Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
45% of Americans believe that humans did not evolve
I think we all evolved from from dolphins? What do you guys think? http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx
Re: 45% of Americans believe that humans did not evolve
I'm pretty sure we evolved from apes or ape-like creatures. There's no way in Hell I think we could have evolved from dolphins. Also, wrong forum.
Dolphins are land animals that went back into the sea so we deffo didn't come from there. Myself I believe we can directly trace ourselves to apes.
There is a half-plausible theory which states humans came from jurassic see-creatures, this theory also states we used to have fins inbetween our fingers and toes. I'm more for the ape-theory though.
We evolved from an animal that was the apes aswell as the humans ancestor.
we developed from a lower form of primate known as the 'creationist'
Obviously old skeletons, gong back the time periods, has revealed where we originated on. And because of the evidence shown that we evolve from apes, physically, and the fact that they use 47 chromosons in every neucleus, which is much closer to our 46 then any other animal, suggests that we are originated from apes.
This is what I think. I think we used to live on another planet. The species was dying, so sent out genetic information on micro organisms on meteorites across space. The information was implanted into Earth. Fish came from that code, then evolved into land-amphibious animals, then into land animals, then humans developed later from that. So it was Humans -> Micro Organisms -> Humans. Now where the original Humans evolved from could of been different, so I didn't go that far back.
In my opinion there are similirites that came from many diffrent places. Like there are only a few (like 4) specises in the world that has sex for more than reproduction, as in for fun. Humans and dolphins are one of them. Also we did most likely ivolve from a water organisim because of what SSADMVR said earlier about the webed toes and fins. Apes don't have fins and such. So where did we get thoes. [I was refering to the humanoid species we were before we evolved]
Sir Kane wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 14:04 95% of Americans are retarded. 96% of Germans are retarded BEAT THAT!
BlueThen wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 14:07 Sir Kane wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 14:04 95% of Americans are retarded. 96% of Germans are retarded BEAT THAT! The other 5% are people on temerary jobs.
KristyGirl wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 14:06 In my opinion there are similirites that came from many diffrent places. Like there are only a few (like 4) specises in the world that has sex for more than reproduction, as in for fun. Humans and dolphins are one of them. Also we did most likely ivolve from a water organisim because of what SSADMVR said earlier about the webed toes and fins. Apes don't have fins and such. So where did we get thoes. [I was refering to the humanoid species we were before we evolved] Can we stay one topic por favor? Please.
BlueThen wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 21:07 Sir Kane wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 14:04 95% of Americans are retarded. 96% of Germans are retarded BEAT THAT! Well, even if that's true, I'd still prefer to use German engineered tools/mechanics than USA ones. Also, I'd like the German economics more than USA economy.
I give up. You guys are worse than school children, you loose focus after 10 posts.
KristyGirl wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 14:38 I give up. You guys are worse than school children, you loose focus after 10 posts. There's a reason why topics change- it's because the original one isn't really worth talking about anymore, and isn't interesting enough.
Random offf topic input: If we all know that KristyGirl is The Executor (who was banned) on a new account, why isn't he/she banned for like, ban evasion. Seriously. I also find it very disturbing you're fine with pretending to be a girl. It's fucking creepy.
Judging by how far we will go to kill each other, I'd have to say I'd fit right in with that 45%.
R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 14:47 This is what I think. I think we used to live on another planet. The species was dying, so sent out genetic information on micro organisms on meteorites across space. The information was implanted into Earth. Fish came from that code, then evolved into land-amphibious animals, then into land animals, then humans developed later from that. So it was Humans -> Micro Organisms -> Humans. Now where the original Humans evolved from could of been different, so I didn't go that far back. That would work... except for the whole mass extinction of the dinosaurs. I doubt that there could have been any calculation that the earth would be hit and cause a mass extinction of all of the animals living primarily above ground that gave way for small mammals to thrive and evolve into humans.
R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 14:47 This is what I think. I think we used to live on another planet. The species was dying, so sent out genetic information on micro organisms on meteorites across space. The information was implanted into Earth. Fish came from that code, then evolved into land-amphibious animals, then into land animals, then humans developed later from that. So it was Humans -> Micro Organisms -> Humans. Now where the original Humans evolved from could of been different, so I didn't go that far back. Did you get that from Mission to Mars or whatever that movie is?
KristyGirl wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 11:01 I think we all evolved from from dolphins? What do you guys think? http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx Welcome to renegade forums! Please follow the rules and only post topics that are involved with renegade! Have a nice day!
HeavyX101 wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 16:05 KristyGirl wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 11:01 I think we all evolved from from dolphins? What do you guys think? http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx Welcome to renegade forums! Please follow the rules and only post topics that are involved with renegade! Have a nice day! No.
I'll attempt to bring this back on topic. What I learned and believe is that all animals originated from the ocean, but most likely not a dolphin--I don't see how we relate besides the fact that we're both mammals and we're both slightly intelligent. It'd make more sense for protozoa -> fish -> mammals --> humans --> mutants and the X-men.
cnc95fan wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 18:44 HeavyX101 wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 16:05 KristyGirl wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 11:01 I think we all evolved from from dolphins? What do you guys think? http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx Welcome to renegade forums! Please follow the rules and only post topics that are involved with renegade! Have a nice day! No. GTFO My brother hates you so he quit BFD. Let that crappy bullet model crappy models for you. Die !
