Religions - Your Opinion

[Violet]

Thank God for a change of topic. Bless your soul.

Christians send you things in the mail. I've never had a Christian knocking at my door trying to sell their religion to me. Just Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. Christians have done advertising on street corners before..I rarely see Catholics do it.

What do other religions do? Do they just raise their children to follow after them, or think that people will just somehow be led to follow in their ways?

As far as I know, Christians do raise their children from birth to be religious. We get baptised. There's a lot of Christians out there that are highly tolerable of other religions and will marry someone of another religion even. It's not uncommon. It depends on how strictly devout they are.

[chrono]

Yes. YOUR OPINION. Not 'WHY YOUR OPINION IS WRONG'. We're all supposed to be respecting eachothers opinions, not calling eachother closed-minded. That's why this is in the intellectual discussion thread. So far, I haven't learned anything from your posts. You're just spouting the same nonsense over and over again, missing everyone else's points and bitching about how they fail to understand you.. like some emo kid. Is atheism the new emo fad?


I always thought atheism was quite boring.

http://www.deeppencil.com/images/head-in-sand.JPG

The words closed minded never appearead in any of my post. neither did anything about people failing to understand me and just what am i bitching about? Who have i disrespected and how have i disrespected them?

If you have an opposing view fine but do not go around making things up and Why are you guys cursing and name calling in the id forumn?

if you are going to add an intelligent rebuttal than do so if not then why post here?

you should have learned a law of logic that the average person either does not know or overlooks.

[Violet]

Just skimming over your previous posts should be evident enough.

Who have i disrespected and how have i disrespected them?

I find it most intresting that religious people can point out the absurdities in other religions but can not seem to notice the absurdities in their own.

It truly is willful ignorance. virgin births, people living inside of giant fish, and a guy with super human strength because of the length of his hair geez la weez the things people will believe and follow.

bottom line is reality>comfort.

Well for one, you're disrespecting people's religions by mocking the very thing they believe in, as shown in that post.

In unarmed combat you would proabably lose to me in quick fashion via choke or jointlock(my sig is not just decoration). You might win who knows we will never find out so please quit name calling.

How is that even relevant to this discussion? I mean sure, he said something a tad offensive, but you reacted to it foolishly rather than ignore it.

Also, with all those post edits, one would think you'd fix your punctuation and spelling. I also believe we're trying to change the topic at hand, in-case you didn't see Atma-Noah's post.

[Furore]

you loaf cannot make an intelligent response so you revert to name calling on the internet....that is very low. we will proabably never see each other so do not incite hate on a forum by calling me a fool. In unarmed combat you would proabably lose to me in quick fashion via choke or jointlock(my sig is not just decoration). You might win who knows we will never find out so please quit name calling.

Dibs on being Loaf's tag team partner. Hell, if you ever find yourself in Dapto or the Illawarra region of NSW Australia in general, shoot me a PM so I can have a little fun.

Maybe you can make an intelligent response but it sure did not shine through in your post. I have not attacked anyones character in anyone of my post or made any attacks what so ever.I have stated my reasons and backed them up nothing more nothing less.

No, you've instead made it clear you'd resolve the discussion using a 'choke' or 'jointlock' and if those are what are in your sig pic, it looks suspiciously like gay foreplay. Not that I'm judging, it's totally cool man.

Loaf is using humour. Either rebutt in kind (or with nonsense), or ignore him.

Edit:Nobody wants the thread with the Ph.D in evolutionary biology explaining evolution in detail?

Mohammed on a pogostick, post it already.

What I find amusing is how seriously athiests will oppose religion, even though they themselves can't disprove religion. Or can they? Someone show me the proof and I won't post here again.

@ Atma, I notice with Christianity it's certain denominations who go at the conversions seriously, and also a few devout members or other denominations as I think was mentioned. Many of the Catholics who actively try for conversions I've met are Catechists or have another noticable role in Church matters.

[Govinda]

I have a question, and I hope this doesn't sound wrong, but is being atheist like, a trend now or something ?

Not to everyone, but I'm finding more and more people claiming to be atheist, is this because it's just easier to believe in no god ? When you believe in a religion, there are lots of questions, and since we as human beings don't have all the answers people may say "none of this makes sense so I believe in nothing". I think it takes a stronger person to believe in a higher entity because it's not there in physical form.

just some thoughts.

I think you'd like a book called The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky. One quote I remember from that book is, 'If there was no God, it would still be necessary to invent him.' Alyosha and Ivan, two of the brothers, do an excellent job of making you think about religion. And because it's Dostoevsky, you get your daily dose of Russian soap opera for free too.

Let me tell you why I'm an athiest, and why I think other people aren't. For me it's about looking for sense and for meaning. People turn to religions because they try their best to explain how we got here, why we are here, and what happens once we die. Athiests, to me, are people who find the answers within religion to be insufficient.

It's not that it's easier at all. It's very difficult, and depressing, to believe that we're just an accident of science; it's sad because we can be so wonderful, and if we were only wonderful, I'd believe. But we're not. We're horrible to one another on a daily basis because we are controlled by property. To me, that's the base of it all, all the problems: property.

Instead of searching to answers to lofty questions, I concern myself with earth and the people that surround me. I'm trying my best to imagine a property-free world but it's not easy and it's not fun.

I could never be religious. I don't see why I should be told how to lead my life. If there are answers, I'll look on my own; I live life in the way that feels most suitable to me. Selfish and maybe dangerous, yes, but I couldn't live in any other way.

I like religions, as a general rule. Ignore the extremists that colour every single one and what you find are legions of people whose lives are enriched by following patterns and ideas that they like with people who feel the same way. Many of them have some pretty neat ideas. Japanese Shin'to says that everything has a life force, even trees. Hindus praise cows and wear awesome dresses, and their weddings are the BEST. But I could never give myself over to them.

There's a section of Christianity who say that the Bible is one of Satan's lies because all it tells us to do is not have fun. They're pretty neat.

I hope that's enough of an answer.

[chrono]

How is that even relevant to this discussion? I mean sure, he said something a tad offensive, but you reacted to it foolishly rather than ignore it.

Also, with all those post edits, one would think you'd fix your punctuation and spelling. I also believe we're trying to change the topic at hand, in-case you didn't see Atma-Noah's post.

I was explaining to loaf what would happen if we were to engage in a real altercation instead of a e-battle(which i would not participate in) as started by him. The point of my response was to show how pointless it is to name call on the internet if you can not meet the person face to face. I did not say i would destroy him. I even said he might win(he just might) but since we will never find out it is pointless to ridicule and namecall.

Why do people point out grammatical errors on the internet when those people themselves use things like lol and omg i will never understand. Grammar nazi? your papers sir! show me your papers!*you should get the joke*

I would respond to atma but i just might be done with this thread.

