How close are you in believing ?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Religion being a foundation of science doesn't automatically make it correct. Science discards the things it determines aren't true. So it discarded religion. Science changes all the time, talking about how science used to be and act is inconsequential to how it is and acts now.

originally posted by: heyguysimashill
In my case, I just don't think I'm mentally equipped to be a full on atheist. I believe that most atheists fit a certain personality type. They tend to be very science, math, and logic oriented. I'm casually interested in science, but I don't really have the "scientist brain." I've read many arguments for the nonexistence of a god or an afterlife, but there is just some part of me that can't shake the feeling that there is something more out there. Things like the DNA argument and accounts of NDE's I usually take with a grain of salt. It's not really about evidence for me (although I would still love to find some). My spirituality hinges on some kind of basic, underlying inability to discount it. Whatever the reason for that might be, I really don't see myself ever being anything more than agnostic.

You have been lied to and conditioned by atheists
You have as much and if not more capacity for science than they
Many of the greatest scientists were /are spiritual

It's just now, the atheists need a god, they have made science theirs, taken science away from people because they need to have a belief in something

Science is information, it's accessible to all as research and detail

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Really, never said it was
Just challenged your false statement

Science discards what? How can science discard anything, science doesn't have a mind, men make decissions
It's preposterous what you claim

You are trying to give science a personal identity, turn it into a faith, making it a substance to judge things by, science is information not a person

originally posted by: Winstonian
a reply to: SLAYER69

I believe there may be something out there, maybe not. Out of all of the creationist theories, I find the computer simulation model to be the most reasonable. I am open minded.

I do not think that any of the religious works have any answers. I believe they were written by men, for men, without any type of divine intervention.

If god really did want us to know of him, and worship him, he would just let us know. He would not leave us multiple ancient books written by multiple prophets, with similar stories, where the consequence for picking the wrong book is eternal damnation. It makes 0 logical sense to me.

I think that organized religion is a scam. I think that it's creation was a tool for control, just like government. I do not dislike or bash people that do believe and I respect other people's opinions.

With that being said; I think that it is closed minded to believe in any religion or creation theory fully without exploring all options. Most people belong to a certain religion based on location and culture. Claiming that you have all of the answers and that your religion is right, and others is wrong, is extremely arrogant and self righteous.

Isn't claiming that science is the only answer, the only right, arrogant and self righteous

As for God, He is accessible, He asked that you seek Him.
It's your choice, love is not about force

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Really, never said it was
Just challenged your false statement

False statement? What false statement did I make?

Science discards what? How can science discard anything, science doesn't have a mind, men make decissions
It's preposterous what you claim

Oh come on... You know what I mean here. Let's not make silly semantics arguments.

You are trying to give science a personal identity, turn it into a faith, making it a substance to judge things by, science is information not a person

And you are making silly arguments when your common sense should easily tell you what I mean here.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not semantics, you definetly gave science an identity in your argument
That makes your argument fallacious
It's a common theme across these boards, science is information, decry me all you like, your statement is false

Scientists record information, science tells us nothing, studying and learning teaches us.
Science does not speak to us

You tell people science tells us, when clearly we have to search science, then science discards things that are not true, that's false
Science is information, it can't discard
You are personalizing science, twice in as many posts and tell me I am making the silly argument.
It's laughable, you are turning science into a deity, you are giving science power to discard, speak and deny

It can't, doesn't, wont

a reply to: Raggedyman

Dude. You know damn well that I know all this and you are just making a silly argument. I'm not even going to argue this back because this is a complete waste of time and it is a distraction and a red herring.

PS: What false statement did I say in my original post in the thread?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Raggedyman

Dude. You know damn well that I know all this and you are just making a silly argument. I'm not even going to argue this back because this is a complete waste of time and it is a distraction and a red herring.

PS: What false statement did I say in my original post in the thread?

Dude listen clearly

You give science an identity, you make it a judge, science is not a judge
Stop, think, reason your own words

Science does not speak, science does not discard, science is not a judge.
Humans understanding of the information they gleen from the natural is the information they base their beliefs on
Your false statement is science discarded religion, that's a blatant lie, science can not do that.
Scientists can, not science

Your argument is fallacious based on some wierd idol worship of science

You may not see your argument as disingenuous as it is, adding weight to your erroneous assumption by saying that science decides when you know only to well it is not science, only those who study it who make those decisions

Your argument is based on lies to bolster your position, maybe you don't even notice it because you have been conditioned to fool yourself

Science can not judge

and just to be clear, I don't see it as a red herring or distraction, I see your statement as a deliberate, blatant tool to foster authority that doesn't exist

Science is impartial, learn that lesson first, argue after you learn that lesson

a reply to: Raggedyman

I never said that anywhere in my post, nor did I allude to that. I said that I do not know and I am open minded. I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that science is the only answer.