HeavyX101 wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 18:10 cnc95fan wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 18:44 HeavyX101 wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 16:05 KristyGirl wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 11:01 I think we all evolved from from dolphins? What do you guys think? http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx Welcome to renegade forums! Please follow the rules and only post topics that are involved with renegade! Have a nice day! No. GTFO My brother hates you so he quit BFD. Let that crappy bullet model crappy models for you. Die ! Oh yay. Now I can ban your IPs.
cnc95fan wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 18:50 HeavyX101 wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 18:10 cnc95fan wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 18:44 HeavyX101 wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 16:05 KristyGirl wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 11:01 I think we all evolved from from dolphins? What do you guys think? http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx Welcome to renegade forums! Please follow the rules and only post topics that are involved with renegade! Have a nice day! No. GTFO My brother hates you so he quit BFD. Let that crappy bullet model crappy models for you. Die ! Oh yay. Now I can ban your IPs. wtf du u want u n00b
cnc95fan wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 20:27 Yes, I'm the n00b. +1 POST COUNT!
Not really, when you try to make sence with importperly abbriviated words.. Let me try to understand what you said.. Am I right in saying "What the fuck do you want you noob?". If so, where did I enquire I wanted anything? No, GTFO presently.
HeavyX101 wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 17:28 cnc95fan wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 20:27 Yes, I'm the n00b. +1 POST COUNT! yes, that proves you're a complete n00b. Have a nice day. See you in hell. ~Zack
What the fuck have you faggots done to this thread? Get OUT, all of you. Jesus Christ.
Zack wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 20:37 HeavyX101 wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 17:28 cnc95fan wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 20:27 Yes, I'm the n00b. +1 POST COUNT! yes, that proves you're a complete n00b. Have a nice day. See you in hell. ~Zack You mean you are going to be in the hell too? OMG XD
HeavyX101 wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 19:42 Zack wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 20:37 HeavyX101 wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 17:28 cnc95fan wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 20:27 Yes, I'm the n00b. +1 POST COUNT! yes, that proves you're a complete n00b. Have a nice day. See you in hell. ~Zack You mean you are going to be in the hell too? OMG XD Now that you mention it.. <@[FW]cnc95fan> Oh <&Master_Zenor> hindus believe in bout 10 gods <@[FW]cnc95fan> I didn't know you planned on going to hell zack <@[FW]cnc95fan> <&Master_Zenor> i prefer the big bang theory <@[FW]cnc95fan> Which it'self has proved to be.. inadaquate <~Zack> cnc: it's an expression.
cnc95fan wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 20:44 HeavyX101 wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 19:42 Zack wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 20:37 HeavyX101 wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 17:28 cnc95fan wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 20:27 Yes, I'm the n00b. +1 POST COUNT! yes, that proves you're a complete n00b. Have a nice day. See you in hell. ~Zack You mean you are going to be in the hell too? OMG XD Now that you mention it.. <@[FW]cnc95fan> Oh <&Master_Zenor> hindus believe in bout 10 gods <@[FW]cnc95fan> I didn't know you planned on going to hell zack <@[FW]cnc95fan> <&Master_Zenor> i prefer the big bang theory <@[FW]cnc95fan> Which it'self has proved to be.. inadaquate <~Zack> cnc: it's an expression. What are you guys talking about?
I've decided to change topic to your negitive IQ.
KristyGirl wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 15:17 KristyGirl wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 14:06 In my opinion there are similirites that came from many diffrent places. Like there are only a few (like 4) specises in the world that has sex for more than reproduction, as in for fun. Humans and dolphins are one of them. Also we did most likely ivolve from a water organisim because of what SSADMVR said earlier about the webed toes and fins. Apes don't have fins and such. So where did we get thoes. [I was refering to the humanoid species we were before we evolved] Can we stay one topic por favor? Please. Did you just ask yourself to stay on topic?
R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 14:47 This is what I think. I think we used to live on another planet. The species was dying, so sent out genetic information on micro organisms on meteorites across space. The information was implanted into Earth. Fish came from that code, then evolved into land-amphibious animals, then into land animals, then humans developed later from that. So it was Humans -> Micro Organisms -> Humans. Now where the original Humans evolved from could of been different, so I didn't go that far back. That is almost exactly what I believe, except for some minor details. I believe that unknown aliens came to earth and left behind species that were similar to apes. Some of them evolved into humans and some into apes. Then later, the aliens came back and were worshiped by Egyptians, who build Pyramids as a landing spots for for their gods/aliens, but they left again, never to return. And no, I came up with this theory long before I watched the Planet of the Apes remake(which was a horrible movie compared to the original), but the movie Stargate did influence me a bit. As for the not evolving, I guess some of the ape like creatures did not evolve enough, mostly mentally, and they are still among us to this day. Examples: Jack Thompson, Paris Hilton, George W. Bush, and so on...
I hope that you are being completely insincere with your theory. That's more ridiculous than a Creationist's claim that the universe was created in 6 days. Why not just believe that a pink unicorn shit out the universe?
It is obvious that we evolved from tiberium mutated monkeys from outer space. Duh.
