Religion...

Aethiests don't believe anything until it's proven, I said at the beginning if the theory is true.

So I don't disbelieve anything until it's proven - I'm just more inclined to believe something that highly intelligent scientists and physiscists from around the world with modern technology have come up with, than a several times translated 2000 year old book that's been chinese whispered through the generations!

also the same "scientific community" now accepts that all humans originated from one place, somewhere in africa... and if you looks at some of the religious "text"... it also states this.

err Ray (and penguin), it's an extremely complicated system that was fluked

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

I don't understand what everyone's point is? Some people think that 'god' created man, others think that evolution created man...the original subject was what relligion we all are and its clear from the survey that most people don't believe in anything..fair enough right?

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

You still haven't grasped the concept of infinite.

If there are inifinite universes, then there are inifinite universes where this HIGHLY unlikely scenario is true.

 

So I don't disbelieve anything until it's proven - I'm just more inclined to believe something that highly intelligent scientists and physiscists from around the world with modern technology have come up with, than a several times translated 2000 year old book that's been chinese whispered through the generations!

yet its the same "highly intelligent scientists" who said a number of years ago the atom is the smallest thing, only to realise later when "more modern" technology came along, that the atom consisted of nutrons, protons, electrons...

i for one belive that GOD - is an infinite energy.... when people think of god they automatically think of a human like being sitting on a chair ... (joke aside, this was the answer i got from some of the athiests who i work with .... too many films me thinks!).... If you see GOD as an energy, god will be EVERYWHERE....

You still haven't grasped the concept of infinite.

 

If there are inifinite universes, then there are inifinite universes where this HIGHLY unlikely scenario is true.

Humans cannot create. i.e you can only make something if you are given the materials.

You cannot create something from nothing.

Whereas god can CREATE from nothing.

Thats what i believe anyway...

does that make sense? lol

I don't understand what everyone's point is? Some people think that 'god' created man, others think that evolution created man...the original subject was what relligion we all are and its clear from the survey that most people don't believe in anything..fair enough right?

ah but its good to stretch the old braincells now and then

You still haven't grasped the concept of infinite.

 

If there are inifinite universes, then there are inifinite universes where this HIGHLY unlikely scenario is true.

Erm - surely if there ARE infinite universes, then is it not also the case that there are also an infinite number of universes where a god-being DOES exist?

Parked firmly in the agnostic camp here. You'll never be able to prove anything anyway - half our accepted laws of physics aren't necessarily correct in all circumstances. And as for religion, nobody has evenly vaguely proved the existence of a superbeing or a meaning for life or any of creation - in fact even if a supposed superbeing appeared in front of me and did something superbeingish, it could all just be an illusion based on some aspect of science that we don't understand either.

Give up trying to prove stuff - it's not worth the effort! Instead I choose to focus on things that I DO know - for example doing things that I enjoy doing make me feel good!

all IMO, and without prejudice.

Lucifer-mkivstore.com But to be fair... If I was a time traveller and wanted everyone under my control... I would defo go and heal a couple of pesants and hydrate some bread and fish.

All you people who do believe in GOD , go ready Stephen Hawking

, Brief history of time. Very interesting - lots of references to God in there.

Stephen Hawking "I do not accept any explanation that involves God in any way" - Most biased scientist on Earth. Try reading "Darwins black box" by Michael J Behe, who trough scientific experiments defeats Darwins ideas one by one and completely destroys the evolution theory. Behe is the reference scientist of our age.

You can buy a book of 50 other scientists of pedigree who agree with Behe's findings called "In six days" which I have read along with Hawking and various Humanists etc, when one considers the weight of evidence vs theory it quickly becomes clear that there are too many men in white coats with health service style 70's glasses writing long winded papers on fantasy based theories on creation and using it to discredit any notion of a God, and trying to make themselves look super intelligent. One thing i cant stand is the nation being fed theoretical shyte, which its currently up to its ears in.

Hawkings finds it easy to console his mind that he is a dna accident with his own theories, if it makes him happy well good enough, but why poison the nation with it.

