Religion...

[SuperSupra]

You can look at all the arguments against it and believe them instead, but you still can't necessarily PROVE anything. Even if you can disprove something, it doesn't help: disproving evolution does NOT prove that God exists.

As you can't prove anything either way, actually trying to debate this is pretty much like standing infront of eachother shouting "YES", "NO", "YES", "NO", etc.....

 

 

Very good points my friend, especially the evolution bit

 

p.s. don't know why that quote came up like that!

[Guest chiefvinso]

I think we are in a world, just like the Matrix......

 

On what is the meaning of life, I have been asking this for some time and still dont know. We are born and we die - in between its survival and in our day its about meeting our needs as best we can and creating a new generation (not all would want to breed).

[SkyJawa]

Look. Can we sort this out the best way poss. Eg my completely non-extremist way.

 

Religion is a crock of bollocks.

God - if he does exist is a complete twat to let what happens on this earth carry on.

 

End of.

[Chiefgroover]

Even if you can disprove something, it doesn't help: disproving evolution does NOT prove that God exists.

 

 

Totally correct, disproving wont prove something else. However it does disprove England's biggest religion, Atheism, which is driven by the evolution/humanist brigade. Its also the most dangerous religion in the world. It has no parameters, totally without solid doctrine, and can "evolve" into any unmoral society it likes.

Hubble bubble, big bang got into trouble, and subsequently died lmao. The beano read better to me !

 

I always enjoy the "we came from the planet X" statements some people make. It just shifts all the same questions to planet X

[Charlotte]

Look. Can we sort this out the best way poss. Eg my completely non-extremist way.

 

Religion is a crock of bollocks.

God - if he does exist is a complete twat to let what happens on this earth carry on.

 

End of.

 

 

Excellent summary!

 

is it wrong to like an extremist in any form????

[SuperSupra]

Look. Can we sort this out the best way poss. Eg my completely non-extremist way.

 

Religion is a crock of bollocks.

God - if he does exist is a complete twat to let what happens on this earth carry on.

 

End of.

 

Abso-bloody-lutely! Good call

[toyotasuprauk]

Look. Can we sort this out the best way poss. Eg my completely non-extremist way.

 

Religion is a crock of bollocks.

God - if he does exist is a complete twat to let what happens on this earth carry on.

 

End of.

 

[tbourner]

disproving wont prove something else. However it does disprove England's biggest religion, Atheism, which is driven by the evolution/humanist brigade.

 

Eh? I thought Aethiesm was godlessness. That's what the definition of it is, what's that got to do with 'how we got here'? Aethiests simply don't believe there is a god that created us - doesn't mean we have to believe the current theory of evolution, or indeed that there was no creator, just that (if the person so believes) that creator is not a being to be worshipped, simply a builder.

[SuperSupra]

Eh? I thought Aethiesm was godlessness. That's what the definition of it is, what's that got to do with 'how we got here'? Aethiests simply don't believe there is a god that created us - doesn't mean we have to believe the current theory of evolution, or indeed that there was no creator, just that (if the person so believes) that creator is not a being to be worshipped, simply a builder.

 

Taken from a website talking about the definition of the word atheism:

 

Atheism is traditionally defined as disbelief in the existence of God. As such, atheism involves active rejection of belief in the existence of God.

 

However, since there are many concepts of God and these concepts are usually rooted in some culture or tradition, atheism might be defined as the belief that a particular word used to refer to a particular god is a word that has no reference. Thus, there are as many different kinds of atheism as there are names of gods.

 

Interesting......

[AJI]

I think evolution has been proven beyond all shaddow of a doubt has it not?

The collective geologists, historians, biologists have countless bones and fossils stored in museams and laboratories which have been collected and dated to years gone by.... studying these have proven that mutations and deformations occur. Simple chemical/biological experiments on basic bacteria and on lab-mice have also shown that mutations enable living things to survive in a new environment that without the change they wouldn't last long in.

They have found bone structures which link the progression of ape to human and the genetic build up of an ape is only 1% different to that of a human.

 

Is this view not seen as more plausable to the various alternatives which are written in the many different religion books?

[attilauk]

personally i believe that the Big Bang theory and Evoloution are a realistic and logical explanation of why we are here. They are based on what we know to be true and what can be measured instead of simply saying "God did it!"

[SuperSupra]

One argument (me being the devils advocate here) is that how do we know what scientists are telling us is true? Yeah sure we are being told how it is and believe it because, well, because it must be right.........right? Well who knows. The whole moon landing thing comes up often in conversations like this - was it real? I think it was but how do we know for sure? Like everything it all comes down to opinions.

