Religion vs Belief in God

[malikc6]

Jan 27, 2015 12:32:02 GMT 5 mechafire said:

Jan 27, 2015 10:09:38 GMT 5 malikc6 said:

take the Noah's ark story into account. EVERY CULTURE AROUND THE WORLD has a flood story,

Since when? And even so, that doesn't prove the bliblical story anymore than the other mythologies.

It doesn't but its something to consider. It's theoretically possible for the world to be flooded as well. But I could also say that every area had their own huge flood and documented that. 

Jesus Christ is in all religions,

Where is your evidence? I've been into Norse and Greek mythology, and Christ certainly isn't featured.


I actually meant he is in all bibles. About 66 bibles I believe. 

I am willing to accept that Jesus did exist though we have no body of him.

In my opinion, there might have been a guy named Jesus Christ back then, but I certainly reject the supernatural claims about him.


Understandable. Also people back then could likely be easily fooled by a magic trick, and I believe time was recorded a bit differently. People back then were said to live hundreds of years. 

Another thing that recently freaked me out, is the Story of Moses. At one point in his story, god supposedly split the sea allowing Moses and his people to walk through safely. When the Pharaoh and his army went after the Jews, god restored the sea to normal, and drowned Pharaoh and his army. Did you know they actually found chariot wheels along with horse and human remains in the red sea?

Assuming you had evidence for this. Why would that be freaky? The Red Sea isn't exactly this obscure thing, there have been voyages on it for a long, long time.

You know, I never completely understood why some posters like you keep saying "Where is your evidence?" You have a computer and are more than capable of searching for it yourself. Does one have to go back on their post/posts all the time and make edits and post links to back up their claims on a topic that is for the most part opinionated? I can understand if it's a debate where facts are the primary thing that needs to be put on the table, but this topic for the most part is opinionated, and if someone makes a claim that you doubt, you're just as capable of looking it up yourself. 

[malikc6]

This is what I find wrong with it, and an issue I had with many posters back on Yuku, and on youtube during that long overdone debate about tigers vs lions. Posters made claims that were opinionated, and then other posters would come along and ask for evidence, and if they couldn't back it up, they're like "Hurr durr I proved you wrong. You can't prove it so it didn't happen! I win!" Though these people also have the tool to research the evidence for themselves. It's one thing if one said "I can't find a source to what you said. Can you show it?" It's a huge pet peeve of mine ever since I joined those boards. This lead to trolling, flamewars, and when people showed their proof, others would show proof that contradicts what they say, and then they both argue over which is right and no one ever comes to any type of agreement. I've seen this too many times, and it has become a pet peeve of mine.

Once more, if its a debate with facts, that's acceptable. If someone told me in a debate that a leopard could kill a lion, I would instantly ask them what proof do they have to back this up? But if its opinionated? I don't see too much of the point to. This topic is opinionated, and an ancient topic as well. No one knows if there is a god or not, and both sides can constantly ask each other, "Where is you evidence that god did this, or where is your evidence that the big bang happened?


Here is a source to chariot wheels found in the red sea, where supposedly god opened the red sea to allow Moses and the Jews to pass, and then closed back the sea when Pharaoh and his army chased after them.

www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVERY%20MUSEUM/BibleLandsDisplay/Red_Sea_Chariot_Wheels/Red_Sea_Chariot_Wheels_3.html

biblehub.com/exodus/14-25.htm

According to this, god was responsible for this. Now I never stated that this happened, but I found it freaky that chariot wheels were found in the red sea, the same sea that god supposedly drowned the army after breaking their wheels off. Maybe there could be another explanation on why wheels are in there, but I'm just saying. That's freaky to me.

Anyways, forgive me if I sound a bit confrontational. I'm currently not in the best health or mood right now.

[theropod]

Jan 27, 2015 15:11:14 GMT 5 malikc6 said:

This is what I find wrong with it, and an issue I had with many posters back on Yuku, and on youtube during that long overdone debate about tigers vs lions. Posters made claims that were opinionated, and then other posters would come along and ask for evidence, and if they couldn't back it up, they're like "Hurr durr I proved you wrong. You can't prove it so it didn't happen! I win!" Though these people also have the tool to research the evidence for themselves. It's one thing if one said "I can't find a source to what you said. Can you show it?" It's a huge pet peeve of mine ever since I joined those boards. This lead to trolling, flamewars, and when people showed their proof, others would show proof that contradicts what they say, and then they both argue over which is right and no one ever comes to any type of agreement. I've seen this too many times, and it has become a pet peeve of mine.