Tbourner ; for example there was a Jesus Christ 2000 odd years ago, there was an Adam and Eve, there was a Noahs ark etc.. Bullcrap.

Sorry to contradict, The Jews (those who killed) say there was a Christ 2000 years ago, they ought to know, there only gripe was his exact identity. The romans also have records of such a person. The actions (from a humanist point of view) of the 11 disciples after Calvary being that 8 died horrid deaths at the hands of non believers because they would not recant their witness accounts of the works of Christ, proves in itself that these were honest men. If there was bullshit involved then surely one in the face of death ( for example being skinned alive and crucified upside down) would have let the cat out of the bag to save themselves. This being an example of Human nature. Noah's ark was found over a decade ago in the Afgan mountains.

Genetics tell us that the human race was started by 12 couples. Who can say that with further research and learning that they wont narrow it down to one couple with super DNA.? As DNA is still a new science and will learning will continue it would be better to re address this question in perhaps 10 years time.

In some parts of the world they are so drunk on theory that school assembly starts with the likes of "lets take a reading from page 4 "origin of species" lmao.

AS far as the scientists who claim to have it all sussed with evolution / humanism/ non God culture, consider the following

Four commonly believed facts about the scientist in the white coat

1. He is unbiased

2. He is objective

3. He is infallible

4. He wears a white coat

Four truths about scientists

1. He is biased (look at his books and peers)

2. He is not objective

3. He is human!!

4. He seldom wears a white coat.

Of a few things that I know tie up in world religions.

1. they all have the same basic creation story, no matter how unconnected the cultures may be, and same approx date of it too.

2. The Chinese being very early writers, have there own set of records on tortoise plastron (Oracle bone writing), which Confucius (551- 479bc) found to be a mystery that he didnt fully understand. However in later times these shells have been read by archaeologists and found to have the same creation account, and early life accounts, and synchronises with biblical history. How on earth could that be?

3. Ask Muslims did Moses exist? you'll be surprised.

Current worldide culture presents two competing pictures. Naturalism and creationism (ism's they are everywhere lol). BY the rules of Logic, specifically the law of non-contratiction, both pictures cant be true at the same time.

Most interesting was the finding of Phillip Johnson, a law professor of univ of Calif. He stuck Darwins work on trial and concluded.#

"In short, if evolution means the gradual change of one kind of organism into another kind, the outstanding characteristic of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution."

The whole relevance of this is that evolution/ humanism is used for the destruction of religion.

I guess Johnson was motivated by the embarrassing revisit in the 1970's to the fossil record of 1859 which was pretty much identical to the 1970s one, when SJ Gould, Eldridge and Stanley "proposed a new theory" (yeah thats right made up more bullshit) called punctuated equilibrium (some retards actually admire and respect this ) to deal with this embarrassing fact of bugger all change.

Burying one head in the sandpit of denial is the only way to avoid the overwhelming evidence against the evolution/humanist/naturalist camp. However so many do just this in order to reconcile their own lives to themselves.

I would be very interested to re evaluate this religious question in five years time when loads more information shall have been put forward for scientific evaluation, acceptance or dismissal on the basis of what can be proven.

Perhaps considering the fast and vicious effects of ageing by water will close the fossil subject to a conclusion at last.

Well thats my 10p's worth for your consideration. be sure i tell nobody what to think, just sharing with you some of my learning.

Erm - surely if there ARE infinite universes, then is it not also the case that there are also an infinite number of universes where a god-being DOES exist?

Yes, but I would assume a 'god' would not be held within the confines of our universe and it's 'laws', it being omniscient/omnipresent/omnipotent, therefore exists in a different dimension, with it's own universal laws (whether it be universe or multiverse or omniverse in 'his' dimension!).

:spanish: OH ho, did i hijack this?

all IMO, and without prejudice.

 

Lucifer-mkivstore.com But to be fair... If I was a time traveller and wanted everyone under my control... I would defo go and heal a couple of pesants and hydrate some bread and fish.

 

All you people who do believe in GOD , go ready Stephen Hawking

, Brief history of time. Very interesting - lots of references to God in there.

