| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
jokeface
| Rank #894 on Comments Offline Send mail to jokeface Block jokeface Invite jokeface to be your friend flag avatar |
|
I tell jokes and I make faces. I am JokeFace.
latest user's comments
| #27303 - It's not a choice to fuck dudes? So you're saying that all ga… [+] (2 new replies) | 04/28/2013 on Religion Board | 0 |
| ok I get your point, except there are no victims in gay sex, but why the hell would an benevolent God care about where I put my dick? but the person who never hears about it will be punished for your wrong doing! that's not justice what is the primary purpose of the mouth? Having gay sex is like receiving a beautiful handmade sweater from someone, and using it to wipe your ass. God doesn't like it when we abuse the things He gave us. No, they deserve hell because of their own sins, but it'd be our fault that they don't get a chance at redemption anyway. The point of sharing the Gospel is to help people receive salvation they don't deserve. It's a courtesy, not a right. Omg, this mouth argument is going around in circles. It's for chewing. Also equally important for talking, though that's irrelevant to this discussion. | ||
| #858 - Who's the "she" you're referring to when you say &qu… | 04/28/2013 on The Religion Board | 0 |
| #856 - Adam and Even chose to turn away from God. Okay? That means … [+] (1 new reply) | 04/28/2013 on The Religion Board | 0 |
| the Jews chose to turn away from Hitler. Okay? That means that some place needed to be created to put the people that turned away from Hitler. That was absolutely necessary. And it came about as a result of a human decision. Adam and Eve were never told anything about hell, all they knew is that they weren't allowed to eat a magic apple or they will die and they didn't even know what "die" means! The humans didn't say "ok, make a big burning fire for us to go when we die if we have been bad" never happened, it was God acting on his own accord as Hitler acted on his own accord. | ||
| #27289 - Yea, the sin, not the sinner. A human is still a human if they… [+] (4 new replies) | 04/28/2013 on Religion Board | 0 |
| homosexuality is nothing like heroin, people don't go "hey, I usually like pussy but today I feel like sucking a big old cock" it's not a choice, it isn't unhealthy and it harms no body. I know you were instructed to tell people but don't say everyone has these opportunities because it's not true but the mouths purpose is to allow the digestion of food, it is un natural. Well actually every fucking thing is natural, if it is not natural it is "super natural" and butt fucking is not supernatural www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/2009/01/timeline.gif&imgrefurl=www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/01/20/ancient-patriarchs-in-genesis&h=470&w=500&sz=30&tbnid=8niyHCDxcVsQzM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=96&zoom=1&usg=__Sx7-I5bbgRYkmUDxXH8ESe4YSCM=&docid=B3dKPqtqHwr4KM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KIx8Uc69MoSi0QWeq4HwCA&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQ9QEwAA&dur=331 It's not a choice to fuck dudes? So you're saying that all gay sex is involuntary? And at the same time, both partners are simultaneously the victim? They have the opportunities if we choose to give it to them. If nobody goes to where they live to preach the Gospel, then it's our fault, not God's. The mouth helps with chewing. Digestion only becomes an issue if you swallow. And no one ever said you had to swallow everything you put in your mouth. We have a gag reflex for a reason. I have to do more research regarding the Flood issue, but for now I'll let you have that one. ok I get your point, except there are no victims in gay sex, but why the hell would an benevolent God care about where I put my dick? but the person who never hears about it will be punished for your wrong doing! that's not justice what is the primary purpose of the mouth? Having gay sex is like receiving a beautiful handmade sweater from someone, and using it to wipe your ass. God doesn't like it when we abuse the things He gave us. No, they deserve hell because of their own sins, but it'd be our fault that they don't get a chance at redemption anyway. The point of sharing the Gospel is to help people receive salvation they don't deserve. It's a courtesy, not a right. Omg, this mouth argument is going around in circles. It's for chewing. Also equally important for talking, though that's irrelevant to this discussion. | ||
| #851 - And what evidence have you tested, falsified, etc? Have you ev… [+] (37 new replies) | 04/28/2013 on The Religion Board | 0 |
| All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism. Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life. Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits. Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record. The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included. Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm. When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too. The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking. Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional. Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry. Speciation has been observed. As for geocentrism, i didn't state the bible claimed the world is geocentric although it could have i'm not a bible scholar i said that people during that time believed so because it was before galileo. It's precisely the perfection of the way genes are designed that makes it impossible for me to discard the idea of God. I cannot believe that any form of life could exist (evolved or otherwise) without God creating it. There are too many variables and improbabilities at play that make the chance of life occurring practically impossible. And okay, those arguments support evolution, but they still don't refute a designer. "There are too many variables and improbabilities at play that make the chance of life occurring practically impossible" Based on what? There is roughly 0.1 to 1 mutation per genome replication in viruses and 0.003 mutations per genome per replication in microbes. Mutation rates for higher organisms vary quite a bit between organisms, but excluding the parts of the genome in which most mutations are neutral (the junk DNA), the mutation rates are also roughly 0.003 per effective genome per cell replication. Since sexual reproduction involves many cell replications, humans have about 1.6 mutations per generation. This is likely an underestimate, because mutations with very small effect are easy to miss in the studies. Including neutral mutations, each human zygote has about 64 new mutations (Drake et al. 1998). Another estimate concludes 175 mutations per generation, including at least 3 deleterious mutations. It doesn't refute a designer, but it certainly refutes perfect design which is pretty weird considering god is all powerfull. What are the odds that a planet would appear that was the perfect distance from the sun? What are the odds that said planet would develop the atmosphere necessary to support life? What are the odds that the geography of said planet would form in a way that could support life? What are the odds that the proper molecules would come together to form cells? What are the odds that those cells would instinctively know how to survive and reproduce? For every single one of these things to happen the way they did, I can't possibly imagine God not having a hand in it. That's not at all what I just said. My point is that if there were no God...well first of all there would be no universe, but assuming the universe somehow birthed itself into existence, life could not form. The probability is too low. So the way the universe should look if there is no God is just stars and rocks. "the probability is too low" Says who? Considering there are over 70 sextillion stars and such a massive universe it is not such a big stretch that our tiny little speck just happened to have the right conditions compared to all the other massive places who happened not to. That's like with birth where there are over millions of little sperms but you out of all the sperms just happened to be lucky, which had to come from your father which again against all million sperms won and his father against all millions and so, so on, so on. Also it should be noted that scientists constantly find new planets where life is able to develop so it's not even that improbable. Cells don't just instictively know how to survive and reproduce, most cells didn't even instinctively do that which is why almost 3/4 of the evolutionary time it was mostly microorganisms, natural selection erased the cells that weren't able to adapt for survival and the smaller percentage of cells that do eventually did survive. Don't forget that the key point here is trial and error Ehh I'm still not convinced. Besides, even if we did hit that phenomenal lottery, that still doesn't explain self-awareness. You could argue that our body can sense physical surroundings by way of electrical impulses, but I don't believe electricity can create immaterial thoughts. If it were that simple, we'd be no more conscious than computers. I mean what's the difference between a human and a really advanced android? Both of them can calculate, communicate, and respond to external stimuli. But only one of them is actually cognizant. That's an impressive list, I'll give you that. If you don't mind, I'm going to group your statements into simplified arguments: >Lots of organisms look similar, so they must be related. To me that just shows that they're created by a single artist. >Fossil patterns indicate that current organisms descended from earlier ones. Or it could be that God created new organisms gradually as the planet's landscape changed, and the change resembles genetic relatedness when it fact it's just a portrait of God's design changing with the times. >Organisms share their DNA with other organisms. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. > DNA is full of unused genes that indicate former traits that are no longer necessary. Read: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html All you're doing is simplifying the arguments and then slap god on it, that's not how science works. We can determine that fossil patterns evolved because we can observe gradual patterns in genetic codes themself, just look at the dog breeding one for example, it's clear that god didn't just *poof* new breeds into existence, no they gradually evolved over time due to rearrangement of their genotypes. You say that because organism look similar they must be related, that's not what i said. Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life, we see fossils LITERALLY evolving to another species over time, with all the genetic, pantheological, arheological, biological evidence we can conclude that they indeed evolved, you can't just say "godidit" It has long been known that some noncoding DNA has important functions. (This was known even before the phrase "junk DNA" was coined.) so this article is useless. However, there is good evidence that much DNA has no function: Sections of DNA can be cut out or replaced with randomized sequences with no apparent effect on the organism (Nóbrega et al. 2004). Some sections of DNA are corrupted copies of functional coding DNA, but mutations in them, such as stop codons early in the sequence, show that they cannot have retained the same function as the coding copy. The fugu fish has a genome that is about one third as large as its close relatives. Mutations in functional regions of DNA show evidence of selection -- nonsilent changes occur less often that one would expect by chance. In other sections of DNA, there is no evidence that any changes are selected against. Next time when you cite sources you might want to try a source that isn't bias as fuck and has studied more than "genetics for dummies" You can't say you've "literally" seen fossils do anything. Fossils are dead. All you have are ideas of what the organism's did when they were alive. But you've never witnessed an organism giving birth to another organism of a different species. Dogs may be able to mate and create new breeds, but they're still dogs. Fruit flies may have been bred with the ability to count, but they're still fruit flies. I'm not saying organisms can't develop new traits, but that doesn't make me believe they changed species completely. And even if it's possible for them to change species, that doesn't mean God didn't create their respective ancestors. #893
-
kanade (04/28/2013) [-] Congrats, you've just one the scientifically ignorant idiot award. Maybe if you put down your fairy tales for a while and read some basic biology you might actually learn something. "You can't say you've "literally" seen fossils do anything" You can see clear gradual change in fossils just like you see clear gradual change in dog breeds, Evolution is not just extrapolated from observed microevolution; it is also interpolated from observed changes in the fossil record and from the pattern of observed similarities and differences between present species. If this wasn't evidence for common ancestry then it would've been disproven by science, but it's not. "But you've never witnessed an organism giving birth to another organism of a different species" It's really hard not to insult you but your ignorance is so massively outstanding that i fear for your future children, again the key word is GRADUAL CHANGE. A Homo Erectus doesn't give birth to a Homo Sapien, the species gradually change over a long period of time until it looks different from the previous ancestor just like in this graph the color red goes gradually through different changes until you can witness a complete different color. Furthermore speciation has been observed under laboratory conditions: scientists have successfully induced the evolution of new species that cannot breed with the original strains. So there's literally no reason for you to say god made the previous ancestors when god didn't *poof* other breeds from dogs and fruitflies either. I've given evidence that it was most likely common ancestry based on evidence for both micro and macro evolution that perfectly allign and make sense, if you still assume that it requires a designer you need to provide evidence that common ancestry is not possible and that god poofed all genetic mutations and rearrangements in existence. Also i refuted that source. I never said common ancestry is not possible, I said God was involved in spite of it being possible. Moreover, I even incorporated it into my realm of possible beliefs by offering the possibility of theistic evolution. And explain to me again what's wrong with that article's arguments. Please. Again if god is involved in it then where is your evidence, if you accept common ancestry, genetic mutations, dog breeding, micro-evolution and macro-evolution then you can also accept that god is not needed for this. So until you provide evidence to say that god was involved there is no reason for me to think that evolution is just a natural process. #882 to #867 - kanade ONLINE (6 hours ago) It has long been known that some noncoding DNA has important functions. (This was known even before the phrase "junk DNA" was coined.) so this article is useless. However, there is good evidence that much DNA has no function: - Sections of DNA can be cut out or replaced with randomized sequences with no apparent effect on the organism (Nóbrega et al. 2004). - Some sections of DNA are corrupted copies of functional coding DNA, but mutations in them, such as stop codons early in the sequence, show that they cannot have retained the same function as the coding copy. - The fugu fish has a genome that is about one third as large as its close relatives. - Mutations in functional regions of DNA show evidence of selection -- nonsilent changes occur less often that one would expect by chance. In other sections of DNA, there is no evidence that any changes are selected against. Insulting me isn't going to sway me. Okay, I get what you're saying, but that just brings us back to "Organisms look similar so they must be related." I hear what you're saying about gradual change, but I don't believe gradual change is enough evidence to assert evolution. As I said before, the gradual change could just be a change in God's design relative to the change in the Earth's environment. For example, God might have created dinosaurs at a time when the Earth was suitable to sustain dinosaurs, and as time went on, He created them smaller and better-adapted for the planet's ever-changing landscape. Now we're getting into the area of theistic evolution, which I've said countless times is something I'm open to believing in. Again, I don't doubt that evolution is possible, but I don't necessarily believe it's the origin of all life. I believe life was created by God, and evolution became an option. No i'm not saying organisms look similar therefor they must be related, i'm saying that observed changes in the fossil record and from the pattern of observed similarities and differences between present species along with perfectly alligned genetic codes, the fact that we can observe evolution happening today, the fact that species HAVE evolved today and the fact that god didn't *poof* previous dog breeds into existence is overwhelming evidence for common ancestry. If you think god did all that you need to show me EVIDENCE that he did, you can't just take the evidence and then say it's not evidence because it could have a different explanation based on your own stupidity. By your logic i can disprove the relativity theory because it could be that the flying spaghetti monster is holding us all on the ground and that's why we don't float away. Or say that footprints of horses could be footprints of unicorns. And that is what religion is, just a bunch of psuedoscientific fairy tale stories that fail to meet the scientific method and just hang on a childish dishonest idea of faith without evidence. Say there was a lake containing really big fish. Then say the landscape changed causing the lake to shrink, and the big fish couldn't survive in it. God might create new, smaller fish that could fit in the lake more comfortably. Now say the landscape changed again, causing the lake to get so small that even the small fish couldn't survive in it. God might create amphibious creatures that could survive outside the lake. Now you have fossils of three creatures, all seemingly related because of a similar habitat as well as a common designer. An advocate of evolution would say the fish evolved, but a creationist would say that God gradually changed the design of the creature to fit the landscape. And the evidence I have for that is the same evidence you have for evolution. Just from a different perspective. That's an interesting example only again it's bullshit because it's not based on evidence. You need to provide evidence that god constantly changed these animals, i need to provide evidence that animals gradually change over a long period of time. I've given the evidence, i've clearly shown that animals right now evolve and i've shown evidence that we share common ancestry. Again it's like saying that you got evidence that the spaghetti monster holds us down because of gravity, that's NOT evidence, it's not demonstrable, it's not falsifiable, you rely on a fairy tale. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html It's quite a long read so it might take you a while, assuming you won't just ignore it and cover your ears. Yes, and you're evidence is very good and considerable, but it's just a symptom, not a diagnosis. The question is of whether or not the trends and similarities and gradual changes are indicative of common ancestry or common designer.You're not giving me reason to believe either. All you're saying is that they have trends and similarities and gradual change, but that doesn't mean anything for either of our arguments because it supports both of them. >gradual patterns in genetic codes themself If we could easily confirm the genetic codes of many fossilized organisms, then I'm pretty sure that we would have at least one clone of some of them (dinosaurs, precursor to wolves). Scientists have successfully isolated DNA from a 120-135-million-year-old weevil found in Lebanese amber, amplified it using polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and sequenced it. Not its entire genetic code, but portions thereof. This genetic information has been compared with modern weevils for phylogenetic analysis. This is not the revival of extinct species, but it's a very important step in that direction. Reviving extinct species would require finding large portions of the original genetic material. For Pleistocene species, such as mammoths, cave bears, dire wolves, and even Neanderthals, soft tissue is available, and some scientists have even made efforts at sequencing. This frequently requires multiple samples, as no individual sample is likely to contain the full sequence of uncontaminated DNA. In Jurassic Park, gaps in dinosaur DNA were replaced with segments of frog DNA, but this is problematic because it assumes that the scientists knew which dinosaur genes corresponded to which frog genes they were splicing in. As genetics advances, it will become easier to make these guesses, although substantial portions of the original genetic material is still likely to be required. You might want to stick to theology because your knowledge in genetics seems rather lacking. >You might want to stick to theology because your knowledge in genetics seems rather lacking. It is, but genetics alone isn't enough to disprove many theological arguments, and science does not always conflict with religion. Could you show me a link to an article on this? It really looks interesting. >Reviving extinct species would require finding large portions of the original genetic material. I've read elsewhere that the main reason was due to this problem and a lack of a real egg cell to create the parent. Any thoughts on this explanation? I didn't really say that genetics disprove theological arguments, neither does evolution. But it is evidence for evolution and creates an alternative explanation of how complex beings have come to be like this. Here's the source: www.wisegeek.com/could-it-be-possible-to-revive-extinct-species-as-in-jur assic-park.htm >I didn't really say I'll take fault there, since that was just a hasty preparation for any potentially stupid stereotypes. Any thoughts on the possibility of regressing the evolutionary changes in order to emulate a large amount of DNA? | ||
| #850 - And what evidence have you tested, falsified, etc? Have you ev… | 04/28/2013 on The Religion Board | 0 |
| #849 - I'm not saying it wouldn't be traumatizing, because it would b… [+] (2 new replies) | 04/28/2013 on The Religion Board | 0 |
| #852
-
