Prayer is a superstition- A video

[King Kong]

If you are open minded, then you will understand what this video is getting at.
Prayer is superstitious and foolish;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH0rFZIqo8A&mode=related&search=

[Klilynkun]

argh... stupid IT department :bang:

[Alphonse v.2]

Everyone is aware of the facts of religion vs science/reason. But guess what, those who believe, will continue doing so. Live and let live. Only some extremists don't want to leave the other side alone.

[shimanotaka]

"If you are a normal, intelligent person..." is repeated over and over (just to trick people into accepting whatever they say, because nobody wants to be abnormal and stupid). Still the video seems to be made for retarded people since it's so repetive and clarifying in all ways.

Also their calculation (Jesus=God=Perfect=Always telling the truth) falls on the fact that the Bible is not 100% true. How the hell can they base their "scientific" evidence on quotes from a book that they don't even acknowledge?

I am open-minded and I am an atheist, but I won't swallow any kind of crap just because it favors my opinions. These guys need to rethink their logic.

[Klilynkun]

aw man.... i really wish i could see it now :meh:

[Darth_E_]

dumb video. How does a powerless piece of junk ( horseshoe ) gets equated to God, who is believed to be all powerful - hence why he is prayed to ? Furthurmore, who would pray to get 6 sixes of dice?

[Candyvan Stan]

Live and let live. I don't like it when religious folk shove it down my throat, and I'd expect the same from atheists.

[Klilynkun]

argh.... it sounds sooo good.

[Rear Admiral Grapefruit]

I think the point they were making was that belief in the power of a horse shoe is equivalent to belief in the powers of god. They gave examples to indicate the similarities between the two beliefs, and their point is pretty valid and if you're willing to accept a belief in god, then you should be willing to accept the power of a lucky horseshoe, saying that a horse shoe is a powerless piece of junk, is pretty much the same as saying that there is no god when looking from the opposite perspective.

[Candyvan Stan]

argh.... it sounds sooo good.


It's not, actually. It's actually pretty boring and straightforward. If you've seen 2 minutes of it, you've seen the whole 10 minutes.

[shimanotaka]

I think the point they were making was that belief in the power of a horse shoe is equivalent to belief in the powers of god. They gave examples to indicate the similarities between the two beliefs, and their point is pretty valid and if you're willing to accept a belief in god, then you should be willing to accept the power of a lucky horseshoe, saying that a horse shoe is a powerless piece of junk, is pretty much the same as saying that there is no god when looking from the opposite perspective.

I think we all understood what point they were trying to make. We'd be pretty daft if we didn't. The problem is that they based their evidence on what Jesus allegedly said in the Bible and even some Christians are willing to admit that the Bible is not completely correct and true.

What if Jesus never said those things? What if he was misunderstood? What if the meaning of prayer have been twisted during the centuries? Maybe you can only pray for personal strength and spiritual support or something like that?

If it would be like Jesus says in the Bible, it's pretty obvious that all Christians would be healthy, happy millionaires. And seeing that, we'd all instantly turn into Christians. Still the whole logic of the video falls with the fact that the Bible is not an entirely factual book.

[Klilynkun]

ok... i still haven't seen the video :(

but what about those people who pray and stuff actually happens when they pray?

it's probably already in the video but i haven't seen it :(

[Nebosuke]

I'm not Christian myself, don't personally have any belief in any sort of divine influence behind the efficacy of prayer, and could probably be considered an atheist, but I have to say that the 'proof' in the video is ridiculous. It's possible that there is a God who's answering all of that guy's prayers just as Jesus proclaimed. It might just be that he's saying, "No, you 'tard".

You'll never find any scientist who claims to be able to disprove the existence of a divine entity. The very reason that religious beliefs are largly dismissed by scientists is because religious beliefs are not falsifiable. That is to say that it's impossible to disprove them, thus they are not subject to the scientific method.

[Klilynkun]

hmmm.... never thought about it like that. Although.... it must be provable as many people say that they have had an encounter with God - when i say encounter i don't mean like a vision or something like that but i mean a life changing encounter whether it be like a conversation or a healing or something like that - my brother has a friend at his church that was born with a hole in his heart - he had to go to the hospital every year because of it. the friend got "saved" - became a christian and mysteriously the hole in his heart was gone. they guy has xrays of the hole in his heart to prove it. :eyepop:

i used to pray all the time and didn't hear, get, anything, and nothing changed. maybe this god answers people when he feels like it or something... i dunno

i still wanna see the video... is it possible to download videos from youtube?

[Nebosuke]

No, it's not provable that way either. Even in the case of your brother's friend, you'd first have to prove that it could not have been the result of some other mechanism. You'd also have to note all of the other people who suffered from the same affliction, and whether not prayer to that particular god had a statistically significant impact on recovery rates.

The reason i specifically stated that I do not believe in 'divine influence behind the efficacy of prayer' is that it is a commonly observed phenomenon for faith/belief to influence the medical health of a person. Thus to simply say that prayer has no effect at all would be false. It is not, however, necessarily due to divine influence. The name for this is the placebo effect, and it is the reason that all FDA drug trials are placebo-controlled.

[Klilynkun]

could be - but he had the hole for 20 years. what scientific mechanism could close a hole in someones heart over night? without surgery? I'm not saying i believe him. But it's something that he has proof of so i'm in a tight position. I either believe that his god healed him, which in turn means there's a god and all that stuff that comes with it. Or in the face of proof, choose to disbelieve that there is a god and believe the placebo effect. I could probably believe the placebo effect if it was over a long amount of time - closing over months - or years. but it didn't happen like that.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Lol, that's stupid.

They took the one scripture out of context even. Their logic seems so simple, but you could easily counter conflict their ideas.

Do you really think God is going to answer something so stupid as rolling six dices just so you can say YATZEE! No. It's not important and not worth answering. Besides prayer is either for praising or wisdom and guidance.

I wonder how many people were stupid enough to believe this junk.

[Klilynkun]

argh... i was talking to my brother on the phone...he's even seen it :bang: why me

Edit: ok.... my brother says in regards to prayer (i should read up on this...argh.... too many things to read up on)

prayer is talking to god. christians should always be praying because if they don't pray that means they don't talk to their god. prayers can not be answered for a lot of reasons according to the bible. if you have a grudge against someone you should sort that out before seeking god in prayer because he wants you to have peace as much as possible with everyone. some prayers will not be answered if they are vain/not righteous prayers. some will not be answered if you are not ready to handle what it is that you are praying for. some will be answered in different ways. for example, if you ask for specific car, instead of getting that car you will probably get something older than that car basically. god will do this often to help to mold your heart. you're prayers will be ignored if your just doing it for show. prayers can only be answered if you believe that god is real and he can do stuff. the only prayer that can be answered without knowing whether or not god is real is the prayer for forgiveness of sins and/or the prayer for god to reveal himself, although the prayer for him to reveal himself should be done with a heart that really wants to know that god is real rather than to prove that he's not (because that means that you have already made a judgement on your part so most of the time you will judge his answers biasely even if he answers exactly the way you want him to). god is not a slave to answer people just because they ask him, just like everyone else he can decide whether to answer to them or not. asking anything in jesus' name is taken out of the context because you have to actually be doing what god wants you to do before anything you ask n jesus' name you get.

then he starts talking about the bible translation so i'll post in the other thread what he says.

[Darth_E_]

I think the point they were making was that belief in the power of a horse shoe is equivalent to belief in the powers of god. They gave examples to indicate the similarities between the two beliefs, and their point is pretty valid and if you're willing to accept a belief in god, then you should be willing to accept the power of a lucky horseshoe, saying that a horse shoe is a powerless piece of junk, is pretty much the same as saying that there is no god when looking from the opposite perspective.

Uhm no. The horseshoe is powerless, it has been created and forged by a blacksmith and has no power over this universe - hence why praying to it is ridiculous. What they are doing is comparing that to God while throwing away the basic concepts of what makes a God - and that is being a creator ( not creation ), having total power over this universe. Their "comparison" is invalid.

[Klilynkun]

is there another website that has this video? i too too too curious

[King Kong]

I purposefully posted a controversial video to annoy the religious folk.
Now that I have accomplished that, have a look at their argument, Proof of GODS existence

Lets see why religious folk believe in god:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srYwTcwSpJU&mode=related&search=

[Neon Pink Shoehorn]

Also their calculation (Jesus=God=Perfect=Always telling the truth) falls on the fact that the Bible is not 100% true. How the hell can they base their "scientific" evidence on quotes from a book that they don't even acknowledge?
the Bible isn't self-consistent.
matt 1:1-16 1A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[a] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Luke 3:23-38 23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David, 32the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon,[a] the son of Nahshon,
33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[b]
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.
There are others, but that's the most obvious to me.

[Dresh]

I purposefully posted a controversial video to annoy the religious folk.
Now that I have accomplished that, have a look at their argument, Proof of GODS existence

Lets see why religious folk believe in god:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srYwTcwSpJU&mode=related&search=

I love how they used a store-bought banana instead of an all organic wild banana.

[ZaichikArky]

I purposefully posted a controversial video to annoy the religious folk.
Now that I have accomplished that, have a look at their argument, Proof of GODS existence

Lets see why religious folk believe in god:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srYwTcwSpJU&mode=related&search=

I like that. God made the banana perfect for human consumption. Gotta believe it :p.

[Aeneas]

What possibile good does proving the non-existance of any God or Goddess do? That is like going to a middle-class Christian eight-year-old and not only saying Santa does not exist, but showing charts of the North Pole, pulling beards off of mall Santas, and asking hard questions like "Why didn't your mom and dad get back together like you wished for them?" Most likely the kid will cry. If you were normal and intelligent you should feel guilty if not foolish for ruining a perfectly fine holiday tradition.

So why ruin perfectly good superstitions or beliefs in anything? Does the fact that having no purpose scare you so that you must become cynical and try to ruin someone else's happiness? Does it make you feel better to convert others to your religion of non-belief, of "If I can't see, hear, smell, taste, or feel it, it does not exist?"

Invoke the horseshoe, pray to Allah, cry in your void. If others are happy, or at least content, why take that away from them?

[Rear Admiral Grapefruit]

Uhm no. The horseshoe is powerless, it has been created and forged by a blacksmith and has no power over this universe - hence why praying to it is ridiculous. What they are doing is comparing that to God while throwing away the basic concepts of what makes a God - and that is being a creator ( not creation ), having total power over this universe. Their "comparison" is invalid.

The horseshoe has been created by a blacksmith, in much the same way the bible was written by humans, yet you choose to take the bible to be truth within certain peramiters, ie the bible will be used for convenience, you quote it, oops, turns out that's wrong, but it's ok, the bible isn't literal. So when you can't really use the bible as evidence, because you cannot prove it's validity, thus you're left with your oh so amazing prayer, which strangely enough, grants you the same results in minor/semiserious/serious matters as the horseshoe does, but the apparant justification behind this, is simply that god doesn't want to answer pretty much anything you ask of him, you can ask for guidance, but only when you have peace in your life, at which point i'm guessing you're saying thanks, rather than requesting anything. So essentialy, you cannot prove you're even communicating with god because the acceptable uses for prayer, do not warrant a response.

Also you say "What they are doing is comparing that to God while throwing away the basic concepts of what makes a God" yet that is EXACTLY what you just did with the horseshoe, it's not meant to be some powerful being, but a luck bringing tool, ie a lucky charm, not something you pray to but merely something you carry and hope will assist you in your life, preventing anything bad from happening or bringing something good, like say, i don't know, helping you roll six sixes when gambling?

Edit - Aeneas, it's not about taking something away from someone, it's about expressing an oppinion or belief, when someone expresses a belief on something one way, a person is entitled to express a contrary oppinion to that, and as opposed to trying to change someones mind, it's simply justification of our own point of view, if you can't justify what you believe then it's likely that you didn't even form your own oppinion on what you're discussing. And it's good discussion because you can always learn things from other people, or atleast take on another point of view on an issue.

[Mysticalmelody]

What possibile good does proving the non-existance of any God or Goddess do? That is like going to a middle-class Christian eight-year-old and not only saying Santa does not exist, but showing charts of the North Pole, pulling beards off of mall Santas, and asking hard questions like "Why didn't your mom and dad get back together like you wished for them?" Most likely the kid will cry. If you were normal and intelligent you should feel guilty if not foolish for ruining a perfectly fine holiday tradition.

So why ruin perfectly good superstitions or beliefs in anything? Does the fact that having no purpose scare you so that you must become cynical and try to ruin someone else's happiness? Does it make you feel better to convert others to your religion of non-belief, of "If I can't see, hear, smell, taste, or feel it, it does not exist?"

Invoke the horseshoe, pray to Allah, cry in your void. If others are happy, or at least content, why take that away from them?


I agree... except when religion makes people hurt others or do stupid things.

[King Kong]

What possibile good does proving the non-existance of any God or Goddess do? That is like going to a middle-class Christian eight-year-old and not only saying Santa does not exist, but showing charts of the North Pole, pulling beards off of mall Santas, and asking hard questions like "Why didn't your mom and dad get back together like you wished for them?" Most likely the kid will cry. If you were normal and intelligent you should feel guilty if not foolish for ruining a perfectly fine holiday tradition.

So why ruin perfectly good superstitions or beliefs in anything? Does the fact that having no purpose scare you so that you must become cynical and try to ruin someone else's happiness? Does it make you feel better to convert others to your religion of non-belief, of "If I can't see, hear, smell, taste, or feel it, it does not exist?"

Invoke the horseshoe, pray to Allah, cry in your void. If others are happy, or at least content, why take that away from them?

This is the reason why I was reluctant to post the video in the first place. But you have made a mistake; you underestimated the faith of most religious folk. Most will just stop the video before the end and it won't have any effect on them. At best, these videos will only annoy them. My agenda exactly.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

I love how there are some elitist out there who are apperently "rational thinking individuals" love to prove that as well.

All those who believe in God are obviously idiots and not as clear thinking as they are.

Why? I don't go around telling athiest that they are going to hell for not believing in God. I don't act hateful to anyone without faith or of different faiths.

Why should anyone else?

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

At best, these videos will only annoy them. My agenda exactly.

Why? I'm not annoyed or anything other than finding it quite a dumb video. I would be annoyed if it was a personal attack on all those believing in the religion, but he basically was just telling me prayer was useless when I know otherwise.

Why do you want to annoy me? To amuse yourself into some security that you can whack off later saying, "Ohhh baby I annoyed me some Christians."

Trust me we have much more things to worry about than some stupid Internet video and some forum troll posting something to cause "contraversy".

[Jetsetlemming]

I purposefully posted a controversial video to annoy the religious folk.
Now that I have accomplished that,
Uh, where do you see anyone annoyed or offended? Everyone was calmy talking about the ideas of the video... Oh, and How can prayer itself be a superstition? You could call it talking to a superstition, maybe, but praying itself is real. People do it. It exists as an activity. O_o Anyway, I don't like people who try to disprove the effects of praying to God on medical problems. Even if it is a placebo effect, you're an asshole for trying to take away that placebo, which helps people, divinely or not.
*edit*....besides number17, who is rightly annoyed at you for going out with no other point than pissing people off.