 

Stephen Hawking "I do not accept any explanation that involves God in any way" - Most biased scientist on Earth. Try reading "Darwins black box" by Michael J Behe, who trough scientific experiments defeats Darwins ideas one by one and completely destroys the evolution theory. Behe is the reference scientist of our age.

You can buy a book of 50 other scientists of pedigree who agree with Behe's findings called "In six days" which I have read along with Hawking and various Humanists etc, when one considers the weight of evidence vs theory it quickly becomes clear that there are too many men in white coats with health service style 70's glasses writing long winded papers on fantasy based theories on creation and using it to discredit any notion of a God, and trying to make themselves look super intelligent. One thing i cant stand is the nation being fed theoretical shyte, which its currently up to its ears in.

Hawkings finds it easy to console his mind that he is a dna accident with his own theories, if it makes him happy well good enough, but why poison the nation with it.

 

Tbourner ; for example there was a Jesus Christ 2000 odd years ago, there was an Adam and Eve, there was a Noahs ark etc.. Bullcrap.

 

Sorry to contradict, The Jews (those who killed) say there was a Christ 2000 years ago, they ought to know, there only gripe was his exact identity. The romans also have records of such a person. The actions (from a humanist point of view) of the 11 disciples after Calvary being that 8 died horrid deaths at the hands of non believers because they would not recant their witness accounts of the works of Christ, proves in itself that these were honest men. If there was bullshit involved then surely one in the face of death ( for example being skinned alive and crucified upside down) would have let the cat out of the bag to save themselves. This being an example of Human nature. Noah's ark was found over a decade ago in the Afgan mountains.

Genetics tell us that the human race was started by 12 couples. Who can say that with further research and learning that they wont narrow it down to one couple with super DNA.? As DNA is still a new science and will learning will continue it would be better to re address this question in perhaps 10 years time.

In some parts of the world they are so drunk on theory that school assembly starts with the likes of "lets take a reading from page 4 "origin of species" lmao.

 

AS far as the scientists who claim to have it all sussed with evolution / humanism/ non God culture, consider the following

Four commonly believed facts about the scientist in the white coat

1. He is unbiased

2. He is objective

3. He is infallible

4. He wears a white coat

 

Four truths about scientists

1. He is biased (look at his books and peers)

2. He is not objective

3. He is human!!

4. He seldom wears a white coat.

 

Of a few things that I know tie up in world religions.

1. they all have the same basic creation story, no matter how unconnected the cultures may be, and same approx date of it too.

2. The Chinese being very early writers, have there own set of records on tortoise plastron (Oracle bone writing), which Confucius (551- 479bc) found to be a mystery that he didnt fully understand. However in later times these shells have been read by archaeologists and found to have the same creation account, and early life accounts, and synchronises with biblical history. How on earth could that be?

3. Ask Muslims did Moses exist? you'll be surprised.

 

Current worldide culture presents two competing pictures. Naturalism and creationism (ism's they are everywhere lol). BY the rules of Logic, specifically the law of non-contratiction, both pictures cant be true at the same time.

 

Most interesting was the finding of Phillip Johnson, a law professor of univ of Calif. He stuck Darwins work on trial and concluded.#

"In short, if evolution means the gradual change of one kind of organism into another kind, the outstanding characteristic of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution."

 

The whole relevance of this is that evolution/ humanism is used for the destruction of religion.

 

I guess Johnson was motivated by the embarrassing revisit in the 1970's to the fossil record of 1859 which was pretty much identical to the 1970s one, when SJ Gould, Eldridge and Stanley "proposed a new theory" (yeah thats right made up more bullshit) called punctuated equilibrium (some retards actually admire and respect this ) to deal with this embarrassing fact of bugger all change.

 

Burying one head in the sandpit of denial is the only way to avoid the overwhelming evidence against the evolution/humanist/naturalist camp. However so many do just this in order to reconcile their own lives to themselves.

 

I would be very interested to re evaluate this religious question in five years time when loads more information shall have been put forward for scientific evaluation, acceptance or dismissal on the basis of what can be proven.