How else would you suggest it to work. If you make a claim (and that’s not a matter of opinion, either there were chariot wheels found in the red see, or there weren’t, and either jesus christ is in all religions, or he isn’t), why do other people have to search for the evidence?

Once more, if its a debate with facts, that's acceptable.

and isn’t it?

If someone told me in a debate that a leopard could kill a lion, I would instantly ask them what proof do they have to back this up?

that is actually opinionated. What one shoudl rather ask for is, under what circumstances and what likelyhood.

But if its opinionated? I don't see too much of the point to.

You sound as if he was asking you for evidence that god exists…

biblehub.com/exodus/14-25.htm

According to this, god was responsible for this.

That’s an example of what giving a source for is indeed absurd. You are going to find religious sources, who claim god was responsible, and you are going to find non-religious sources who will go for the obvious, parsimonous explanation: A shipment of chariot wheels was lost there.

Now I never stated that this happened, but I found it freaky that chariot wheels were found in the red sea, the same sea that god supposedly drowned the army after breaking their wheels off. I’ll wager that Maybe there could be another explanation on why wheels are in there, but I'm just saying. That's freaky to me.

It’s not that I’d demand a source for this or anything, but as much as I try, I fail to understant why that’s freaky. Finding chariot wheels in an ocean adjacent to a culture that used chariots is nothing unexpected.

Another thing. You have all probably heard this before, but the planet Jupiter prevents most asteroids and comets from hitting us. The planet earth has just the right conditions perfect for human life as well as other forms of life. There is a seasonal cycle that happens that benefits the entire planet. Animals, plants, insects, etc are all benefited from this. There exists the circle of life, and natural selection.

I can go on and on, on how balanced this planet is. It just seems so incredibly unlikely if not impossible that such a spectacular planet can just form by itself, and if it did, I feel that an intelligent force was what did it. Directly, or indirectly. There are many planets that CANNOT sustain life, and the ones that can can only support very very basic lifeforms like bacteria. In my opinion, I don't see them evolving into something more complex. Some of these planets have been around much longer than earth, and the bacteria like life forms still have not evolved, though they had eons to do it.

You may feel it is unlikely, but do the math. Even if something is incredibly unlikely, it is still expected to occur an infinite number of times in an infinite universe. That’s quite the opposite of impossible if you ask me. Obviously, we were only ever going to evolve on one of the planets that fulfill these criteria, so us being on this one is not some unlikely coincidence, but a direct consequence of its living conditions, consistent with physical, chemical and biological principles.
So far, these have done a very good job at explaining all this stuff. Better one than a sentient, omnipotent being does, and far better than the bible.

It’s true that most cultures have stories about large floods. But have you considered that that could simply be because floods aren’t that uncommon, and subsequent storytelling exagerated some particularly massive one and interpreted it as a godly punishment?
For example, in the 17th century BC mediterranean region, there was a massive volcanic eruption on Santorini:
www.academia.edu/201935/The_Absolute_Chronology_of_the_Egyptian_S.I.P._-_N.K._Transition_and_Its_implications_for_Late_Minoan_Crete

The resulting Tsunami could very well have inspired the ancient greek and biblical flood-myths.

If religions all base on some common truth, how come various religions are so different, and how come all the supposed real events happened during ancient times, while none are observable now?

[creature386]

Jan 27, 2015 18:52:44 GMT 5 theropod said:

If religions all base on some common truth, how come various religions are so different, and how come all the supposed real events happened during ancient times, while none are observable now?

I guess that's because most of these events are events that happen once in a thousand years. For example the probably volcano caused division of the Red Sea ( www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1412815/Biblical-plagues-and-parting-of-Red-Sea-caused-by-volcano.html ) happening exactly when you need it is something that happens one in a 10,000 to 100,000 years maybe.
That being said, I don't think it has to be godly, but I believe that the events described have a good chance to be real and that there is a reason why there are no such events today.

[malikc6]

To mecha. Thanks for the new info. Didn't know that this guy is indeed another pseudo archaleotist that I have once again fallen for.

To Theropod. Yes in an infinite universe, there is infinite possibilities, and we have found earth like planets that could possibly sustain life. Gliesa 581 c, Keppler 444 just to name a few. Of course we don't actually completely know for sure since it is all just estimation based on the planets goldilock zone with its star(not too hot or cold).