All of the major religions claim that if you seek god you will find him. Mormonism claims that you read the book of Mormon, and then pray. If you feel anything during your prayer/meditation, then that is evidence of God.

Christians believe that you can "feel" the joy of God in your heart, if you only believe.

Muslims attribute the universe as evidence of God.

Let's say that one chooses to "find God" through any of these measures. How can you then connect it to a specific belief system?

Back to my original post:

I think that it is closed minded to believe in any religion or creation theory fully without exploring all options. Most people belong to a certain religion based on location and culture. Claiming that you have all of the answers and that your religion is right, and others is wrong, is extremely arrogant and self righteous.

How do you decide which religion is the c"correct" religion? Size? Islam is the biggest. Locality? I am an American, and most the people in my community are Mormon, followed by Christian. Tough choice. Reading the different religious texts? They are all long, convoluted , confusing, and difficult to read. They all also claim to be the ONLY correct religion. Tough choice. Do we follow religious leaders? Some Imams praise murder and violence, some praise peace and love. Christianity as an organized group can never stay on message. Some handle snakes, some hold "god kills fags" signs, and others are big rock concerts.

If there is a God, I do not see an organized religion that I would want to follow. They all teach some form of intolerance while claiming to be the end all be all answer to the worlds problems, without offering any tangible evidence.

I respect other people's belief systems, but I do not personally understand them. I will wait until the afterlife and see what happens. In the meantime, I will live the best life that I can, try to make a positive impact on the world, and try to be the best possible person that I can.

Question, have you read any of the religious texts outside of your own faith? Have you ever attended religious services outside of your own faith?

a reply to: Winstonian

I wasn't accusing you, just asking a question

Also, as I said, if you want to find the one true God, if he exists, by His own definition.
Then the onus is on you to seek Him out, He won't force Himself

How, just ask that He be revealed
You seem more interested in people with guns, signs or numbers, reasons not to seek Him out, it's your choice

God doesn't like most of the things you don't like either , God is firstly a relational God, He is personal.


Answer
Yes. Hindu, Buddhist Muslim
Yes. Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic, not a Mosque,,don't think they look at all welcoming

a reply to: Winstonian

As you have already mentioned religion is a man made thing, I'm sure Raggedyman would agree, and as he mentioned you find god in your own way, by your own unfolding interpretation and understanding of reality.
I can fully understand your problem with religions, but look deeper, don't look outside, look within, find what rings true for you and throw away the rest.
Doing things like trying to live the best life you can, make a positive impact on the world, and being the best person you can, are noble and indeed spiritual pursuits whether you know it or not. Don't get wrapped up in dogma mate your already on the right track.

a reply to: solve

I agree, however I think though in essence, we are that which is eternal, not merely the vessels, sure our body's and minds are vessels, but we are LIFE because we are here. Now.
Life doesn't die only the ego does, it's the ego which is ill, the identity.

It's only when you truly lose your-self, you realize you are everything else.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: logicsoda

what I can't accept is the complete lack of fossils of the other species of animals with a neck length that is at stages between a giraffe and what ever animal they were supposed to have evolved from

Why can't you accept that, exactly? There are very particular sets of conditions that need to be met in order for fossilization to occur, you know... hence why the numbers of fossils aren't quite as abundant as you would like.

Additionally, recently there was an almost literal intermediate species between the giraffe and the okapi (the giraffe's closest living relative) called Samotherium major which lived in the Miocene era (23.03MYA - 5.332 MYA). Samotherium major

Research paper on the Samotherium major.

That's not science, that's why I can't believe in evolution

Well, evolution is not dependent upon belief... so your beliefs are not relevant.

It's assumption till we find evidence, and real science doesn't assume

Assumptions are always made in science fields, mate--for example, the assumption is made that an object will fall to Earth at 9.8 m/s^2 based on evidence that has been gathered thus far, and the assumption is made that the speed of light is a constant based on previous experimentation and observation. Assumptions are everywhere in science.

Assuming takes science into the regions of faith

I suppose some assumptions could take science into the region of faith, but when particular assumptions are based on evidence that has been acquired through rigorous experimentation, observation, and repeated experimentation/observation then it is no longer in the realm of faith.

a reply to: surfer_soul

I don't, I believe in spiritual aspects of the world. I believe that they might be explainable scientifically, and might not be. I learned at a young age that organize religion is not for me. Too exclusive, and in many cases bigoted.

