Don’t Hindu believe in a pantheon of gods?
As far as i know they believe in ONE god, with many faces.
Don’t Hindu believe in a pantheon of gods?
As far as i know they believe in ONE god, with many faces.
I agree with CC that I do not believe that God would ask me to kill - even though He asked Abraham and the Isrealites to do it
You mean the Isrealites were right to kill people, when they massacred the Midianites ? No you are right, they were not people anyway these Midianites, they were not monotheist, we don’t care if their womans and their childrens dies; they are not people, they were evil non-monotheist. God is all loving, so he decide these people should be killed, because if God did’nt kill them NOW, these Midianites will have childrens; more people to Hell, it’s pretty bad, why not just kill them now, it’s pure humanism.
And a good billion believe in No God (Buddist + Athiest + Agnostic). A Good 950 Million believe in Many Gods.
euh… i doupt that. That much polytheist ? You probably count Hinduism as polytheist to get a number that high, and they are not polytheist.
plea for me to define “evil forces”, the closest i can come is to suggest that these “force” people to do evil things. What are evil things? Well, i guess close would be actions which purposefully hurt people in the long-term (i hurt people in the short-term out of necessity) or forces which act purposefully against God.
Ok… then i am not evil, because i hurt nobody, but i could be considered “evil” because i “act” against god, in the way that i want a logical explanation for “god”. But refusing religion is not evil right ?
Fin for his work against God might well also be considered an evil force
How asking for logical answer can be considered evil ?
At the same time, due to the absurdities of his “religion”, i do not consider him to be much of a “force”.
What absurdities ?
I never said it was unimportant what is done in the world today.
The conception of Heaven and Hell, within the fixist “theory”, was often a good reason in history for conservatism (feudalism), why should we change ? god make the world perfect ! I don’t say it’s what you said it was just a common believe in the middle age/before lamarck/darwin. Personally i don’t believe in a life after death, and even if there was we have thing to do HERE.
However, this is a risky gamble. But if they are right, then what have I lost? I still lead a good life and would be judged the same way they are.
With all the religion out there it’s always a risky gamble if you believe only ONE is right.
- sorry - too many people apply anecdotal evidence as statistically demonstrated stats - my bad.
Sadly it’s often easier to convince people with anecdotal evidence that with real numbers.
I apologize for that. But it was done to take out that argument before it would inevitably have come up. Read the other threads about this topic and you will see that it does come up.
City on a Hill, Moose (as a question not an affirmation) and dIfrent does bring up the Thermodynamic “argument”. And Wild2000 i suggest you just go to an university, search in their books something about thermodynamic, and make up your mind. I doupt reading creations book will guide you, it’s totally biased and those who write book about thermodynamic does not think about killing the creationist. But you’ll see thermodynamic is lots of mathematic, it’s differential equation and statistical manipulation.
It is alive in America, dead in europe.
Ha, good, i am not completly fool.
@cystic:
and the more i can take from the “evil tobacco companies” (there is your evil force FS), then the better i feel at the end of the day.
ho. i agree tobacco companies are only a nuisance for humanity. With abortion and death penalty, it’s the third thign we agree on, i’m still not used to it. You should be pro-death penalty, pro-abortion and pro-smoking, all thing would be clear this way :)
Fin, theres a difference between Smoking and being Drunk.
Falk, not Fin.
Wild, why does the afterlife matter right now? We dont know what happens there and how it works so our main function should be to improve ourselves in this life.
Totally agree, we should try to improve life here.
Hey CC, can you answer me plzzzz… i want to know what’s an evil force, socialism, atheism, humanism, science, evolutionism, islamism ? And i won’t say anything if i am in your “evil force”, it’s just curiosity because i know from experiance that “evil” is a very subjective conception (like “true love” and “happiness”).
It is interesting that you bring up Popper. He was the one who said that in order for something to be considered science, it muse be falsifiable. Evolution is not science by his standards.
Popper was a great mind. It’s true that somewhere in his live he believe evolution was not science but he change his mind. He said in a letter to New Scientist;
“… some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested”
“I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological.”
Evolution is not the only means of explaining why we have variations between species. Biblical creationists expect to see variations as well. Natural selection and mutations fit very well (are actually required) in the biblical creation model. However, there are major differences in how evolution and creation use them.
Evolution as you correctly state, says that natural selection and mutations add information.
Biblical creation states that natural selection and mutations result in either a loss of information or no change in information present.
