God is real or not?

[PBR]

 

@Kenlow - We don't really need to respect other people's beliefs. This is why we have words like 'insane' and 'terrorist' in our dictionary,

 

along these lines its funny that anyone know days saying they have visions or say god speaks to them are considered insane / crazy and taken down by government -- but yet believe in the same people way back then and hold what they said truthful and as gospel -- lol

[KingMSD]

Personally I am sikh and believe in God (Waheguru) or a higher being.

 

But I do think a lot of religions are ways to live life that have been created to control and give an overall moral compass.

[s3raphim]

so, there is no incest in early evolution?

[Guest]

Is that a question or a statement with a question mark affixed? If it is a question, is it a genuine question, or rhetorical?

 

If a statement with a question mark - Incorrect, there is incest but incest is a human concept with a negative connotation. It has adapted with specific cultural expectations and then passed into law. Places/people that don't attach such stigma to close-family relationship interbreeding would not refer to it as such. In evolutionary terms, we're all of the same matter and once upon a time were part of the same infinite mass, in this way we're all 'related' and as such any act between two or more organisms that begets another is inbreeding. More technically, take for example the splitting of a single cell into two cells (or cutting a worm in half!), this is not incest, or inbreeding and as essentially the earliest evolution this means: no, there is no incest in early evolution. If you're referring to a stage that we can actively measure and have fossil records, etc, of, then yes, there would have been plenty of incest due to limited populations and suitable geographic localities along with the fact that genetic defects arising from incestual relationships, whilst higher than non-incestual, are still marginal and furthermore, many 'genetic defects' can or did become competitive advantages in the ongoing struggle between all living beings that makes up the process of natural selection. Getting back to biblical - if you're a bible literalist does that mean Adam and Eve's kids all fucked and were inbred hillbillies? Yes.

 

If it is a genuine question, see above, I think it's relevant.

 

if rhetorical - wot?

[kenlow73]

So K-Rad, I should just say everything you posted is wrong and not respect what you believe?

[Dee]

The correct answer is that we don't know.

[s3raphim]

Is that a question or a statement with a question mark affixed? If it is a question, is it a genuine question, or rhetorical?

 

If a statement with a question mark - Incorrect, there is incest but incest is a human concept with a negative connotation. It has adapted with specific cultural expectations and then passed into law. Places/people that don't attach such stigma to close-family relationship interbreeding would not refer to it as such. In evolutionary terms, we're all of the same matter and once upon a time were part of the same infinite mass, in this way we're all 'related' and as such any act between two or more organisms that begets another is inbreeding. More technically, take for example the splitting of a single cell into two cells (or cutting a worm in half!), this is not incest, or inbreeding and as essentially the earliest evolution this means: no, there is no incest in early evolution. If you're referring to a stage that we can actively measure and have fossil records, etc, of, then yes, there would have been plenty of incest due to limited populations and suitable geographic localities along with the fact that genetic defects arising from incestual relationships, whilst higher than non-incestual, are still marginal and furthermore, many 'genetic defects' can or did become competitive advantages in the ongoing struggle between all living beings that makes up the process of natural selection. Getting back to biblical - if you're a bible literalist does that mean Adam and Eve's kids all fucked and were inbred hillbillies? Yes.

 

If it is a genuine question, see above, I think it's relevant.

 

if rhetorical - wot?

 

I love it when evolutionists say we all came from rocks.

[Guest]

So K-Rad, I should just say everything you posted is wrong and not respect what you believe?

 

If you want to, that is your choice and prerogative as an individual lucky enough have been a consciousness and working mental faculty. It's a philosophical question really. Most of us have been raised in this 'tolerance and respect' kind of mindset, which is great as a rule, but all rules have exceptions. If you believe child sex trafficking is acceptable behaviour, should this be respected? If you believe that because you have AIDS, everyone should so you fuck everyone you can without a condom and don't tell them about your AIDS in advance, should this be respected?

 

Technically, what I said about your individual choice is correct but pragmatically, no man exists in a vacuum and we must deal with other people in a social environment and culture to varying degrees. The result of this are norms and mores that are more or less accepted by the larger group. Some breaks from these norms result in mild censure - don't be like that guy, he's always drunk - others result in greater punishment or banishment, such as murder, rape, property theft, etc. The extent will change from norm to norm but the consistent theme is that activities which bring detriment to the larger group are rejected and discouraged and/or punished.

 

My opinion is that globalisation has expanded the size of the social group and the mores and norms now have a much larger range which are acceptable/respected, but it is folly and laziness to accept all behaviours on this basis.

