May I talk about religion? (864 hits)
Category: NoneRating: -0.96 on 59 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by EvolvedChicken (View user info) at 2005-08-17 02:36:43 EDT
Right now, I shall first start off by stating that if religion and philosophy bores you just leave and don't bother commenting. I am a man who loves reading and discussing both topics. Now, in this writing, it is realized that I may slip away from the topic and start to ramble. Please be patient. Let me also say that no, I do not think I have everything figured out. I acknowledge the fact that no man can no matter how much knowledge they have. Also, if what I say seems to be insulting your intelligence, I apologize. I know I will be mocked and laughed at. Therefore, I am ready for it. Now that I have said this, I guess I'll start.
We all know how for so long, man has wondered how it's existence has started. We've come up with our own theories with science and religion. But the problem is that there are so many religions and theories that it's frustrating. A person usually picks a belief depending on how they grew up. Most of the time, it's what the parents teach. At a very young age, a child would trust the parents more. Still there are cases where a person is converted. Anything could cause it whether it's church, a friend, books or even an offspring. It's happened with my grandparents. Still, someone can hold on to a belief beyond the environment.
Let's look at science. Why is it that people believe theories such as evolution? Well, some people believe that since you cannot see, touch or hear God, then he does not exist. They like science because they can observe it. But, science is the observation of the environment. Another reason is that we all have that desire for superiority. Some do not want their lives ruled by an untouchable force. They want independence. Maybe they also want to use evolution as an excuse for racism. It's happened.
Now, I believe that I have heard or read somewhere that before reproduction began; life began as a cell and multiplied into an organism over time. I wish I could remember how I learned about it. Now think about this. In order for a single cell to multiply into an organism, it needs to know all of the organs needed to be produced in that arrangement. Remember, there were no complete organisms before this. It was just the cell. Where would the genetics come from? The cell isn't going to make it up on its own. I realize that the sperm and eggs do have the genes, but they were passed down and are based on past genetics. If this all happened, then that one cell had to be intelligent and creative enough to form into an organism. At least the sperm and egg had instructions. Besides that, how did the cell come to be in the first place? When putting all of these things into consideration, I find it impossible. If you have any explanation, please tell me.
Now that science has been discussed, let's talk about religion. It's a topic so complex that some people just ignore it. Religions have been around for most of human history. It can also be one of the greatest influences of all. For example, I am against feminism and homosexuality, because of Christian beliefs. At times, people will kill in the name of God, even though they may not realize that it is a sin. The basic purpose of a religion is to explain our very existence and purpose. Our minds crave for that knowledge. It's so interesting and mysterious yet confusing.
People actually observe how a man clings to a religion, and wonder why he would do so. The fact is so many people are afraid to deny their religion. We believe that there are consequences for it, and it scares us. We're convinced it's real, and puts us in our place. Another reason is so we feel a sense of security in our lives. Knowing that someone out there is watching and protecting us gives us the motivation to go on in life. We also feel that being a servant is much easier in life than independence. Something that convinces us about the existence of a god is we actually exist. We don't often think about it. But when you do, it can seem amazing. We commonly forget that. Another reason is that we get a feeling in us that can tell us it's true. It convinces us to believe.
Christianity has been abused for so long. People commonly mistake Christianity as a "feel good" type of religion. Then, the go to church and be angry because the pastor is pointing at you and judging you saying that you are a sinner. The fact is that Christianity is not about feeling good about yourself. To be a Christian, you must accept the fact that you are a sinner and you will be judged. Christians believe that pride is a sin. It's because it may cause one to believe they don't need God.
Commonly, it is asked "if there is a god, why does he let bad things happen to good people?" First of all, we can't call ourselves good people. We do something wrong every day. Whether it is acted, spoken or thought. Second, we have what is called "free will". Some believe it to be a gift. I believe it's a curse. We are able to choose what we do, and go through whatever consequences happen. Suppose a woman's husband will be murdered, she will ask why God let this happen. Still, the murderer may be the one who will burn in Hell. Besides that, people die. That's it. They won't live on earth forever. If a murderer doesn't kill you, something else will. It's natural. Suppose the murdered husband makes it to Heaven and later, the wife becomes old and eventually dies. And she makes it to Heaven. If that's the case, then they've only been separated for a little while. An average life usually lives for around 75 years. What is 75 years compared to an eternity?
I believe I have said everything that comes into mind as of right now. As I have said before, I will be mocked for this. So, what's the point in making fun of me for it? People will say things like "Eat a dick!" or "I suggest suicide." I just don't care. Go ahead and do it. Sometimes, it makes me laugh
User Reviews
Submitted by COMountain (user info) at 2005-08-18 16:52:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Man... you just don't quit.