The key is that only one of these models is consistent with what has been found through other scientific fields; specifically population genetics and biology. I find it troubling that you make the following claim:
The bible does’nt speak of evolution, it speak of myth and creation, there’s a big difference, and if you start making reference to god and the bible i think there’s no need to debate, you see you are at a point where you can kill for god, i really doupt anything can change your mind. And you dodge my question; why there’s a species at X, and an other at X + 2 with some difference, i gave you the exemple of the horse.
About my claim; it’s false that new material cannot be added, you forget about duplication and polyploïdy, where the genome get larger. And that we can sequenced DNA we can look before and after to see if there’s new material.
Something to keep in mind here is that the evidence that evolutionists are trying to use does not speak for itself. It has to be interpreted. Evolutionists attempt to interpret the data with a naturalistic, if not atheistic mindset. This in itself puts a bias on any work done.
There is sure a naturalistic mindset. Evolution in science was made when we remplace “god did this” by “this is how it work”. Religion has no place in science, sure it’s naturalistic, we won’t try to speak to all schizophreniac, shaman, priest and monk before making a theory. And the bias in science exist (socio-cultural), but not as much as religion. Because scientist look for facts to make a theory, creationist have the “truth”, they only search for facts to consolidate their theory, and you call the naturalistic approach biased ? It’s not you that brign up the thermodynamic argument in the first place ?
The same data can also be interpreted by a creation scientist in a way that makes logical sense. However, in many of the instances I have read about, including the ones mentioned above regarding natural selection and mutations, creation science actually makes more sense. Please re-read the part on mutations if you disagree.
And it could be taken by any theory involving an all-powerfull being. I can invent a theory about a drunk god and it will be at least as much accurate as the bible and as much plausible. Like the finn believe it was from the blood of a trool, when it involve super-power it’s impossible to say who is right. Seriously i don’t care about creation “scientist”, the oxymoron is so big.
Why is creation-science not scientific? Are you going to tell me it is not because it is not falsifiable? Remember, evolutionists claim that their theory is better because it is science and creation-science is not. I think they both stand on the same grounds interpretation of data through a dogma.
Creation-science is not scientific because THEY HAVE THE “ANSWER”, they just look for facts. It’s not how it is supposed to work. About “dogma”… No, dogma does not make people change their theory, evolution change a lots ! Creation-science did not change, this is why creation-science is dogma, and evolution is not, scientist look for facts and they make their theory a little more accurate, creation-scientific does not care about science, they’ll come with any kind of escuse, thermodynamic, the light is getting slower, carbone 14 does not work out et cetera…
The whole reason that evolutionists used the vestigal organ argument was to try and show imperfect design. You listed it as an indirect proof for evolution. I stated why it is not. Vestigal organs are a good example of an evolutionary claim shown to be incorrect. I am not sure where you are going with the complete and incomplete data thing. I never said that vestigal organs make the theory of evolution incomplete.
Incomplete because you said we found out new use of these vestigial. But we did’nt for some, and you are making abstraction of the facts that some vertigial are on some other species where we know their use, and that vestigial when we speak of bone is even more credible.
Also, I never said that a tautology is not logical. It is logical by definition.
Tautology is about “logic”, but it’s an illogical argument/definition.
And Welcome Chaos, it’s good to see another leftish european atheist join us, we are 3 now :)
- Canada has the best doctors in the world.
You mean those who let people die in a strike because they did’nt want Medicare for everyone ?
I’m not so sure about Cuba. There’s a lot of censorship there which I don’t agree with… however, it’s much better than the previous rulers they had.
Totally agree.
Cuba ain’t paradise, but its not horrible either. Lifting the US sanctions there could do a lot of good for both sides.
How can you live without Cuba’s rum ?
evil forces
What’s that, socialism, atheism, humanism, science, evolutionism ? What does that eat in winter, an evil force ?
And Fisternis, how are pro-abortion, pro-animals, pro-affirmative action, pro-enviorment, redistributionists not left?
The “Left/right” scale is about economic, no link with Animals, Abortion, Environment and moral/social issue. Sure, most Environementalist are leftish, but this is’nt a real critter, you are’nt leftish only if you are an environmentalist. For exemple Capital Punishment is considered rightish, Anti-abortion too, but you are not for Capital Punishment (as i remember) and i am not for abortion, this does’nt mean i am more “rightish” for that, i believe that equal good for everyone is a noble goal. And from my European point of view, both the Democrats and the Republican are from the right wing, sure democrats are not as rightish, but they are.
