# God, Aliens and Astronauts



## BadStarWanderer (Jan 8, 2013)

What do you believe in.?.

I'd like to discuss the origins off Humanity.?. I'd like to know how you think our race has come to be. 

I'd like to know your Beliefs.


----------



## SpaceDock (Jan 8, 2013)

I believe whatever they tell me on TV and the interwebz.


----------



## Murdstone (Jan 8, 2013)

I believe in God is an Astronaut.


----------



## Genome (Jan 8, 2013)

I don't believe in Astronauts.


----------



## the fuhrer (Jan 8, 2013)




----------



## The Omega Cluster (Jan 8, 2013)

Well, some protoform of nucleic acids happened to be made by chance on the early Earth, then through life and death and a lot of luck it became what we are today, and everything else that is living (including viruses) on Earth.


----------



## 7STRINGWARRIOR (Jan 8, 2013)

Anu


----------



## MrPepperoniNipples (Jan 8, 2013)

Nihilism!


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 8, 2013)

The Omega Cluster said:


> Well, some protoform of nucleic acids happened to be made by chance on the early Earth, then through life and death and a lot of luck it became what we are today, and everything else that is living (including viruses) on Earth.




I always found it funny how this sort of explanation still doesn't in any way cut a possible "creator" out of the picture. I'm not a Creationist, but this explanation of how life comes to be is still crude, I suspect.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 8, 2013)

Abiogenesis

Our own species however came to be by a non-random selection among lower primates, also called evilution


----------



## Demiurge (Jan 8, 2013)

I find this topic entertaining to no end- the development of technology in early civilization and the almost-inexplicable engineering marvels are fascinating. I don't think we need to go as far as to ascribe these early developments to the involvement of aliens, gods, or aliens-qua-gods to explain it, though.

Consider how different humans are technologically now compared to 100 years ago. Staggering. 200 years ago. Amazing. Yet we can't look back into remote antiquity and think that maybe those people, very similar to us, were incapable of figuring some things out.

Also, unless aliens are dicks- why didn't they "teach" us how to make steel, how to use electricity, how to pasteurize, or how to avoid using lead as piping a little bit sooner?


----------



## bhakan (Jan 8, 2013)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I always found it funny how this sort of explanation still doesn't in any way cut a possible "creator" out of the picture. I'm not a Creationist, but this explanation of how life comes to be is still crude, I suspect.


That's why I like it. It doesn't claim to be the full and complete truth. We don't know how life originally formed, that explanation is only our best guess for the time being.


----------



## will_shred (Jan 8, 2013)

Aliens? I say the Universe is far to large for there not to be other intelligent life, possibly far exceeding our own intelligence.


----------



## Nile (Jan 8, 2013)

What is this I don't even.


----------



## mr_rainmaker (Jan 8, 2013)




----------



## Spaceman_Spiff (Jan 9, 2013)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I always found it funny how this sort of explanation still doesn't in any way cut a possible "creator" out of the picture. I'm not a Creationist, but this explanation of how life comes to be is still crude, I suspect.



Basically I believe that somewhere near Earth a star containing the necessary elements and whatnot exploded and shot Earth with all that shit. Given the huge sample size that is all of Earth's surface random fluctuations of heat and pressure eventually managed to smash some things together resulting in chemical processes and bio-electricity that was able to form life. 

/HUGEparaphrase


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jan 9, 2013)

Demiurge said:


> Also, unless aliens are dicks- why didn't they "teach" us how to make steel, how to use electricity, how to pasteurize, or how to avoid using lead as piping a little bit sooner?


 
I think they are dicks, and they do like watching us squirm.


----------



## djyngwie (Jan 9, 2013)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I always found it funny how this sort of explanation still doesn't in any way cut a possible "creator" out of the picture. I'm not a Creationist, but this explanation of how life comes to be is still crude, I suspect.


It doesn't rule out the existence of unicorns either...


----------



## cindytaylor (Jan 9, 2013)

I just believe in God Power .


----------



## mcd (Jan 9, 2013)

Whatever i believe in or whatever is truth....at least I know I'll never watch prometheus again!


----------



## Ckackley (Jan 9, 2013)

Gods- Manifestations of energy created by people who believe. Energy can't be destroyed so all of that prayer/ritual energy has to go somewhere. 

Aliens- Sure, why not. There's way too much real estate in the universe to not have other life. 

So the origin of humanity ? Some random chemicals and a lightning strike. Or an alien space craft was out exploring and an alien had to take a dump and "poof" bacteria evolved. Either way, there was life which created the Gods through focus and attention as they tried to figure out what the hell they were doing.


----------



## the fuhrer (Jan 9, 2013)

I question the sanity of anybody who thinks they know the answer to this question.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 9, 2013)

Ckackley said:


> Gods- Manifestations of energy created by people who believe. Energy can't be destroyed so all of that prayer/ritual energy has to go somewhere.



I have always been intrigued as to what energy this is... Sure, I can buy that there is such an exchange of energy, but is it electricicity, mass, sound, light, heat, or radiation?

And if it is energy, wouldn't it then be measurable? Energy has real world properties, and are therefore by definition measurable.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Jan 9, 2013)

SpaceDock said:


> I believe whatever they tell me on TV and the interwebz.



Fox News 4 lyf.


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 9, 2013)

I am the ALIEN GOD. I am the ANCIENT ASTRONAUT. 

I came to your ROCK OF CRUDE, WORTHLESS ELEMENTS. I watched as your FEEBLE one-celled ancestors floated around, BARELY QUANTIFIABLE AS ALIVE.


----------



## The Omega Cluster (Jan 9, 2013)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I always found it funny how this sort of explanation still doesn't in any way cut a possible "creator" out of the picture. I'm not a Creationist, but this explanation of how life comes to be is still crude, I suspect.



Yeah, it doesn't rule out anything, science is science, not absolute truth, only our best guesses with the technology and knowledge available at the moment.

Intelligent Design will teach that it is God who made supernovae explode in the Hydrogen gas cloud that collapsed (by God's will) in order to enrich the surrounding clouds and future stars in Iron 60... That then exploded and created an Aluminum-26-rich wind that whirled around a gigantic star and blah blah blah.... 

But when God's will follows scientific evidence... who really wins?


----------



## Vostre Roy (Jan 9, 2013)

DJOD


​


----------



## kerska (Jan 9, 2013)

I frequently ponder the possibility that God and Jesus actually were aliens but since humans back then didn't have the right words to describe what they were seeing, it all got convoluted.

Who knows...Always an interesting topic though.


----------



## djyngwie (Jan 9, 2013)

Ckackley said:


> Gods- Manifestations of energy created by people who believe. Energy can't be destroyed so all of that prayer/ritual energy has to go somewhere.


What energy? There's no particular energy expenditure involved in the mentioned processes. Btw, studies show that prayer have no measureable effects or, in the case where people know others are praying for them, a small negative effect (presumably because of the pressure involved).


----------



## Sang-Drax (Jan 9, 2013)

Fucking astronauts. How do they work?


----------



## Xaios (Jan 9, 2013)

Vostre Roy said:


> DJOD
> 
> 
> ​



We are djworms!


----------



## matt397 (Jan 9, 2013)

Isn't there something like 17 Billion earth sized planets within the habitable zone within our galaxy alone ? My personal opinion is that I think its safe to assume that within our universe there 

are other civilizations.

Either way, as far as a creator Im not sure and Im hoping it will be a long long time until I find out


----------



## Randy (Jan 9, 2013)

What we're thinking of as aliens - they're extra-dimensional beings that an earlier precursor of the space program made contact with. They are not what they claim to be. They have infiltrated a lot of aspects of the military establishment particularly Area 51. 

The disasters that are coming, the government knows about them, and there's a lot of safe areas in this world that they could begin moving the population to now; but they are not doing anything about it. 

They want the major population centers wiped out so that the few that are left will be more easily controllable.


----------



## Xaios (Jan 9, 2013)

It's a good thing I had Patrick Stewart's beautiful mug to keep me grounded through all that, because it was amazingly straight-faced.


----------



## gunshow86de (Jan 9, 2013)

Randy's Thesis said:


> ...


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 9, 2013)

Using our ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY I and my compatriots raised you from CONFUSED APES to BEINGS CAPABLE OF ABSTRACT THOUGHT. You were our best efforts to create a companion species, OUR RESPONSE TO THE DISTRESSING LACK OF SUFFICIENTLY INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE COSMOS. 

You have failed us. 

WE WATCHED YOU SPREAD. From continent to continent, you moved restlessly, flourishing in some places, and in others you continued to live as SAVAGES. We visited you, wanting to welcome you into our arms as equals, as brothers in an empty universe. YOU BOWED DOWN TO US AS GODS. We gave you ideas. We implanted some of your greatest minds with the seedlings of engineering, and instead of using them to create A BETTER WORLD, you BUILT US MONUMENTS AT THE COST OF BLOOD.


----------



## skeels (Jan 9, 2013)

Randy's thesis proves what I had been thinking as I read through this thread.

and that is that some things are not quantifiable but only qualifiable.

And that...is some quality shit right there. .....





Also, Rev-what song are you quoting?

and if it is not a song why in the hell not?


----------



## bhakan (Jan 9, 2013)

Randy said:


> What we're thinking of as aliens - they're extra-dimensional beings that an earlier precursor of the space program made contact with. They are not what they claim to be. They have infiltrated a lot of aspects of the military establishment particularly Area 51.
> 
> The disasters that are coming, the government knows about them, and there's a lot of safe areas in this world that they could begin moving the population to now; but they are not doing anything about it.
> 
> They want the major population centers wiped out so that the few that are left will be more easily controllable.


----------



## TristanTTN (Jan 9, 2013)

I believe that if we were created by some type of creator, it would not be an all powerful God that we could pray to or connect with in some type of way, but merely a creator.

As of now, I'll just stick with what facts and theories that science has to offer.

Also, I think it is ridiculous to think that we are the only intelligent life in the universe knowing that there are billions of other planets out there. I do not think an alien will ever be able to contact Earth though ... unless warp drives were real or if there were certain species of intelligent aliens that have discovered how to live an eternal life so that they could travel thousands of light years to reach our planet.


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 9, 2013)

TristanTTN said:


> I believe that if we were created by some type of creator, it would not be an all powerful God that we could pray to or connect with in some type of way, but merely a creator.
> 
> As of now, I'll just stick with what facts and theories that science has to offer.
> 
> Also, I think it is ridiculous to think that we are the only intelligent life in the universe knowing that there are billions of other planets out there. I do not think an alien will ever be able to contact Earth though ... unless warp drives were real or if there were certain species of intelligent aliens that have discovered how to live an eternal life so that they could travel thousands of light years to reach our planet.



Consider what humans are doing.

We wanted to know what was out there in the cosmos, so we sent out the Voyager satellites. Since then, we've been steadily sending more and more advanced and capable machinery to explore for us. Who's to say that in a few decades, we won't be sending partially-A.I. capable machines out there? Or that we won't just send full-on smart spaceships to do our contacting for us? 

In that case, back on Earth, we could all die of a million different causes, and our Cylon children would be left to wander the universe with no purpose. Intelligent life doesn't have to be out there. Life does seem to demand existence, if one were to look at the many extinction event we've experienced and the tenacity with which life has clung on to this rock. As far as aliens themselves visiting us, or even being carbon-based, hell, even being recognizable as forms of life... Who knows?

I'm more down with Lovecraft's version of aliens. So strange, so indefinably not of this Earth, that it would break our minds to behold them. That's some eldritch shit I'd worship.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 9, 2013)

We're a computer simulation, created by a race that doubted its own reality and decided to test the possibility of a digital universe, as the programs that created them did. We are one of many digital dimensions, programs testing the boundaries of what they perceive as reality. In time, we will create our own universe, and only then will we realise that reality as we know it is meaningless. We are a program within a program within a program.


----------



## johnny_ace (Jan 9, 2013)

Why not live life, do good enjoy and whatever happens after you die happens, you deal with it when you get there? too many people take too much time worrying about what could happen when you die and waste their lives away, instead of enjoying it, life is to short to dwell on that you'll have eternity when you die....unless you reincarnate as super stellar being or come back as a zombie....


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 9, 2013)

johnny_ace said:


> Why not live life, do good enjoy and whatever happens after you die happens, you deal with it when you get there? too many people take too much time worrying about what could happen when you die and waste their lives away, instead of enjoying it, life is to short to dwell on that you'll have eternity when you die....unless you reincarnate as super stellar being or come back as a zombie....



Dude... Have you seriously thought about hell? I'm an atheist, and I'm glad I don't believe in it, because it'd give me serous anxiety problems. Endless torment for eternity, physical and psychological pain that never gets soothed by endorphins or dopamine, tortures worse than anything any human has ever conceived. Pain that would be impossible in our world to replicate, and it never stops. Ever. Each day becomes meaningless, as there is no cycle of torture, it's just a nonstop thrill ride of excruciating, body-wracking, exposed-nerve-pulling insanity. 

If you believe in an afterlife, you better start covering your bases.


----------



## johnny_ace (Jan 9, 2013)

The Reverend said:


> Dude... Have you seriously thought about hell? I'm an atheist, and I'm glad I don't believe in it, because it'd give me serous anxiety problems. Endless torment for eternity, physical and psychological pain that never gets soothed by endorphins or dopamine, tortures worse than anything any human has ever conceived. Pain that would be impossible in our world to replicate, and it never stops. Ever. Each day becomes meaningless, as there is no cycle of torture, it's just a nonstop thrill ride of excruciating, body-wracking, exposed-nerve pulling insanity.
> 
> If you believe in an afterlife, you better start covering your bases.


 
As an atheist why are you worried, and that's the point i was making, ifthere is a supreme being judgment when you die and you lived your life doing good ect ect pretty much what every religion preaches minus the WBBC and some other random ones, you got nothing to worry about, im sure a God that "gave " you free will will not judge if you didnt believe in him all your life even though you did good and lived life in the straight and narrow you should be covered


----------



## Jakke (Jan 9, 2013)

Well, many christian sects see hell as not literal pain, but more like being separated from the presence of God, and I have no idea of how that is supposed rate on an uncomfortableness-scale..


And Swedish protestants don't really believe in hell at all.


----------



## johnny_ace (Jan 9, 2013)

I say you can make this life your heaven or hell....ooooor what if we are dead and this is pergatory...im not trying to make a serious thread here so lighten it up because im sure someone is going to come in and be like"Well the bible says That Jeebus is blah blah blah.." so i gues im open to the understanding of others people beliefs and live your life the way you see fit to you, weather it be god(s), aliens biggfoot whatever


----------



## Jakke (Jan 9, 2013)

Trust me, it's by keeping it serious that religion-threads are tolerated here.


----------



## MikeH (Jan 9, 2013)

Jakke said:


> Well, many christian sects see hell as not literal pain, but more like being separated from the presence of God, and I have no idea of how that is supposed rate on an uncomfortableness-scale..



I'm pretty much in this spot right now, and fortunately, it's quite comfy.


----------



## skeels (Jan 9, 2013)

Don't blame me..

I voted for Kodoss.


----------



## johnny_ace (Jan 9, 2013)

All in all very open to alien theories, ghosts and the paranormal, it's good to be able to be open stuff we don't know much about


----------



## Jakke (Jan 9, 2013)

My view-point is the skeptical view, one should believe as many true things as possible. If something is not verified, one should suspend judgement, and if something is unverifiable, it should be recognized as such. I believe it was Bertrand Russell who formulated it first...

The skeptics has a saying:
"It's good to be open-minded, but there is a difference between that and having such an open mind that your brain falls out"


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 9, 2013)

All of you are idiots. I'm literally revealing the truth to you, as was revealed to me by an elder race of beings we call gods, and you just blithely ignore it.

Fools, the lot of you. Clearly your love of the halfling's leaf has slowed your mind.


----------



## Spaceman_Spiff (Jan 9, 2013)

The other day I thought about the fear of death, and initially I was like fuck I don't want to die man...but being an atheist I started to think what would happen...does my mind just stop, or is there some last hurrah of happiness from my life? I really thought about it but then I figured it doesn't matter, since if god exists the way a lot of religions say it does then since I don't believe I'll go to hell. But I've been a good guy so far, and don't see myself becoming a bad person anytime soon. And if I'm wrong and go to heaven hey, sweet. "My bad heaven people. It's pretty badass here." But I think I'll just stop when I die. I can't be angry because I won't exist as a mind. I don't just see all black either because I can't see and black no longer exists. I can't even be worried or even think at all.

Total nothingness. Just think about that for a moment. Blows my damn mind.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 9, 2013)

Personally, I am not concerned with what happens to me, I'll be dead anyway, but I do feel like I am going to miss the people who die before me. That is to me the most intriguing concept about heaven, as I do love my loved ones


----------



## TristanTTN (Jan 9, 2013)

My view on what happens after death is a bit hard to put in words, but I'll try...

As an atheist, I do not believe in a heaven/hell or afterlife, but I do believe in another life. Not meaning that I am still me in the new life, but some other living creature, whether human or not, that has the ability to sense time and remember events.

I've thought of complete nothingness like Spaceman Spiff a few times and it was quite mind blowing, but it just did not make enough sense to me.

During the state of nothingness, nothing can be sensed, obviously. Therefore time itself will feel as if it has passed by in a millisecond even if the actual state of nothingness has been a million years.