Submitted by a_reader (user info) at 2005-08-18 05:02:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
--------- I /
I I /
I I /
I ________ I /
I---- I I / \ I/\
I I I I I \
I I I I I \
I I I I I \
I \______/ \________/ I \
______ ______
/ \ / \
I I
_______ I I
/ \ -I---- -I----
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
\_______/ I I
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2005-08-17 23:00:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
LEIK I KNO! R0b ZomBIe AN BATMAN ROXX0RZ MY SOXXZ0RZ!
pity +1
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-08-17 17:48:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2005-08-17 11:38:06 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-08-17 08:52:35 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2005-08-17 08:22:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
Pure, unblemished Christian faith is NOT anti-evolution, anti-feminism, or anti-homosexuality. In fact, faith has very little to do with behavior modification - it is supposed to focus on relationships and cognizance.
Stop giving the rest of us a bad name with your ultra-conservative warped version.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Christianity is totally anti-evolution, anti-feminist and anti-homosexuality.
To be a Christian (or a "pure" christian as you say) would be to believe entirely and only in the bible. Genesis is anti-evolution and there are numerous texts relating to God considering fags are evil. Not to mention all the daughter-selling and such going on. Christianity is ultra-conservative.
The common liberalisation of the book is the more warped (and more "new testament") interpretation. Then again the whole fucking thing's a 4000 year old contradiction, so who gives a fuck?
=========================================================================================
Okay then...prove that God didn't use evolution as part of his/her "Creationist" design.
You can't.
Therefore, the possibility exists that the seven days of Genesis = millions of years of evolution.
It certainly seems a lot more plausible that evolution was designed as a part of creationism, rather than just either creationism OR just evolution.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==--=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-
7 Days. Heaven and Earth. Man from the dust.
Now, if you want to consider it symbolism, go ahead, but when it tells you that man came from dust, not ape; I'd have to say it doesn't leave much room for symbolism.
"the LORD GOD formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being" Now, if that isn't saying we were created, not evolved, then the writer of this bloody bible should be shot.
Submitted by darkspoon (user info) at 2005-08-17 14:18:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by goose (user info) at 2005-08-17 12:36:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think whoever was arguing that "pure" christianity is taken directly out of the bible is referencing the highly-conservative groups who take the Bible as the literal word of God. Therefore, when the bible says "seven days", it really means seven as-we-see-them-24-hour days. Similarly, when the Bible says that we should cast down those who wear purple, it obviously means we should go out and lynch fags.
Wait.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2005-08-17 11:38:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-08-17 08:52:35 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2005-08-17 08:22:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
Pure, unblemished Christian faith is NOT anti-evolution, anti-feminism, or anti-homosexuality. In fact, faith has very little to do with behavior modification - it is supposed to focus on relationships and cognizance.
Stop giving the rest of us a bad name with your ultra-conservative warped version.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Christianity is totally anti-evolution, anti-feminist and anti-homosexuality.
To be a Christian (or a "pure" christian as you say) would be to believe entirely and only in the bible. Genesis is anti-evolution and there are numerous texts relating to God considering fags are evil. Not to mention all the daughter-selling and such going on. Christianity is ultra-conservative.
The common liberalisation of the book is the more warped (and more "new testament") interpretation. Then again the whole fucking thing's a 4000 year old contradiction, so who gives a fuck?
=========================================================================================
Okay then...prove that God didn't use evolution as part of his/her "Creationist" design.
You can't.
Therefore, the possibility exists that the seven days of Genesis = millions of years of evolution.
It certainly seems a lot more plausible that evolution was designed as a part of creationism, rather than just either creationism OR just evolution.
Submitted by Sassmasterr (user info) at 2005-08-17 10:30:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
that's me in the corner...
that's me in the spot, light, losing my religion
Submitted by EvolvedChicken (user info) at 2005-08-17 10:13:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Good lord! See the things I start? Thank you guys for giving me some thought out comments.
Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2005-08-17 10:09:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
improving steadily. still in the neagtive numbers, but now it's meerely negative one.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-08-17 09:50:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
haha, brianthetrurhspeaker. I guess whoever it was dropped the alter.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-08-17 09:48:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-08-17 09:44:51 (#)
Ranking: 0
I miss Brianthetruthspeaker.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So do I, he roxxored me soxxors
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-08-17 09:44:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I miss Brianthetruthspeaker.
Submitted by goose (user info) at 2005-08-17 09:31:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Ok, its been a while since "The beginning of life" was covered in my biology classes, and its very early in the morning (I'm only on my second cup of coffee) but I'll take a stab at your question, Teephphah.
First, you're assuming that life began as single celled organisms. This is a little confusing, because this is what people commonly recognize as one of the basic forms of "life". However, it has been theorized that life actually began as different amino acids (the building blocks of cells) that grouped together, either for purposes of symbiotic relationships, or for protection of some kind. It was these acids, combined with sugars and proteins, that eventually formed single celled organisms. However, when it really comes down to it, this is all just a theory (which, I would like to point out, is different than a Theory, as in the Theory of Evolution, but thats a different arguement).