First; EmuGod my intervention was’nt about god existence but about the relagion between Religion and Sex/Morality/Liberty. Second; Most of the thing you said like “Humans have no rules to their behaviour. Without that sense of God that has always existed, which has been our moral compass, we would do whatever we liked whenever we liked.”, you are just making abstraction of Sociology and Anthropology, theory exist about Social Evolution without using the concept of god.
“You are trying to say that one is a crime and the other isn’t.” = Sex is hurting nobody, like Yanny said; “No one is forcing the woman to have sex. Its a crime otherwise”. It’s not a crime what people do in their bedroom if it hurt nobody. It’s not of my business, nor it’s your business or “god”'s business.
“There are no crimes if God does not exist because humans decide everything and if I decide I want to murder, you have no right ot tell me it’s wrong” = it’s an insult to human achievement, we build a lot, a society with rules, theses rules are for our survival, it’s more complex than “right” and “wrong”.
“Why shoudl we follow these and not other rules” = Because these rules are what make our society live, we should’nt be there is this was pure chaos, our achievement as a soceity is the result of certain rules. And you will follow it either because you have a conscience (destroying the life of someone is useless and horrible), or because you fear jail (i wish it’s not that).
… and sure something runs the universe; i just don’t give this thing an human personalities. It’s the only difference, you have to give nature “intelligence”, “consience”, i don’t need those anthropomorphisms. Sure something guide the universe, otherwise it would be chaos you are right; but this things is’nt human, it has no human trait, it’s not intelligent, it’s not conscience, it’s nature, it’s inhuman. With Social Evolution we can understand why our soceity has a certain order. And with Natural Law we can understand why the universe is’nt pure chaos. There’s nothing mystical if you take the time to read about social and natural science.
What’s love FinsterniS? Describe for me how it works, what are the causes, symptoms and how to deal with it. Is love rational? Certainly not.
When someone love he is irrational, but “love” itself is a scientific concept. A neurologist or a psychologis could explain you better than i can how it work. But what i know is that i don’t need a menace of a commendement to be loyal.
And about my stats CC i dont think it’s from a pool, i will ask the guy at religioustolerance.com he probably know. Because you are right pool are’nt always accurate.
Don’t tell me I get the last word on this one. I thought evolution was so compelling?
The evolution vs creation debate is dead, we won’t return to fixism even if integrists are trying very hard. It’s not very interesting…
I do not have to work in science to know that science is not defined by creating the “best” theory.
Yes, you can never be sure of something, the role of science is giving us tool, on the form of laws, to explain how X react. The objective is to make a laws close to reality. You should read Popper. Science have not the truth, it’s the objective, we will always be closer. Evolution is the only theory that can explain why we have a species at time X, and another, with little differences, at time X + 2. Like i said with science like genetics we know new materials can be added, and we have observed the phenomena of micro-evolution. We know it is possible. It’s a very logical theory.
If a theory is untestable, it is not possible to falsify it. See the difference?
If the premisse are true and the inference logical; the conclusion is true. You cannot “test” evolution directly, but you can indirectly; you can test the mecanism of evolution. Mutation does happen. Micro-evolution does happen. We can trace history of species (with precise dating) and Natural Selection does happen, so what is illogical in this theory ? look at the parts, the indirect proof, interpretation, scientific laws (genetics), and the whole, then explain me that please, with a scientific and logical method, why this is not a valid theory, and if you can is there an alternative ? How can we explain that ? (Note that i know you don’t neccesarly need to give a new theory to falsify evolution).
Okay, so if I add up all of your individual indirect proofs which I showed were either neutral proofs or not proofs at all, you have no proof at on the side of evolution. I do not see how looking at them collectively or individually helps the case for evolution. You are trying to impose a synergistic effect on indirect proofs that even individually provide no proof. What am I missing here to create my serious error?
Fin, you keep referring to generalities. How about providing some examples which has shown evolution to correct.
You showed nothing, if i have time and patiente i will answer to your rebuttal…
About “generalities” the theory of complexity state that a system cannot be divide, you have to understand the whole system and the connection between the elements, a system is more than the sum of it’s part you should know that, i can give you good reference if you want.