[Darth_E_]

The horseshoe has been created by a blacksmith, in much the same way the bible was written by humans, yet you choose to take the bible to be truth within certain peramiters, ie the bible will be used for convenience, you quote it, oops, turns out that's wrong, but it's ok, the bible isn't literal. So when you can't really use the bible as evidence, because you cannot prove it's validity, thus you're left with your oh so amazing prayer, which strangely enough, grants you the same results in minor/semiserious/serious matters as the horseshoe does, but the apparant justification behind this, is simply that god doesn't want to answer pretty much anything you ask of him, you can ask for guidance, but only when you have peace in your life, at which point i'm guessing you're saying thanks, rather than requesting anything. So essentialy, you cannot prove you're even communicating with god because the acceptable uses for prayer, do not warrant a response.

Uh? Since when did I quote the bible and since when did I believe in it? I am a monotheist but I follow no scripture - I concluded that God exists.


Also you say "What they are doing is comparing that to God while throwing away the basic concepts of what makes a God" yet that is EXACTLY what you just did with the horseshoe, it's not meant to be some powerful being, but a luck bringing tool, ie a lucky charm, not something you pray to but merely something you carry and hope will assist you in your life, preventing anything bad from happening or bringing something good, like say, i don't know, helping you roll six sixes when gambling?

Again, you're missing the point. What I am saying is you can't compare apples with oranges. EXACTLY, like what you have said - because the horseshoe is no God, but merely a lucky charm ( or a useless piece of junk in my book ), it cannot be compared to someone supposedly allpowerful.
Besides, I don't believe God will prevent "bad" things in life, so there goes your prejudice, that is written all over your post, against me.

[Rear Admiral Grapefruit]

My referance to bible quotes wasn't really directed towards you Darth, i was kinda just using your quote as the basis, but i was refaring to other comments made within there aswell, i can see how the confusion could occur, i appologise if it didn't seem clear. But the comparison i was refaring to between god and lucky charm isn't the thing itself, but merely the belief in the power of it, essentialy, the beliefs are equivalent, not god and a horse shoe are equivalent, but believing in the powers of god is equivalent to believing in the powers of a lucky horse shoe, if that makes it clearer i hope. So basicly saying, that the horse shoe is a piece of junk is equivalent to saying god doesn't exist. What i meant by the prevent bad things, essentialy is just basic way of saying like praying for safety in a war (as was mentioned) and generaly that area of things.

But anyway, yes, i think it's clear i'm an atheist, i guess it's not tremendously well hiden, but i honestly swear, if you want to believe in something such as god, i can respect that 100%, people who follow a religion of any sort, i can respect, it takes a lot of strength to put your faith into something like that, but personaly, i like to question everything, and honestly, i'd like to be proven wrong, but through my own questioning of many aspects of such religious things, i choose not to believe, and i do express my oppinions rather strongly, but this is an area where i hold strong beliefs in my oppinions and when i make 1 point i feel as the basis of any reasonable arguement, that i should justify myself, perhaps it doesn't come across in the most friendly maner, but yeah, it seems like i'm challenging another persons beliefs, but this only allows me a greater insight to the oppinions of other people, it's not meant to be taken with offence at all. If i pose an arguement and it seems wrong, just go ahead and tell me why i'm wrong, worst case scenario is i'll post something contradictory to it.

[delen]

What possibile good does proving the non-existance of any God or Goddess do? That is like going to a middle-class Christian eight-year-old and not only saying Santa does not exist, but showing charts of the North Pole, pulling beards off of mall Santas, and asking hard questions like "Why didn't your mom and dad get back together like you wished for them?" Most likely the kid will cry. If you were normal and intelligent you should feel guilty if not foolish for ruining a perfectly fine holiday tradition.

So why ruin perfectly good superstitions or beliefs in anything? Does the fact that having no purpose scare you so that you must become cynical and try to ruin someone else's happiness? Does it make you feel better to convert others to your religion of non-belief, of "If I can't see, hear, smell, taste, or feel it, it does not exist?"

Invoke the horseshoe, pray to Allah, cry in your void. If others are happy, or at least content, why take that away from them?

Those people in the middle east seem like they are having a great time!

[Jetsetlemming]

Those people in the middle east seem like they are having a great time!
Their religon is only being used as an excuse by those in power for the violence. If the entire region were athiests, it would still be just as violent, just with another reason besides Allah behind it.

[delen]

Yes, but they use religion as a tool to brainwash followers.

All I am saying is that religion can be used as a convenient tool for evil; not saying it is religion's fault. Obviously it is the fault of the people using it for evil.

[Kyoushu]

Well, I always hear conflicting ideas around prayer, but my experiences have lead me to believe that the majority of Christians will tell you that God has a plan, and thus what you think you need isn't always what He gives you. This means that He doesn't ever actually answer prayers, His plan might just coincide with them. So prayer really is useless, even if you do believe in God. Then again, why do people pray if this is what they believe? Sounds hypocritical to me...

Ah, what do I know?, I just go to church because my family life would break apart if I didn't.

[Aeneas]

I mostly aimed my thoughts towards the atheist zealots, who always appear to have their lips curled into a sneer and unhappiness in their hearts (not saying that anyone here is one or that the religous don't have their own version, the "Holier-than-thou" being prominent in my mind.) They always seem to attack ad hominum, specifically their target's intelligence. Given, most religous folk tend to poor and under-educated.

Of course, there are going to be people who abuse religion for power. People abuse money too. People also fight for money and what it brings. Does this mean money should be outlawed (I do believe we'd be happier without it) or deemed wrong. No. Something else would take its place. Also, in keeping with the Santa analogy, I could lure children into a house/van/wood/bathroom while wearing a Santa suit and promise extra or better presents if I could molest them. Terribile image, but so is the image of religion being used to fight useless wars.

What if God isn't truthful and really is not omnipresent or even is not really all that powerful, but really is nothing more than so guy named Steve at a computer terminal. Or what if god is just a jackass. If he is a liar, then why not lie about being loving and kind and honest?

I think Futurama said it best with, "If you are doing it right, people should not know you are doing it at all," or something to that effect.

[Klilynkun]

can you believe i actually tried to read everyone's post :P

oh yeah.... my brother said -

whoever posted the genealogies (sp?) of christ just proved their ignorance - one genealogy is of mary - how do i know this....because it says mary as the mother of christ...duh

the other genealogy is of joseph....how do i know that....because it says josephs genealogy at the top....

how is that inconsistent? they are going to have different parents, grandparents exc.

please think before you post stuff that obviously shows you're not even trying to understand the bible but just assume that it is contradictory.

.......and of brothers speach ¬_¬


Edit: oh yeah... has someone given an answer about the affects of prayer in the case of my brother's friend? the one that had the hole in his heart for 20 years, got saved, prayed and it vanished over night? the placebo thing doesn't make sense because it was over night. any other reasons how it might have happened? my brother is just saying that it obviously is god i just don't want to believe that it's god.

[Jetsetlemming]

Hm... I find it interesting that at the end they list Adam as "son of god". ;)

[Rear Admiral Grapefruit]

Edit: oh yeah... has someone given an answer about the affects of prayer in the case of my brother's friend? the one that had the hole in his heart for 20 years, got saved, prayed and it vanished over night? the placebo thing doesn't make sense because it was over night. any other reasons how it might have happened? my brother is just saying that it obviously is god i just don't want to believe that it's god.

This kind of thing was mentioned in the video, their explanation was simply that, there could be 10 people with that exact same problem, all of whome are likely to pray to god to cure them, yet it's likely that only 1 in 10 will actually live to tell about it and call it a miracle by god, while the other 9 who died, can't tell anyone about it...because they're dead.

Really the human body can recover from many severe problems, even though it may be deemed unlikely to recover, there's still always a possibility, when the cause of the recovery is unknown, resigning it to be the work of god would be a little feeble, with that kind of thought, the whole medical field would be nothing near what it is, cases where people CAN'T explain something lead to people trying to explain and thus learning more and can allow for these types of things to be treated more successfuly in future. I like to think of this kind of recovery as being like where a broken set of mechanisms fall into line, you could have a huge chain connected and if just 1 falls out of place, the whole thing collapses, but sometimes, they will just fall into place, the conditions are right and the problem can be overcome.

[Nebosuke]

oh yeah... has someone given an answer about the affects of prayer in the case of my brother's friend? the one that had the hole in his heart for 20 years, got saved, prayed and it vanished over night? the placebo thing doesn't make sense because it was over night. any other reasons how it might have happened? my brother is just saying that it obviously is god i just don't want to believe that it's god.
No one here can really give you an answer on that one. For one thing, we have absolutely no useful context for the story (e.g., specific medical information about your brother's friend's condition and the medical treatments/tests he was subjected to). For another, even if a doctor cannot explain the reason for his recovery, that proves nothing about the nature of what caused his recovery. The doctor may be incompetent (far more common than we'd like to believe), the patient may have been initially misdiagnosed, or the mechanism of recovery might simply be beyond our current medical understanding, which is far from perfect.

As for the placebo effect, I didn't mention it in the other thread to suggest that that is what caused this particular person's recovery. I simply mentioned it to provide an example of when prayer may actually affect a person's health, even if the divine entity being prayed to does not exist. Belief, even if mistaken or misplaced, has measurable effects on a person's wellbeing.

[Klilynkun]

This kind of thing was mentioned in the video, their explanation was simply that, there could be 10 people with that exact same problem, all of whome are likely to pray to god to cure them, yet it's likely that only 1 in 10 will actually live to tell about it and call it a miracle by god, while the other 9 who died, can't tell anyone about it...because they're dead.

Really the human body can recover from many severe problems, even though it may be deemed unlikely to recover, there's still always a possibility, when the cause of the recovery is unknown, resigning it to be the work of god would be a little feeble, with that kind of thought, the whole medical field would be nothing near what it is, cases where people CAN'T explain something lead to people trying to explain and thus learning more and can allow for these types of things to be treated more successfuly in future. I like to think of this kind of recovery as being like where a broken set of mechanisms fall into line, you could have a huge chain connected and if just 1 falls out of place, the whole thing collapses, but sometimes, they will just fall into place, the conditions are right and the problem can be overcome

No one here can really give you an answer on that one. For one thing, we have absolutely no useful context for the story (e.g., specific medical information about your brother's friend's condition and the medical treatments/tests he was subjected to). For another, even if a doctor cannot explain the reason for his recovery, that proves nothing about the nature of what caused his recovery. The doctor may be incompetent (far more common than we'd like to believe), the patient may have been initially misdiagnosed, or the mechanism of recovery might simply be beyond our current medical understanding, which is far from perfect.

As for the placebo effect, I didn't mention it in the other thread to suggest that that is what caused this particular person's recovery. I simply mentioned it to provide an example of when prayer may actually affect a person's health, even if the divine entity being prayed to does not exist. Belief, even if mistaken or misplaced, has measurable effects on a person's wellbeing.

So... what it sounds to me is that you guys are "believing" in "blind faith" that it wasn't a god that healed whoever - even though you don't know what it is that did the healing - but you believe that if doctors look hard and long enough they'll find what it is - even though that may not be the case - and the only reason you believe this is because your "biased" in that you don't believe there is a god.

so in other words your taking the position of a religious person whom can't give evidence of their god.....well....not satisfactory evidence anyway.

[RandomPasserby]

Klilynkun, only proof that it could have been God is that your brother's friend prayed. What if it was a passing invisible Star Unicorn that hear your brother's friend's prayer and decided to take pity on him and cured him with unicorn magic?

If you don't believe that, it sounds to me is that you are "believing" in "blind faith" that it wasn't invisible Star Unicorn that healed whoever - even though you don't know what it is that did the healing - but you believe that if doctors look hard and long enough they'll find what it is - even though that may not be the case - and the only reason you believe this is because your "biased" in that you don't believe there is Star Unicorn.

Not believing that God did it when there is no proof isn't being biased, just like you aren't biased when you don't believe Star Unicorn did it. It' just logical to leave the reason for him being cured as unknown until there is solid proof about what did it. Even if you had evidence that it was a miracle healing instead of him healing naturally or due to medication, you still have no proof what or who caused the miracle healing and thus it would be jumping to conclusions if you decided that it was God (It could have been Shiva, Jahwe, Allah, Flying Spagetti Monster, the man's ancestors' spirits or that Star Unicorn for example).

Your brother's friend's miracleous healing is btw. a typical "proof" of God popular amongst christians as it puts the nonbeliever on the defensive and makes his counterarguments look like grasping at straws, especially as so little information is provided about the actual healing.

My flatmate last year had a similar "proof", friend of his friend had suffered permanent braindamage in an vehicle accident and was in a permanent coma according to doctors. Then the family prayed and the friend's friend miracleously woke up. Again, no proof about anything, the person might not even exist and all information was 3rd hand and not by medical experts. Also really hard to not sound like you aren't accepting the story only because you believe there is no god. That's why you hear about these cases so often, they are very effective argumentation weapons because they cause the other side to look like diehard atheists.

[Klilynkun]

so how do you counteract such an argument? my brother brings his friend up and because i don't have the evidence etc etc, and the person that actually had his heart healed totally believes it's god how can i not believe it's god. they way the friend tells it doctors didn't work hey prayed, he was healed. even if it was a star unicorn, he doesn't attribute it to that but to god.

i can't think of an argument that would totally negate that there is a god that healed him. the best i would be able to do would be to say it could have been something else, but it still could have been god.

confused in seattle

[Nebosuke]

so in other words your taking the position of a religious person whom can't give evidence of their god.....well....not satisfactory evidence anyway.
Actually, no. Most people would probably consider me an atheist, or possibly an agnostic, but the truth of the matter is that I simply don't care at all whether or not there is a god.

In the case of your brother's friend, there is no evidence that it was due to a god. Or that he was actually cured. Or that he was even sick to begin with, for that matter. All I have to go on is what you said, and all the information you included are unrelated to evidence, and only relate to belief. That being said, as I mentioned in the other thread, religious beliefs are outside the scope of science. You cannot attempt to prove or disprove a religious belief because, by its very nature, it is not testable. If you believe, you believe. Period.

[Klilynkun]

Actually, no. Most people would probably consider me an atheist, or possibly an agnostic, but the truth of the matter is that I simply don't care at all whether or not there is a god.


not even an eentsy weentsy teeny tiny winey bit? :D

[RandomPasserby]

so how do you counteract such an argument? my brother brings his friend up and because i don't have the evidence etc etc, and the person that actually had his heart healed totally believes it's god how can i not believe it's god. they way the friend tells it doctors didn't work hey prayed, he was healed. even if it was a star unicorn, he doesn't attribute it to that but to god.

i can't think of an argument that would totally negate that there is a god that healed him. the best i would be able to do would be to say it could have been something else, but it still could have been god.

confused in seattle
You don't need to negate that there is a god that healed him. He needs to prove it beyond doubt that it was his god that healed his friend. And it doesn't happen by saying that you don't have proof that it wasn't his god. You won't change his or his friend's mind about what happened but the counter-argument to it is that there is no real proof about the friend being healed by a god/other supernatural being/alien with more advanced technology. He needs to prove that it was his god, you don't need to prove that it wasn't.