Silver: Tag team? Gay wrestling? google the Gracie family. google the vale tudo. shoot you a pm so you can have fun? I mean this with the upmost respect if you are not a collegiate level wrestler or a trained striker with some strong takedown defence there would not be to much fun being had. If you are just the average bloke who lifts weights and think they......awww nevermind.

What I find amusing is how seriously athiests will oppose religion, even though they themselves can't disprove religion. Or can they? Someone show me the proof and I won't post here again-SILVER

I have wasted my time here.

Gypsy elder you stand head and shoulders above your peers and it has been an honor to engage you in discussion\debate. Thank you for remaining civil during this discussion even though we disagree on a lot of points. If during our discussion i came off as arrogant or demeaning then you have my sincerest apologies and please understand that that was not my intent.

I have respect for your personal beliefs and believe that any man or woman should be able to believe in whatever they choose to believe in as long as they are not hurting others. I look forward to discussing lighter subjects with you in the future(chrono trigger!!!).

[Sasquatch]

Evolution is a scientific theory.Religions are philosophical Theories at best(im being generous).

Evolution is a "scientific theory"? Hahahahahahahahah.

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Evolutionism (including "big bang"): Let's see ... cause? Check. Nature? Check. Purpose? Nope, not really, unless you count "continuing". Especially if the universe is considered as the creation of a superhuman agency? Well, let's see, both Evolutionism and the Big Bang would have had to break multiple laws of nature, so whatever made them happen had to have some supernatural abilities, so check. Moral code? Nah, not really. So yeah, Evolutionism fits the bill of a religion.

Those who believe Evolutionism are either ignorant or arrogant. Now, I'll give some a break -- a lot of people are ignorant, they don't really know the truth, only what public schools have forced down their throats their entire lives. But all too many others are just arrogant about it -- either they know better and refuse to believe it, or they don't know better and refuse to learn.

But we're not here to discuss Evolutionism.

You can not even begin to grasp evolution unless you actually take the time to study it for yourself.

And apparently anybody who disagrees with you hasn't taken the time to study it for themselves?

Oh, and gypys elder a very basic law of logic is that one connot be called to prove a negative. In other words we do not have to give you reasons for being an atheist the burden of proof is on you because you are the one making the claim.

Actually, if the two sides are "a higher power exists" and "no higher power exists", the burden would be on those who deny the existence of a higher power, seeing as a belief in a higher power has been held by more people since the beginning of time.

The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim not the one who laughs at you for believing in virgin births and talking snakes(assuming you are a christian).

Way to show your ignorance again, kid. There were no talking snakes in the Bible. But keep it up, it's only getting more amusing.

... do i have to give you an intelligent reason as to why i do not do and believe in those things to?

Of course not. You don't need an intelligent reason for anything you believe. But I'm pretty sure you've already shown that.

Just because millions of people do or believe in such things does not automatically make it a truth or a reasonable theory that you have to have a "reason" to not believe in.

Like Evolutionism? Or does that only apply to commonplace beliefs that you personally don't buy into?

Edit: It seems to me that since so many people are religious and we are not that we(atheist\agnostics) must have some special reason as to why we are not following the trend and that special reason is what you want to know. Am i right?

Actually, the "trend" would be Atheism.

I used to be religious heck i grew up christian just like most other americans. It is my open mind that brought me to shed that skin.

And it's your open mind that brought you to reject anybody who holds different beliefs and insult them?

and i did not "dismiss" sasquatchs post he made many claims i responded to the one i wanted to respond to. Next time i will go tit for tat line for line just for you(seriously).

Right. You didn't "dismiss" anything, you just happened to only want to address the last line and not the rest of it. C'mon, try addressing the entire post.

What!!!! my degree was for nothing!!!!!!!!!!!noooooooooooooooooo.

Degree? I bet it's a PhD, isn't it? Or an MD? A Master's at the very least. And let me guess, you went to an expensive, prestigious school, graduated at the top of your class, got laid with a different woman every night, and now you're making a six-figure salary with two or three topless secretaries, driving home to your mansion every day, parking your BMW in the garage, and trying lobster tonight because you're getting bored with fillet mignon?

we will proabably never see each other so do not incite hate on a forum by calling me a fool. In unarmed combat you would proabably lose to me in quick fashion via choke or jointlock(my sig is not just decoration). You might win who knows we will never find out so please quit name calling.

...

You ****in' serious, kid?

You're actually going to make a "I can kick your ass!" comment through an anonymous post on an internet video gaming forum?

That is just ... hilarious!

I mean, I was just bullshitting with the college stuff, then I come to find out that you're actually one of those types of people. Awesome. Man, can I call 'em.

I have not attacked anyones character in anyone of my post or made any attacks what so ever.I have stated my reasons and backed them up nothing more nothing less.

Alright, two things. First, if you think you haven't made "any attacks what so ever [sic]", what do you think "pointing out absurdities", "people living inside of giant fish" (which didn't happen -- yet more ignorance of the Bible, but continue), "a guy with super human strength because of the length of his hair" (again, incorrect, but since you don't know much about the Bible and the religion you despise, I can't expect much), referencing religions as "superstitions" (well you screwed that up too, but we got the idea), referencing religions as "fairy tales", etc. etc. are? Again, the arrogance is showing. And second -- you haven't stated reasons, you haven't backed up anything, you've only claimed that you don't need reasons or backing for not believing.

The issue that still hasn't come up is whether you're a hard Atheist or a soft Atheist ... and if you're a hard Atheist, all of your anti-faith bullshit just becomes more ironic, because it takes faith to believe that there is no power higher than humans or nature.

Edit:Nobody wants the thread with the Ph.D in evolutionary biology explaining evolution in detail?

Nobody wants to talk to a kid who pretends to have a PhD in evolutionary biology.

What methods do other religions use to spread their reach on a global scale?

Well it's a little different now than it used to be. For most religions (or at least the controlling churches/etc of those religions), much of the "spreading the word" was handled with military invasions. While they'd be mistaken to think such, many people believe that the Crusades were all about religion -- while religion had a part in it, and was used as a motivational force, there wasn't a "we should invade them because they're not Christian" idea. There was, however, on the side of Islam -- hell, Islam's first major action was a military invasion.

So the way it used to be was military invasion, prettymuch everywhere. "Worship my god or I'll kill you" is a pretty good way to convert most people.

Nowadays ... oh, there's a lot. Churches provide myriad services to great numbers of people, for two main reasons. First, it's an opportunity -- if I open a soup kitchen and feed homeless people every night, I have a chance to tell them about my religion. Second, it's simple outreach -- those homeless people might hate religion, but after seeing how nice people of my religion are, or just hanging around and having fun for a while, they might realize that the religion isn't as bad as they thought. There are also a lot of youth programs -- again, the idea behind most is not "come learn about our religion", because that's boring to most kids. The idea is "come have fun and we'll teach you about our religion in the process".

