The Religion Discussion

[bluesclues]

Again... that is all just your opinion stated with an authoritative tone. Some strawman arguments thrown in there (rock giving birth to a cow) for good measure.

lol you want to disregard sound logic saying it is not sound by saying it is possible for a rock to make a cow? or any dead thing to create a living thing? that is what you have to demonstrate to refute the statements i made. but all of nature disagrees with you.

that is the question.. can a dead thing create a living thing?

to make a dress you need cloth, and a dressmaker. even if you have cloth, the dress doesnt make itself. to make an intelligent being u need intelligence to be present as a raw material. so what we have is an intelligent piece of cloth that can cut and sew itself to make something new out of itself. that is possible. but an unintelligent piece of cloth is not capable of making a dress. it would need an external intelligence to design and structure it. u really cant see the logic and higher probability? consciousness is not to be ignored. it is it's own material. intelligence rules both sides of the equation.

[bluesclues]

basically we know all the elements that make up a human being from scientific analysis. but lets use something smaller like a cat. if we take all the atoms required to create a complete cat, put them in a bag and shake it up. will a cat walk out of the bag? LOL

if we place all the elements to create an elephant in a room does that mean there's an elephant in the room?

[Slartibartfast]

lol you want to disregard sound logic saying it is not sound by saying it is possible for a rock to make a cow? or any dead thing to create a living thing? that is what you have to demonstrate to refute the statements i made. but all of nature disagrees with you.

that is the question.. can a dead thing create a living thing?

Nope never said that. Evolution also never said that. No scientist ever made that assertion. There is nothing to argue with here. Everyone agrees that a rock can't make a cow. If you honestly think that is comparable to the theory of evolution happening over billions of years then you clearly don't understand the basic concepts in evolution and are therefore unable to understand any counterpoints I make.

to make a dress you need cloth, and a dressmaker. even if you have cloth, the dress doesnt make itself. to make an intelligent being u need intelligence to be present as a raw material. so what we have is an intelligent piece of cloth that can cut and sew itself to make something new out of itself. that is possible. but an unintelligent piece of cloth is not capable of making a dress. it would need an external intelligence to design and structure it. u really cant see the logic and higher probability? consciousness is not to be ignored. it is it's own material. intelligence rules both sides of the equation.

An intelligent designer would not use the same orifice for eating and breathing or put the main pleasure centre right next door to the main waste exit. There are other examples that point to God being an idiot that you can easily google.

I hope that your example of a cloth needing a seamstress to make a dress was just a joke comparison to scientific theories of creation. Consider the following counter example. The immensely enormous Grand Canyons (so big it's first name is Grand) or the incredibly complex patterns that can be viewed in the deltas of many of the world's larger rivers were all created by non-intelligent natural occurrences. Think about it. How difficult would it be for us to make the grand canyon. Now consider that that was made entirely by the movement of tri-atomic molecules (i.e. water, a molecule with three atoms). Nothing can be less intelligent or less alive than that. Yet it created something so grand that many who approach it for the first time do so in silence, completely awestruck at the scale of it all. Now is it such a stretch to imagine that something as simple as a single sell organism could not be created from (completely different) natural processes as well? I'm not arguing about the creation of humans just yet. Just making my case for the probability of the creation of one single celled organism after billions of years of natural processes occurring simultaneously over 510,072,000 km² of the Earth.

With the right natural processes, insignificant natural processes can make something complex.

[bluesclues]

lol you want to disregard sound logic saying it is not sound by saying it is possible for a rock to make a cow? or any dead thing to create a living thing? that is what you have to demonstrate to refute the statements i made. but all of nature disagrees with you.

that is the question.. can a dead thing create a living thing?

Nope never said that. Evolution also never said that. No scientist ever made that assertion. There is nothing to argue with here. Everyone agrees that a rock can't make a cow. If you honestly think that is comparable to the theory of evolution happening over billions of years then you clearly don't understand the basic concepts in evolution and are therefore unable to understand any counterpoints I make.

to make a dress you need cloth, and a dressmaker. even if you have cloth, the dress doesnt make itself. to make an intelligent being u need intelligence to be present as a raw material. so what we have is an intelligent piece of cloth that can cut and sew itself to make something new out of itself. that is possible. but an unintelligent piece of cloth is not capable of making a dress. it would need an external intelligence to design and structure it. u really cant see the logic and higher probability? consciousness is not to be ignored. it is it's own material. intelligence rules both sides of the equation.