You said yourself when i spoke of vertigial organs “Vestigial organs - This is an argument created to dispute the theory of creation”. First of all, “god” can be a philosophical theory, but creation is’nt a scientific theory. Second; You said we are finding the use of what we think was vestigal organs, yes, i can take that (note that this time YOU have a theory with incomplete data, i have nothing against that but you do, you should argue with you about that), but the problem is that we know what’s their use, look at the caecum, it’s not that we don’t know what’s the use of it, we do, other herbivore mammals does have it. The horse have vestigial too of ancients fingers in their legs. It’s not like “Hey wow we don’t know what’s that it’s vestigial”
Natural selection is set up either as a tautology, a special definition or even a lame definition. None of these are science
Two words; Historical sciences. For you Lamarck’s “theory” was science (it was base purely on intuition, no real value), but now it seem evolution is not science. Strange. Also a tautology would be; Natural selection is the survival of the fittest. The fittest are those that survive. THAT is tautology, but i really don’t see that in evolution, sorry but tautology is about logic, it’s a circular logical fallacies if you prefer. I really wonder where you take all this stuff like Tautology and Thermodynamics. Anyway…
No, but you do need the concept to have life after death. Without that, what is the point to even living?
I do not believe that. Death is the end.
How do you rationalize believing in such low probabilities that everything came about the way it did based on random processes?
How can you believe Nature has human trait like intelligence and conscience ?
Yes I would. And God has asked for this to be done in the past. He asked Abraham to do it.
Incredible
And Atheists are “evil”
Even if you are not religious, there are many reasons for “waiting” until marriage for sex. Nevermind the STD’s, cervical cancer, children (but wait - we can pre-emptively kill those), but there is (or can be) a lot of meaning attached to the concept of sex. Of course if i go around sticking my dick into everything, then the meaning diminishes. Now it’s just a way to kiss off an hour or two with some woman i just met.
Honestly, i don’t care about what other are doing in their bedroom, if you prefer not to have sex outside marriage, it’s ok, i just don’t think it’s a question of morality. Personaly, i won’t, to use your expression, “kiss off an hour or two with some woman i just met”, but when you’re with a girl you love for some time i don’t see any problem.
Also FS - w/ regards to your stats, i’m curious as to their origen, and to what degree Christian divorcees consider themselves to be Christian (i.e. merely paying lip-service to something they don’t believe in anymore, as with their marriage vows).
I really don’t remember where i get that, but you can found the same information on;
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac.htm#div
Why are they crimes? Why should they be crimes? According to your logic, then NOTHING is a crime. WE can do whateveer we like. Why should I be punished? If I kill someone and I’m responsible enough to do it so that I wont be caught and that I can deal with the reprecussions, then why shouldn’t I? You’re saying, “they’re crimes”. Well, anything can or cannot be a crime. There can be societies where killing is not a crime. At the atheist level, everythign is allowed. If there is no God or centre to the universe that give us some sense of orientation, then there is no orientation and we are free to do anything. According to atheism, there should be no laws, no punishments, no rewards. Nothing at all because there is nothing to guide humans.
Yes you’re right, we can do whatever we like, but we, humanity, create a soceity with rules so we survive. I have my own judgement, i can judge what i think is human, what i think is’nt human, i don’t say, “hey, that’s the truth”, i just use my jugement. Also i won’t create a God just because i need someone to support my belief, i can defend myself alone, and as there is no reason, no logical reason from my point of view, to believe in God, then i would’nt, and my logical reasoning is the most objective as possible, i won’t accept god because i respect my parent and they does believe in him, and i won’t accept him just because i need a guide and a short answer for everything, i reject the concept because it’s irrational. If the concept was rational, and there’s was sign that our “creator” whant X and Y, then i’ll think of it, but it’s not the case, and even you say “hey it’s stupid we can do everything”, it’s not an argument for god, it’s an argument for the usefulness* of god, it does’nt mean he exist. Anyway, humans are killing other humans with god or without god, we saw that in Soviet Russia, in World War 2, in Israel, everywhere… By Christians, Atheist, Jews, Yellow, Black, White and Red people.
Loyalty comes through the knowledge that marriage is something yo ucan’t tamper with and that your spouse loves you. Once again, why is there marriage? Why should I care if I sleep with many women or not? If there’s no centre to the universe that guides me, then what I can or cannot do is my choice. If I decide I want to sleep with many women, that’s my choice. What is loyalty and why should I be loyal? If she leaves me, why should I care? Why should I not cheat on her, she could be cheating on me and in an atheist world, that’s fine as long as she’s responsible. Are people ever turly responsible? Until you’ve tried ut, you never know if you’re ready. Also, sex can be a “crime”, if it’s idolatry you’re trying to interfere with the marriage of two people. Should this be allowed? What if the two people ar responsible enough? you’re trying to argue about crimes, but on yoru level crimes do not exist and rulesdo not exist. Without God or if God has “died” as some atheists put it, then our lives are ruled by nothing. Everything is allowed. There are no rewards and punishments and we do not have to worry about anything at all so we can therefore do anything.