Then, of course, there's witnessing and testimony. Say, you pick up a hitchhiker or somebody that broke down, and you share your religion with him on the way. Though much of my morality is a bit lacking in practice, I still pray over every meal, and probably half a dozen times, I've had guys ask me to pray for them while I'm at it, or to pray out loud, or to lead the table in saying grace. Some religions go a few steps further with this and go door-to-door, but most don't.

Then there's bigger organizations with bigger meetings. Still the same thing, though, prettymuch. There's a group called Promise Keepers that focuses on not just Christian men, but men as a whole. So they attract people by saying, "hey, if you want to be a good man, come on in and listen to us and we'll help." Not just a good Christian, but a good man in general. There's even stuff like church softball leagues -- even people who aren't big on church but who like softball can come play.

And you always have outreach missions, too. A church -- or private donors, or an organization, or whatever -- will send somebody, or a few people, to a different country, one that hasn't had much exposure to their religion. And these people won't go just to yap their religion all the time, they'll try to help, too, and preach while they're at it. My brother took a mission trip to Peru once, and his group dug wells, helped raise crops and animals, and built buildings, then on days that they weren't working, they'd sit down with whoever'd listen and talk about Christianity.

This even outstretches to atheism. Why do atheists try to disprove other religions if not to bring people to the knowledge of their own views? Is there even a sense in reaching out to other people to show them that they may be misguided among other religions?

That depends on the person. Atheism is quite different than (most) other religions because there are no concerns about an "afterlife". You could say that a Christian is obligated to try to convert people to their religion. If I'm a Christian, and I believe that only Christians are going to avoid spending an eternity in Hell, what kind of a shitbag would I be if I figured, "well I'm good, so they're on their own"? But if I'm an Atheist, what's my incentive to convert others? If I was Atheist, I wouldn't believe that people who weren't Atheists would go through any hardship because of their beliefs, so why would it matter much if I got them to change their beliefs?

From what I've found, there are two types of Atheists. You've got those -- like Govinda here -- that respectfully disagree with others and explain why they hold different beliefs. They don't start out with "you're wrong and stupid", but they rationally explain why their beliefs differ.

Then, you've got the other kind. The kind of petty little child who isn't an Atheist because it's what they've found to be "most satisfying" to them, but who's an Atheist because they can use it to piss other people off. The kind who thinks that their beliefs don't need any support or backing, the kind that insults the beliefs of others and those who hold them, the kind who makes threats over the internet ... you know the kind.

[FamousMortimer]

I think it takes a stronger person to believe in a higher entity because it's not there in physical form.

I must respectfully disagree. It is my opinion that it takes strength to resolve that we are alone, and that there is no god to pray to for help on that math test, or help with a friend's drug problem. It takes strength to take control of one's own life and empower themselves to make the necessary changes in life, instead of "leaving it in god's hands". Too many people use religion as a crutch, much in the same fashion of an addiction. I realize that this isn't the rule, but it is common, and on that we must all agree.

Also, some people depend on religion to reward good behavior, and punish bad, but life is not so convenient. Isn't there strength and character in the realization that people are people? That in the grand scheme of the universe, the punishment of a theif or murderer means little. The human drama is so small against such a concept.

I can see your point, as I was raised in the pentecostal church. However, I couldn't help but notice the weaknesses of those in the congregation (which I did not judge), and after much thought, I found that many of their problems and fears,in many cases, stemmed from an irrational fear of hell and an obsession with divine forgiveness, which further fueled the misconception (in my humble opinion) that they were flawed to begin with.

Once again, with respect...

P.S. I am an Agnostic, in that I don't feign to know what waits on the other side. For a mere human to claim such knowledge is, to me, the ultimate vanity.

P.P.S. It's probably safe to say that Atheism is a trend, one which grows out of a scientific rennaissance, and a generation of kids weary of forced belief systems. This doesn't mean that said systems are wrong, but who like to be told what to believe? It is an insult to human intelligence, which is much greater than the religion of my youth will allow credit to.

[Govinda]

Just quickly - Sasquatch, evolution is a scientific theory. The key word is 'theory'. It does not attempt to explain why we are here, but merely speculates about how we came to be here. To claim it is a 'religion' is mental. To me, it is a very elegant theory, and makes a lot of sense. But like you said, we're not here to discuss it, so I'll stop now. Just felt the need to say something.

And a note about athiests who try to shove their views down other people's throats: they are, in a word, hypocrites. They fall into the trap of believing in not believing in anything, which is a pile of shit. They follow pedagogues and ****wits like Richard Dawkins and always assume intellectual superiority. I don't like them.

As for athiesm as a trend, I'm seeing more and more of it these days. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but catch these people in conversation and chances are they won't be able to properly back up why they say they don't believe in a higher power. They are often teenagers and often fools. However, I'll admit that I did grin when I saw those 'There probably isn't a God so stop worrying and get on with your life' posters on the sides of buses. When I found out they were paid for by some kind of athiest group, a concept which defies description, I was perturbed, and the smiling stopped. Athiesm is and always will be an individual thing. Organising it just doesn't make sense. Plus, we'll end up having wars with giant sea otters if we pursue that path.

But back to religion. I don't really have anything to say about it except that I detest the 'God on our side' wars and I don't like evangelicals, no matter how well-meaning, and I ask that any kind of extremist steer well clear of me. So I'll let y'all get back to it now.

[chrono]

You ****in' serious, kid?

You're actually going to make a "I can kick your ass!" comment through an anonymous post on an internet video gaming forum?

That is just ... hilarious!

I mean, I was just bullshitting with the college stuff, then I come to find out that you're actually one of those types of people. Awesome. Man, can I call 'em.-Sasquatch

Did you not notice the next sentance where i said that the guy might win? That is hardly a "I can kick your ass comment". I get my ass handed to me on a daily basis in practice so i am very humble(which is why i said he might win). I do a lot of choking in class and get choked myself.

And if by "Those" type of people you mean someone who actually trains 3-4 times a week then yes i am "That" guy. I planned on posting pics of my next tournament in the post your pics thread. You can see them and tell me if i am "That guy". Keep in mind i responded to a personal insult that was thrust upon me unprovoked on an"internet gaming forum".

Anyway i am so off topic now.I am done with this thread for now

The link for the thread on evolution is:Questions about Evolution for an evolutionary biologist - Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums

Govonda take a look at the thread they go into great detail.

Mods if i am breaking a rule by posting a link to another thread please let me know and i will edit even though i really feel like that thread is worth a look by both sides of this argument.

sasquatch: Person living inside a fish=Jonah. Man with supehuman strength because of his hair=samson. Talking snake=Genesis. We are not enemies my friend i have no personal quarrel with you. Had i read this thread 6 years ago i would be on your side of this debate(we would have proabably made an awesome team).

[Joe]

Person living inside a fish=Jonah. Man with supehuman strength because of his hair=samson. Talking snake=Genesis.