[Snooze]

.....However it does disprove England's biggest religion, Atheism, which is driven by the evolution/humanist brigade......

 

Errrr - no. I could be an atheist who doesn't believe in evolution. Equally, I could believe in a God AND in evolution. Atheism and evolution are not necessarily synonymous (can we add "Pantheism" to the poll? ).

 

You say it "does disprove atheism". Even if this were logically correct, which it's not (as above), I'm afraid you still have to say "would disprove atheism", as there's always still a possibility (the actual amount differs on a personal opinion basis - eg. you're 0% convinced by evolution theories - I'm 99% convinced by evolution theories) that evolution DID happen.

 

.....Its also the most dangerous religion in the world. It has no parameters, totally without solid doctrine, and can "evolve" into any unmoral society it likes.

 

Actually - this statement I'd have to potentially agree on. Although a lot of evil things have been done in the name of various religions, there is plenty of evidence that would suggest that without religion, the human race would end up wiping itself out (or would have done so already). The decline of "humanity" in Western civilisation for example.

 

(do, however, note that I use "humanity" rather than your use of "morality", as I'm only attempting to place value on the survival of the human race, human life and human happiness, rather than the assuming that ALL MY "morals" are the ones by which everyone else should be living their life......)

[Chiefgroover]

I think evolution has been proven beyond all shaddow of a doubt has it not?

The collective geologists, historians, biologists have countless bones and fossils stored in museams and laboratories which have been collected and dated to years gone by.... studying these have proven that mutations and deformations occur. Simple chemical/biological experiments on basic bacteria and on lab-mice have also shown that mutations enable living things to survive in a new environment that without the change they wouldn't last long in.

They have found bone structures which link the progression of ape to human and the genetic build up of an ape is only 1% different to that of a human.

 

Is this view not seen as more plausable to the various alternatives which are written in the many different religion books?

 

Ok a few things to consider on man from the ape.

No ancestor for man has ever been convincingly documented.

Neandertal man - actually proven human with severe diseases, such as rickets, severe arthritus, they were able to speak and in their enviroment traces of religous practice have been found. Do consider the impact of a scientist declaring "I have found the missing link between man and ape". Lectures high brow societys, books to write and sell, and at the end of it all maybe a Flordia mansion and a couple of cute babes under your arm. IF someone corrects you, you congratulate them on surpassing your work and keep the dosh. what is it that corrupts humans the most? money?

 

Here is a list of now defunct ape man

 

Ramapithecus - once regarded as an ancestor, now identified as a rare and extint Orabgutan. (Missed starring in a Clint Eastwood movie by about 5,000 years)

 

Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) a hoax, human skull cap and Orangutans jaw, published and "respected" for 40 years until it was caught on.

 

Hesperopithecus (Nesbraska man) based on the single tooth of a pig now living only in Paraguay

 

Java man (not a computer programmer) now regarded as a human

 

Australopithecus africanus - once the missing link, now ignored by evolutionists ( I think it was Rolf Harris)

 

Peking man (probably did a mean chicken fried rice) reclassified as human at a later date.

 

Current string of hopefuls trying to get into the human club

 

Australopithecus - e.g. "Lucy" which is actually a more human like Chimp or Bonobo. Not Human

 

Homo habilis - its an invalid taxon, such a creature never existed, just a mix of bones like a 1600 cc mkiv supra.

 

Homo erectus - takes in java man and peking man (spring rolls while trying to surf mkiv.com ?) closest relative, but still no solid evidence.

 

So i am a ape sceptic? just dont like gettting suckered by hopeful scientists.

 

Some baboon back in 97 got up on his soapbox in the USA (where else?) and declared that he had proved evolution, within 2 months he had recanted his statement, another attentions seeker with no solid evidence.

 

Errrr - no. I could be an atheist who doesn't believe in evolution. Equally, I could believe in a God AND in evolution. Atheism and evolution are not necessarily synonymous (can we add "Pantheism" to the poll? ).

 

How can you believe in God and leave out Genesis? seems the misused and fallable dating methods e.g. carbon-14 (14c) the fine details of, revolve around uniform decay rates (like 12C) which i have addressed in an earlier post. May I add that anything that is supposedly over 50000 years old would have no 14c left. Also the rate of decay of 14c is such that it will convert back to 14N in approx 5730 +/- 40 years.

Also the 14c/12c ratio in the atmosphere has not been constant, everything from the testing of atomic bombs to the industrial revolution took good care of this. So the very old eath theory dies a death there.

 

Science can be very interesting, but if you believe all the science you read you'll eat all you see.