 

Perhaps considering the fast and vicious effects of ageing by water will close the fossil subject to a conclusion at last.

 

Well thats my 10p's worth for your consideration. be sure i tell nobody what to think, just sharing with you some of my learning.

I'm not reading it again!

Wish I had time to write more lmao, have to go and finish removing some cams for Soonto.

Well like I said I don't disbelieve in god, I also don't believe completely in science (as it keeps changing!! Earth is flat etc.).

But I refuse to let religion affect my life, I act on my own morals and that's enough for me, I think I'm a good person without religion. I'd rather live life to the full and find out there is a heaven and I'm invited - than live life around rules and find out there's bugger all at the end!!

Well like I said I don't disbelieve in god, I also don't believe completely in science (as it keeps changing!! Earth is flat etc.).

But I refuse to let religion affect my life, I act on my own morals and that's enough for me, I think I'm a good person without religion. I'd rather live life to the full and find out there is a heaven and I'm invited - than live life around rules and find out there's bugger all at the end!!

BUT - the rules are there for a reason - i.e. are the ten commandments a bad thing? and imagine on the other hand there is an afterlife......

Well like I said I don't disbelieve in god, I also don't believe completely in science (as it keeps changing!! Earth is flat etc.).

But I refuse to let religion affect my life, I act on my own morals and that's enough for me, I think I'm a good person without religion. I'd rather live life to the full and find out there is a heaven and I'm invited - than live life around rules and find out there's bugger all at the end!!

Plus you follow rules/laws of the land - man made laws.... i think were all "conditioned" into living in the box and not accepting anything outside of it... or even accepting that an outside exists...

I heard a great statement the other day:

"Unlike religion, science doesn't claim to know ALL the answers to EVERYTHING".

Also, I forget how it was worded but the implication on top of this was that any suggestions scientists make are based on logic and 'theory', whereas religion claims to know as a fact, with no evidence other than some book written so many years ago. There is no allowance for error in any religion, their beliefs MUST be right, yet they all contradict each other in saying there is one god - what one god per religion?

I f*****g hate everything about religion and everything that goes with it. It causes nothing but problems - war, conflict, racism etc. The whole idea of religion to me is arrogance in it's purest form - how anyone can believe that there is some being/person/whatever up there and only one, when there are so many other religions in existence (not including Jedi!). Every strongly religious person I have ever come across is completely close minded to any other idea as well other than their beliefs, not even willing to consider that what they believe in is rubbish. This may well not be ALL strongly religious people, but this is what I have come across anyway.

Just thought I'd have a bit of a say, cos it's a subject I feel very strongly about (in case you couldn't tell!). Apologies if I've offended anyone but free speach and all that....

Oh by the way, I voted athiest

BUT - the rules are there for a reason - i.e. are the ten commandments a bad thing? and imagine on the other hand there is an afterlife......

Yeah I know but almost everyone has broken the 'old' rules nowadays, it's more of a guide. I don't go around hurting people for no reason and raping and murdering etc. I speed sometimes and think about sex etc. If those are hellworthy sins then we're all screwed?

I live by my own morals which I think are good enough, but because of who I am not because I'm scared of going to hell. I don't go to church and worship a god, which apparently is enough to go to hell (fascist?), if so then so be it - it's a risk I'm willing to take if it means I get to live this wonderful life that I've been blessed (wrong word for me to use!) with.

Well like I said I don't disbelieve in god, I also don't believe completely in science (as it keeps changing!! Earth is flat etc.).

But I refuse to let religion affect my life, I act on my own morals and that's enough for me, I think I'm a good person without religion. I'd rather live life to the full and find out there is a heaven and I'm invited - than live life around rules and find out there's bugger all at the end!!