 

@s3raphim - I think you're confusing evolutionists with geologists. Easy mistake to make, it's all science and nefarious wizardry at its core. Perhaps a simpler, one sentence explanation is this: If you could look at really, really, really small things - rocks and people would look the same. But whilst people may hump rocks, they can't make little golems. That's not evolution, that's magic. Bit like making a person from clay.

[s3raphim]

 

This is christian arrogance. Actually, all of the pagan or polytheistic religions did come with moral guidelines. The Norse, Roman, Greek, Indian, whatever, religions had ideologies just as valid as chistianity. Just like christianity, each myth has some message about greed, vanity, or whatever. Thousands of years of christian propaganda and inquisition have ensured that anything other than biblical mythology is portrayed as blood-spilling satanism. If you interpret one religion from the point of view of a believer in your "true" religion, of course they are immoral. If you were capable of looking at christianity and other religions objectively, you would see that it's all the same old thing.

 

Give applicable moral teachings from those mythologies.

And give a creation story of the universe from those mythologies.

[s3raphim]

 

http://www.livescience.com/21513-vestigial-organs.html

There you can read more about Coccyx and other human organs that are useless.

http://www.gotquestions.org/earth-age.html

Sorry it was 6 thousand I probably was mistaken that it was 4 thousand before Jesus.

 

 

Your eye have only one purpose and that is to see. I understand by your terminology that you can also live with out it and when you die you will still go to heaven I just dont understand why its so hard for God to supply you with both good life here and after you die. Seems like he just put as here as an experiment and is just watching at what is going on. I am just saying if I was God I would run things much different. I would never allow some one to been stabbed in the eye or dying of starvation but that is just me I guess God has different point of view.

 

Are you an evolutionist?

[Guest]

 

Give applicable moral teachings from those mythologies.

And give a creation story of the universe from those mythologies.

 

Happy reading:

 

Similarities between Pagan and Christian practices: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm

Pagan items adopted by Christians: http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/pagan-symbols.html

General discussion article: http://www.esolibris.com/articles/alternative_history/christianity_pagan_connection.php

 

Regarding creation story:

Babylonian comparison: http://www.religioustolerance.org/com_geba.htm

Further discussion, but from the angle of 'why' was this type of story used and how its usage differs from, for example, Ancient Egyptian mythology which is also very similar: http://davelivingston.com/creationstories.htm

Short version of the above: http://ancientroadpublications.com/Studies/BiblicalStudies/DidGenesisBorrow.html

 

I am not too sure what value there is in debating/arguing fictitious stories from the beginning of written history that were written in languages that are now dead and have been translated and re-translated a jillion times.

[Timmy]

 

I love it when evolutionists say we all came from rocks.

 

There's a famous paradox about a rock.... "Could god make a rock so heavy that even he can't lift it?" As you can see, this paradox demonstrates that omnipotence is, at least, a tricky concept.

I prefer the alternative.. "Could god make christians so dumb that even he doesn't understand what they are talking about?"

[kenlow73]

eh, Satan told Jesus if he was really The Son if God, turn these rocks into bread.

[Timmy]

eh, Satan told Jesus if he was really The Son if God, turn these rocks into bread.

 

I rest my case.

[Dee]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltzk63f8Py1qhk50go1_400.jpg

[kenlow73]

Praise Lord Mentor

[Guest]

 

Ofcourse, I wouldn't believe everything I read. But its the closest thing that which my life can be based upon. I have not learned anything bad from it. And the wisdom from this book is well beyond its time. I research many translations by the way and compare them, mostly the ones closest to the original.

 

Lol I just saw this.

 

Explains a lot of your writing given English must be like, your 4th language after Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

[xanax]

Our God is most likely the super massive black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy. It giveth and will one day taketh life.

[s3raphim]

 

Happy reading:

 

Similarities between Pagan and Christian practices: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm

Pagan items adopted by Christians: http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/pagan-symbols.html

General discussion article: http://www.esolibris.com/articles/alternative_history/christianity_pagan_connection.php

 

Regarding creation story:

Babylonian comparison: http://www.religioustolerance.org/com_geba.htm

Further discussion, but from the angle of 'why' was this type of story used and how its usage differs from, for example, Ancient Egyptian mythology which is also very similar: http://davelivingston.com/creationstories.htm

Short version of the above: http://ancientroadpublications.com/Studies/BiblicalStudies/DidGenesisBorrow.html

 

I am not too sure what value there is in debating/arguing fictitious stories from the beginning of written history that were written in languages that are now dead and have been translated and re-translated a jillion times.

 

Is there anything about creation that comes close to the bible? If God is proven, it all boils down to the origins of the universe.

[GBK16]

 

Is there anything about creation that comes close to the bible? If God is proven, it all boils down to the origins of the universe.