An intelligent designer would not use the same orifice for eating and breathing or put the main pleasure centre right next door to the main waste exit. There are other examples that point to God being an idiot that you can easily google.

I hope that your example of a cloth needing a seamstress to make a dress was just a joke comparison to scientific theories of creation. Consider the following counter example. The immensely enormous Grand Canyons (so big it's first name is Grand) or the incredibly complex patterns that can be viewed in the deltas of many of the world's larger rivers were all created by non-intelligent natural occurrences. Think about it. How difficult would it be for us to make the grand canyon. Now consider that that was made entirely by the movement of tri-atomic molecules. Nothing can be less intelligent or less alive than that. Yet it created something so grand that many who approach it for the first time do so in silence, completely awestruck at the scale of it all. Now why is it such a stretch to imagine that something as simple as a single sell organism could not be created from (completely different) natural processes as well? I'm not arguing about the creation of humans just yet. Just making my case for the probability of the creation of one single celled organism after billions of years of natural processes occurring simultaneously over 510,072,000 km² of the Earth.

With the right natural processes, insignificant natural processes can make something complex.

see my above post. if we take all the atoms required to make a cell and arrange them just as they should be, will a living cell be formed? the answer is no. science has tried and failed. the breath of life, otherwise known as spirit or consciousness has to be also put into the cell. then and only then is it considered living. and living things exist in harmony with nature meaning the evolve and adapt based on their environment.. or die by refusing to evolve/adapt.

actually putting the breath in the same orifice that you eat from is rather intelligent by design if you understood the REASON why that is so. also it is not like you digest food with your lungs.. inside the orifice there are designated areas for various tasks regarding interaction with the environment. the mouth is the area that brings in nutrition for the body.. air being one of them. thus everything that sustains the body enters in at the mouth.

[Slartibartfast]

if we place all the elements to create an elephant in a room does that mean there's an elephant in the room?

If the elements make up your mom... then yes

if we take all the atoms required to make a cell and arrange them just as they should be, will a living cell be formed? the answer is no. science has tried and failed.

Really? I was not aware of this [Serious]. Can you point me to an article where scientists were able to assemble all of the atoms required to make a cell? Last time I check they could only move around a few atoms here and there. But not enough atoms to make an entire cell.

[bluesclues]

if we place all the elements to create an elephant in a room does that mean there's an elephant in the room?

If the elements make up your mom... then yes

if we take all the atoms required to make a cell and arrange them just as they should be, will a living cell be formed? the answer is no. science has tried and failed.

Really? I was not aware of this [Serious]. Can you point me to an article where scientists were able to assemble all of the atoms required to make a cell? Last time I check they could only move around a few atoms here and there. But not enough atoms to make an entire cell.

i read about it not too long ago. there is research in the area of synthetic cells and artificial meat being grown in a lab. there is also an area of dark science which most people do not do research on and isnt exactly broadcast in the media every time there is an experiment. but yes they have been unable to complete even a single cell's full dna chain and close the loop from scratch. science, is forced to use building blocks that are already there. it cannot create an atom, and it cannot create life.

the situation is worse in what is published science. yes even though they have the building blocks and can make an arrangement in an exact replica of another cell. the cell or genetic material is born dead unless placed into another living cell, which then replicates itself with that arrangement. so there is something in the background that manipulates matter, arranges it and makes copies of it's arrangement for reproduction. what is that thing?

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 0152341984

in the above article, what they create is dead and needs to be added to a living cell which then replicates it as is. same with synthetic or artificial beef. i believe they use zombie cells which theyve been able to keep functioning after the cell is considered dead to grow beef in the lab.

[Slartibartfast]

First of all. A link to the study will be appreciated. Second of all, isn't that how everyone in born? I never heard of someone just being created and brought to life out of thin air. .. except in the Bible but there is no proof for that so that doesn't count. If they were able to do what you said then I am amazed they even got that far. I didn't realise the could manipulate atoms that well.

Also, single cells weren't just created like that. There was a process leading up to that initial creation as well. After that, all cells are born through one form of replication or another.

[bluesclues]

science cannot create energy either.. but energy exists. energy cannot be created nor destroyed.. by man. but we all know that for something to exist it must be created.. not so? so who created energy? u in a mess if u trust logic only. ur as intelligent and conscious as a robot is. only as intelligent as its programmed to be.