Either way, from what we can observe and study, planets like ours is a hard rarity despite the universe going on forever. I could say that there is a galaxy filled with planets like ours with advanced life, and to me, that sounds just as crazy as a talking snake tempting two humans to eat an apple that corrupted man kind. Yes our universe goes on forever, but I HIGHLY doubt that we will find a solar system holding multiple planets with advanced species of life.

But anyways, I'm sorry if I sounded unreasonable. IVe seen too many fights happen over this. One shows proof and when it's not accepted, both parties rage like children.

[theropod]

I’m afraid I can’t follow your logic.

Why should we have to find a solar system with multiple planets that can support life? A mere inability to find it (because of the limits inherent to our propulsive and observational systems) doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist (as already mentioned, it’s mathematically extremely improbable that it doesn’t). You also cannot find god, the difference is that its existence is unparsimonous as well, and illogical when following most religious statements about it.
The probability of a planet being in capable of supporting advanced life is clearly quantifyable, derived from the luminosity of its star(s) and the distance. If the planet is in a certain range of distances, it’s suitable, otherwise it isn’t.

Planets like ours, as you already noted, are unlikely, yet they have to exist based on mathematical principles, and indeed they do exist. We know few, because we can only observe a tiny fraction of the universe, so their absolute number means nothing.

[malikc6]

I see your point therapod. Also im going to make an assumption and say you know quite a lot about evolution. Is it ok if I ask you some questions and I'f you can reccomend any decent books on this subject?

I

[theropod]

Isn't that what we are here for?

[malikc6]

Ok I'll ask this one question for now because I need to get to bed soon.

Evolution is supposed to start with a mutation. However most mutations tend to die, whether it is the parent's that abandon or kill them, or the mutant just not being able to pass on its mutated genes. Even if it does, there is no guarantee that the offspring will be a mutant itself. How did mutants reproduce?

[theropod]

Pretty much every lifeform is a mutant. In most cases, mutations are minor and barely noticeable, so no, I don’t think most mutations die.

There are those that are disadvantageous: whatever is disadvantageous means the organism carrying the mutation is more likely to die, and less likely to reproduce.
And there are those that are advantageous (for example, in a tetrapod that lives in water, such a mutation would be webbed digits), which are more likely to be passed on because they incur benefits for the organism’s health. Of course there’s no guarantee such a mutation will be passed on (whether it will be depends on the type of mutation), but there’s a higher than normal chance, and that’s enough.

Repeat this over a few thousand or millions of years, during which disadvantageous mutations are more rarely inherited, and advantageous ones more often, and the organisms will change towards those traits that are advantageous for their environment. That’s the concept of adaption.

[malikc6]

At one point, everything was blind. How did exactly the eye evolve? What circumstances ultimately lead to this? And why don't some animals have night vision like others?

[creature386]

I could imagine that eyes started with something like a bit light sensitive receptors who became more common because it was a huge advantage to see what is around you. Not all animals have night vision because it doesn't make sense for animals who are not nocturnal. Why some animals are nocturnal and others not is a matter of niches.

[malikc6]

It is a huge advantage, but what lead to it to occur? The way people say it makes it seem like it just had to happen. Also, there are creatures today that still do not have eyes like Driver ants, moles, the recently discovered Atretochoana, wolf spiders, Ketuncy Shrimp, and more. These animals go their entire lives blind, and use other forms of sensory to survive.

[theropod]

Mutation again. Some cells happened to develop a light receptor protein, and this protein turned out to be a huge advantage. Euglena is an example of such an organism.
In the case of metazoans, some developed a genetic mutation that led to the development of certain cells that had light receptor proteins. Subsequent mutations led to the development of more complex eyes.

So basically yes, it did "just happen", and this random development proved so successful that over billions of years it evolved into more complex forms, and evolved independently for many times.
For some reason the eye is sort of a creationist’s favourite, just like the banana. But just that it’s complex and an example of great engineering doesn’t mean evolution doesn’t explain it. In fact, nothing can explain it as well as evolution does, because evolution of the eye happened over enourmous spans of time during which its structure could be adapted, optimised and diversifed.

Animals that don’t have eyes don’t have them because they provide no evolutionary advantage. Obviously, if there’s no light in their environment, a light receptor is useless. But if there is, it is apparently tremendously useful.

[Vodmeister]

Jan 26, 2015 20:14:07 GMT 5 creature386 said:

I know that feeling. There are few of my posts that are older than a year and that I like to read.

Not in my case. I actually refuse to read some old threads from back in 2011-12 because I physically cringe at how bad my posts used to be.