It's true, all living things die. However, under ideal conditions, i.e. not predators, plenty of nutrients, comfortable temperatures, single-celled organisms can live for a looooong time.
I think that many people approach reproductive multiplication the wrong way. Everyone envisions the hardy ameoba splitting in two in that classic high school biology film reel, but remember, that wasn't really the beginning of "life". Think about how crystals "grow" - just a common set of chemicals exerting a slight force on the chemicals around them to follow the same pattern of "growth". On of the exciting possibilites of nanotechnology is the idea that they could reproduce themselves, or be taught how to build new nanomachines a molecule at a time out of the surrounding matter.
The beautiful thing about science however, is that it might turn out all of this is wrong - mankind has had some pretty stupid ideas in the name of "science" before. The difference is that by definition, the scientific community has to be open to a change in their commonly-held ideas of how the world works, because we can test and retest the results. If anyone could defend or offer proof in favor of Creationism that doesn't start with "God made it so", it would have a place as a legitimate scientific theory. It can't, though, because its not based on science, its based on religious texts, which are not acceptable sources for scientific information.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-08-17 09:30:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
to answer your question Teeph: I can't. but I've read some stuff on this, and here are a few stabs in the dark.
- the first reproducing "things" were not alive in the sense we are. it's possible a certain arrangement of chemicals in the good old primordial soup fell into a certain arrangement (invoke lightning strike here) and through the magic of chemical bonds and the like caused other, similar arrangements to form. pointing out that the creation of life couldn't happen at a flash is often the broad thrust of creationist argument, but that is not the only way it could happen. once you have this first step, then you can have gradual advancement via imperfect copying by whatever means of reproduction. eventually you have a level of complexity we would call life. I'm not enough of an evolutionary biologist to explain the origin of eggs and ovaries and eyes to you though.
- there would've been a lot of "lightning strikes" (for lack of a better example) in a lot of places. maybe just one (or a handful) out however many billions there have been sparked some kind of instantaneous creation of life. I doubt it, but that doesn't mean it isn't so. the conditions to begin life (though we can only guess what they are/were) would've persisted for a long period of time. we know this because they must have.
- "it came from outer space" it's kind of a body swerve to the question, but if I remember right those supposed organisms in the meteorites from Mars were believed to have arisen ex-Terra. and if life arose elsewhere - and we can only assume it did, because this planet and our sun are in no way special - then it is easier to accept that life has arisen spontaneously not just here but in many far flung places.
I have no formal training in this though. I didn't even take high school biology. just do a lot of reading in the subject. there may be greater experts here. I'd recommend Richard Dawkins to you, he may be militantly anti-religion but he has a rare ability to communicate his ideas. ideas which I have just rehashed here.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-08-17 09:27:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-08-17 08:48:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
Those of you (Phallic, Zak, Williamson, etc.) who might actually have a theory: I submit the following question -
Imagine you are back in the primordial soup, just kind of hanging out, right? The soup is just this sort of completely random combination of elements and stuff that, if properly combined and stimulated might form a living thing. Then, ZAP! Lightning, or some other force quickens the soup, and we've got LIFE! Eureka!
Okay, so we've got a single celled organism, or maybe even quite a few of them and they're all just hanging out, doing their thing, checking out the sights and whatnot.
Then they die. I mean, all living things die, right? And single celled organisims don't normally have the life-span of a Gallapagos Tortouise, right?
So they die.
And that SHOULD have been the end of it. But it wasn't. Because somehow, those most basic forms of life JUST SO HAPPENED to ALSO reproduce themselves.
WTF?
I don't see any logical reason why it must have been this way (and I guess that's really what I'm asking here). It seems that "life itself" and "the ability to reproduce" are two distinctly separate things (to me) and as unlikely as the creation of life is, taken solely by itself, wouldn't the probability of life being created WITH the ability to reproduce (or hell, anything else for that matter, "eat," "excrete waste," "respirate," etc.) be something like "infinitely" less likely than just life itself being created?
Or, is that all somehow included within the definition of "life?"
=-=--==--==-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-==-==-=-=
I'm sure there have been a thousand planets with a thousand lightning bolts each which created life that never became more than a few cells. If you want to point at the unlikeliness of our existence, try and count the stars in the sky and tell me that not one sun out there should have life on it. The odds are in our favour. Life is statistically probable.
If only one in a million planets produced life and only one in a million of these creations went on to reproduce and only one in a million of these reproduced into higher beings, there will be life like us in the universe a million times over.
And who says life needs to eat, shit or breathe? If the odds of life doing that are infitisemally small and yet life could potentially be made in an infinite number of ways, then the odds of life living aren't so bad.