thebritishguy (04/28/2013) [-] "But if she consents, it's not rape" well then she doesn't consent so it is rape God condemns a whole lot of shit but the fact that you are saying these people are wrong in the first place, to hate on people for the way they love is really fucked up, what kind of reasons do you give for these unjust views? where is the reasoning, evidence and intellect involved in this decision: "God doesn't like it" it's just Intellectual slavery. Who's the "she" you're referring to when you say "she doesn't consent"? All the women taken as wives against their will? Because the Bible doesn't say they didn't consent to sex. Just marriage. Regarding your picture I've developed some reasonings, some using sources and some based on my own interpretations: - Shaving was forbidden because of all the health benefits of having a beard, which are outlined in this link (yes, it's from an Islamic perspective, the irony is not lost on me): http://www.wonderfulinfo.com/islam/beardbenefits.php - Cursing is subjective except blasphemy. Of course God doesn't want people talking shit about Him. - Gossip (more specifically, slander) was forbidden because God knows nobody else wants people to talk shit about them either. - Football is a game. Yes it can be laboring, but it's purpose is for fun. It's not a violation of anything, even on the Sabbath. - Shellfish and pork are well known to make people sick even today, and back then it was much harder to make food safe to eat. God forbade it to preserve people's health. - Expositer's Bible Dictionary states: "The weaving of two kinds of material (wool and linen in Deuteronomy 22:11) may be a rule that would prevent loss by unequal shrinkage." - Period-boning is most likely forbidden so as to protect women from pain and disease. The source I have here says: "Menstruation frequently produces mild or even severe physical discomfort, and a woman's emotional condition at this time can be fragile. Moreover, medical science has shown that sex during menstruation poses a greater risk of tissue injury or infection to the woman, as well as of transmitting blood-borne disease from one partner to another." | ||
| #847 - We depend on God to save us. You're comparing Him to Hitler, d… | 04/28/2013 on The Religion Board | 0 |
| #846 - I, Jokeface, have never seen, in person, any evidence suggesti… [+] (40 new replies) | 04/28/2013 on The Religion Board | 0 |
| ....I study Ethology at the University of Utrecht, i've seen the evidence with my own eyes, i've tested it, falsified it, ect. It's really not that hard. Hell i didn't even accept evolution as a fact when i was younger because i never seen the evidence for myself. Anyone with a decent internet connection can look up verifiable evidence, hell even understanding the very basics of genetics and selection can already create a valid conclusion for the case of evolution. You base your faith on a book made by desert dwellers that thought the earth was geocentic and then without actually even attempting to question your belief with skepticism blindly accept the philosophy. And what evidence have you tested, falsified, etc? Have you ever seen fossils breed and create a new organism? I don't recall the Bible ever saying the Earth was geocentric. Though I haven't memorized it, so I'd welcome a rebuttal. And of course I have skepticism. That's why I changed my faith from fundamentalism to being open to the possibility theistic evolution. I'm not saying I'm fully on board with that theory, but I'm not rejecting it either. All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism. Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life. Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits. Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record. The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included. Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm. When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too. The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking. Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional. Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry. Speciation has been observed. As for geocentrism, i didn't state the bible claimed the world is geocentric although it could have i'm not a bible scholar i said that people during that time believed so because it was before galileo. It's precisely the perfection of the way genes are designed that makes it impossible for me to discard the idea of God. I cannot believe that any form of life could exist (evolved or otherwise) without God creating it. There are too many variables and improbabilities at play that make the chance of life occurring practically impossible. And okay, those arguments support evolution, but they still don't refute a designer. "There are too many variables and improbabilities at play that make the chance of life occurring practically impossible" Based on what? There is roughly 0.1 to 1 mutation per genome replication in viruses and 0.003 mutations per genome per replication in microbes. Mutation rates for higher organisms vary quite a bit between organisms, but excluding the parts of the genome in which most mutations are neutral (the junk DNA), the mutation rates are also roughly 0.003 per effective genome per cell replication. Since sexual reproduction involves many cell replications, humans have about 1.6 mutations per generation. This is likely an underestimate, because mutations with very small effect are easy to miss in the studies. Including neutral mutations, each human zygote has about 64 new mutations (Drake et al. 1998). Another estimate concludes 175 mutations per generation, including at least 3 deleterious mutations. It doesn't refute a designer, but it certainly refutes perfect design which is pretty weird considering god is all powerfull. What are the odds that a planet would appear that was the perfect distance from the sun? What are the odds that said planet would develop the atmosphere necessary to support life? What are the odds that the geography of said planet would form in a way that could support life? What are the odds that the proper molecules would come together to form cells? What are the odds that those cells would instinctively know how to survive and reproduce? For every single one of these things to happen the way they did, I can't possibly imagine God not having a hand in it. That's not at all what I just said. My point is that if there were no God...well first of all there would be no universe, but assuming the universe somehow birthed itself into existence, life could not form. The probability is too low. So the way the universe should look if there is no God is just stars and rocks. "the probability is too low" Says who? Considering there are over 70 sextillion stars and such a massive universe it is not such a big stretch that our tiny little speck just happened to have the right conditions compared to all the other massive places who happened not to. That's like with birth where there are over millions of little sperms but you out of all the sperms just happened to be lucky, which had to come from your father which again against all million sperms won and his father against all millions and so, so on, so on. Also it should be noted that scientists constantly find new planets where life is able to develop so it's not even that improbable. Cells don't just instictively know how to survive and reproduce, most cells didn't even instinctively do that which is why almost 3/4 of the evolutionary time it was mostly microorganisms, natural selection erased the cells that weren't able to adapt for survival and the smaller percentage of cells that do eventually did survive. Don't forget that the key point here is trial and error Ehh I'm still not convinced. Besides, even if we did hit that phenomenal lottery, that still doesn't explain self-awareness. You could argue that our body can sense physical surroundings by way of electrical impulses, but I don't believe electricity can create immaterial thoughts. If it were that simple, we'd be no more conscious than computers. I mean what's the difference between a human and a really advanced android? Both of them can calculate, communicate, and respond to external stimuli. But only one of them is actually cognizant. That's an impressive list, I'll give you that. If you don't mind, I'm going to group your statements into simplified arguments: >Lots of organisms look similar, so they must be related. To me that just shows that they're created by a single artist. >Fossil patterns indicate that current organisms descended from earlier ones. Or it could be that God created new organisms gradually as the planet's landscape changed, and the change resembles genetic relatedness when it fact it's just a portrait of God's design changing with the times. >Organisms share their DNA with other organisms. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. > DNA is full of unused genes that indicate former traits that are no longer necessary. Read: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html All you're doing is simplifying the arguments and then slap god on it, that's not how science works. We can determine that fossil patterns evolved because we can observe gradual patterns in genetic codes themself, just look at the dog breeding one for example, it's clear that god didn't just *poof* new breeds into existence, no they gradually evolved over time due to rearrangement of their genotypes. You say that because organism look similar they must be related, that's not what i said. Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life, we see fossils LITERALLY evolving to another species over time, with all the genetic, pantheological, arheological, biological evidence we can conclude that they indeed evolved, you can't just say "godidit" It has long been known that some noncoding DNA has important functions. (This was known even before the phrase "junk DNA" was coined.) so this article is useless. However, there is good evidence that much DNA has no function: Sections of DNA can be cut out or replaced with randomized sequences with no apparent effect on the organism (Nóbrega et al. 2004). Some sections of DNA are corrupted copies of functional coding DNA, but mutations in them, such as stop codons early in the sequence, show that they cannot have retained the same function as the coding copy. The fugu fish has a genome that is about one third as large as its close relatives. Mutations in functional regions of DNA show evidence of selection -- nonsilent changes occur less often that one would expect by chance. In other sections of DNA, there is no evidence that any changes are selected against. Next time when you cite sources you might want to try a source that isn't bias as fuck and has studied more than "genetics for dummies" You can't say you've "literally" seen fossils do anything. Fossils are dead. All you have are ideas of what the organism's did when they were alive. But you've never witnessed an organism giving birth to another organism of a different species. Dogs may be able to mate and create new breeds, but they're still dogs. Fruit flies may have been bred with the ability to count, but they're still fruit flies. I'm not saying organisms can't develop new traits, but that doesn't make me believe they changed species completely. And even if it's possible for them to change species, that doesn't mean God didn't create their respective ancestors. #893
-
kanade (04/28/2013) [-] Congrats, you've just one the scientifically ignorant idiot award. Maybe if you put down your fairy tales for a while and read some basic biology you might actually learn something. "You can't say you've "literally" seen fossils do anything" You can see clear gradual change in fossils just like you see clear gradual change in dog breeds, Evolution is not just extrapolated from observed microevolution; it is also interpolated from observed changes in the fossil record and from the pattern of observed similarities and differences between present species. If this wasn't evidence for common ancestry then it would've been disproven by science, but it's not. "But you've never witnessed an organism giving birth to another organism of a different species" It's really hard not to insult you but your ignorance is so massively outstanding that i fear for your future children, again the key word is GRADUAL CHANGE. A Homo Erectus doesn't give birth to a Homo Sapien, the species gradually change over a long period of time until it looks different from the previous ancestor just like in this graph the color red goes gradually through different changes until you can witness a complete different color. Furthermore speciation has been observed under laboratory conditions: scientists have successfully induced the evolution of new species that cannot breed with the original strains. So there's literally no reason for you to say god made the previous ancestors when god didn't *poof* other breeds from dogs and fruitflies either. I've given evidence that it was most likely common ancestry based on evidence for both micro and macro evolution that perfectly allign and make sense, if you still assume that it requires a designer you need to provide evidence that common ancestry is not possible and that god poofed all genetic mutations and rearrangements in existence. Also i refuted that source. I never said common ancestry is not possible, I said God was involved in spite of it being possible. Moreover, I even incorporated it into my realm of possible beliefs by offering the possibility of theistic evolution. And explain to me again what's wrong with that article's arguments. Please. Again if god is involved in it then where is your evidence, if you accept common ancestry, genetic mutations, dog breeding, micro-evolution and macro-evolution then you can also accept that god is not needed for this. So until you provide evidence to say that god was involved there is no reason for me to think that evolution is just a natural process. #882 to #867 - kanade ONLINE (6 hours ago) It has long been known that some noncoding DNA has important functions. (This was known even before the phrase "junk DNA" was coined.) so this article is useless. However, there is good evidence that much DNA has no function: - Sections of DNA can be cut out or replaced with randomized sequences with no apparent effect on the organism (Nóbrega et al. 2004). - Some sections of DNA are corrupted copies of functional coding DNA, but mutations in them, such as stop codons early in the sequence, show that they cannot have retained the same function as the coding copy. - The fugu fish has a genome that is about one third as large as its close relatives. - Mutations in functional regions of DNA show evidence of selection -- nonsilent changes occur less often that one would expect by chance. In other sections of DNA, there is no evidence that any changes are selected against. Insulting me isn't going to sway me. Okay, I get what you're saying, but that just brings us back to "Organisms look similar so they must be related." I hear what you're saying about gradual change, but I don't believe gradual change is enough evidence to assert evolution. As I said before, the gradual change could just be a change in God's design relative to the change in the Earth's environment. For example, God might have created dinosaurs at a time when the Earth was suitable to sustain dinosaurs, and as time went on, He created them smaller and better-adapted for the planet's ever-changing landscape. Now we're getting into the area of theistic evolution, which I've said countless times is something I'm open to believing in. Again, I don't doubt that evolution is possible, but I don't necessarily believe it's the origin of all life. I believe life was created by God, and evolution became an option. No i'm not saying organisms look similar therefor they must be related, i'm saying that observed changes in the fossil record and from the pattern of observed similarities and differences between present species along with perfectly alligned genetic codes, the fact that we can observe evolution happening today, the fact that species HAVE evolved today and the fact that god didn't *poof* previous dog breeds into existence is overwhelming evidence for common ancestry. If you think god did all that you need to show me EVIDENCE that he did, you can't just take the evidence and then say it's not evidence because it could have a different explanation based on your own stupidity. By your logic i can disprove the relativity theory because it could be that the flying spaghetti monster is holding us all on the ground and that's why we don't float away. Or say that footprints of horses could be footprints of unicorns. And that is what religion is, just a bunch of psuedoscientific fairy tale stories that fail to meet the scientific method and just hang on a childish dishonest idea of faith without evidence. Say there was a lake containing really big fish. Then say the landscape changed causing the lake to shrink, and the big fish couldn't survive in it. God might create new, smaller fish that could fit in the lake more comfortably. Now say the landscape changed again, causing the lake to get so small that even the small fish couldn't survive in it. God might create amphibious creatures that could survive outside the lake. Now you have fossils of three creatures, all seemingly related because of a similar habitat as well as a common designer. An advocate of evolution would say the fish evolved, but a creationist would say that God gradually changed the design of the creature to fit the landscape. And the evidence I have for that is the same evidence you have for evolution. Just from a different perspective. That's an interesting example only again it's bullshit because it's not based on evidence. You need to provide evidence that god constantly changed these animals, i need to provide evidence that animals gradually change over a long period of time. I've given the evidence, i've clearly shown that animals right now evolve and i've shown evidence that we share common ancestry. Again it's like saying that you got evidence that the spaghetti monster holds us down because of gravity, that's NOT evidence, it's not demonstrable, it's not falsifiable, you rely on a fairy tale. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html It's quite a long read so it might take you a while, assuming you won't just ignore it and cover your ears. Yes, and you're evidence is very good and considerable, but it's just a symptom, not a diagnosis. The question is of whether or not the trends and similarities and gradual changes are indicative of common ancestry or common designer.You're not giving me reason to believe either. All you're saying is that they have trends and similarities and gradual change, but that doesn't mean anything for either of our arguments because it supports both of them. >gradual patterns in genetic codes themself If we could easily confirm the genetic codes of many fossilized organisms, then I'm pretty sure that we would have at least one clone of some of them (dinosaurs, precursor to wolves). Scientists have successfully isolated DNA from a 120-135-million-year-old weevil found in Lebanese amber, amplified it using polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and sequenced it. Not its entire genetic code, but portions thereof. This genetic information has been compared with modern weevils for phylogenetic analysis. This is not the revival of extinct species, but it's a very important step in that direction. Reviving extinct species would require finding large portions of the original genetic material. For Pleistocene species, such as mammoths, cave bears, dire wolves, and even Neanderthals, soft tissue is available, and some scientists have even made efforts at sequencing. This frequently requires multiple samples, as no individual sample is likely to contain the full sequence of uncontaminated DNA. In Jurassic Park, gaps in dinosaur DNA were replaced with segments of frog DNA, but this is problematic because it assumes that the scientists knew which dinosaur genes corresponded to which frog genes they were splicing in. As genetics advances, it will become easier to make these guesses, although substantial portions of the original genetic material is still likely to be required. You might want to stick to theology because your knowledge in genetics seems rather lacking. >You might want to stick to theology because your knowledge in genetics seems rather lacking. It is, but genetics alone isn't enough to disprove many theological arguments, and science does not always conflict with religion. Could you show me a link to an article on this? It really looks interesting. >Reviving extinct species would require finding large portions of the original genetic material. I've read elsewhere that the main reason was due to this problem and a lack of a real egg cell to create the parent. Any thoughts on this explanation? I didn't really say that genetics disprove theological arguments, neither does evolution. But it is evidence for evolution and creates an alternative explanation of how complex beings have come to be like this. Here's the source: www.wisegeek.com/could-it-be-possible-to-revive-extinct-species-as-in-jur assic-park.htm >I didn't really say I'll take fault there, since that was just a hasty preparation for any potentially stupid stereotypes. Any thoughts on the possibility of regressing the evolutionary changes in order to emulate a large amount of DNA? | ||
| #27282 - Thread ran out. No, you don't even need a penis to pi… [+] (6 new replies) | 04/28/2013 on Religion Board | 0 |