In Law, there is a thing called "Burden of Proof".

 

This means that, when prosecuting someone, they have to prove without a doubt that the defendant did the crime.

 

If we translate that to this arguement, then can you prove without a doubt that God exists? You can't just say "Oh, there is no other proven theory of the origins of the universe, so it must be God". Nobody has ever had proof that they have seen, or interacted with, God. If God wanted to save people, he would make it known that he exists, and he would allow Humans to make their own choice of whether to actually follow him or not.

 

Also, why is it that God would forgive murderers, child offenders and rapists and accept them if they repent, but he wouldn't accept homosexuals, who according to your own teachings, only love who they love because God gave them free will? Seems pretty messed up that they don't choose who they love, but God judges them anyway.

[s3raphim]

In Law, there is a thing called "Burden of Proof".

 

This means that, when prosecuting someone, they have to prove without a doubt that the defendant did the crime.

 

If we translate that to this arguement, then can you prove without a doubt that God exists? You can't just say "Oh, there is no other proven theory of the origins of the universe, so it must be God". Nobody has ever had proof that they have seen, or interacted with, God. If God wanted to save people, he would make it known that he exists, and he would allow Humans to make their own choice of whether to actually follow him or not.

 

Also, why is it that God would forgive murderers, child offenders and rapists and accept them if they repent, but he wouldn't accept homosexuals, who according to your own teachings, only love who they love because God gave them free will? Seems pretty messed up that they don't choose who they love, but God judges them anyway.

im not too concerned about those moral things that you are so confused of.

 

im looking for answers, and creation has the most and closest evidences so far.

[Timmy]

im not too concerned about those moral things that you are so confused of.

 

im looking for answers, and creation has the most and closest evidences so far.

 

We know that the universe (space itself) is expanding in every direction. We can look and see this happening. If this is the case, you can logically assume that the universe was smaller and more dense in the past. Run this to it's conclusion and you end up with infinately small universe at it's beginning. Add to that other evidence, such as the background microwave radiation observed (an energy "residue" left over from the birth of the universe) for example, and everything points to a "big bang". The big bang theory is the best we have.

 

You cannot deny this. If you choose not to believe this, then you are ignoring the evidence. There are limits to what science can tell us at any given time. The idea of an infinately small universe is as much a paradox as any of the god paradoxes (in a way, big bang, black holes, god, all have this infinity problem at their heart). Infinity is something we do not understand, it may be no more than a mathematial fudge in all our theories for something we can never understand. But science does not claim to know what it cannot test. The argument I would give you that you cannot deny evolution is very similar.

 

This leaves you with three choices IMO if you are determined to believe in a god.

 

1. Believe that god is (or gods are) "above and beyond" the universe. He created it, and the big bang is how it happened. Evolution is how he created Man. Only god can comprehend infinity. Fair enough, this is looking for answers. You can assume that there is only one, that he is good, and that he is even interested in us at all, if you wish - So long as you know that you are speculating an opinion. I respect these people.

 

2. Don't bother with learning what evidence actually is, simply believe in a man-made book that claims to know on what "day" god created what, what he does and doesn't like you to do in bed or at the dinner table, that lists his "loving" threats and genocides, divides man, and opposes learning. Believe in talking donkeys and people who live for 500 years. Pay lip-service to peace while wishing death on unbelievers or "god's enemies" (as all the books do). Overlook the fact that these books do not condemn slavery, or the subjugation of women. Believe that dinosaur bones were put there to test your faith. Overlook the fact that god could have told the "prophets" something useful, like crop rotation or germ theory and saved millions of lives. Let the world rot knowing that you will be all loved-up by Jesus or some other prophet in the "afterlife". Take your magic book literally when it suits you, and then say that you are a "moderate" when the uglyness of religion is exposed. Most of all, don't forget to judge everyone else by your bronze-age standards and claim that only you have a moral compass. And always, always, remember to demand solemn respect for your crazy beliefs. Finally, get tax exemption and all other financial freebies you can to help you raise the money to build more magic temples and to indoctrinate the next generation with your disease.

 

3. Find one of the non-biblical religions and believe that instead. They are mostly harmless.

[TheGuvnor]

 

Are you an evolutionist?

 

 

If you look around I would have to lean on that because it has more scientific proof compared to Gods creation.

[markyosullivan]

These topics usually end badly mainly because people can't accept other peoples views.

[xanax]

This one doesn't seem too bad yet. Hopefully opinions are expressed and emotions are left at the door. An interesting topic that we all have in common being, at the end of the day, humans living a short life here on Earth. Cheers everyone and may God Buddah karma or whatever bless you all till the end of your days!