Surth wrote on Fri, 06 June 2008 04:12 But seriously, who actually cares.
We will eventually have all this figured out. EDIT: August and September of this year will be crucial for Science. By early-mid 2009, we would have enough evidence to know whether parallel dimensions exist. It helps to follow what the scientific community is upto.
I read somewhere that the chances of a mutation being an advantage to a species and then carrying on in the species is greater than the amount of living creatures on earth... which pretty much means evolution is impossible
If we didn't evolve, Why the fuck do we have a tail bone in our arses?
Starbuzz wrote on Fri, 06 June 2008 07:03 We will eventually have all this figured out. EDIT: August and September of this year will be crucial for Science. By early-mid 2009, we would have enough evidence to know whether parallel dimensions exist. It helps to follow what the scientific community is upto. 2009? Link please
Spoony wrote on Thu, 05 June 2008 11:37 we developed from a lower form of primate known as the 'creationist' Well considering I am one, and the evolution gang here is resorting to sarchastic ad hominem rather than intelligent debate I guess that means that by your logic we're actually de-volving. God made the heavens and the earth. Don't know how, when, why and what else is out there but the cosmos' intricacies are perfectly in alignment and balance and the miracle of life and its myriad intricacies have occurred. Label me as you will.
warranto wrote on Fri, 06 June 2008 15:48 Starbuzz wrote on Fri, 06 June 2008 07:03 We will eventually have all this figured out. EDIT: August and September of this year will be crucial for Science. By early-mid 2009, we would have enough evidence to know whether parallel dimensions exist. It helps to follow what the scientific community is upto. 2009? Link please It's some tunnel that will create something in Sweden. People are saying it's going to make a blackhole so we can time travel (lol)
Not if you have 3 billion years (and btw there are gazillions of creatures since you also need to count bacteria's).
warranto wrote on Fri, 06 June 2008 09:48 Starbuzz wrote on Fri, 06 June 2008 07:03 We will eventually have all this figured out. EDIT: August and September of this year will be crucial for Science. By early-mid 2009, we would have enough evidence to know whether parallel dimensions exist. It helps to follow what the scientific community is upto. 2009? Link please A good overview of the entire LHC project can be found here at the official CERN site: http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/LHC-en.html The links on the left contain useful information. The experiment to find the possibility of extra dimensions is called ATLAS. http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/ATLAS-en.html The ATLAS people released this video as well. Nothing is proven and firm right now...but it may not or may change in a couple month and years. All we have now is theories and speculation but maybe not for long? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0ZqV5u-z6o
bakerrrr wrote on Fri, 06 June 2008 08:00 Surth wrote on Fri, 06 June 2008 04:12 But seriously, who actually cares.
I mean, I don't want to seem like an arrogant little prick by saying I don't care. It's just there's so much more to worry about today like global warming...Even if we did find our roots as a planet, what good will that do the world? will it cure cancer?aids?
Global Warming? Out of all of the important issues, you start off by naming global warming? There's still no solid evidence that we're causing any serious acceleration to the climate change.
Starbuzz wrote on Fri, 06 June 2008 09:54 warranto wrote on Fri, 06 June 2008 09:48 Starbuzz wrote on Fri, 06 June 2008 07:03 We will eventually have all this figured out. EDIT: August and September of this year will be crucial for Science. By early-mid 2009, we would have enough evidence to know whether parallel dimensions exist. It helps to follow what the scientific community is upto. 2009? Link please A good overview of the entire LHC project can be found here at the official CERN site: http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/LHC-en.html The links on the left contain useful information. The experiment to find the possibility of extra dimensions is called ATLAS. http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/ATLAS-en.html The ATLAS people released this video as well. Nothing is proven and firm right now...but it may not or may change in a couple month and years. All we have now is theories and speculation but maybe not for long? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0ZqV5u-z6o Thanks! Although one thing I noticed. It really doesn't say "parallel dimensions", but "extra dimensions"... and not necessarily the Sci-fi kind. What they seem to be trying to do is to see if dimensions beyond what we can experience exist. 1st Dimension - straight line 2nd Dimension - flat pictures 3rd Dimension - how we see the world 4th Dimension - currently beyond our specific understanding. It's this 4th dimension and beyond that the experiments are designed to reveal.
Oops my bad; wrong word choice. That's what I meant. I have been following these developments for a while. I hope good things come from these experiments to enlighten our limited understanding.
could we first try to solve our social problems? 8[
Surth wrote on Sat, 07 June 2008 02:24 could we first try to solve our social problems? 8[ How exactly does scientific research get in the way of solving social problems?
Surth wrote on Fri, 06 June 2008 13:34 By using up money? Money does not solve any problems.
Starbuzz wrote on Fri, 06 June 2008 13:37 Surth wrote on Fri, 06 June 2008 13:34 By using up money? Money does not solve any problems. ...
Starbuzz is right. We throw tons of money into welfare and education, and we get no progress out of them. Spending more money does not mean better productivity. It just means there's more money to throw away.
The problem is eroding social structure and values. Turn from God and his instructions, and you of course have a mess. Analogy: A manufacturer puts instructions into a package for a complex product you need to live each day. He gives it to you free and promises results but you decide he doesn't know what he's talking about and since you can't see him, call him or prove the instructions are real or work you don't follow them because there must surely be a better faster way and you're clearly smart enough to figure this out. You aren't going to get a good result, and your quality of life will suffer. Who's fault is it?
