I guess I'm an agnostic. I think religion is simply used to try and control the masses and to some extent this works. But having said that I can still believe in a God simply because I have no better explanation for the universe. This I take on faith.
To me evolution has the lead because we can trace everyone back to Africa thru DNA.
I can easily explain the lack of missing links due to the small numbers at each step.

 

Sorry. I must be having a bad day. Too tired and sore.
This morning a guy told me that he was very careful not to ring my phone when I might be asleep.
"And do you know why you have to be so careful?
Because you're too f*n stupid to realize that I have told you a dozen times across 30 years that I CAN'T HEAR THE PHONE WHEN I'M ASLEEP!!!"

When I can't handle, "stupid" or pedantic nit picking, I'm having a bad day.
Time to sign off until I get a better attitude.

You might just be hungry. Go get yourself a Snickers bar and see if that helps.

 

For the religiously inclined (like me), the most fundamental axiom is "there is a God" ... but unfortunately such a statement is attacked as "dogma" by those who are rabidly non-believers ... seems a little unfair, to say the least.

You will get no argument from me, but I'm a pragmatist to the point of fatalism.
Or as Doris Day sang, que sara sara, whatever will be will be.
What I do about it, how I feel about it, is my problem.

If there is a God, He (or She) will find little wanting in the way I ran my life.
I sure don't compare to Pol Pot or Adolph Hitler!
If there isn't, I still ran my life in a way I respect.
I could have done a lot worse.

Now, where is that Snicker bar?

No, really, my belly is full. I'm just miserable in my own skin today.
I refuse to, "take it easy" when I'm working. It's part of my exercise regime.
Thank Dog, work was yesterday!

 

All I can say from my point of view is when I first read a 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins, it was like feelings I had suppressed talking about for a long time myself, now all of a sudden someone else not only thought the same way, but put it all in print.
Max.
The God Delusion.
The Selfish Gene
The Blind Watchmaker
The Greatest Show on Earth.
et,al.

Mr Dawkins depresses me... mainly because he struggles to make a point with arguments like "DNA just wants to reproduce" ... every time I hear someone say something like that I can't help but think that the person making that argument is actually anthropomorphing DNA!, which is nothing more than switching from a spiritual God to a merely material one. It was never my intention to call you "rabid" or anything of the kind, btw. I was referring to an aggressive minority, which you most obviously don't belong to.

Anyway, if you like reading this sort of thing, I suggest you consider "Who designed the designer" ... if you're interested, let me know, I can lend it to you.

 

That's because the Bible's purpose was never intended to explain science.

I never stated it did. I said it could be considered an oral history, and it has gaps, just like the evolutionary hypothesis. People quote the bible as if the time line was 6000 years, and use that as PROOF the bible can not be correct. Maybe it is as we can count today, how did they count the annual trip around the sun 5000 years ago? I wasn't there to gather the empirical evidence.

How does one discern, without a calendar, the four seasons near the equator? After all, who describes winter as only being 110 degrees vice 140 degrees in the summer? (just figures I have no idea of the temperatures near the equator)

 

I never stated it did. I said it could be considered an oral history, and it has gaps, just like the evolutionary hypothesis. People quote the bible as if the time line was 6000 years, and use that as PROOF the bible can not be correct. Maybe it is as we can count today, how did they count the annual trip around the sun 5000 years ago? I wasn't there to gather the empirical evidence.

How does one discern, without a calendar, the four seasons near the equator? After all, who describes winter as only being 110 degrees vice 140 degrees in the summer? (just figures I have no idea of the temperatures near the equator)

Agreed... and for the record, it's not a 100% reliable source of history either.

 

But I am not debating you. I was making a point that just because someone believes something does not in fact make it right, true or worthy of respect. Wrong is wrong no matter what color or texture or value they try and paint it to justify believing and following it.

Just because someone believes something is true or means or implies something that it does not does not mean I have to respect them or their beliefs. When someone is wrong they are wrong, it's that simple in my mind.

They have every right to explain and defined themselves in order to justify their views but ultimately if they cannot do that in any rational credible way they are in fact ultimately wrong in what they believe and why.

I have to agree with #12 here. The purpose of this discussion is not to prove anyone to be right or wrong but to simply share your point of view.
State your own point of view without having to attack another's. As a matter of interest, my point of view is there is no such thing as right and wrong. Your point of view is yours. I will not tell you that that is right or wrong. You can agree with someone or you can disagree and that is simply expressing a difference of opinion.

 

Mr Dawkins depresses me... mainly because he struggles to make a point with arguments like "DNA just wants to reproduce" ... every time I hear someone say something like that I can't help but think that the person making that argument is actually anthropomorphing DNA!, which is nothing more than switching from a spiritual God to a merely material one.

Only to the degree that saying something like "water just wants to flow down hill" or "air just wants to flow from high pressure to low pressure" is anthropomorphizing water or air.

 

I think there is a wrong note in that tune. Why then you and so many seasoned contributors with firm beliefs about proved truths of you profession, do even bother replying to posts where the OP or anyone after him claim an outstanding nonsense? Equal amount of veracity? Cannot see how.

With reference to my statement that 7 + 7 = 16, I wonder how many people saw the twist in this?

I can make a statement that A + B = C, or α + ω = ∞

Obviously, I need to define the meaning of A, B, and C.
Similarly, if I can properly define what 7 and 16 represents, then 7 + 7 = 16 could be construed as a valid statement.