I have studied the Bible, Book Of Mormon, and a lot of different esoteric endeavors. I understand why people believe it, but I think if people opened their minds to other options they might walk away from the organized part of it.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Winstonian

I'm sure Raggedyman would agree, and as he mentioned you find god in your own way, by your own unfolding interpretation and understanding of reality.

No
Raggedy 100% disagrees
More often than not, reality is seen from an individual's perspective, we don't see the big picture. We as humans have divorced ourselves from God, we have no true love in and of ourselves, no god in us

God is personal, meaning God is a unique individual, albeit triune, entity.
Outside of us, God exists for us
God created us for relationship, God wants us to seek Him for relationship, we are to call out to Him, not pretend we are Him

a reply to: logicsoda

Yep, that's all very true
I don't accept what you readily accept based on the fact they are assumptions
That would be my conclusion, are you saying I am wrong, going to call me names because I don't have your faith in science and the field of science we are discussing

I don't believe the evidence, the lack of fossils may be easily excused by you, that's your choice. I remain unconvinced

Your arguments about light and speed, they are strawman arguments, they are things we see and can still be tested, totally irrelevant in context

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: logicsoda

I don't believe the evidence, the lack of fossils may be easily excused by you, that's your choice. I remain unconvinced

That's entirely up to you. Quite frankly I think you would still remain "unconvinced" even if there was an abundance of fossils and they all smacked you in the face.

Your arguments about light and speed, they are strawman arguments, they are things we see and can still be tested, totally irrelevant in context

They are not strawmen arguments whatever. A strawman argument would be if I were to misrepresent your position and attack that position... what I was doing was making the claim that there are certain assumptions that we make based on evidence that has been previously required, and that they are ubiquitous in the realm of science--such was a response to your claim "It's assumption till we find evidence, and real science doesn't assume".

originally posted by: logicsoda

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: logicsoda

I don't believe the evidence, the lack of fossils may be easily excused by you, that's your choice. I remain unconvinced

That's entirely up to you. Quite frankly I think you would still remain "unconvinced" even if there was an abundance of fossils and they all smacked you in the face.

Your arguments about light and speed, they are strawman arguments, they are things we see and can still be tested, totally irrelevant in context

They are not strawmen arguments whatever. A strawman argument would be if I were to misrepresent your position and attack that position... what I was doing was making the claim that there are certain assumptions that we make based on evidence that has been previously required, and that they are ubiquitous in the realm of science--such was a response to your claim "It's assumption till we find evidence, and real science doesn't assume".

It is entirely up to me, well done you
The lack of fossil evidence is not an issue that we struggle with just for our friend the giraffe, we also have one or two other problems with the fossil record but hey, you can dismiss the millions of invisible fossils and assume they can't be found because or yet

It's assumption
Now you have produced two strawman, one about weights falling from somewhere and the speed of light, both observable and testable and hardly related
Go do a little study


As for my beliefs, if I see a complete fossil record of the whale, giraffe, any one species evolving, in its stages, even 70 to 80% of its stages then I would, would have to reconsider my belief.
I can be a christian and accept evolution
Again you are wrong to assume I cant, another wrong assumption

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: logicsoda

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: logicsoda

I don't believe the evidence, the lack of fossils may be easily excused by you, that's your choice. I remain unconvinced

That's entirely up to you. Quite frankly I think you would still remain "unconvinced" even if there was an abundance of fossils and they all smacked you in the face.

Your arguments about light and speed, they are strawman arguments, they are things we see and can still be tested, totally irrelevant in context

They are not strawmen arguments whatever. A strawman argument would be if I were to misrepresent your position and attack that position... what I was doing was making the claim that there are certain assumptions that we make based on evidence that has been previously required, and that they are ubiquitous in the realm of science--such was a response to your claim "It's assumption till we find evidence, and real science doesn't assume".

It is entirely up to me, well done you
The lack of fossil evidence is not an issue that we struggle with just for our friend the giraffe, we also have one or two other problems with the fossil record but hey, you can dismiss the millions of invisible fossils and assume they can't be found because or yet

It's assumption
Now you have produced two strawman, one about weights falling from somewhere and the speed of light, both observable and testable and hardly related
Go do a little study

Trying to educate you further would be an effort in futility. Continue to believe in whatever nonsense you believe, just be sure to bring your children up not thinking the way you do (assuming you have/will ever have children). It is very seriously flawed.

a reply to: SLAYER69

One simple question.
Why must something be created? Quite seriously, its not the only answer, its not even the simplest, as it has the least evidence supporting it.