[Klilynkun]

all this thinking makes my head hurt :fever:

[ID_10T]

Funny. I would have taken it that you weren't thinking at all.

Sure, you're young, but you are taking your bliss too far. Don't take this as being condescending, but your mind has a lot of growing to do yet. "Faith" in this day and age is little more than the desire to stop thinking anyway. If there were anything more to it, then it wouldn't need a whimsical name circumventing the fact that you are asked to absorb a doctrine with no evidence behind it.

So, why do you believe in a "god"?

[Klilynkun]

i'm not sure if i do or not but i don't believe that faith is just a desire to stop thinking and that it is whimsical name circumventing the fact that you are asked to absorb a doctrine with no evidence behind it.

you have faith that when you go on a bus that someone won't blow it up. you have faith that the person driving you somewhere won't just black out. it's not that you stop thinking. and jesus, mohammed and other people of faiths or historical figures so how can you say that there is no evidence in those faiths. the doctrines have to be weighed up with all evidence - even evidence that people think is not evidence. The littlest thing can make the biggest difference, like a detective. Think about things from all angles - not just from one. why do some people make the conscious decision to become christians based on what they previously believed about christianity? what have they experienced and why do they trust what they have experienced instead of what other people say? I don't know these answers. That's why i'm reading and asking questions. That's why i'm thinking about it. I'm not just going to let someone tell me what to believe: that there is no god, that there is a god, that his name is jesus, that his name is allah, that his name is buddha, that if i die i just won't exist, that if i die i'll go to heaven/hell.

It seems like i'm doing a lot more thinking than you. I'm seriously weighing up all options - considering the ramifications of it a so forth. some people just pick a position because they're comfortable with it. they don't want to deal with anything else. why was jesus crucified. why did the jews appear out of nowhere? why did mohammed claim he was the last prophet?

the better question isn't why i don't believe in god, because i haven't come to any firm conclusion yet. but why, after all the centurions of people believing there is at least a god, even if these people have to suffer greatly for just believing it (like in china right now - or any muslim country), do you not believe in god? tell me so i can weigh up your belief into the equation please.

[Xuande]

my brother has a friend at his church that was born with a hole in his heart - he had to go to the hospital every year because of it. the friend got "saved" - became a christian and mysteriously the hole in his heart was gone. they guy has xrays of the hole in his heart to prove it. :eyepop:

I think it's unlikely that praying had much effect on the hole in his heart. Congenital atrial septal defects, which it sounds like your brother's friend probably had, often go away by themselves (http://www.kidshealth.org/parent/medical/heart/asd.html) as people grow older, especially when the defect is small.

[delen]

I think it's unlikely that praying had much effect on the hole in his heart. Congenital atrial septal defects, which it sounds like your brother's friend probably had, often go away by themselves (http://www.kidshealth.org/parent/medical/heart/asd.html) as people grow older, especially when the defect is small.

Therefor whenever a congenital atrial septal defects goes away, it is in fact... AN ACT OF GOD.

QED

[Klilynkun]

I think it's unlikely that praying had much effect on the hole in his heart. Congenital atrial septal defects, which it sounds like your brother's friend probably had, often go away by themselves (http://www.kidshealth.org/parent/medical/heart/asd.html) as people grow older, especially when the defect is small.

ok... i can see that. i'll ask him how big the hole was. :watson:

[ID_10T]

i'm not sure if i do or not but i don't believe that faith is just a desire to stop thinking and that it is whimsical name circumventing the fact that you are asked to absorb a doctrine with no evidence behind it.

you have faith that when you go on a bus that someone won't blow it up. you have faith that the person driving you somewhere won't just black out. it's not that you stop thinking. and jesus, mohammed and other people of faiths or historical figures so how can you say that there is no evidence in those faiths. the doctrines have to be weighed up with all evidence - even evidence that people think is not evidence. The littlest thing can make the biggest difference, like a detective. Think about things from all angles - not just from one. why do some people make the conscious decision to become christians based on what they previously believed about christianity? what have they experienced and why do they trust what they have experienced instead of what other people say? I don't know these answers. That's why i'm reading and asking questions. That's why i'm thinking about it. I'm not just going to let someone tell me what to believe: that there is no god, that there is a god, that his name is jesus, that his name is allah, that his name is buddha, that if i die i just won't exist, that if i die i'll go to heaven/hell.

It seems like i'm doing a lot more thinking than you. I'm seriously weighing up all options - considering the ramifications of it a so forth. some people just pick a position because they're comfortable with it. they don't want to deal with anything else. why was jesus crucified. why did the jews appear out of nowhere? why did mohammed claim he was the last prophet?

the better question isn't why i don't believe in god, because i haven't come to any firm conclusion yet. but why, after all the centurions of people believing there is at least a god, even if these people have to suffer greatly for just believing it (like in china right now - or any muslim country), do you not believe in god? tell me so i can weigh up your belief into the equation please.

1. Common sense and the laws of probability does not equate to faith (in the same sense of the word). Faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. A physical incarnation of a 'god' roams around the earth. That is faith, with no supporting facts showing that, indeed, there is a god, or that this god magicked into a white guy wandering around the middle east. Or any other tenets of any religion. I have more than a cursory knowledge of belief structures. Shintoism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hindu, and so on and so forth, make some nice statements about a way to live life, don't often live up to them; most enforce some obedience from the masses, and generally fuck a few things up in the process.

2. I don't have a belief. I looked at the evidence... all none of it, and came to a rational understanding of the world as I comprehend it. At the advent of religion, there was no concrete way to understand the world. Why did it get dark? What were the stars? How did you explain winter and summer? Cultures came to different conclusions, if only for the purpose of not being completely fucking frightened by the crazy world around them. If you were really looking at understanding the history, you'd see the reason organised religions as we see today survived because of the power structure they gave to society. Then you can add to that that religion is the opiate of the masses, and so on and so forth. Past belief in such things is no good indicator that it has any merit. Sociological factors are the main reason religion still persists. Family and tradition still hold strong. If anything, to be of the minority in questioning the existence of any god in our society means one has taken steps out of the mindset of the masses and come up with some free and logical thinking.

As for the farce of the hole in the heart guy, read the rest of the site from the video. http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/important.htm

I'm not denying anyone their beliefs. Just don't go fucking with science, k thanks. Hasn't gone so well for anyone in the past.
Or for that matter, Bush effectively banning stem cell research by cutting off funding.

Honestly, the time I took to write this has probably been wasted on a fuckwit like you anyway. That's not because of your beliefs, but just because in general you appear to show classic signs of fuckwitism. Oh, to be young again. :gwitch:

[Jetsetlemming]

Faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
No. It's not faith if it's proven, then it's just a plain old fact, but your beliefs can easily be based on evidence you see in the world around you. I have seen evidence of God. It's just that simple. Does that mean it's not faith when I believe? Nope.

[ID_10T]

Semantics. Can't be bothered with iterations on fallacies anyway. Good for you, in your interpretation of life you saw some divine intejection or similar. I'd love if you'd elaborate a touch. :) The basic definition of words aside, what of your experience with 'god' made you feel that your particular belief was right, as opposed to it being the god of any other religion? :p Your beliefs --> based on intuitive assumptions, not logical proof or material evidence.

[Kyoushu]

I don't want to get into a huge arguement, but you say you've seen evidence of God. Well, my mom saw a hummingbird right outside the window when she was sad, and she thinks God sent it to make her feel better. A rational person would conclude that the hummingbird just happened to be checking out the window and she just happened to look out after crying. A coincidence.

[Jetsetlemming]

Oh no, I don't mean little stuff like that. I just used to not believe, and now do believe, based on science, evolutionary biology and quantum physics in particular. I just can't believe, with the odds against it, that evolution really happened completely on it's own in every case. In just the bacterial flaggela alone, the odds of all the mutations needed occuring together, being the right genes, and being in the right place in the cell's DNA is greater than 1 to a googolplex, and that's just one of many, many, many things that would need to beat those impossible odds for all the different types of life forms and biological functions. I'd sooner believe my computer was dug up as it is, software and all, in a mine, formed completely naturally, with windows XP installed and registered and ready to go. That creates the neccesity of an non-terrestrial origin, though I don't much like the idea of aliens "planting" life on earth or something related to that, because then THAT life form would need a source as well, and you're back at the same old logic block. I don't actually follow any religon, I just... believe. :)

[Silverhawk]

Oh no, I don't mean little stuff like that. I just used to not believe, and now do believe, based on science, evolutionary biology and quantum physics in particular. I just can't believe, with the odds against it, that evolution really happened completely on it's own in every case. In just the bacterial flaggela alone, the odds of all the mutations needed occuring together, being the right genes, and being in the right place in the cell's DNA is greater than 1 to a googolplex, and that's just one of many, many, many things that would need to beat those impossible odds for all the different types of life forms and biological functions. I'd sooner believe my computer was dug up as it is, software and all, in a mine, formed completely naturally, with windows XP installed and registered and ready to go. That creates the neccesity of an non-terrestrial origin, though I don't much like the idea of aliens "planting" life on earth or something related to that, because then THAT life form would need a source as well, and you're back at the same old logic block. I don't actually follow any religon, I just... believe. :)
This is something that baffles me. You religious folk somehow have no qualms with the idea that God need no creator but can't seem to hold the same idea that the universe has always existed. The claim that everything must have a creator except the first creator is incredibly irrational to me.

On evolution, the odds may be small but you have to understand that it isn't a single attempt. The entire process is trial and error so there are many attempts to get it "right". One species may begin evolving into 5 different sub-species but 4 of it dies and 1 survives. The survivor continues evolving.

[Klilynkun]

can't believe this thread is still alive....

dude... he said
I don't actually follow any religon, I just... believe.

and - you're still missing the point. He was saying that the mathematical odds - is extremely high, and from a scientific view when those type of odds are placed against anything else is nigh impossible.

And for any lifeform to exist a lot of the functions MUST be working at the same time. Some things can't just be done piece by piece. Some functions can not be trial and error. That is where the astronomical odds come into to play. By scientific reasoning it's not possible.

Hence the reason why he said

I'd sooner believe my computer was dug up as it is, software and all, in a mine, formed completely naturally, with windows XP installed and registered and ready to go.

There's better odds of a person hitting the lottery 1000 times in a row for something to evolve with all functions working perfectly all at the same time.
And that is fact. Not religious belief, but mathematical equations. Of course... the possibility is still there.... but it is incredibly miniscule.

But I guess, it's that same reason why religious people believe what they do because it's still a possibility.

[Jetsetlemming]

This is something that baffles me. You religious folk somehow have no qualms with the idea that God need no creator but can't seem to hold the same idea that the universe has always existed. The claim that everything must have a creator except the first creator is incredibly irrational to me.

On evolution, the odds may be small but you have to understand that it isn't a single attempt. The entire process is trial and error so there are many attempts to get it "right". One species may begin evolving into 5 different sub-species but 4 of it dies and 1 survives. The survivor continues evolving.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
And I'm not religous.
And Evolution didn't have unlimited chances to get it right, the earth hasn't existed forever. They can reasonably mark out the process of the developement of species with the fossil record (the fossil record, btw, is evidence against random mutation evolution, because of the spacing and time periods of the eras (such as the cambrian era, which produced many, many of the animal types that exist today, while only being about 10 million years or so, and before that the most advanced creatures discovered as fossils are worms) doesn't allow any room at all for evolutionary re-rolls, so to speak.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_era
Learning is fun. Prejudice against theories and beliefs unfamilar to you is not.

[RandomPasserby]

You know Jetsetlemming, one of the major things about cambrian period is that before that, all creatures were just similar to worms and medusas and lacking any kind of a skeleton or an exoskeleton. And everyone knows that chances of a fossil forming from a creature with an exosketon or a skeleton are quite low (that's why there aren't millions or billions of dinosaur fossils for example) and very very non existant chance for a fossil to form from a corpse that hasn't got any hard parts like an exoskeleton. Not hard to grasp that exoskeletonless ancestor to cambrian creatures wouldn't leave a fossil but the cmbrian creature with an exoskeleton would, unless it doesn't fit into person's religion.

Anyway, bacterium's flagella is an outdated example that has been proven false (but it is still used by creationists as it's quite hard to make up proof for their god) as it's reduced forms can be used as a poison injector. That just shows that most 1 to googolplex-chance guys are just making up their arguments (they don't know what was the perious stage before the mutation that "finished" the flagella for example).

[Jetsetlemming]

What was your point about fossils? Sounds like you were copying it from someone else's argument to me. :watson: You say : "You know, there aren't many fossils from the pre-cambrian eras". Though there are fossil records from the pre-cambrian era. And NONE of them are complex enough to be anywhere near a close ancestor to the cambrian phyla. If there were creatures alive then that were close to the advanced life of the cambrian era, they undoubtably would have exo-skeletons or skeletons, and thus be far more likely to leave a fossil than invertabrate worms. And yet, wow, not one fossil of them exists. Therefore, they weren't there at all before the cambrian era.
As for the flagella thing, I'd like a link to a well detailed source, if you'd be so kind. It sounds like a plain old theory, not at all "proof". and that just makes it MORE complicated, anyway, because then you need genes for creating poison, and storing it within the cell safely, and finally genes to set up a method of using the poison with the flagella. Still way too implausible to be accepted as likely.

[Klilynkun]

It sounds like a plain old theory, not at all "proof".

sounds like what i was saying before. Theories are taken as proof when they aren't as they are still theories. Until a theory can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, without holes in the theory, can't be disproven in any way what-so-ever, then it's not truth/proof/law.

[ID_10T]

sounds like what i was saying before. Theories are taken as proof when they aren't as they are still theories. Until a theory can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, without holes in the theory, can't be disproven in any way what-so-ever, then it's not truth/proof/law.

Like the theory of gravity.

Pure scientific theory kind of beats the crap that creationists put out there anyway. There is an enforced review system, with methodical evidence gathered over time, and the possiblity for review and change with new evidence. Or god did it.

[Klilynkun]

Like the theory of gravity.

Pure scientific theory kind of beats the crap that creationists put out there anyway. There is an enforced review system, with methodical evidence gathered over time, and the possiblity for review and change with new evidence. Or god did it.

The theory of gravity ceased being a theory ages ago...hence we call it the LAW OF GRAVITY.

scientific THEORY has been proven wrong in the past and continues to do so. It's the LAW's that haven't been proven wrong.

If a theory becomes a law then it has not been proven to be wrong by peer review, etc. etc.

Why is that so hard for people to agree to. :bored:

Edit: A physical law, scientific law, or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. They are typically conclusions based on the confirmation of hypotheses through repeated scientific experiments over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. While there are no uncontroversial rules as to how or when a scientific hypothesis becomes a scientific law, scientific laws at their strongest are generally observations that have never had repeatable contradictions.

this is the first paragraph. notice the last sentence.