My point is that after one dies, they will immediately be able to sense life as another living thing, but this is only true if there is a period of nothingness after we die.

Sorry if that was a bit confusing. Feel free to interpret it your own way or disagree.


----------



## ElRay (Jan 10, 2013)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I always found it funny how this sort of explanation still doesn't in any way cut a possible "creator" out of the picture.



True, but irrelevant. It doesn't eliminate any possibility of an omnipotent invisible buddy, but it also doesn't supply one shred of evidence for them either. The non-existence of disproof is not anywhere near equivalent to proof of existence.

It's like me saying I can throw a 500 m.p.h fastball; you asking me to prove it, and I just say, "Prove that I can't".

It's not up to the "Astronauts" to disprove Gods/Aliens, their sycophants need to prove the existence of their Gods/Aliens.

Ray


----------



## guitareben (Jan 10, 2013)

For the moment I don't believe in God or Aliens, because I have no reason to believe. If someone actually had some form of evidence... then yea... But lets face it, that's unlikely to happen (with God anyway)


----------



## ILuvPillows (Jan 10, 2013)

Whilst we're on the 'mindblowing' topic, imagine for a moment that we actually did find proof of a God(s), in the real world, not death. Real proof that there is something really big and....omnipotent, omniscient. I mean, whales are amazing because they're a living thing, intelligent and absolutely huge. But a god....


----------



## The Omega Cluster (Jan 10, 2013)

matt397 said:


> Isn't there something like 17 Billion earth sized planets within the habitable zone within our galaxy alone ? My personal opinion is that I think its safe to assume that within our universe there
> 
> are other civilizations.
> 
> Either way, as far as a creator Im not sure and Im hoping it will be a long long time until I find out



Yeah, there probably _has been_ other civilizations, and there probably _will be_ other ones, too, but according to Drake's equation (with the newest data available), there is currently only 1 civilization in the Milky Way, being ours. [EDIT : that's for Today's skeptical estimates... the optimistic one is way too optimistic for me]

Of course, we cannot know for sure how long a civilization can last, and how long it can be in a technologically-advanced state, so this is mostly arbitrary. A non-human civilization could last billions of years, or a few months, we are just assuming. 

Then, even if we had 2 civilizations in the MW, how could they meet? 

Anyways, have fun with this : BBC - Future - Science & Environment - Drake equation: How many alien civilizations exist?


----------



## Michael T (Jan 10, 2013)




----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 10, 2013)

I get asked this question a fair bit, and I give the same answer; I don't know and I don't care whether I ever do find out. Everybody has theory and/or some "explanation" but the harsh truth is that in the grand scope of things, we know jack shit. Unless you were right there to witness what happen, the best thing you can do is guess. Thing that bothered me with a lot of religions is that for the minor details that they couldn't explain, they kinda made up as they went along and then stated it as uncontested truth, when all along they should have said "I have no idea."

Oh honesty, everyone talks about how they need more of you and then avoid you like the plague.... 

Do I believe in aliens? Nope. There's only theories and educated (but more commonly uneducated) guesses at best. Even if there were aliens, they wouldn't be some insanely smart super race that benevolently taught us random shit. They would be small organisms that have adapted to their planet; like protozoa or bacteria. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say you may have something that may have evolved to the point of indigenous wildlife, but not super smart green men that want to be taken to our leaders to butt probe them. Of course I accept that I can be woefully wrong on all of this, but I take into account that if the 2012 and Y2K scares taught us anything, it's that people have seriously overactive imaginations and create far scarier shit than you'll find in real life. 

God? Well for many years I believed unquestioningly that there was a god. I'm at a point right now where it's a thing you cannot prove or disprove so I see it as something that just simply is. So I guess I'm moving more and more back towards agnostic as opposed to christian. Some certainly helped spark evolution, and nobody knows what. People are too prideful to admit the fact that they simply do not know for certain, hence why you have religious fundamentalists and militant atheists. They are two sides of the same coin in my book. 

Astronauts I find more credible than anything else. They document everything they do, run tests, and present their findings to the rest of mankind. No mysterious wrath of god involved there; just truth as they find it.


----------



## johnny_ace (Jan 10, 2013)

The Omega Cluster said:


> Yeah, there probably _has been_ other civilizations, and there probably _will be_ other ones, too, but according to Drake's equation (with the newest data available), there is currently only 1 civilization in the Milky Way, being ours. [EDIT : that's for Today's skeptical estimates... the optimistic one is way too optimistic for me]
> 
> Of course, we cannot know for sure how long a civilization can last, and how long it can be in a technologically-advanced state, so this is mostly arbitrary. A non-human civilization could last billions of years, or a few months, we are just assuming.
> 
> ...


 

i dont try to rule anything out it's like i think Neil deGrasse Tyson said," to discredit all life in the universe intelligent or not is like taking a glass of sea water and saying there are no whales in the ocean"


----------



## The Omega Cluster (Jan 10, 2013)

johnny_ace said:


> i dont try to rule anything out it's like i think Neil deGrasse Tyson said," to discredit all life in the universe intelligent or not is like taking a glass of sea water and saying there are no whales in the ocean"



Yup. The Milky Way is but a glassful of seawater, but the metaphor is kind of awkward just given the size of it.

Maybe this : It's like watching Jersey Shore to determine if the human species is intelligent.


----------



## johnny_ace (Jan 10, 2013)

The Omega Cluster said:


> Yup. The Milky Way is but a glassful of seawater, but the metaphor is kind of awkward just given the size of it.
> 
> Maybe this : It's like watching Jersey Shore to determine if the human species is intelligent.


 
guess it was meaning that well we looked at this glass of water , we didnt find anything why look any further there isn't anything out there anyways... so in scientific research type of way im assuming


----------



## fortisursus (Jan 10, 2013)

I am a skeptic in many ways. I see god as a man made creation used as an excuse for what we do not know. An excuse for our own ignorance I suppose.

As for aliens and the such. I am 100% positive there is extraterrestrial life out in the vast unknown we call space. Their development? There is no way to know. We may be the most developed life forms in the universe or we may not be. But I am sure from the sheer number of planets/solar systems/ galaxies, that there is some form of life out there which likely functions in ways we have never imagined.

no I do not believe in flying saucers/ghosts or that there is any other meaning to life other than survival.


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 10, 2013)

fortisursus said:


> I am a skeptic in many ways. I see god as a man made creation used as an excuse for what we do not know. An excuse for our own ignorance I suppose.
> 
> As for aliens and the such. I am 100% positive there is extraterrestrial life out in the vast unknown we call space. Their development? There is no way to know. We may be the most developed life forms in the universe or we may not be. But I am sure from the sheer number of planets/solar systems/ galaxies, that there is some form of life out there which likely functions in ways we have never imagined.
> 
> no I do not believe in flying saucers/ghosts or that there is any other meaning to life other than survival.



I hate to be nitpicky, especially since I actually share the same belief in a fundamental way, but..

You aren't 100% positive. You don't _know_ anything. I suspect there is life outside that which we know; saying I know there is puts me in a position of ignorance. It's when people start thinking they _know _the answers to questions we either can't answer outright or can't answer just yet that you pave the way to institutionalized ignorance. 

We spend so much time in our own little heads, convinced that the way we see the world is much more accurate than everyone else's, and it's never the case. In the back of your mind, and mine, and everyone anyone who reads this has ever met, we think we are right. Our sly brains slip us little lies, excuses, really, for why other people don't get it. Oh, they don't have the knowledge I do. Oh, they aren't smart enough to understand it. Oh, they're in denial, but they secretly know the truth. It's bullshit. 

Worse than being bullshit, it leads to things like religious persecution, state-supported genocide, parasitic elitism, and idealistic slaughters. Individuals or groups who think they are right *without first trying to disprove themselves with an open mind* are behind the worst atrocities in our collective human history, and will be behind all the atrocities to come. 

I beg anyone who reads this to reconsider whether they know anything and are right about it. I beg anyone who reads this to question whether what they think is right should be forced on anyone else, even. After all, someone with an opposing viewpoint thinks that they are just as right as you. We see it on SSO all the time. This isn't the first ancient astronaut thread, and AoA and Explorer have tussled over this much more eloquently and humorously than I have or will, but the fact remains that neither has changed positions. Enlightened debate only occurs when both parties say, "This is what I support/believe; convince me otherwise," and then proceed to honestly evaluate the evidence presented and ignore the cognitive dissonance hardwired into our brains. 

America.


----------



## BadStarWanderer (Jan 11, 2013)

Why are humans so obsessed with gold.?.

Why does egyptian history tell us gods were boinking humans.?.

How did we figure out the science of splicing DNA and pairing it with another species DNA to make "improved" species.?.

In a quick sorta nutshell Ill share my Belief on the matter.


A planet of life forms simular to ours needed to travel space to find more resources for their home planet and/or to find a new place to live.


So they found our planet and noticed our neandrathal cousins and the vast amounts of untapped resources and said... Hmm let's Genetically engineer these Humans and make them harvest these resources for us.


So these Acient Astronauts took a little strand of dna from them selves and paired it into our dna. I believe they some how implemented a limiter for our brains so that we remained subdued and can't really organize a uprising and what not.

So they gave us enough smarts to take orders and harvest all the shiny metal known as gold for them. 

I believe they wanted our gold wwhich is our best conductor of electricity. I believe they needed it to improve their super sweet space age technology. Maybe a hint to why humans are completely obsessed with gold or Money.which represent gold...or used to. Haha.


I believe that all the gods that different religions talk about are all apart of some. Ancient astronaut squad that was sent to earth to to do various thing but mostly to genetically enginneer humans into a "improved" species , harvest precious materials and to just leanr and observe as real scientist would do.

All mankind saw shit coming out of the sky and explained it the best they could...of coarse our god is slightly different from anothers god because it took multiple "Gods"all around the world to accomplish their mission.

There's a lot more but organizing these kind of thoughts is mind botteling ... so for now ill stop. Haha.

But real quick... Reincarnation ina nutshell...

You die... all your body is still their your mind and thought are gone. But your super tastey body is there for all sorts of animals, insecgs and some time even humans to use as nurishment ..

Food to help some wolf that eats your ass generate enough sperm to impregnate their mate. Right there.... boom. Your energy was literally used to create a baby wolf...so in some way you are apart of the wolf.

Non of this "ima come back as a mighty shark and rule the sea or some shit" just death as we know it. You and all your youness totally gone. But your death is totally required for the rest of existence to thrive.

"NOW is our Turn." Everything that has Died before us, Died so that we could Experience Life...If only for a Moment."


----------



## TheHandOfStone (Jan 11, 2013)

That guy above me? Just made one of the best SS.org posts ever. 

EDIT: and it shall be immortalized.


----------



## Diggy (Jan 11, 2013)

every big find is nothing more than a stepping stone. every "top scientist" has been proven wrong over time. there's not enough time in human history for humans to really understand whats going on.

think about it.. 200,000 years for humans (supposed obviously).. 13.8 billion years for the universe (supposedly).. and we really think we have a clue.. 

preach on bruthas, preach on


----------



## GatherTheArsenal (Jan 11, 2013)

1) In terms of Gods: 

I'm an athiest, and here is how i became one. Summarizing several years here...

I was born a Muslim and practiced it until I reached the age of reason, developed the ability of self-formulative thought, critical thinking... and more importantly until I moved to Canada. 

What's the importance of the move?? 

A change in the environment that allowed, or i should say that didn't block, different external influences that gave me the opportunity to develop all those things, debate religious credibilty, and the freedom to question anything. Because the socio-cultural norm in the Middle East, for the most part, puts a huge emphasis on doing what's socially acceptable, as opposed to individual freedoms, so publically questioning the religion that i was born with is out of the question because it would bring shame to my parents and possibly lead to us being ostracised to a degree in our families, communities, etc. True story.

Looking back, this should have been a big clue that something was really wrong with this picture lol...

When I stepped out of my bubble and thought out of the box, as it were, I realized the following things about Gods and religions:

a) I was only a Muslim because of the region and time (as in date/era/century) that I was born in, that being Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates circa 1980's which is predominantly Muslim. I had no choice in the matter whatsoever, just as many more don't, it's by chance as far as my own existence is concerned. That doesn't sit right with me.

b) Each part of the world has it's own collection of religions and gods, the last number that i have read about was 2700 different gods, deities, and supernatural beings that have been recorded in time around the world. Also, never mind that the big 3 religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have several different sects that are inherent to each one spanning from disagreements within them. Clearly everyone in the world is in severe disagreement about the origin of life, so it sounds to me like someone along the way is making this shit up based on interpretation. Very not credible.

c) I personally believe that we as humans have the inexplicable need to always ask and attempt to figure out things like the origin of our existence and beyond, hence religions, science, and more presently this thread. Religions are a by-product of that, a man-made explanation stemming from our curiousity, and are unfortunately given the protective shielding of divinity which makes it taboo to question. Simply put there's a whole shit load of em because of our inherent curiosity and the global spread of the human race over time, and they all claim divinity. If you're going to believe in one religion, what logical reason do you have not to believe in other religions, and their different sects??

d) Religion, like so many things, separates the human race through division and produces negative thought through rhetoric, misinformation, grudges based on wars, ethnocentrism, and ignorance of other cultures because it creates a bubble that deflects external influences from cultures that are considered "different." I don't want a part of that.

e) Religions at their core are just one proposed explanation to the origin of the life, and it's the best that we could do without science. Considering how preposterous the stories of religions are, that's not saying much. 

f) I find that people who do believe in religion generally don't have the fortitude to say to themselves or others, "I don't know how life started, that's okay, but I'm working on it." Instead they'd rather believe, because it's more comfortable, the supreme being hypothesis/story that cannot be proven or disproven. Believing something out of convenience or social fear is just...plain... stupid....

2) In terms of Aliens:

Very probable, I don't have evidence so I can't logically put forth an argument that says yes they do exist. Simple as that.

I would like to ask this though for the sake of debate. If one day aliens show up and prove to us that they bio-engineered the human race, which seems to be the common consensus amongst believers in aliens, then that would explain the origin of our existence. Ok, awesome. I'm down. But what about their existence? And the ones before them? It's a slippery slope argument.

That being said, i want to put forth this notion - nothing that is alive can possibly explain the starting point, or even take credit, of all things in existence, because the being that is alive would be a product of the starting point. It's like the chicken and egg argument. One chicken can't take credit for laying the first egg, because where the hell did that chicken come from??

What do you guys think??


----------



## Jakke (Jan 11, 2013)

BadStarWanderer said:


> How did we figure out the science of splicing DNA and pairing it with another species DNA to make "improved" species.?.



Dedicated research by talented individuals?



BadStarWanderer said:


> So they found our planet and noticed our neandrathal cousins and the vast amounts of untapped resources and said... Hmm let's Genetically engineer these Humans and make them harvest these resources for us.
> 
> 
> So these Acient Astronauts took a little strand of dna from them selves and paired it into our dna. I believe they some how implemented a limiter for our brains so that we remained subdued and can't really organize a uprising and what not.
> ...



Except that Neanderthal was an evolutionary dead end, and our cousins. Had we come from them, we should see that in our genome, and we don't. We see that some interbreeding took place (although far less than expected, which is currently explained by humans being racist bastards), but Neanderthal and Sapiens Sapiens are two distinct species.

Now, I find this idea that we are some sort of slaves to a superior galactic race extremely insulting. Not only is you conception of gold being the best conductor wrong, but you also insult everyone of your own species, which is a god damn accomplishment. Apparently we are not only duped, but we are also genetically stupid. What sample have you used to empirically arrive at that conclusion? 

Are you going to claim that there is a race sophisticated enough to traverse space and engineer a race of slaves from a completely unknown alien species hasn't discovered either graphene or superconductors? Gold is an extremely primitive conductor, and silver is regardless a better conductor from a physical standpoint. The only real reason that gold is used at all for conducting is:
1. People are willing to believe that gold is the best conductor, and pay premium for it in applications such as audio.
2. It's remarkably resistant to corrosion, which makes it suitable to sensitive applications until we have perfected graphene technology and/or above-zero superconductors.


Not to mention, if we are here to mine gold for _them_, why are not everyone working in mining, and why is the gold that we take up from below ground accounted for here on this planet?


----------



## The Omega Cluster (Jan 11, 2013)

I think that what Badstarwanderer posted was only a hypothesis like any other... hypothesis does not need to be supported by facts or evidence. Like : "I think the sun is God" is a hypothesis.

If we don't intend to prove the hypothesis, we should call it a postulate.

So. BSW's postulate was kind of flippant indeed. Genetically engineered humans by an alien sentient species in order to extract ore? Gosh... If they are advanced enough to engineer our genome, maybe a thousand lightyears away from their home planet, wouldn't they have us build their mining machinery instead? It would be much faster then. Of course, I don't pretend to be able to put myself in an alien's mind, but it would mathematically be easier, and faster.

Then reincarnation. Yup... makes sense. You are indeed energy, and when you die, there is a ton of organisms and microorganisms that will take this energy you don't use anymore to survive and thrive for some time. It is possible that it was how the whole reincarnation concept came to be in some religions, how they got the idea, but it's been dumbed down or it became more esoteric since then.