I only replied to this because my name was in it...
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2005-08-17 09:25:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-08-17 09:20:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-08-17 09:18:54 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-08-17 09:10:54 (#)
Ranking: 0
I think the virus may be a factor maybe? Just before I packed in Biology someone guy named Beaumont told me that there was some debate as to whether virus' where alive or not. Could have been bullshit, I had a science teacher who once told me if you didn't do a poo for a month it'd come out of your mouth while you slept.
------------------------------
That happened once.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really?
-------------------------------
Yeh in South Park.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-08-17 09:20:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-08-17 09:18:54 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-08-17 09:10:54 (#)
Ranking: 0
I think the virus may be a factor maybe? Just before I packed in Biology someone guy named Beaumont told me that there was some debate as to whether virus' where alive or not. Could have been bullshit, I had a science teacher who once told me if you didn't do a poo for a month it'd come out of your mouth while you slept.
------------------------------
That happened once.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really?
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-08-17 09:18:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-08-17 09:10:54 (#)
Ranking: 0
I think the virus may be a factor maybe? Just before I packed in Biology someone guy named Beaumont told me that there was some debate as to whether virus' where alive or not. Could have been bullshit, I had a science teacher who once told me if you didn't do a poo for a month it'd come out of your mouth while you slept.
------------------------------
That happened once.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-08-17 09:16:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Fucking SWEEEEET!
My random musings have found the "biggest gap in the evolutionary arguement?" I fucking ROCK!
By the way, I wasn't throwing that out as a "Well, this doesn't make sense so you better get your ass to Confession" thing, I was honestly just wondering if there was an answer out there somewhere.
I figured that the ability to reproduce was probably included within the scientific definition of "life."
So if that was the case, I was going to go to an infertility clinic and just start shooting people as they went in for their invitro work.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-08-17 09:12:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Everything Phallic said has summed up my own beliefs perfectly. Empirical Agnosticism - fancy language for "I don't know and I don't give a fuck".
And the thing is, it's the most logical position one can take.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-08-17 09:10:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think the virus may be a factor maybe? Just before I packed in Biology someone guy named Beaumont told me that there was some debate as to whether virus' where alive or not. Could have been bullshit, I had a science teacher who once told me if you didn't do a poo for a month it'd come out of your mouth while you slept.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2005-08-17 09:01:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
LOOK PARAGRAPHS!
+1 for that!
Of course, -2 for everything else...
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2005-08-17 08:59:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-08-17 08:48:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
Those of you (Phallic, Zak, Williamson, etc.) who might actually have a theory: I submit the following question -
Imagine you are back in the primordial soup, just kind of hanging out, right? The soup is just this sort of completely random combination of elements and stuff that, if properly combined and stimulated might form a living thing. Then, ZAP! Lightning, or some other force quickens the soup, and we've got LIFE! Eureka!
Okay, so we've got a single celled organism, or maybe even quite a few of them and they're all just hanging out, doing their thing, checking out the sights and whatnot.
Then they die. I mean, all living things die, right? And single celled organisims don't normally have the life-span of a Gallapagos Tortouise, right?
So they die.
And that SHOULD have been the end of it. But it wasn't. Because somehow, those most basic forms of life JUST SO HAPPENED to ALSO reproduce themselves.
WTF?
I don't see any logical reason why it must have been this way (and I guess that's really what I'm asking here). It seems that "life itself" and "the ability to reproduce" are two distinctly separate things (to me) and as unlikely as the creation of life is, taken solely by itself, wouldn't the probability of life being created WITH the ability to reproduce (or hell, anything else for that matter, "eat," "excrete waste," "respirate," etc.) be something like "infinitely" less likely than just life itself being created?
Or, is that all somehow included within the definition of "life?"
_____________________
Dude, i'll be the first to admit it's a total mindfuck, and the biggest gap in the evolutionary argument. Further postulations like "oh they came from space" don't actually get us any closer. As such, i take evolution with a grain of salt and would happily embrace a more cogent thesis.
Having said that, my difficulty with the origin of life does in no way incline me to believe that we were created intentionally by the sort of being that is as susceptible to human emotion as the Christian God.
I'm a happy agnostic and, as we only inhabit a billionth of the universe for a billionth of the expanse of time, i don't feel too ignorant in saying i have no answers for the biggest questions.
People that can answer every question should be treated with deep suspicion. We're only human.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-08-17 08:52:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2005-08-17 08:22:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
Pure, unblemished Christian faith is NOT anti-evolution, anti-feminism, or anti-homosexuality. In fact, faith has very little to do with behavior modification - it is supposed to focus on relationships and cognizance.
Stop giving the rest of us a bad name with your ultra-conservative warped version.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Christianity is totally anti-evolution, anti-feminist and anti-homosexuality.
