Which religion are you?

i see religion in America as quite an issue. Of course with me living in Europe the stories get a little exaggerated. What really struck me was that after the Columbine shooting, one of your major news outlets(fox i believe) said that the children probably went on a rampage because children dont go to church very often anymore and the killers listened to the unholy Marylin Manson(or however you write it)

 

for instance you know those two moths a black one and a white one in texbooks everywhere as in example of eveultion becouse the white ones survived and the black were few then after a time there were more black ones then white moths the two people who took the picture have come out and said that they had use a sticky muteral to hold up the dead moths before taking the picture this realy didn't even happen

i will put what you beleve in plane english so you understand how rediculess it is.

"some how the as a big explosen which is known as the big bang happen from nothing a part of that big explosetion stop into space which it is unclear how space got here put we just tell you anything to prove that we are smart and then that part cooled off and the ash filled part sundeenly the part some how growed plant life and then what ais know as life even thjought the chances of this happening are possobly slim to none but it happened and throught that we finally got what is caled a banna which then changes into a dog and monkey whitch change into human" said the kid A

"you have a PHD in something i will take your word on it even thought it dosen't make sence" said kid b

" sure you will becouse i learned things that posably could happen witch doesn't help with really anything but feeding lies to the public by the way but hay i got a PHD and am making thousand of dollars" said kid a

 

Haha, what are the odds? I found my Bio textbook open at this exact page.

As for the Peppered Moth accusation saying that the photo was staged... Of course it was. Why would the photographer have gone around England looking for two moths, one white bodied, the other black bodied, sitting right next to each other when actual specimens of both phenotypes could be used?

Now, onto what you said about 'this didn't even really happen', you're so far out of your depth here it's not funny. Having set up two specimens on the same log does not prove, by any means, that the moths hadn't evolved like that. They have. All the photographer did was put both specimens together to demonstrate the change. Both these species do exist, and they have evolved like this. Collecting a specimen of each specie to take a photo does not disprove a thing. Not even slightly. Let me guess, someone just told you and you believed them? Oh, the irony.

Oh, and your Big Bang analogy is absolutely priceless. Let me type up the exact same thing, just about Creationism instead...

Parent: "Son, a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father will make us live forever if we symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that we accept him as our master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple from a magical tree."

Kid: "You are older than me so I will take your word on it even though it doesn't make sense."

Parent: "Sure you will because I was told the same thing that possibly could have happened which doesn't help with anything, really, except for feeding lies to the public, but hey, I haven't even read my own religious text and accuse others of ignoring the magical man I was told as a kid to believe in. "

Seriously, not only do you simply not know what you're talking about, but you're misrepresenting science in every way, shape and form, and every single one of these arguments applies more to Creationism than it does to Evolutionism.

To put it bluntly, all scientists and Evolutionists understand that it's only a theory. Secondly, there's an absolute butt-load of observable evidence that suggests that it might have happened, which is why other theories of the origin of the universe follow similar ideas and concepts. Thirdly, you've gone on a complete tangent.

This discussion was about the origin of life on Earth, and you're trying to disprove it by saying that you personally think the origin of the universe sounds silly. Not only does the universe have to have been created for Creationists as well, but the Big Bang theory only requires an initiator, whereas religion is solely based on stories and magic. And on that note, are you even aware of what supposedly happened in Genesis?

 

This is how I look at it, All religions and even scientific theory and "laws" are all relative and based on perception and belief.

Then you have to ask yourself why do you believe what you believe etc. For example it was science fact that the earth was flat because at the time people were only able to perceive that it was flat because from their view there is up down, left, right etc, and they are on top of the "earth" so logically to them it would be flat because from their point of view it makes sense and there is evidence. It wasn't until different "theories" or ideas and ways of thinking came along that say oh wait a minute if you look at it this way etc etc, it is obvious the earth is not flat. Then when we are actually able to see the earth from a distance from space it was obvious to see that it was indeed not flat but sphere shaped.

Now, the difference between religion and science is that science has a physical material reference point you can look at that shows cause and effect or oh yea this is true because when this happened that happened from your perspective and it makes sense. Religion doesn't necessarily have that and is more based on ideals and philosophy of what could be etc. That doesn't mean either of them are right or wrong unless from your point of view you make it right or wrong.

Another example, what if one person saw something and another person didn't. The person that saw and perceived the something would know that yes that is what that something is, if you can understand what I'm trying to saying. Now, what if that person tried to explain this to the person who did not perceive it from that perspective or didn't preceive it at all. Why would that person have to beleive the person that saw it? because it makes sense? because there is evidence? Even if one person knows it to be true and the other doesn't, doesn't mean either of them are right or wrong because from the presceptive of the person who didn't observe it is correct in his poistion, because there is no way he could know. I don't know it is very hard to describe but i hope you get what I'm trying to explain.

