The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by jamison20000e The fact is(!) gods don't exist and (just){...}

That is a theory not fact. Just because we don't see, smell, hear, taste or touch God does not mean there is no creation. Who said God is not inside us since we were "created in gods image"? It could be aliens too since they are not perfect deities and could left Earth for some reason.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Prove that claim and collect your nobel price.

Man did not evolve from monkeys, no matter how much the scientists are trying to prove this(using fake evidence and deception). Man has the image of God. Question is which God and why God is not around today. There has to be explanation - third option.

Originally Posted by jamison20000e I don't really need to prove it tho if the thread is read should be "commonsense" therein lies the problem; K1 for everyone!

Actually yes, you do need to prove it, since you have made the claim it is up to you to do that.

You don't think believing in ghosts is silly?

I do. That doesn't mean I can prove it.

Originally Posted by Arcane That is a theory not fact. Man did not evolve from monkeys, no matter how much the scientists are trying to prove this. Man has the image of God. Question is which God and why God is not around today. There has to be explanation - third option.

The same is true for you: Prove your claims, let them be peer reviewed and collect your nobel price. The only problem here is that you compete against the most well tested scientific theory ever, good luck with that.

As I said the proof is in the pudding, expand past this thread and see fairy tales will always only seem to exist (and your also right sasquatch can't be disproven within all this mutation (thought, other, etc)) plus people want to believe (or be sheep*) that questions already answered too: money, fear of death, brain washing is teaching,,, !

That's why the terminology is "droppin science ... y'all..."

Originally Posted by jamison20000e As I said the proof is in the pudding, expand past this thread and see fairy tales will always only seem to exist (and your also right sasquatch can't be disproven within all this mutation (thought, other, etc)) plus people want to believe (or be sheep*) that questions already answered too: money, fear of death, brain washing is teaching,,, ! That's why the terminology is "droppin science ... y'all..."

Sorry, I don't understand. For non-native English speakers it is hard enough to get around the English language, but your lack of basic English grammar makes it impossible to decrypt this. What I understand from it is: "The proof is in the pudding ..." and that is simply not how it works. Make a claim, prove it.

Unless your an English teacher that grammar is fine (except your should be you are or you're and other minor s#!ff) and I a assume can use a search engine? If people don't eat the meat they simply can't get the pudding.

Originally Posted by jamison20000e Unless your an English teacher that grammar is fine

No, it's not. As Tobi said, it's unreadable. There is no sentence structure, no logical argument, and a plethora of misspellings and missing words.

Get rid of the parenthesis, emoticons, links, and colors, and you're left with this:

As I said the proof is in the pudding, expand past this thread and see fairy tales will always only seem to exist plus people want to believe that questions already answered too: money, fear of death, brain washing is teaching,,, !

Are you honestly trying to argue that that's a sentence, much less some kind of coherent thought?

Are you a native English speaker? If not, that's fine, but at least try to get it close (as you've been repeatedly asked to do in the past).

Does [B] not stop your mind like a comma or (why), what only acts like it exists not cancer as thought or tumors++++ (we use Linux\HTML so we know what a plus can mean;) If I say potato will you hand me catchup? Sheep(*) can be anyone\thing from the asterisk...

∞___________∞
∞___________∞

"probably never get it" –Beastie Boys
on&stinkingON...

Originally Posted by jamison20000e Does [B] not stop your mind like a comma or (why), what only acts like it exists not cancer as thought or tumors++++ (we use Linux\HTML so we know what a plus can mean;) If I say potato will you hand me catchup? Sheep(*) can be anyone\thing from the asterisk... ∞___________∞ ∞___________∞ "probably never get it" –Beastie Boys on&stinkingON...

It is simple as that: If you don't feel this discussion is worth your time, the time to put your thoughts in clear and coherent English sentences, why should we spend our time trying to decrypt it and answering to it? It is a matter of respect that if you take part in a discussion that you do it the best way you can, so that the other partners in the discussion can actually understand what you say.

I get the hole (yes paronomasias) thread and if I did not would politely ask...

Edit\add: "Does the white whale actually symbolize the un-knowability and meaninglessness of human existence? No. Its just a f-ing fish." –Ron Swanson LOL

Originally Posted by jamison20000e I get the hole (yes paronomasias) thread and if I did not would politely ask...

Which means to me: No, jamison20000e does not intend to participate in this discussion in a respectful way. Don't expect any answers from me in the future, at least as long as forum moderation isn't concerned.
I will not waste my time deciphering your cryptic messages anymore.

Just because we don't see, smell, hear, taste or touch God does not mean there is no creation. ...

... "the fool has said in his heart..."

I am looking right now out over a lovely hillside, with a cool winter wind drifting by my face, and as I work with trimming the plants I look briefly at my own hand. So, yes, all of my senses "encounter God" all the time.