Next time, try to label what you say correctly : just a postulate.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 11, 2013)

Nomenclature matters


----------



## flexkill (Jan 11, 2013)

Spaceman_Spiff said:


> The other day I thought about the fear of death, and initially I was like fuck I don't want to die man...




I think I know death... I think we all know exactly how death is and feels. Feels like before we where born, no? I am not afraid of death, as their is nothing to fear....it is after all....death. We will be no more, no thought, nothing....just death.

Now that last fleeting moment before death comes....I could see how that might be terrifying as your mind races and thousand of unanswered questions and fears flood your mind..... but as I said, we have all been dead before we where alive...how terrible was death then? I suspect no more terrible as after life....just death.


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 11, 2013)

I'm never going to take the time from my life to write a post about keeping open minds and pursuing truth in the face of admitting erroneous beliefs again. 

I'm just so shocked. 

The OP's latest post doesn't even cut it as a good sci-fi movie plot, and he's clearly unaware of where even our technology is headed. These fucking aliens are incredibly stupid bitches if they can't provide for themselves and have to do all the shit BadStar mentioned. 

I'd backhand them even if they did exist and showed up at my door. 





Stupid fucking aliens. Really, man? That is actually what you think? 

















What the fuck.


----------



## flexkill (Jan 11, 2013)

The Reverend said:


> Stupid fucking aliens. Really, man? That is actually what you think?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## BadStarWanderer (Jan 12, 2013)

you wouldn't have to have a society to much more evolved than our own to do what I'm saying.

I believe our own governments are trying to get to other planets in hopes to make the next stomping grounds for humans. 

what if our own astronauts from earth found homosepian-ish humanoids on another planet? there's no way that we could resist the urge to exploit the planet and all its life.
is nature not imperialistic?

genetic engineers at corporations like monsanto are taking strands of trout dna and combining them with vegitables like corn. they do it to make the corn tougher against cold along with change other properties. they do this just for pure profit . so imagine what scientist ,chemists and smart people alike would do to push the bounderies.

how far has science really come? dont you think that some scientist type fellow some where would start to mix genes in morally unexceptable manners. in every manner for that matter. we as humans mix every thing with anything. it truley beautiful. I suspect these super smart guys around our planet are doing every thing they can to figure out how to improve the capabilities of all living things. they'd study how to make you age slower or live longer, how to grow super harvest, how to have the most mind integrated technology ever.

will mankind reverse engineer thier own existence before becoming extinct?


----------



## bhakan (Jan 12, 2013)

So your reasoning for saying that aliens have been a major influence on our society is because everyone likes gold, and everywhere has some sort of religion?

Regardless of whether you're told that gold is valuable or not, if you're walking around a bunch of gray and brown rocks, and then suddenly you see a shiny gold object, you're going to think "look at that, that's pretty cool, I'll take that," so it is desirable, combine that with the fact that it is rare, and it will become valuable in all societies. 

As far as deities, everyone wants to know how life began, what happens afterwards and such, so when we couldn't figure it out, we created stories to explain it. Naturally the stories would use the mechanics of life that we know best, which is human interaction, so the easiest explanation at the time would be an all powerful, human like creature that created us and watches over us as parents would.

Neither phenomena seems like it would need aliens to explain it.


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 12, 2013)

After careful deliberation, and a thorough examination of my own worldview, I am now inclined to believe BadStar's Postulate: Mentally incompetent aliens came to Earth, mixed their own DNA with that of apes or early hominids, in a quest for gold to use in their electronics. It is from this event that all the God myths in the world come from.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 12, 2013)




----------



## The Omega Cluster (Jan 12, 2013)

BadStarWanderer said:


> you wouldn't have to have a society to much more evolved than our own to do what I'm saying.



Of course. Interstellar travel is obviously at reach of current technology.



BadStarWanderer said:


> I believe our own governments are trying to get to other planets in hopes to make the next stomping grounds for humans.



Yup. It is even a reality-TV project : Home - Mars One



BadStarWanderer said:


> what if our own astronauts from earth found homosepian-ish humanoids on another planet? there's no way that we could resist the urge to exploit the planet and all its life.
> is nature not imperialistic?



To find life on another planet might be possible in our own solar system. To find sentient life, however, is less than not likely. For this, we shall scour the galaxy and, if "today's skeptical" previsions of the Drake's equation is correct, we won't find anything intelligent in the Milky Way. For this, we will have to start intergalactic travel, which we are billions of lightyears from. However, if "today's optimistic" previsions for the same equation are right, we should expect tens of thousands of advanced civilizations across the Milky Way alone. But in order to find an hominid species anywhere, it's a throw of dice. A quadrillion-faced dice.



BadStarWanderer said:


> genetic engineers at corporations like monsanto are taking strands of trout dna and combining them with vegitables like corn. they do it to make the corn tougher against cold along with change other properties. they do this just for pure profit . so imagine what scientist ,chemists and smart people alike would do to push the bounderies.



First: have any reliable source to support your claims of trout DNA is Monsanto's maize? This is not impossible, I just want to be sure you're not saying anything.

Then: What do you mean by "push the boundaries"? Is genetically modifying a xeno-hominid profitable to anyone? In theory, it's okay, but in practice... You'd have to first take eggs and spermatozoids (given that they have a similar reproduction system than us), tamper with their genome, and then grow (in utero or in vitro) children based on that genome, maybe do some clones, and then spread them in nature. In order to GM all this xeno-humanity, we'd have to eradicate every living exo-human and replace them with our genetically modified clones. Meh... And we are far from understanding all our own genome. Sure, we decoded it and we know it by heart, but a gene may code for many different proteins, and there's the epigenetics, there's the impact of the environment on the gene expression... 



BadStarWanderer said:


> how far has science really come? dont you think that some scientist type fellow some where would start to mix genes in morally unexceptable manners. in every manner for that matter.



He would first have to fly to that planet, most likely outside the Milky Way.



BadStarWanderer said:


> we as humans mix every thing with anything.



Rum and coke?



BadStarWanderer said:


> it truley beautiful. I suspect these super smart guys around our planet are doing every thing they can to figure out how to improve the capabilities of all living things. they'd study how to make you age slower or live longer, how to grow super harvest, how to have the most mind integrated technology ever.
> 
> will mankind reverse engineer thier own existence before becoming extinct?



Improve capabilities of all living things? Right now we are just trying to avoid the sixth great extinction, which would be caused mostly by us. While this is not of utmost important to most of the world, companies prefer to create genetically modified maize, exploit and burn fossil fuel, cut forests and grow crops and raise cattle.

Finally, I'm not sure of your use of the term "reverse engineering", would you care to explain in further detail?


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Jan 12, 2013)

The Omega Cluster said:


> Well, some protoform of nucleic acids happened to be made by chance on the early Earth, then through life and death and a lot of luck it became what we are today, and everything else that is living *(including viruses)* on Earth.



Wait a minute, aren't viruses classified as non-living?


----------



## The Omega Cluster (Jan 12, 2013)

Gothic Headhunter said:


> Wait a minute, aren't viruses classified as non-living?



It is not clear yet, and the scientific community is divided on the question. I should have clarified that, sorry. 

My point of view, however, is that viruses are an extreme "parasitic" evolution of some earlier forms of life. They became extreme parasites, and must rely on other forms of life. That's a theory as any other, however.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob (Jan 12, 2013)

All I know is that an explosion and chemicals cannot create life. Even the "simple" creatures such as amoebas and other single-celled organisms are too complex for us to comprehend. Thus, there was some sort of designer. Be it an eternal god, or aliens. But if we were created by aliens, where did the aliens come from? They were either created by something else or they have always existed. Through this logic, there is indefinitely something eternal and intelligent that created life as we know it. 

"Scientists have theorized that, instead of a single large explosion, a group of small explosions within a small proximity worked together to create the universe. We are currently working on a new name for this so-called 'gang-bang' theory."


----------



## Jakke (Jan 12, 2013)

Ocara-Jacob said:


> All I know is that an explosion and chemicals cannot create life.



And how do you support this positive claim? 

It has been shown through developments of the Miller-Urey experiment that organic molekules can be formed from inorganic compounds.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob (Jan 12, 2013)

Alright... 

I can't prove that.

But I can ask where the compounds came from and where the explosion came from, right?

EDIT: And while I'm thinking about it, How controlled were the previously mentioned explosions that formed organic molecules? I can't understand how an uncontrolled explosion could create life as well as an easily inhabitable environment, and keeping the chemicals intact and concentrated.


----------



## bhakan (Jan 12, 2013)

Ocara-Jacob said:


> All I know is that an explosion and chemicals cannot create life. Even the "simple" creatures such as amoebas and other single-celled organisms are too complex for us to comprehend. Thus, there was some sort of designer. Be it an eternal god, or aliens. But if we were created by aliens, where did the aliens come from? They were either created by something else or they have always existed. Through this logic, there is indefinitely something eternal and intelligent that created life as we know it.


So, if I may just quote The Ocean's lyrics as an argument:

"A prime mover only shifts the problem
If every complex structure needs an architect;
Then this prime mover must be even more complex than anything he created

Who made your architect?
Who made your architect?
Where does he come from?
What is he made of?"

Aside from The Origin of God being an awesome song, it makes a valid point. If something as complex as life had to have a creator, then wouldn't the creator also need a creator and so on?


----------



## Ocara-Jacob (Jan 12, 2013)

bhakan said:


> So, if I may just quote The Ocean's lyrics as an argument:
> 
> "A prime mover only shifts the problem
> If every complex structure needs an architect;
> ...


Yes, unless an eternal being is existant- something or someone that has always been and always will be. The concept of something that has always been is hard for me to grasp, so yeah. There's not really an easy way to explain anything anymore.

At this point, we're just speaking in hypotheticals without anything that can be proven.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 12, 2013)

Ocara-Jacob said:


> Alright...
> 
> I can't prove that.
> 
> But I can ask where the compounds came from and where the explosion came from, right?



Sure. Nitrogen and hydrogen is pretty abundant in our universe, and heavier elements should have formed when our sun formed.

An explosion is not needed. What would have been needed is energy, and the current hypothesis, called the primordial soup hypothesis, is that there were electrical discharges in the early earth's atmophere, and they provided ample energy to start forming the first building blocks of life. 

There was also a chemist by the name of Sidney W Fox who hypotethized that the earliest amino acids would have been formed under pretty hot conditions (about 100 C or 212 F) to then be washed through volcanic ashes and into the sea. He took amino acids and placed lava over them, which he then baked in an oven. What he got out was a sticky borwn substance that on closer inspection turned out to be something later named protobionts. These are remarkably complex proto-cells, reminiscent of cyano bacteria. These structures managed to spilt asexually, and they even had dual membranes, something that is considered as a credible precursor to a cell membrane.

There is much we do not know yet, and that's the really interesting thing about science. Life is amazingly complex, and we have only begun to scratch the surface. What we have to remember is that while religion deeals with absolutes, science does not, so I can only say what currently is supported by observations. It's very possible that it might be proven to be false tomorrow, but that's the beauty of science, it's a self-correcting process.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob (Jan 12, 2013)

Jakke said:


> Sure.



Ooh good response, thank you. So where did the energy come from? Also, every one of these tests that you're referencing were in very controlled environments.


EDIT: I want someone to just throw a bunch of random chemicals and elements in a vacuum (assuming the vacuum of space existed to begin with) and just start throwing energy at everything.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 12, 2013)

Ocara-Jacob said:


> Ooh good response, thank you. So where did the energy come from? Also, every one of these tests that you're referencing were in very controlled environments.



Originally the energy came, as all our energy do, from the sun. More locally it was though atmospheric electrical discharges, which is a douchy way of saying lightning strikes.

Well, the primordial soup was also located in very small and local areas, namely puddles and crevices. There should not have been much contaminations to speak of, all is just chemicals in the end. But if the concentration of the soup were off in one puddle, there were millions more where the mixture could have been the correct one. 
The Miller-Urey experiment did not really use much of fixed measurments of chemicals, amounts become progressively less important the more advanced chemistry you do (unless we are talking analytical chemistry or synthesis where the yield actually matters), they mainly just added water, ammonium, methane, and hydrogen to see if they could be made to form organic molecules. Proportions didn't really matter.




Ocara-Jacob said:


> EDIT: I want someone to just throw a bunch of random chemicals and elements in a vacuum (assuming the vacuum of space existed to begin with) and just start throwing energy at everything.



But life started when we had an atmosphere already, it has never been of interest to use a vaccuum, because that was never how the conditions where in the first place.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob (Jan 12, 2013)

Jakke said:


> Originally the energy came...



Ok, cool story. So essentially something blew up, the sun came from that, as did the primordial soup, and from there the sun provided the energy for evolution?


----------



## djyngwie (Jan 12, 2013)

If you're thinking of the Big Bang, it's sort of misleading to think of it as merely an explosion. But in very simplified terms that sounds about right.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob (Jan 12, 2013)

And at some point genetic mutations began taking place and etc etc? 

Genetic mutations are only capable of removing information, but whatever.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 12, 2013)

Ocara-Jacob said:


> Ok, cool story. So essentially something blew up, the sun came from that, as did the primordial soup, and from there the sun provided the energy for evolution?



Well, a star is formed when a field of higher molecular density collapses on itself when the equilibrium between the potential energy of the gravitational force and the kinetic energy of the gas pressure becomes unbalanced. This inbalance occurs when the field has aquired enough mass that the gas pressure cannot contain the gravity anymore. This creates what is know as a gravitational collapse.

This collapse continues as long as there is excess gravitational energy left. Much will be released as radiation, but not all will be able to leave the collapse as radiation, and therefore the heat of the cloud will rise. As the collapse continues, the core of the cloud will start to increase in density, further increasing the rise of temperature. When the core has reached about 2000 degrees K (about 3100 F, or 1730 C), the hydrogen gas (H2) will start to dissociate (that is, the chemical bonds will start to break), and the hydrogen atoms will start to ionize. This makes the density of the core drop, and allows the cloud to decrease its radius, further increasing the heat in the core. This continues until the heat is strong enough to keep up a pressure high enough to stop the gravitational collapses.
This heat is about 10 million kelvins (!), and it allows for the fusion of hydrogen, first to deuterium (which is an isotope of hydrogen) and later to helium. This hellish fusion reactor in outer space is now what we refer to as a star, and it is also from here where many of our our elements comes from. See, the fusion does not stop at helium, it also fuses helium together to become heavier elements, up to and including iron. Heavier elements than that comes from supernovae, which are massive stellar explosion, the swan song of a dying giant star. It's basically a giant nuclear blast that fuses very heavy elements together and throws them out in space.
It's the nuclear energy from the sun that makes life on this planet possible.

Anyway, the early inorganic molecules came to earth from the sun. It's very common for oxygen and hydrogen to form water, so now we have puddles of water. It's in one of these puddles that it is believed that life on earth started.



Ocara-Jacob said:


> And at some point genetic mutations began taking place and etc etc?
> 
> Genetic mutations are only capable of removing information, but whatever.



Well, as soon as the first cell appeared, there should have been a measure of natural selection where fitter cells survived and weaker did not.

That mutations only remove "information" is a creationist myth that they love to loudly repeat ad nauseum. It's a logical impossibility that mutations would not be able to "add" information, and there are some examples as to why. Consider tolerance to lactose for example. The natural order in the majority of humanity is to lose tolerance to lactose a couple of years into our teens, yet lactose tolerance exists as a beneficial mutation in some populations on this planet. This is a mutation that has developed during the last 7000 years, and is mainly exclusive to western Europe and some populations in eastern Africa, two groups that historically has kept cattle. By any standard this is adding "information" as digestion of lactose require a special enzyme to be made, lactase.
There is a gene that evolved during the black plague in Europe that now exists in Scandinavia (and about 15% of the population has it) that grants full protection against HIV and AIDS (as well as against the black plague).

Many mutations also consists of undoing earlier mutations, so if the first mutation subtracted "information", then the second added "information", correct?

This is longer pages about mutations if you want to read some more:
TalkOrigins: Mutations 
TalkOrigins: Mutations ("Information")


----------



## flexkill (Jan 12, 2013)

Ocara-Jacob said:


> Ok, cool story. So essentially something blew up, the sun came from that, as did the primordial soup, and from there the sun provided the energy for evolution?


Sounds like you are getting frustrated. Science and facts are crushing you. Sorry man


----------



## The Omega Cluster (Jan 12, 2013)

Ocara-Jacob said:


> And at some point genetic mutations began taking place and etc etc?
> 
> Genetic mutations are only capable of removing information, but whatever.



I apologize for the oncoming, but : 

Has it occurred to your brain to think of looking for information in the first place? Or is your scientific method consisting of : think about a hypothesis; no need to prove it; hypothesis accepted?

That or you believe people who follow the same methodology. Both of which I pity you, and encourage you to learn something.

Genetic mutations indeed include removing some information out of the DNA, but often, this is non viable. In fact, any mutation is most of the time non viable. Other mutations include tautomerism, errors, and also mutation by UV or X-rays or chemicals. 

I noticed in your earlier posts that you seem to misquote sir Jakke here, and maybe others, too, for your own benefit. That's just lame and childish.

Also, we don't know yet about how the universe came to be. The Big Bang is a theory among others, but it's the most well backed-up one. So until further evidence, please keep your keyboard clean of your fingers.