Use your own mind ! You choose to follow a religion, you choose to follow a set of rules. There is no difference between your choise of embracing the set of rules of Judaism, and my choice of choosing my own set of rule. If you don’t sleep with other women just because of God, then you don’t know what is love. If you don’t kill because of god, then you don’t know what’s a social conscience. Sorry but your “in a atheist world” is a non-sence, Atheist are not more or less cheating on each other, in the US the divorce rate is 23% vs 27% for the Christians. You are blind if you believe you cannot have a sence of ethic without god. Our life are ruled by the soceity, by ourself, by the human race and it’s evolution, these are the rules, and it’s also ruled by religion. NO there is no rewards, i don’t need the concept of heaven to be gentle with the people i like.
If God ask you to kill a child, would you do it ? Don’t say “he would’nt do that”, just answer, IF he ask you this, would you do it ?
* usefulness; not “Usefull” like in an explanation of something (occam’s razor), but usefull in the social sence… it’s like saying, if we are Immortal, then death is’nt the end. It can be “usefull” to calm the fear of some people facing death, but it is’nt true because of that. It’s an evidence that people does’nt seem to respect a lot, they’ll belief in what’s paint in pink, even if it’s ridicoulus, on of the biggest exemple is those who believe that ETs will come soon to cure every diseases.
I agree with the mesure, and to what CC says… smoking has really no use anyway, it’s just harming.
Also, the rules in the bible are meant to improve our life, many of the marital laws are meant to protect the woman and the man from doing thigns that aren’t allowed.
They aren’t allowed for what ? A non-existing anthropomorphic being ? I won’t obey to something i believe is illogical :) (and by illogical i think judaism, islamism and christianism are on the same level) First i really don’t see how god can exist, and Second i don’t see, even if he does exist, why i should obey him. I never obey to my parent because they were my parent, i obey when i think it was right and i know they want the best for me, but i don’t see, if god is the creator of humanity, how could it be otherwise.
If you are allowed to have pre-marital sex, then surely now idolatry will be allowed and why even bother getting married, I mean, youy can have all the relations you want. What I’m trying to show is that sometimes if you give a man an inch he’ll want a mile. Affair rates and divorce rates among religious Jews from what I’ve seen are less than 2%, and they follow laws such as men cannot touch women except immediate family and they can only touch their wives at certain times. Many of them live happy lives and still have good relations with their spouses. Think of it this way: by waiting before having sexual relations, you’ll want to have them and each time it will be like the first one. If you were allowed to do it whenever you like then it would get boring and then you’d want to find the excitement again maybe even with the secretary at work.
Sorry my friend but i do not need anyone to be loyal. God or not i want to be able to look at myself in a glass, so with the secretary at work; no ! I don’t want to, and even if it was the case there is something i call “loyalty”, i you don’t have sex with other woman just because of god there’s a serious problem. And it does’nt “get boring” (well maybe when you’re old but it’s something else), i really don’t see why responsable people cannot sleep together, even if they’re 16.
Another way to look at some of the rules in the Bible is that sometimes you have to contorl your desires. If I have a burning desire to kill you, Yanny, I still can’t do it and have to learn to control my desire. The same is with pre-marital sex. You want to do it, but you have to control your desires. Are you going to shoplift that favourite chocolate bar or control your desires? Now explain to me your point of view. Why is it right? What do you gain from pre-marital sex? How can it improve our lives?
There’s a big difference between “killing” and “loving”. Shoplifting and Murder are crimes, with no use, they don’t help our soceity a lot. Sex is between two people, and it’s nobody affair exept them. You cannot compare Killing and Sex them just because they are desire, we don’t care they are desire as long as they don’t harm other people.
It’s just so ridiculous that our society seeks to kill babies while trying to clone living people. […] decreasing genetic variability, for what?
Agreed. The problem is that there’s $$$ to make with that technology, so i really think it’ll hard to stop them, exept if there’s an international resolution, supported by all country.
Well there’s more option. And i always play RR, so Russians option are even more limited, in fact it has been a long time since we had a Russian-only Player. The only thing Russia can do is trying to adapt to the Axis pressure, and when Germany or Japan is cripple then invade.
Anyway, so what’s the most boring of all anyway; Mother Russia, Hitler’s Germany, the Blessed USA, the Evil Japan Empire, the UK ? I doupt it’s Germany or Japan…