| God made homosexuality a sin, he said it was an abomination to him, he is clearly a homophobe. A lot of people have never heard of the bible so they don't get the opportunities. the mouth is for eating, is it not? genealogy: www.d.umn.edu/~jbelote/bible2.html Yea, the sin, not the sinner. A human is still a human if they're gay or not, and God loves them as humans. But He hates the sin that they've chosen to partake in. It would be like if you had a kid who was addicted to heroin. You'd probably hate that he does heroin, but you'd love him nonetheless, right? That's how God sees us. It is the responsibility of the humans that have knowledge of the Gospel to share it with those who would otherwise not have access to it. This is called the Great Commission, and it was instructed to us by Jesus in Matthew 28:19: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Yes, and you can eat gum. You just can't digest it. I see a lot of names on this genealogy. I don't see any dates. homosexuality is nothing like heroin, people don't go "hey, I usually like pussy but today I feel like sucking a big old cock" it's not a choice, it isn't unhealthy and it harms no body. I know you were instructed to tell people but don't say everyone has these opportunities because it's not true but the mouths purpose is to allow the digestion of food, it is un natural. Well actually every fucking thing is natural, if it is not natural it is "super natural" and butt fucking is not supernatural www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/2009/01/timeline.gif&imgrefurl=www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/01/20/ancient-patriarchs-in-genesis&h=470&w=500&sz=30&tbnid=8niyHCDxcVsQzM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=96&zoom=1&usg=__Sx7-I5bbgRYkmUDxXH8ESe4YSCM=&docid=B3dKPqtqHwr4KM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KIx8Uc69MoSi0QWeq4HwCA&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQ9QEwAA&dur=331 It's not a choice to fuck dudes? So you're saying that all gay sex is involuntary? And at the same time, both partners are simultaneously the victim? They have the opportunities if we choose to give it to them. If nobody goes to where they live to preach the Gospel, then it's our fault, not God's. The mouth helps with chewing. Digestion only becomes an issue if you swallow. And no one ever said you had to swallow everything you put in your mouth. We have a gag reflex for a reason. I have to do more research regarding the Flood issue, but for now I'll let you have that one. ok I get your point, except there are no victims in gay sex, but why the hell would an benevolent God care about where I put my dick? but the person who never hears about it will be punished for your wrong doing! that's not justice what is the primary purpose of the mouth? Having gay sex is like receiving a beautiful handmade sweater from someone, and using it to wipe your ass. God doesn't like it when we abuse the things He gave us. No, they deserve hell because of their own sins, but it'd be our fault that they don't get a chance at redemption anyway. The point of sharing the Gospel is to help people receive salvation they don't deserve. It's a courtesy, not a right. Omg, this mouth argument is going around in circles. It's for chewing. Also equally important for talking, though that's irrelevant to this discussion. | ||
| #842 - As I've stated before, the "might is right" philosop… [+] (42 new replies) | 04/28/2013 on The Religion Board | 0 |
| I, Jokeface, have never seen, in person, any evidence suggesting evolution is a coherent theory. The only reason I have to take it seriously at all is because I trust other people who have claimed to witness the evidence firsthand. Can you, Kanade, say anything more than that? If you can't, then what's wrong with me basing my faith on the accounts of other people who have claimed to witness the evidence firsthand? ....I study Ethology at the University of Utrecht, i've seen the evidence with my own eyes, i've tested it, falsified it, ect. It's really not that hard. Hell i didn't even accept evolution as a fact when i was younger because i never seen the evidence for myself. Anyone with a decent internet connection can look up verifiable evidence, hell even understanding the very basics of genetics and selection can already create a valid conclusion for the case of evolution. You base your faith on a book made by desert dwellers that thought the earth was geocentic and then without actually even attempting to question your belief with skepticism blindly accept the philosophy. And what evidence have you tested, falsified, etc? Have you ever seen fossils breed and create a new organism? I don't recall the Bible ever saying the Earth was geocentric. Though I haven't memorized it, so I'd welcome a rebuttal. And of course I have skepticism. That's why I changed my faith from fundamentalism to being open to the possibility theistic evolution. I'm not saying I'm fully on board with that theory, but I'm not rejecting it either. All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism. Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life. Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits. Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record. The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included. Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm. When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too. The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking. Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional. Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry. Speciation has been observed. As for geocentrism, i didn't state the bible claimed the world is geocentric although it could have i'm not a bible scholar i said that people during that time believed so because it was before galileo. It's precisely the perfection of the way genes are designed that makes it impossible for me to discard the idea of God. I cannot believe that any form of life could exist (evolved or otherwise) without God creating it. There are too many variables and improbabilities at play that make the chance of life occurring practically impossible. And okay, those arguments support evolution, but they still don't refute a designer. "There are too many variables and improbabilities at play that make the chance of life occurring practically impossible" Based on what? There is roughly 0.1 to 1 mutation per genome replication in viruses and 0.003 mutations per genome per replication in microbes. Mutation rates for higher organisms vary quite a bit between organisms, but excluding the parts of the genome in which most mutations are neutral (the junk DNA), the mutation rates are also roughly 0.003 per effective genome per cell replication. Since sexual reproduction involves many cell replications, humans have about 1.6 mutations per generation. This is likely an underestimate, because mutations with very small effect are easy to miss in the studies. Including neutral mutations, each human zygote has about 64 new mutations (Drake et al. 1998). Another estimate concludes 175 mutations per generation, including at least 3 deleterious mutations. It doesn't refute a designer, but it certainly refutes perfect design which is pretty weird considering god is all powerfull. What are the odds that a planet would appear that was the perfect distance from the sun? What are the odds that said planet would develop the atmosphere necessary to support life? What are the odds that the geography of said planet would form in a way that could support life? What are the odds that the proper molecules would come together to form cells? What are the odds that those cells would instinctively know how to survive and reproduce? For every single one of these things to happen the way they did, I can't possibly imagine God not having a hand in it. That's not at all what I just said. My point is that if there were no God...well first of all there would be no universe, but assuming the universe somehow birthed itself into existence, life could not form. The probability is too low. So the way the universe should look if there is no God is just stars and rocks. "the probability is too low" Says who? Considering there are over 70 sextillion stars and such a massive universe it is not such a big stretch that our tiny little speck just happened to have the right conditions compared to all the other massive places who happened not to. That's like with birth where there are over millions of little sperms but you out of all the sperms just happened to be lucky, which had to come from your father which again against all million sperms won and his father against all millions and so, so on, so on. Also it should be noted that scientists constantly find new planets where life is able to develop so it's not even that improbable. Cells don't just instictively know how to survive and reproduce, most cells didn't even instinctively do that which is why almost 3/4 of the evolutionary time it was mostly microorganisms, natural selection erased the cells that weren't able to adapt for survival and the smaller percentage of cells that do eventually did survive. Don't forget that the key point here is trial and error Ehh I'm still not convinced. Besides, even if we did hit that phenomenal lottery, that still doesn't explain self-awareness. You could argue that our body can sense physical surroundings by way of electrical impulses, but I don't believe electricity can create immaterial thoughts. If it were that simple, we'd be no more conscious than computers. I mean what's the difference between a human and a really advanced android? Both of them can calculate, communicate, and respond to external stimuli. But only one of them is actually cognizant. That's an impressive list, I'll give you that. If you don't mind, I'm going to group your statements into simplified arguments: >Lots of organisms look similar, so they must be related. To me that just shows that they're created by a single artist. >Fossil patterns indicate that current organisms descended from earlier ones. Or it could be that God created new organisms gradually as the planet's landscape changed, and the change resembles genetic relatedness when it fact it's just a portrait of God's design changing with the times. >Organisms share their DNA with other organisms. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. > DNA is full of unused genes that indicate former traits that are no longer necessary. Read: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html All you're doing is simplifying the arguments and then slap god on it, that's not how science works. We can determine that fossil patterns evolved because we can observe gradual patterns in genetic codes themself, just look at the dog breeding one for example, it's clear that god didn't just *poof* new breeds into existence, no they gradually evolved over time due to rearrangement of their genotypes. You say that because organism look similar they must be related, that's not what i said. Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life, we see fossils LITERALLY evolving to another species over time, with all the genetic, pantheological, arheological, biological evidence we can conclude that they indeed evolved, you can't just say "godidit" It has long been known that some noncoding DNA has important functions. (This was known even before the phrase "junk DNA" was coined.) so this article is useless. However, there is good evidence that much DNA has no function: Sections of DNA can be cut out or replaced with randomized sequences with no apparent effect on the organism (Nóbrega et al. 2004). Some sections of DNA are corrupted copies of functional coding DNA, but mutations in them, such as stop codons early in the sequence, show that they cannot have retained the same function as the coding copy. The fugu fish has a genome that is about one third as large as its close relatives. Mutations in functional regions of DNA show evidence of selection -- nonsilent changes occur less often that one would expect by chance. In other sections of DNA, there is no evidence that any changes are selected against. Next time when you cite sources you might want to try a source that isn't bias as fuck and has studied more than "genetics for dummies" You can't say you've "literally" seen fossils do anything. Fossils are dead. All you have are ideas of what the organism's did when they were alive. But you've never witnessed an organism giving birth to another organism of a different species. Dogs may be able to mate and create new breeds, but they're still dogs. Fruit flies may have been bred with the ability to count, but they're still fruit flies. I'm not saying organisms can't develop new traits, but that doesn't make me believe they changed species completely. And even if it's possible for them to change species, that doesn't mean God didn't create their respective ancestors. #893
-
kanade (04/28/2013) [-] Congrats, you've just one the scientifically ignorant idiot award. Maybe if you put down your fairy tales for a while and read some basic biology you might actually learn something. "You can't say you've "literally" seen fossils do anything" You can see clear gradual change in fossils just like you see clear gradual change in dog breeds, Evolution is not just extrapolated from observed microevolution; it is also interpolated from observed changes in the fossil record and from the pattern of observed similarities and differences between present species. If this wasn't evidence for common ancestry then it would've been disproven by science, but it's not. "But you've never witnessed an organism giving birth to another organism of a different species" It's really hard not to insult you but your ignorance is so massively outstanding that i fear for your future children, again the key word is GRADUAL CHANGE. A Homo Erectus doesn't give birth to a Homo Sapien, the species gradually change over a long period of time until it looks different from the previous ancestor just like in this graph the color red goes gradually through different changes until you can witness a complete different color. Furthermore speciation has been observed under laboratory conditions: scientists have successfully induced the evolution of new species that cannot breed with the original strains. So there's literally no reason for you to say god made the previous ancestors when god didn't *poof* other breeds from dogs and fruitflies either. I've given evidence that it was most likely common ancestry based on evidence for both micro and macro evolution that perfectly allign and make sense, if you still assume that it requires a designer you need to provide evidence that common ancestry is not possible and that god poofed all genetic mutations and rearrangements in existence. Also i refuted that source. I never said common ancestry is not possible, I said God was involved in spite of it being possible. Moreover, I even incorporated it into my realm of possible beliefs by offering the possibility of theistic evolution. And explain to me again what's wrong with that article's arguments. Please. Again if god is involved in it then where is your evidence, if you accept common ancestry, genetic mutations, dog breeding, micro-evolution and macro-evolution then you can also accept that god is not needed for this. So until you provide evidence to say that god was involved there is no reason for me to think that evolution is just a natural process. #882 to #867 - kanade ONLINE (6 hours ago) It has long been known that some noncoding DNA has important functions. (This was known even before the phrase "junk DNA" was coined.) so this article is useless. However, there is good evidence that much DNA has no function: - Sections of DNA can be cut out or replaced with randomized sequences with no apparent effect on the organism (Nóbrega et al. 2004). - Some sections of DNA are corrupted copies of functional coding DNA, but mutations in them, such as stop codons early in the sequence, show that they cannot have retained the same function as the coding copy. - The fugu fish has a genome that is about one third as large as its close relatives. - Mutations in functional regions of DNA show evidence of selection -- nonsilent changes occur less often that one would expect by chance. In other sections of DNA, there is no evidence that any changes are selected against. Insulting me isn't going to sway me. Okay, I get what you're saying, but that just brings us back to "Organisms look similar so they must be related." I hear what you're saying about gradual change, but I don't believe gradual change is enough evidence to assert evolution. As I said before, the gradual change could just be a change in God's design relative to the change in the Earth's environment. For example, God might have created dinosaurs at a time when the Earth was suitable to sustain dinosaurs, and as time went on, He created them smaller and better-adapted for the planet's ever-changing landscape. Now we're getting into the area of theistic evolution, which I've said countless times is something I'm open to believing in. Again, I don't doubt that evolution is possible, but I don't necessarily believe it's the origin of all life. I believe life was created by God, and evolution became an option. No i'm not saying organisms look similar therefor they must be related, i'm saying that observed changes in the fossil record and from the pattern of observed similarities and differences between present species along with perfectly alligned genetic codes, the fact that we can observe evolution happening today, the fact that species HAVE evolved today and the fact that god didn't *poof* previous dog breeds into existence is overwhelming evidence for common ancestry. If you think god did all that you need to show me EVIDENCE that he did, you can't just take the evidence and then say it's not evidence because it could have a different explanation based on your own stupidity. By your logic i can disprove the relativity theory because it could be that the flying spaghetti monster is holding us all on the ground and that's why we don't float away. Or say that footprints of horses could be footprints of unicorns. And that is what religion is, just a bunch of psuedoscientific fairy tale stories that fail to meet the scientific method and just hang on a childish dishonest idea of faith without evidence. Say there was a lake containing really big fish. Then say the landscape changed causing the lake to shrink, and the big fish couldn't survive in it. God might create new, smaller fish that could fit in the lake more comfortably. Now say the landscape changed again, causing the lake to get so small that even the small fish couldn't survive in it. God might create amphibious creatures that could survive outside the lake. Now you have fossils of three creatures, all seemingly related because of a similar habitat as well as a common designer. An advocate of evolution would say the fish evolved, but a creationist would say that God gradually changed the design of the creature to fit the landscape. And the evidence I have for that is the same evidence you have for evolution. Just from a different perspective. That's an interesting example only again it's bullshit because it's not based on evidence. You need to provide evidence that god constantly changed these animals, i need to provide evidence that animals gradually change over a long period of time. I've given the evidence, i've clearly shown that animals right now evolve and i've shown evidence that we share common ancestry. Again it's like saying that you got evidence that the spaghetti monster holds us down because of gravity, that's NOT evidence, it's not demonstrable, it's not falsifiable, you rely on a fairy tale. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html It's quite a long read so it might take you a while, assuming you won't just ignore it and cover your ears. Yes, and you're evidence is very good and considerable, but it's just a symptom, not a diagnosis. The question is of whether or not the trends and similarities and gradual changes are indicative of common ancestry or common designer.You're not giving me reason to believe either. All you're saying is that they have trends and similarities and gradual change, but that doesn't mean anything for either of our arguments because it supports both of them. >gradual patterns in genetic codes themself If we could easily confirm the genetic codes of many fossilized organisms, then I'm pretty sure that we would have at least one clone of some of them (dinosaurs, precursor to wolves). Scientists have successfully isolated DNA from a 120-135-million-year-old weevil found in Lebanese amber, amplified it using polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and sequenced it. Not its entire genetic code, but portions thereof. This genetic information has been compared with modern weevils for phylogenetic analysis. This is not the revival of extinct species, but it's a very important step in that direction. Reviving extinct species would require finding large portions of the original genetic material. For Pleistocene species, such as mammoths, cave bears, dire wolves, and even Neanderthals, soft tissue is available, and some scientists have even made efforts at sequencing. This frequently requires multiple samples, as no individual sample is likely to contain the full sequence of uncontaminated DNA. In Jurassic Park, gaps in dinosaur DNA were replaced with segments of frog DNA, but this is problematic because it assumes that the scientists knew which dinosaur genes corresponded to which frog genes they were splicing in. As genetics advances, it will become easier to make these guesses, although substantial portions of the original genetic material is still likely to be required. You might want to stick to theology because your knowledge in genetics seems rather lacking. >You might want to stick to theology because your knowledge in genetics seems rather lacking. It is, but genetics alone isn't enough to disprove many theological arguments, and science does not always conflict with religion. Could you show me a link to an article on this? It really looks interesting. >Reviving extinct species would require finding large portions of the original genetic material. I've read elsewhere that the main reason was due to this problem and a lack of a real egg cell to create the parent. Any thoughts on this explanation? I didn't really say that genetics disprove theological arguments, neither does evolution. But it is evidence for evolution and creates an alternative explanation of how complex beings have come to be like this. Here's the source: www.wisegeek.com/could-it-be-possible-to-revive-extinct-species-as-in-jur assic-park.htm >I didn't really say I'll take fault there, since that was just a hasty preparation for any potentially stupid stereotypes. Any thoughts on the possibility of regressing the evolutionary changes in order to emulate a large amount of DNA? | ||
| #839 - Nowhere in that verse does it say rape is okay. And m… [+] (4 new replies) | 04/28/2013 on The Religion Board | 0 |
| pretty sure that if I went out and killed someones family and city, then I steal her and hold her captive in my cellar, And then I shaved her head and pared her nails and took off her fucking dress, left her in my cellar for a month, and then had "relations" with her it would be rape. I mean I guess you could say that relations meant "get to know her" but in the context that is just absurd and even if you say "this isn't rape" it is worse than rape, in my opinion, to enslave a women for fucking life. gay people can "correct" themselves? are you fucking kidding me, it's not a disease they don't need "correcting". It says that gay people should be killed though I'm not saying it wouldn't be traumatizing, because it would be. No argument there. But if she consents, it's not rape. Here's a link that discusses the biblical view of rape in great detail: http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.html I'm not saying it's a disease, but if God condemns it, then it's wrong, and needs correcting. Keep in mind though, I agree that certain attractions are uncontrollable, but I don't think the Bible is referring to attraction to the same sex. It doesn't say it's a sin to get turned on by another dude, it just says having sex with them is. So when I say "correcting" I don't mean correcting the attraction, but rather the behavior (that is, refraining from homosexual relations). #852
-