Because I'm already in a really bad mood, and don't have time to go through the last page of posts I'm gonna start with this little bit. There's many ways to interpret the Bible, or any other holy book, so why do you choose the most outlandish things possible? Do you not suppose that perhaps those stories could be meant to be taken as allegory? The same goes for the creation myth in Genesis, if taken as allegory, with the assumption that days could mean any amount of time (since this all occured before humans existed, and any god would exist on another plane of time/space, it's not all that far-fetched.


As for my reason why I'm not religious....I think it was Gypsy who asked that, I've had enough stuff happen in my life and in my past, and read enough about other people and current/historical events and come to the conclusion that any god represented by the core religions who could let such terrible things happen to his/her creations, just doesn't fit into my view of what a god is.

One of my best friends put her beliefs in a way that made me think, though. That there may be a vague guiding force somewhere, not really anything with a name that we can petition, but just a force up there that guides and shapes things as he sees. Everything happens for a reason, though that reason may not be apparent, or may even be abandoned in favor of helping you learn an even more important lesson about yourself.

I'm not sure if I agree with that or not, but it's certainly a refreshing way of looking at things that doesn't seem so...empty, as atheism/agnosticism.

[OnOneRyder]

I personally hate labeling my beliefs most simply because I try to ignore the how it all started bits and focus on the what happened after that first second. I shake my head at anyone who thinks that we are a product of intelligent design, simply because my fundamental beliefs don't allow me to see that as rational. I've changed my beliefs quite a bit over the past few years as I've gotten more and more into astronomy and how our universe works, and tried to completely ignore the origins of it. All I know is we are continually working towards truth in science as best we can because that's what the goal of science is, truth. But with so much unkown out there, and with the scale of the timeline of the universe I find it foolish to think we have even a shread of capability to answer the biggest questions. The modern religions are a product of man over the past few thousand years, out of billions of years of the universe as we know it existing. Can you truely sit there as someone who is going entirely on faith and say "yup, this has got to be it". The people who are making the biggest steps towards finding the answers will always be the first to admit at the end of the day, they don't have a clue.

[Rocky]

You ****in' serious, kid?

You're actually going to make a "I can kick your ass!" comment through an anonymous post on an internet video gaming forum?

That is just ... hilarious!

I mean, I was just bullshitting with the college stuff, then I come to find out that you're actually one of those types of people. Awesome. Man, can I call 'em.-Sasquatch

Did you not notice the next sentance where i said that the guy might win? That is hardly a "I can kick your ass comment". I get my ass handed to me on a daily basis in practice so i am very humble(which is why i said he might win). I do a lot of choking in class and get choked myself.

And if by "Those" type of people you mean someone who actually trains 3-4 times a week then yes i am "That" guy. I planned on posting pics of my next tournament in the post your pics thread. You can see them and tell me if i am "That guy". Keep in mind i responded to a personal insult that was thrust upon me unprovoked on an"internet gaming forum".

Anyway i am so off topic now.I am done with this thread for now

The link for the thread on evolution is:Questions about Evolution for an evolutionary biologist - Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums

Govonda take a look at the thread they go into great detail.

Mods if i am breaking a rule by posting a link to another thread please let me know and i will edit even though i really feel like that thread is worth a look by both sides of this argument.

sasquatch: Person living inside a fish=Jonah. Man with supehuman strength because of his hair=samson. Talking snake=Genesis. We are not enemies my friend i have no personal quarrel with you. Had i read this thread 6 years ago i would be on your side of this debate(we would have proabably made an awesome team).

Let me guess you thought the book of Job was an actual real account of what happened back then? 10000 sheep died and Job's 10 kids died and his house blew up but then he got back 20000 sheep and 20 kids all of a sudden and etc? lol

http://6.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ktl...j3q5o1_400.jpg

[Furore]

Silver: Tag team? Gay wrestling? google the Gracie family. google the vale tudo.

After seeing that picture in your sig with the guy's legs wrapped around the other guy's neck, I'm not thinking I'd find googling anything related all that 'stimulating'.

shoot you a pm so you can have fun? I mean this with the upmost respect if you are not a collegiate level wrestler or a trained striker with some strong takedown defence there would not be to much fun being had. If you are just the average bloke who lifts weights and think they......awww nevermind.

Yeah, seriously, shoot me a PM if you're down here. Few things I like better than a good brawl. I'm not a gym freak or a wrestler/martial artist neither. I'm a 230 pound ACG class security guard specialising in crowd control with a knack for freeform street fighting (which of course all the disciplined fighters despise, especially when I kick their ass) and trained in specialised crowd control courses with mostly take down moves (I notice a few of them are from Judo for example). So yeah, if you're ever down in Australia anywhere near me, give me a yell.

I have wasted my time here.

You took the words out of my long hair empowered snake mouth.

Buddha on a skateboard, finally you post that thread.
After reading it though, I find it's 11 pages long and by someone who starts off by saying he's a student and when answering the first question mentions he is unsure of something.

For the sake of giving me something I can break apart, how about quoting anything relevent to this thread?

[Unknown Entity]

I'm not sure if I agree with that or not, but it's certainly a refreshing way of looking at things that doesn't seem so...empty, as atheism/agnosticism.

I wouldn't say it was empty, but I know what you mean.

The way I look at it is that everyone has their own beliefs, whether they follow any religion or not. If you picked me two Catholics, or Christians, or Buddhists, or Muslims or even two atheists from a crowd of people, you can guarantee that they will have different views.

Being an atheist doesn't have to be empty. You can be really pessimistic and say that existence is purely that you're born, you live and then you die. However, you can be optimistic and much more open-minded by thinking that perhaps there is something that happens after death, but that you don't believe religion plays a part in it.

And a note about athiests who try to shove their views down other people's throats: they are, in a word, hypocrites. They fall into the trap of believing in not believing in anything, which is a pile of shit. They follow pedagogues and ****wits like Richard Dawkins and always assume intellectual superiority. I don't like them.

Oh noes. Surely not all atheists? ;-;

How about the people who are raised to believe in a God, but eventually decide that what they've been learning since they were pushed from the womb is complete and utter bullshit? Some people only believe because that's all they can believe. What about those who lead sheltered lives, or are raised in different families with different views?

I think atheists can be much more aggressive in getting their views across, but religious people have a knack for shoving their views down other people's throats too. I've never bumped into an atheist in the street giving out flyers, or had one knock on my door preaching the word of nothingness.

As an atheist, if someone wants my opinion or if I'm given an opportunity to express an opinion (like in this thread for example), I'll give it to them. I don't think not believing gives me any intellectual superiority over people who do believe - I think that depends on the individual and not what they believe.

I think Richard Dawkins is a ****.

[Meier Link]

Ok instead of locking down this thread to scroll back through the last 2 pages or so I am just going to step in (once again) and redirect the most of you back to the ID forum rules. I have went ahead and quoted some of them to aid in this learning process. From this post on I am going to be ALOT more strict in this particular thread, so if you get a warning I don't want to hear any bitching because lets face it I have given enough slack to a few of you over the last couple of pages and this is what you could consider to be a "pre-warning" or a "verbal warning".