[RandomPasserby]

Hahaha Klilynkun, the simple theory/(law) of Gravity (Newton's) that is taught in high schools and lower is actually "wrong", it's just used as it gives "good enough" results in those exercises as used in high school and the newer more accurate theories are only taught on university level. Sad if your teacher didn't tell you that basic info even.

Jetsetlemming, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html for the stuff about flagella, sorry that it's talkorigins, but pure scientific publications don't usually concetrate on proving that anything was or wasn't made by a god at all.

Also, do provide a link to your precambrian fossil record that proves that cambrian creatures were created before claiming that lack of fossils from soft invertebrae (as fossils are mainly formed by hard parts of creatures) would be proof of that. But here, another link to talkorigins http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html read the references listed though before posting though.

Personally, I'm not interested anymore in arguing abotu evolution/creationism as it usually goes to religious people demanding that I prove that scientists aren't wrong/biased and that their god is to answer to anything we don't know. Just like the cambrian/precambrian fossil issue or flagella.

[Klilynkun]

Hahaha Klilynkun, the simple theory/(law) of Gravity (Newton's) that is taught in high schools and lower is actually "wrong", it's just used as it gives "good enough" results in those exercises as used in high school and the newer more accurate theories are only taught on university level. Sad if your teacher didn't tell you that basic info even.

please explain it to me then.

Edit: Just read the law of gravity in wiki and sounds exactly like how i was taught. So i'm very curious as to what you're going to say.

Also, if the newer more accurate theories are taught only in univeristy that would mean that highschools and all levels below are knowingly teaching wrong information. And since all people aren't able to go to university, and all people that go to university don't necessarily take a science class, then they are just perpetuating the false information.

[RandomPasserby]

Klilynkun, Newton's theory is outdated, but it's (inaccurate) formulas are the ones taught as they are good enough for most of normal applications. If you had bothered to read the wikipedia entry, you would have found out that. So there is no "law of gravity" that is set in stone and that is unchangable anymore. That is at least what I understood you to claim.

Also in the wikipedia entry is less than optimal though, it doesn't tell that there is only unproven theories about what actually causes gravitation in masses and which hmm... carries it's effect (graviton hasn't been detected etc.). Basically only how is known, not why about gravity.

[Shinobi01]

please explain it to me then.
Nowadays the "Law of Gravity" is encompassed by the "Theory of Relativity". The law was never a "law" but rather some observed regularity in nature: stuff falls. Einstein realized that "stuff falls" wasn't exactly the case. Mostly, the "law of Gravity" is used as an approximation, and even though it is a good one, it's generally not as great as General Relativity.

[Klilynkun]

Klilynkun, Newton's theory is outdated, but it's (inaccurate) formulas are the ones taught as they are good enough for most of normal applications. If you had bothered to read the wikipedia entry, you would have found out that. So there is no "law of gravity" that is set in stone and that is unchangable anymore. That is at least what I understood you to claim.

Also in the wikipedia entry is less than optimal though, it doesn't tell that there is only unproven theories about what actually causes gravitation in masses and which hmm... carries it's effect (graviton hasn't been detected etc.). Basically only how is known, not why about gravity.


well.. actually the gravitation article in wiki talks about newton's and then goes on to einsteins. It only makes references about other theories.

But since you have proved that you're right in the law of gravity. Then you are right :clap:

but it's not like there aren't any scientifics laws that we can work with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laws_in_Science

it's true that the wiki isn't optimal but i doubt very much that there is 1 source that is optimal.

Nowadays the "Law of Gravity" is encompassed by the "Theory of Relativity". The law was never a "law" but rather some observed regularity in nature: stuff falls. Einstein realized that "stuff falls" wasn't exactly the case. Mostly, the "law of Gravity" is used as an approximation, and even though it is a good one, it's generally not as great as General Relativity.

ok.... i conceded my point on the law of gravity.

But you just showed what i was talking about truth/law/theory blah blah blah

The newton theory is the generally used by the world.
Einstein's theory is used for more advanced applications.

The general relativity theory - combines two theories and uses the hypothesis of another theory to come to it's conclusion......

if these things are supposed to be so accurate why aren't they laws?

that is my point.

so many theories describing other theories. theories which are suppose to describe us and the universe around us are still theories. until they are made law i can't take them as 100% true. scientifically they may hold much weight but scientifically i can't take them 100% by the very fact that they are still labeled theories.

the general relativity theory is based on the laws of physics. that tells me that the laws are not in question any longer but the theory is. I wouldn't go researching to topple the law, but the theory.

[RandomPasserby]

Ummmm... first, I haven't ever heard of any scintific body that would decide what is a law and what is a theory and also I haven't ever heard that law>theory in science.

"Law" is probably used only because theories of physics sounds very much like that there is many theories and that they don't all agree (if they agreed, why there isn't just one theory etc.). So there probably isn't any difference in truth value between all the different accepted laws and theories about gravity or how universe works even if one is a law and another is "just" a theory. This thread really helps me understand why it's law of gravity and laws of physics instead of theory of gravity or theories of physics though :P

[Klilynkun]

Ummmm... first, I haven't ever heard of any scintific body that would decide what is a law and what is a theory and also I haven't ever heard that law>theory in science.

i don't know of any either :meh:
yes you have... just not stated that way. For example, i'll take a law from the list on wiki that i linked to.

Boyle's Law - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle%27s_Law
this is a law and is always used when trying to find the constant of the product of volume and pressure.

If a theory was to come along that would change this, the theory would be poked and prodded to make sure it is correct at all situations blah blah blah.

"Law" is probably used only because theories of physics sounds very much like that there is many theories and that they don't all agree (if they agreed, why there isn't just one theory etc.). So there probably isn't any difference in truth value between all the different accepted laws and theories about gravity or how universe works even if one is a law and another is "just" a theory. This thread really helps me understand why it's law of gravity and laws of physics instead of theory of gravity or theories of physics though

ok then... if there is no real difference in the truth values of laws and theories then all things in science (or at least physics) is suspect as they can't be proved to be 100% true.

[RandomPasserby]

Boyle's law and other ideal gas laws are accurate only with ideal gas, which doesn't exist (read the link to gas laws in that wikipedia entry, it tells you more). See? Again reads "law of x" when it isn't even 100% accurate, just "good enough".

[Klilynkun]

Boyle's law and other ideal gas laws are accurate only with ideal gas, which doesn't exist (read the link to gas laws in that wikipedia entry, it tells you more). See? Again reads "law of x" when it isn't even 100% accurate, just "good enough".

conceded - i did see that it said ideal gases and i did read the other link.

So in other words.... science (or physics) works in such a way that the answer we want to get we will never get, but we will get something close to it.

That shouldn't be so, as the slightest difference in certain sciences (biology, geneology, etc) makes big variations in the outcome.

If we can never truely get the answer we want to get doesn't somebody think we should try a different method!?! :blank:

going to a mathematical genuis and saying that pi is 3.14 would be wrong because it's not 3.14 but we say that it's close enough. But it's not, because since pi isn't equivalent to that number, you have a different number which is not pi but we're just calling it pi. :watson:

[Nebosuke]

A good rule of thumb for distinguishing between 'laws' and 'theories' is that 'laws' refer to idealized mathematical models that are not expected to match up with reality, and theories are meant to be applied directly to hypothetically empirically observable phenomena[1].

For example, the 'law of gravity' refers to the equation:

F = G*M1*M2*(1/r^2)

Which is only true for mathematical models which assume a 2 body system of point masses or perfectly spherical masses, none of which actually exist in the observable universe. As RandomPasserby mentioned, Boyle's law is another example of an equation that is only true in an idealized mathematical system.

In short, a law isn't a theory that has been proven (no such thing anyway). It's perhaps the opposite--scientists would never try to prove a law because they know it doesn't match up with reality. In fact, that's the whole point of laws. Finding the exact gravitational forces acting on an object would take more computing power than we have available to us today, so the law of gravity is used to give us an answer that is close enough while using a reasonable amount of computational resources. You don't prove that a law is true, you prove that a law is useful.

edit:

Seriously Klilykun, you're not going to get anything useful out of this thread if you don't take the time to study on your own. You're asking people to justify things that science itself doesn't claim to justify. You are asking why science cannot do X[2] when science can't by it's very nature, then assuming that science is wrong/worthless/equivalent to religious belief because of that. You're basically missing the entire point of science, and totally misjudging what science even is.

[1] I add 'hypothetically' because the technology for performing the actual observation does not necessarily exist at the time the theory is made.

[2] E.g., asking science to prove that something is true. That's not even something that science claims to do.

[Klilynkun]

In short, a law isn't a theory that has been proven (no such thing anyway). It's perhaps the opposite--scientists would never try to prove a law because they know it doesn't match up with reality. In fact, that's the whole point of laws. Finding the exact gravitational forces acting on an object would take more computing power than we have available to us today, so the law of gravity is used to give us an answer that is close enough while using a reasonable amount of computational resources. You don't prove that a law is true, you prove that a law is useful.

good answer... that solves my problem about law and theory. i had them all wrong... lol :duh:

Seriously Klilykun, you're not going to get anything useful out of this thread if you don't take the time to study on your own. You're asking people to justify things that science itself doesn't claim to justify. You are asking why science cannot do X[2] when science can't by it's very nature, then assuming that science is wrong/worthless/equivalent to religious belief because of that. You're basically missing the entire point of science, and totally misjudging what science even is.

i am getting useful things out of this thread...and it's fun too :D
science cant claim to justify anything...science can't talk :blank:
lol I don't know what science is anymore. and the people that say they practice science say that science proves such and such when the theory they say proves such and such isn't entirely correct either. :boggled:

[2] E.g., asking science to prove that something is true. That's not even something that science claims to do.

that may be true about what science claims to do, but that what many people says that science does, including scientists, especially when it comes to evolution....which is a theory.....which....isn't proven? "(no such thing anyway)" :boggled: :box:

[Jetsetlemming]

Why the fuck do I keep getting called religous? :boggled: OBVIOUSLY someone who believes in Intelligent Design is a far right fascist evil Christian! LET'S GET EM, BOYS! :bored: Everything I was talking about about the fossil records and the cambrian and pre-cambrian era (that you didn't understand my point about anyway) is in the wiki. There are fossils from pre-cambrian of small soft bone-less creatures, like worms. There are NONE of anything more advanced. The advanced lifeforms don't exist at all until the cambrian era. They went from worm to dog waay too fast for evolution's slow, gradual process to logically explain it. Outside "aid" in the process is a far more likely conclusion.

[Nebosuke]

As far as science is concerned, whether or not a theory is true is besides the point. There's no way to prove, absolutely and objectively, that a thing is necessarily true (which is why the study of perception and the truth is a field of philosophy called epistemology, and not science).

The purpose of a scientific theory is to be useful. A theory is useful if you can use it to make reliable predictions. For instance, the theory of gravity is useful because, as I mentioned earlier, we can use it while engineering projects in space, determining orbits, etc. Evolution is a useful theory because we use it in agriculture and biology to make predictions about ecosystems, breeding programs, and so forth.

As we get better at observing the universe and collect more data, we can refine our theories so that they allow us to produce even more accurate and reliable predictions. All of this has nothing to do with the truth aside from the reasonable assumption that accurate theories probably become close approximations of the truth.

That is what differentiates science--e.g., the theory of evolution--from religious belief--e.g., creationism. It doesn't matter which one is true, only the theory of evolution is actually useful, which is why it's taught in school.

Theories can never be proven true, but some can be proven false. Those that are not yet proven false are further subdivided into those that are useful and those that aren't. The useful ones are scientific theories, the rest are beliefs. Religious beliefs are generally a specific subset of non-useful theories that also cannot be proven false. All useful theories can possibly be proven false because they make predictions which can be tested through experimentation.

[Xuande]

I would say there's more to the dichotomy between scientific theories and religion than just usefulness. Under that stark distinction, there is a good deal of mathematics that counts as religion because we have not (yet, at least) found anything in the real world to which they can be applied.

[Klilynkun]

Seriously Klilykun, you're not going to get anything useful out of this thread if you don't take the time to study on your own. You're asking people to justify things that science itself doesn't claim to justify. You are asking why science cannot do X[2] when science can't by it's very nature, then assuming that science is wrong/worthless/equivalent to religious belief because of that. You're basically missing the entire point of science, and totally misjudging what science even is.

That's the thing i was trying to get an explanation of in the other thread. In regards to evolution how does one animal, dog, evolve into another, cat.

I didn't really get an answer (or i didn't see one :meh:)

People posted about viruses and bacteria evolving to withstand drugs and wotnot, but that's not i asked about. People posted about salamanders evolving into different type of salamander. Which wasn't what i was talking about.

That website that someone posted talkorigins was helpful - it also led me to a christian website called answersingenesis which basically say something to the effect of - it is not possible to evolve animal/plant/tree/monkey into something completely different. It would mean that the organism is gaining dna that it never had in the first place. This has never ever been seen to happen in observational blah blah blah.

They say - a mutation can occur within the dna of organisms but that is usually just from either losing current dna or by natural selection favoring certain dna rather than others - as in the salamander case, but in no instance does the organism gain dna that it never had in the first place.

I think this is the wrong thread though.... this one is supposed to be about prayer.....or science...or physics....or gravity :meh:

[Jetsetlemming]

I would say there's more to the dichotomy between scientific theories and religion than just usefulness. Under that stark distinction, there is a good deal of mathematics that counts as religion because we have not (yet, at least) found anything in the real world to which they can be applied.
I'd worship math. :innocent: Let's start a cult!

[Nebosuke]

I would say there's more to the dichotomy between scientific theories and religion than just usefulness. Under that stark distinction, there is a good deal of mathematics that counts as religion because we have not (yet, at least) found anything in the real world to which they can be applied.

Not really, because mathematics is neither science nor religion. Mathematical theories are nothing like either scientific or religious theories. They are simply internally-consistent logical systems. The confusingly similar name is rather unfortunate.

A mathematical theory, e.g., set theory or number theory, provides the definition of a logical system rather than an explanation for an existing system. A mathematical theory is not a belief to begin with, and therefore not comparable with religious or scientific theories, so the question of whether or not it is useful is rather moot.

[Klilynkun]

Theories can never be proven true, but some can be proven false. Those that are not yet proven false are further subdivided into those that are useful and those that aren't. The useful ones are scientific theories, the rest are beliefs. Religious beliefs are generally a specific subset of non-useful theories that also cannot be proven false. All useful theories can possibly be proven false because they make predictions which can be tested through experimentation.

That's not true. People actually live by religious beliefs and find it very useful. For example, people believe that they shouldn't lie, steal, murder, commit adultery etc. etc. etc. Those are peoples religious beliefs and the find it very useful.

Also, apparently, the bible has predicted the destruction of the jewish temple, and the return of the nation of isreal. I think it was a week (or less, can't remember) when literally out of nowhere isreal was back.

So you're thinking is wrong to a point. Also... you keep talking about the wrong kind of evolution. If you believe that evolution is only the small changes in an organism, then you are wrong. Evolution has been attributed to monkeys turning in humans. It's that evolution that i'm talking about. Not the small ones that you can see in animals and ecosystems and wotnot.

