I usually don't get involved in the great debate between creation and evolution. I respect other people's beliefs, I don't cram my beliefs into other peoples faces, and I don't like it when people cram thier beliefs into my face. I have been an atheist most of my life. I hav'nt always been an atheist, I was raised a baptist, I read most of the bible, and I believed in the biblical god. However, as I became an adult I started reading and researching diffrent areas of science as a hobby; when I came to evolution, I rejected it at first. Then I desided to read about it, study it, I read as many books as I could get my hands on. Now I have a firm grasp on Evolutionary Science, I understand it. I believe before you deny evolution you should first understand it to its fullest extent, you should'nt deny it only because it contradicts what you already believe. The day I really questioned my faith was when I started asking my sunday school teacher a lot of questions. I was very young, I was probably eleven years old. I simply asked the question, If heaven exist, then where is it? I never got a straight answer, I thought it was a completly relevant question to ask. I continued to go to church, but I never went back to sunday school.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
one could also argue the same about religion. Before you argue against it, you should understand it fully and shouldn't deny it only because it contradicts what you believe. Suppose I asked my science primary school teacher a question about evolution and they gave a really stupid reply. Would that make my rejection of evolution valid?
Hey Light, do you think religion is 'outside the box', conventional or unconventional thinking? Theories such as evolution, same question.
not sure if I understand your question. You can talk about either religion or evolution in 'outside the box', conventional or unconventional fashions. :shrug:
Lg, Well no, not really. One doen't need to argue against something simply because is conflicts with one's beliefs. And a FULL understanding of something is unlikely to be needed if it begins and continues to not answer ANY fundamental questions. It doesn't take much to examine the very basics of religions and to then see if they have anything to offer and are worth exploring further. The basics here are what proof is there that a god might exist or a soul might exist. Since no religion has ever offered anything like a hope of answering either of these questions and everything else about religions assume either one or both of these concepts has to be true, then why look any deeper? Without a confirmation that one of these is true then everything else is just wasted text and talk.
depends how incomplete one's full understanding is for instance if I only know half the alphabet, my half baked appraisal of the value of english studies will be predictably fruitless depends on how one determines to establish proof (once again it gets back to issues of qualification) for instance if I inquire what proof there is for recording temperature and all I have is a gps, I will not find much. In other words even if one is very qualified and proficient in a particular field, if they mess up on some essential foundations of a different field of inquiry (namely how the said object is verified), it will all amount to naught. once again, there are prerequisites to confirmation. For instance we do not confirm temperature with devices used for measuring and plotting distance, no matter how high tech they are or how tech savvy the user is.
I cant see no debate, evolution is seen in ones children. [In biology, evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. These traits are the expression of genes that are passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences between organisms. New traits can also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.] -wikipedia. -Well, I buy it, makes sense with God or no God, tell me again, what is God ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! -God can create us anyway He ever wants, why not trough evolution ? -No evolution, thats the scary part...
Its Spiritual. I'm sure somebody must have told you that Heaven could not be located in the Material Universe. I think you must be quite disingenous when you are telling us that absolutely nobody ever gave you an answer. Perhaps you did not count these replies unless you agreed with them, or understood them. If it all sounded like Blah Blah Blah to your young and uncomprehending mind, then you decided they counted as no answer at all. Or there is the possibility that they looked at you and figured that any anwer would be wasted on you. Why is that? Do you appear as though you would not understand anything the least bit subtle? But, in regards to locating Heaven if you will agree that Heaven is not to be located physically in the Material Dimensions. Well, then, as yourself where do Dreams exist? Where do Ideas exist? Where does the Potential for Life exist. A mere moment after the Big Bang, there was immediately the potential for all this Life, Art, Civilization... but it was nowhere one could point to. It was simply inherent. There. You have been answered. Let us not hear you complain anymore.
IOW its nonexistent,just like those spirits/souls http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/mind.html in your brain! wherever theres life supporting elements.
The problem believers of god have if they accept the fact of evolution is why life is created in such a way that the weakest suffer agonizing deaths at the hands of prey. Why have preying animals in the first place? Mammals who lovingly bring up it's young only to have it carried off and eaten alive. Of course, without god, this is just simply the way things are. But with god, it's appalling cruelty for sentient beings to suffer such things.
actually the problem is that people who don't accept the fact of god insist on running with incomplete versions of theistic theory. 1) Hume questioned why a benevolent, loving God would subject all living entities to the duality of pain and pleasure. His definition of living entity was limited to the physical body. The Vedic response is that every living creature is in essence jiva-tattva, an eternal spirit soul. Because of the attraction to lord it over prakrti (material nature), the jiva is entrapped in the bodily concept, and subject to the cycle of repeated birth and death throughout all the species in nature. The jiva's perception of pleasure and pain within these bodies is but an illusion generated by the false ego. By yoga (discipline and purification of the mind and senses), pleasure and pain are transcended. And by engaging the purified mind and senses in God's service, the living entity is established in an eternal loving relationship with the Supreme Person. or number two and three
"Fact" of god? Outside of the delusions and mythology of religious adherents, where would this "fact" be found?
the same place as all claims of knowledge PRACTICE By yoga (discipline and purification of the mind and senses), pleasure and pain are transcended. And by engaging the purified mind and senses in God's service, the living entity is established in an eternal loving relationship with the Supreme Person. (and as mentioned to kenny, practice has its basis in proper theory)
I know a "practitioner" of Reiki, but no matter how much she "practices" that and tarot card reading, neither has any merit in reality. She's unable to apply any demonstrable "healing touch" or show any ability to actually divine the future. So your "facts" and "practice" amounts to nothing in reality. But I'm sure you'll have some post-modernist rebuttal about the nature of "reality." Such irrational comments seem to flow with ease from your fingertips.
I'm sorry for my long absence, been busy.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm not complaining, and if you think I am, I'm sorry. I posted this to try and find some common ground between the two sides, if there is one to be found. I think religion and spirituality are important to human history, and how we have developed. I was a very bright child, I just never got a straight answer from my teacher, that was just a funny story. I have a highly religious family but I was brought up to think for myself, and to respect other people's thoughts, feeling, and beliefs. Modern humans have been here for all of 200,000 years, some people think that thats along time, we are still a very primitive species. We have'nt even scratched the surface of discovery on earth and in the universe. Evolution was proposed around the 1830's, man walked on the moon in 1969, there are places on this earth that have never seen a human being, and we've never had a human step foot on mars, yet. Evolution is a primitive science, there are a lot of holes, and missing links that are still missing. I'm an athiest and I like evolution because it answers a lot of questions, not because its a perfect science.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The question would therefore be: Why do you reject it considering you have no qualification and, as witnessed on the other thread, no understanding of it either? Hypocrite much?
Faith was made to be questioned With enough knowledge most questions can be answered and at the very least a realiable decision can be deduced. The bible tell us to keep "taking in accurate knowledge". and science is the study of knowledge, both are saying the same thing. Often it can be said that we fear the unknown but sometimes tradition pulls a bit of slight of hand on us and we end up fearing what we might learn. It's like cold water, just jump on in.
I don't have to introduce anything to the existing body of knowledge (aka lenny leprechauns) to question the claims. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Everything can be debated, such is the nature of language; language has its foundations in duality. The reality is the oneness of all, so whatever you say about it is plain wrong because of the dualism of language.