Then, do you have any background on astronomy or biology to claim such stupid things as "life appeared in the vacuum of space"? Gosh... 

I'm going through it quickly : Big bang; first stars are really big, don't last long, made of H and He mostly; they create heavier elements through their core; they explode and spread the heavier elements; new stars are born from H and He and heavier elements (and repeat); discs of matter form around stars, gravitational forces make discs collapse to form planets.

Then, if all the elements are at the right place at the right time under the right conditions (no vacuum, energy (light from the star), etc), they will mix up and chemistry will do its job and (on Earth) molecules assembled and became self-replicating, and eventually became life.

Changing subject, why do you claim that we don't know a thing about amoeba and bacteria? Your ignorance does not reflect humanity's knowledge on the matter, good sir.


----------



## bhakan (Jan 12, 2013)

Ocara-Jacob said:


> And at some point genetic mutations began taking place and etc etc?
> 
> Genetic mutations are only capable of removing information, but whatever.


What do you mean mutations can't add information?

Genetic mutations happen when during some process, the cell basically screws up and accidentally puts in the wrong nucleotide, or an extra nucleotide, or forgets one. As a result, the amino acid coded for by the nucleotide that changed (and any others affected by it) is different, resulting in different proteins. Sometimes they remove, sometimes they add, either way, they change the proteins created by the cell.


----------



## djyngwie (Jan 13, 2013)

This guy clearly gets all his "scientific" info from creationist sites.


----------



## The Omega Cluster (Jan 13, 2013)

djyngwie said:


> This guy clearly gets all his "scientific" info from creationist sites.



It really angers me that there is people on the face of the Earth that are consciously spreading incorrect facts and thoughts, all the while sinking established boats like the big bang theory or the theory of evolution, and claiming their own raft to be as good as other scientific established "boats".


----------



## Joose (Jan 13, 2013)

I believe that, at this point in our evolution, our brains simply cannot comprehend what created us and the rest of the Universe. The religious types will tell you they know for certain that some intelligent being, that just always existed, created everything. And then the Big Bang Theory means that some particles just "always existed" and that they exploded into the Universe. Both of those sound like things people just hold onto to believe in *something*; and that's fine. I never judge or tear down people for their Religious and creation beliefs. 

As far as Aliens go... oh yeah, big believer. Whether they've visited Earth or not? I dunno. But, (per a meme I saw the other day) saying there's no other intelligent life in the Universe is like taking a cup of ocean water and saying there are no whales.


----------



## flexkill (Jan 13, 2013)

Joose said:


> As far as Aliens go... oh yeah, big believer.



Well duh! One played in the NBA.


----------



## GatherTheArsenal (Jan 13, 2013)

The Omega Cluster said:


> It really angers me that there is people on the face of the Earth that are consciously spreading incorrect facts and thoughts, all the while sinking established boats like the big bang theory or the theory of evolution, and claiming their own raft to be as good as other scientific established "boats".



^ That! There's nothing that I can't stand more than willfull ignorance or believing and spreading rhetoric under the guise of facts.

I wish everyone in the world would have as much access to just one course on secular critical thinking at a young age, as much as they have access to religions.

Kinda makes me wonder what we truly value more as a society and what we want to pass down to the next generation - tradition or knowledge?


----------



## BadStarWanderer (Jan 13, 2013)

To qoute the Bible. "And God said,Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"

The Bible clearly states that God made man in the image of multiple beings.


----------



## flexkill (Jan 13, 2013)

BadStarWanderer said:


> To qoute the Bible. "And God said,Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"
> 
> The Bible clearly states that God made man in the image of multiple beings.


----------



## bhakan (Jan 13, 2013)

BadStarWanderer said:


> To qoute the Bible. "And God said,Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"
> 
> The Bible clearly states that God made man in the image of multiple beings.


/thread. The Bible said so, how can we argue with that?


----------



## Jakke (Jan 13, 2013)

BadStarWanderer said:


> To qoute the Bible. "And God said,Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"
> 
> The Bible clearly states that God made man in the image of multiple beings.



According to greek myths the world is a giant woman. We were created by a disgruntled former employee of Zeus, and we are also completely void of any good qualitites apart of we standing upright and using fire.

/Thread


----------



## djyngwie (Jan 13, 2013)




----------



## GatherTheArsenal (Jan 13, 2013)

djyngwie said:


>



That's awesome lol


----------



## BadStarWanderer (Jan 13, 2013)

I'm just using the Bible to support my alien beliefs a lot of people veiw god as one he/she/dude/thing I see that passage and think of multiple gods/alien/astronaut that created man. In their image.

Here's something I. Found on Mount Sinai . To support the alien theme with the Bible.

"Here I will present evidence to you that Moses was in contact with spaceships. Take it as you will but at the very least take it with an open mind. Here we go. 

1. Moses frequently met the angel (spaceship of God) on Mount Sinai and in other locations. There the angel (the spaceship) of the Lord Yahweh appeared to him in flames of fire from a bush (a description in the terms of their times). Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, I will go over and see this strange sight -why the bush does not burn up. 

2. On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud (the spaceship) over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast (the spaceships engine) Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the Lord descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, the whole mountain trembled violently, and the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder. Then Moses spoke and the voice of God answered him. (Exodus 19:16-19). 

3. Moses spent 40 days inside Yahwehs spaceship. His description is identical with the descriptions given by Enoch, Ezekiel, Daniel, John and other biblical prophets: They saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself.

4. Whenever Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent; and the Lord would speak with Moses. When all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent, all the people would arise and worship each at the entrance of his tent. (Exodus 33:9-11). 

5.In all the travels of the Israelites, whenever the cloud lifted from above the tabernacle, they would set out; but if the cloud did not lift, they did not set out until the day it lifted. So the cloud of the Lord was over the tabernacle by day, and fire was in the cloud by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, during all their travels. (Exodus 40:36-40). This pillar of cloud seems like a vauge discription of a ufo to me. There are many other references that point out to a spaceship and things flying all over the place. I got my info from 

here www.ufodigest.com..."


----------



## The Omega Cluster (Jan 13, 2013)

BadStarWanderer said:


> here www.ufodigest.com..."



Well, that's a solid source, man. I got to believe you.


----------



## bhakan (Jan 13, 2013)

I feel like you are confusing a lot of "I _guess_ that could be interpreted as aliens" for "HOLY CRAP! ALIENS MUST HAVE DONE EVERYTHING!"

Just because fires that didn't go and trumpets _could_ be used by early people to describe a spaceship, doesn't make any of it plausible, let alone the fact that the Bible is hardly solid, scientific evidence towards anything.


----------



## The Omega Cluster (Jan 13, 2013)

I admit that it's not impossible that aliens did visit the Earth. And it's not even impossible that they interpreted it as God or something, and wrote the Ancient Testament upon this. Maybe even the Bible.

However, such claims, due to the obvious lack of evidence, must be taken with a lot of caution. There are a lot of ways to interpret such words. Things like "the bush in fire" might as well be a transcription error, for all we know.


----------



## groph (Jan 13, 2013)

The Omega Cluster said:


> Well, some protoform of nucleic acids happened to be made by chance on the early Earth, then through life and death and a lot of luck it became what we are today, and everything else that is living (including viruses) on Earth.



This is basically what I believe, because evidence.



Adam Of Angels said:


> I always found it funny how this sort of explanation still doesn't in any way cut a possible "creator" out of the picture. I'm not a Creationist, but this explanation of how life comes to be is still crude, I suspect.




No it doesn't, but it just pushes the "creator" back another link on the causal chain, who created the creator, etc. 









As far as this "ancient astronauts" stuff is concerned, I'll have to see it to believe it. If we make contact with aliens then it's plausible that they've been to Earth before but I think it's kind of ridiculous to say "aliens did it" when we've never seen a fucking alien.


God and religion in general is fine with me, but major institutionalized religions like the Abrahamic faiths have been ...problematic, not the beliefs per se but institutions themselves, so the clergy and the church. Practicing religion as a philosophical exercise isn't a bad thing to me, maybe some call that "spiritual" as in "I'm not religious but I'm spiritual" which is fine as long as you don't ACTUALLY BELIEVE that there's a magic bearded dude or a sentient collection of pasta inhabiting some realm somewhere.


----------



## 7STRINGWARRIOR (Jan 13, 2013)

I personally believe that we were created to mine gold. I do believe in evolution, but I believe we were genetically engineered. I don't believe that homo erectus naturally evolved into homo sapiens. I believe that The Bible/Quran/Torah are 99% garbage. 

I believe these "wars" are only a war against human intelligence. They'll continue to blow up ancient monuments and pillage museums until everything that picks your brain is gone. The Bible/Quran/Torah are great instruments to organize a civilization. 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to get outside and watch the stars every once and a while. Those who don't believe in "aliens" should go outside and "look up", rather than looking down at an electronic device.

Our military has unbelievable technology, we're almost there.


----------



## GatherTheArsenal (Jan 14, 2013)

BadStarWanderer said:


> I'm just using the Bible to support my alien beliefs a lot of people veiw god as one he/she/dude/thing I see that passage and think of multiple gods/alien/astronaut that created man. In their image.
> 
> Here's something I. Found on Mount Sinai . To support the alien theme with the Bible.
> 
> ...



While I do find it pretty freakin' cool to think of the awe and wonder that one can feel if they were to witness these events in the way that you presented them, I have to say that you could replace "alien" with any other yet to be unproven creature and still get the same result, logically speaking.

Whenever something like the bible, which is so open to interpretation for several reasons, is used in support of something like aliens or even the existence of god for that matter, you sort of enter into a position where you HAVE to suspend your imagination and "believe" in something, more so than relying on facts.

You could technically replace the alien theme with several other themes and it would be plausible to interpret those passages as support for those themes. I.e. Zeus theme, Shiva theme, Flying Spaghetti Monster theme.

It's cookie cutter logic. Makes for a cool story, but still suggestive at best, if even that.


----------



## The Omega Cluster (Jan 14, 2013)

7STRINGWARRIOR said:


> I personally believe that we were created to mine gold.


 
Then what are you waiting? Go and mine gold, if that's the reason why you're alive.



7STRINGWARRIOR said:


> I do believe in evolution, but I believe we were genetically engineered. I don't believe that homo erectus naturally evolved into homo sapiens.



Facts prove you wrong. Dig up in Europe and Africa and you'll eventually find skulls and skeletons that look like you, and the more you'll dig, the less they will. That's a pretty cool thing called "evolution". 



7STRINGWARRIOR said:


> I believe that The Bible/Quran/Torah are 99% garbage.



Yup, and 1% papyrus.



7STRINGWARRIOR said:


> I believe these "wars" are only a war against human intelligence. They'll continue to blow up ancient monuments and pillage museums until everything that picks your brain is gone. The Bible/Quran/Torah are great instruments to organize a civilization.



Yeah... those religious works were there to indeed organize shit up, and imbue valors and principles into people's mind, which is a good thing up to a certain point. Great religions diverged and were power-hungry, however.



7STRINGWARRIOR said:


> It doesn't take a rocket scientist to get outside and watch the stars every once and a while. Those who don't believe in "aliens" should go outside and "look up", rather than looking down at an electronic device.



Well, I myself often look up at the stars whenever I can, and I am not a rocket scientist, you were right! Then, what did you see to be so convinced about alien's existence? I think, however, that you might learn much more on an electronic device than by watching the sky alone. I am not saying aliens are irrefutably inexistent, quite the contrary. There is just no proof of that, and if you tell me I gotta believe they're there, you rely more on faith than on reason.



7STRINGWARRIOR said:


> Our military has unbelievable technology, we're almost there.



Where?


----------



## Jakke (Jan 14, 2013)

The Omega Cluster said:


> Then what are you waiting? Go and mine gold, if that's the reason why you're alive.



The cosmic version of "get back in the kitchen"


----------



## Varcolac (Jan 14, 2013)

BadStarWanderer said:


> To qoute the Bible. "And God said,Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"
> 
> The Bible clearly states that God made man in the image of multiple beings.



Majestic plural - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, it doesn't. Similar to Romance languages (French, Spanish, Italian, etc) using the plural form of "you" (vous, vosotros, vi) to give respect, archaic English uses the plural form of "I" (we) to show the majesty of the speaker. Kings, popes and deities use it. See Queen Victoria's well-known quote: "We are not amused."

Also, the King James translation of the bible isn't exactly the most rigorous translation of the original Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew. At best, the King James Old Testament is an English translation of the Latin translation of the Greek translation of the Hebrew (or Aramaic, depending on the book) original. Five minutes on Google Translate will let you know how bad _those_ kinds of translations can get.

I try not to believe. I'm reasonably convinced by the evidence I have seen and the logic of the arguments of the theory that early organic molecules were created from simple chemical mixtures in early Earth's atmosphere, that over a timescale of millions if not billions of years they combined and recombined and began a slow process of evolution, leading first to single-celled organisms, later the plant and animal kingdoms, leading eventually and over the course of millions of years to dinosaurs, mammals, hominids, _Homo_, _Sapiens_ (not forgetting our cousins _Neanderthalensis_, _Heidelbergensis_ and the hobbit-sized _Floresiensis_), language, tools, culture, religion, farming, cities, governments, nations, capitalism, slavery, genocide, democracy, and science.

I've seen no evidence of aliens but it seems foolish to discount the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. There's no evidence for them having ever been _here_ though. Just as the timescales I just described are almost immeasurably lengthy, the universe is (possibly literally) immeasurably vast. I'm fairly sure we'll find single-celled organisms under the ice of Europa - it seems it could have the right conditions for organic molecules to have arisen. If there are any_ intelligent_ aliens in our galaxy, since they've neglected to contact us yet, they're either _A)_ very far away, _B)_ at the same technological level as ourselves or lower, _C)_ incapable of travelling faster than the speed of light, or _D)_ all of the above.

Finally, people like gold because it's shiny. Because people like it, it became valuable. Because it held great value, it became more desirable. Simple economics, really. Same with diamonds, but I don't hear anyone saying that aliens bred us to mine carbon.


----------



## Xaios (Jan 14, 2013)

BadStarWanderer said:


> Moses spent 40 days inside Yahwehs spaceship.



I just had a mental image in my head of a bearded Charlton Heston getting probed by Greys.

Who knows, maybe the 10 Commandments were originally given to Moses on 2 Ipads. Maybe the real reason he destroyed the original set was because he got frustrated trying to navigate the desert using Apple Maps.


----------



## Varcolac (Jan 14, 2013)

Xaios said:


> I just had a mental image in my head of a bearded Charlton Heston getting probed by Greys.
> 
> Who knows, maybe the 10 Commandments were originally given to Moses on 2 Ipads. Maybe the real reason he destroyed the original set was because he got frustrated trying to navigate the desert using Apple Maps.



"The tablets say the Promised Land is behind the next mountain."

"Yeah yeah Moses, and they said there'd be a shopping mall behind the last mountain - what'd we get? MORE DESERT."


----------



## Xaios (Jan 14, 2013)

Varcolac said:


> "The tablets say the Promised Land is behind the next mountain."
> 
> "Yeah yeah Moses, and they said there'd be a shopping mall behind the last mountain - what'd we get? MORE DESERT."



Moses: Oh, for... What the hell is an on-ramp, and why do I need to go through a traffic circle first and then "merge left" to get to it??

Joshua: Master, maybe it's time we call tech support.

Moses: Sigh, you're right. *Puts hands together and kneels* Oh Lord, please lay a path before us so that we can find our way to "Yahweh's House O' Manna." Also, I'd like to submit a trouble ticket...


----------



## 7stringDemon (Jan 15, 2013)

I am an open and proud Atheist who believes in the ways of Scientific theory, logic and reason. But as a believer in science, I also know that any evidence can be found at any time that could change our way of thinking.

I do not believe in any god. However, I do believe that science could, currently, be 100% wrong about everything. And any scientist would agree with me there. That is one of the beauties of science.

Besides, our laws of physics really only apply to Earth. Some apply, to everywhere, but many are just true on Earth. Another one where science is not 100% correct.

I also believe that there is other life out there and that we know nothing about it.

And anyone can believe whatever they want. There was a thread here where someone placed "I believe in God" big on the back of his RGD7421 and I still felt it was an amazing paintjob. 

Just don't start saying how fucking wrong I am and shoving your god down my throat. I won't reply. You'll just look like a fucking douche to everyone.


----------



## The Omega Cluster (Jan 15, 2013)

7stringDemon said:


> I am an open and proud Atheist who believes in the ways of Scientific theory, logic and reason. But as a believer in science, I also know that any evidence can be found at any time that could change our way of thinking.



Have you considered agnosticism, instead of atheism? Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



7stringDemon said:


> Besides, our laws of physics really only apply to Earth. Some apply, to everywhere, but many are just true on Earth. Another one where science is not 100% correct.



Have you ever been on the moon? Some say that the laws of physics still apply out there.



7stringDemon said:


> I also believe that there is other life out there and that we know nothing about it.



Indeed, if there's life outside of Earth, we know nothing about it.



7stringDemon said:


> And anyone can believe whatever they want. There was a thread here where someone placed "I believe in God" big on the back of his RGD7421 and I still felt it was an amazing paintjob.
> 
> Just don't start saying how fucking wrong I am and shoving your god down my throat. I won't reply. You'll just look like a fucking douche to everyone.