[RandomPasserby]

Why the fuck do I keep getting called religous? :boggled: OBVIOUSLY someone who believes in Intelligent Design is a far right fascist evil Christian! LET'S GET EM, BOYS! :bored: Everything I was talking about about the fossil records and the cambrian and pre-cambrian era (that you didn't understand my point about anyway) is in the wiki. There are fossils from pre-cambrian of small soft bone-less creatures, like worms. There are NONE of anything more advanced. The advanced lifeforms don't exist at all until the cambrian era. They went from worm to dog waay too fast for evolution's slow, gradual process to logically explain it. Outside "aid" in the process is a far more likely conclusion.
So, they went from worm to dog in those 5-10 million years between cambrian and precambrian period then? I thought dog were a human creation...

I suggest that you read those talkorigins pages and if you feel you still aren't convinced, read the studies they used as references. After that you can claim that evolution scientists are wrong.

Anyway ID is creationism, they just cry that they didn't say god did it. ID has nothing that creationism doesn't have, but it lacks explanations of who and how, unlike creationism from which it was developed.

[Nebosuke]

That's not true. People actually live by religious beliefs and find it very useful. For example, people believe that they shouldn't lie, steal, murder, commit adultery etc. etc. etc. Those are peoples religious beliefs and the find it very useful.

None of the things you stated are theories. Some theories are beliefs, but not all beliefs are theories.

Also, apparently, the bible has predicted the destruction of the jewish temple, and the return of the nation of isreal. I think it was a week (or less, can't remember) when literally out of nowhere isreal was back.

Those examples aren't theories either, nor were they reliable enough to be useful.

Also... you keep talking about the wrong kind of evolution. If you believe that evolution is only the small changes in an organism, then you are wrong. Evolution has been attributed to monkeys turning in humans. It's that evolution that i'm talking about. Not the small ones that you can see in animals and ecosystems and wotnot

Again, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether or not the kinds of changes you're looking for actually happened/will happen in the future. Evolution is a useful theory because even if it's mistaken on that point--and there is no evidence that it is, by the way[1]--it has been the cornerstone of modern biological engineering, and has lead to countless practical applications.

[1] The only 'evidence' so far (irreducibility, some gaps in the fossil record, etc.) all boil down to the same fundamental argument: I can't understand how it could be, therefore it must not be.

[Xuande]

That website that someone posted talkorigins was helpful - it also led me to a christian website called answersingenesis which basically say something to the effect of - it is not possible to evolve animal/plant/tree/monkey into something completely different. It would mean that the organism is gaining dna that it never had in the first place. This has never ever been seen to happen in observational blah blah blah.

While Talk Origins is generally reliable, I reiterate my warning to be careful of taking Answers in Genesis at its word. They hold some anti-scientific beliefs, such as that the unvierse is only a few thousand years old, and they cherry-pick out-of-context quotes and isolated pieces of evidence to support their strange positions.

They say - a mutation can occur within the dna of organisms but that is usually just from either losing current dna or by natural selection favoring certain dna rather than others - as in the salamander case, but in no instance does the organism gain dna that it never had in the first place.

Mutations often produce new DNA! Take a look at the list of types of mutation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation) on Wikipedia. Point mutations and insertions (and others) can cause new DNA sequences to appear. It was an insertion mutation (among others) responsible for the appearance of the new nylon-digesting enzymes I mentioned earlier.

An organism can also gain new (at least, new to it) genetic material from the outside without a mutation occurring. This is how viruses reproduce, by inserting their own genetic material into a cell, causing it to create copies of the virus. Bacteria and other organisms can also exchange genetic information "horizontally" (think of it as going across a family tree instead of up and down through offspring and ancestors) through plasmids, which are basically just free-floating pieces of DNA. The genes for the nylonase enzymes were transferred between different kinds of bacteria through plasmids.

Finally, I want to warn you away from committing a common category mistake. Natural selection does not cause mutations. It only affects the distribution of alleles in a population over time. So it might be responsible for a given mutant allele taking over the population or not, but the mutation occurred independently.

[Jetsetlemming]

Creationism is not only "God did it", but the whole story of the earth and life's creation from genesis. ID is that Life was made. That's it. It didn't come about randomly on it's own. I read the articles you posted and wasn't convinced. *shrug* From the one on flagella:
point 1 is that it's possible for it to evolve naturally. No shit, sherlock. It just isn't plausible due to the odds. Point 2 is that a number of the parts aren't neccesary. No, but they still evolved to be there, and fit with everything else, and have it all work together.
The stuff you posted still can't come near making evolution by random chance likely enough of an occurence to be accepted on it's own without looking at other possible answers, such as puposeful changes to create the flagella artificially.
the second article uses a bunch of long, scienctific sounding words to say that a little bit before the official beginning of the cambrian the explosion of advanced creatures was beginning and that some other life forms like sponges and plant species came around afterwards. Whoop de doo. That still doesn't explain how so much advanced life came outta nowhere in a time period too small to allow for the slow process of the evolution of species. The only thing they have against that is "some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago." Once again, a baseless idea from some random scientist being used as "proof".

[Xuande]

Not really, because mathematics is neither science nor religion. Mathematical theories are nothing like either scientific or religious theories. They are simply internally-consistent logical systems. The confusingly similar name is rather unfortunate.

A mathematical theory, e.g., set theory or number theory, provides the definition of a logical system rather than an explanation for an existing system. A mathematical theory is not a belief to begin with, and therefore not comparable with religious or scientific theories, so the question of whether or not it is useful is rather moot.

I think I'm just made a little uneasy by calling religious beliefs "theories." Like the examples Lilynkun pointed out, much of religion's claims aren't about the natural world but metaphysics and axiology. Religious beliefs are also vetted by a very different process. Instead of peer review and repeated trials, religious ideas typically get advanced by an authority (from the Pope to the local preacher) declaring them to be correct.

[RandomPasserby]

That's not true. People actually live by religious beliefs and find it very useful. For example, people believe that they shouldn't lie, steal, murder, commit adultery etc. etc. etc. Those are peoples religious beliefs and the find it very useful.

First sorry about spllitting your post. No offense but most religions have those rules and even a dog gets pissed if you steal it's bone or mate. So those are very basic rules that religions just have highjacked to be something they came up with.


Also, apparently, the bible has predicted the destruction of the jewish temple, and the return of the nation of isreal. I think it was a week (or less, can't remember) when literally out of nowhere isreal was back.

Unless you prove otherwise, I'm thinking that the bible was gathered only after the destruction of the temple and well, people tend to make prophecies like Israel returning true (if there is a people/religion wanting to redo their nation, at some point they will succeed).

So you're thinking is wrong to a point. Also... you keep talking about the wrong kind of evolution. If you believe that evolution is only the small changes in an organism, then you are wrong. Evolution has been attributed to monkeys turning in humans. It's that evolution that i'm talking about. Not the small ones that you can see in animals and ecosystems and wotnot.
Well, human's difference from your normal Chimpanzee is what, 2%? Not that huge. Mainly apprearance and size differencies, nothing earth shattering like different limbs or organs that exist only in chimps or humans. I would even say that human evolution from the same ancestor as chimps and gorillas is quite good example of stacking of just small steps of evolution (slowly enlarging brain, step at a time type rising to two feet etc.).

[RandomPasserby]

Creationism is not only "God did it", but the whole story of the earth and life's creation from genesis. ID is that Life was made. That's it. It didn't come about randomly on it's own. I read the articles you posted and wasn't convinced. *shrug* From the one on flagella:
point 1 is that it's possible for it to evolve naturally. No shit, sherlock. It just isn't plausible due to the odds. Point 2 is that a number of the parts aren't neccesary. No, but they still evolved to be there, and fit with everything else, and have it all work together.
The stuff you posted still can't come near making evolution by random chance likely enough of an occurence to be accepted on it's own without looking at other possible answers, such as puposeful changes to create the flagella artificially.
the second article uses a bunch of long, scienctific sounding words to say that a little bit before the official beginning of the cambrian the explosion of advanced creatures was beginning and that some other life forms like sponges and plant species came around afterwards. Whoop de doo. That still doesn't explain how so much advanced life came outta nowhere in a time period too small to allow for the slow process of the evolution of species. The only thing they have against that is "some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago." Once again, a baseless idea from some random scientist being used as "proof".
So you didn't read the studies that their article was based on but you claim that any findings of the studies are false (after all ,the article is only a try in writing the studies so that a normal guy can understand them, so even if the article doesn't convince you, it doesn't mean the studies are wrong)? Also random chance isn't how things evolve, I suggest you try to learn more about evolution.

And ID is christian. It's "research" is funded by christian organizations, majority of it's supporters are christians and it's developers are christian. Btw. who's your intelligent designer if not God then? Surely you have someone in mind?

[Xuande]

Creationism is not only "God did it", but the whole story of the earth and life's creation from genesis. ID is that Life was made. That's it. It didn't come about randomly on it's own. I read the articles you posted and wasn't convinced. *shrug* From the one on flagella:
point 1 is that it's possible for it to evolve naturally. No shit, sherlock. It just isn't plausible due to the odds. Point 2 is that a number of the parts aren't neccesary. No, but they still evolved to be there, and fit with everything else, and have it all work together.
The stuff you posted still can't come near making evolution by random chance likely enough of an occurence to be accepted on it's own without looking at other possible answers, such as puposeful changes to create the flagella artificially.

The point isn't just that it's possible for the flagellum to have evolved but that it's less implausible than a creationist might have one believe. The mutations don't all occur at once. There are a series of intermediate steps, each one of which adaptive, that could evolve independently with much higher odds and be selected for in a population.

Now we get to the problem of considering a designer. Designers require a lot of explaining. They're considerably more complex than lowly flagella. To invoke a designer is to replace a small problem with a huge one. Instead of just answering how flagella came to be, you've got to answer how the Designer came to be!

[Klilynkun]

None of the things you stated are theories. Some theories are beliefs, but not all beliefs are theories.

agreed, but i thought you was saying that religious beliefs are equivalent to scientific theories....my bad :D

Those examples aren't theories either, nor were they reliable enough to be useful.

I said that because you said that scientific theories were used to predict stuff in the future. And christians hold that those things were predicted before they happen. Especially they isreal thing because they weren't a nation and all of a sudden in the span of a week, at the most, they were. And only the bible said they would be a nation again.

[1] The only 'evidence' so far (irreducibility, some gaps in the fossil record, etc.) all boil down to the same fundamental argument: I can't understand how it could be, therefore it must not be.

Wrong... i've been saying that the proof would be to show an organism of one definite species turning/turned into another, i.e. cat to a dog. It doesnt necessarily have to be that example. I'm saying this because i don't think most people care that a salamander changed it color and won't do the woopie with other salamanders. I'm saying it because the evolutionary theory says that all life (animals, humans) came from a common ancestor. So therefore a bunch of cats must have evolved into dogs somewhere along the line. Where are they. That's the question. That's the argument. If i'm supposed to believe evolution that we came from monkeys i need to see proof. They can show me insects, bugs, dinosaurs, chimpanzees, humans, but no in-between.

Mutations often produce new DNA! Take a look at the list of types of mutation on Wikipedia. Point mutations and insertions (and others) can cause new DNA sequences to appear. It was an insertion mutation (among others) responsible for the appearance of the new nylon-digesting enzymes I mentioned earlier.

An organism can also gain new (at least, new to it) genetic material from the outside without a mutation occurring. This is how viruses reproduce, by inserting their own genetic material into a cell, causing it to create copies of the virus. Bacteria and other organisms can also exchange genetic information "horizontally" (think of it as going across a family tree instead of up and down through offspring and ancestors) through plasmids, which are basically just free-floating pieces of DNA. The genes for the nylonase enzymes were transferred between different kinds of bacteria through plasmids.

Finally, I want to warn you away from committing a common category mistake. Natural selection does not cause mutations. It only affects the distribution of alleles in a population over time. So it might be responsible for a given mutant allele taking over the population or not, but the mutation occurred independently.

I read the insertions and the transposable elements and it is not new DNA. it's the same dna in a different order - "cause a shift in the reading frame (frameshift), both of which can significantly alter the gene product" - "errors during replication of repeating elements "

the viruses and stuff "take" new dna information. It just doesn't appear. There isn't a theory regarding evolution where a virus attached itself to the ameba, grabbed new dna information, and became a cockroach.

sorry... i wasn't trying to say that natural selection causes mutation.

First sorry about spllitting your post. No offense but most religions have those rules and even a dog gets pissed if you steal it's bone or mate. So those are very basic rules that religions just have highjacked to be something they came up with.

i don't mind the splitting lol
not all religions have those rules. For example, islam does not have - do unto others what you would have done to you. The point i was trying to make is that people find these "rules" useful. Some people would rather die than tell a lie.

Unless you prove otherwise, I'm thinking that the bible was gathered only after the destruction of the temple and well, people tend to make prophecies like Israel returning true (if there is a people/religion wanting to redo their nation, at some point they will succeed).

that's not true.... a lot of people want the mayans and incans and the ancient egyptians to come back...and they don't. But ok... i'll let that one go.

Well, human's difference from your normal Chimpanzee is what, 2%? Not that huge. Mainly apprearance and size differencies, nothing earth shattering like different limbs or organs that exist only in chimps or humans. I would even say that human evolution from the same ancestor as chimps and gorillas is quite good example of stacking of just small steps of evolution (slowly enlarging brain, step at a time type rising to two feet etc.).

2% (even though it's more than that) is a hell of a lot of difference when it comes to dna. it's like comparing a cassette tape to a 160gig harddrive. They're the same but the size, shape, capacity blah blah. Nothing earth shattering.... hmmm....speach.....very very increased thought processes, morals, hair, teeth, nose, hands, feet, butt, creation of sniper rifles :D.

There was this news article early this year where an ape fell out of a tree and gave itself brain damaged because it's head banged onto a rock. From that day it started walking upright. So in other words... the ape has to nearly kill himself to walk upright and i doubt very much its children will walk upright because of it.

if you can't see the very big difference, then you must not value your life much over that chimpanzee. And as i said before.... for me to believe that i come from a monkey they must produce some hard evidence (fossil, skeletons) that shows the process. They haven't been able to do this with any animal much less a monkey and a human.

[Klilynkun]

The point isn't just that it's possible for the flagellem to have evolved but that it's less implausible than a creationist might have one believe. The mutations don't all occur at once. There are a series of intermediate steps, each one of which adaptive, that could evolve independently with much higher odds and be selected for in a population.

can you name the steps? can you show the steps? has the steps ever been shown? goo to you in 5 billion years.... how (with actual evidence, not dna numbers but skeletons blah blah blah).

[Rear Admiral Grapefruit]

Evolution, as i see it, essentialy is about several factors, natural selection being a primary one of these, it's about adaptions to a specific habitat that dictate the chances of survival. When something produces offspring, they wont all be the same, they will each differ in specific characteristics in slight ways, for example, say a wild horse born with slightly longer legs may be able to run faster, so when a predator attacks a bunch of horses, the faster horses will get away and survive, they will be able to breed and pass on those genes. So, there you get a bunch of new horses with slightly longer legs that can run even faster, one of these may say have a slightly tougher hoof, so it can run on harder ground or kick harder, this will then gain an advantage over other siblings so greater chance survival, therefore, characteristics passed on, and through this process it can eventually lead to an entirely different looking animal, better adapted to survival than the origional. That is essentially how it works. 1 minor change leading to greater survival chances. You can see many examples of minor differences now, such as desert rats with a longer loop on henle in it's kidneys which allows it to retain water better and thus survive in the hot conditions with minimal water.