Or the Bible could be just like a guy on the street selling you a fake Rolex. He says it's genuine, and he's saying all the right words, but you have no proof that it's actually a genuine Rolex, and there's no way to get definitive proof. It's not really much of a stretch of the imagination to see why people are skeptical from buying a "Rolex" from a random guy. Chances are, though, it's not a genuine Rolex.
I may be Christian, but I have to agree with cheesesoda's analogy here. I add a caveat, however: It could very well be that it is a genuine Rolex, and you just passed up a good thing simply by not believing the word of a stranger on the street. Whether or not a unified belief in a "God" (note that I do not single out one religion here as most religions of the world, for the most part, have the same "how to live a good life" message) is the solution to the problem, however, is another issue.
For me, for the first few paragraphs of the guy's sales pitch, I believed, and I would even argue to every passerby that the guy was being sincere. Then, I had to stop the guy for a minute to think about it. I realized, at that point, all the things he said weren't bad, but I just couldn't justify the price for something that I couldn't guarantee was genuine, and the requirements to keep the watch just seemed to outweigh the benefits of keeping my money. I mean, I can still impress people and look sharp without an expensive watch.
The only thing that confounds me is the massive number of peoples who have bought these Rolexes. And what confuses me even further is that they have bought the Rolexes from different street guys; and they are all convinced that they have a genuine Rolex. Something is slighty amiss here, I think, and I see nothing wrong with having an investigation.
The answer as to why people buy those rolexes is because they believe that it could be the genuine thing, the real deal. Think about it, this guy on the street says all the right words and if he looks genuine(aka nice clothes, speaks properly) then maybe people, will buy these rolexes for about 10$ on the off chance that they are real, and they're getting the deal of their lives.
Cheesesoda: Oh, I agree that it can't be proven by word of mouth that it is genuine, heh... but that is the whole concept of faith: be it a belief in God (regardless of which God(s) it may be), belief of the random street vendor, or the belief of a friend offering you the same thing. It's not so much how you can fair with or without it (at least as far as I am concerned - you could have easily have known it was a genuine Rolex and still chosen not to get it), but rather the initial assessment of real or fake. Starbuzz: It could just be that they ALL are genuine, only one is genuine or that none of them are. There is nothing wrong with an investigation, just don't dismiss it out of hand (and I'm not saying you are) simply because it doesn't make sense.
Starbuzz wrote on Fri, 06 June 2008 14:55 The only thing that confounds me is the massive number of peoples who have bought these Rolexes. And what confuses me even further is that they have bought the Rolexes from different street guys; and they are all convinced that they have a genuine Rolex. Something is slighty amiss here, I think, and I see nothing wrong with having an investigation. Which is why it is VERY important to seek truth, and not a variety of it. Denominationalism is wrong. There was only one church in AD 33. The bible says there's ONE way. Not one way with 5,000 man made intepretations of it. Just do what the New Testament says. So easy. Even if you don't understand it, or agree with it. As for evidences: There is quantifiable proof that christians live better, longer happier lives. It isn't an accident. If we can believe in aliens and microbial seeding, why am I labelled a delusional loon for thinking there's a being who doesn't play by our rules and is responsible for us and everything we see. A true study of metaphysics lends support to creationism, not against it.
warranto wrote on Fri, 06 June 2008 16:06 Oh, I agree that it can't be proven by word of mouth that it is genuine, heh... but that is the whole concept of faith: be it a belief in God (regardless of which God(s) it may be), belief of the random street vendor, or the belief of a friend offering you the same thing. It's not so much how you can fair with or without it (at least as far as I am concerned - you could have easily have known it was a genuine Rolex and still chosen not to get it), but rather the initial assessment of real or fake. I think you missed my point a little. What I was saying was that all the sacrifices that being a Christian requires (and as well as other religions) wasn't really worth the "guarantee" of Heaven when it comes from a book with a questionable background. Plus, I don't see some of these "immoral" pleasures being immoral in the least. Then there's the whole problem with how history went from polytheism to monotheism. It's hard to think that everybody thinking that every object has a soul is somehow wrong, but then suddenly a belief in one God is somehow correct. Plus, the whole writing of the Bible. Everybody shows verses of the Bible speaking of people disbelieving and such, but human nature is so easy to understand. If you speak vaguely of how people will react to religion, you entrance so many... like the whole obsession with Nostradamus predictions. It just seems too fishy for me to believe it anymore.