So, I think people shouldn't insult others or claim them being either right or wrong just because they preceive something from another position or point of view than you. Instead I think it should be a dicussion or exchange of ideas exploring these different point of views or preceptions instead of forcing one on another etc. People are too concerned with the notion of black and white so speak and one way or the other by saying oh my way is right because i know its right and know you are wrong so therefore i should be against you.

 

No offence, but I read your post and this is basically what it says imo: everything is true, unless proven otherwise. That is just a way of MAKING people to aknowledge something exists, just because someone says so and you cannot prove them wrong. Well, then I hereby say that a pink elephant just flew by my window while playing mozart on a giant piano that floated next to it and you HAVE to believe it since it is impossible for you to prove me wrong for 100 percent. And I almost fell onto the ground when you said that all beliefs and religions are relative. RELATIVITY IS PURE SCIENCE. It just does not get any deeper and complex then that. -exept quantumphysics, but there are only about 6 people at a time on the planet who can fully understand both theories, according to einstein-

 

Thats not the point I was trying to make at all. As I said it is hard for me to describe what I'm trying to say.

 

Well for me too, so I'm sorry if I offended anyone, and especially you. I guess that talking about religion and science on a forum is harder then in real life anyway. I would say that we are doing a pretty good job.

 

Bumping this dead thread to show ijffdrie how annoying he can be.

At least this one is truly legendary, 56 pages.

 

Yes, but it needs a poll.

 

The funny thing about creationism is how pissed off Creationists get when I talk about the Nordic gods making Earth.

What, only your god can create an existence?

 

That is completely accurate, and not even that surprising. In the states we have to put up with that stuff pretty much every day. I live in the state with the lowest church attendance in the country and I still hear people complaining about how homosexuals are "godless" and so on...What's it like in Europe?

 

atheist. i don't believe in things that aren't necessary to explain my life, the universe, and everything. to me, god is no more real than the invisible pink unicorn.

 

In Europe religion is largely a non-issue (except from traditional catholic stronghold like Poland or Italy). There are of course problems with muslims but that is more of an ethnic problem than a religious one.

 

i also have to wonder how many countries other than the US are having problems teaching evolution in schools? evolution vs religion, as far as i can tell, is mostly a US thing. and it's pretty sad, i have to say.

 

Actually it's a localized problem in the netherlands as well. We have an area called the bible-belt where pretty much the entire population of cities is protestant and where this issue is also present. All schools have to teach both, but most schools spend a lot more time on evolution, except a few religious schools(most of them aren't that religious) who spend about as much time on both. And then protest that they have too show them as equals.

 

Boy I must be lucky to live in the most atheistic country on earth.

 

Coming from the "catholic stronghold" one of the priests teaching me religion in school (he was well studied in theology etc) was of opinion that "Bible is not a geaography or history book". It could be entirely possible that we evolved from monkeys and at one point during evolution God gave us souls.

While it is a catholic country, I haven't personally met anyone as close minded as I hear of in the stories from US. Perhaps with the exception of a certain group of elderly people brainwashed by a "catholic" radiostation.


Also @Fenix. Of course only him. After all there are no other gods

 

God gave me MY fantastic Mojo! Yall dont see it, without god there would be no ica-finger, without ica finger no fantastic mojo! God of jews, god of muslims, and god of jesuits, thank you guys for supporting me and my magic mojo.

Thank you god, over and out

 

The religions I seen so far are all extremely evil like Islam and Christianity (great people who help other people and don't believe in god go to hell but sick christian psychopaths go to heaven, if you lie one time you go to hell, if you don't worship god you go to hell, if you born in any country that raised you in different religion that particular one you go to hell, also hell is eternal torture which is more evil then anything humans have done).Except Buddhism which is nice but seems too fanatical.
I studied a lot of religions and didn't see anything good within them. "Threat others the way you want to be treated" is enough of a rule for me. I stick with science cause its fun and interesting. I like that stuff can be explained. Evolution theory is nice to that's one of the reasons I like zerg. Also I can see myself what is evil and whats not and don't need someone else tell me what is good and whats bad.

 

How can you have discussions in threads this long? I'm sure it have been said 100 times already: If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby, better yet, then theism is a religion, because atheism is a theological position like theism and deism. There's also no such thing as atheism with a capital 'a', just like there's no such thing as Theism.

Personally my theological position is something like ignosticism or igtheism. It means I find a question like "Do you believe in God?" meaningless unless you define what you mean with "God", then throw in what you define "believe" as as well. The terms are just too vague to maintain any intelligent conversations where you just blatantly start making mouth noises.

Basically you could just as well ask me what colour Monday has or "Do you believe Monday is Blue?" Then you have to define what you think colour is. If you say colour is a general feeling and give me a chart of corresponding feelings and colours I could perhaps say the question isn't meaningless. Though the question is still very stupid as you could just ask me what general feeling I've got about Mondays.

P.S. It would also take too long for thousands of people to tell me their own definitions of the necessary terms, as well as me to reply, in itself making religion pretty much meaningless to talk about