There's also other factors, such as cross breeding between species developing hybrids, some will be able to survive and go on to produce more of each and can display differing characteristics of either animal in the cross, however some hybrids can not reproduce, i believe the mule (a horse/donkey hybrid) would be an example of this (something like odd number of chromosomes so sexual reproducation fails due to chromosome pairing etc).

Then, there's the common form of evolution, used by farmers and breeders today, which is selective breeding. Essentialy, you pick 2 animals with a specific quality that you want to pass on, and you breed them, such as pigs, pigs used to be hairy, selective breeding used to pick the ones with least hair to reproduce then from the offspring, again the one with least hair will be bred again, and so on until the almost bald pigs we have now are dominant, while it mightn't be the most obvious form of evolution, it essentialy is evolution, it's not just like something happening over night, evolution takes many years and this is essentially forced evolution.

Basicly, evolution comes down to do adaptation to environment, as the environment changes, so must the organism to survive, those that can't adapt will simply die off, those that can will continue to grow and adapt with the environment. An example here, would be, say a new ice age came, anything best adapted for the cold, will likely survive and those adapted better for heat will not survive so well, natural selection at play, which is essentialy where the whole survival of the fittest thing comes from.

I'm not gonna get involved in a debate here, this was just in reply to what klilynkun said a few posts back.

1 note to add though, on the fossil thing, alot of fossils are missing now, because we, humans, are burning them, in our homes, in power plants etc. there's a reason they're called fossil fuels, and not just because they're old. :P Also, remember, alot of these come from the oceans, and now throwing random words out, past ice age, melting ices, lost remains, different places, landscape changes, etc.

[Klilynkun]

^ i can see all of that stuff - i keep saying i see it- but i keep saying i'm not talking about it.....picture it.....5 billion years ago.... this brainless, heartless, legless, hairless bacteria - became Scollan.

That's what i'm talking about. It's not that i don't want to understand. It's not that i don't want to see - but there is nothing to see...it's just blank. All i need is one example that can't be refuted.....just 1....not 2....not 3....just 1.

But there isn't 1. :meh:

[ID_10T]

YOU ARE AN IDIOT, SIR. The mind, it boggles. Breaking the first rule of debate, but then again, this is futile; you bring us down to your level then beat us with experience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2SVMKZhV2g&NR oh my god, natural selection at work.

At no point has a feline transformed into a canine (unless you count Catdog. If you consider ID an intelligent theory, we may as well bring in cartoons). Only a fool with no understanding of the material would bring that into question.

Cordial discourse, my ass.

[Jetsetlemming]

This thread turned out to be a real snore.

[RandomPasserby]

Klilynkun, there isn't a single intermediate fossil that you can't refute. If you want, instead of filling one gap an intermediate fossil gives you two gaps to fill.

[Xuande]

I read the insertions and the transposable elements and it is not new DNA. it's the same dna in a different order - "cause a shift in the reading frame (frameshift), both of which can significantly alter the gene product" - "errors during replication of repeating elements "

Just like English, order in genetic material is important, so transpositions can change an old word into a new word. The word "transpose" is an anagram of the word "patroness," which means one can be turned into the other using only transpositions, without adding or taking away letters. But one would not say that "transpose" and "patroness" are the same word.

A point mutation can also affect just a single piece of codon instead of reordering a longer segment. This is roughly equivalent to changing a letter in English.

Frameshifts are a little harder to explain. The four letters, or bases, of DNA are combined in units of three to form codons, which are kind of like words. Each codon stands for a single amino acid. A frameshift occurs when a number of letters not a multiple of three is inserted or deleted from a DNA sequence. This can change the way the entire rest of the sequence is read, even though the order isn't changed. Imagine if all English words were only three letters long. Then an insertion of a single letter at the start could change an entire sentence, from "See sam run" to "Nse esa mru."

It is true that most single mutations will not code for anything useful right off the bat. But over many generations, many mutations accrue and some will turn out useful new genes. Depending on how useful they are, selection can "amplify" them, so that they only have to appear once but can from there take over a population.

the viruses and stuff "take" new dna information. It just doesn't appear. There isn't a theory regarding evolution where a virus attached itself to the ameba, grabbed new dna information, and became a cockroach.

I just listed that as a way that new genetic material to a particular organism could become part of that organism's genetic code without mutation.

And as i said before.... for me to believe that i come from a monkey they must produce some hard evidence (fossil, skeletons) that shows the process. They haven't been able to do this with any animal much less a monkey and a human.

We have found fossils of a fair number of hominids that are ancestors or cousins of modern humankind. A good resource is here (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/).

[Ichisan]

Haha! What does that guy have stuck up his nose and why can't he pronounce it 'in*flu*ence' and 'fraaad'? Or 'fer'?

[Xuande]

can you name the steps? can you show the steps? has the steps ever been shown? goo to you in 5 billion years.... how (with actual evidence, not dna numbers but skeletons blah blah blah).

Several possible series of steps have been nominated for the development of the flagellum. One likely-seeming series of steps is listed on Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html).

As for humans, you don't seriously expect someone to list every single change from the earliest lifeforms to us, do you? It takes time to figure these things out, when there's enough evidence available to make a good decision. Many of the changes that have occurred over the past three billion years or so left no distinct record of themselves and can't be backtracked with any certainty.

You seem to be setting a much higher standard of evidence for evolution than you are for creationism. In the big scheme of things, it's true that there's precious little we've figured out so far. A great many questions remain unanswered. But of the questions in life science that have been answered, and even the ones that we're just starting to figure out, the theory of evolution has been responsible for a great many of them. Creationism doesn't have any credit at all of this sort to its name. Evolution is by far the best explanation we've come across for the diversity of life, and the best its opponents can come up with against it is, "Well, it hasn't solved this problem yet." It's a very weak criticism, especially in light of all the positive evidence for common ancestry and evolutionary processes we've found.

[ShadowDeth]

Klilynkun, Newton's theory is outdated, but it's (inaccurate) formulas are the ones taught as they are good enough for most of normal applications. If you had bothered to read the wikipedia entry, you would have found out that. So there is no "law of gravity" that is set in stone and that is unchangable anymore. That is at least what I understood you to claim.

Also in the wikipedia entry is less than optimal though, it doesn't tell that there is only unproven theories about what actually causes gravitation in masses and which hmm... carries it's effect (graviton hasn't been detected etc.). Basically only how is known, not why about gravity.

Do you really teach advanced physics to grade school students? It's all about knowing your target audience, not trying to break open the mysteries of the universe.

It's very telling that even the top physicists in the world cannot really explain what generates gravity, or even give you a real definition. The typical answer is "Any celestial body with enough mass creates pull. " That's it. I don't think it's fair to attack newton's theory like that. His theory works within the context of earth's gravity field, which is all he could have known given the technology of his time. His theory might not work in a vacuum (no pun intended), but I don't think he ever claimed it to.

There is absolutely no proof that prayer doesn't work. Just like there is no proof that it does work. Conclusion?

It's not fair to attack people who choose to embrace it. Yeah, we get it. Blah blah blah the video is attempting to be iconoclastic and is trying to make an intelligent case (despite not actually having any facts other than opinions to back it up). So I call shenanigans.

But, physics does support prayer, despite what self proclaimed intelligent people want to believe. Energy is modified and altered throughout the universe based on the smallest actions, and this has been measured and proven. Even something as simple as a thought process (prayer) could have lasting effects on something we can't see. I don't believe there is a god, as it is currently defined as some magical entity that loves us, but I do believe in science and science honestly does support that general concept.

A simple way to debunk this video and philosophy is to bring up the placebo effect. A substance is introduced into a patient that has absolutely no bearing on their affliction, yet it can enact measurable change in their condition. How would you claim to refute that? That sounds an awful lot like prayer to me.

This video is propaganda, and nothing more.

[Jetsetlemming]

I don't believe there is a god, as it is currently defined as some magical entity that loves us, but I do believe in science and science honestly does support that general concept.

*nodnod* There are plenty of things that are just disregarded automatically for being "supernatural" by people who claim to be scientific without bothering to look into it. If you disregard automatically anything that goes against your "scientific" beliefs, how can you claim your beliefs are anything but faith?

[RandomPasserby]

Do you really teach advanced physics to grade school students? It's all about knowing your target audience, not trying to break open the mysteries of the universe.

It's very telling that even the top physicists in the world cannot really explain what generates gravity, or even give you a real definition. The typical answer is "Any celestial body with enough mass creates pull. " That's it. I don't think it's fair to attack newton's theory like that. His theory works within the context of earth's gravity field, which is all he could have known given the technology of his time. His theory might not work in a vacuum (no pun intended), but I don't think he ever claimed it to.

Argh, that was aimed at Klilynkun's "If it isn't a law but is only a theory, I don't believe it"-reasoning. I meant to prove that "laws" aren't more true than theories.

[Ichisan]

The video is stupid because it tries to be oh so clever-clever using arguments that could occur to a 6 year old but somehow overlooking points that most adults who seriously want to discuss the question understand.

In other words the video's maker hasn't really thought deeply about it at all.

The argument - e.g. in the last post - that prayer 'works' through a pyschosomatic effect is one that occurs naturally to the modern mind but isn't really an argument 'for' prayer at all in the Christian sense. Proponents of that view are not defending prayer at all but just explaining it away: they and the video maker are basically in agreement that God does not answer prayers.

So, for those who are interested, here are a few of the things that C.S. Lewis had to say on the subject:-

The thing we pray for may happen, but how can you ever know it was not going to happen anyway? Even if the thing were indisputably miraculous it would not follow that the miracle had occurred because of your prayers. The answer surely is that a compulsive empirical proof such as we have in the sciences can never be attained.

So if a group of Christians pray for a man's leg to miraculously regrow and it actually does, we still can't know for sure it happened because of their prayers. Who's to say God wouldn't have worked this miracle anyway?

Here's C.S. Lewis on the kind of 'experiment' suggested in the video (the kind that Christians are in any case forbidden to do):

I have seen it suggested that a team of people - the more the better - should agree to pray as hard as they knew how, over a period of six weeks, for all the patients in Hospital A and none of those in Hospital B. Then you would tot up the results and see if A had more cures and fewer deaths....
The trouble is that I do not see how any real prayer could go on under such conditions. 'Words without thoughts never to heaven go', says the King in Hamlet. Simply to say prayers is not to pray; otherwise a team of properly trained parrots would serve as well as men for our experiment. You cannot pray for the recovery of the sick unless the end you have in view is their recovery. But you can have no motive for desiring the recovery of all the patients in one hospital and none of those in another. You are not doing it in order that suffering should be relieved; you are doing it to find out what happens. The real purpose and the nominal purpose of your prayers are at variance.

I don't agree with Lewis here because you could contrive it so that people really did care about one set of patients and not another, and didn't know they were in an experiment. But what is the point of prayer when God is perfect and therefore already knows about all the patients and loves all of them and will do whatever is best?

Why then does the Bible say all prayers will be granted? Lewis:-

There are no doubt passages in the New Testament which may seem at first sight to promise an invariable granting of our prayers. But that cannot be what they really mean.

So you can't take those passages at face value. If for no other reason, it's logically impossible for God to grant 2 contradictory prayers. Furthermore, how can anyone suppose that a perfect God would alter His will at a human's request: that would be like allowing your kids to take the wheel of your car.

What is the point of prayer? Maybe it's just to help put people in the right kind of relationship with God. That could be a good enough reason for a believer.

As for the causal effects of prayer:

When we are praying about the result, say, of a battle or a medical consultation the thought will often cross our minds that (if only we knew it) the event is already decided one way or the other. I believe this to be no good reason for ceasing our prayers. The event certainly has been decided - in a sense it was decided 'before all worlds'. But one of the things taken into account in deciding it, and therefore one of the things that really cause it to happen, may be this very prayer that we are now offering.

So because God exists outside, and sees all of, time, He might have taken individual prayers into consideration when creating the universe of events and outcomes that we perceive. Something to think about anyway.

[ShadowDeth]

Argh, that was aimed at Klilynkun's "If it isn't a law but is only a theory, I don't believe it"-reasoning. I meant to prove that "laws" aren't more true than theories.

Oh, well then you're absolutely right. I admitedly only scanned the thread. No self-respecting scientist would even consider a "law" to be a definitive answer to a question.

I suspect Klilynkun hasn't had much continued education after highschool if he thinks that.

[ShadowDeth]

*nodnod* There are plenty of things that are just disregarded automatically for being "supernatural" by people who claim to be scientific without bothering to look into it. If you disregard automatically anything that goes against your "scientific" beliefs, how can you claim your beliefs are anything but faith?

While I do agree to some extent, I think it's more realistic to center your beliefs around evidence you can empirically interact with, as opposed to pure intangible belief.

[Angelyne]

God has more important things to do than star in a craptastic Youtube video with an annoying narrator.



The video completely misses the point that, if a higher power exists, we sure as hell wouldn't be able to comprehend Him/Her/It with our feeble human minds. It's impossible to illustrate the power of such an entity in human terms.

[Jetsetlemming]

That and, according to the Bible, God wouldn't exactly co-operate with any attempts to scientifically prove his existence anyway. Proof denies faith. :P He'd, theoretically, see what you were up to, and ruin your plans by treating the patients of both hospitals equally. Even if you believe in prayers and god answering them, it's still a request for god to intervene, it's not that the prayers themselves do anything. *shrug* Unless, of course, you believe it's an energy/placebo thing, in which case it's all the prayer, and nothing but. Ah, semantics. :P

[ShadowDeth]

That and, according to the Bible, God wouldn't exactly co-operate with any attempts to scientifically prove his existence anyway. Proof denies faith. :P He'd, theoretically, see what you were up to, and ruin your plans by treating the patients of both hospitals equally. Even if you believe in prayers and god answering them, it's still a request for god to intervene, it's not that the prayers themselves do anything. *shrug* Unless, of course, you believe it's an energy/placebo thing, in which case it's all the prayer, and nothing but. Ah, semantics. :P

Isn't that a little convenient that something so difficult to prove has built-in clauses to justify why you can't prove it? You don't see why that is shady?

[Jetsetlemming]

Those aren't in there on purpose.... :P Besides, if you could prove either a) that mental energy can affect the physical state of others, or b) God exists (haha), then you could narrow down prayer, and prove it with one or the other scenario as true. :D

[Klilynkun]

i give up.... every time i come back there is waaaaaaaaay too much to read. :meh:

[King Kong]

Wawaweewa! My thread is growing like a strong man.


