous posts, and by this one, that I do not claim to know all the answers, and that I beleive in evolution because I have faith in the theory. I have also not said that you are wrong to beleive Creation, because it is also possibly correct. Neither can be proven.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oly...perstition.html |
|
|
| Orbax |
actually I just put the book on my lap and typed it. Ive mentioned this book several times. the *** was like an end quote.
and I put that in there because its a litttttle more complex than what you stated. and I was saying that EARLIER scientists didnt have to bother with microbiology. NOW they do.
And no, you probably can understand that I am a fairly well read individual. I dont put all my eggs in one basket. I happened to have this book next to my bed, and I felt that it gave a nice, neat, articulate representation. Im trying to convey a message, not my own personal intelligence. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| and yes, the majority of my reasons of why I believe the way I do fall under the Faith category. I think to believe in God and have an absolute proof of Him would be horrible. That is basically then telling people LOVE GOD OR GO TO HELL. because now you KNOW He is there and you refuse to do it even knowing the consequences. I HOPE Christianity never gets proved. I was a Christian who was PURE faith, but then I began researching related incidents for fun and to further my faith. It worked. The main main reason I do this is because many of the people I care about struggle with Christianity in some way or another. People always come to me to ask the hard questions about how evolution disproves God (this is the common perception. Evolution is taught as fact in schools and kids get inundated with it their whole life). Faith is faith. I just believe that things like running into a burning building to save someones life is counter-evolutionary. Morality is something that is ultimately bad for us because it overrides survival instincts. I feel that there is a choosing force in us called a soul, and those times when we are debating on whether or not to do something we are really resisting that choosing force. I believe in a spiritual world all around us and so forth. But again, Faith. I feel sorry for the people who cant feel a relationship with God, and have the feeling of peace and security of knowing you are in your Gods hands. Dont think im being condescending to you by pitying you, I just think its something (although not as trivial) as snowboarding, and all the skiiers out there say skiing is fun, but they arent gonna try snowboarding because they are too old or some such nonsense. Religion imparts a physical benefit of feeling good. It truly is the opiate of the masses. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| I think Palivar wanted to post here lol...go to the Chill out room and read his post on helping the guy with a computer virus. |
|
|
| davinox |
Orbax, one simple question:
What makes Christianity the right picture of God? How do you know he wants you to follow the 10 commandments, and not just live naturally? You say this is faith, but the only evidence to spur on the faith is a book written by humans. Not a very reliable source, being there are thousands of written texts on religion, all very different.
Religion is like picking a path, then molding everything you think to that path. Every idea you have is thought into that path.
I believe Buddha much more than Jesus, because what Buddha says makes sense today, and is not reliant on a Big Brother outside, and is a way of enlightenment. Why does Jesus get all the credit?
I think it's a dartboard for picking religions, therefore, I don't think we know everything. Orbax, you believe you know everything. (well, not everything, but you believe you know for sure why we are here, and what's going on at all times.) Humans are constantly being proved wrong with discoveries, we are not that smart.
Am I going to hell because I'm not picking a path, and I won't believe a book written years ago that can be interpretted a million different ways? |
|
|
|
|