To be a Christian (or a "pure" christian as you say) would be to believe entirely and only in the bible. Genesis is anti-evolution and there are numerous texts relating to God considering fags are evil. Not to mention all the daughter-selling and such going on. Christianity is ultra-conservative.
The common liberalisation of the book is the more warped (and more "new testament") interpretation. Then again the whole fucking thing's a 4000 year old contradiction, so who gives a fuck?
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-08-17 08:48:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Wow man. As one of the few remaining token Christians around here, even *I* have to say this was a fairly large and steaming pile of crap. Obviously you don't know the subject matter you're trying to discuss very well, but worse than that even, you wildly underestimated your readers. I'm about as math and science retarded as they come, and even *I* could have schooled your "arguements" here.
You aren't helping the cause here much. But thanks for playing.
BUT, you did remind me to bring up something I've been wondering about . . .
Those of you (Phallic, Zak, Williamson, etc.) who might actually have a theory: I submit the following question -
Imagine you are back in the primordial soup, just kind of hanging out, right? The soup is just this sort of completely random combination of elements and stuff that, if properly combined and stimulated might form a living thing. Then, ZAP! Lightning, or some other force quickens the soup, and we've got LIFE! Eureka!
Okay, so we've got a single celled organism, or maybe even quite a few of them and they're all just hanging out, doing their thing, checking out the sights and whatnot.
Then they die. I mean, all living things die, right? And single celled organisims don't normally have the life-span of a Gallapagos Tortouise, right?
So they die.
And that SHOULD have been the end of it. But it wasn't. Because somehow, those most basic forms of life JUST SO HAPPENED to ALSO reproduce themselves.
WTF?
I don't see any logical reason why it must have been this way (and I guess that's really what I'm asking here). It seems that "life itself" and "the ability to reproduce" are two distinctly separate things (to me) and as unlikely as the creation of life is, taken solely by itself, wouldn't the probability of life being created WITH the ability to reproduce (or hell, anything else for that matter, "eat," "excrete waste," "respirate," etc.) be something like "infinitely" less likely than just life itself being created?
Or, is that all somehow included within the definition of "life?"
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2005-08-17 08:22:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Pure, unblemished Christian faith is NOT anti-evolution, anti-feminism, or anti-homosexuality. In fact, faith has very little to do with behavior modification - it is supposed to focus on relationships and cognizance.
Stop giving the rest of us a bad name with your ultra-conservative warped version.
Submitted by Snypavat (user info) at 2005-08-17 08:02:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
In reference to you "Cell" and genetic theory....
Cells repeat a pattern....enviornment will effect this pattern over time so cell will "mutate" or as you said "Make up" new cells which will eventually overtime develop into organs or limbs or what have you...it is medical fact. Just look at your pinky finger and toe....they are smaller than the rest and are not used as often.....they get smaller and smaller over generations.....and are less likeley to be used over time....so therefore there is no need and mutations are more likley to happen. Eventually the human race will be born with no pinkys.
Whenever you repeat a pattern over and over again there is bound to be hiccups...just look at the PC you are running....hiccups all the time.....just repeating patterns....
Do your research.
I hope you mutate.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-08-17 07:46:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-08-17 07:23:44 (#)
Ranking: -2
I see several people have already explained just how wrong you are. the tragedy is that you will likely never accept it. I wonder, do you get your evolutionary arguments from religious-sourced texts, perhaps books about creationism or intelligent design?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could have done it! I'm a fully qualified de-programmer! All I'd have needed would have been 24 ours, a prostitute and a ping pong paddle.
Then I could have gotten started on Jesus-boy over there.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-08-17 07:39:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-08-17 07:28:02 (#)
Ranking: -2
I like how GodChicken didn't like EvolvedChicken's religious post.
------------
thats funny.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-08-17 07:28:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I like how GodChicken didn't like EvolvedChicken's religious post.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-08-17 07:23:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I see several people have already explained just how wrong you are. the tragedy is that you will likely never accept it. I wonder, do you get your evolutionary arguments from religious-sourced texts, perhaps books about creationism or intelligent design?
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2005-08-17 07:21:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Berty, I think he has followed Williamson's link and is now having the time of his life. (I meant the 2nd link btw)
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-08-17 07:19:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You're all mean people for driving away the Christian and ruining my fun.
EvolvedChicken! Come back and answer me dammit!
Submitted by Natsukau (user info) at 2005-08-17 07:16:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-08-17 07:15:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
your scientific illiteracy just leaps off the page. throwing around a few buzzwords like "single cell" and "gene" does not equal a devastating critique of evolutionary theory - a discipline about which you clearly possess only the thinnest veneer of knowledge.
it genuinely scares me that there are people in the world who can persuade themselves that reasoning like this is valid.
as for your "we're all sinners and we deserve everything we get" wankery, that's the ideology of the Dark Ages you medieval fuck. it saddens me to hear people repeat that in this "modern age".