 

I cant give physical proof in a material way of a God existance, but i cant disprove it either, if I were he, and had that sort of power I would be insulted at being asked to prove myself!.

 

Evolution is religion, with the God figure missing, unless you consider Mr.Darwin just that!

[Chiefgroover]

Nice to see a great debate on this site without anyone getting all hot and bothered!.

 

Who knows maybe Muslim will be the biggest religion in England in 20 years time.

[SuperSupra]

Nice to see a great debate on this site without anyone getting all hot and bothered!.

 

Here here

[Gerry]

I'm leaving it until the very last minute before I decide just in case I get a clue as to which ones right ... :drown:

 

PS... if there is a God who reads this forum, please note that the Devil made me write this OK.

 

PPS... Please also note God, that I did write your name with a Capital letter OK.

 

PPPs... If he (oops) does read the furum, wonder if he peeks at the NWS posts ?

 

[Chiefgroover]

 

PPPs... If he (oops) does read the furum, wonder if he peeks at the NWS posts ?

 

 

He says he has made all things even the bad, I suppose in balance (just look at the USA and Canada LMAO) and I guess if he had wanted dodgy NWS posts he would have given us the 10 suggestions !

[Snooze]

Errrr - no. I could be an atheist who doesn't believe in evolution. Equally, I could believe in a God AND in evolution. Atheism and evolution are not necessarily synonymous (can we add "Pantheism" to the poll? ).

 

How can you believe in God and leave out Genesis?

 

Errr - I said "A" God, not YOUR God.

 

No reason you can't have a religion with a "God"-concept without being creationist. That's exactly what Pantheism pertains to - that a God didn't create the universe, but in fact everything in the universe is a constituent part of a "God".

 

Evolution is religion, with the God figure missing, unless you consider Mr.Darwin just that!

 

Exactly! Believing in evolution can be considered just a "religion", really. But I explicitly stated that I wasn't 100% convinced by evolution theories, whereas you are (I understand - sorry if I'm being presumptuous) 100% convinced of the existence of your "God".

[Snooze]

Nice to see a great debate on this site without anyone getting all hot and bothered!.

 

I agree - I really enjoy hearing other peoples' viewpoints like this.

 

[chilli]

If i gave you 10 marbles... and you numberd them from 1-10 and put them in a bag... then shook the bag up.

Then if you was asked you to pick out the marbles 1 by 1... what are the chances of you picking out the marbles in order from 1 to 10...

 

i.e no. 1 first , no. 2 sencond etc...

 

the answer is 20 million:1

 

how complicated is the human body compared to a bag of marbles! Do you think this was a fluke?

 

Think about our solar system and the way the Earth revolves around the sun etc... Is this all a fluke?

 

 

I dont think so, just humans way of trying to explain it. hehe

 

Read Richard Dawkin's climbing mount improbable and you will understand this much better.

 

Ok evolution is just a theory, but it totally eclipses any other rational explanation of why complex beings exist.

 

People get mixed up between chance, improbability and evolution, thinking that evolution is just a process of chance, it is not!

 

We did not go from nothing to complex things like man as a fluke, this would indeed be true magic!

 

But over literally millions, even billions of years two things have been happening.

 

Occassional random mutation and survival of the fittest. Inch by inch, only the fittest (i.e. best at surviving - ultimately possessing brains, eyes etc) have survived as a process of gradual but continue improvement. Any mutations resulting in reduced capacity to survive naturally die out. Sharp eyesight, good hearing, large brains all equip the possessor with better facilities to survive and hence tend to persist, cumulatively things get better and better, and this tends to mean, more and more complex.

 

That's what I meant when I said earlier, we are here in some sense because it was 'inevitable'.

 

Looking at achieving it all in just one step, now the chances of that literally are infantesimily small -> but it doesn't happen that way. The theory does not predict that a random inanimate object like a table or even an existing lifeform would turn spontaneously into a new lifeform, this doesn't happen (and this is why we don't see monkies turn into humans!).

 

At some stage a mutation of monkey spawned more human like forms that then evolved to where we are, but monkies remained because there is a stable equilibrium between us and them (i.e. neither is forcing the other to go extinct etc).

 

If we could see way into the future, another mutation of monkey may have spawned another species entirely, and a mutation of human may have done likewise... it's impossible to say looking forward, because the mutations themselves individually are random! All we can say is by this process, better, more advanced forms will appear, and looking back, these forms will say "wow, isn't it improbable that we exist... ;)" - or maybe they won't if they have finally got their head (with better brain) around the whole evolution thing...