[bluesclues]

First of all. A link to the study will be appreciated. Second of all, isn't that how everyone in born? I never heard of someone just being created and brought to life out of thin air. .. except in the Bible but there is no proof for that so that doesn't count. If they were able to do what you said then I am amazed they even got that far. I didn't realise the could manipulate atoms that well.

Also, single cells weren't just created like that. There was a process leading up to that initial creation as well. After that, all cells are born through one form of replication or another.

why then does the structure of the universe even allow for that to be possible? there must be a possibility for cells to be arranged in a way that harbours intelligence. why would the universe allow a passage for intelligence to exist when it never existed before? can a dead unintelligent universe have any say in the matter? obviously something dead cannot decide on anything. that requires intelligence.

[bluesclues]

First of all. A link to the study will be appreciated. Second of all, isn't that how everyone in born? I never heard of someone just being created and brought to life out of thin air. .. except in the Bible but there is no proof for that so that doesn't count. If they were able to do what you said then I am amazed they even got that far. I didn't realise the could manipulate atoms that well.

Also, single cells weren't just created like that. There was a process leading up to that initial creation as well. After that, all cells are born through one form of replication or another.

there is a link, and there is google if you want to look up research i read about a long time ago.

the worse thing is that u actually think that a dead mass of matter, created by nothing and noone, just exploded for no reason, creating planets with orbits and order for hospitable environments for life and intelligence to exist and thrive to create your dumbass that cant even create a single cell from scratch.

that to me is intelligence. we're so intelligent that we cant create a single living cell from scratch.. but a dumb mass of matter could figure it out.

sorry but im not dumber than a rock. My God is more intelligent than me, that is why i have to study to figure out how he did what i see done.

[Slartibartfast]

*sigh*

You were asking some good questions until you reached back to the "we don't know therefore God did it answer"

You also make unjustified assumptions like
We are the first intelligent life
We are the only intelligent life
That the universe would need to decide to create us (that's a new one I never heard before)

I don't think you understand how science works and what it is to be unbiased. You assume God is the only answer.I know he says so in his book but thats just marketing tactic.

[bluesclues]

*sigh*

You were asking some good questions until you reached back to the "we don't know therefore God did it answer"

You also make unjustified assumptions like
We are the first intelligent life
We are the only intelligent life
That the universe would need to decide to create us (that's a new one I never heard before)

I don't think you understand how science works and what it is to be unbiased. You assume God is the only answer.I know he says so in his book but thats just marketing tactic.

i have made no such assumptions. where did i say man was the first or the only intelligent life? i say where something is conscious it is living. it does not even require a body to be conscious. consciousness.. ie.. intelligence can exist without matter.. and can also exist pre-dating matter.

also on the contrary i understand science very well as i also know how science began. i didnt just wake up reading a school syllabus book yesterday and proclaim to be an expert on scientific understanding. thats what i keep telling you but you dont seem to understand and then tell me i dont understand science. science is a logic only process in a world that is coherently built both on logic and creativity. it is assessing the world with ONE EYE. logic is dead. it iss a machine. this is why if u are logical only, then you are dead symbolically. sheep that must be programmed to learn anything new. and again.. u need an intelligent programmer who wouldve creatively thought up something new to give to you as a new function.

what dont you understand about science and logic-only being machinist thought? which isnt thought atall. u observe something and analyze it and then say that an observer cannot exist before creation.. yet you are the observer and designer that exists before every single creation that man produces. and all of man's prpducts are inferior to it's natural counterpart which man is attempting to mimic in creation? mimic as in man has not to date created a single original thing. all of it is mimicry of something seen in nature. thats what science does.. as a machine does.. mimic... very poorly.

but nature produces uniqueness. ordered chaos. dualistic perception is required because of the element of chaos. logic cannot fathom chaos. it cannot even think of it's own accord. thought is THE driver of logic.. not logic itself. so u real tie up.

bottom line.. if ur trying to assess the world with logic only.. ur going to miss a few things. some of them extremely important for a complete assessment to be formulated. this is not a logic only world. science can only analyze one aspect. the logical eye. when it comes to chaos and creativity with things such as quantum consciousness.. science is lost. in a boat without a paddle. reaches a dead end because it cannot venture past divide by 0. it has no way to perform that calculation. system crash!

but we operate on divide by 0 without crashing.. so we are more than machines.

[rspann]

Bluesclues, what does Proverbs,14:1 say?

[bluesclues]

Bluesclues, what does Proverbs,14:1 say?

well i believe you know what it says. google isnt that far away from your fingertips. u should just make the point you're trying to draw across.