I was hoping the none essental chat and bickering would smooth it's self out, apparently I was mistaken in thinking so.

I will go ahead and quote a few of the broken rules just to point out a few of the mistakes that have occured in here recently.

3. Bickering and fighting will not be welcome here. This is a forum for debates and appropriate arguments, nothing more and nothing less. If you are having a problem defending your point of view do not resort to calling another member names. Also, as a part of this, keep the use of curse words to a minimum. You will find that a lot of members have a hard time taking people seriously when every other word out of their mouth is the F-Word.

4. There are many here who follow the path of religion, while others choose that of science. These are two separate fields of thought, so please keep an open mind when exploring the many topics in this forum. Discussing religious matters in a scientific topic is considered off-topic posting. Discussing scientific matters in a religious topic is also considered off-topic posting and in both cases you will be warned and your post deleted. If you wish to debate whether Religion or Science is superior, you must ask a moderator for permission to create a topic solely for that purpose. You may not agree with someone's core beliefs, but the least you can do is respect them.


5. Try to avoid logical fallacies. Things like appeals to ignorance ("Well, if you can't prove ghosts exist, they don't," or, "If you can't prove ghosts don't exist, they must"), circular reasoning ("I know God exists because the Bible says so. I know the Bible is true because God wrote it."), popularity ("Islam is the most widely followed religion on Earth. How could so many people be wrong?" or, "Syd, you're the only one who is against euthanasia, why don't you give up and concede that we're all right?"), or ad hominem, which literally means against the man ("Of course you believe we should pay teachers more, you are one!") are logical fallacies. Here are some links to pages with logical fallacies and their descriptions:

For those of you that have not taken the time to read the rules of the ID forum I highly suggest you do so, now.

The Final Fantasy Forums - Announcements in Forum : Intellectual Discussion

Notice under TFF's rules there is a post from Bunny which include the ID forum rules.

For those of you who are not familiar with the ID forums 2 strike rule I suggest you read the following reading material. Some of you can't afford another warning in this section of the forum. The post you need to read would be the one posted by Chez.

Here is the link to that one: http://thefinalfantasy.net/forums/in...ml#post1008705

Now with that all being said, and I hate having to repeat myself, anyone caught breaking these rules in this thread from this post on will get a warning. There will be no tolerance to this.

If you guys decide to by pass what I am saying and keep up what has happned on the last 2 pages I will close this thread and it will not reopen until everyone can play nice.

[Rocky]

I like how a topic about religions turned into real life Tekken.

Just proof that religion is the cause of all kinds of crazy wars and genocides amirite??!?

just kidding! Anyways, ya'll are strung up about the little details in life, it's all about what you get out of your religion. If you're doing it right, which most of you aren't, then you would find a faith to have for the betterment of yourselves, not to put down other people. Believe what you want to believe but let others have their beliefs too. No need for the put downs guize

Anyways, all I know is that I am Lutheran, and Lutherans do it best. Any questions? No? good.

[/thread]

edit: rofl, after rereading the rules I got a big kick out of the part where Psychosyd was the only one that wasn't for euthanasia I love that silly mormon!

[Tiffany]

I like how a topic about religions turned into real life Tekken.

What's the saying... never talk about religion and politics because it'll always start a fight?

I like the idea of religion, although I can't say for certain what I believe in. I'd like to believe that there is a higher power out there, because the thought of not having to go back to 'nothing' is nice, for me.

I suppose we won't know until we die, so until then might as well let other people believe what they want to believe, rather than trying to argue about how everyone else is "wrong".

[Pete]

I'm gonna agree with Rocky on this. If you have a religion, fantastic, I sincerely hope that it provides you with whatever answers you may be looking for, and that it provides whatever closures for death that you may be seeking. If you don't have a religion, that's also cool.

The problem comes when we all start saying our religion is better or more right than others. Granted, this IS true if your religion involves things like diddling kids or raping cats or whatever (then I hope you die), but for the most part, we should all just leave each other be. When we die, if there's an afterlife, fantastic, if not, well then we're just kind of dead. I think that we can all agree on one thing though, and that it's pretty immature to go bashing other people's beliefs or hating on them just because they're different or because you don't agree with them. Shit like that causes more problems.

Also, I think regardless of religion, we can all agree on basic principles, like just doing the right thing and being a good person. I understand that 'good person' and 'right thing' may vary depending on how strict a religion may be, but I'm talking in general terms. Don't lie, cheat, steal, kill unjustly or rape. That's all pretty simple. And I think even the atheists can agree with that.

Also, Rocky, nothing beats Catholic school girl outfits. Oh if I knew what I know now back in high school

[Sasquatch]

sasquatch: Person living inside a fish=Jonah.

First, it wasn't a fish, it was a whale. Second, it's entirely possible for somebody to live for three days inside the stomach of a whale.

Man with supehuman strength because of his hair=samson.

It wasn't because of his hair, it was because of God. The entire point of that story is that God granted Samson his strength.

Talking snake=Genesis.

Wrong again. If you want to take a literal interpretation of Genesis (and not just manipulate the parts of the Bible that you think might make it look bad), it was not a snake, it was a serpent. And this was before it was cursed. (You know, God cursing the serpent to crawl on the ground and eat dust and have men crush it with their boots -- before that, what was it?)

There's many ways to interpret the Bible, or any other holy book, so why do you choose the most outlandish things possible? Do you not suppose that perhaps those stories could be meant to be taken as allegory?

Why do you think that the Bible is "outlandish" if it's not twisted and manipulated?

It's like saying, "Hitler didn't REALLY kill fifteen million people,we just SAY that to illustrate how much of a bad guy he was."

I love it when Evolutionists get outraged at Creation because it doesn't explain exactly how something happened, but through supernatural powers of a supernatural being ... then sit back and relax in their belief in supernatural powers of nature.

... any god represented by the core religions who could let such terrible things happen to his/her creations, just doesn't fit into my view of what a god is.

And if bad things are done because people turn away from God, that's God's fault? Is every bad person -- drug dealers, rapists, murderers, child molesters, etc. -- the fault of their parents? Surely, no parent would let their child grow up to be a child molester, right? So the bad guy had to, somewhere down the road, turn away from what his parents taught him. Whose fault is that?

I think atheists can be much more aggressive in getting their views across, but religious people have a knack for shoving their views down other people's throats too. I've never bumped into an atheist in the street giving out flyers, or had one knock on my door preaching the word of nothingness.

Because a guy on the street handing out fliers and people who knock on your door to share their religion are "shoving their views down your throat"?

Don't lie, cheat, steal, kill unjustly or rape. That's all pretty simple. And I think even the atheists can agree with that.

Translation: Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace."

[Zargabaath]

What I find amusing is how seriously athiests will oppose religion, even though they themselves can't disprove religion. Or can they? Someone show me the proof and I won't post here again.