That's it! Everyone's got their own beliefs, and one can show them like they wish to the world, but don't do propaganda, don't try to convert the others, and try to reach your own god.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 15, 2013)

7stringDemon said:


> Besides, our laws of physics really only apply to Earth. Some apply, to everywhere, but many are just true on Earth. Another one where science is not 100% correct.



But they do, very much so



The Omega Cluster said:


> Have you considered agnosticism, instead of atheism? Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



This is a pretty big misunderstanding that has been perpetuated by non-believers who "do not want to be an ass about it", agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. 
This is because agnosticism-gnosticism deals with knowledge, and theism-atheism deals with belief, I, for one is an agnostic atheist (about a 6 on Dawkins' scale), which means that I do not believe in any gods, but I can't really know with 100% certainty that there is no god anywhere in the universe. There are of course gnostic atheists, people who do not believe in any gods and know that there are none, there are also agnostic theists, the people who "believe in a universal force", and of course the gnostic theist who is the usual believer who believes and know that there is a god/gods.

People approach agnosticism as an "atheism light", just as believers who do not want to call themselves religious are "spiritual", but that is a wrongful conclusion, because they simply do not deal with the same philosophical standpoints. Most of those who refer to themselves as agnostics are in fact agnostic atheists, as they don't believe in a god (otherwise they would be theists), and don't know if there is one, but they have been duped by the theist side who tries to rebrand "atheist" as someone who says "there is no god", which is a standpoint a lot easier to poke holes into.

There are of course those who aggressively tries to have a non-stance on existential questions, often out of a smug sense of superiority fawk, but I would argue that this is a kind of atheism as well, albeit a very agnostic one.


----------



## Danukenator (Jan 15, 2013)

The Omega Cluster said:


> Have you considered agnosticism, instead of atheism? Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




If the existence of a deity is unproven, why not just say "I lack the belief in a deity because there is insufficient evidence?"

If the existence of a deity is unknowable, why believe in it period?


----------



## The Omega Cluster (Jan 15, 2013)

Danukenator said:


> If the existence of a deity is unproven, why not just say "I lack the belief in a deity because there is insufficient evidence?"
> 
> If the existence of a deity is unknowable, why believe in it period?



Agnosticism is just that. 

" the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable. " -Wikipedia


----------



## bhakan (Jan 15, 2013)

In a semi-related (but humorous) note


----------



## BadStarWanderer (Jan 16, 2013)

In response to the Omega Cluster.

Youasked that guy from Lansing,Mich why he doesn't just go mine gold.

Well in a way we all do. Every person has to work if they plan to get ahead. And for many of us the work becomes routine and the pay just enought to get by.

If you look at how all these big businesses work it just funnels the majority of the money to the few high ups on top. Takeing all the wealth from the area and spreading it elsewhere.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 16, 2013)

But what does that have to do with aliens? Is Bill Gates an alien? I mean I was always suspicious, but you know...

And Steve Jobs, man he definitely looked alienesque. I think the turtle neck he wore was a cloaking device.

In all seriousness, if you have ever had a discussion with someone at the top of the food chain you'd realize that they are all just mostly greedy mother fuckers. We work to make it by because most people have no choice or otherwise starve to death/ become a hobo/ drop down further on the economic scale. I know it'd be nice to think that their is a grand scheme and that there is a wall keeping you out, but it does not exist.


----------



## 7stringDemon (Jan 16, 2013)

The Omega Cluster said:


> Have you considered agnosticism, instead of atheism? Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Have you ever been on the moon? Some say that the laws of physics still apply out there.
> .


 
Nope. I am 100% sure that I do not believe in God or any other type of god. I'm not on the fence about it.

I find it very hard to believe that our laws of physics apply to EVERYWHERE. And I don't mean everywhere on Earth, our solar system, or even our galaxy. I mean the ever-expanding EVERYWHERE! I'd like to believe that wormholes are a pretty good example.


----------



## The Omega Cluster (Jan 17, 2013)

7stringDemon said:


> I find it very hard to believe that our laws of physics apply to EVERYWHERE. And I don't mean everywhere on Earth, our solar system, or even our galaxy. I mean the ever-expanding EVERYWHERE! I'd like to believe that wormholes are a pretty good example.



As far as we know, the laws of physics are this: _laws_. They are applied everywhere, and they are the same everywhere. If we somehow found that they were different, it would lead to a major re-work of the standard model.

Another place where there is a great possibility of finding new physics is outside our universe. If an "outside" exists, it might consist of other universes and something between them I am not sure about.

The laws of physics are the same inside our universe because it all comes from the same place, and the expanding universe is still made from the same thing that formed it in the first place. I don't see why it would behave differently than the rest.


----------



## jl-austin (Jan 28, 2013)

BadStarWanderer said:


> What do you believe in.?.
> 
> I'd like to discuss the origins off Humanity.?. I'd like to know how you think our race has come to be.
> 
> I'd like to know your Beliefs.



I believe God created the universe. I believe this universe is a battlefield for good vs evil.

I have in the past ignored God, I can say without a doubt that life with God is better than life without him. It says to lay your burdens on Jesus and you will be comforted, I have found this to be a truth.

If you look at the complexity of DNA, it's what, 20 gigs of data? Every cell in our body has this info programmed, stuff like that just doesn't happen without an intelligence involved.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 28, 2013)

Every snowflake is amazingly complex and unique.. Would you be terribly persuaded by me suggesting there are feys in the cloud making snowflakes? I mean, something as complex as them has to have been created, right?


----------



## jl-austin (Jan 28, 2013)

Jakke said:


> Every snowflake is amazingly complex and unique.. Would you be terribly persuaded by me suggesting there are feys in the cloud making snowflakes? I mean, something as complex as them has to have been created, right?



I have found that people tend to believe what they want to believe. People who don't want to believe in God won't be convinced to do so. It is all a matter of what a person wants. If you seek God, you WILL find him. If you don't want to believe, you will find that also.

Again, I have found life with God better than without him. I don't really want to get into a debate. The original post asked for my opinion, I will share what I believe.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 28, 2013)

And I don't think belief is a choice, I never chose to be an atheist, I just don't believe there are any gods, just as you probably not did decide one day to start believeing in Yahweh. Saying that someone chooses to believe implies that there is belief in the first place, as god either is or is not, which makes the whole notion sonsensical.

I respect that you don't want to talk about it, I'm a pathological arguer myself, it's a disease really.. I just _have_ to challenge contrary posititons


----------



## bhakan (Jan 28, 2013)

Jakke said:


> And I don't think belief is a choice, I never chose to be an atheist, I just don't believe there are any gods, just as you probably not did decide one day to start believeing in Yahweh. Saying that someone chooses to believe implies that there is belief in the first place, as god either is or is not, which makes the whole notion sonsensical.


I feel the same way. I can't choose to believe in a god, I just _am_ an athiest. When I was younger, I got tired of dealing with being the odd one out, as pretty much everyone I knew was christian, so I decided to be christian. Even though I wanted to be christian, I could never wholeheartedly believe in something without evidence.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 28, 2013)

^^^Pretty much what happened to me as well. Even went as far as reading the bible. Tried asking questions during my reading, but everyone acted like they'd get struck down if they said something potentially blasphemous. I grew quite irritated with the stupidity of it all. Beyond the lack of evidence, I think the numerous amount of religions and contradicting info was enough to change my hand. I was never truly a Christian, but I certainly tried.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 28, 2013)

Because I have both a very religious aunt and a very religious grandmother (catholics, which is pretty rare in northern Europe), I got exposed to a lot of religious literature as a young kid. My religious period, however, can be counted in weeks, as a matter of fact a couple of weeks when I was about six years old. After that I realized that I just didn't believe that there was a god, becoming a more outspoken atheist in my mid teens.

My parents always had a healthy attitude, as in "believe whatever you want to do". If us kids had any existential questions, they were happy to answer them from an as factual perspective as possible. 
My father is actually what closest can be described as an atheist, while my mother is "spiritual", verging on deist or very liberal christian, so we always have a good time poking fun at each other when I come and visit. 
I credit my father for my skeptical disposition, because when I as a kid came and told him something I have heard, his first question was always "who is telling you this, and why?", this skeptical thinking is what lead me to question most things, including religion.


----------



## jl-austin (Jan 28, 2013)

All these discussions end up in heated debates. I have not seen any good coming from them. 
I imagine on these forums a true Christian is "fresh meat" for those vocally opposed to the message of Jesus.

I will answer PM's, and I am willing to talk about Jesus to anyone. However, my belief is people believe what they want to hear.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 28, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> All these discussions end up in heated debates. I have not seen any good coming from them.
> I imagine on these forums a true Christian is "fresh meat" for those vocally opposed to the message of Jesus.



I'm curious, what arbiters a true christian? There are about 41000 different christian denominations in the world, it's very statistically unlikely that one denomination outside of the major ones would sit on The One Truth.

Speaking biblically, didn't Jesus give the mission to Paul to build his church (you are the rock on which I will build my church, and so forth)? Thus logically following of course that catholicism would be the one true faith, provided there is need for one.
I would imagine that you are not a catholic though, being from Texas and all.. Southern Baptist, or Pentecostal would be my guess, especially with that particular bible verse in your sig, catholics are generally not really followers of the Book of Revelation. They tend to view the extreme vagueness of it and just consider it allegorical.

I don't know anything about "fresh meat", I would imagine that any arguments speaks for themselves, and I certainly hope that everyone are intellectually honest enough to not attack you out of a knee-jerk. 
We have a number of very christian people on this board, and I respect them deeply, because they are nice people, and they are very capable of defending their faith. What they don't do is pull the persecution card, which I find is unfortunately far too common from believers these days.




jl-austin said:


> However, my belief is people believe what they want to hear.



But you have no actual logical or physical evidence that people chooses their beliefs?

There is of course a documentet phenomena where we unconciously select facts as important that happens to side with our beliefs, that's called confirmation bias. That bias acts on behalf of our beliefs however, not on them.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 29, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> All these discussions end up in heated debates. I have not seen any good coming from them.
> I imagine on these forums a true Christian is "fresh meat" for those vocally opposed to the message of Jesus.
> 
> I will answer PM's, and I am willing to talk about Jesus to anyone. However, my belief is people believe what they want to hear.





Heated debate how? You expressed your opinion and how you have come to hold that opinion and then a few of us posted the same. It is barely a debate at all. 

The discussion is no more 'heated' than it was prior to your entry.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 29, 2013)

^Also this, I have seen more heated debate on this forum on actives vs. passives or Axe-FX vs. proper amps (and the proper amps are of course the superior one).

And while we're at that, I don't really see what is wrong with heated debate. Just because something gets heated doesn't mean we forgo all civility and get banned


----------



## facepalm66 (Jan 29, 2013)

You can find anything, if you seek for it, wether it exsists or not. If you find it too difficult, some acid always helps.. Just kidding.
But the whole god thing is as funny as 1970 horror movies. Stating that there's an invisible man, living in the sky, watching your every move and listening to your every word is just too silly to belive in.

I, personally, belive that God is I, so basically I belive in myself. And it brought me way more than mr So-called-god did, while stupidly kneeling in the church, bursting into tears for a crusified statue asking for a pair of better quality pink socks...
I thought humanity is actually learning something.. Part of it doesn't, i assume.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 29, 2013)

I think it all goes back to what I had stated previously. 'True believers' (as if there is such a thing) feel blasphemous discussing these sort of topics and feel like we are filling their heads with blasphemous thoughts by even discussing such things. So to them these discussions are personal. The thing seemingly forgotten is conversation doesn't have to have an end goal. When discussing religion it shouldn't be (and isn't) my goal to convert someone to be a non-believer and it shouldn't be someone else's goal to convert non-believer's. If the conversation does sway someone then so be it, but that should never be the end goal IMO.

That being the case there is zero reason for anyone to take it personally. If different religions can converse without feeling 'threatened' then so should believers and non-believers. I do find it funny that Athiest's are practically persecuted (religious followers outnumber Athiest's publicly) in the real world and yet religious folk are somehow always the victims. I've heard people blame terrible events on Athiesm, we won't have an openly Athiest president any time soon and it is an uphill battle for most other positions as well. By many religious folk we are summed up as immoral creatures for whatever bizarre reason. Even so I don't think anyone should play the victim card as it solves nothing.

Everyone has the right to feel and believe whatever makes them happy. Everyone has the right to express those view points publicly and discussion should be allowed openly. Nothing more and nothing less.


----------



## The Omega Cluster (Jan 29, 2013)

Of course, I believe science may never be able to disprove the existence of a superior being, as there will always be the possibility of better technology, further observations, etc.

We may never know if the flying spaghetti monster exists or not. Those who wish to believe find it, I guess.

In fact, some recent works (like this one Project MUSE - Functional Salutogenic Mechanisms of the Brain) show that the belief in a higher authority, or "spirituality" might have been evolutionary chosen for their benefits on the self.

So yeah, God exists... in your head.


----------



## jl-austin (Jan 29, 2013)

I don't feel threatened, not at all. I have enjoyed reading your responses. This has not been a heated debate, however these things tend to turn ugly. 

None of the responses has shaken my view of "a person believes what he wants to believe". There are atheist who post stuff, then there is the Bible, the choice is, what do you want to believe. That is the whole key, what a person wants. You can lead a horse to water, but if it doesn't want to drink. 

The original post asked what my beliefs where, I shared them. Do I think I am going to convert someone because of a post over the internet? Of course not. There is little for me to gain my debating my personal beliefs.


----------



## jl-austin (Jan 29, 2013)

Every thing in the universe acts on the laws which govern that object. An object will always fall at the same rate due to gravity, water will always freeze at the same temperature, etc. I don't see any acts of randomness in our universe. I see every thing following the laws that govern that object.

Yet, atheists would have you to believe that something as complex as the human body was formed out of "randomness". Were is your god of randomness today? 

Scientist do not even fully understand the working of the human body, yet they claim that it was formed out of randomness. Its comical. The theory of there being a God is just as believable as any other theory, it just gets back around to what a person WANTS to believe.


----------



## The Omega Cluster (Jan 29, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> Every thing in the universe acts on the laws which govern that object. An object will always fall at the same rate due to gravity,



If you don't take into account air resistance, yes.



jl-austin said:


> water will always freeze at the same temperature, etc.



On Mt Everest, water boils at 71°C, and would boil at 290°C at the bottom of the Marianas Trench.



jl-austin said:


> I don't see any acts of randomness in our universe. I see every thing following the laws that govern that object.



Roll a dice.



jl-austin said:


> Yet, atheists would have you to believe that something as complex as the human body was formed out of "randomness". Were is your god of randomness today?



Randomness needs not a god to be explained. Nor does life. Nor does the universe. 



jl-austin said:


> Scientist do not even fully understand the working of the human body, yet they claim that it was formed out of randomness. Its comical. The theory of there being a God is just as believable as any other theory, it just gets back around to what a person WANTS to believe.



We're getting to it, do not worry! Scientists and researchers all around the world are working hard in order to fully comprehend the role and function of every protein, every gene, every molecule in your body. Do you know the exact position and momentum of every atom present in a glass of water? Yet, water was not created by any intelligence.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Jan 29, 2013)

It is very, very probable that there is no God.

It is very, very probable that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, and quite likely that there is life much, much more intelligent than we are.

I think life probably came to Earth in the form of organic molecular soup from a comet impact, followed by hundreds of millions of years of stewing as the Earth cooled and became friendly to life. As for what triggered the difference between organic molecular soup and life itself, I don't know. I am quite certain that the answer is not God, and I am content to wonder and think about how it actually went down. I am confident that careful observation and experimentation will eventually lead to a real answer.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Jan 29, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> ...The theory of there being a God is just as believable as any other theory...



Except that there is *no evidence for it*.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 29, 2013)

^I would also rank it as an hypothesis, not a theory


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Jan 29, 2013)

Jakke said:


> ^I would also rank it as an hypothesis, not a theory



Quite so.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 29, 2013)

Indeed


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Jan 29, 2013)

Pip pip, cheerio.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 29, 2013)

Tip top old chap.


----------



## UV7BK4LIFE (Jan 29, 2013)

I think that Aliens performed a genetic experiment on monkeys and we're the result. And religion helps us deny it. 

And so far we did pretty good. Heavy Metal, Guitars, Muscle cars, Beer. Life is awesome.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 29, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> I don't feel threatened, not at all. I have enjoyed reading your responses. This has not been a heated debate, however these things tend to turn ugly.



Good to hear. While I wrote that because of your comment, it was also just general commentary that I feel people should do when having such conversations (the second half anyhow).



jl-austin said:


> None of the responses has shaken my view of "a person believes what he wants to believe". There are atheist who post stuff, then there is the Bible, the choice is, what do you want to believe. That is the whole key, what a person wants. You can lead a horse to water, but if it doesn't want to drink.
> 
> The original post asked what my beliefs where, I shared them. Do I think I am going to convert someone because of a post over the internet? Of course not. There is little for me to gain my debating my personal beliefs.



Precisely. That being said, I wouldn't say there is nothing to gain in you joining in on the discussion. There is much to gain. The only issue is you might not like what people have to say. 



jl-austin said:


> Every thing in the universe acts on the laws which govern that object. An object will always fall at the same rate due to gravity, water will always freeze at the same temperature, etc. I don't see any acts of randomness in our universe. I see every thing following the laws that govern that object.
> 
> Yet, atheists would have you to believe that something as complex as the human body was formed out of "randomness". Were is your god of randomness today?
> 
> Scientist do not even fully understand the working of the human body, yet they claim that it was formed out of randomness. Its comical. The theory of there being a God is just as believable as any other theory, it just gets back around to what a person WANTS to believe.