Heh, actually that is exactly the point I got from it. Quote: What I was saying was that all the sacrifices that being a Christian requires (and as well as other religions) wasn't really worth the "guarantee" of Heaven when it comes from a book with a questionable background. Plus, I don't see some of these "immoral" pleasures being immoral in the least. Right. And I'm not questioning your decision on that (hence my use of the idea regarding knowing the Rolex was real but still not getting it). All I'm suggesting is that (to make the analogy a little more direct) even if you don't like the price you have to pay for admission, it does not mean what you are getting in to does not exist. If you think a movie is not worth the price for admission, that is up to you... however not agreeing with the price of admission does not deal with the existence of the movie. Quote: Then there's the whole problem with how history went from polytheism to monotheism. It's hard to think that everybody thinking that every object has a soul is somehow wrong, but then suddenly a belief in one God is somehow correct. It's not so hard to understand (Whether or not you agree is a different subject). Basically humanity gained a very strong ego and thought itself special from everything else because (as far as we knew back then) we were the only things with rationality and high-level cognitive abilities. The existence of a soul didn't change, but rather restricted itself to the "group of special people". Quote: Plus, the whole writing of the Bible. Everybody shows verses of the Bible speaking of people disbelieving and such, but human nature is so easy to understand. If you speak vaguely of how people will react to religion, you entrance so many... like the whole obsession with Nostradamus predictions. Too true. Unfortunately this is why the "truth" (and by this I mean the objective truth of the matter - whatever it may be) will never be known as it is far too easy to veer people away from it. It doesn't mean any one specific example is automatically wrong because of it, but it does mean that the lines that show why it is a truth or falsehood are blurred almost to the point of no longer existing.
Yeah, but in my case, there is no proof of said movie existing. I'd say it's more like this one Family Guy episode where they get a postcard in the mail saying that they won a free boat (and the boat DID exist), but they were also offered a "mystery surprise". Theoretically, the mystery surprise could benefit you in numerous ways. However, the cost of having the surprise was giving up the free boat. It almost seems foolish to give up the boat for something that isn't guaranteed to be worth it. Perhaps I'm just being naive by always using reasoning instead of just believing in something, but you can't blame me for not taking a huge leap. But what about the souls of those that were polytheistic before Judaism and subsequently Christianity were preached? Can all of those people be condemned? It's just so hard to listen to someone quote the Bible to you showing how your lack of faith was covered in the Bible. Like you agree, it's not hard to imagine that the people writing the Bible could very well have understood human nature enough to put that there as a counter. It certainly isn't an idea so profound that it could only have been divinely inspired.
Heh, actually that Family Guy episode is a good analogy to all of this. A belief in God (any God) may seem foolish to some, and I will not condemn then for thinking that. What I WILL condemn, however, is those who claim that they "know" about the truth of the matter one way or the other. It is very much a huge leap. It's is a question of faith after all... belief in the absence of proof. It's not naïvety to always use reason, just don't fall into the trap of "what is reasonable now" by automatically crying falsehood at something that counters it. It's sometimes quotes in religious arguments that if we simply followed religion we would still think that the earth was flat. Well, at the point in time that such a belief was held, it was through the use of reason. Flawed reason, yes... but still reason. Otherwise you may end up like William K. Clifford who thought that you have no right to believe in something that can not be proven. Quote: It is wrong in all cases to believe on insufficient evidence (Bold added by me for emphasis)
Starbuzz wrote on Fri, 06 June 2008 13:37 Surth wrote on Fri, 06 June 2008 13:34 By using up money? Money does not solve any problems. Tell that to the government.
warranto wrote on Fri, 06 June 2008 16:06 Starbuzz: It could just be that they ALL are genuine, only one is genuine or that none of them are. There is nothing wrong with an investigation, just don't dismiss it out of hand (and I'm not saying you are) simply because it doesn't make sense. It would be irrational to dismiss it; if I did dismiss it, then why the need for an investigation? You see the reason (my reason) for the investigation in the first place is a recent suspicion (I reveal now) that maybe...just maybe one of the Rolex guy's might be selling the right Rolex. Maybe not a fully genuine Rolex but atleast one that MAY have some genuine parts. And I have enough logical reasons/evidence as to why I can pursue such an investigation without being branded a hypocrite. KIRBY-098 wrote on Fri, 06 June 2008 16:08 Which is why it is VERY important to seek truth, and not a variety of it. Denominationalism is wrong. There was only one church in AD 33. I was referring to the hundreds of religions of the world today and the world yesterday but the Christian denomination concept fits in as well. cheesesoda wrote on Fri, 06 June 2008 13:15 Then there's the whole problem with how history went from polytheism to monotheism. It's hard to think that everybody thinking that every object has a soul is somehow wrong, but then suddenly a belief in one God is somehow correct. You do have a strong point there, cheese, but only thing to remember is that we only have knowlege of recorded history when writing was invented in the 4th millennium BC. We have no idea of the lives, the ways, beliefs, and cultures of the hundreds of generations of humans who came before and who used the oral tradition to stay together. Of course, this means nothing other than that we may be missing out on crucial information. What is intresting here is that humans have always had some sort of deity(s); from the most ancient tribe we know of to the most ancient civilization. And that fact only adds more complexity to the ancient humans we have no real knowledge of.