I just want to say this; All religion is a creation of man. Therefore god is lower than man.
You can imagine an omnipresent and all powerful god, but he doesn't exist outside the realm of thought. He can only exist within the context of the bible or your thought induced masturbations.
If god desires me to worship him, he would show himself. Outside the fucking scriptures and outside the preaching ideology of the priests. If god exists right now, then he would exist regardless of all of that dogma.

But he doesn't. Its all in your heads.

[Klilynkun]

If i was an omnipotent being i probably would orchestrate something to happen to you :P

lol....why should an all power being be told what to do by you?
you don't tell your parents to shut up and make you dinner.....or do you :eyepop:

a lot of christians i've met actually said that they've had experiences....outside of the bible, outside of church, in which they say they "met" with him and that's the reason they worship him...not because some guy in a suit and tie told them to.

[King Kong]

a lot of christians i've met actually said that they've had experiences....outside of the bible, outside of church, in which they say they "met" with him and that's the reason they worship him...not because some guy in a suit and tie told them to.

If that were true, and god was fair to all, then god would show himself to everyone regardless of social standing or belief.
But this god is not fair. He is actually an egotistical god that seems to be quite a fascist. "Worship me or go to hell!"

If god does exist, then he cannot have a personality. A personality is always flawed. This god seems insecure and needs some loving attention of lower beings that he has created. Ahh, what a poor creature.

[RandomPasserby]

lol....why should an all power being be told what to do by you?

Because that is the easiest way for an omnipotent being to get people to believe in him outside reprogramming people's minds into it. Not that hard to show yourself to all people when you are an omnipotent being is it?

If I had a religion where I was the next one after the god, I would make up a god that can't be seen or heard but that requires servitude and unquestioning faith too.

[Klilynkun]

Because that is the easiest way for an omnipotent being to get people to believe in him outside reprogramming people's minds into it. Not that hard to show yourself to all people when you are an omnipotent being is it?

If I had a religion where I was the next one after the god, I would make up a god that can't be seen or heard but that requires servitude and unquestioning faith too.

but the christians say to me that he has shown himself already - many times.
For 1...jesus.... and something to the effect that if he did show up physically in your face that your eyeballs would melt out of your head because he's so holy.... :meh:

If that were true, and god was fair to all, then god would show himself to everyone regardless of social standing or belief.
But this god is not fair. He is actually an egotistical god that seems to be quite a fascist. "Worship me or go to hell!"

if you haven't noticed.....every authority figure is like that. "Obey me or face the consequences". That' everybody that is over you. That doesn't make them egotistical. And when you read the bible a lot of people that didn't worship god at first didn't go to hell. god usually did something first before they worshipped him.


If god does exist, then he cannot have a personality. A personality is always flawed. This god seems insecure and needs some loving attention of lower beings that he has created. Ahh, what a poor creature.

You're generalising. who are you to say that a personality is always flawed. do you have omniscience to know every single type of personality that ever existed on the face of the earth and to know that every personality in the history of the earth has been flawed? you sound egotistical lol

Apparently...and this answer took me asking many christians, cuz it doesn't seem like most of them have an answer to this... the reason god made humans was because he wanted people to love him, worship him, blah blah blah out of their own free will. He didn't want to make anyway worship him, i.e. programming their brains to worship him and only him. If you don't love him/worship him/follow him, then you obviously don't want to be with him and don't want him to be with you - and since he's in heaven, he created a place that will have eternal punishment as opposed to his eternal love, seeing as you don't want to be with him. So really... it's not his choice, but ours.

I think i had to ask like 10 christians before i got the answer.

[RandomPasserby]

but the christians say to me that he has shown himself already - many times.
For 1...jesus.... and something to the effect that if he did show up physically in your face that your eyeballs would melt out of your head because he's so holy.... :meh:

Well, has he shown himself to anyone who isn't a christian (asking a christian about god's existence is like asking a used car dealer if the car he is selling is good)? I don't really think that any christian would say that God hasn't showed himself/made his presence felt but they are just believing because the priest said so.

Also why would God's holiness melt my eyeballs? Heat would cook my eyeballs or make them burst but melt?

[Klilynkun]

Well, has he shown himself to anyone who isn't a christian (asking a christian about god's existence is like asking a used car dealer if the car he is selling is good)? I don't really think that any christian would say that God hasn't showed himself/made his presence felt but they are just believing because the priest said so.

Also why would God's holiness melt my eyeballs? Heat would cook my eyeballs or make them burst but melt?

you seem to forget they weren't christian and they became christian because they believe that god showed himself to them. And you seem to also be forgetting that they wasn't in a church or talking to a priest when they think go talked to them. I could have sworn i said that.

i don't know why it would melt your eyeballs... i'm just going by what christians say.

[Mysticalmelody]

If there's a god and he expects me to believe in a book as rediculous as the bible to proove he exists, he really needs to release a more modern edition. ;)

[Klilynkun]

i'm sure there's a 2006 version lol

i remember hearing one time that they was going to make a version all in txt message language lol

[Ichisan]

If there's a god and he expects me to believe in a book as rediculous as the bible to proove he exists, he really needs to release a more modern edition. ;)

Yeah because being 'modern' is what's important. What does that even mean?

[Klilynkun]

it means.....

*suddenly....klilynkun takes a guitar and smashes it against the thread's head*

...aaahhh.... i feel better now :D

[Jetsetlemming]

Wawaweewa! My thread is growing like a strong man.


I just want to say this; All religion is a creation of man. Therefore god is lower than man.
You can imagine an omnipresent and all powerful god, but he doesn't exist outside the realm of thought. He can only exist within the context of the bible or your thought induced masturbations.
If god desires me to worship him, he would show himself. Outside the fucking scriptures and outside the preaching ideology of the priests. If god exists right now, then he would exist regardless of all of that dogma.

But he doesn't. Its all in your heads.
I'm still laughing at how you specifically said you created this thread to piss off christians, but in your original post started off with "If you're open minded..." And anyway, God is most certainly not a concious creation. At the very least it's a biological genetic feeling in humans for the belief of a greater power. Ever heard of the God Module? Go wiki it.

[RandomPasserby]

you seem to forget they weren't christian and they became christian because they believe that god showed himself to them. And you seem to also be forgetting that they wasn't in a church or talking to a priest when they think go talked to them. I could have sworn i said that.

i don't know why it would melt your eyeballs... i'm just going by what christians say.
Umm... you don't seem to realize that it doesn't matter what they where before they became christians, because they aren't a neutral party to tell about their "God meeting". Also by the priest thing I meant that few christians lack a meeting with god if you ask them even though only proof is their word.

Lying has never been a problem to christians (or for most faiths anyway) when they need to prove that their god is real. I have had my share of lying christians (not that all christians are lying, just that there are a lot who feel that a lil bit of lying to get converts never hurt anyone) and I also do know that hallucinations quite real. Also are you actually sure they met a god who was in human form etc. or just felt a presence of something greater? There is big difference between those two to me.

Generally you are using someone's subjective undetailed experiences trying to prove that god is real. But do you realize that no christian is going to say anything negative about the moment they found their god/faith? Of course they will say that they met jesus/god/angel/whatever and turned to christianity on the spot.

[King Kong]

I'm still laughing at how you specifically said you created this thread to piss off christians, but in your original post started off with "If you're open minded..." And anyway, God is most certainly not a concious creation. At the very least it's a biological genetic feeling in humans for the belief of a greater power. Ever heard of the God Module? Go wiki it.

You mean the Canadian aggrotech band. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Module

If I was wired to believe in a god, then we wouldn't have this discussion in the first place.

The god module is brain fart.

[Candyvan Stan]

it means.....

*suddenly....klilynkun takes a guitar and smashes it against the thread's head*

...aaahhh.... i feel better now :D


Why do you always insist on posting complete and utter spam in just about every GD thread you post in?

[Silverhawk]

but the christians say to me that he has shown himself already - many times.
For 1...jesus.... and something to the effect that if he did show up physically in your face that your eyeballs would melt out of your head because he's so holy.... :meh:
So, the people who told you were this were blinded by God? :p
If you want people to take such stories seriously, background information must be provided. They may not be "official" christians but they could already have been "influenced" by their christian friends.

if you haven't noticed.....every authority figure is like that. "Obey me or face the consequences". That' everybody that is over you. That doesn't make them egotistical. And when you read the bible a lot of people that didn't worship god at first didn't go to hell. god usually did something first before they worshipped him.

You're generalising. who are you to say that a personality is always flawed. do you have omniscience to know every single type of personality that ever existed on the face of the earth and to know that every personality in the history of the earth has been flawed? you sound egotistical lol

Apparently...and this answer took me asking many christians, cuz it doesn't seem like most of them have an answer to this... the reason god made humans was because he wanted people to love him, worship him, blah blah blah out of their own free will. He didn't want to make anyway worship him, i.e. programming their brains to worship him and only him. If you don't love him/worship him/follow him, then you obviously don't want to be with him and don't want him to be with you - and since he's in heaven, he created a place that will have eternal punishment as opposed to his eternal love, seeing as you don't want to be with him. So really... it's not his choice, but ours.

I think i had to ask like 10 christians before i got the answer.
What you have described is exactly why I think religion is human made and any God described by religion is inaccurate.

Think about it, If an omni-everything being exists can it be described in books? Why is it bounded by our human personality traits? Why does religion assume that God created us and we are the ultimate creation?

Let me put in simpler terms. Ever had a crush on someone? Without actually knowing the person, we will often fantasize and make up stuff about our crushes. IMO, the same applies to religion and God.

It is rather egoistic to believe that such insiginificant beings like ourselves are worthy of the attention of such a powerful being (if it exists).

[King Kong]

The hawk speaks the truth. Worship the hawk and recieve an eternal life in heaven!

[Jetsetlemming]

The god module is brain fart.
Humans are also wired to be straight, but that's not always the case. We're wired not to be insane, but that doesn't work all the time either. We're a communal species, but there are plenty of loners. I feel perfectly confident in saying a great majority of people on earth believe in a higher power of some kind. Religon is a popular passtime.

[Xuande]

Cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett wrote a book fairly recently about the naturalistic study of religion (including what evolutionary boon it may have provided our ancestors), Breaking the Spell. I haven't had a chance to read it beyond the first few chapters, but I've really enjoyed (and learned quite a bit from) some of his earlier books and papers.

[King Kong]

Humans are also wired to be straight, but that's not always the case. We're wired not to be insane, but that doesn't work all the time either. We're a communal species, but there are plenty of loners. I feel perfectly confident in saying a great majority of people on earth believe in a higher power of some kind. Religon is a popular passtime.

Homosexuality or atleast bisexuality has some genetic basis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

Insanity is caused a mental inbalance related by environment, but it seems that genes have a part to play in the vulnerability to this disfunction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8566962&dopt=Abstract

But you are right, many people believe in a god, and Im not to tell people to believe otherwise. Good luck to them.

[Jetsetlemming]

Insanity is caused a mental inbalance related by environment
And so is athiesm. If you are open minded, you'll agree. ;)
Xuande, that book sounds intruguing, I'll try and find it at the library. :D

[ShadowDeth]

Homosexuality or atleast bisexuality has some genetic basis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

Insanity is caused a mental inbalance related by environment, but it seems that genes have a part to play in the vulnerability to this disfunction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8566962&dopt=Abstract

But you are right, many people believe in a god, and Im not to tell people to believe otherwise. Good luck to them.


Homosexuality has absolutely no genetic basis. The presence of a "gay gene" has nothing to do with it. It's 'wrong' behavior. Humans are not supposed to have sex with their own gender, because that doesn't procreate the species.

As for insanity, we would have to agree on a definition before debating what causes it.

[RandomPasserby]

Homosexuality has absolutely no genetic basis. The presence of a "gay gene" has nothing to do with it. It's 'wrong' behavior. Humans are not supposed to have sex with their own gender, because that doesn't procreate the species.

As for insanity, we would have to agree on a definition before debating what causes it.
Nah, homosexuality/bisexuality does benfit the possible genecarriers, it is theorized that the gayness might prevent thecreature from gettign it's own offspring but they often take part in caring for and protecting their family's offspring so the behavior does offer some benefit (gives bigger chances for the homosexual's family's offspring to reach maturity etc.).

[ShadowDeth]

Are we still talking about humans, or the whole animal kingdom now?

[RandomPasserby]

Whole animal kingdom actually, can't give you link though as it came up in ome lnogforgotten creationist vs. scince battle long time ago. Some abotu it on wikipedia though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality#Homosexual_behavior scroll down to bonobos and birds.

But I don't see no true reason why it wouldn't have worked for cavemen etc.

[ShadowDeth]

I still fail to see how 'teh gayness' adds anything to the equation that a heterosexual person doesn't already have? That might have some validity, but you're saying that homosexuality has positive traits in that they assist in caregiving. So do straight people?

[Klilynkun]

Why do you always insist on posting complete and utter spam in just about every GD thread you post in?

Because I can :D

And i don't do it in every thread

So, the people who told you were this were blinded by God? :p
If you want people to take such stories seriously, background information must be provided. They may not be "official" christians but they could already have been "influenced" by their christian friends.

i wasn't gonna reply because didn't want too :meh:
i was trying to kill this thread but it seems to be superhuman :eyepop:

anyway..... you know what i mean. Just because they believe their god can't stand in front of them doesn't mean he can't talk to them directly without anybody's influence. It seemed to happen a lot through out the bible where there god talks directly to them albeit not face to face.

That is actually a point where my brother used to discredit religions because he says that their gods don't talk to them, so, according to the bible, either their god isn't god at all (cuz there should be only 1 god...hence the term...god *sings highlander theme*), or their god is mute.

And again, there seems to be a bias here with some of the people that don't believe in god for whatever reason. You don't seem to believe that if there is a being that is supposed to be all powerful and wotnot that he can't reveal himself to people other than stepping right in front of them. You have, for whatever reason, came to the conclusion that religious people (no matter what faith), whatever that person has gone through - no matter how much they attribute it to their god (i.e. them being brought back from the dead, them being healed, able to stop taking drugs literally over night, etc.), they are obviously wrong - you have totally invalidated their belief. And no matter how much someone tells you that they didn't have no influence from another christian/priest/whatever - you will not believe them.

What you have described is exactly why I think religion is human made and any God described by religion is inaccurate.

Think about it, If an omni-everything being exists can it be described in books? Why is it bounded by our human personality traits? Why does religion assume that God created us and we are the ultimate creation?

Let me put in simpler terms. Ever had a crush on someone? Without actually knowing the person, we will often fantasize and make up stuff about our crushes. IMO, the same applies to religion and God.

It is rather egoistic to believe that such insiginificant beings like ourselves are worthy of the attention of such a powerful being (if it exists).

dude....ALL of society is like this... police, judges, parents, teachers, principals, deans - there is no place in society that what i said doesn't exist.

And you still miss the point... if the being is omnipresent/omnipotent then if the being couldn't enable people to describe him/her then he/she wouldn't be omnipresent/omnipotent would he?

If we had the smartest person in the world in a room and he/she couldn't make the majority (of course some people might not grasp it) of the people in the room understand what he/she was talking about, then i would have to say that he/she isn't the smartest person in the world.

You have it in reverse, the being isn't bound by human traits...the traits humans have was given by the being because the being has these traits.