This is like the agnostics's view of something: I can't prove that it is true but you can't prove that it is false so the only proper conclusion is: no one knows and no one can know one way or the other. There are a few problems with that logic.

1.) The user allows the arbitrary into the realm of human cognition; they treat arbitrary claims as ideas proper to consider, discuss, evaluate - then says "I don't know," instead of dismissing the arbitrary out of hand.

2.) The onus-of-proof issus: a person demands proof of a negative in a context where there is no evidence for the postive. "It is up to you," they say, "to prove that a higher power or the 12th moon of Saturn did not cause "x" ".

3.) The person would say, "Mabye these things will one day be proved." In other words, they assert possibilities or hypotheses without a jot of evidential basis.

This logic treats the arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration and epistemological respect; the arbitrary on par with the rational and evidentially supported. This is the ultimate epistemological egalitarian: it equates the groundless and the proved.

Evolution is a "scientific theory"? Hahahahahahahahah.

Evolutionism (including "big bang"): Let's see ... cause? Check. Nature? Check. Purpose? Nope, not really, unless you count "continuing". Especially if the universe is considered as the creation of a superhuman agency? Well, let's see, both Evolutionism and the Big Bang would have had to break multiple laws of nature, so whatever made them happen had to have some supernatural abilities, so check. Moral code? Nah, not really. So yeah, Evolutionism fits the bill of a religion.

As Govinda said before, it is a theory not a scientific law which are different. Evolutionism is a hypothesis to how things happened; currently I would presume it is the most favored hyphotheis in the realm of science. They do not claim it to be factual but that there is proof, but not 100%, that it is factual - hence a theory.

Religion on the other hand, while a philosophical theory, tends to hold itself as 100% correct which is different from how a scientific theory is held - remember theory being the key word.

Those who believe Evolutionism are either ignorant or arrogant. Now, I'll give some a break -- a lot of people are ignorant, they don't really know the truth, only what public schools have forced down their throats their entire lives. But all too many others are just arrogant about it -- either they know better and refuse to believe it, or they don't know better and refuse to learn.

I found that first sentece ignorant and arrogant; you are dismissing a scientific theory for an arbitrary claim of a higher power or whatever substitue that cannot be proven. What is "the truth"? The school teaches them science. Evolutionsim is a scientific theory. Thus it is not unreasonable or irrational for schools to teach about evolutionsim. Religion or philosophy, as far as I know, tends not to be taught in lower level schooling.

Actually, if the two sides are "a higher power exists" and "no higher power exists", the burden would be on those who deny the existence of a higher power, seeing as a belief in a higher power has been held by more people since the beginning of time.

First off, just because more people have held that certain view since the beginning of time does not make the exempt from prooving their view. This is also a case where the negative nor the positive cannot be proven, yet you believe that an arbitrary claim - a belief - must be disproven. There is no evidence for the belief so how can your disprove that which does not have proof to begin with?

Actually, the "trend" would be Atheism.

I do find that atheism is becoming or is a trend. I think my biggest gripe is that those who follow this trend lack or really don't say what their moral code is; a moral code is not just limited to religion. If people, probably geared towards the younger atheists, would at the same time elaborate their moral code then I would not feel so discomforted.

And a note about athiests who try to shove their views down other people's throats: they are, in a word, hypocrites. They fall into the trap of believing in not believing in anything, which is a pile of shit. They follow pedagogues and ****wits like Richard Dawkins and always assume intellectual superiority. I don't like them.

A bit presumptuous don't you think. Since Richard Dawkins has been mentioned I have wanted to read his books, however, I don't look to him as an atheist leader if anything he gives atheists a bad name.

Because I'm already in a really bad mood, and don't have time to go through the last page of posts I'm gonna start with this little bit. There's many ways to interpret the Bible, or any other holy book, so why do you choose the most outlandish things possible? Do you not suppose that perhaps those stories could be meant to be taken as allegory? The same goes for the creation myth in Genesis, if taken as allegory, with the assumption that days could mean any amount of time (since this all occured before humans existed, and any god would exist on another plane of time/space, it's not all that far-fetched.

The bible is the word of God. God is infallible. The Word is God. The Word is infallible. I find it funny when christians try to change some of the teachings in the bible i.e., don't eat some seafood, pig (I forget which book listed what was considered vile or unclean), anyhuma what they are doing is going against God and saying that God is wrong. Good luck to those who do so.

I love it when Evolutionists get outraged at Creation because it doesn't explain exactly how something happened, but through supernatural powers of a supernatural being ... then sit back and relax in their belief in supernatural powers of nature.

Creationism is taken as factual to those who hold that view; Evolutionsim is taken as a theory - a hyphothesis. One claims "j" to be true while the other claims that "q" maybe true but that it is not definitive to say it is factual.

And if bad things are done because people turn away from God, that's God's fault? Is every bad person -- drug dealers, rapists, murderers, child molesters, etc. -- the fault of their parents? Surely, no parent would let their child grow up to be a child molester, right? So the bad guy had to, somewhere down the road, turn away from what his parents taught him. Whose fault is that?

I'm definitely for people taking responsibility in an era where people love to redirect blame or excuse blame (psychologizing), however, one thing that really grinds my gears is when christians say: when something bad happens it is the person's fault, but when something good happens it is due to God. The message that sends is that humanity can never do good without God's help but they sure can do evil - that humanity is inherintly evil (alla Original Sin which I have major problems with). If God is not blamed for when things go south so should he not be credited when things go well; though sometimes people say that God has a big plan as to why something bad happened to "you". All I have to say is from a non-personal stance: thanks God (who is an arbitrary figure) for having that one dude rape me, I appreciate it very much and the lesson I will learn will totally overshadow the pain and suffering I experienced during that horrendous experience and the time after.

Translation: Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace."

If only people of faith actually followed their faith's tennets and that all people followed those basic principles.






That's all for now. I probably forget some thought but that's ok, I'm sure I'll respond or add to this later. May peace favor your sword Mortals.

[Unknown Entity]

Because a guy on the street handing out fliers and people who knock on your door to share their religion are "shoving their views down your throat"?

Yes.

Do I want some stranger knocking on my door and preaching "the word of God" at me on my doorstep, or having leaflets shoved in my hands if I'm in a busy shopping centre? If I was even curious about Christianity, I'd go to ****ing church, and listen to them preach there.

You obviously don't get them at your door once a month asking if we'd "changed out minds, and would like to open the doors of our heart for God", even though clearly telling them to bugger off multiple times in the past.

It's the best way to harass someone without getting in trouble.

[Sasquatch]

As Govinda said before, it is a theory not a scientific law which are different. Evolutionism is a hypothesis to how things happened; currently I would presume it is the most favored hyphotheis in the realm of science. They do not claim it to be factual but that there is proof, but not 100%, that it is factual - hence a theory.

So is it a theory, or is it a scientific theory, or is it a hypothesis?