warranto wrote on Fri, 06 June 2008 13:09 1st Dimension - straight line 2nd Dimension - flat pictures 3rd Dimension - how we see the world 4th Dimension - currently beyond our specific understanding. It's this 4th dimension and beyond that the experiments are designed to reveal. I thought it was agreed that the 4th dimension was Time? Speaking of time, do you know how easy it is to understand how time travel would work? It is just hard to implement because of lack of recourses. If you look at it like this anyway: How do we move in the 3rd dimension? Simple, on 3 axises: X, Y, and Z. X being Horizontal, Y being Vertical, and Z being Altitude. We can stand in one spot, or reference point and move on those 3 axises until we get to our destination. But if we add in the 4th dimension of time, we add in an additional 3 sub movement axises: Tx, Ty, Tz. However, do to hour lack of knowledge on the passage of time, we can't exactly pin point what exactly a reference point is. It is easy in the 3rd dimension, it is where you are standing now, but how would you describe that in time? How could you calculate your current position in time? If we learned how to do that, all we would need to do is move those calculations along the Tx, Ty, and Tz plane, and thus we invent time travel. -- As for that religion argument, I used to think all religion was evil in that it caused many bad things to happen. I've reworked that theory. I now believe that monotheism is what is truly evil. I mean think about it. You worship one single person for fear of how he will judge you. You do not go against his wishes, again for fear of how he will judge you. It is all run by fear. When you look at polytheism, you see gods and higher beings that are in all different objects and elements. People pay respect to individual elements and objects thus keeping the environment safer and nicer, as well as society in check. There is still the fear of angering gods and all, but it is to such a different degree, it isn't evil. And since these objects and elements are everywhere, there is no point fighting over the religion. If there had to one day be a religion everyone had to follow: Polytheism > Monotheism
Heh, I said that the 4th was beyond our specific understanding. You are right that it is time, but so far (at least the documentation that I've seen) suggests that while we may know what it is, we understand very little about the specifics of it. As for your monotheism argument, it is flawed. Worshiping out of fear (or even kindness, duty, honour, etc) doesn't make the religion evil. Going on the basis of fear, the exact opposite would happen. There would be NO evil acts committed by those of particular monotheistic religion in the world because of the fear that God would judge you. If the religion preaches evil as the right thing to do, there would be evil. However, most monotheistic religions preach to do good, love thy neighbor, etc.
No, you misunderstood me. I didn't say that it is evil because it is based off of fear. That is just a reason why it is bad. It is evil because it doesn't embody any respect for the environment or the elements, only other people and the god them self. That is why wars are fought. That is why it is evil. People tend to believe their religions are better than others. "My God is better than your god!" It is just an ironic chain of violent anti-violence.
Just to throw in something worthy of consideration- even though I know it will be bowled over and ignored in light of the beaten-to-death and never-to-be-resolved pseudo-debate over Evolution vs. Creationism- humanity, regardless of anything else, is something of an anomaly in the history of known existence, however you believe that existence came to be. We are, alone among other known species, gifted both with extraordinarily capable minds and bodies which compliment them almost perfectly. Whether or not a higher power influenced our development (or creation, if you'd have it that way), we have the power to radically adapt ourselves to almost any situation (indeed, to any we've encountered thus far) through the use of tools and reasoning skills. With that in mind, I'd like to pose a series of questions. Not one-liners, but actual questions which may actually require some thought and which do not have definite answers: - With all our ability to adapt through the use of clothing, tools, vehicles, and structures, is it possible (assuming for a moment, if you're up to the task, that evolution is factual) that we have actually stalled our own development? Have we become so adept at non-biological adaptation that we have cut ourself off from processes of natural selection? How long has this been happening, if at all, and- most significantly- might our lack of further development due to our own meddling have led to the belief that we never had evolved in the first place? - As Galileo once so eloquently put it: Our Creator (assume for a moment, if you can, that such a being exists and is in fact responsible for our existence) endowed us with the capacity for rational thought. Are we truly intended to not make use of it? If, indeed, all the evidence we presently have is false and was planted there by our Creator, should we not assume that we were meant to find it? This may be interpreted as a Tower of Babel situation; we have free will and a vast array of talents, but can we determine with any reasonable certainty that we are meant to limit ourselves? How do we know that past experience is not merely part of the road to true understanding, and that in every case our being cast down again was merely the doing of a being who knew far better than we did that we simply were not ready for it yet? If we make no further attempt to understand our existence beyond what we have already been given in the form of the Bible, are we simply giving up? In the days of the Old Testament, it was presumed to be the ultimate truth, the sum total of all spiritual knowledge, and never to be supplanted. Yet now there is also the New Testament (and, if you count them, the Koran and other latter-day scriptures such as the Book of Mormon). Is that not proof enough that, whatever the nature of our Creator is, that being is not by any means done with us? How can we be so arrogant as to assume we know what lies in store for us next? Certainly, nobody expected the coming of the New Testament, so how, exactly, do we know that there isn't yet another to be revealed at a time only the Creator is aware of? - All that exists must, by definition, be knowable; merely knowing that it does, in fact, exist, implies some possibility of further understanding. Can we all agree that the sum total of human knowledge and experience is positively insignificant compared to the vastness of all that exists, whether we believe in chance or design; that question which divides our opinions is rooted not in the scope but rather in the nature of our understanding? When we do not know even a fraction of all that may be known, what do we have besides faith and faith alone to support any belief regarding our origins? Science supports the theory of evolution, yet science is fluid; what we considered fact- unchangeable law centuries ago- is now the stuff of classroom humor and history. Does it not require an amount of faith equal to that of any belief in God to accept as fact what the evidence tells us is true, despite the fact that it may be overturned tomorrow by yet another discovery? - Finally, what exactly does true belief in something mean? Beyond holding something as true, is it possible that validating our beliefs requires more than just faith? Perhaps we cannot truly believe something without continually testing that belief and challenging it with new ideas, new experiences, and fresh knowledge. Is it, perhaps, that truth can only be found in those beliefs which withstand that test time and time again? If you believe in God, and witness something which shakes the very foundations of that belief, and yet come out the other side still believing, have you found something true with which to justify that belief- even if it is not something tangible or explainable? If you put to the test a scientific theory and, despite a new discovery which challenges the assumptions it rests upon, it continues to make sense, has it become any less valid? When tested in such a way, is a person wrong for continuing to believe or have they come to understand something that another could not without sharing that experience? Consider that, regardless of how the world has changed, there remains an overwhelming majority of humanity which believes that some form of higher power had a hand in shaping existence as we know it. Also consider that elements of even the most thoroughly trounced scientific theories of the past have endured and found themselves incorporated into later, more accurate models. I realize that most of you will skip right over this, but for those that don't... well, food for thought.