Not all religions assumes that god created us and that we're the ultimate creation. So your question only covers some of the religions. And they believe this because they can actually see the huge difference between us and animals....even apes/monkeys. And they're conclusion is that we must have been created by a being and since we can easily control stuff we must be the ultimate creation (so to speak).

It's like asking why do evolutionists push the we came from monkeys (trying not to go back into the whole evolution-creation thing), but they don't push that the nearest "animal" to monkeys/apes (i think it's cats or something... i used to know it :duh: the animal is supposed to be over 68% or was it 86% :bang:) - that monkeys came from it.

The only people that "make up" stuff about crushes is either 2-7 years old or they are STALKERS. The same can apply to religions and god, but just because something can doesn't mean it does. It's like saying, i've seen a lot of policemen that are corrupt, so all police are corrupt. It doesn't work that way. For you to dismiss all religions based on whatever is wrong.

Who knows... it could be God using this forum to try and get us to understand that he's trying to reach us and we don't want to listen. I don't know...i'm just sayin', everybody (including me) talks as if we know "every single" thing in the universe to conclude that there is no god. Nope... just because someone had a tragic story of how they were bums on the street until they said a prayer and started following some god and their life changed, doesn't mean there is a god. There is a logical explanation of it. I don't know that logical explanation but i'm sure there is one.

I believe that we are all always learning as we go on through life. I am not going to shut off the possibility of god because there are people blowing people up because they believe they will go to paradise where there are virgins that will "service" them. I'm going to look into it and make an informed decision. Not act like i know everything and that there is a logical explanation for everything...because there isn't, and i don't.

Finally... your last question has actually been asked in the bible at least twice. Why would god care for insignificant beings such as us..... the answer i get from christians is that he is a father...or at least, their god is a father. He created us and therefore cares for us like a father would....or should...care for their children. Even when we speak evil things about him, he still cares for us and wants us to love him like he loves us. Sounds like them old tv show type themes (little house on the prairie anyone :)), but that's what christians tell me.

Other religions' gods are different but i don't think we are talking about any other god except the christian one :meh:

it would be intersting to see/hear what a muslim/hindu etc. has to say about their god.... we have jetset representing christians, a bunch of atheist, probably some agnostics....probably some diests, but no muslim/hindu/buddhist....we may have a buddhist but i don't know.... :P

DIE THREAD...DIE

*klilynkun hits thread on the back with a steel chair*

[RandomPasserby]

I mean instead of the normal 1 man and 1 woman you get something like 2 men and 1 woman or 1 man and 2 women taking care of that particular offspring, so that it gets more care and more defense from threats (twice men is twice the protection and twice women is twice the care so on). So the benefit comes in form of more "parents". On those black swans wikipedia mentioned, "teh gayness" seemed to add the benefit of two males being able to defend more land than jsut one male for example.

I think also it has been mentioned that on animals that lives in herds or packs, "teh gayness" in a bisexual way or so adds the benefit of better interpack/herd relations so "teh gayness" helps survival and all by the way of keeping the "teh gayness" animals in the packs/herds better than pure straight animals.

[King Kong]

And so is athiesm. If you are open minded, you'll agree.

Lolerskates1

[King Kong]

I still fail to see how 'teh gayness' adds anything to the equation that a heterosexual person doesn't already have? That might have some validity, but you're saying that homosexuality has positive traits in that they assist in caregiving. So do straight people?

Nature works in mysterious ways.
Due to social and biological pressures for straightness, it seems incomprehensible why anybody would want to be gai. But it happens and thats a part of nature.

Other studies have been conducted that look at twin brothers rather than brothers of different ages. Bailey and Pillard (1991) did a study of twins that determined a Ò52% concordance of homosexuality in monozygotic twins, 22% for dizygotic twins, and 11% for adoptive brothers of homosexual men (8). These results, like Hamer's, provide further support for the claim that homosexuality is genetically linked. Studies very similar to the Bailey and Pillard study have been done both with female homosexual siblings and siblings of both sexes. The results for both of these studies were only off from Bailey and PillardÕs by a few percentage points. Putting all of these results together, it seems like genetics are at least 50% accountable for determining a personÕs sexual orientation (8).

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html
Gay twins. Omg.

[Xuande]

Humans are not supposed to have sex with their own gender, because that doesn't procreate the species.

What is the principle being invoked here? It sounds like it's that humans are not supposed to engage in non-procreational sex. So post-menopausal women and other people rendered infertile for whatever reason shouldn't have sex, either? I take it condoms and other forms of contraception are wrong, too, since they tend to be very effective at rendering sex non-procreational. That principle has some strange, far-reaching consequences! Hopefully that's not really what you think.

[Silverhawk]

anyway..... you know what i mean. Just because they believe their god can't stand in front of them doesn't mean he can't talk to them directly without anybody's influence. It seemed to happen a lot through out the bible where there god talks directly to them albeit not face to face.
I'm not saying God can't do that. I'm taking the story which you hold as supportive evidence and showing you its flaws. Try looking beyond the christian perspective. Give me an example of Jesus appearing before a person who has never heard of christianity. Like maybe a story from ancient China where Jesus appeared before a man instead of the Jade Emperor.

That is actually a point where my brother used to discredit religions because he says that their gods don't talk to them, so, according to the bible, either their god isn't god at all (cuz there should be only 1 god...hence the term...god *sings highlander theme*), or their god is mute.
Emphasis mine.
Once again, you look at the bible to judge all others. Each religion has their own doctrine, you obviously hold yours true but that doesn't mean others have to follow what the bible says. Which religion is right is not known, but you may believe in what you want. However to say that other religion is false because your religion says so is just downright idiotic.

And again, there seems to be a bias here with some of the people that don't believe in god for whatever reason. You don't seem to believe that if there is a being that is supposed to be all powerful and wotnot that he can't reveal himself to people other than stepping right in front of them. You have, for whatever reason, came to the conclusion that religious people (no matter what faith), whatever that person has gone through - no matter how much they attribute it to their god (i.e. them being brought back from the dead, them being healed, able to stop taking drugs literally over night, etc.), they are obviously wrong - you have totally invalidated their belief. And no matter how much someone tells you that they didn't have no influence from another christian/priest/whatever - you will not believe them.
Wow, did I strike a nerve somewhere?
Look, if your believes help give you strength in whatever form that is fine by me. I have seen how people get through hard times because of their faith and some others who pull through even without faith. Just remember that your faith is a personal thing, your believe or prayer might have healed you but do not expect it to work on others.

dude....ALL of society is like this... police, judges, parents, teachers, principals, deans - there is no place in society that what i said doesn't exist.
Dude, what is common among all which you have listed? THEY ARE ALL CREATED BY HUMANS.

And you still miss the point... if the being is omnipresent/omnipotent then if the being couldn't enable people to describe him/her then he/she wouldn't be omnipresent/omnipotent would he?
That assumes we are of any importance to that being. Even if we are, why so many scriptures describing one thing so differently? Many even in contradiction?

If we had the smartest person in the world in a room and he/she couldn't make the majority (of course some people might not grasp it) of the people in the room understand what he/she was talking about, then i would have to say that he/she isn't the smartest person in the world.
Or the people were just too stupid to ever understand what he was talking about. However those people got something out of the talk and decided to begin spreading what he taught but since they never understood what was being said, it all comes out twisted.

You have it in reverse, the being isn't bound by human traits...the traits humans have was given by the being because the being has these traits.
Sorry, but almost any religious scripture I have read or have explained to me, potrays God like a human with human social constructs and traits. That is logically speaking, binding God to human limitations.

Not all religions assumes that god created us and that we're the ultimate creation. So your question only covers some of the religions. And they believe this because they can actually see the huge difference between us and animals....even apes/monkeys. And they're conclusion is that we must have been created by a being and since we can easily control stuff we must be the ultimate creation (so to speak).
Not all, but most. Still that doesn't say anything against humans being egoistic and making themselves believe to be more important than they actually are.

It's like asking why do evolutionists push the we came from monkeys (trying not to go back into the whole evolution-creation thing), but they don't push that the nearest "animal" to monkeys/apes (i think it's cats or something... i used to know it :duh: the animal is supposed to be over 68% or was it 86% :bang:) - that monkeys came from it.
Why evolutionist push that we are related to monkeys has good study backing it up. There is good reason to make such a statement, but no sane person will tell you that is absolute. If you ever come up with a better explanation the scientific community will be eager to hear it.

The only people that "make up" stuff about crushes is either 2-7 years old or they are STALKERS. The same can apply to religions and god, but just because something can doesn't mean it does. It's like saying, i've seen a lot of policemen that are corrupt, so all police are corrupt. It doesn't work that way. For you to dismiss all religions based on whatever is wrong.
So no matter what i say to dismiss religion, it is automatically wrong? Your logical ability is astounding. I'm sorry the analogy used to describe how religion might not be getting everything right totally flew over your head.

All religion will claim that they are the truth. However with so many different religions, most of them are surely wrong. They are all supposed to describe one single being and its teachings so either one of them is right and all of them is wrong or all of them are wrong. All religion cannot be true.

I believe that we are all always learning as we go on through life. I am not going to shut off the possibility of god because there are people blowing people up because they believe they will go to paradise where there are virgins that will "service" them. I'm going to look into it and make an informed decision. Not act like i know everything and that there is a logical explanation for everything...because there isn't, and i don't.
I agree, we are always learning. However I notice you are taking a rather hostile approach against me, which would hinder whatever we could learn from each other.

Another thing you have to know is that there are two types of atheist.
1) No believe in god
2) Believe in no god

I belong to the 1st group. I lack a believe in God simply because there is no good reason for me to believe in one. It doesn't change anything in the way i live my life nor does it help explain anything. So the existance or non-existance of a God doesn't really matter.

The 2nd group believes that there is no God. You can't prove whether a God exists or not. So to me, this group are no better than religious zealots.

Finally... your last question has actually been asked in the bible at least twice. Why would god care for insignificant beings such as us..... the answer i get from christians is that he is a father...or at least, their god is a father. He created us and therefore cares for us like a father would....or should...care for their children. Even when we speak evil things about him, he still cares for us and wants us to love him like he loves us. Sounds like them old tv show type themes (little house on the prairie anyone :)), but that's what christians tell me.
That is still an explanation given by religion which may not be true. I could write my own religious doctrine explaining God if I wanted to.

Other religions' gods are different but i don't think we are talking about any other god except the christian one :meh:
See, you are completely missing the point. If there is only one God then there are no "different gods". Which then leads to, either one religion is right or all religion is wrong.

it would be intersting to see/hear what a muslim/hindu etc. has to say about their god.... we have jetset representing christians, a bunch of atheist, probably some agnostics....probably some diests, but no muslim/hindu/buddhist....we may have a buddhist but i don't know.... :P
Buddhism has no God. Hinduism has a few Gods. Muslims, Jews and Christians share the same God but they differ in their teachings. Muslims & Jews do not believe that Jesus is their saviour and neither do they believe in the Holy Trinity. Jews do not believe in the prophet mohammad like the Muslims do

[Suneru]

God is love.
Love is Blind.
Stevie Wonder is Blind.
God is Stevie Wonder.

Logic traps are a bitch.

[Silverhawk]

God is love.
Love is Blind.
Stevie Wonder is Blind.
God is Stevie Wonder.

Logic traps are a bitch.
Classic non-sequitur?

[ShadowDeth]

What is the principle being invoked here? It sounds like it's that humans are not supposed to engage in non-procreational sex. So post-menopausal women and other people rendered infertile for whatever reason shouldn't have sex, either? I take it condoms and other forms of contraception are wrong, too, since they tend to be very effective at rendering sex non-procreational. That principle has some strange, far-reaching consequences! Hopefully that's not really what you think.

What principle? Just my opinion. Please note I never said homosexuals were abominations and that I hated them, or that sex should only be had when attempting to create a child - but that I recognize the function and what should be gained from it.

Condoms and recreational sex seem to be constructs of the human mind though.

[Jetsetlemming]

Non-procreative sex isn't bad, it's just nothing mother nature has any care about. :P The entire purpose of the sex drive is to make babies. That's what it was designed for. :D

[Mysticalmelody]

Condoms and recreational sex seem to be constructs of the human mind though.

Recreational sex is not purely human construct. Dolphins "do it just for fun" so to speak as well. The males go around to many females and play with them by penetrating them a couple times. (not ejaculating)

Dolphins, also view sex as pleasurable and fun, and also know that it can be used for procreation, the same way that humans do.

[Xuande]

Non-procreative sex isn't bad, it's just nothing mother nature has any care about. :P The entire purpose of the sex drive is to make babies. That's what it was designed for. :D

There do seem to be other animals than humans that use sex for social reasons as well as just to procreate. I don't know much about dolphins, but bonobos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo) are an awfully interesting case.

[Xuande]

What principle? Just my opinion. Please note I never said homosexuals were abominations and that I hated them, or that sex should only be had when attempting to create a child - but that I recognize the function and what should be gained from it.

Condoms and recreational sex seem to be constructs of the human mind though.

Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were trying to claim that homosexual sex was morally wrong because it wasn't reproductive.

[ShadowDeth]

Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were trying to claim that homosexual sex was morally wrong because it wasn't reproductive.

I don't really care for morality, because it's a human construct and it can be widely different from society to society. So there aren't really any universal laws, except maybe murder and some of the more extreme stuff. Even then, without society, I think murder isn't all that bad. Yeah it sucks and all that but that's what animals do without laws, the strong take from the weak. It may not apply because humans have the ability to surpress their urges through 'morality', social stigma, 'guilt' and even willpower.

If we're talking about homosexuality on a genetic level, I will say it's wrong and mean it. But it's not like I look down on them and blah blah, they are normal people too. They just don't seem to fit in the plan for human procreation.

That's all I meant.

Mysticalmelody - Creatures engage in sex because it feels good, and it feels good (great even) because it's reinforcement to act on it. Ever heard about the study where they hooked up morphine (cocaine, whatever I forget) to lab mice? Once they figured out they could press the button to administer it, they promptly all overdosed and died. See a parallel?

[Silverhawk]

They just don't seem to fit in the plan for human procreation.
Maybe they do... as a form of population control.

[ShadowDeth]

I think that's a naive argument. There are much easier ways to kill humans than to possibly prevent children (homosexuals can still create children, it's not like they are sterile.)

[Black Dog]

Maybe they do... as a form of population control.


Also you might want to add. That gays and lesbians are fully capable of reproducing if they desire too. As I see it there is no biological argument against gays and lesbians.

I should read before I post !!!

[Black Dog]

There do seem to be other animals than humans that use sex for social reasons as well as just to procreate. I don't know much about dolphins, but bonobos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo) are an awfully interesting case.


LOL !!! saw a documentry on bonobo. Bonobo like to use sex solve thier conflicts. "make love not war Apes.":rofl:

[Ichisan]

I don't really care for morality, because it's a human construct and it can be widely different from society to society. So there aren't really any universal laws, except maybe murder and some of the more extreme stuff. Even then, without society, I think murder isn't all that bad.

Really? So you won't mind if I rip off all your stuff then? Kill you?