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2005-08-17 07:14:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Now, I believe that I have heard or read somewhere that before reproduction began; life began as a cell and multiplied into an organism over time. I wish I could remember how I learned about it. Now think about this. In order for a single cell to multiply into an organism, it needs to know all of the organs needed to be produced in that arrangement. Remember, there were no complete organisms before this. It was just the cell. Where would the genetics come from? The cell isn't going to make it up on its own. I realize that the sperm and eggs do have the genes, but they were passed down and are based on past genetics. If this all happened, then that one cell had to be intelligent and creative enough to form into an organism. At least the sperm and egg had instructions. Besides that, how did the cell come to be in the first place? When putting all of these things into consideration, I find it impossible. If you have any explanation, please tell me.
------------
i do, but i'd rather not
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-08-17 07:03:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Good idea SphagMan
http://www.christianforums.com/
Now, go! Don't come back...
This may also interest you http://www.lemonparty.org
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2005-08-17 06:59:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You can do whatever you want, just make sure you do it somewhere, that isn't Übersite.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-08-17 06:42:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Now that science has been discussed"
I read up to this point. Science was never discussed in this post. It was mutilated. You have no idea what you're talking about. You prove that god is not compassionate or loving because your creation was a sick and mangled joke! I hate you! Shut up, leave, and never post again lest you fell the wrath of my -2 bitch!
"At times, people will kill in the name of God, even though they may not realize that it is a sin."
FUCK YOU MR MY GOD CONSIDERS MURDER TO BE THE WRONGZORS BUT LETS KILL EVERY EGYPTIAN FIRSTBORN. If God exists, he's a racist and a fuckwit and I hate the cunt. I read the old testament. That fucker's an arsehole.
Eat a dick! I suggest suicide.
Submitted by Quale (user info) at 2005-08-17 06:31:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
wow, Berty's post fucking rocked. the Christian got pwned.
Submitted by ShadowFacsimile (user info) at 2005-08-17 06:22:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No, you may not.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-08-17 06:09:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-08-17 05:54:09 (#)
Ranking: -2
Once again, you assume your religion is the only thing true and correct, much like most Christians. The fact that you have been RAISED to believe there is a magical man in the sky who watches over you doesn't seem to compute to your kind. Had you been born in Afghanastan you would be Muslim, and feel the same way. It's all about enviroment. It's all about conditioning.
-------------------------------------------------
What I can't stand is religious people who admit this, who give "being raised that way" as their reason for believing certain things, yet still truly believe those things are true.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-08-17 06:05:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-08-17 05:54:09 (#)
Ranking: -2
Zealot Christian Propaganda is an instant auto -2
----------
Do you know how rare it is I get the oppurtunity to discuss religion with people these days? Uber keeps eating religious types up for breakfast before I get a chance to sit down and have a nice chat. Damn us all for being atheists (ha ha).
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-08-17 05:55:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
*BUY* a book!
God Damn it!!!
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2005-08-17 05:54:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Zealot Christian Propaganda is an instant auto -2
Once again, you assume your religion is the only thing true and correct, much like most Christians. The fact that you have been RAISED to believe there is a magical man in the sky who watches over you doesn't seem to compute to your kind. Had you been born in Afghanastan you would be Muslim, and feel the same way. It's all about enviroment. It's all about conditioning.
I urge you to by a book on the world's religions and actually read it with an open mind. (I suggest anything by Huston Smith) You will come to understand that FAITH is something universal, and your kind don't have a lock on it. Christianity is a faith of mankind, and therefore has been and will be changed, rearranged and perverted by those who wish it. It is not absolute.
On a side note, this was much better than your last attempts. Formatting was good and I didn't notice any glaring spelling mistakes. Please though, understand that these attacks ARE going to become personal shortly. Your first decent post, and it has to be this? Like I said, Instant Auto -2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-08-17 05:14:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Stin (user info) at 2005-08-17 03:05:11 (#)
Ranking: 0
Yay Phallic!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, he has done us all the courtesy of pwning your arguments. In fact when I first read you're post I assumed it was one big Socratean argument. If it was then fair play, but you are preaching to the converted here; there isn't anyone with a religious bent around here.
So, onto my point. You wrote this:
"For example, I am against feminism and homosexuality, because of Christian beliefs."
I reckon that what we have here is a case of putting the horse before the cart. There are many different Orhodoxes of Christianity, furthermore the scripture can be 'spun' to make it say anything you could wish (it's all rather vauge and poetic). So what I reckon is that you are against feminism and homosexuality (for whatever reasons you may have) and then justified that belief with Christian dogma.