"In the cool of the evening, at the close of the day ..."

Maybe the difference betwixt me and some other folks (mentioning no names and making no "sideways reference" here ... so if you think I'm talking about you, I'm not ...) is that I do not profess to know. I'm pretty sure that man didn't evolve from monkeys, but I do find the genetic similarities to be fascinating and the idea not challenging. After all, there was a time not so long ago when we thought that the world was flat. Perhaps well-intentioned religious authorities persecuted people who even suggested that the sun did not revolve around the earth, which was (of course) "the center of the Universe." (To which Galileo replied, under his breath, "and still it moves.") And so it goes.

"And lean not to your own understanding ..."

I don't presuppose to "know God personally." I don't cling too-tightly to "the literal Bible," regarding it as, inevitably, a human document which contains great truth anyway. Basically, where many people find "certainty," I do not. And, "I'm cool with that." (And, if you do, then, "who am I to say that you are 'wrong?' How the <heaven|hell> do I know? I do not.")

So, while "a rollicking good debate that goes on for hundreds of pages" is a wonderful thing, I just keep in mind that we are all "blind men and the elephant." And if we can just find a way to "be cool with that," all is well. Except... that's really not human nature, as the aforesaid fairy-tale clearly illustrates.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs I'm pretty sure that man didn't evolve from monkeys, but I do find the genetic similarities to be fascinating and the idea not challenging.

Good, because the evidence for evolution conclusively states that humans did not evolve from monkeys.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Which means to me: No, jamison20000e does not intend to participate in this discussion in a respectful way. Don't expect any answers from me in the future, at least as long as forum moderation isn't concerned. I will not waste my time deciphering your cryptic messages anymore.

I understand what you're saying about "Prove that" but some answers will never be (hence the problems in the world (thx tradition)) even if you ask politely they could mean more or morph so in this thread I'd tend to be more artistic as the one true beholder, untouchyly perioD

Attachment 14055
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Beholder

"Can't you say anything in a normal way? The answer sadly is not yes..."
"A wise man never knows all, only fools know everything." In other words there are no wise men.

Originally Posted by dugan Good, because the evidence for evolution conclusively states that humans did not evolve from monkeys.

You could be right. But, you could be wrong, too.

Let me please set "matters of religion" completely aside(!) here, for a moment, and suggest that you (anyone ...) might wish to "seriously and actually read" the following three things:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoso...phy_of_biology ... and the surrounding article.
2. Darwin's Origin of Species.
3. Darwin's The Voyage of the Beagle.

Don't simply accept "what your preacher told you." Read them.

The most-important thing that you'll come away with is the realization that Mr. Darwin never stated, nor intended to state, "certainty."

Indeed, he took for granted that his audience would implicitly(!) understand that he could not possibly be stating "certainty," because: "in things such as this, 'certainty' cannot be stated, which is why Darwin was doing what he was doing."

Let me repeat that: "... which is why Darwin was doing what he was doing."

Darwin was engaged in the exercise called "scientific philosophy," which might be stated as: "thinking, about thinking (itself), about science."

"Sure, we love 'the scientific method™'," but the simple fact of the matter is that this 'method' is useful only when we can actually construct 'an experiment.' What are we supposed to do, then, about "the other 99.9% of situations about which we wish To Know™?" Biology... Quantum Physics... Big Bangs...

Q: "Where were you when the foundations of the world were laid, and the angels jumped for joy?"
A: Uhhh, nowhere ...
Q': ... but I still want to know!!
A'': Okay, I get it. I wasn't there. I can't "know."
A''': ... but I still want to know!!
Q'''': So, what can I do, to make the most of my present situation?
A''''': "Scientific Philosophy."

First of all, Darwin was able to confirm that "evolution exists." Yes, it does. There is, without a doubt, a "self-adapting mechanism" present in biology. This is where Darwin's "knowledge" ended ... and he took for granted that his Gentle Reader would know that, as any well-educated scholar of his day would.

Now, Darwin stepped forward into the unknown and the unknowable, using well-understood and well-accepted rules of engagement. Namely: he took what was known, and speculatively moved forward, looking for "apparent contradictions." He went a very long way without finding any. And "this, but not one whit farther," is where 'his case rests.'

Was he "right?" Was he "wrong?" He didn't draw either conclusion, because he knew that he couldn't. To do so would be absurd, and both he and his intended audience knew that.

And this is what I would very-gently suggest: that nothing "conclusively states" anything of the sort!

You see, "to state that 'it is possible to carry thus-and-so line of reasoning this-far without encountering any apparent-to-me contradictions'" is not the same as (in the "B.C." comic-strips) "TRVTH." We weren't "there," and so we're just trying to make the best of it.

"Yeah, it sux not to 'know.'" But we don't, and so, here we are.