Trev, you have hit the nail on the head. Life is for living! I'm all for that. If either believers or non believers considers the basic foundations of say our local religion in this part of the world Christianity, and can apply them to their life, it makes the world a better place. Some of what I refer to is the SEVENTEEN references in the new testament to giving to the poor (says nothing about the new S500 you want to park outside church), the reluctance to accept the man made rules and parameters of life corrupted by some church leaders (Christ fought against this and it cost him a crucifixion)

not doing onto others as you would not have done unto yourself, being a good neighbour, respect of parents, honest dealings, and the book of proverbs which is still the best wisdom book written as a general guide to life (it advises rather than preaches) then society is a better place for it. Man left to his own devices is in constant self distract mode.

I have to confess to being astounded at the charitableness and honesty of some friend of mine from Manowar India, who's noble character was shaped by their religious upbringing. So rather than using religion as the scape goat for human corruption, either embrace or respect it, but to denounce is to ignore the history of charity and love.

Has anyone seen the film "The Gods Must Be Crazy"?

You believe in what you want and go by how you want to live your lives -all cool with me.

But what I want to know is why do you believe?

Any one can say I believe in

I choose not to believe because there is nothing but circumstantial evidence of an existense of a God.

The film for example mentioned at the begining of my post.

A discarded Coke bottle falls from the sky from a low flying airplane. The aborigines worship this strange creature that often flies overhead so they figure this unfamilar object (the coke bottle) was a gift from their god. They found good uses for it until they started fighting over it and hitting each other with it. Therefore they concluded the gods must have been crazy to give them this evil thing (the coke bottle). So they start a quest to throw it off the edge of the world.

It was onced believed that the world was flat. The gods lived high above the clouds...........

I heard a great statement the other day:

 

"Unlike religion, science doesn't claim to know the answers to everything".

 

Also, I forget how it was worded but the implication on top of this was that any suggestions scientists make are based on logic and 'theory', whereas religion claims to know as a fact, with no evidence other than some book written so many years ago. There is no allowance for error in any religion, their beliefs MUST be right, yet they all contradict each other in saying there is one god - what one god per religion?

That was the program that was on "The route of all evil?".

Again, as I said earlier, if it'd been stated that it was metaphorical then that'd be fine.

It can't be true word for word, why would the Christian god have created Muslims? (and no you can't just say 'god works in mysterious ways!').

And aren't we all basing this conversation on a translated version of any religious book, therefore not the original text, therefore it is actually one mans viewpoint and not the word of god.

That was the program that was on "The route of all evil?".

 

Again, as I said earlier, if it'd been stated that it was metaphorical then that'd be fine.

It can't be true word for word, why would the Christian god have created Muslims? (and no you can't just say 'god works in mysterious ways!').

 

And aren't we all basing this conversation on a translated version of any religious book, therefore not the original text, therefore it is actually one mans viewpoint and not the word of god.

Think it was on that yeah.

The saying 'God works in mysterious ways' is total bullshit, the only people who use this are religious people who cannot explain things that happen, the cliche question "why does God let bad things happen?". Because of religion, disagreement, conflict, territory etc, nothing to do with some god 'punishing' people etc. The daft thing is, say two countries were at war, and the two countries had - on the whole - different religious followings, who's god is it that's punishing them? It's just silly to me.

Yeah you're probably right, we are all basing this on some translated version, but what else do people have to go off? Do people actually know for sure that there WAS an original text? Everything is about opinions, whther it be of some guy/guys who wrote a book, or the interpretation of whatever text. I know I'm probably contradicting myself, but I'm pretty close minded to the whole religion idea, until I see any remote kind of slight evidence to suggest there may be a god I'll not change.

Bloody hell I should really get off my soap box!

Organised religion and belief in a specific religious aspect are two different things.

Arguably, a lot of good things have come out of organised religion. Not because God exists or anything like that, but because humans have used the supposed existence of God/Gods/afterlife to intill rules on people that have lead to social advances, people sometimes being nice to eachother, etc.....

On the flip side, lots of bad things have come out of organised religion - wars, killing, oppression, etc.

Whether or not organised religion is a good thing can be argued either way. We have no evidence of what society would be like without it, as we are already laden with a history of society WITH organised religion.

Individual beliefs are not worth arguing over. You can look at all the arguments for evolution and believe it if you like. 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.....

ie. a big waste of time!

QED