thebritishguy (04/28/2013) [-] "But if she consents, it's not rape" well then she doesn't consent so it is rape God condemns a whole lot of shit but the fact that you are saying these people are wrong in the first place, to hate on people for the way they love is really fucked up, what kind of reasons do you give for these unjust views? where is the reasoning, evidence and intellect involved in this decision: "God doesn't like it" it's just Intellectual slavery. Who's the "she" you're referring to when you say "she doesn't consent"? All the women taken as wives against their will? Because the Bible doesn't say they didn't consent to sex. Just marriage. Regarding your picture I've developed some reasonings, some using sources and some based on my own interpretations: - Shaving was forbidden because of all the health benefits of having a beard, which are outlined in this link (yes, it's from an Islamic perspective, the irony is not lost on me): http://www.wonderfulinfo.com/islam/beardbenefits.php - Cursing is subjective except blasphemy. Of course God doesn't want people talking shit about Him. - Gossip (more specifically, slander) was forbidden because God knows nobody else wants people to talk shit about them either. - Football is a game. Yes it can be laboring, but it's purpose is for fun. It's not a violation of anything, even on the Sabbath. - Shellfish and pork are well known to make people sick even today, and back then it was much harder to make food safe to eat. God forbade it to preserve people's health. - Expositer's Bible Dictionary states: "The weaving of two kinds of material (wool and linen in Deuteronomy 22:11) may be a rule that would prevent loss by unequal shrinkage." - Period-boning is most likely forbidden so as to protect women from pain and disease. The source I have here says: "Menstruation frequently produces mild or even severe physical discomfort, and a woman's emotional condition at this time can be fragile. Moreover, medical science has shown that sex during menstruation poses a greater risk of tissue injury or infection to the woman, as well as of transmitting blood-borne disease from one partner to another." | ||
| #838 - Hitler created and perpetuated the Holocaust. If he had sudden… [+] (2 new replies) | 04/28/2013 on The Religion Board | 0 |
| | ||
| #798 - Thread ran out. Wait, but whether or not God exists c… [+] (2 new replies) | 04/27/2013 on The Religion Board | 0 |
| There's two things that I can pull off of the top of my head about this (and I'd rather close this conversation soon because it's just turning into my opinions and personal philosophy): 1) The individual's information they carry is what they "know". I think the film Men in Black summarized the problem with this dialogue: "Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet." 2) This means that anyone who has a reassured knowledge and reasoning for the existence of God (cosmological arguments, et cetera) needs not to fall back onto faith for the assurance of God's existence. | ||
| #796 - Wait, what's a gnostic theist? [+] (1 new reply) | 04/27/2013 on The Religion Board | 0 |
| Agnostic theist = does not know God exists, but relies on faith that He does. Gnostic theist = knows God exists Agnostic atheist = does not know God exists, but relies on faith that He does not. Gnostic theist = Knows that God does not exist There's image versions of this explanation, but I'm too lazy to get them. | ||
| #791 - Well I mean post-Jesus people. Jesus was the exposition, the m… [+] (3 new replies) | 04/27/2013 on The Religion Board | 0 |
| That's an excellent point, but I still disagree for the sake and worry of those who died after Jesus' ascension to heaven who were able to witness his events (though they may have been forgiven and blessed by Jesus in life). This also would mean that any gnostic theist is invalid for redemption because he would not have faith to be applied to, which is something I don't agree with. Agnostic theist = does not know God exists, but relies on faith that He does. Gnostic theist = knows God exists Agnostic atheist = does not know God exists, but relies on faith that He does not. Gnostic theist = Knows that God does not exist There's image versions of this explanation, but I'm too lazy to get them. | ||
| #119 - That lovely lady is Felicia Day, who starred in The Guild, si… | 04/27/2013 on Twins | 0 |
| #779 - No I know, I'm not arguing with you. I just didn't have much e… [+] (2 new replies) | 04/27/2013 on The Religion Board | +1 |
| | ||
| #776 - I guess. [+] (14 new replies) | 04/27/2013 on The Religion Board | +1 |
| #781
-
N. Korean citizen (04/27/2013) [-] what are you talking about? my account name is N. Korean citizen | ||
| #774 - See that makes me sad, because it implies that religious peopl… [+] (16 new replies) | 04/27/2013 on The Religion Board | +1 |
| #781
-
N. Korean citizen (04/27/2013) [-] what are you talking about? my account name is N. Korean citizen | ||
| #773 - I understand now. Thank you for explaining it. However, I stil… [+] (5 new replies) | 04/27/2013 on The Religion Board | 0 |
| I personally disagree with that latter statement because of the assumption that if faith was the only pillar of purification reasoning, then gnostic theists and prophets who talked with God or His messengers would be nullified. Well I mean post-Jesus people. Jesus was the exposition, the miracle worker that only some witnessed, and after He ascended to heaven, everything became faith-based. A lot of things are different in the Bible. Everyone knows that. Between the Old Testament and the New Testament, an entirely new religious system was born, and a lot of rules changed. Then the New Testament ended and everything became faith-based. That's an excellent point, but I still disagree for the sake and worry of those who died after Jesus' ascension to heaven who were able to witness his events (though they may have been forgiven and blessed by Jesus in life). This also would mean that any gnostic theist is invalid for redemption because he would not have faith to be applied to, which is something I don't agree with. Agnostic theist = does not know God exists, but relies on faith that He does. Gnostic theist = knows God exists Agnostic atheist = does not know God exists, but relies on faith that He does not. Gnostic theist = Knows that God does not exist There's image versions of this explanation, but I'm too lazy to get them. | ||
| #772 - I'm not the one judging, God is. When He says we are wicked He… [+] (4 new replies) | 04/27/2013 on The Religion Board | 0 |
| you said that it was right and I am not talking to God! you even went as far as to say you were wrong for thinking that it was wrong! you can't have the wrong opinions and it's very disturbing to me if you think these things are right! You aren't being saved either, it's like saying Hitler was a great guy and a saviour because he didn't kill gingers in the holocaust, is that insane? because that's how you sound | ||
| #27207 - He did not create humans to be gay , and the g-spot you're re… [+] (1 new reply) | 04/27/2013 on Religion Board | 0 |
| a penis's primary function is to piss. if God really hates gays then he shouldn't have made it so you can have an anal orgasm, or does he fuck up every now and then? he doesn't sound very omniscient to me. but it's un natural and you are fine with it, so stop saying something is wrong simply because it isn't natural or you're not using your organs for their primary purpose. well he fucked up because they do it to babies, are the babies loyal to him? no. They don't know who he is. 2500-2000 BC but the bible lists when the people were alive | ||
| #769 - Rape was never permitted in the Bible. Yes, men could take wom… [+] (6 new replies) | 04/27/2013 on The Religion Board | 0 |
| 7) Rape of Female Captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB) "When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion." "the only people God said to kill/enslave were wicked and unrighteous and beyond saving. " what like gay people? pretty sure that if I went out and killed someones family and city, then I steal her and hold her captive in my cellar, And then I shaved her head and pared her nails and took off her fucking dress, left her in my cellar for a month, and then had "relations" with her it would be rape. I mean I guess you could say that relations meant "get to know her" but in the context that is just absurd and even if you say "this isn't rape" it is worse than rape, in my opinion, to enslave a women for fucking life. gay people can "correct" themselves? are you fucking kidding me, it's not a disease they don't need "correcting". It says that gay people should be killed though I'm not saying it wouldn't be traumatizing, because it would be. No argument there. But if she consents, it's not rape. Here's a link that discusses the biblical view of rape in great detail: http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.html I'm not saying it's a disease, but if God condemns it, then it's wrong, and needs correcting. Keep in mind though, I agree that certain attractions are uncontrollable, but I don't think the Bible is referring to attraction to the same sex. It doesn't say it's a sin to get turned on by another dude, it just says having sex with them is. So when I say "correcting" I don't mean correcting the attraction, but rather the behavior (that is, refraining from homosexual relations). #852
-
thebritishguy (04/28/2013) [-] "But if she consents, it's not rape" well then she doesn't consent so it is rape God condemns a whole lot of shit but the fact that you are saying these people are wrong in the first place, to hate on people for the way they love is really fucked up, what kind of reasons do you give for these unjust views? where is the reasoning, evidence and intellect involved in this decision: "God doesn't like it" it's just Intellectual slavery. Who's the "she" you're referring to when you say "she doesn't consent"? All the women taken as wives against their will? Because the Bible doesn't say they didn't consent to sex. Just marriage. Regarding your picture I've developed some reasonings, some using sources and some based on my own interpretations: - Shaving was forbidden because of all the health benefits of having a beard, which are outlined in this link (yes, it's from an Islamic perspective, the irony is not lost on me): http://www.wonderfulinfo.com/islam/beardbenefits.php - Cursing is subjective except blasphemy. Of course God doesn't want people talking shit about Him. - Gossip (more specifically, slander) was forbidden because God knows nobody else wants people to talk shit about them either. - Football is a game. Yes it can be laboring, but it's purpose is for fun. It's not a violation of anything, even on the Sabbath. - Shellfish and pork are well known to make people sick even today, and back then it was much harder to make food safe to eat. God forbade it to preserve people's health. - Expositer's Bible Dictionary states: "The weaving of two kinds of material (wool and linen in Deuteronomy 22:11) may be a rule that would prevent loss by unequal shrinkage." - Period-boning is most likely forbidden so as to protect women from pain and disease. The source I have here says: "Menstruation frequently produces mild or even severe physical discomfort, and a woman's emotional condition at this time can be fragile. Moreover, medical science has shown that sex during menstruation poses a greater risk of tissue injury or infection to the woman, as well as of transmitting blood-borne disease from one partner to another." | ||
| #665 - Please elaborate. [+] (44 new replies) | 04/26/2013 on The Religion Board | +3 |
| The christian philosophy consists off. "accept this totalitarian unchallengable being without any evidence whatsoever because you where unable to live up to impossible standards" that's very childish and simplistic to me. Human beings and even simple organisms are much more complex than such a might is right philosophy. I, Jokeface, have never seen, in person, any evidence suggesting evolution is a coherent theory. The only reason I have to take it seriously at all is because I trust other people who have claimed to witness the evidence firsthand. Can you, Kanade, say anything more than that? If you can't, then what's wrong with me basing my faith on the accounts of other people who have claimed to witness the evidence firsthand? ....I study Ethology at the University of Utrecht, i've seen the evidence with my own eyes, i've tested it, falsified it, ect. It's really not that hard. Hell i didn't even accept evolution as a fact when i was younger because i never seen the evidence for myself. Anyone with a decent internet connection can look up verifiable evidence, hell even understanding the very basics of genetics and selection can already create a valid conclusion for the case of evolution. You base your faith on a book made by desert dwellers that thought the earth was geocentic and then without actually even attempting to question your belief with skepticism blindly accept the philosophy. And what evidence have you tested, falsified, etc? Have you ever seen fossils breed and create a new organism? I don't recall the Bible ever saying the Earth was geocentric. Though I haven't memorized it, so I'd welcome a rebuttal. And of course I have skepticism. That's why I changed my faith from fundamentalism to being open to the possibility theistic evolution. I'm not saying I'm fully on board with that theory, but I'm not rejecting it either. All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism. Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life. Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits. Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record. The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included. Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm. When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too. The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking. Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional. Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry. Speciation has been observed. As for geocentrism, i didn't state the bible claimed the world is geocentric although it could have i'm not a bible scholar i said that people during that time believed so because it was before galileo. It's precisely the perfection of the way genes are designed that makes it impossible for me to discard the idea of God. I cannot believe that any form of life could exist (evolved or otherwise) without God creating it. There are too many variables and improbabilities at play that make the chance of life occurring practically impossible. And okay, those arguments support evolution, but they still don't refute a designer. "There are too many variables and improbabilities at play that make the chance of life occurring practically impossible" Based on what? There is roughly 0.1 to 1 mutation per genome replication in viruses and 0.003 mutations per genome per replication in microbes. Mutation rates for higher organisms vary quite a bit between organisms, but excluding the parts of the genome in which most mutations are neutral (the junk DNA), the mutation rates are also roughly 0.003 per effective genome per cell replication. Since sexual reproduction involves many cell replications, humans have about 1.6 mutations per generation. This is likely an underestimate, because mutations with very small effect are easy to miss in the studies. Including neutral mutations, each human zygote has about 64 new mutations (Drake et al. 1998). Another estimate concludes 175 mutations per generation, including at least 3 deleterious mutations. It doesn't refute a designer, but it certainly refutes perfect design which is pretty weird considering god is all powerfull. What are the odds that a planet would appear that was the perfect distance from the sun? What are the odds that said planet would develop the atmosphere necessary to support life? What are the odds that the geography of said planet would form in a way that could support life? What are the odds that the proper molecules would come together to form cells? What are the odds that those cells would instinctively know how to survive and reproduce? For every single one of these things to happen the way they did, I can't possibly imagine God not having a hand in it. That's not at all what I just said. My point is that if there were no God...well first of all there would be no universe, but assuming the universe somehow birthed itself into existence, life could not form. The probability is too low. So the way the universe should look if there is no God is just stars and rocks. "the probability is too low" Says who? Considering there are over 70 sextillion stars and such a massive universe it is not such a big stretch that our tiny little speck just happened to have the right conditions compared to all the other massive places who happened not to. That's like with birth where there are over millions of little sperms but you out of all the sperms just happened to be lucky, which had to come from your father which again against all million sperms won and his father against all millions and so, so on, so on. Also it should be noted that scientists constantly find new planets where life is able to develop so it's not even that improbable. Cells don't just instictively know how to survive and reproduce, most cells didn't even instinctively do that which is why almost 3/4 of the evolutionary time it was mostly microorganisms, natural selection erased the cells that weren't able to adapt for survival and the smaller percentage of cells that do eventually did survive. Don't forget that the key point here is trial and error Ehh I'm still not convinced. Besides, even if we did hit that phenomenal lottery, that still doesn't explain self-awareness. You could argue that our body can sense physical surroundings by way of electrical impulses, but I don't believe electricity can create immaterial thoughts. If it were that simple, we'd be no more conscious than computers. I mean what's the difference between a human and a really advanced android? Both of them can calculate, communicate, and respond to external stimuli. But only one of them is actually cognizant. That's an impressive list, I'll give you that. If you don't mind, I'm going to group your statements into simplified arguments: >Lots of organisms look similar, so they must be related. To me that just shows that they're created by a single artist. >Fossil patterns indicate that current organisms descended from earlier ones. Or it could be that God created new organisms gradually as the planet's landscape changed, and the change resembles genetic relatedness when it fact it's just a portrait of God's design changing with the times. >Organisms share their DNA with other organisms. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. > DNA is full of unused genes that indicate former traits that are no longer necessary. Read: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html All you're doing is simplifying the arguments and then slap god on it, that's not how science works. We can determine that fossil patterns evolved because we can observe gradual patterns in genetic codes themself, just look at the dog breeding one for example, it's clear that god didn't just *poof* new breeds into existence, no they gradually evolved over time due to rearrangement of their genotypes. You say that because organism look similar they must be related, that's not what i said. Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life, we see fossils LITERALLY evolving to another species over time, with all the genetic, pantheological, arheological, biological evidence we can conclude that they indeed evolved, you can't just say "godidit" It has long been known that some noncoding DNA has important functions. (This was known even before the phrase "junk DNA" was coined.) so this article is useless. However, there is good evidence that much DNA has no function: Sections of DNA can be cut out or replaced with randomized sequences with no apparent effect on the organism (Nóbrega et al. 2004). Some sections of DNA are corrupted copies of functional coding DNA, but mutations in them, such as stop codons early in the sequence, show that they cannot have retained the same function as the coding copy. The fugu fish has a genome that is about one third as large as its close relatives. Mutations in functional regions of DNA show evidence of selection -- nonsilent changes occur less often that one would expect by chance. In other sections of DNA, there is no evidence that any changes are selected against. Next time when you cite sources you might want to try a source that isn't bias as fuck and has studied more than "genetics for dummies" You can't say you've "literally" seen fossils do anything. Fossils are dead. All you have are ideas of what the organism's did when they were alive. But you've never witnessed an organism giving birth to another organism of a different species. Dogs may be able to mate and create new breeds, but they're still dogs. Fruit flies may have been bred with the ability to count, but they're still fruit flies. I'm not saying organisms can't develop new traits, but that doesn't make me believe they changed species completely. And even if it's possible for them to change species, that doesn't mean God didn't create their respective ancestors. #893
-