Now, those 'reasons' I hinted at are basically generated by what I shall term (for the sake of brevity) 'community'. This could be the community of your family unit, your peers or some other influential source in your life. You said that in your case it was your church. The church is your 'community'. You look to them for guidence and, most importantly, acceptance. It is conceivable to me that it is for their acceptance that you are against feminism and homosexuality, that the religious rhetoric they have used to justify that belief to you is secondary to that acceptance.
In other words: the desire for acceptance has been confused with faith. Faith is a very personal thing. You use the word (very correctly) 'belief'. I myself have many beliefs. I, for example, am a humanist and I 'believe' that all hostility comes from pain and suffering as opposed to some inherant corruption in man. I believe this to grant me confidence in addressing my own weaknesses and the weaknesses of people in my 'community'. Faith, on the other hand, is very much the same thing only anchored in intangible sources thus making it more resilient, in that in the absence of your 'community' your faith would hold fast, wheras your belief would crumble.
Would you consider this hypothesis plausable?
Submitted by MrWillard (user info) at 2005-08-17 04:47:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
DIDN'T READ IT
FUCK OFF. GO FALL OFF A BRIDGE. DIE. CHOKE ON A DICK. I HOPE YOU GET ASSRAPED BY A TRIBE OF ABORIGONIES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NORTH PLEDOLE. I HOPE YOU GET HERPES AND EBOLA...THAT WAY YOU PISS GREEN AND HAVE YOUR SKILN FALL OFF. DROP DEAD. PULL YOUR LOWER LIP OVER YER HEAD AND SWEALLOW.
I'M DRUNK
AND NOW YOU CAN'T CALK ABOUT RELIGION
Submitted by lordofthedance (user info) at 2005-08-17 03:54:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I hope the only reason you bothered with this is because you realised that people such as phallic who have actually recieved an education would give you some insight.
You didn't even bother to research a single fucking thing before posting did you?
I have a strong urge to kill myself after reading this.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-08-17 03:54:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
No, you may not.
OK, fine, you can, but just try to make it more insightful next time.
Submitted by lordofduct (user info) at 2005-08-17 03:31:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Now that science has been discussed, let's talk about religion. It's a topic so complex that some people just ignore it.
-------
huh? complex? yeah, it is real complex. Also, from what I have seen, its not really ignored all that much. We have theologians, followers, devotes, along with a marriad of other people who worship, read about, and debate the topic constantly. As you said; it has been around as long as man has... WOW ass hat, if you are a Christian obviousily it has been around that long. Anyways, if its been around that long I highly doubt people have ignored it all that much.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-08-17 03:14:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
" I acknowledge the fact that no man can no matter how much knowledge they have"
"We all know how for so long, man has wondered how it's existence has started."
"A person usually picks a belief depending on how they grew up."
____________________________________________________________________
Your writing would be much more cogent if you would make your subject and your
verb agree. Please take a course in grammar. . . Do you see what I mean?
Submitted by GodChicken (user info) at 2005-08-17 03:08:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
What was the point of this? It didn't go anywhere.
That being said, you need to go learn about DNA, RNA, and Prions. Things from before single-celled organisms.
Submitted by Stin (user info) at 2005-08-17 03:05:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yay Phallic!
Submitted by lordofduct (user info) at 2005-08-17 03:03:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Now, I believe that I have heard or read somewhere that before reproduction began; life began as a cell and multiplied into an organism over time. I wish I could remember how I learned about it. Now think about this. In order for a single cell to multiply into an organism, it needs to know all of the organs needed to be produced in that arrangement. Remember, there were no complete organisms before this. It was just the cell. Where would the genetics come from? The cell isn't going to make it up on its own. I realize that the sperm and eggs do have the genes, but they were passed down and are based on past genetics. If this all happened, then that one cell had to be intelligent and creative enough to form into an organism. At least the sperm and egg had instructions. Besides that, how did the cell come to be in the first place? When putting all of these things into consideration, I find it impossible. If you have any explanation, please tell me.
-----------------------------
First did you ever take a Biology course? A single celled organism works pretty generically, but it does contain many of the simple processes of life, digestion, reproduction, DNA, all that good stuff. Now DNA is an amazing little thing, it isn't just a blue print that was written billions of years ago, no its a blue print that is rewritten every reproduction cycle to conform to the new creature. Using an idea of trial and error the DNA builds a multicellular organism and rewrites the DNA to conform to such. If that organism does not survive it dies... DNA irradicated. Under the idea of random trial and error the possibility of the same action occuring again is low, but there. But if it does work then the DNA saves that and prospers onward, this new step being used over and over again.