R315r4z0r wrote on Fri, 06 June 2008 22:01 No, you misunderstood me. I didn't say that it is evil because it is based off of fear. That is just a reason why it is bad. It is evil because it doesn't embody any respect for the environment or the elements, only other people and the god them self. That is why wars are fought. That is why it is evil. People tend to believe their religions are better than others. "My God is better than your god!" It is just an ironic chain of violent anti-violence. That's not an aspect of religion though... just the people who use it. "My God is better than your god!" offers no difference to "My government is better than your government!". How often do you hear about one country saying that their way of government is better to another Country? More often than not, it results in war and violence just as much as the concept of God does - just as often as "My way of life is better than your way of life" invokes war and violence. World War 2 happened because the German way of life was "better" than the rest of the world's. The Cold War happened because the American way of life was "better" than the Soviet Union way of life. Racism in America happened because Whites were "better" than Blacks, etc. It's not the function of the ideal that makes it "evil", it's how people use that idea and are intolerant of other ideals. Democracy or Soviet Union-style Socialism are not evil by nature, but the people who follow them will still do evil in their name. Even racism is not evil by nature. Its simply a segregation of people based on the thought that one is better than the other. It may be wrong and and bad, but not "evil". However the people who follow such an ideal are still capable of evil done in its name. Religion is no different.
No, but that is the point of my statement. I didn't say it is the root of all evil, I just said it is evil. And I did not mean to imply that religion in itself is evil. What I meant is that it causes problems, i.e. the people who follow it tend to take it to the wrong extremes. I've said it before that religion has good intentions, but many people have simply lost sight of them. You can't say that someone isn't drunk from beer because someone else is drunk from wine. Both are problem causing agents. One more than the other, or vis versa. The fact is, if one was to go away, would you not agree that there would be less problems? If wine ceased to exist, wouldn't their be less people getting drunk?
Quote: I didn't say it is the root of all evil, I just said it is evil. Neither did I. The only way religion could be evil is if it taught evil, and by that I mean specifics. Quote: What I meant is that it causes problems, i.e. the people who follow it tend to take it to the wrong extremes. Right the PEOPLE take it to the wrong extremes. It's the people who are evil, not the medium they invoke to justify the evil. Religion, just like government, science, morality, etc. are tools. Tools are not evil. The whole "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument comes to mind. Guns are simply a tool. Designed to kill, yes... but only a tool. Religion is like this as well. Be it a "true" religion (Cristian, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc), or simply a specific tool used to manipulate the masses (stereotype cult). The tool is neutral. Neither evil nor good. As a result, it can be used for both. And, as a result of this, it generates ideals and dogmatic positions on certain subjects that ingrain themselves so much into people that they will do what they can to make their way the right way, and often the only way. For an example of this, look at Cold War America and the anti-communist messages put forth by, well, everyone. The American way of life was held so close by the individuals who thought it right that any perceived threat to it caused it to be acted on in a dogmatic way and any and all "communist threats" were eliminated in some form. I highly doubt you would want to call Democracy an "evil" thing. As for your argument towards the "take one away and remove an evil", you would be correct. A type of expression of evil would be removed. However that would only be replaced by something else... and has already happened. Take a look at every Atheist whom you would describe as being evil. They have already had religion removed, yet still find means of being evil. Be it wine or religion, removing it would solve the negative aspect of the issue... at the cost of not solving the issue at hand. Evil will still exist so long as ideals are held close to people. If someone believes in ANYTHING to the point they are willing to defend that belief, evil will occur. You can not blame the source of the belief for the acts of the individual... you can only blame the individual for thinking that the belief deserves such an act done in its name.
I see it the other way around. If I understand you right, you basically say: - People who want to be evil use religion for that. If there was no religion they would find something else. I say: - Some people get so "obsessed" with their religion that it will make them evil. If there was no religion, they *could* get obsessed by something else that makes them evil, but chances are that they don't. We're probably both right... I guess both things happen, the question basically is how many times either happens. I don't see religion as evil, I do however think it leads to increased amounts of evilness.
It's both. Those who desire to do evil will use what they can to get others to follow in the same way. The ones who use religion for evil are the "leaders". Those who hold so tightly to something that they do evil in its name are the "followers". There are many things that are not evil and are not directed by the leaders to do evil things... but the followers still choose to do evil in its name. Just as there are many things where the leaders desire it to be evil, but the followers do not. ANYTHING that people hold on to will result in evil being done. How tightly it is held on to only increases the evil done to defend that ideal to a perceived threat. Parents protecting their children will kill, leaders of a country will go to war, the legal system will punish with death, etc.