kanade (04/28/2013) [-] Congrats, you've just one the scientifically ignorant idiot award. Maybe if you put down your fairy tales for a while and read some basic biology you might actually learn something. "You can't say you've "literally" seen fossils do anything" You can see clear gradual change in fossils just like you see clear gradual change in dog breeds, Evolution is not just extrapolated from observed microevolution; it is also interpolated from observed changes in the fossil record and from the pattern of observed similarities and differences between present species. If this wasn't evidence for common ancestry then it would've been disproven by science, but it's not. "But you've never witnessed an organism giving birth to another organism of a different species" It's really hard not to insult you but your ignorance is so massively outstanding that i fear for your future children, again the key word is GRADUAL CHANGE. A Homo Erectus doesn't give birth to a Homo Sapien, the species gradually change over a long period of time until it looks different from the previous ancestor just like in this graph the color red goes gradually through different changes until you can witness a complete different color. Furthermore speciation has been observed under laboratory conditions: scientists have successfully induced the evolution of new species that cannot breed with the original strains. So there's literally no reason for you to say god made the previous ancestors when god didn't *poof* other breeds from dogs and fruitflies either. I've given evidence that it was most likely common ancestry based on evidence for both micro and macro evolution that perfectly allign and make sense, if you still assume that it requires a designer you need to provide evidence that common ancestry is not possible and that god poofed all genetic mutations and rearrangements in existence. Also i refuted that source. I never said common ancestry is not possible, I said God was involved in spite of it being possible. Moreover, I even incorporated it into my realm of possible beliefs by offering the possibility of theistic evolution. And explain to me again what's wrong with that article's arguments. Please. Again if god is involved in it then where is your evidence, if you accept common ancestry, genetic mutations, dog breeding, micro-evolution and macro-evolution then you can also accept that god is not needed for this. So until you provide evidence to say that god was involved there is no reason for me to think that evolution is just a natural process. #882 to #867 - kanade ONLINE (6 hours ago) It has long been known that some noncoding DNA has important functions. (This was known even before the phrase "junk DNA" was coined.) so this article is useless. However, there is good evidence that much DNA has no function: - Sections of DNA can be cut out or replaced with randomized sequences with no apparent effect on the organism (Nóbrega et al. 2004). - Some sections of DNA are corrupted copies of functional coding DNA, but mutations in them, such as stop codons early in the sequence, show that they cannot have retained the same function as the coding copy. - The fugu fish has a genome that is about one third as large as its close relatives. - Mutations in functional regions of DNA show evidence of selection -- nonsilent changes occur less often that one would expect by chance. In other sections of DNA, there is no evidence that any changes are selected against. Insulting me isn't going to sway me. Okay, I get what you're saying, but that just brings us back to "Organisms look similar so they must be related." I hear what you're saying about gradual change, but I don't believe gradual change is enough evidence to assert evolution. As I said before, the gradual change could just be a change in God's design relative to the change in the Earth's environment. For example, God might have created dinosaurs at a time when the Earth was suitable to sustain dinosaurs, and as time went on, He created them smaller and better-adapted for the planet's ever-changing landscape. Now we're getting into the area of theistic evolution, which I've said countless times is something I'm open to believing in. Again, I don't doubt that evolution is possible, but I don't necessarily believe it's the origin of all life. I believe life was created by God, and evolution became an option. No i'm not saying organisms look similar therefor they must be related, i'm saying that observed changes in the fossil record and from the pattern of observed similarities and differences between present species along with perfectly alligned genetic codes, the fact that we can observe evolution happening today, the fact that species HAVE evolved today and the fact that god didn't *poof* previous dog breeds into existence is overwhelming evidence for common ancestry. If you think god did all that you need to show me EVIDENCE that he did, you can't just take the evidence and then say it's not evidence because it could have a different explanation based on your own stupidity. By your logic i can disprove the relativity theory because it could be that the flying spaghetti monster is holding us all on the ground and that's why we don't float away. Or say that footprints of horses could be footprints of unicorns. And that is what religion is, just a bunch of psuedoscientific fairy tale stories that fail to meet the scientific method and just hang on a childish dishonest idea of faith without evidence. Say there was a lake containing really big fish. Then say the landscape changed causing the lake to shrink, and the big fish couldn't survive in it. God might create new, smaller fish that could fit in the lake more comfortably. Now say the landscape changed again, causing the lake to get so small that even the small fish couldn't survive in it. God might create amphibious creatures that could survive outside the lake. Now you have fossils of three creatures, all seemingly related because of a similar habitat as well as a common designer. An advocate of evolution would say the fish evolved, but a creationist would say that God gradually changed the design of the creature to fit the landscape. And the evidence I have for that is the same evidence you have for evolution. Just from a different perspective. That's an interesting example only again it's bullshit because it's not based on evidence. You need to provide evidence that god constantly changed these animals, i need to provide evidence that animals gradually change over a long period of time. I've given the evidence, i've clearly shown that animals right now evolve and i've shown evidence that we share common ancestry. Again it's like saying that you got evidence that the spaghetti monster holds us down because of gravity, that's NOT evidence, it's not demonstrable, it's not falsifiable, you rely on a fairy tale. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html It's quite a long read so it might take you a while, assuming you won't just ignore it and cover your ears. Yes, and you're evidence is very good and considerable, but it's just a symptom, not a diagnosis. The question is of whether or not the trends and similarities and gradual changes are indicative of common ancestry or common designer.You're not giving me reason to believe either. All you're saying is that they have trends and similarities and gradual change, but that doesn't mean anything for either of our arguments because it supports both of them. >gradual patterns in genetic codes themself If we could easily confirm the genetic codes of many fossilized organisms, then I'm pretty sure that we would have at least one clone of some of them (dinosaurs, precursor to wolves). Scientists have successfully isolated DNA from a 120-135-million-year-old weevil found in Lebanese amber, amplified it using polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and sequenced it. Not its entire genetic code, but portions thereof. This genetic information has been compared with modern weevils for phylogenetic analysis. This is not the revival of extinct species, but it's a very important step in that direction. Reviving extinct species would require finding large portions of the original genetic material. For Pleistocene species, such as mammoths, cave bears, dire wolves, and even Neanderthals, soft tissue is available, and some scientists have even made efforts at sequencing. This frequently requires multiple samples, as no individual sample is likely to contain the full sequence of uncontaminated DNA. In Jurassic Park, gaps in dinosaur DNA were replaced with segments of frog DNA, but this is problematic because it assumes that the scientists knew which dinosaur genes corresponded to which frog genes they were splicing in. As genetics advances, it will become easier to make these guesses, although substantial portions of the original genetic material is still likely to be required. You might want to stick to theology because your knowledge in genetics seems rather lacking. >You might want to stick to theology because your knowledge in genetics seems rather lacking. It is, but genetics alone isn't enough to disprove many theological arguments, and science does not always conflict with religion. Could you show me a link to an article on this? It really looks interesting. >Reviving extinct species would require finding large portions of the original genetic material. I've read elsewhere that the main reason was due to this problem and a lack of a real egg cell to create the parent. Any thoughts on this explanation? I didn't really say that genetics disprove theological arguments, neither does evolution. But it is evidence for evolution and creates an alternative explanation of how complex beings have come to be like this. Here's the source: www.wisegeek.com/could-it-be-possible-to-revive-extinct-species-as-in-jur assic-park.htm >I didn't really say I'll take fault there, since that was just a hasty preparation for any potentially stupid stereotypes. Any thoughts on the possibility of regressing the evolutionary changes in order to emulate a large amount of DNA? | ||
#535
-
josieabby (04/13/2013) [-]
I just wanted you to know that your "Thrift Shop" thread with taxation was one of the most epic things I've ever seen. I put the song on so I could sing your lyrics over it. I'm gonna have a perma-grin for at least a week!
She was supposed to come up a few weeks ago but she never did. And I finally got fed up with not being able to see her, and so I put our relationship on hold until she comes up here. I'd go down to see her myself but I live on my own now and have a bunch of expenses that prevent me from being able to.
#475 to #474
-
thebritishguy (03/17/2013) [-]
uuum like scared that world war 3 will begin or the civilians of North Korea will be nuked like Hiroshima , they have connections with Russia and China and have the fourth biggest military, Kim Jong Un told his troops to prepare for war and they always do nuclear weapon testing. On the other hand South Korea thinks they are just trying to get attention and trying to look big.
And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. - Matthew 24:6-7
I'm a little nervous of how it might affect people on a personal level, yes. But I know it's coming and I've accepted that fact, because as Jesus said, the end is not yet.
I'm a little nervous of how it might affect people on a personal level, yes. But I know it's coming and I've accepted that fact, because as Jesus said, the end is not yet.
hmmm this supports my psycho analysis of the God delusion.
"When people make decisions they use their Ego to decide what to do, the ego is where morality comes from and is sometimes called the "soul" according to Frued. When people base their morality and decisions based on what they think a God says the God becomes the ego. This is supported by the fact people ignore/highlight certain verses and lessons if they agree/disagree with them rather than getting a true perspective of the characters to keep the character as their ego rather than having to separate God from ego. It is also supported by people using words like "reject" and why religious people are so protective of their Gods and are personally insulted when people criticise their Gods. Also the emotions they feel when some theists talk to atheists are similar to those of rejection, when an atheist doesn't believe in God they are not rejecting the proposed God and yet they use that word, it seems to me that they use the word reject because they feel they are being rejected"
"When people make decisions they use their Ego to decide what to do, the ego is where morality comes from and is sometimes called the "soul" according to Frued. When people base their morality and decisions based on what they think a God says the God becomes the ego. This is supported by the fact people ignore/highlight certain verses and lessons if they agree/disagree with them rather than getting a true perspective of the characters to keep the character as their ego rather than having to separate God from ego. It is also supported by people using words like "reject" and why religious people are so protective of their Gods and are personally insulted when people criticise their Gods. Also the emotions they feel when some theists talk to atheists are similar to those of rejection, when an atheist doesn't believe in God they are not rejecting the proposed God and yet they use that word, it seems to me that they use the word reject because they feel they are being rejected"
Quite insightful. However allow me to make a few counterarguments.
From the perspective of someone who believes God exists as described in the Bible, consider that such a being would indeed have dominion over morality and, yes, even the ego of those who choose to submit to Him. That being said, can you really blame us for it?
As for your point about verses, understand that I don't ignore any of the Bible. At most, I don't apply the laws that Jesus and Paul said are no longer relevant. It's like studying slavery. We don't have slaves anymore, but that doesn't stop us from learning about the slavery that existed years and years ago. In the same way, some parts of the Bible, such as Mosaic Law, are now obsolete, but that doesn't stop us from learning about it.
Lastly, I don't think that's entirely why theists react the way they do to atheists. Because that would imply that theists view atheists as the "popular kids" and they feel excluded from them. Such is not the case. I mean, that might be said for some people, but speaking for myself and many others, being a theist among atheists is more like being in a special club with amazing benefits, and you can invite as many people as you want, but nobody else wants to join. And it hurts, yes, but not because we feel rejected; Rather, we're simply disappointed that no one else wants to share in our joy.
From the perspective of someone who believes God exists as described in the Bible, consider that such a being would indeed have dominion over morality and, yes, even the ego of those who choose to submit to Him. That being said, can you really blame us for it?
As for your point about verses, understand that I don't ignore any of the Bible. At most, I don't apply the laws that Jesus and Paul said are no longer relevant. It's like studying slavery. We don't have slaves anymore, but that doesn't stop us from learning about the slavery that existed years and years ago. In the same way, some parts of the Bible, such as Mosaic Law, are now obsolete, but that doesn't stop us from learning about it.
Lastly, I don't think that's entirely why theists react the way they do to atheists. Because that would imply that theists view atheists as the "popular kids" and they feel excluded from them. Such is not the case. I mean, that might be said for some people, but speaking for myself and many others, being a theist among atheists is more like being in a special club with amazing benefits, and you can invite as many people as you want, but nobody else wants to join. And it hurts, yes, but not because we feel rejected; Rather, we're simply disappointed that no one else wants to share in our joy.
#481 to #478
-
thebritishguy (03/18/2013) [-]
so then why would God make the morality so different? all of our morals are different and change over time, if I was born in the 60's I would probably have different morals than I do now, if I was born in Afghanistan I would have different morals, therefore morality must be something we learn to an extent (we all share common morals like murder, lying and stealing is wrong) rather than God given and also this would intrude on free will. When you think of God I'm sure you don't think about when he ordered the deaths of millions of people or the time he sent bears to kill children for making fun of a bald guy but you pay attention to all the nice verses or like how you ignore the part in the bible were Jesus said to give away all your money or that for some odd reason God dislikes ordinary things that you probably do every day.
I'm not implying theists desperately want atheists to like them I'm saying that when I say "God is a dictator" people start saying I personally attacked them when I didn't
I'm not implying theists desperately want atheists to like them I'm saying that when I say "God is a dictator" people start saying I personally attacked them when I didn't
What you say about common morals is true, and those are the ones which I believe God instills in us. But it's not an intrusion on free will because the morality God gives us is just instinct, and we have the freedom to either give in or resist that instinct. And I do think about everything in the Bible (or at least, everything I can remember, since I haven't been able to memorize all of it). I know God did some crazy shit in the past, but that doesn't take away from the importance of His words now. We don't ignore any of it. Or at least, the Christians I know don't ignore any of it. I'm sure there are some who do but I don't condone it. God gave us the entire Bible so that we could learn from the entire Bible.
I would have thought your morals would have come from the bible as you don't think sex before marriage is good for instance. Well I have never heard about all the horrible and contradictory things in the bible at Sunday school or in church I only heard about the nice (well they cartooned it to make it seem nice) stuff and how God was great. Never heard about the rape, incest, slavery, stoning, homophobia, sexism etc. until I became and atheist. do you know how the bible was written?
Some of it. I know the first five books (called the Pentateuch) were written by Moses. I don't remember who write the rest of the Old Testament. The Four Gospels were written by their namesakes: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John the Apostle. Acts was written by Luke, and Paul wrote the 21 Epistles. And Revelation was written by John the Apostle. It was completed almost 150 years after Jesus' death (about AD 150).
They are the scriptures. The first Christians needed a book to read to their people so they all met up and have a long conversation about which books to add and which ones to exclude based on what they wanted to teach. The first Christians already burnt a few scriptures which are amusing (there was one were Jesus tamed dragons) but they complied them together and then gave them to really good authors to edit so that they all fit together. there's a documentary on it
http://www(.)youtube(.)com/watch?v=phyN5tWUIUI
http://www(.)youtube(.)com/watch?v=phyN5tWUIUI
It seems Thebritishguy is quite intrusive on your profil, would you consider as him a friend or as more of a rivle?
He is what I call a "lost one". I feel no enmity toward him, but rather sadness at his adamant stance against the faith. However, he seems intelligent and his debate style is intellectually stimulating, so I imagine he would be fun to talk to about other issues, even if we disagree on those as well.
I am more moral than God, I believe no one deserves to be burnt alive for eternity, slavery is wrong, we should all be treated equal, witches don't...wait witches don't even exist, I'm not homophobic , I am against genocide, I don't demand constant worship, I don't threaten people so they agree with me. Surely you are also more moral than God?
To say God is anything less than perfect is to say that He doesn't meet the "proper" standards of decency. And if that's the case, then I have to ask, who has set the proper standards? Certainly no human. We're all flawed. So who are we to decide what's right or wrong? God is without flaw because there is no one to set standards for Him. Therefore only He can set standards, and if He is the standard, then anyone who doesn't match Him is wrong. Ergo, He is perfect.
God is above the laws He sets for humanity. He is not bound to follow them, and even so, they can't really be applied to His actions for certain reasons.
Godly wrath is not the same as the sinful wrath, because He has every right to bring judgment upon us. As I said, He's perfect, so his wrath is justified, whereas ours is hypocritical.
The reason He doesn't want us to worship other gods is because He knows they are not real and therefore our worship of them is wasteful, as well as disrespectful to Him, the one true God whom we should be worshiping.
God was never idle, except for on the last day of the week of Creation, and it wasn't because He was tired or lazy, it was because He was setting a model for all of humanity to live by.
People do not hunger because God deprives them, but because we do. As agents of Christ we are called to help our fellow man, and if people starve because we fail to feed them, that's on us, not God. It's one of the duties we accepted when we chose to fall away from Him.
Once again, being perfect, He has every right to advertise Himself as such and demand people to worship. When He condemns humans for being prideful it's because we don't have anything to be proud of by His standards. Maybe by our own, but since we're not the standard, our own self-satisfaction doesn't count as praise-worthy.
God commands us to give to the poor and needy, not to Him. That is not greed.
He is not lustful, either. Lust would mean He gets sexually aroused, which He doesn't. I think whoever made this list just got to lust and couldn't think of anything so they just threw that one in their without much thought.
Godly wrath is not the same as the sinful wrath, because He has every right to bring judgment upon us. As I said, He's perfect, so his wrath is justified, whereas ours is hypocritical.
The reason He doesn't want us to worship other gods is because He knows they are not real and therefore our worship of them is wasteful, as well as disrespectful to Him, the one true God whom we should be worshiping.
God was never idle, except for on the last day of the week of Creation, and it wasn't because He was tired or lazy, it was because He was setting a model for all of humanity to live by.
People do not hunger because God deprives them, but because we do. As agents of Christ we are called to help our fellow man, and if people starve because we fail to feed them, that's on us, not God. It's one of the duties we accepted when we chose to fall away from Him.
Once again, being perfect, He has every right to advertise Himself as such and demand people to worship. When He condemns humans for being prideful it's because we don't have anything to be proud of by His standards. Maybe by our own, but since we're not the standard, our own self-satisfaction doesn't count as praise-worthy.
God commands us to give to the poor and needy, not to Him. That is not greed.
He is not lustful, either. Lust would mean He gets sexually aroused, which He doesn't. I think whoever made this list just got to lust and couldn't think of anything so they just threw that one in their without much thought.
God never condoned slavery, "witches" in the Bible are referring to people like Wiccans and others who practice magic (that is, magic that is taken seriously, not magic tricks), God doesn't fear anyone or anything so He cannot be homophobic, and frankly it doesn't matter what your personal opinions are because just because you disagree doesn't make you right. God's word is infallible and His doctrines are perfect. No human can ever be more moral than God. Hell, no human can ever be as moral as God.
#431 to #430
-
thebritishguy (03/12/2013) [-]
The bible never says anything about it not being real which is kind of fucking important seeing as millions of innocent people were killed because they were "witches". You know that homophobic doesn't mean scared lol it means you hate gay people. If you think it is perfect then go burn a witch! oh no wait you aren't going to do that you are going to ignore it like all the rest of the bible, if you thought it was perfect you would live by it, you would sell your computer and give the money to charity like Jesus said.