It is not like it was just 1 singular miniscule single celled organism sitting in a vast primordial soup of lifelessness... theories suggest the "soup" contained a large amount of single celled organisms all trying to fight for survival in there own way. This was all a VERY SLOW process of trial and error that took billions of years to get to where it is today... science is not a way to put ourselves in power. It is a way of admitting we are not the controller, but that we also are not as special as God makes us be. We are just yet another artifact in the vast array that is life and the universe... we play a role in this timely world and hence can effect, but not be the controller of it. Nothing is the controller of Nature as Nature is the embodiment of all that is in the universe; dead or alive.
Who is to say that life alone is the defining factor of Nature anyways... I have always wondered about this hunt for intelligent life in the universe. What if Nature isn't just tampering in the bounds of multicellular organisms but also tests in other areas too. "If we are the only living creatures in the universe; then that is one waste of space." is a phrase I have heard before form these speculators... now of course logics proposes that if it has happend once it could possibly happen again. So there is a chance that life exists elsewhere... but the Universe may also be a house for the none organisms of the Universe. The life and death of stars, the rise and fall of oceans, the crumbling of mountains, and the colliding of meteors, are these not all random beautiful and just as meaningful events as our very lives are. There is plenty going on in the univers, that is not a vast pool of nothing... its just a lot of life that is not similar to our own.
The book (I know your gonna laugh... oh my your quoting Crichton, how ghey menz) "Sphere" has this scene where they are speculating the creature that may be in the sphere. Everyone keeps spewing out chauvanist ideas of it being humanoid, carbon based, 3 dimensional. Then one of the group stops them and says something along the lines of it being a 4 dimensional creature that breathes in carbon-dioxide and exhales carbon monoxide that we can not even see and kills us without the intention of doing so. (it has been awhile since I read it, but thats basically what the scene is trying to get across). What does life have to be emotional, intelligent, carbon based, cellular organisms...
I personally have a faith in science, a faith similar to religion. I don't know everything, I never will know everything, that is an amount of knowledge that would crush even the weight of the universe. But that pinnacle of knowledge, the fact that the world is based on that all that knowledge atleast exists is my God. Everything in the universe, dead, alive, rock or animal when looked at as 1... as an infinite body of 1 (some theory in math for ya: if a body of infinite space that contains all existing material could theoretically be considered having the quantity of 1.) Praise the holy infinite body I am part of!
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2005-08-17 03:00:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Let's look at science.
___________________
You've made the "starting mistake", the classic first mistake for most theological/anti-rational arguments.
"Science" is not one group, body or concept. Geology and Astrology are both sciences, but have almost nothing in common. The strongly religious often criticise "science" for its inability to answer certain questions.
But what is science? Science comes from the Latin word "sciencia(sp?)" for knowledge, and that is ALL science is. Knowledge. It's knowing something as well as it can be known, in a way that can be proved to a reasonable bystander.
It's not some great anti-God lobby and it's not an attempt to undermine anyone. It's just a way of looking at things in the most unbiased, fair and rational way.
___________________
Why is it that people believe theories such as evolution?
___________________
Another common mistake. Very few people "believe" in evolution in a religious sense, insofar as that if a more reasonable scientific doctrine were made apparent very few people would hold on to their existing beliefs.
A better way to put it is that people "give credibility" to the theory. They are willing to accept that it has a lot of evidence in its favour, and does answer a lot of questions regarding things like biodiversity and ecological structure.
Just because you think evolution is CREDIBLE, however, does not mean you "believe" in it in the same way a religious person believes in a deity.
_______________________________
Also, your interpretation of evolution is completely wrong but i'm going to leave that to someone else. Suffice to say, genetic variation did not suddenly occur and a cell did not suddenly make an organism with all the requisite organs. Slight environmental variations caused various individuals advantages so their basic genetic material passed on with all its inherent "mutations".
_____________________________
Besides that, how did the cell come to be in the first place?
_______________________________
This is your only reasonable point. How did life come from not life? Who knows? The fact that an objective analysis of ALL the information we have to hand (science)
has not come up with an answer does not mean anything. We don't know YET. We may never no, but i find that highly doubtful.
Christians often say "A-HA! Science cannot explain why life came from nothing! Christianity 1, Science 0."
But the fact is, Christians are asserting that a giant, invisible being who loves us all put life here. To anyone with sense, this seems bizarrely ridiculous, and they will take the alternative of simply NOT KNOWING THE ANSWER, as there is nothing wrong with that.
Not knowing something is far better than making non-sensical assertions, as it leaves room for realisation.
Submitted by Feijuada (user info) at 2005-08-17 02:59:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"If you have any explanation, please tell me."
I'm sure that many people on Uber have very good explanaitons, but let me just say that some invisible superman in the sky isn't a very good explanation.
Submitted by Feijuada (user info) at 2005-08-17 02:57:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Now that I have read your post I wish that my -2 counted double.
Submitted by Feijuada (user info) at 2005-08-17 02:53:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Eat a dick.
By the way, I suggest that you try suicide.