I believe it was Karl Popper who laid the groundwork for requirements of a scientific theory. Basically, it must be testable, observable, and falsifiable. Can we test Evolutionism? Of course not. Can we observe speciation? No we can't -- we can observe different species and make guesses as to how they are "related" or from a common ancestor, but speciation has never, ever been actually observed.

And last but not least, is Evolutionism in any way falsifiable? Could there be something found that could prove Evolutionism as false? Hell no.

Hence, it's not a scientific theory. It's pseudoscience and manipulations, concealment, and legal thuggery to provide "evidence" that supports a predetermined end idea -- not to mention the faith it requires in supernatural powers.

I found that first sentece ignorant and arrogant; you are dismissing a scientific theory for an arbitrary claim of a higher power or whatever substitue that cannot be proven.

I am dismissing one arbitrary claim of a higher power that cannot be proven for another -- which are you bitching about?

First off, just because more people have held that certain view since the beginning of time does not make the exempt from prooving their view.

Of course not. But when you look at any idea, if one has been established and one challenges it, burden of proof lies on the challenger.

I find it funny when christians try to change some of the teachings in the bible i.e., don't eat some seafood, pig (I forget which book listed what was considered vile or unclean), anyhuma what they are doing is going against God and saying that God is wrong. Good luck to those who do so.

The food laws are included in the Pentatuke, the first five books. And I find it funny when people try to use the Old Testament to reflect on Christians. I'll try to make this simple for you -- the Old Testament doesn't apply, for the most part. Not to Christians. Sure, of course it has good laws and rules and history. But much of the Old Testament (mainly, sacrifices) does not apply any longer, since the New Testament. The food laws are a perfect example -- in Acts 10, food laws are done away with. While the OT includes many laws and rules, quite a few were changed in the New Testament -- overruled, you could say -- and don't apply to Christians. (Jews, on the other hand, of course don't believe in the New Testament, and thus still follow the food laws.)

So no, it's not "Christians trying to change something".

Really, I'm disappointed -- thought you'd know better.

Creationism is taken as factual to those who hold that view; Evolutionsim is taken as a theory - a hyphothesis.

Really? You think Evolutionists don't really think Evolution happened, they just think it probably happened? Evolutionists don't claim that their belief is fact?

I'm definitely for people taking responsibility in an era where people love to redirect blame or excuse blame (psychologizing), however, one thing that really grinds my gears is when christians say: when something bad happens it is the person's fault, but when something good happens it is due to God.

Christians believe that God is good and that God does good things -- why is it far-fetched to believe that good things happen because God makes them happen and bad things happen because of people who aren't close to God?

Things that are close to a fire are warm. That's not because the things themselves are warm, that's because the fire warms them. Things that are away from a fire, however, are cold -- not because the things themselves are cold per se, but because they are not close enough to the fire to receive its warmth. It's not the fault of the fire that something isn't close enough to it to receive its warmth, especially when the things could move closer or farther if they chose to do so.

The message that sends is that humanity can never do good without God's help but they sure can do evil - that humanity is inherintly evil (alla Original Sin which I have major problems with).

What, you think humans are inherently good? Nonsense. People are bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling.

If only people of faith actually followed their faith's tennets and that all people followed those basic principles.

Some do, some don't -- just because people suck doesn't mean you have to label anything they follow.

Yes.

... Wow.

Do I want some stranger knocking on my door and preaching "the word of God" at me on my doorstep, or having leaflets shoved in my hands if I'm in a busy shopping centre?

Does it matter? Don't open your door -- or open it and tell them to go away, then close it -- or contact the church they're from and tell them that you don't want their visitors. Vacuum salesmen go door-to-door too, where's the bitching about them? Hell, I can't stand telemarketers, but do I just sit back and bitch that some stranger has the audacity to do his job and call me while I happen to be eating dinner, or do I call their company and have them take me off of their call list?

And "leaflets shoved in your hands"? Are you actually trying to say that you have had tracks placed into your hands without your approval?

If I was even curious about Christianity, I'd go to ****ing church, and listen to them preach there.

And how are you going to gain any curiosity about Christianity if you have never been confronted with it or talked to anybody about it?

You obviously don't get them at your door once a month asking if we'd "changed out minds, and would like to open the doors of our heart for God", even though clearly telling them to bugger off multiple times in the past.

Oh no! Somebody came to your door wanting to talk about their religion! Sic the dogs on 'em! And even if you do somehow get them to leave, they'll be back in a MONTH! It's relentless!

It's the best way to harass someone without getting in trouble.

There are ways to get them in trouble for it, if you go through the proper channels. Or you could just bitch about having a knock on your door once a month and maintain your blatant hostility towards Christianity despite a lack of understanding.

[Furore]

This is like the agnostics's view of something: I can't prove that it is true but you can't prove that it is false so the only proper conclusion is: no one knows and no one can know one way or the other. There are a few problems with that logic.

1.) The user allows the arbitrary into the realm of human cognition; they treat arbitrary claims as ideas proper to consider, discuss, evaluate - then says "I don't know," instead of dismissing the arbitrary out of hand.

2.) The onus-of-proof issus: a person demands proof of a negative in a context where there is no evidence for the postive. "It is up to you," they say, "to prove that a higher power or the 12th moon of Saturn did not cause "x" ".

3.) The person would say, "Mabye these things will one day be proved." In other words, they assert possibilities or hypotheses without a jot of evidential basis.

This logic treats the arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration and epistemological respect; the arbitrary on par with the rational and evidentially supported. This is the ultimate epistemological egalitarian: it equates the groundless and the proved.

Except that I believe in the Christian God rather than that a God might exist?
I've been wording things carefully in an attempt to show the folly of vehemently opposing religion. Fact of the matter is, though religious folks can't prove scientifically that God exists, neither can science folks prove that religion doesn't exist.

And several scientifically unexplained miracles and no scientific answer for everything coming from nothingness is enough to sway my mind. Eucharistic miracles alone are enough to make me think Christianity has something going for it.

Evolutionism has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

[M16]

Evolutionism has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

Would you care to cite any examples? I find that typically people are quick to paraphrase others, saying that evolutionism has no foundation, and yet they can't do anything to offer any rebuttal.

[Furore]

Would you care to cite any examples? I find that typically people are quick to paraphrase others, saying that evolutionism has no foundation, and yet they can't do anything to offer any rebuttal.

If you'd like, I could type up a larger post on it (might take me a while though as I've currently gotten a nice amount of work and the humidity is making my brain feel half dead), but two things coming into my mind are things like:

Fossil records: Most fossils found have bigger variations and the smaller steps between them if evolution was true just aren't well represented. Look up 'transitional forms' on google and there might be some interesting reads. I believe Darwin himself asked the question himself and concluded it was due to many species simply not being preserved due to their remains not ending up somewhere conveniant, but either way, a bit of reading led me to believe this can be said for pretty much all 'evolved' creatures including those in places where there likely should be preserved remains. Of course, Sequence homology and endogenous retroviruses coupled with fossil records can support evolution, but it's all sketchy at best and many scientists are quick to point that out.