[bluefete]

can a dead thing create a living thing?

Nope never said that. Evolution also never said that. No scientist ever made that assertion. There is nothing to argue with here. Everyone agrees that a rock can't make a cow.

Oh, really, now. But don't evolutionists posit that birds came from dinosaurs???


An intelligent designer would not use the same orifice for eating and breathing or put the main pleasure centre right next door to the main waste exit. There are other examples that point to God being an idiot that you can easily google.

So where would an intelligent designer put it? Where would you put it? On top of your head? You seem confused as what exactly you want to believe.

[nareshseep]

If all religious books were to be destroyed, where will morality come from?

Also what everyone needs to be mindful about is if you side with any particular theory, you need to understand that, that it is your belief that you are entitled to.But no one can claim to be 100% correct. Claiming that what you say is 100% correct because its in a book, is comparable to me believing that spider man exists because it is written in a book. Once you are biased critical thinking is compromised.

If we can accept at the end of the day, that there is a possibility that ones view may be wrong, then humanity will improve. Religion has developed society in all countries. Its a good way to shape the minds of the illiterate who lack reason and good judgment. A good way to establish law and order, " I am your king by the grace of this imaginary being you must do as I command. You could never reach my caste, and you and your progeny will remain in the peasant caste all your life, as your lineage before you" Slaves built great nations. But humanity has progressed to a certain level whereby most I would like to think are literate and are able to reason. A part of modern day life, is the development of standards and revisions. This is so that we will not repeat the mistakes of the past. We cannot improve by following outdated constructs, like what we are doing presently.
Soceity will fail or we will not surpass our current state. If we keep that level of thinking in networking, then we would never have the OSI model and development of networking technology we have today. Imagine trying to build a network with a rj45 connection (Christian),a coaxial connection (Hindu)and a serial port connection (muslim)...

Take for example, the Bible was used to unify the people of the Roman empire in 325 AD by the emperor Constantine. It combined the beliefs of the various sects of the roman population. And this has influenced the present day society.
http://www.deism.com/bibleorigins.htm (NB i am not a deist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

[Habit7]

Why wonder? We have a great example in the former Soviet Union and the currently North Korea. Both governments forcibly expunged religion and enshrined atheism (Christian morality says this wrong but in atheism...who cares). The ppl live largely moral lives out of their vestage of Christianity. But morality ends up coming from their atheist government which encourages state or leader worship, murder of opposition voices and Marxist ideology along with communism.

Sounds like fun!

[bluesclues]

Why wonder? We have a great example in the former Soviet Union and the currently North Korea. Both governments forcibly expunged religion and enshrined atheism (Christian morality says this wrong but in atheism...who cares). The ppl live largely moral lives out of their vestage of Christianity. But morality ends up coming from their atheist government which encourages state or leader worship, murder of opposition voices and Marxist ideology along with communism.

Sounds like fun!

LOL

that is what you get when you trust man with power he doesnt deserve. irresponsibility. that is why God sets such high moral standards and judges the heart of a man before giving him spiritual knowledge and power. the system is error free. noone gets it unless they deserve it.. either as a curse or a blessing.

that is why we have a constitution that hands over to God all authority. so no man can feel he have the power to do what he want regarding other people's lives. tho some may try.

[nareshseep]

Why wonder? We have a great example in the former Soviet Union and the currently North Korea. Both governments forcibly expunged religion and enshrined atheism (Christian morality says this wrong but in atheism...who cares). The ppl live largely moral lives out of their vestage of Christianity. But morality ends up coming from their atheist government which encourages state or leader worship, murder of opposition voices and Marxist ideology along with communism.

Sounds like fun!

LOL

that is what you get when you trust man with power he doesnt deserve. irresponsibility. that is why our imaginary being sets such high moral standards and judges the heart of a man before giving him spiritual knowledge and power. the system is error free. noone gets it unless they deserve it.. either as a curse or a blessing.

that is why we have a constitution that hands over to our imaginary being all authority. so no man can feel he have the power to do what he want regarding other people's lives. tho some may try.

Its a basic human right to have freedom of worship or freedom to not worship.

People cannot be told what to believe and how to live there life otherwise there will always be extremists. You sing that tune now, but if you were born during the time of the aztecs, and you were chosen to be the sacrificed to your imaginary being, would you have been jumping for joy?