The other side of the coin, that people seem to forget, is random does not mean roll the dice once and if it works you got us and if not then you don't. Metaphorically, say we need 5528 6's. There'd be millions of die being rolled all at once. Whatever works sticks around and this process continually happens until we get our where we are today. We are not perfect either. We have organs that are useless, body parts that don't always function right, common health conditions, not the best sense of smell or sight, etc. I'm no evolutionary biologist though, so anyone feel free to correct me. 

I can respect where your coming from, but to say it is ridiculous that it is random makes me think you haven't taken any classes on statistics/probability/chemistry or considered the scope at all. 



HaMMerHeD said:


> It is very, very probable that there is no God.
> 
> It is very, very probable that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, and quite likely that there is life much, much more intelligent than we are.
> 
> I think life probably came to Earth in the form of organic molecular soup from a comet impact, followed by hundreds of millions of years of stewing as the Earth cooled and became friendly to life. As for what triggered the difference between organic molecular soup and life itself, I don't know. I am quite certain that the answer is not God, and I am content to wonder and think about how it actually went down. I am confident that careful observation and experimentation will eventually lead to a real answer.



That is actually highly probable IMO as well. Comets transfer all kinds of material all across the universe and it seems perfectly reasonable that some biological matter hitched a ride ending up here. Even if that wasn't the case I'd be hard pressed to say this hasn't happened at all. I imagine some lifeforms, whether bacteria, virus, single celled organism or whatever, have come here this way at some point even if there was no link between them and us.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 29, 2013)

flint757 said:


> We have organs that are useless, body parts that don't always function right, common health conditions, not the best sense of smell or sight, etc. I'm no evolutionary biologist though, so anyone feel free to correct me.



I have two words: wisdom teeth


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Jan 29, 2013)

People who are inclined to boil evolution down to pure random chaos are people who do not understand the theory at all.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 29, 2013)

They are usually not too good with physical chemistry either, as chemical reactions are seen as "random" by these people.

Wasn't it Dawkins who coined evolution being the "nonrandom selection of randomly generated genetic mutations"?


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Jan 29, 2013)

Sounds like Dawkins. I am going through The Greatest Show On Earth right now.


----------



## Xaios (Jan 29, 2013)

Jakke said:


> ^Also this, I have seen more heated debate on this forum on actives vs. passives or Axe-FX vs. proper amps (*and the proper amps are of course the superior one*).



I will fight you. 





Jakke said:


> And while we're at that, I don't really see what is wrong with heated debate. Just because something gets heated doesn't mean we forgo all civility and get banned



Ideally, yes. However, there are simply people out there who can't have any kind of discussion without taking things personally, and who interpret any sort of debate as a challenge or attempt at a put-down. Then if things get at all heated, they take it as a personal attack.

Something I appreciate about this forum, being a Christian, is that I've never felt as though people thought less of me for it. I've certainly had numerous debates regarding the subject on this board, but there has always been an undertone of mutual respect.


----------



## jl-austin (Jan 29, 2013)

flint757 said:


> I can respect where your coming from, but to say it is ridiculous that it is random makes me think you haven't taken any classes on statistics/probability/chemistry or considered the scope at all.



I enjoy your post the most. You seem to be approaching this from an intellectual point of view.

It is true that I have not taken any courses on statistics/probability/etc. However, from my point of view, they say there is no proof of God's existance, I say, I have not heard a number of the probability of the human race "just coming into being" either. If it is probable, then there should be a number, right? The number would be HUGE, I would say impossible. Thus my therory of there being an almighty God is just as probable as any other therory.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Jan 29, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> I enjoy your post the most. You seem to be approaching this from an intellectual point of view.
> 
> It is true that I have not taken any courses on statistics/probability/etc. However, from my point of view, they say there is no proof of God's existance, I say, I have not heard a number of the probability of the human race "just coming into being" either. If it is probable, then there should be a number, right? The number would be HUGE, I would say impossible. Thus my therory of there being an almighty God is just as probable as any other therory.



Nope. Attempts have been made to quantify the odds of humans coming into being through evolution, and you are right that the odds are very small. However, it did happen, and all available evidence suggests that the theory of evolution explains how it happened. The thing is, it only had to happen once, and we can see that it did happen, so humans are a known quantity.

However, the likelihood for something like Yahweh existing is considerably smaller. Unlike humans and evolution, however, there is exactly NO evidence whatsoever to indicate that it does now or ever did exist. God is an unknown quantity, but the probability of that quantity being 0 is very, very large.


----------



## bhakan (Jan 29, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> I enjoy your post the most. You seem to be approaching this from an intellectual point of view.
> 
> It is true that I have not taken any courses on statistics/probability/etc. However, from my point of view, they say there is no proof of God's existance, I say, I have not heard a number of the probability of the human race "just coming into being" either. If it is probable, then there should be a number, right? The number would be HUGE, I would say impossible. Thus my therory of there being an almighty God is just as probable as any other therory.


As stated above, there is no _theory_ of god. To be a theory, something must have been repeatedly tested with results that are in line with the hypothesis. God's existence is only a hypothesis. That is where the likeliness of evolution vs creation comes into play. Random selection, while it may seem far fetched, has been reinforced with evidence through genetics, small scale situations, and a bunch of other things. 

Just out of curiosity, what is your view of evolution? Are you saying we didn't evolve, or we evolved but with the guidance of a creator?


----------



## irondavidson (Jan 29, 2013)

Interesting thing, i´ve heard a little while ago: scientists explained the raising number of gays so, that mother nature is playing this game with human mind (most of the time since teen age) to stop the growing of population! 

So all of you guys with Beckham hair, scarfs, goth makeup, etc.. you might not give your family name forth! 
Was that little strong?? Hehe!


----------



## jl-austin (Jan 29, 2013)

bhakan said:


> As stated above, there is no _theory_ of god. To be a theory, something must have been repeatedly tested with results that are in line with the hypothesis. God's existence is only a hypothesis. That is where the likeliness of evolution vs creation comes into play. Random selection, while it may seem far fetched, has been reinforced with evidence through genetics, small scale situations, and a bunch of other things.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what is your view of evolution? Are you saying we didn't evolve, or we evolved but with the guidance of a creator?



First part, seeing how the creation (or in your words, evolution) of man only happened once, how are you going to repeat that for that to be considered a theory (if in fact a therory has to be repeated)? My view of God creating man being a valid therory (if you want to call it a hypothesis, fine, whatever) still stands.

Second question. I believe there were 2 races of humanoids, modern man (descendants from Adam), and primitive man (which existed outside the Garden) while Adam was in the Garden of Eden. When Adam got kicked out of the Garden of Eden then the two species of humans mixed. Thus explains the missing link, between modern man, and primitive man. I do not believe in evolution, I do believe in adaptation though. Which by the way explains the missing link, something science cannot do, FYI.

An interesting tid bit for you. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We have recently discovered the chicken had to come first because the chicken uses protiens not found in nature to produce the egg. Thus the chicken came first, and if there was 1 chicken, there had to be 2 to reproduce. This agrees with what the Bible states in Genesis, and shoots down the evolution hypothesis.

Also we have recently discovered that the building blocks for life can be found in dirt, I believe it was amino acids which are used in DNA (I'm no chemist, I might have the terms wrong). Anyways, once again this goes along with what the Bible says, that God formed man from clay, and breathed life into him. 

Then there is the passage in Pslams that talks about currents (paths) in the oceans (seas). No one knew about ocean currents back then. The guy that discovered them used the Bible, he reasoned if it is in the Bible it had to be true, and sure enough it was.

If you want to believe there are more than enough things that point to there being a God. If you don't want to believe there are more than enough things out there as well. It all depends on what you want to believe.


----------



## The Omega Cluster (Jan 29, 2013)

HaMMerHeD said:


> It is very, very probable that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, and quite likely that there is life much, much more intelligent than we are



and it's quite likely that there is much much more non-(or less)-intelligent life.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Jan 29, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> First part, seeing how the creation (or in your words, evolution) of man only happened once, how are you going to repeat that for that to be considered a theory (if in fact a therory has to be repeated)? My view of God creating man being a valid therory (if you want to call it a hypothesis, fine, whatever) still stands.
> 
> Second question. I believe there were 2 races of humanoids, modern man (descendants from Adam), and primitive man (which existed outside the Garden) while Adam was in the Garden of Eden. When Adam got kicked out of the Garden of Eden then the two species of humans mixed. Thus explains the missing link, between modern man, and primitive man. I do not believe in evolution, I do believe in adaptation though. Which by the way explains the missing link, something science cannot do, FYI.
> 
> An interesting tid bit for you. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We have recently discovered the chicken had to come first because the chicken uses protiens not found in nature to produce the egg. Thus the chicken came first, and if there was 1 chicken, there had to be 2 to reproduce. This agrees with what the Bible states in Genesis, and shoots down the evolution hypothesis.



Pray tell, to what missing link are you referring?

And no, the egg came first. Creatures were being born from eggs LONG before the chicken ever evolved.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 29, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> First part, seeing how the creation (or in your words, evolution) of man only happened once, how are you going to repeat that for that to be considered a theory (if in fact a therory has to be repeated)? My view of God creating man being a valid therory (if you want to call it a hypothesis, fine, whatever) still stands.



Evolution happens all the time (for example ring species), and can be tested under laboratory conditions, that is what makes it a theory. A hypothesis is what we would otherwise call a guess, or even an educated guess maybe. It's the mission of the scientific community to test hypothesis for validity.
Evolution is also today an integral part of computer programing, which is pretty interesting IMO



jl-austin said:


> Second question. I believe there were 2 races of humanoids, modern man (descendants from Adam), and primitive man (which existed outside the Garden) while Adam was in the Garden of Eden. When Adam got kicked out of the Garden of Eden then the two species of humans mixed. Thus explains the missing link, between modern man, and primitive man. I do not believe in evolution, I do believe in adaptation though. Which by the way explains the missing link, something science cannot do, FYI.



There is no missing link, because that assumes that species barriers are static. This is simply not the case, there is no point where we can say "see, just about here was this animal halfway between a lizard and a bird". We find creatures with reptilian and birdlike traits to certain degrees, but to search for a "missing link" is mainly very uneducated.

"Adaptation" is the same as evolution, to say that you believe in adaptation but not evolution is like saying that you do believe that a man can walk 50m, but not 100m. Evolution is a series of small changes to an animal that piles up during the years, what may not look like a big change at one point can amount to major changes over a longer period of time.



jl-austin said:


> An interesting tid bit for you. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? We have recently discovered the chicken had to come first because the chicken uses protiens not found in nature to produce the egg. Thus the chicken came first, and if there was 1 chicken, there had to be 2 to reproduce. This agrees with what the Bible states in Genesis, and shoots down the evolution hypothesis.



The egg came first, but what laid it was not a chicken. Instead, it was a not-quite-a-chicken, an intermediate species between a primitive fowl and a modern chicken, however very close to a modern chicken.

And it's "the theory of evolution", thank you very much. There is currently more scientific support for evolution than there is for gravity, but I don't see you jumping out of tall buildings.




Xaios said:


> I will fight you.



I will cut you.. I grew up in an area with many immigrated finns, I know how to handle a blade







Xaios said:


> Ideally, yes. However, there are simply people out there who can't have any kind of discussion without taking things personally, and who interpret any sort of debate as a challenge or attempt at a put-down. Then if things get at all heated, they take it as a personal attack.
> 
> Something I appreciate about this forum, being a Christian, is that I've never felt as though people thought less of me for it. I've certainly had numerous debates regarding the subject on this board, but there has always been an undertone of mutual respect.



Yeah, far too many people fuse their beliefs and their ego together, making a challenge to those beliefs a personal insult. One of the greatest challenges in being a scientific skeptic is to be intellectually aware of that one might completely be wrong. But it is as Bertrand Russell said: "one should strive to believe as many true things as possible"

Well, I do enjoy a good sparring with you, because you actually know a lot about your own religion, which is rarer than one would imagine
And in line with my previously stated point, one does not chose one's beliefs, so it's ridiculous to claim how _stoopid_ someone is for believing something, or not not believing something. I think the best approach is to take any debate as a learning opportunity... What am I saying? God forbids someone learns something on the internet!


----------



## bhakan (Jan 29, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> First part, seeing how the creation (or in your words, evolution) of man only happened once, how are you going to repeat that for that to be considered a theory (if in fact a therory has to be repeated)? My view of God creating man being a valid therory (if you want to call it a hypothesis, fine, whatever) still stands.
> 
> Second question. I believe there were 2 races of humanoids, modern man (descendants from Adam), and primitive man (which existed outside the Garden) while Adam was in the Garden of Eden. When Adam got kicked out of the Garden of Eden then the two species of humans mixed. Thus explains the missing link, between modern man, and primitive man. I do not believe in evolution, I do believe in adaptation though. Which by the way explains the missing link, something science cannot do, FYI.


Evolution did not only happen once. It does not explain the creation of humans, it explains the creation of all animals. The theory is proved by all organisms.

Also, just as a note, evolution isn't really all that random. Within a species, different specimens exhibit slightly different qualities. If one organism is taller and can more easily acquire food, it will live where a shorter organism may die. Over millions of years, all of those little changes add up to where we are now.

If you will allow me to bother you more, how do you think primitive man and other organism came into being, are they related to a common ancestor, or were they put on earth in their current form?

As far as the chicken, that protein which is found only in chickens was a mutation in the first chicken. It is relatively easy for an amino acid to get switched in replication, resulting in a unique protein. This protein probably happened to be superior to the previous protein and aided in survival of eggs, which allowed the modern chicken to pass on its genes (including this protein) better than the species before it.

And just to be clear, no hard feelings at all. I respect your opinions and I'm not trying to convince you of anything, just curious to hear your viewpoint.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Jan 29, 2013)

^ Yes.

The power of evolution lies in the accumulation of many small changes in a population of organisms over a very long period of time. Evolution is ongoing, even in humans. The DNA attributed to the formation of our neocortex is generally thought to have reformed quite drastically between 50,000 and 15,000 years ago.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 29, 2013)

Not to mention the ability to digest lactose. That mutation came around when humans in Europe and east Africa started keeping cattle.


----------



## jl-austin (Jan 29, 2013)

I hope you all can see that I am quite confident in my beliefs. I have tried to point out things to convince. I see that you all are equally confident in your beliefs. 

Trying to use a play of words or try to explain away things that "might" have happened is not a good arguement in my opinion. This is how it goes typically. The person that does not believe in God typically has no real reason, just that they don't want to believe. I have been thru this sooooo many times, I have grown tired of it. Just for once, I would like for someone to have a point of their own, instead of trying to make a play on words, or use the "what if" excuse. 

Just for once I would like someone to say, I don't believe because the Bible says "such and such". Then we could have a discussion. I'm sick of the "what ifs". Peace.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Jan 29, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> I hope you all can see that I am quite confident in my beliefs. I have tried to point out things to convince. I see that you all are equally confident in your beliefs.
> 
> Trying to use a play of words or try to explain away things that "might" have happened is not a good arguement in my opinion. This is how it goes typically. The person that does not believe in God typically has no real reason, just that they don't want to believe. I have been thru this sooooo many times, I have grown tired of it. Just for once, I would like for someone to have a point of their own, instead of trying to make a play on words, or use the "what if" excuse.
> 
> Just for once I would like someone to say, I don't believe because the Bible says "such and such". Then we could have a discussion. I'm sick of the "what ifs". Peace.



Oh...so I'M supposed to come up with an original story to explain my apostasy, but YOU get to just rattle off misunderstandings of science and misquotations of bible verses?

If you really want to go through the bible, we can do that. But something tells me you won't like what I have to say about that either.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 29, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> I hope you all can see that I am quite confident in my beliefs. I have tried to point out things to convince. I see that you all are equally confident in your beliefs.
> 
> Trying to use a play of words or try to explain away things that "might" have happened is not a good arguement in my opinion. This is how it goes typically. The person that does not believe in God typically has no real reason, just that they don't want to believe. I have been thru this sooooo many times, I have grown tired of it. Just for once, I would like for someone to have a point of their own, instead of trying to make a play on words, or use the "what if" excuse.
> 
> Just for once I would like someone to say, I don't believe because the Bible says "such and such". Then we could have a discussion. I'm sick of the "what ifs". Peace.



But science doe not deal in certainties, that's the job of religions. What scientists can do is to pose what might have happened, do some research to confirm this, and the only thing they can do after that is to say "research seems to support that..." or "our findings seems to indicate...". Know why? Because they still might be wrong, and in that case another scientist will find out that they were wrong, and find the right answer instead. That's the beauty of science, it's a self-correcting process.

Do you know why people often have no real reason for not believing in god?
- Because there often is no reason. belief is something you have or don't have, and we do not choose if we want to believe or not, as I have said several times in this thread. Saying that "we do not want to believe" is wrong, because that implies that we are intellectually aware of a creator god, and that is nonsenical, because that would make us believers anyway.