[attilauk]

No reason you can't have a religion with a "God"-concept without being creationist. That's exactly what Pantheism pertains to - that a God didn't create the universe, but in fact everything in the universe is a constituent part of a "God".

 

i agree, Taoism has no god figure either instead "Tao" or god is basically everything in balance (Man & Woman, Light & Dark, Good & Bad etc)

 

Taoism (pronounced Daoism) is the basis of Tai Chi and predates Christianity:zen:

[chilli]

i agree, Taoism has no god figure either instead "Tao" or god is basically everything in balance (Man & Woman, Light & Dark, Good & Bad etc)

 

Taoism (pronounced Daoism) is the basis of Tai Chi and predates Christianity:zen:

 

I quite like this idea, that there is no external God, only the universe, and it is destined to produce complex, sentinent beings from nothingness. Energy to Particles to Atoms to Molecules to Complex Molecules that manipulate others to basic replicators to DNA to single cell organisms to simple organisms to animals, conscious beings etc... created by natural progression over imense periods of time. The universe and its physics created us, that's our God and we are all both part of it and the end result, so far...

[Chiefgroover]

Read Richard Dawkin's climbing mount improbable and you will understand this much better.

 

Ok evolution is just a theory, but it totally eclipses any other rational explanation of why complex beings exist.

 

People get mixed up between chance, improbability and evolution, thinking that evolution is just a process of chance, it is not!

 

We did not go from nothing to complex things like man as a fluke, this would indeed be true magic!

 

But over literally millions, even billions of years two things have been happening.

 

Occassional random mutation and survival of the fittest. Inch by inch, only the fittest (i.e. best at surviving - ultimately possessing brains, eyes etc) have survived as a process of gradual but continue improvement. Any mutations resulting in reduced capacity to survive naturally die out. Sharp eyesight, good hearing, large brains all equip the possessor with better facilities to survive and hence tend to persist, cumulatively things get better and better, and this tends to mean, more and more complex.

 

That's what I meant when I said earlier, we are here in some sense because it was 'inevitable'.

 

Looking at achieving it all in just one step, now the chances of that literally are infantesimily small -> but it doesn't happen that way. The theory does not predict that a random inanimate object like a table or even an existing lifeform would turn spontaneously into a new lifeform, this doesn't happen (and this is why we don't see monkies turn into humans!).

 

At some stage a mutation of monkey spawned more human like forms that then evolved to where we are, but monkies remained because there is a stable equilibrium between us and them (i.e. neither is forcing the other to go extinct etc).

 

If we could see way into the future, another mutation of monkey may have spawned another species entirely, and a mutation of human may have done likewise... it's impossible to say looking forward, because the mutations themselves individually are random! All we can say is by this process, better, more advanced forms will appear, and looking back, these forms will say "wow, isn't it improbable that we exist... ;)" - or maybe they won't if they have finally got their head (with better brain) around the whole evolution thing...

 

Well it would need to start with solid evidence of man coming from the ape.

Also someone would need to be able to prove millions of years (carbon dating cant, and big bang is dead theory).

I find the animal world very interesting. So many creatures totally defy evolution. The Giraffe and its blood flow system to its head, could never have evolved, it was sure to fail. The woodpecker would have knocked his brains out before he could develop the shock absorbed beak, the list is endless of animals who could not have survived evolution but are with us.

Evolution promotes racism, this we have seen with Hitler. Consider 3,000,000,000 base pairs, 85% within local ethnic group variation, 9% between ethnic and linguistic groups, and 6% between races. 0.2% max between individuals (ref. Guntin 1994 - end of the rainbow). Genetic unity means for instance, that say white americans although ostensibly far removed from black americans in phenotype, can sometimes be better tissue matches for them than other black americans. Race? what races, only ones I know are at tracks.

Evolution is one of the most fascinating subjects there is, if you are willing to live with a load of theories and assumptions, it can offer the student a fantastic sense of understanding with its "if we dont have an answer we can soon manufacture one style". It works great for most people, but i can handle only small amounts of theory at a time, it just seems too far fetched on most occasions. Everyone to their own. Man I am fed up sitting in front of a computer today, I dont think I have ever typed this much in here in a day.

:spanish: I now retire from this as I am knackered and losing the will to live

[CJ]

Do you know what I like most about my religious beliefs? It is the fact that they are mine and give me comfort. I dont try to force them onto anyone or try to explain why everyone else is wrong and must be a moron for not believing. I dont try to justify them with facts, fiction or theories. I dont need to because I dont give a flying feck if anyone else believes in what I believe in or not.

 

My beliefs work for me...thats all that matters.