Obviously it can't be talking about real witches since humans can't do magic unless God gives them powers, and the only people He gave powers to were the Disciples.
And God doesn't hate gay people, He loves everyone.
And we're not ignoring the Bible, in fact, paying closer attention to it is exactly why we don't follow Mosaic Law. Because Jesus and Paul both clarified that it wasn't required after the Crucifixion.
And God doesn't hate gay people, He loves everyone.
And we're not ignoring the Bible, in fact, paying closer attention to it is exactly why we don't follow Mosaic Law. Because Jesus and Paul both clarified that it wasn't required after the Crucifixion.
Jesus also said to sell everything and give it to the poor and a rich man can't get into heaven. the question is whether God is a moral person, he said homosexual acts are an abomination and you should kill them. If the writers of the bible didn't believe in witches why the fuck didn't they say they didn't exist and it wasn't real? instead they had loads of rules on witchcraft, it's not like there was a word limit. don't be the interpreter
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLOUWl-L-s
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLOUWl-L-s
God didn't adopt the attitudes of men, men adopted the attitudes of God.
And it doesn't matter if God is benevolent or not, because it doesn't change the way the system works. We worship Jesus so we can go to heaven, or else we go to hell. That's a fact, regardless of whether or not God appeals to your personal preferences.
And yes, I know you don't believe in Him anyway, but for the sake of argument, let's say God revealed Himself to everyone, to the point where He could not be denied by anyone, and He confirmed to us that everything in the Bible is an accurate depiction of both Him and the afterlife. Are you going to sit there and tell me that you would accept eternity in hell just because God doesn't base all His decisions around what you think they should be?
And it doesn't matter if God is benevolent or not, because it doesn't change the way the system works. We worship Jesus so we can go to heaven, or else we go to hell. That's a fact, regardless of whether or not God appeals to your personal preferences.
And yes, I know you don't believe in Him anyway, but for the sake of argument, let's say God revealed Himself to everyone, to the point where He could not be denied by anyone, and He confirmed to us that everything in the Bible is an accurate depiction of both Him and the afterlife. Are you going to sit there and tell me that you would accept eternity in hell just because God doesn't base all His decisions around what you think they should be?
I'm sure they did have those attitudes before the Bible was written, but what I'm saying is, the authors that wrote those things in the Bible only wrote them because God told them to. It doesn't matter what their personal feelings were, even if they agreed with them. That wasn't their motive. And if you admit that you would worship God out of blind fear then how can you judge us for doing the same?
I wouldn't say it was blind fear why Christians worship God, but there is barely any evidence for God. What I'm saying is do you think it's a coincidence that a benevolent and just God had the same attitudes as the homophobic slave owners of thousands of years ago? If he is real then those homophobic slave owners were perfect and should carry on fucking slaves. However it is really obvious that it was those people who wrote the book so they could justify having sex and beating their slaves among other things
God never said we should have slaves, and neither did the Bible. The most we're told about slaves is that if you are a slave, you should be kind and obedient to your master, because violent rebellion would be sinful. That's a commandment for the slave, not the slave owner.
#506 to #505
-
thebritishguy (03/24/2013) [-]
just ignore the Old Testament why don't you
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
I would argue religion is slavery as shown in this picture
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
I would argue religion is slavery as shown in this picture
stock·holm syn·drome
Noun
Feelings of trust or affection felt in many cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim toward a captor.
regardless of whether you follow it or not it is written in the bible and supposedly said by your God, my point still stands. Also the New Testament never says that slavery is wrong it says slaves should be good so it is on the side of the slave masters
Noun
Feelings of trust or affection felt in many cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim toward a captor.
regardless of whether you follow it or not it is written in the bible and supposedly said by your God, my point still stands. Also the New Testament never says that slavery is wrong it says slaves should be good so it is on the side of the slave masters
Yea, there's a lot of names that make it sound bad, but the fact is that we're perfectly adjusted and functional, so there's nothing wrong with having faith. Submission to God has no negative impacts on a person's life. All it does is ensure our place in heaven after we die.
it had a bad impact on my life, I used to cry because I thought millions of people will be or are burning in hell, I find it quite bizarre that no body else seems to care. I used to feel guilty for doing normal things like fapping. Stockholm syndrome originated when hostages defended their captor. Their reasoning was that he was good because he didn't kill or beat them and they loved him because he didn't abuse them physically, this is very similar to religion.
I don't know what you mean by "nobody else seems to care." As Christians we care a great deal about the dangers of hell and naturally we aim to save as many people as possible from it. As for fapping, the Bible doesn't actually say anything about it. A lot of people like to reference some quote about it being better for your seed to fall into the belly of a whore than on the ground, but that's never mentioned in the Bible. As for the Stockholm Syndrome, I understand the connection your making, but the difference is that in that situation the kidnapper has done something bad by kidnapping the person. God's done nothing wrong to us. He's only done good and perfect things. He's not a villain, He's a hero.
#529 to #521
-
thebritishguy (03/25/2013) [-]
so when I burn alive it is justice? you ass hole! you need to get therapy for your severe Stockholm syndrome. It is like Jesus is your abusive boyfriend and he has told you that you are a piece of shit and worthless and disgusting but if you love him you are good. It is the same tactics abusive partners use to manipulate and control people
I just want you to realise common tactics religions use to control people and that your God isn't a cool dude he is a controlling dictator. come on man if someone sends people to burn and be tortured for eternity and you think they're perfect something is wrong with you
"There's nothing wrong with faith."
Sure, but it goes against the scientific nature of humans.
Our society exists on the structure of scientific discoveries, which is the exact opposite of faith. Faith is "idunoo lol, but i believe in it" while science takes a more reasonable approach forming extremely good hypothesis', testing them, making sure everything fits right.
I'm not saying your belief is completely wrong, I'm just saying it has absolutely no value to society in our era..
Sure, but it goes against the scientific nature of humans.
Our society exists on the structure of scientific discoveries, which is the exact opposite of faith. Faith is "idunoo lol, but i believe in it" while science takes a more reasonable approach forming extremely good hypothesis', testing them, making sure everything fits right.
I'm not saying your belief is completely wrong, I'm just saying it has absolutely no value to society in our era..
I'm not saying the Bible doesn't have graphic and frightening things in it, because it does. I'm saying that the things we're supposed to be doing (covered thoroughly in the New Testament) are all good. Most of the violence and objectionable stuff is in the Old Testament, but we're not supposed to be doing that stuff.
1. Near-death experiences have easily been explained, not to mention people in those times had no scientific knowledge. That's why the Greeks thought earthquakes were caused by a guy shaking his head..
2. Not explaining, too much trouble.
3. The bible has tons of immoral stuff in it. Now, you can easily bullshit your way through it and ignore the fact it's got a ton of disgusting stuff in it and claim all it's goodness even though I could fucking do it to just about any piece of literature..
2. Not explaining, too much trouble.
3. The bible has tons of immoral stuff in it. Now, you can easily bullshit your way through it and ignore the fact it's got a ton of disgusting stuff in it and claim all it's goodness even though I could fucking do it to just about any piece of literature..
#459 to #458
-
say (03/13/2013) [-]
Imma christian, and I say just be a good person and serve your brothers (be a nice guy) whenever you have the option to be a dick instead, do what's right and you're good.
Also you gotta remember, the book was written by a bunch of old guys 2000+ years ago. they were wise, very, very, wise, but they lived in a time period where certain things that should be acceptable today weren't back then due to man made culture and beliefs, not god based, like being gay.
Also you gotta remember, the book was written by a bunch of old guys 2000+ years ago. they were wise, very, very, wise, but they lived in a time period where certain things that should be acceptable today weren't back then due to man made culture and beliefs, not god based, like being gay.
I agree with loving your brother and refraining from being a dick, yes. That's something Jesus said was very important. But He said loving Him was just as important, if not more so.
And also, remember that those men were directly inspired by God. He put the words in their hearts and commanded them to write them down. Aside form the outdated Mosaic Law, there weren't really any commandments that lost their relevance. The only one I can think of is the one about women teaching. I researched that one and yes that one was relevant to both the current time period as well as the current place Paul was was speaking to. For reference, I invite you to go to this link:
http://godswordtowomen.org/fees.htm
...and Ctrl+F the phrase: "Scripture is Finally Explained". Those couple paragraphs give a very clear and insightful meaning of the verse.
And also, remember that those men were directly inspired by God. He put the words in their hearts and commanded them to write them down. Aside form the outdated Mosaic Law, there weren't really any commandments that lost their relevance. The only one I can think of is the one about women teaching. I researched that one and yes that one was relevant to both the current time period as well as the current place Paul was was speaking to. For reference, I invite you to go to this link:
http://godswordtowomen.org/fees.htm
...and Ctrl+F the phrase: "Scripture is Finally Explained". Those couple paragraphs give a very clear and insightful meaning of the verse.
Jesus told one man to sell everything he had to follow Him. He wasn't saying every human should sell everything they own. And nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to kill homosexuals. All it says is that they shall be put to death. It doesn't say we are the ones who should put them to death. It means God will kill their souls. And we know this is the case because Jesus said not to kill anyone, and killing the gays would contradict this. So death of the spirit is the only possible way to interpret it.
yes, killing the gays contradicts it, there are loads of contradictions in the bible, it says to kill loads of different people, I think we have had this conversation before it never says anything about the soul your just making shit up it also says that their blood shall be upon them but if God was taking their soul there would be no blood. He said a rich man won't enter heaven and he says on a number of occasions to sell your stuff and give to the poor, did you watch the video?
Okay, I watched it. I'll concede to the thing about selling your possessions, but I still don't think He meant literally. Remember when He went into the temple and got angry at the people who were buying and selling there, and He started flipping tables and shit? I think if He really wanted us to literally sell all our possessions, then He would be flipping tables every place He went. He'd always be scrutinizing people for owning things. No, what I think He means is to not let the possessions become more important than your loyalty to Him. That is, don't sell them from your ownership, but rather sell them from your heart. Let go of them spiritually, so that they don't prevent you from following Him.
The other part of the video I'll address is the thing about abolishing the old laws. Let me break it down for you:
Jesus said "I have not come to abolish [the old laws] but to fulfill them." What He means is that His arrival on Earth does not cancel or nullify the laws. They're still in place even though He has arrived, and because he is the Son of God, only He can fulfill them, because man is imperfect and can never fulfill the law. However, He goes on to say that nothing about the laws will change "until all is accomplished." What do you think He's referring to? I'll give you a hint: What did He come to Earth to do besides fulfill the law? He came to die. And right before He breathed His last breath, His last words were: "It is finished." That was it. That was Him declaring that the old law was obsolete and the new law would begin.
Then later in Galatians, the Apostle Paul write about how violation of the law no longer condemns us because Christ died to sanctify us in spite of sin: "[We] know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified...I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"
The other part of the video I'll address is the thing about abolishing the old laws. Let me break it down for you:
Jesus said "I have not come to abolish [the old laws] but to fulfill them." What He means is that His arrival on Earth does not cancel or nullify the laws. They're still in place even though He has arrived, and because he is the Son of God, only He can fulfill them, because man is imperfect and can never fulfill the law. However, He goes on to say that nothing about the laws will change "until all is accomplished." What do you think He's referring to? I'll give you a hint: What did He come to Earth to do besides fulfill the law? He came to die. And right before He breathed His last breath, His last words were: "It is finished." That was it. That was Him declaring that the old law was obsolete and the new law would begin.
Then later in Galatians, the Apostle Paul write about how violation of the law no longer condemns us because Christ died to sanctify us in spite of sin: "[We] know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified...I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"
I saw a documentary about it, I think they wanted to make it clear that they were different from the Jews so that's why they had certain elements, don't you think it's a coincidence that your God had the same attitudes towards thing like homosexuality and women as the people who wrote the bible?
Everyone deserves eternity in hell because everyone has turned away from God. It doesn't matter what's "sane" by your standards. God made a decision. There's no questioning it, no challenging it, no arguing it. We follow Him or we go to hell. That's it. There's nothing to discuss. Just decide if you prefer heaven or hell. It's simple.
#387
-
thebritishguy (03/04/2013) [-]
I might become a Buddhist, I don't know I have been reading a book on it and it seems pretty cool, but I won't believe in re incarnation. Pastafarianism was fun for a while but I seem to be losing faith in a carbohydrate based deity...I can't feel his noodley appendages holding me down anymore R'Amen
Buddhism is an admirable philosophy but it deceives you about the afterlife and the true God. It would be good to apply some of its principles to a Christian lifestyle (such as letting go of desire, being nonviolent, etc.) but any belief that does not focus on Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior is wrong and will lead to suffering.
#393 to #388
-
thebritishguy (03/04/2013) [-]
like the belief in Jesus has not caused suffering, Buddhism has no God you don't worship anyone but some cultures have there own separate Gods which they include into Buddhism. The statement that believing in any other religion will cause suffering is frankly wrong and nothing more than an idea supported by your opinion.
you don't know or even have any evidence what you say is the truth, if you were born in India you would be saying the same thing about there God, if you were born in Afghanistan you would be saying the same thing about Allah, religion isn't innate it is geographic
I've heard of the show but I haven't watched it. However I did see the movie so I know what it's about. Coincidentally, the main guy in that movie looks so much like me it's eerie. And no, we haven't webcammed, but we've spoken on the phone so I at least know she's a girl. She also has videos of herself on Facebook, so I can match the voice to the face in the pictures.
Since we waited like 10h by now, what is your ''severed arm analogy''?
I just got back to my computer and answered on the board. But to reiterate:
Suppose a person donates their arm to science. The arm is connected to a machine that simulates a heart, pumping clean blood through the arm to keep the tissue alive. Then suppose someone damages the arm in such away that the tissue dies. A bunch of living, human tissue. So is this person guilty of murder?
Suppose a person donates their arm to science. The arm is connected to a machine that simulates a heart, pumping clean blood through the arm to keep the tissue alive. Then suppose someone damages the arm in such away that the tissue dies. A bunch of living, human tissue. So is this person guilty of murder?
Best of luck with your net girlfriend, hope you get some righteous sex.
Jesus and God are hilariously similar to an abusive boyfriends
www.lfcc.on.ca/HCT_SWASM_4.html
www.lfcc.on.ca/HCT_SWASM_4.html
Okay, let's see...He doesn't verbally abuse us...doesn't control our money...doesn't isolate us...He's never been cruel to anyone...so we can rule out "Controlling" as a characteristic. I'd say He's more influential, seeing as His teachings and requisites can certainly impact people, though He doesn't force them on anyone.
He does have special rights but He sure as hell earned them by saving us. Nothing He demands are unreasonable and in fact we're getting much more than we deserve out of the deal. He's never violent either. So "Entitlement" isn't really applicable except for the fact that He has indeed earned what He asks of us.
"Selfishness and Self-centeredness" sure doesn't fit, since His sacrifice was entirely selfless, and His choice of inviting us into His kingdom is hugely charitable and not self-centered at all.
He holds no contempt for anyone. Contempt for sin, yes, but not for people. We're all loved infinitely by Christ. So "Superiority" doesn't apply.
He never claimed we were His possessions. He gives us full freedom from Himself. When He asked a rich man to give up all his wealth to follow Him and the rich man chose to turn Him down, Jesus never pressured Him. He just let Him go. Following Him is our choice, not His. So no "Possessiveness".
Again, He's never been violent. Unless you count flipping the tables at the temple, but He wasn't hurting people there, just making a mess. So He doesn't "Confuse Love and Abuse."
"Manipulativeness"...Nope. Not by this definition. Nothing He says is confusing or distorting, and He never lies.
He's not "Contradictory" either. He always practiced what He preached, and all of His teachings are clear and straightforward.
I don't understand how He could be "Externalizing Responsibility" either. This thing talks about shifting blame, but Jesus was blameless. Pure of all sin.
And "Denial" doesn't apply because as I've been making quite clear throughout this list, Jesus has no guilt to deny. He was, and still is, perfect.
He does have special rights but He sure as hell earned them by saving us. Nothing He demands are unreasonable and in fact we're getting much more than we deserve out of the deal. He's never violent either. So "Entitlement" isn't really applicable except for the fact that He has indeed earned what He asks of us.
"Selfishness and Self-centeredness" sure doesn't fit, since His sacrifice was entirely selfless, and His choice of inviting us into His kingdom is hugely charitable and not self-centered at all.
He holds no contempt for anyone. Contempt for sin, yes, but not for people. We're all loved infinitely by Christ. So "Superiority" doesn't apply.
He never claimed we were His possessions. He gives us full freedom from Himself. When He asked a rich man to give up all his wealth to follow Him and the rich man chose to turn Him down, Jesus never pressured Him. He just let Him go. Following Him is our choice, not His. So no "Possessiveness".
Again, He's never been violent. Unless you count flipping the tables at the temple, but He wasn't hurting people there, just making a mess. So He doesn't "Confuse Love and Abuse."
"Manipulativeness"...Nope. Not by this definition. Nothing He says is confusing or distorting, and He never lies.
He's not "Contradictory" either. He always practiced what He preached, and all of His teachings are clear and straightforward.
I don't understand how He could be "Externalizing Responsibility" either. This thing talks about shifting blame, but Jesus was blameless. Pure of all sin.