You chose two of the worst atheist nations in the world. Apparently all theist nations are all honky dory. China, Japan, France, Chezk must be terrible countries ...

http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploa ... 5-7-12.pdf

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/29/eight_o ... _atheist/#

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... ists-live/

[Xeno Greycross]

From 2009-2014, longest thread ever, this religion thing must be quite the controversy

[Habit7]

you chose two of the worst atheist nations in the world. Apparently all theist nations are all honky dory. China, Japan, France, Chezk must be terrible countries ...

I choose the two countries that fit the criteria you made of burning all the religious books. Those were countries that committed to atheism to the exclusion of all else, it should be an atheist paradise.

In your list China is number one, which has Human Rights record to shudder at. All the others have a backbone of religious culture, most of which being Christianity with Christian crosses on their national flags, atheism is a new tide that goes along with low birth rates and need for many immigrants who come in with very radical religious views and is making the country a base for radical ideology.

Nevertheless, Stalin's Soviet Union, Kim Il-sung's Korea and Mao's China is what near unabated atheism produces.

[Slartibartfast]

you chose two of the worst atheist nations in the world. Apparently all theist nations are all honky dory. China, Japan, France, Chezk must be terrible countries ...

I choose the two countries ("two of the" countries, this hardly serves as an average to judge he rest by)that fit the criteria you made of burning all the religious books. Those were countries that committed to atheism to the exclusion of all else, it should be an atheist paradise.

In your list China is number one, which has Human Rights record to shudder at. All the others have a backbone of religious culture, most of which being Christianity with Christian crosses on their national flags, atheism is a new tide that goes along with low birth rates and need for many immigrants who come in with very radical religious views and is making the country a base for radical ideology.

Nevertheless, Stalin's Soviet Union, Kim Il-sung's Korea and Mao's China is what near unabated atheism produces.Can you show me how atheism produces that? To me it looked like it was more dependent on the individuals than their religious belief.

[Xeno Greycross]

Habit 7 so your argument is basically nations that don't believe in your god starts worshipping dictators.

Well let's take a look at north Korea, people are freely worshipping Kim Jong-un, oh wait no they aren't they're actually being forced to worship the guy.

It's like this worship me or go to the Gulags (concentration camps)
Sound familiar.

In all of the dictatorships u have stated these men elevated themselves to divinity status so say their will was absolute they formed religions and claimed themselves god-head (real atheistic isn't )
These men simply copied theocratic rule.

I've seen u Christians on this site build up straw men and beat the sheit out of them but I'll be calling u out on it

[Habit7]

Habit 7 so your argument is basically nations that don't believe in your god starts worshipping dictators.

No

[Xeno Greycross]

Care to expand on that no habit 7

[Habit7]

That's not my argument, so make your strawman off something else.

[Slartibartfast]

Care to answer what I stated in red in reply to your post above?

EDIT: What about the rest of what Xeno said. It doesn't look like that fits the criteria of an atheist country. It look like it could be classified more as being a country under a dictatorship (i.e. the state of affairs is due to the political landscape and not the religious (or lack thereof) outlook of the people)

To me it sounds like you have just created a strawman of your own.

[Xeno Greycross]

Yes habit 7, care to explain to us how atheism produces dictators that set up theocracies with themselves as the god-head?

[Slartibartfast]

And the argument that "with no moral compass, man is free to do what he wants and therefore he can create a dictatorship" is not an adequate response. As a lot of bad has been done in the name of the Lord as well. These cases are still specific to the dictators. If you want to generalise about what atheism produces then it must be common among all atheists or atheistic countries.

[Habit7]

To control further straw-men and fictitious quotation of nobody, let me repeat what I said:

This is why atheism is unworkable, because there is no moral basis for anything. An atheist can kill millions in the case of Mao and Pol Pot and see no wrong. Only in a worldview with a moral law giver, with absolute morality, as the case in Christianity can we call that sin and oppose it. So when Kim Jong Un is starving his ppl to feed the elites don't see that as sin, see it as...different.

Naresh and I began a discussion about morality (not dictatorships) hence and it seems you to are jumping without reading prior.

If you find my examples are skewed, produce a country where state atheism has produced a human engineered morality that is above our Judeo-Christian morality.

And for the canard that Christians did bad things in past too, I dealt with that a couple pages aback. But for those whose internet might be slow let me reiterate, I said we shouldn't judge an ideology solely on those who claim to adhere to it, but if their actions are consistent to the ideology they claim to follow.

Slartibartfast sometimes I purposefully ignore your posts because I wonder if you are trolling or if this is really your position and you are as impossible as bluesclues to reason with.