The reason you have not been able to "convince" anyone is because atheists value evidence and logic before anything else, and you have provided neither evidence nor logic. Instead there have just been talking-points that probably came straight from your preacher, which he in turn pulled from a creationist website. The thing is that most of us are used to these points, they do not impress us, because we have had them debunked for us and debunked them ourselves several times.

I can even provida a couple more that you have not used yet:
-Hitler was an atheist
-A whirlwind through a scrapyard cannot assemble a Boeing 747
-Irreducible complexity
-The argument from design
-Setting of the physical constants
-The Kalam cosmological argument
-Evolution cannot create morals
-Different readings from different parts of the same mineral disproves radiometric dating


----------



## jl-austin (Jan 29, 2013)

Jakke said:


> But science doe not deal in certainties, that's the job of religions. What scientists can do is to pose what might have happened, do some research to confirm this, and the only thing they can do after that is to say "research seems to support that..." or "our findings seems to indicate...". Know why? Because they still might be wrong, and in that case another scientist will find out that they were wrong, and find the right answer instead. That's the beauty of science, it's a self-correcting process.
> 
> Do you know why people often have no real reason for not believing in god?
> - Because there often is no reason. belief is something you have or don't have, and we do not choose if we want to believe or not, as I have said several times in this thread.



Again your post are refreshing. That is the thing about religion. At some point a person realizes that they aren't gonna know every thing. I know enough to believe. I don't study the Bible to gain scientific knowledge.

Often times the reason to believe in God comes from a heavy loss at some point in ones life. Often times the more wealthy a person is (and just about everyone from a first world country is wealthy), the harder it is for that person to put their faith in God. We tend to put our faith in our jobs and our wealth. Go to a country like the Philippines and it is MUCH easier to talk about God.

Actually most of the scientific points I have tried to make have come from CNN. They unknowingly prove the Bible correct.

I have tried to say this along, the original poster asked what we believe, I responded. I knew all along that I would not convince anyone (if you want to say it is because I am inadequate, that's fine).


----------



## Xaios (Jan 29, 2013)

Jakke said:


> I will cut you.. I grew up in an area with many immigrated finns, I know how to handle a blade



Dude, I'm _Canadian_. That means that I can summon an army of bears to my side at telepathic command to re-enact the battle of Pelennor Fields. Plus, you wanna talk about having rowdy neighbors?







Check and mate. 





Jakke said:


> What am I saying? God forbids someone learns something on the internet!



I may believe in a space ghost with a zombie son who is the savior of all mankind, but even *I'm* not crazy enough to believe that.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 29, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> Again your post are refreshing. That is the thing about religion. At some point a person realizes that they aren't gonna know every thing. I know enough to believe. *I don't study the Bible to gain scientific knowledge*.




Even though it's mainly a muslim thing, there are actually christians who claim that most scientific discoveries and knowledge is present in the bible.

I am personally content with knowing that I don't know everything, that there are mysteries out there, but I am also fully comfortable with knowing that these mysteries are natural, and not supernatural




jl-austin said:


> Often times the reason to believe in God comes from a heavy loss at some point in ones life. Often times the more wealthy a person is (and just about everyone from a first world country is wealthy), the harder it is for that person to put their faith in God. We tend to put our faith in our jobs and our wealth. Go to a country like the Philippines and it is MUCH easier to talk about God.



I know, and it's not my place to judge anyone's reasons for belief. I would however consider that the reason that poor people generally are more religious is the same reason that there are more poor people buying into lotteries etc. It's the reasoning that "today our lives might suck, but just wait until..."


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Jan 29, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> Again your post are refreshing. That is the thing about religion. At some point a person realizes that they aren't gonna know every thing. I know enough to believe. I don't study the Bible to gain scientific knowledge.



You don't study the bible to gain scientific knowledge because there is no scientific knowledge to be gained from it. But that doesn't stop you from using it to deny scientific knowledge. It doesn't stop you from asserting that a set of scientific truth is invalid because your unscientific book says something different. Do you not see how hypocritical that is? Have you even read the bible?



jl-austin said:


> Often times the reason to believe in God comes from a heavy loss at some point in ones life. Often times the more wealthy a person is (and just about everyone from a first world country is wealthy), the harder it is for that person to put their faith in God. We tend to put our faith in our jobs and our wealth. Go to a country like the Philippines and it is MUCH easier to talk about God.



Yes, religious people have a very long track record of preying on people who are in very weak places. And yes, there are countries where outright religiosity is easier to get away with. What does that prove?


----------



## jl-austin (Jan 29, 2013)

HaMMerHeD said:


> You don't study the bible to gain scientific knowledge because there is no scientific knowledge to be gained from it. But that doesn't stop you from using it to deny scientific knowledge. It doesn't stop you from asserting that a set of scientific truth is invalid because your unscientific book says something different. Do you not see how hypocritical that is? Have you even read the bible?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, religious people have a very long track record of preying on people who are in very weak places. And yes, there are countries where outright religiosity is easier to get away with. What does that prove?




All personal attacks. It's okay man, it's all good.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Jan 29, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> All personal attacks. It's okay man, it's all good.



So questioning your statements and beliefs constitutes personal attacks?

Interesting. Completely wrong, but interesting nonetheless.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 29, 2013)

Xaios said:


> Dude, I'm _Canadian_. That means that I can summon an army of bears to my side at telepathic command to re-enact the battle of Pelennor Fields.



Bears eh? That's cute...







You _do_ know what the etymology of the word "berserker" is? 

>Dressed in bear (skin)



Xaios said:


> Check and mate.



Oh, the USA? Check mate....








Xaios said:


> I may believe in a space ghost with a zombie son who is the savior of all mankind, but even *I'm* not crazy enough to believe that.



You said it


----------



## bhakan (Jan 29, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> I hope you all can see that I am quite confident in my beliefs. I have tried to point out things to convince. I see that you all are equally confident in your beliefs.
> 
> Trying to use a play of words or try to explain away things that "might" have happened is not a good arguement in my opinion. This is how it goes typically. The person that does not believe in God typically has no real reason, just that they don't want to believe. I have been thru this sooooo many times, I have grown tired of it. Just for once, I would like for someone to have a point of their own, instead of trying to make a play on words, or use the "what if" excuse.
> 
> Just for once I would like someone to say, I don't believe because the Bible says "such and such". Then we could have a discussion. I'm sick of the "what ifs". Peace.


I will admit, I know very little about the Bible, so it is probably incredibly easy to poke holes in my arguments, but all the arguments so far have been in "our court" (science), so it is only fair to discuss the other side also. 

One thing that has always confused me is this: Certain things in the Bible are wrong (for example, I think it says in genesis that the Earth was made before the sun or any stars). If some aspects of the book are wrong, how do you determine which are correct and which aren't? In response to this, i have heard that it isn't meant to be taken literally, but as more of a metaphor. In this case, how do we determine which aspects are literal and which are not?


----------



## jl-austin (Jan 29, 2013)

bhakan said:


> One thing that has always confused me is this: Certain things in the Bible are wrong (for example, I think it says in genesis that the Earth was made before the sun or any stars). If some aspects of the book are wrong, how do you determine which are correct and which aren't? In response to this, i have heard that it isn't meant to be taken literally, but as more of a metaphor. In this case, how do we determine which aspects are literal and which are not?



Looking at it from a purely scientific point of view it would be hard to believe that the Earth was created first. However, science has not always been correct about our place in the universe, at one time they thought that the whole universe revolved around Earth. It might still be possible for a discovery that the Earth is older than the sun. I know that is not a good answer. I doubt I would believe that if I were in your shoes, but that's all I have about that.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Jan 29, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> Looking at it from a purely scientific point of view it would be hard to believe that the Earth was created first. However, science has not always been correct about our place in the universe, at one time they thought that the whole universe revolved around Earth. It might still be possible for a discovery that the Earth is older than the sun. I know that is not a good answer. I doubt I would believe that if I were in your shoes, but that's all I have about that.



Also note that the geocentric hypothesis had origins in religion. And when a mathematically viable heliocentric model for the solar system was first produced by Nicolaus Copernicus, religious officials of the day fought mightily against it.


----------



## Xaios (Jan 29, 2013)

Jakke said:


> >Dressed in bear (skin)



Not THESE bears, son. 






World's largest land carnivore is likely to use that wimpy axe for a tooth pick. 



Jakke said:


> Oh, the USA? Check mate....



Firearm statistics disagree. Besides, give us a hockey game and us Canadians will take all comers in the rowdy sports fan department too.

(Except the Brits. Those guys are fuckin crazy.)


----------



## bhakan (Jan 29, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> Looking at it from a purely scientific point of view it would be hard to believe that the Earth was created first. However, science has not always been correct about our place in the universe, at one time they thought that the whole universe revolved around Earth. It might still be possible for a discovery that the Earth is older than the sun. I know that is not a good answer. I doubt I would believe that if I were in your shoes, but that's all I have about that.


That's true, nothing in science is a certainty, but the fact that the sun is older than the earth is as close as it gets. Regardless, my main point wasn't about that specific part, but that there are some inconsistencies. Do you believe that every word in the Bible is 100% literally true, and if not, how do you determine which are and which aren't?


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Jan 29, 2013)

bhakan said:


> That's true, nothing in science is a certainty, but the fact that the Earth is older than the sun is as close as it gets. Regardless, my main point wasn't about that specific part, but that there are some inconsistencies. Do you believe that every word in the Bible is 100% literally true, and if not, how do you determine which are and which aren't?



I do hope you meant that the other way around. The earth formed in a process we call accretion from a dust and gas ring in orbit around the sun, so the sun is indeed quite a bit older.


----------



## bhakan (Jan 29, 2013)

HaMMerHeD said:


> I do hope you meant that the other way around. The earth formed in a process we call accretion from a dust and gas ring in orbit around the sun, so the sun is indeed quite a bit older.


Haha, sorry . I switched those. Should have actually read my post before posting.


----------



## jl-austin (Jan 29, 2013)

bhakan said:


> That's true, nothing in science is a certainty, but the fact that the Earth is older than the sun is as close as it gets. Regardless, my main point wasn't about that specific part, but that there are some inconsistencies. Do you believe that every word in the Bible is 100% literally true, and if not, how do you determine which are and which aren't?




There are some things in the Bible I find hard to believe as 100 percent literal. There is one story in the old testament that I struggle with. There are concepts that I don't fully understand. I hate to admit this, but any thing spiritual I really have a hard time understanding. 

The first time I read the Bible straight thru, there were a lot of things that I said, "yeah right". I have always had the opinion that it is okay to question the Bible, as long as I have an open heart about what it says. I have always had the belief that if God is who he says he is, and I truly have an open heart, I will find the truth.

There are things that are not literal, things that are figurative. I have found that an understanding of the whole Bible helps me understand the things that are not literal. I have also found that for me it's not about understanding the mysteries, but how for me to be a more loving person, and trying to get to know about Jesus more.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 29, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> I enjoy your post the most. You seem to be approaching this from an intellectual point of view.
> 
> It is true that I have not taken any courses on statistics/probability/etc. However, from my point of view, they say there is no proof of God's existance, I say, I have not heard a number of the probability of the human race "just coming into being" either. If it is probable, then there should be a number, right? The number would be HUGE, I would say impossible. Thus my therory of there being an almighty God is just as probable as any other therory.



It is observable and repeatable even if only on a small scale. Think about horse breeders. They pick and choose horses based on certain characteristics so that there genes will most likely pass on as dominant genes. Evolution takes this process and extends it over a much longer period of time and is controlled by the fact that one animal with a particular trait that is more suited for his environment will live longer and as such be given more time to procreate and spread his dominant traits. It takes what is quite easily observable and manipulated today and translates them over millions of years. Small changes add up over time. To give you a visual think about erosion. If you watch something eroding you won't typically see much change. Come back a year later and it look quite a bit different. 

I'm not saying it is impossible that there is a God, but that there is no evidence to prove there is a God. There very well could be one for all anyone knows and it isn't impossible that the World spins on its own, but God and nature are one in the same. If one day this is ever proven to be true I will gladly change my position, but as of now I am a non-believer. I imagine most Athiests are Agnostic Athiests considering we follow the evidence and hold a willingness to admit when we are wrong. To say there isn't a God would be just as inaccurate as saying there is IMO. My position is it is possible, but highly unlikely, as far as I'm concerned.



HaMMerHeD said:


> Nope. Attempts have been made to quantify the odds of humans coming into being through evolution, and you are right that the odds are very small. However, it did happen, and all available evidence suggests that the theory of evolution explains how it happened. The thing is, it only had to happen once, and we can see that it did happen, so humans are a known quantity.
> 
> However, the likelihood for something like Yahweh existing is considerably smaller. Unlike humans and evolution, however, there is exactly NO evidence whatsoever to indicate that it does now or ever did exist. God is an unknown quantity, but the probability of that quantity being 0 is very, very large.



Yep. Lets say the odds are 1/1000000000. If 1000000000 mutations and gene selection occur it isn't impossible or even random. Metaphorically it'd be like me measuring a screw to figure out the thread, length, head size (intelligent approach) and me trying them all out until I find the one that works (random approach). They both lead to the same result.



bhakan said:


> Evolution did not only happen once. It does not explain the creation of humans, it explains the creation of all animals. The theory is proved by all organisms.
> 
> Also, just as a note, evolution isn't really all that random. Within a species, different specimens exhibit slightly different qualities. If one organism is taller and can more easily acquire food, it will live where a shorter organism may die. Over millions of years, all of those little changes add up to where we are now.
> 
> ...







jl-austin said:


> I hope you all can see that I am quite confident in my beliefs. I have tried to point out things to convince. I see that you all are equally confident in your beliefs.
> 
> Trying to use a play of words or try to explain away things that "might" have happened is not a good arguement in my opinion. This is how it goes typically. The person that does not believe in God typically has no real reason, just that they don't want to believe. I have been thru this sooooo many times, I have grown tired of it. Just for once, I would like for someone to have a point of their own, instead of trying to make a play on words, or use the "what if" excuse.
> 
> Just for once I would like someone to say, I don't believe because the Bible says "such and such". Then we could have a discussion. I'm sick of the "what ifs". Peace.



They aren't what if's, they are theories. It is an attempt to explain what happened a long, long time ago and is supported with as much evidence as possible. These theories are always up for question and if proven wrong removed and replaced.



jl-austin said:


> Often times the reason to believe in God comes from a heavy loss at some point in ones life. Often times the more wealthy a person is (and just about everyone from a first world country is wealthy), the harder it is for that person to put their faith in God. We tend to put our faith in our jobs and our wealth. Go to a country like the Philippines and it is MUCH easier to talk about God.



So people who are downtrodden and have nothing left to lose hold the strongest faith. Wonder why? 

People turn to worship in the scenario you described not because it is more likely to work, not because they are more faithful, not because they have been untainted by the modern world, but because it is a last ditch effort at an attempt to better ones self. At that point it just offers hope and it is kind of a "What do we have to lose" scenario. I know that will just come across as being cynical to you, but it is quite observable that religion perpetuates in extreme poverty and I see that as grasping at straws personally.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 29, 2013)

HaMMerHeD said:


> Also note that the geocentric hypothesis had origins in religion. And when a mathematically viable heliocentric model for the solar system was first produced by Nicolaus Copernicus, religious officials of the day fought mightily against it.



He was largely ignored for awhile considering he didn't post his findings right away. His successors wasn't so lucky though, Bruno was burned at the stake for his claims.


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 29, 2013)

The Reverend said:


> I hate to be nitpicky, especially since I actually share the same belief in a fundamental way, but..
> 
> You aren't 100% positive. You don't _know_ anything. I suspect there is life outside that which we know; saying I know there is puts me in a position of ignorance. It's when people start thinking they _know _the answers to questions we either can't answer outright or can't answer just yet that you pave the way to institutionalized ignorance.
> 
> ...



Yeah...


JL, look. I have nothing against you personally. But if you're going to discuss things with atheists, you need to understand some things.

1.) Most contest the very authenticity of the Bible. First you must prove that it is the infallible word of God, then you can use it as evidence. If I write a book about aliens dumping the souls of an entire galaxy into a volcano, and 1,500 years later people use it as the base of their religion, is it historical proof of events happening?

2.) You must be willing to examine your own arguments when they are rebutted. Google some things people have said, find multiple sources that confirm or deny it, and form a conclusion. If you feel they lack logic or are untrue, say so. But to dismiss people offhand like you just did shows a lack of respect for others. You aren't the smartest person here, nor have you done the most extensive searching for a higher power here. By virtue of the internet's anonymity, you could be speaking to a educated theologist or a redneck from a small town outside of Houston.


Read this, if nothing else: 

The purpose of discussing things people disagree on, in a perfect world, is not to convince the other party that they are wrong. It should be two people with opposing ideas mutually seeking the truth through an examination of counter-arguments and all available evidence. If someone refutes one of your arguments, and you internally discover another aspect of your opinion you hadn't fully considered or even realized, that person just expanded your awareness of the topic. Be grateful, not hateful.

Because you're also from Texas, instead of ending this the way I usually do...

Texas.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Jan 29, 2013)

flint757 said:


> He was largely ignored for awhile considering he didn't post his findings right away. His successors wasn't so lucky though, Bruno was burned at the stake for his claims.



Yeah. Galileo had some issues too.