And "Denial" doesn't apply because as I've been making quite clear throughout this list, Jesus has no guilt to deny. He was, and still is, perfect.
Jesus lied a lot, you really need to look at this website more mate
www.evilbible.com/Jesus_Lied.htm
www.evilbible.com/Jesus_Lied.htm
1. The key word being faith. Humans are capable of immense amount of faith, but no one can truly trust God infinitely as Jesus did. Therefore, no one can harness His power (except the Disciples to some degree).
2. He's referring to His grace. If you seek the grace of Christ, He will save you. But if not, then you will never receive it. Plain and simple.
3. I don't understand how that one is a lie.
4. This one could be answered with my response to #1.
5. Same as #2.
6. I had to read the chapter this came from for context. It appears He's referring to the Disciples. Like I said, they were able to pull off some crazy Jesus shit themselves.
7. God makes all things possible through the works of nature and people. Whatever you want, if you believe in Christ, He will make it reachable in one way or another.
8. See #7.
9. See #1 yet again. Or #7. They both fit.
2. He's referring to His grace. If you seek the grace of Christ, He will save you. But if not, then you will never receive it. Plain and simple.
3. I don't understand how that one is a lie.
4. This one could be answered with my response to #1.
5. Same as #2.
6. I had to read the chapter this came from for context. It appears He's referring to the Disciples. Like I said, they were able to pull off some crazy Jesus shit themselves.
7. God makes all things possible through the works of nature and people. Whatever you want, if you believe in Christ, He will make it reachable in one way or another.
8. See #7.
9. See #1 yet again. Or #7. They both fit.
Jesus and God are the same entity. I mean in the Bible God created a physical form for Jesus while He was on Earth, but in general they're both one being. That's the thing about the Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all just different faces of the same single God.
ohohohohohohhhoooo noooooooooooooo God was insane he doesn't fit this description
also here are some contradictions: www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm
also here are some contradictions: www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm
No, man, I'm bored with this. Look, I'm happy you like to do research (even if it all comes from the same site), but I'm not gonna keep reading lists and replying to bullet points and shit, half of which are addressing the same specific issue. If you wanna have an actual discussion, then discuss. But I'm not wasting my time responding to URLs.
I'm saying that it's already been established that using that picture as a rebuttal is pointless because both Christians and atheists know that those two verses are not using the same meaning of "the face of God". The fact that you think you're gaining any credibility by using that picture just shows how ignorant you are. Even among atheists.
they're very sexist and they have sharia law which means that 6 year olds can get married and if you steal you get your hands chopped off and just this week 50 people died in a riot because a film was made saying they were not violent, but many great men have been Muslim and obviously they're not all bad, I always try not to to judge a majority on a minority but this is what I know.
I'll say this: On Earth, men can be good among men. God has a standard that we cannot live up to, but between us, some show greater dignity and conduct than others. And this is regardless of religion or spirituality or any of that. Gandhi was a good man among men. Malcolm X was a good man among men. I have respect for non-Christians who live good lives like them. But just understand that as good of men as they are, their goodness only benefits them in this life. For you this is fine because you don't believe in an afterlife, but for me it's distressing. I wish they were still that good and influential but just advocated Christianity.
The keyword being "deserved". Please understand that the difference between going to heaven and going to hell is not based on what someone "deserves". I believe in Jesus Christ, but I still don't deserve to go to heaven. I'm just as wicked as the next person, and I should be burning for eternity too. But the way we go to heaven is not by "deserving" to go there. If that was the case then no one would ever get there. Yes, Gandhi and Malcolm X both deserve to go to hell but their faith in Christ would not change that. They're still just as sinful as anyone else, no matter what. The only difference between going to heaven or hell is whether you accept Christ's gift. And doing so does not make you a better person, it just grants you undeserved grace in spite of being wicked.
every thing you said about other religions relate exactly to your religion
God has human characteristics: anger, sadness, regret, happiness, speech, humans made in his image etc.
the afterlife: you have no less reason to believe you are re-encarnated as to be in heaven and hell, there is no evidence for either.
contradictions: God said not to kill but also told people who to kill
God has human characteristics: anger, sadness, regret, happiness, speech, humans made in his image etc.
the afterlife: you have no less reason to believe you are re-encarnated as to be in heaven and hell, there is no evidence for either.
contradictions: God said not to kill but also told people who to kill
I'm talking about physiological, biological characteristics. The ability to suffer physical pain (Zeus' headache which resulted in the birth of Athena) or sex drive (how Zeus spent the majority of his free time) to name just a few. And people have witnessed the afterlife, but as I said, they are often written off as just lying or being crazy - two things that Jesus was also accused of. And just fucking stop referencing the killing issue. It's been beaten to death (no pun intended). I've already explained to you and to several other people that God is allowed to make exceptions in special cases when He decides it is necessary. It's only a sin if you kill without being commanded to kill. But if you are commanded, then refusing to obey is just as sinful.
was it necessary to kill people who weren't married? I'm not going to ignore all the verses saying who to kill it's like ignoring the parts of mein kampf about killing jews. What differences does it make what the human aspects are, it doesn't matter whether the human aspects are physiological or biological the character is incredibly human
If God deems it necessary, then yes, it is necessary. And which verses are you talking about? The ones where God kills people, the ones where God commands specific genocides, or the ones where God says to kill people who sin? Because the first two groups, you have no argument against, and the third group no longer applies to us. So what are you trying to claim?
what the fuck is wrong with you? I don't know why you are so chill about God commanding the deaths of millions of people and you still worship and defending someone who advocates stoning, genocide, child abuse, slavery and you STILL worship him? his idea of heaven and what Christians look forward to is basically "the final solution" billions of men women children burning alive in pain and misery, and yet you still worship him? for fucks sake
#377 to #375
-
thebritishguy (03/02/2013) [-]
he also said that every word of the scriptures must be lived and not to ignore a single word and that he didn't come to abolish the laws of the prophets. Regardless of what your goal is that is your belief that the majority of human beings deserve to be burnt and tortured, women and children. Religion truly is poison.
He said the OT laws only apply until He accomplishes what He came to do. We aren't bound by the old law. And to prove that, I refer you to this link, as I forget if I shared it with you before or not: carm.org/christians-bound-by-law
Because He's God and He can do whatever the hell He wants. Look at the pork law. He literally said to not eat pork in the OT, and then in the NT Jesus literally said all foods were good to eat:
"And [Jesus] said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” Thus he declared all foods clean." - Mark 7:18
"And [Jesus] said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” Thus he declared all foods clean." - Mark 7:18
"Because He's God and He can do whatever the hell He wants." that isn't good enough, not at all, if there is a character who ruins and ends lives and kills millions of innocent people just because he can then he is a twat and is not fit for worship
I didn't say He did those thing just because He can. I'm sure He has deeper meanings for the choices He makes, we're just not privy to them. The point I was making was, we have no place questioning someone who is infinitely wiser than us. He knows what He's doing.
Not good enough? According to what standard? Who's to say what "good enough" is? A huge part of having faith is the willingness to believe without having all the information. That's literally what faith means. Believing without knowing. I can understand why you think that's illogical but you can't tell us what's not good enough for us. A third of the world says it is good enough. Why is it such a big deal to you to know everything?
I didn't say it wasn't good enough for everyone but there are loads of holes and un answered questions to the myth it simply is not good enough for me to believe in something so frail, it seems to me that faith is so over rated because they desperately need it to fill in the gaps and replace reason.
"if a man lays with another man as he does with a women, they shall be put to death, their blood shall be upon them." silly Israelites! this obviously meant to ignore the homosexuals because God was going to send them to hell even though he is omnipotent and would have known that they were going to be killed for hundreds of years because of this verse and didn't correct himself later on in the bible when hundreds of gay people were getting slaughtered, they were stupid.
Just because some of the prophesies haven't been fulfilled yet doesn't mean they never will be. We still have time left. As for the science thing, who gives a shit? Scientific knowledge isn't enough to disprove anything in the Bible. And if you're about to bring up the flat Earth issue, I'm prepared to respond to that.
nope, the problem is it says things like "no body will inhabit Egypt for 40 years", and then people inhabited it for thousands of years, it says "nobody will build on this city" and people build on it, they have been proven wrong
some where in here after 2:15
www.youtube.com/watch?v=d186Tn4He2I
www.youtube.com/watch?v=d186Tn4He2I
The problem is you insist that having never interacted personally with this person constitutes that I shouldn't trust Him. But our ancestors knew Him personally and they passed the stories down to us. If my grandfather had an old war buddy that I never met but he told us countless stories about, I'd believe him. Jesus is like the old war buddy of everybody's grandfather.
no, I am saying you have no reason to believe he exists and that it is impossible to act loving towards him or love him in a psychological sense, the thing is no body has told first person accounts of Jesus so it's more like your grandfather telling you in his diary about his grandfathers friend who was a magical Jewish zombie, would you believe that?
>No reason to believe He exists
Except that He was already proven to have existed, plus several other things about Him were proven. The only thing not proven about Him was whether or not He was in fact divine.
And fine, call it something else then if it's not love. But you'd have to create a new language, because every translation of the Bible uses its respective word for love.
And yes, four people told first person accounts of Him. And two of them were apostles, and they were Jesus' entourage. They were closer to Him socially than anyone else.
And if a third of the world all had the same account of their ancestor being friends with a magical Jewish zombie, then sure, I'd buy that. I mean, assuming Christianity wasn't a thing, then yes. I wouldn't buy it now though, since I already believe in a different magical Jewish zombie who lived way before my great-great-grandfather.
Except that He was already proven to have existed, plus several other things about Him were proven. The only thing not proven about Him was whether or not He was in fact divine.
And fine, call it something else then if it's not love. But you'd have to create a new language, because every translation of the Bible uses its respective word for love.
And yes, four people told first person accounts of Him. And two of them were apostles, and they were Jesus' entourage. They were closer to Him socially than anyone else.
And if a third of the world all had the same account of their ancestor being friends with a magical Jewish zombie, then sure, I'd buy that. I mean, assuming Christianity wasn't a thing, then yes. I wouldn't buy it now though, since I already believe in a different magical Jewish zombie who lived way before my great-great-grandfather.
Two thirds of the world are in utter disagreement. Christianity may not be the majority when you combine all the other groups into one "non-Christian" classification, but each group that makes up the two thirds is much, much smaller than the Christian group. So really, if it comes down to conformity, Christianity is actually the smartest choice. But I'm not in it for conformity. The numbers just make me more comfortable. I'd still support it even if we were the smallest religion.
Okay, so I guess I should break up with my girlfriend, since I don't have absolute proof that she's not cheating on me. And I should quit my job, since I don't have absolute proof that I'll continue to receive money from it. And I should move out of my apartment, since I don't have absolute proof that my landlord isn't plotting to murder me. Faith is so stupid. What was I thinking?
lets rephrase your statements, "so I guess I should break up with my girlfriend, since I have faith that she's cheating on me. And I should quit my job, since I have faith that I won't continue to receive money from it. And I should move out of my apartment, since I have faith that my landlord isn't plotting to murder me. Faith is so stupid. What was I thinking? "
there is a difference between my statements and yours, your statements are saying you "don't have" something, but you can not disprove a negative, you don't need evidence to say that something isn't happening. If you make a claim such as "the world was made by a monkey on acid then the first question is going to be "where is your evidence" you are making a claim and you need to justify it. if how ever you said "the world is not made by a monkey on acid" people would say "ok, I'm sure it isn't as there is no evidence for it" and carry on with their lives.
there is a difference between my statements and yours, your statements are saying you "don't have" something, but you can not disprove a negative, you don't need evidence to say that something isn't happening. If you make a claim such as "the world was made by a monkey on acid then the first question is going to be "where is your evidence" you are making a claim and you need to justify it. if how ever you said "the world is not made by a monkey on acid" people would say "ok, I'm sure it isn't as there is no evidence for it" and carry on with their lives.
My faith is based on eyewitness accounts. They may not serve as proof but at least I'm not just pulling random theological ideas out of my ass. It's like what I said about the grandfather's war buddy. I'm choosing to trust someone who witnessed a phenomenon. That's where my faith comes from.
she went to Scotland and she saw it's head bob out the water (probably a seal or dolphin), there was a story of a women being bitten to death by the loch ness monster. What I'm trying to say is it's not good enough, the biggest question of all and you will follow it blindly with no rational reason to do so
if all prophesies were fulfilled, the bible had superior knowledge of science and if the claims in the bible were proven to be true. We actually have evidence showing the opposite of these things unfulfilled prophesies, inferior knowledge and claims proven impossible and/or incorrect .
What's the point? It's not like atheists ever accept the evidence we present anyway. Shit, there's still some of you who think Jesus wasn't even real, divine or not. And besides, I've already explained why evidence would be counterproductive to our faith. If I went back in time and took a video on my phone of Jesus walking on water or turning water into wine, then came back to the present and showed it to you and you suddenly converted to the faith, your entire basis for believing would be that video evidence. And then you're not actually having faith.
#351 to #348
-
thebritishguy (02/28/2013) [-]
well I am extremely against committing my entire life, outlook, beliefs, perspective etc. on a claim which is absurd and has no evidence upon, It is pretty hilarious to me that the church has to resort to brainwash people into thinking believing in theories with no evidence and even counter evidence is a positive thing. It really is insane and has caused so many hardships on others.
Well Buddhism isn't a religion, it's a philosophy, and I'll admit it's a good one for the most part. But it also teaches lies about the afterlife, saying we'll be reincarnated and shit. I don't believe that. Zeus is one of the gods of Hellenistic polytheism, which is a joke religion. Given all of Zeus' flaws and humanlike characteristics, he can't be considered an actual "god". And Allah is just another name for our God, except the Muslims believe He gave commandments that contradict those given in the Bible, and at the end f the Bible it says do not add or remove from this Scripture. That means that anything that came after the Bible is bullshit.
Okay first of all please use correct terminology. Omnipotent means all-powerful. The word you want is omniscient, meaning all-knowing.
Secondly, God doesn't have to correct Himself. Humans should correct their interpretations. We're the flawed ones, not Him. And besides, even if He did mean that they were supposed to kill them, that law doesn't apply anymore. So what are you griping about?
Secondly, God doesn't have to correct Himself. Humans should correct their interpretations. We're the flawed ones, not Him. And besides, even if He did mean that they were supposed to kill them, that law doesn't apply anymore. So what are you griping about?
I believe that gays deserve death, but I also believe straight people deserve death. Everyone does. Even you and myself. As pointed out in Romans 3:9-20, everyone is sinful and has turned away from God at some point, and no one is pure or righteous. No one truly fears God the way we're supposed to. Even the bleeding-heart Christians. For everyone is born with blood tainted by sin and therefore everything we do comes from a place of sin, even if it appears noble on the outside. This includes gays, straights, men, women, children, blacks, whites, Christians, atheists...everyone. We all deserve the grave, and that's exactly what everyone got when they died. Then Jesus came along and He was pure and righteous, and so He was able to save us from the grave and take us to heaven even though we don't deserve it. We owe Him everything for that.
can't you see how disgusting that belief is? you think that children deserve to die! you think Jesus is good because he saved us from God? makes perfect sense...
The way I see it Jesus is like an abusive boyfriend he manipulates, scares you with hell and tells you you are not worthy of him to make you feel like nothing so you are vulnerable and desperate, and then he says "it's ok, I love you and if you love me you will be saved" so that you become so dependant on him. This is why in abusive relationships it is so hard for the girls to leave they have been manipulated and controlled by this method so that in their mind leaving the boyfriend is not an option because they have been manipulated into thinking that if they leave this figure they are helpless and nothing.
The way I see it Jesus is like an abusive boyfriend he manipulates, scares you with hell and tells you you are not worthy of him to make you feel like nothing so you are vulnerable and desperate, and then he says "it's ok, I love you and if you love me you will be saved" so that you become so dependant on him. This is why in abusive relationships it is so hard for the girls to leave they have been manipulated and controlled by this method so that in their mind leaving the boyfriend is not an option because they have been manipulated into thinking that if they leave this figure they are helpless and nothing.
First of all, Jesus is God, so no, He didn't save us from Himself. And yes, children deserve to die because they are sinners. But you're missing the whole point of our faith, which is that we don't have to die just because we deserve it. Jesus has removed that burden from our backs
And I'm struggling to understand your analogy because Jesus has never, nor will ever, hurt us. A boyfriend being abusive means he either hits the girl or is verbally cruel to her. Jesus doesn't hit people or say anything that isn't true about them. When He says we're sinners, He's right. But at the same time, he tries to help us resist sin, and even when we slip up, He forgives us. That's not abusive.