Big Bang: What caused it? That I believe is the biggest hole, and not something anyone can explain (I don't think I've even heard any credible theories on it).

Top Evidences Against the Theory of Evolution

I found the page above to be an interesting source, as it goes into evidence against the Evolution theory and also conveniantly splits it's references into pro-creationism, pro-evolutionism and neutral for easy checking.

[M16]

Without being a biologist, or any sort of expert on the subject, I'll contend with the site you've provided as best I can.

Point one:

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

The explanation the site provided does not offer supplemental proof, but merely restates the above statement in other words several more times. There are no links seen in the modern world because a transitional link would not be understood as such unless we were looking at the specimen after the fact. We can't look at ourselves as a transitional phase to the next step of evolution because we have no idea what the next step of evolution is going to be.

The site states that there have been no direct links that prove that "There are no links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to birds and mammals. There are no links whatsoever." However, there are. Notice how that particular argument has no citation, and therefore has no real foundation other than the knowledge that it is the author's opinion. There are links, and the links are quite conceivable. Extremely strong similarities can be found in bone structure between bird skeletons and the skeletons of the dinosaurs. Likewise, many comparisons can be made between fish and amphibians. And again, amphibians to reptiles. The only way not to see these links is to actually refuse the capability.

Point two:

Natural selection (the evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

Essentially, the 'proof' the site offers is that since there are many different types of dogs, there is no such thing as natural selection because it would result in only one supreme type of dog. This point itself is sort of moot, because different environments would call for a different trait in a 'supreme' animal. Hence different builds, ear lengths, howl tones, etc.

While many different breeds of dogs currently coexist, it is the result of domestication and colonialism and breeding. We are basically either fighting or aiding natural selection, depending on the way you want to argue it.

Point three:

Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

First off, evolutionists don't state that life resulted from non-life or that matter resulted from nothing. So that alone is a moot statement. Then the third statement is just a continuation of the second point, which already is lacking in foundation. Then the 'proof' the site offers is just silly, and doesn't strengthen the argument at all. The author seems very unscientific and just seems to want to be believed because he went through the effort of writing all of that material.

Point four:

The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

The quotes that the site offers do provide insight to the fact that there is a lot of guesswork in linking the past to the present. But they also show that none of these theories are unfounded, and in fact do result from a lot of thought and effort. You can hardly argue the points any further on that site, because the author tells you that s/he lacks the publisher's approval.

Point five:

Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all.

That's because they're seen as links. Not as 'part-human.' Again, the author comes off as though they simply want credit and validation because they went through the effort of writing the article.

Point six:

The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

See above.

Point seven:

Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

"Socially, natural selection argues that the best and fittest society would be one where its' individuals look out only for themselves and would advance themselves, if possible, at the expense of others. It would even destroy others if possible." It actually doesn't argue that. It argues that people would actually rely on others to survive because people can't do everything themselves and they realize this. The most advanced would not improve themselves only at the expense of others, because they would require the aid of their fellow people. Anyone should be able to come to this conclusion on their own. The rest of this point only restates the "evidence" above.

Point eight:

Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

This would be an interesting statement to indulge in, however the following text throws any of its credibility out the window. Again, it seems as though it is only an opportunity for the author to try to gain validity and recognition without saying anything true.

Point nine:

The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

Yet that still does not mean that evolution can not explain it. In science, there are always several theories to explain the same phenomenon. One theory does not necessarily disprove or supplement the other. They are simply two ways of skinning the same cat, so to speak. Not that I condone that sort of thing.

----

Before I actually read through that site, it seemed like it would be an interesting and credible read. But once I started reading through it, it was clear that the author juxtaposed his opinion conveniently in spots where one is just prone to accepting it as truth. Not only that, but the quotes that the author takes from his/her sources do not do a particularly fabulous job at supporting his/her arguments. It was not exactly a waste of time to read through that site, but there have to be more credible sources out there to peruse.


As for the Big Bang, there are more scientists these days that refuse to believe it just came from nowhere. One of the most accepted theories is that the Big Bang occurred from a previous reaction, and that the birth/destruction of the universe (as we know it) is all part of a large loop which continues to repeat itself. This is nearly impossible to test or prove, so more faith is required for this belief than a belief in a God.

[Furore]

Before I actually read through that site, it seemed like it would be an interesting and credible read. But once I started reading through it, it was clear that the author juxtaposed his opinion conveniently in spots where one is just prone to accepting it as truth. Not only that, but the quotes that the author takes from his/her sources do not do a particularly fabulous job at supporting his/her arguments. It was not exactly a waste of time to read through that site, but there have to be more credible sources out there to peruse.

I mainly used that site for references. My only real concern was how old some of the sources were, but the quotes supplied were rarely out of context. The only thing I came to realise through reading these sources is that there are things taught as fact that aren't based on much, some of which that site did go through, just not in the detail of the books the information was from.

I'm still a little either way myself, but I personally believe that evolutionism isn't as rock hard as some make it out to be. The trouble as I see it, is a lot of the evidence that would show Evolutionism as likely, simply doesn't seem to exist whereas though Creationism can be hard to disprove entirely, some of it's details can seem presumptive depending on the Creationist (not uncommon for a Creationist individual can be discredited by looking at flaws in his work). I currently lean towards Creationism, but feel both have things that don't add up.

As for the Big Bang, there are more scientists these days that refuse to believe it just came from nowhere. One of the most accepted theories is that the Big Bang occurred from a previous reaction, and that the birth/destruction of the universe (as we know it) is all part of a large loop which continues to repeat itself. This is nearly impossible to test or prove, so more faith is required for this belief than a belief in a God.

That is why Evolutionism really fails in my eyes. How could a process like that happen, even if it's just a chain without something to have set it off beforehand? I know that time technically doesn't exist and that my poor grey mass has no means to properly comprehend this, but how did all this matter sprout into existence to begin with?

You seem rather knowledgable, so I was wondering how you'd reply to this article:
Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

It goes into why Evolution is highly unlikely (though not neccesarily impossible if I understand correctly).

[M16]

The same questions you ask of evolutionism can be asked to attempt to disprove your creationism. How did this god form? How did this god create the universe? Where did this god come from?

[OnOneRyder]

The same questions you ask of evolutionism can be asked to attempt to disprove your creationism. How did this god form? How did this god create the universe? Where did this god come from?

The benefits of believing in creation by some form of a deity is that you do not need to have answers for any of these questions, they simply occured because god made it so. When you're dealing with a supernatural entity you can forget the rules, create things how you want them without laws of nature and simply state it's the work of a god. I can't stand the fact that creationist use science to attempt to disprove evolution and the big bang yet completey ignore known scientific laws when refering to their gods work. If they followed the same laws that we all do there would be no doubt that creationism is pure garbage.