Yes but would you not agree that if there was no religion, people wouldn't use it as an excuse?
Kind of a moot question. An absence of something automatically means nothing can be attributed to it because it does not exist.
Personally I wouldn't even try explaining the principles and nuances of MONOTHEISM (aka christianity, judaism and muslim) Essentially it's the people who grow out and away from it, while maintaining their faith, that can cause problems. But it is in no way limited to. Example time: The western world seems to have a harsh view of Muslims. But this is really because of cultural differences, religiously they take it alot more seriously but the actual core religions are very similar.
KIRBY-098 wrote on Fri, 06 June 2008 09:51 God made the heavens and the earth. Don't know how, when, why and what else is out there but the cosmos' intricacies are perfectly in alignment and balance and the miracle of life and its myriad intricacies have occurred. I will concede that life could not have been an accident/chance as there is too much order and detail.
Order? What order? Life is big bad chaos. A wrong turn in evolution can mean the extinction of entire species.
Yes, but species don't just explode and disappear. There is a method to the extinction of a specie. If there's a method, there's order. Starbuzz, are you suggesting that you believe that there is a "god", but nothing so much as any religion wants to claim? If so, you really can't consider yourself an atheist, but a deist.
If God is real, why doesn't he show himself? or herself for that matter. I mean seriously, you expect me to believe you because you have a book? Which any mortal could have faked?
Heh, I love this part of the "flawed arguments" approach. Be very careful how you answer. Are you suggesting that you need to "see to believe", Ryu? Heh, besides... it could be argued that God DID show himself at one point, very few even believed him and in response to the claim he was God, we killed him.
If God exists I think hes a bloody asshole for letting all those people in Africa and Asia die of war and conflict and natural disasters and all that shit. Nevermind all the deaths coming from the WW's. And don't throw the "thats the devils work" shit at me, your book says hes almighty so the devil has got nothing on him.
Question: Are you now admitting that God does, or at least might exist, but just isn't worthy of worship?
Actually, it would be argued that it's the result of human nature. God lets it happen because He has given us free will. In doing so, God allows man to destroy itself in any way it sees fit, but also allows us the ability to repent and follow His will. It's human nature that inherently destroys itself, and God allows it, otherwise we can't truly have free will if He intervenes.
I dont believe in a god, warranto does, end of story.
warranto wrote on Wed, 11 June 2008 09:58 Heh, I love this part of the "flawed arguments" approach. Be very careful how you answer. Are you suggesting that you need to "see to believe", Ryu? Heh, besides... it could be argued that God DID show himself at one point, very few even believed him and in response to the claim he was God, we killed him. Yeah, I wouldn't blame God atall for being like "You know what? Screw you guys, I'm not making any more public apperences until you're all good and dead." I mean, think about it. Imagine you just crated a giant metropolis on Sim City. Then suddenly, alot of them say "Fuck you, you don't exist". Then somehow there's some feature to, say, appear within your own city or somesuch. And when you do, they kill you, and it's game over. Granted, you could just re-load, but they'd do the same thing, then. Why bother even trying then? And yeah, I know comparing God to humans is also somewhat flawed, but in something like that, you shouldn't bitch when someone's not better than you. Oh, and also, it pisses me off when so many people think they're athiest because it's "cool" or because they don't exactly follow a major religion. Being agnostic is another option, and probably the most logical approach to religion to start off with. Going athiest because "LOL, CAN'T SEE GOD!" is a stupid reason.
Heh, and that is fine by me Surth. So long as your reason for not believing in him isn't based on some highly flawed argument. (There are far too many of those)
warranto wrote on Wed, 11 June 2008 10:13 Heh, and that is fine by me Surth. So long as your reason for not believing in him isn't based on some highly flawed argument. (There are far too many of those) MY REASON FOR NOT BELIEVING IN GOD IS THAT I PRAYED TO HIM BUT I STILL DIDNT GET A PONY! cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 11 June 2008 10:10 Actually, it would be argued that it's the result of human nature. God lets it happen because He has given us free will. In doing so, God allows man to destroy itself in any way it sees fit, but also allows us the ability to repent and follow His will. It's human nature that inherently destroys itself, and God allows it, otherwise we can't truly have free will if He intervenes. Yeah, im pretty sure the african inherits wanted to be born in an environment that sucks
warranto wrote on Wed, 11 June 2008 15:58 Heh, I love this part of the "flawed arguments" approach. Be very careful how you answer. Are you suggesting that you need to "see to believe", Ryu? Heh, besides... it could be argued that God DID show himself at one point, very few even believed him and in response to the claim he was God, we killed him. God is almighty and powerful, ego follows after them two. I question him so his only logical way to keep his ego is, Showing himself to the masses. See to believe? more like See to save my ass. But the real flaw is, Christians BELIEVE God created man kind, But why do a huge majority of Christians try and say it's a fact that god created us, I thought believing and fact were two different thing. Now why would we kill god? if we killed God there is no God hence no Heaven, Don't try and tell me humans are that stupid!!