And I'm struggling to understand your analogy because Jesus has never, nor will ever, hurt us. A boyfriend being abusive means he either hits the girl or is verbally cruel to her. Jesus doesn't hit people or say anything that isn't true about them. When He says we're sinners, He's right. But at the same time, he tries to help us resist sin, and even when we slip up, He forgives us. That's not abusive.
he is going to send a shit load of people to hell, he says that all human nature is sinful to make you feel bad when you are simply giving in to human nature (abuse):
Jesus says, “Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace on earth! No, rather a sword lf you love your father, mother, sister, brother, more than me, you are not worthy of being mine. “The real beauty of this verse is that Jesus demands people truly love him more then they love their own family. I ask you how can we love someone that we can not see or interact with? Love is an emotion pertaining to physical existence not to faithful ideologies, yet God threatens you with Death just because your love for your mother maybe stronger than your love for him. Matthew 10:34
Jesus says, “Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace on earth! No, rather a sword lf you love your father, mother, sister, brother, more than me, you are not worthy of being mine. “The real beauty of this verse is that Jesus demands people truly love him more then they love their own family. I ask you how can we love someone that we can not see or interact with? Love is an emotion pertaining to physical existence not to faithful ideologies, yet God threatens you with Death just because your love for your mother maybe stronger than your love for him. Matthew 10:34
I still don't see how it's abusive. He's not the one sending people to hell. It's their choice to go to hell or to follow Him. And the thing about the sword doesn't happen until He returns. And you're really gonna make a big deal about the family thing? Why? If that's what we need to do to receive His grace, so be it. It's not like He wants us to stop loving our family altogether. He just wants us to be willing to put our faith in Him above everything else. That's how we show Him we trust Him enough to save our souls in the afterlife.
#296 to #295
-
thebritishguy (02/25/2013) [-]
because he is clearly insane! he is demanding people feel an emotion or they will be set on fire like some psycho narcissistic bitch! They clearly are sending people to hell as they set the rules on how to avoid hell and created hell. It is not a choice I don't know how many times I have to say this if I wanted to believe in God I couldn't it's like you trying to believe in Santa Claus, do that now try to believe in Santa. I'm saying it's abusive because he's saying he gets angry when people do things that are impossible to avoid as they are human nature so when they do them they feel guilty I have felt this when I first started masturbating mfw
He's not telling us how to feel. In Greek there are three majors words for love: Agape, Phileo, and Eros. Agape means a love that is born of the will, meaning that even if you don't feel a personal emotional relationship with someone, you still act lovingly toward them. Phileo means a love that comes from brotherliness or familiarity. Like the love you feel for your family and friends. And eros means sexual love so that one doesn't apply here. But you're inferring that Jesus is talking about phileo, the love that you just feel. But He used the word agape, meaning He wants us to act lovingly toward Him even if we can't feel the love emotionally.
you still can't act lovingly to something that isn't there, you can't act lovingly to Santa, also your claim doesn't make sense this is what your interpretation is, “Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace on earth! No, rather a sword lf you act lovingly to your father, mother, sister, brother, more than me, you are not worthy of being mine."
even if he did mean this what is insane is that he is so desperate for attention he has to threaten people with burning alive and torture if they don't act loving towards him even though they can't see him and the majority of people have never heard his name, why would he be so narcissistic and desperate?
even if he did mean this what is insane is that he is so desperate for attention he has to threaten people with burning alive and torture if they don't act loving towards him even though they can't see him and the majority of people have never heard his name, why would he be so narcissistic and desperate?
lets use the invitation analogy, this is an invite you would receive:
"to: jokeface
hey buddy, I have never spoken to you or even seen you in my entire life and you don't even know if I exist or not but do you want to come to my party, if you come you must act more lovingly towards me than your entire family
you don't have to come you have free will but if you don't want to come I will chop off your legs and burn you
from: thebritishguy"
this is what happens in North Korea it is called totalitarian control and it is disgusting and to say that this figure is loving is mad to me.
"to: jokeface
hey buddy, I have never spoken to you or even seen you in my entire life and you don't even know if I exist or not but do you want to come to my party, if you come you must act more lovingly towards me than your entire family
you don't have to come you have free will but if you don't want to come I will chop off your legs and burn you
from: thebritishguy"
this is what happens in North Korea it is called totalitarian control and it is disgusting and to say that this figure is loving is mad to me.
to me lotr has no real sense of loss, Gandalf made me a little sad but he came back anyway, I didn't really feel it that much and I thought the characters were a little shallow so no doubt it is Harry Potter as that has a special place in my heart
I understand that. But consider that LotR is heavily allegorical of Christianity. Gandalf is a transparent representation of Jesus, dying to save the others and then coming back to life after conquering a beast of fire and shadow. The One Ring is a symbol for sin and temptation. Frodo represents the human struggle to resist said temptation and ultimately overcome it by casting the Ring into the fires from whence it came (sending Satan back to hell). I think that's why I like it so much. I love symbolism.
Then again, you have a point about Harry Potter being more heartfelt. It certainly speaks to the childlike fantasy within most people who wish they could magically conquer the evil in their lives, while finding love, friendship, and happiness along the way. There's really no way to not like that series, unless you have a heart of stone.
Then again, you have a point about Harry Potter being more heartfelt. It certainly speaks to the childlike fantasy within most people who wish they could magically conquer the evil in their lives, while finding love, friendship, and happiness along the way. There's really no way to not like that series, unless you have a heart of stone.
#267 to #266
-
thebritishguy (02/23/2013) [-]
the thing about art is that the same picture could mean a completely different thing to different people, I agree that Tolkien was trying to portray a religious story but to me it means that the smallest of people can make the biggest changes in the world also there is interesting cases of the butterfly effect, if Frodo never fell down into Gollums lair which would at first seem really bad actually turned out to be really good, so it makes me think what may seem bad in life could turn out to be really good.
I just read the Wikipedia page about that case. It was actually one daughter and three of her children. Anyway, I couldn't find a silver lining. But then again, that was the result of horrific sinning, not a natural disaster. Ergo, it wasn't implemented by God in order to serve a greater purpose. However, that's not to say that God didn't influence circumstances that would result in the best case scenario given the circumstances in place. The way Fritzl was caught came about because one of the children had kidney failure and had to be removed from the cellar to be hospitalized. Perhaps God arranged for the kidney failure to happen (knowing that she would survive it) so that the family could be saved.
and what about the millions of people who are in similar situations and died like the girls who are locked in bathrooms, I heard some stories in England on the newspaper about little girls who starved to death because they were locked in bathrooms or cellars
I'm going to reiterate a simple point I've made countless times before: Good things happen because humans do God's will. Bad things happen because humans go against God's will. It's like flipping a light switch. God is providing constant power to the light switch, but it's up to humans to actually flip it to the "on" position. For this reason, all good things come from God through humans, and all bad things come from humans refusing to obey God (not counting natural disasters of course).
little children who died in the cellars do not deserve to die in cellars because they went against Gods will if that's what your trying to say. Obeying god includes killing sorcerers, disobeying god includes women speaking in church.
I'm not saying the children died because they disobeyed God. They died because another human disobeyed God by doing that to them. They were the victims of the sin of another.
And the thing about sorcerers doesn't apply anymore because Jesus said no killing. As for the thing about women speaking in church, I'd like to quote Katharine Bushnell from her book, A God's Word to Women:
(Referring to the commonly cited 1 Timothy 2:12) "There should be no comma after the word "teach", which changes the meaning of the sentence to mean that women were not to teach men, but could teach women. But more importantly, she provides a historical context of this epistle stating that women were in great danger at the time of its writing. The growth of Christianity had made believers great enemies of Rome and the Jews, both which treated women with disdain. To freely allow women open ministry would place women at great risk, and Paul refused to jeopardize their status.
She maintains that this itemsition is a personal one similar to his suggestion to Timothy to drink some wine for his stomach's sake. While she believes the Word of God is inviolable and absolute. there are personal words given in the context of' Scriptures that are not intended for all believers at all times in history. For instance, Paul told Timothy to bring the cloak and books with him that he had left at Troas with Carpus (II Tim. 4:13). Anyone would know that this piece of instruction was meant for a situation at that time. No one expects us to be looking for a cloak at Troas as part of our spiritual obedience.
She contends that Paul did not practice this teaching of refusing a woman to teach, neither did he teach it in other settings. She states that while men are quick to jump on this Scripture and others like it to justify their view of male dominance, they do not adhere to other teachings that are in a similar cast such as when Paul wished that all men were single and celibate like himself. Very few men have taken Paul up on that one."
And the thing about sorcerers doesn't apply anymore because Jesus said no killing. As for the thing about women speaking in church, I'd like to quote Katharine Bushnell from her book, A God's Word to Women:
(Referring to the commonly cited 1 Timothy 2:12) "There should be no comma after the word "teach", which changes the meaning of the sentence to mean that women were not to teach men, but could teach women. But more importantly, she provides a historical context of this epistle stating that women were in great danger at the time of its writing. The growth of Christianity had made believers great enemies of Rome and the Jews, both which treated women with disdain. To freely allow women open ministry would place women at great risk, and Paul refused to jeopardize their status.
She maintains that this itemsition is a personal one similar to his suggestion to Timothy to drink some wine for his stomach's sake. While she believes the Word of God is inviolable and absolute. there are personal words given in the context of' Scriptures that are not intended for all believers at all times in history. For instance, Paul told Timothy to bring the cloak and books with him that he had left at Troas with Carpus (II Tim. 4:13). Anyone would know that this piece of instruction was meant for a situation at that time. No one expects us to be looking for a cloak at Troas as part of our spiritual obedience.
She contends that Paul did not practice this teaching of refusing a woman to teach, neither did he teach it in other settings. She states that while men are quick to jump on this Scripture and others like it to justify their view of male dominance, they do not adhere to other teachings that are in a similar cast such as when Paul wished that all men were single and celibate like himself. Very few men have taken Paul up on that one."
God also said not to kill in the ten commandments and then contradicts this maybe 50 times by saying who to kill like homosexuals. I don't think it matters to the hungry and abused children as to why they are slowly dying it is barbaric and wrong and if you worship the character you believe to be responsible then that is insane. It still is sexist in the verse saying that women shouldn't have authority or teach men, shocking.
Nowhere does the Bible say to kill homosexuals. It says they shall be put to death, but it doesn't command humans to put them to death. I believe it means God will put to death their spirits (as in, send them to hell). And God is not responsible for making those children hungry and abused. That's the fault of the shitty people depriving them of proper food and care. It's our duty to help everyone in need. That's how God helps people, by working through other people.
but you said that everything was Gods plan, it was because something happened that was against Gods will and everything happens for a reason? that verse definitely means to kill gay people it says there blood shall be upon them, you can't make up bullshit that is not in the bible.
I'm not making anything up. I'm using logic. Don't you atheists like logic? God says no killing. Then He says these people shall be put to death. He wouldn't contradict Himself, which means that He doesn't mean we are the ones who have to put them to death. The only other possibility is for Him to do it.
no he definitely would contradict himself he has done it thousands of times, there are loads of verses explicitly saying not only who to kill but how to kill them (he seems to enjoy stoning) you are not using logic you are finding a problem and then imagining a solution to it that is in no way logical. You seem to have evaded many of my arguments so I will repeat them:
1. you said God didn't make those children die but you said that everything was Gods plan, it was because something happened that was against Gods will and everything happens for a reason? so which one is it?
2. The verse says that they shall be put to death and there blood shall be upon them, he did not kill them or make them bleed in any way and it doesn't mention hell so what does it mean?
3. the bible has many instructions on who to kill and how. http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm do you still stand by your point?
1. you said God didn't make those children die but you said that everything was Gods plan, it was because something happened that was against Gods will and everything happens for a reason? so which one is it?
2. The verse says that they shall be put to death and there blood shall be upon them, he did not kill them or make them bleed in any way and it doesn't mention hell so what does it mean?
3. the bible has many instructions on who to kill and how. http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm do you still stand by your point?
1. By God's "plan" I'm referring to God's foreknowledge that such events would occur, meaning He was prepared to respond to them accordingly. Remember what I said about God influencing the hearts of man so that they know to behave one way but still had the freedom to act a different way? Same principle. God gave the sinners the opportunity to not do these evil things, but they went against it. And then, after they had done it, He again gave them opportunities to stop, and again they resisted.
2. He's referring to the death of the soul. So yes, it does mean hell. Consider that elsewhere hell is described as being a place where there will be "weeping and gnashing of the teeth." If tears and teeth exist in hell, then blood can just as well exist.
3. That link is very informative, thank you. Naturally I ignored all the examples from the Old Testament as Jesus' law overrules them. And there are only two examples from the New Testament. The example from Romans does not say to kill anyone, but only that God will inflict a death penalty on them (which, given the context, implies hell, not earthly death). The example from Acts does not say to kill anyone, only that two people died. The heading of that example says Peter killed them but obviously if you read the verse you can tell God did, not Peter. And God is not bound by the laws He gives to man.
2. He's referring to the death of the soul. So yes, it does mean hell. Consider that elsewhere hell is described as being a place where there will be "weeping and gnashing of the teeth." If tears and teeth exist in hell, then blood can just as well exist.
3. That link is very informative, thank you. Naturally I ignored all the examples from the Old Testament as Jesus' law overrules them. And there are only two examples from the New Testament. The example from Romans does not say to kill anyone, but only that God will inflict a death penalty on them (which, given the context, implies hell, not earthly death). The example from Acts does not say to kill anyone, only that two people died. The heading of that example says Peter killed them but obviously if you read the verse you can tell God did, not Peter. And God is not bound by the laws He gives to man.
Um, yes. God wrote it in heaven and then teleported it into the hands of Christians all over the world.
I jest of course. The Bible was composed from the writings of about 40 prophets who were influenced by God either speaking directly to them, spiritually inspiring them, or simply giving them wisdom for them to put in their own words.
I jest of course. The Bible was composed from the writings of about 40 prophets who were influenced by God either speaking directly to them, spiritually inspiring them, or simply giving them wisdom for them to put in their own words.
I thought of a good question, if God didn't mean that we should kill gay people and is omnipotent, why didn't he maybe say "don't kill gay people" when millions of gay people over a period of probably about 1 thousands of years will be killed? If he was omnipotent he would have known that in after saying this millions of people will die, he even had the chance to say it in the rest of the bible which was quite a lot of books. I think you will like to see this documentary it talks about how the books of the bible were chosen and put together to form the book people read today: www.youtube.com/watch?v=phyN5tWUIUI
#259
-
N. Korean citizen (02/18/2013) [-]
What music/games/movies/tvshows do you like? I wanna get an inside look on people in the religion board, so I'm gonna post on profiles asking (if that's okay).
Music: Skillet, Linkin Park, Flyleaf, Hollywood Undead, Thousand Foot Krutch, TobyMac, and others.
Games: Pokemon. That's it. I don't game much.
Movies: Transformers, Inception, The Dark Knight, Watchmen, and others.
TV: Family Guy, South Park, How I Met Your Mother, The Big Bang Theory, Community.
Games: Pokemon. That's it. I don't game much.
Movies: Transformers, Inception, The Dark Knight, Watchmen, and others.
TV: Family Guy, South Park, How I Met Your Mother, The Big Bang Theory, Community.
Well since I have no evidence to prove otherwise I concede to you for this argument. Very good.
hey. talking to you on your page becouse my thread is being invaded by trolls.
Ran out of room, had to start again up here.
The thing that amazes me most about lucid dreaming is that, if I'm not mistaken, you can actually manipulate your own brain while your asleep, so that it affects your life when your awake. Like, you can improve your memory, sleep patterns, and other stuff. That's pretty cool.
The thing that amazes me most about lucid dreaming is that, if I'm not mistaken, you can actually manipulate your own brain while your asleep, so that it affects your life when your awake. Like, you can improve your memory, sleep patterns, and other stuff. That's pretty cool.
Anything I suppose. Let's start with the omegle basics?
A/S/L?
Then I shall add my own questions.
What are your hobbies?
What is your favourite animal?
Favourite movie?
Do you like gaming?
If so, Console or PC?
Again, Game? :)
And Where you are from? :)
A/S/L?
Then I shall add my own questions.
What are your hobbies?
What is your favourite animal?
Favourite movie?
Do you like gaming?
If so, Console or PC?
Again, Game? :)
And Where you are from? :)
22/Male/USA
My hobbies are writing, playing drums, and surfing the internet.
My favorite animal is the chinchilla.
My favorite movies include Transformers, Inception, V for Vendetta, and The Dark Knight.
I enjoy gaming to a degree, but the only ones I play are the Pokemon series on my 3DS.
I'm from Pennsylvania in the United States.
And how about you?
My hobbies are writing, playing drums, and surfing the internet.
My favorite animal is the chinchilla.
My favorite movies include Transformers, Inception, V for Vendetta, and The Dark Knight.
I enjoy gaming to a degree, but the only ones I play are the Pokemon series on my 3DS.
I'm from Pennsylvania in the United States.
And how about you?
Female/China
Hobbies : drawing, internet surfing, horse-riding and gaming.
Animal would have to be the wolf or the horse. Can't make my mind up.
I don't watch many movies, but I'd say.... one missed call.
I play games on mai xbox :3, and so far, I'd have to say red dead redemption. (Not un-dead nightmare...It's second best.)
My blood line is very mixed. From my mother's side, I'm Cantonese. From my father's side, I'm part jewish, part english and part irish. :3
Hobbies : drawing, internet surfing, horse-riding and gaming.
Animal would have to be the wolf or the horse. Can't make my mind up.
I don't watch many movies, but I'd say.... one missed call.
I play games on mai xbox :3, and so far, I'd have to say red dead redemption. (Not un-dead nightmare...It's second best.)
My blood line is very mixed. From my mother's side, I'm Cantonese. From my father's side, I'm part jewish, part english and part irish. :3