----------



## bhakan (Jan 29, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> There are some things in the Bible I find hard to believe as 100 percent literal. There is one story in the old testament that I struggle with. There are concepts that I don't fully understand. I hate to admit this, but any thing spiritual I really have a hard time understanding.
> 
> The first time I read the Bible straight thru, there were a lot of things that I said, "yeah right". I have always had the opinion that it is okay to question the Bible, as long as I have an open heart about what it says. I have always had the belief that if God is who he says he is, and I truly have an open heart, I will find the truth.
> 
> There are things that are not literal, things that are figurative. I have found that an understanding of the whole Bible helps me understand the things that are not literal. I have also found that for me it's not about understanding the mysteries, but how for me to be a more loving person, and trying to get to know about Jesus more.


So you are saying that by reading and understanding the Bible as a whole, it becomes clear which parts are literal and which are more figurative? Is is clear cut, or more "you hear what you want to hear"? 

One of the reasons I have never really trusted the Bible is since some things are factually incorrect, it makes it more difficult for me to have any faith in the parts that we don't have proof of either way. If genesis is a figurative way of explaining the creation of the world, how would I know the whole notion of a god isn't a figurative way of describing one's own conscience or heaven isn't a figurative way to describe dying at peace with your life?

Also, thank you for having a civilized discussion. I find these discussions fascinating, but in real life I'm mostly met with people just saying either "Let Jesus into your life!" or "You're going to Hell" without actually answering any questions or making any points.


----------



## jl-austin (Jan 29, 2013)

flint757 said:


> I'm not saying it is impossible that there is a God, but that there is no evidence to prove there is a God. There very well could be one for all anyone knows and it isn't impossible that the World spins on its own, but God and nature are one in the same. If one day this is ever proven to be true I will gladly change my position, but as of now I am a non-believer.



God is Spiritual. I have found it VERY difficult to understand spiritual things. I doubt science will ever prove the existence of God, because science only deals with things of a physical nature (meaning not spiritual).


----------



## jl-austin (Jan 29, 2013)

bhakan said:


> Also, thank you for having a civilized discussion. I find these discussions fascinating, but in real life I'm mostly met with people just saying either "Let Jesus into your life!" or "You're going to Hell" without actually answering any questions or making any points.



I am trying my hardest to be civil, and discuss topics. 

I have been a non-believer in the past, I would not have listened to anything I have said when I was at that point. I am trying my hardest to respect the fact that not everyone believes.

I know what I said a out reading the Bible to understand the Bible sounds a little backwards, but that is what I have found to be true.


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 29, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> God is Spiritual. I have found it VERY difficult to understand spiritual things. I doubt science will ever prove the existence of God, because science only deals with things of a physical nature (meaning not spiritual).



Spiritual experiences by definition have to have an effect on the physical for us to perceive them. If it is measurable, it is science. If I feel peace after going through my T'ai Chi forms (of which I know two ) that peace can be measured scientifically, through observing how my brain pattern is altered. 

In fact, you should consider researching the quest to find the God-center in the brain, and the resulting things found during that quest.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 29, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> God is Spiritual. I have found it VERY difficult to understand spiritual things. I doubt science will ever prove the existence of God, because science only deals with things of a physical nature (meaning not spiritual).



Yeah I know. Which leads me to my problem, as without evidence I cannot believe absolutely in a God.

Biggest reason being how many religions there are, the numerous division within these religions, ALL things about God being written or interpreted by men and women, the huge power grab by the church and kings over the centuries, and the spread of religion itself is by humans not God as well. That doesn't even take into account how the stories are originally told in one language and then have been translated countless times since (and witnessed by taking any foreign language class things rarely translate perfectly) or how many of the stories are retold years after they happened or passed down verbally (telephone game). Then we have the fact that we have diagnosed people today with many mental disorders. Who's to say these 'prophets' aren't schizophrenic's? 

Note, none of that disproves the existence of God (or proves it either), but it does make it a lot harder for one to believe in God or what 'word' someone should be following if they choose to believe too. I fully recognize that it is possible and that it is next to impossible to prove or disprove completely, but the human element makes everything written, historically, up for debate.


----------



## jl-austin (Jan 29, 2013)

The Reverend said:


> The purpose of discussing things people disagree on, in a perfect world, is not to convince the other party that they are wrong. It should be two people with opposing ideas mutually seeking the truth through an examination of counter-arguments and all available evidence. If someone refutes one of your arguments, and you internally discover another aspect of your opinion you hadn't fully considered or even realized, that person just expanded your awareness of the topic. Be grateful, not hateful.




I get the feeling that certain people who are in these discussions are more intelligent than I am (thank goodness for spellcheck, haha!). 

As a Christian I believe it is my job to try to spread the truth where ever I can. The original post asked for opinions. I am not going to pass up that opportunity, even if I come across as a babbling idiot.

I seen a tree in a parking lot once, seeds were all over the pavement. The tree obviously did not care that it's seeds had no hope of sprouting, its job was to drop the seeds and let nature do the rest. That is how I feel about Christianity, spread the word no matter what, and let God deal with the rest.

I am sorry if I came across as a know it all.


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 29, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> I get the feeling that certain people who are in these discussions are more intelligent than I am (thank goodness for spellcheck, haha!).
> 
> As a Christian I believe it is my job to try to spread the truth where ever I can. The original post asked for opinions. I am not going to pass up that opportunity, even if I come across as a babbling idiot.
> 
> ...



You're not the only one who feels that way. But like the post I quoted, of myself, no less, people thinking they have to share their opinion because of a divine mandate are behind a lot of horrible events in the history of the world. In fact, turn on the news, right now, and you'll likely see a story or two about people 'spreading' their beliefs in less genteel ways than yours.


----------



## jl-austin (Jan 29, 2013)

flint757 said:


> Biggest reason being how many religions there are, the numerous division within these religions, ALL things about God being written or interpreted by men and women, the huge power grab by the church and kings over the centuries, and the spread of religion itself is by humans not God as well.


 
Unfortunately everyone knows this all to well, the unbeliever and the believer. There are Churches out there for money, there are Churches out there for the power. One religion will say the other isn't going to Heaven, and so on. It makes it hard because people are VERY turned off by that sort of thing. All I can say is, if you ever come to the point where you believe in God, try to please God, and not the Church. The first and greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart and soul. I realize you aren't at that point, but I hope those words stick with you! 




flint757 said:


> That doesn't even take into account how the stories are originally told in one language and then have been translated countless times since (and witnessed by taking any foreign language class things rarely translate perfectly) or how many of the stories are retold years after they happened or passed down verbally (telephone game).


 
Yep, I totally see where you are coming from. When I read the first few passages in Genesis I feel I am not getting the complete story. However, as I studied the Bible and read it more, I started to realize that the Bible is really about one man, Jesus Christ. The whole Bible is centered around him, from the old testament telling about his descendants and prophecies about him, to the new testament telling about the salvation he has offered us. I do believe it is truth, I just wonder if for example Genesis is really a complete story, I mean the first few chapters covers 2000 years or so, It stands to reason that some things were left out. Does that mean it is inaccurate, my opinion is no it is not inaccurate, it is just telling us what we need to know, namely about Jesus.


----------



## Jakke (Jan 29, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> UHowever, as I studied the Bible and read it more, I started to realize that the Bible is really about one man, Jesus Christ.



I do believe the jews would disagree with you there


----------



## jl-austin (Jan 29, 2013)

The Reverend said:


> You're not the only one who feels that way. But like the post I quoted, of myself, no less, people thinking they have to share their opinion because of a divine mandate are behind a lot of horrible events in the history of the world. In fact, turn on the news, right now, and you'll likely see a story or two about people 'spreading' their beliefs in less genteel ways than yours.


 
Three things, Love God with all your heart, love others more than yourself, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. 

If people would accept these 3 things, the world would be a VERY peaceful place.


----------



## jl-austin (Jan 29, 2013)

Jakke said:


> I do believe the jews would disagree with you there


 
Well, yes and no. They believe their Christ is still coming. They do not accept Jesus as their savior (yet, apparently from the way I read it, the time will come when they will believe however).

So they do not believe the New Testament, I think their Torah is similar to the old testament of the Bible.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 29, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> Three things, Love God with all your heart, love others more than yourself, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
> 
> If people would accept these 3 things, the world would be a VERY peaceful place.



To be perfectly fair the world would be just as good of a place if people only did the 2nd and 3rd.

I'd say, as for Christian values go, live life in moderation is probably more important than the first. My grandfather 'loved' others so much more than himself that he allowed his family to live in poverty and hunger for most of my families childhood (stopped himself from succeeding in life and gave away practically everything).


----------



## jl-austin (Jan 29, 2013)

flint757 said:


> I'd say, as for Christian values go, live life in moderation is probably more important than the first. My grandfather 'loved' others so much more than himself that he allowed his family to live in poverty and hunger for most of my families childhood (stopped himself from succeeding in life and gave away practically everything).


 
Often times when a Christian does good, they are often kicked in the face for it. It is actually the opposite of what I would expect. We hope that we are rewarded in Heaven for the good we do here. How about you? Do you feel if there is a Heaven, do you feel your Grandfather is rewarded for helping others?


----------



## flint757 (Jan 29, 2013)

My main point was he went too far. If you have 7 kids and a job that barely makes the bills you don't give away your children's food. He loved others more than himself a little too much, but he also felt he had a lot to repent for from Vietnam. Given the affect on his children, his desire to follow that particular rule and reap his reward in heaven (or gain forgiveness) was very selfish given the state of his family by doing so.

I believe helping others should only be done if it can be done without causing harm to others, otherwise on the whole it had no positive change. If it harms yourself so be it, but I still feel like people should make sure they are okay before concerning themselves with others. As an example, Bill Gates donates far more money than my Grandfather ever can and does so without causing any distress. There is a point when you have to be smart and not just generous.


----------



## facepalm66 (Jan 30, 2013)

I wonder, what is a 'god' to you? How do you imagine him? WHere is this so called god?
God is everything in nothing, and nothing in everything?
God is in every life form?

I assume our intelligence is high enough to actually understand, energy does not come from anywhere and does not disappear into a some sort of a void.
So everything is 'made of energy' if you know what I mean.
So basically, how could someone (god) create SOMETHING out of nothing?
I believe he had to come up from somewhere himself? Well even he DID, that means there was something before him, that has led to his creation.
And why would anyone have that power to controll everything? This is impossible (which is the fact, that god is a boolshit theory), since everything comes to an end. Not talking about ants and ducks.. let's talk about our source, which would be our sun. SUN DIES. It collapses, sooner or later. So does every other star, planet etc. Everything has it's cycle. So probably god should die too? Or he invented absolutely everything, some sort of micro infinity? That is out of limits for the space itself, which sorta denies the posibility of being an 'consistency of nothing that is capable of everything'.
Plus, doing something requires psysical capabilities. 100% 

Some other thoughts, let's say, why would god create poeple, that start WW wars, kill millions of other people? That simply does not make sence, since he's the all mighty, all knowing etc. So basically he made something just to destroy it? Then he's one son of a ****.
So this leads to the fact, that if there is good, there has to be bad, which brings us to satan?
Oww yeaahh, Satan! So The 'god' is the good guy, while the 'satan' is the bad one? 
WRONG!
Since god created people, that killed even more people, which he knew that will happen, he is self - proclaimed bad guy. ww1, ww2, all the genocide nonsense, crusades, ancient wars, etc. etc I could go with it all day long. 
Plus, as human kind now literally destroys themselves and the planet, did he intended to do that as well? He's a mass murderer then!
If not, that means he's not as almighty as he is stated to be, which makes bibble invalid for lying.
But let's see what satan actually did wrong... HE PUNISHED BAD PEOPLE (which were creted by mr God himself). So that makes the Satan a good guy, while the god is an evil dork.

Plus, the whole religion thing came from the ancient guys, which were far less intelegent as we have kids, that have 12 years, with more intellect.
So how can you think about something you don't understand? 
There has to be a reason. Blame something, you don't see, don't hear.. Let's call it.. God. Should do the trick. So ever since, people are complaining god, or asking for it's forgiveness.. Ocasionally some stuff, like a new car or warmer woolen socks.
So it only proves, that 'god' was created by people, becouse:
1) they were dumb
2) they needed stuff
3) someone has to be blamed on stuff.
Why the regilion lived? Easy. There are always some smarter people out there, so they took controll over the mindless ones, had everything. They claimed to 'talk' to gods, and they had everything they needed. I'm jelly of those people!

This is a never ending topic. If you believe in this mr nobody, fine, it's your choice. 
I still bet anyone, who goes to church to 'pray mr god', asks for:
1) forgiveness
2) happyness
3) ocasionally some stuff, money, new house.

Don't want to be ignorant etc., just want, so people stop acting like zombies, becouse, in fact, they exist, but they are 'rotting' from the inside, not the outside.
I would personally want that people would start thinking in general, not only when it comes to religion..
I want people to be smart, and to be responsible for they're own future.
Vote me for president!


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Jan 30, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> Well, yes and no. They believe their Christ is still coming. They do not accept Jesus as their savior (yet, apparently from the way I read it, the time will come when they will believe however).
> 
> So they do not believe the New Testament, I think their Torah is similar to the old testament of the Bible.



Generally speaking, the Torah is essentially comprised of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (also known as the Pentateuch). Some scholars define the Torah more broadly, and include more texts, but the core definition is the Pentateuch. There are a few other Jewish sacred texts, like the Talmud and the Tanakh, but the Torah is the central text.

It predates The Old Testament by a considerable span of years.

Edit: About 1600 years.


----------



## jl-austin (Jan 30, 2013)

facepalm66 said:


> I wonder, what is a 'god' to you? How do you imagine him? WHere is this so called god?
> God is everything in nothing, and nothing in everything?
> God is in every life form?


 
I'm kind of done here. I would like to say this though. This is not from the Bible, or any Church service, I read this somewhere.

They say that a person creates an image of God from the attributes of their own earthly human father. So if you have an abusive father, you would put those attributes on God. If you had a loving father, you would put those attributes on God. 

I have found this to be true. Lets just say my father was not the most loving father out there. I always thought that God thought of me as trash, someone who will never be worthy. 

Then one day it clicked for me, I have heard God and Jesus love you all my life, but it just "clicked" for me at that one point. That Jesus really does love us. To have eternal hope is a wonderful thing, it really is.


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Jan 30, 2013)

facepalm66 said:


> Oww yeaahh, Satan! So The 'god' is the good guy, while the 'satan' is the bad one?
> WRONG!
> Since god created people, that killed even more people, which he knew that will happen, he is self - proclaimed bad guy. ww1, ww2, all the genocide nonsense, crusades, ancient wars, etc. etc I could go with it all day long.
> Plus, as human kind now literally destroys themselves and the planet, did he intended to do that as well? He's a mass murderer then!
> ...



Actually, Satan doesn't rule hell, he's its main prisoner.

As for my personal opinion on the subject, I look at it like this: if there truly is an all-powerful, all-knowing god, and, for whatever reason, it didn't want you to have proof that it existed, you would never know if it was real. So, is there a god? I don't know. Could there be a god? Sure.

Now on to the important question: what kind of zombie was Jesus? Charger? Smoker? We need answers!


----------



## bhakan (Jan 30, 2013)

Another thing that confuses me about the general doctrine of Christianity is that if God loves everyone, but only those who accept Jesus as their savior get into heaven, what about the vast majority of the world's population who had never been exposed to Christianity (which would be more prevalent before the age of technology)? It seems like it contradicts the doctrine of loving everyone if he sends the majority of the population to burn in hell for something they have no control over.


----------



## jl-austin (Jan 30, 2013)

bhakan said:


> Another thing that confuses me about the general doctrine of Christianity is that if God loves everyone, but only those who accept Jesus as their savior get into heaven, what about the vast majority of the world's population who had never been exposed to Christianity (which would be more prevalent before the age of technology)? It seems like it contradicts the doctrine of loving everyone if he sends the majority of the population to burn in hell for something they have no control over.


 
A really good question. I believe something along the lines they will be judged on how well they keep their own religious beliefs (if they had NO chance of hearing about Jesus). I could be VERY wrong about that though.


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Jan 30, 2013)

I'm pretty sure that if you did not know about god/Jesus then you wouldn't go to hell, hence the Eskimo and priest argument if you've ever seen it.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Jan 30, 2013)

jl-austin said:


> I'm kind of done here. I would like to say this though. This is not from the Bible, or any Church service, I read this somewhere.
> 
> They say that a person creates an image of God from the attributes of their own earthly human father. So if you have an abusive father, you would put those attributes on God. If you had a loving father, you would put those attributes on God.
> 
> ...



Again...I have to ask...have you actually read the bible? I have, several times, and the God I see in that fucking book is a wholly evil, cruel, and pernicious thug. The book is full of rage, murder, rape, incest, and genocide. Even if that god did exist, I wouldn't worship it. Even as a complete fabrication, it is a being of unlimited malice, entirely unworthy even of respect, much less of worship. It is the most abusive and wretched father figure I can imagine.

And for all the capriciousness of the god of the old testament, the new testament is worse. In the old, god quit fucking with you once you were dead. It took the "gentle, meek, and mild" Jesus in the new testament to introduce the concept of eternal torture as punishment for even the most mild offenses.


----------



## groph (Jan 30, 2013)

removed


----------