Here is a hint. Look at my signature at the bottom of this post.

 

Something to remember is that the Bible is the product of a committee. The bits were carefully selected and other bits left out to suit those in power at the time. Also the so-called King James version was commissioned by , guess who, King James. So how can anyone call it "the word of God".
A lot of the bible stories are predated by other civilizations like the Sumerians at al. The flood story and the Moses in the bullrushes story are from older civilizations.
I always found it strange that we have people who commit the most heinous crimes against humanity yet seem to live charmed lives. People like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and now the leader in N.Korea. They seem to get away with their "crimes" for so long before anything (if at al) causes their downfall. Not one person around them seems to have the courage to do something about it even if they know the evil thats going on. One possibility that occurred to me is that bad people don't go to "hell"(if it exists) because we are already here.l look at what goes on in the world and couldn't think of a better way to punish sinners than to make them live here.

 

Agreed... and for the record, it's not a 100% reliable source of history either.

I agree. Nothing is 100 percent reliable. Even with facebook, twitter, and all the videos published daily, they all only represent a snapshot of the moments they capture. They will all be open to interpretation by the future generations.

 

Also the so-called King James version was commissioned by , guess who, King James. So how can anyone call it "the word of God"

Yes, there are various versions of the bible. So far in this thread, no one has called it "the word of God". Now, if Georgio were here, he would postulate the hypothesis that alien women became brides of Cain and Abel.

Here's Georgio ...

If Ancient Aliens were true, it's not a far fetched possibility the humans at the time would think of them as Gods. They would be "intelligent beings" when juxtaposed against ancient man.

 

You were debating Mr chips about not quoting the Bible IIRC

No I was not. I have reread what I posted several times now and I do not see how it's possible to read that into what I wrote. I made zero mention of the bible or any religions, politics or any real topics whatsoever in any of my replies to him.

I was pointing out that that just because someone claims something to be true if it can be solidly disproved it is in fact not true no matter how big of fuss they want to make over it. Which to be honest, a few posts in this thread regarding what some want to read into what I posted are really proving my point extremely well. Even more so with the obvious and apparent lack of respect for my opinions that are being read into something other than what I had intended.

So far I have made absolutely zero insults to anyone beliefs or anything other than pointing out that I feel that whenever anyone makes a claim that can be proven solidly wrong in any aspects of any topic I have zero requirement to respect them for it.

Now however, if I wanted to push it I have been disrespected for having made what are to me basic rational comments about how and why I feel it's important to seek out the real underlying truth of a topic, just as several others have here as well regarding real life presently difficult or outrightly unexplainable historical events and the vast number of actual ancient ruins that go with them. A legitimate topic with a real life physical existence of which I would love to visit some of them some day!

 

I was pointing out that that just because someone claims something to be true if it can be solidly disproved it is in fact not true

Nobody cares.

If your religion is to police all false statements on the Internet, to be the burr under the blanket, the stone in the shoe, to prove who is wrong in all aspects of everything they say, just say so. This could be an epic Thread, a sampling of what people believe after they have climbed the Science tree. As long as the Trolls don't derail it into religion or politics or petty bickering, it might have a glorious path. Maybe you could do your correcting of everybody in Personal Messages?

 

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I'm willing to believe if there is one solid data point of scientific evidence of this intelligent cause. If intelligent design is a scientific theory instead of just fancy creationism then it must pass the test of the scientific method, observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion.

What I mainly see is mumbo jumbo that looks like this for an explanation.
https://imgur.com/gallery/XVIK4#rP2y0ps

 

I'm willing to believe if there is one solid data point of scientific evidence of this intelligent cause. If intelligent design is a scientific theory instead of just fancy creationism then it must pass the test of the scientific method, observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion.

What I mainly see is mumbo jumbo that looks like this for an explanation.
https://imgur.com/gallery/XVIK4#rP2y0ps

That link of yours reminded me about Dr Who's Weeping Angels... just as reality changes when you're not looking at it, they'll attack when you turn your back on them!

 

Only to the degree that saying something like "water just wants to flow down hill" or "air just wants to flow from high pressure to low pressure" is anthropomorphizing water or air.

In my experience figures of speech usually betray deeper layers of prejudice... To say that something is because it just is, is one thing. To grant it a sense of will, however, is an entirely different thing. While I agree that the use of metaphors makes it easier to explain and understand more complicated subjects (especially to uneducated audiences), there are times in which stating the dry, plain facts becomes necessary... but I guess that all authors need to sell their books to as broad an audience as possible.

 

If aliens are so smart why do they only abduct stupid people

 

In my experience figures of speech usually betray deeper layers of prejudice... To say that something is because it just is, is one thing. To grant it a sense of will, however, is an entirely different thing. While I agree that the use of metaphors makes it easier to explain and understand more complicated subjects (especially to uneducated audiences), there are times in which stating the dry, plain facts becomes necessary... but I guess that all authors need to sell their books to as broad an audience as possible.

Your metaphors say a lot of you, I agree; they betray you.

 

Nobody cares.

If your religion is to police all false statements on the Internet, to be the burr under the blanket, the stone in the shoe, to prove who is wrong in all aspects of everything they say, just say so. This could be an epic Thread, a sampling of what people believe after they have climbed the Science tree. As long as the Trolls don't derail it into religion or politics or petty bickering, it might have a glorious path. Maybe you could do your correcting of everybody in Personal Messages?

If you think he's being bad here, go read the voting thread.