The Faith & Religion mega Thread

___________________________________o88888o
_________________________88o_____o88888888
_______________________o888o___o8888888888
_______o888ooo________o8888o_888888888888
__ooo8888888888888___88888888888888888888
___*88888888888888o_88888888888888888888
___o8888888888888__88888888888888888888
__o8888888888888__88888888888888888888
___88888888888*__888888888888888888*
______*88888*___888888888888888*
_______888888__88888888888888*
______o88888888888888888888*
____o888888888888888888888888888888888888888oo
___8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888o
_o8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888*
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888**
*8888888888888888888888888888888**
_*88888888888*_88888
__8888888888*___*8888
__8888888888_____88888o
__*888888888o_____88888o
___88888888888_____*8888o
___*888888888888o___*8888o
____*8888888888888o___*888o
_____*88888888888888____8888
_______8888888888888o____*888
________888888888888______*888o
_________8888888888*_______*8888
_________*8888888888oo______*888
__________*8888888888888o
___________*88888888888888o
____________*888888888888888o
______________88888888___8888o
_______________8888888_o88888
_______________*8888888888*
_________________8888888*
__________________88888888888o
___________________88888888__*o
____________________8888888o
_____________________8888888
______________________8888888
______________________*8888888
______________________888888888oo
______________________888__888888o
_____________________o88___88888
_____________________*_____8888
__________________________o88[/CENTER]

Enough fun, hope, profit,,,
when we die
it's over.

Edit: for the poll we can add Agnostics to Atheists and really beat out the blind faithers, It's just that y\our parents were wrong to join cults (even cliques) unless humanity evolving!

Originally Posted by Arcane <snip> but we have yet to see undeniable proof on Darwin and monkey|ape human connection without outside influence!

You spoke of "missing links" before in showing the progression from a particular species of apes and true to Science at first there was only one. A little more digging and exploration (and the uncovering and dismissal of a couple hoaxes) and there were a handful of verifiable steps. Now there is physical evidence that there were 10 distinct stages in which, slowly, physical characteristics that were more like ape/monkey/lemur - like, suitable for climbing trees and eating vegetation gave way to characteristics suited to ground travel, meat eating, and larger brains, etc. With each new additional find the line gets smoother as is common when a body of knowledge can grow, weeding out the false starts, and confirming the ones with solid, non-contradictory evidence.

The conclusion that men evolved from apes easily could have gone the other way and been refuted. So far there is no evidence whatsoever to do that and an ever-growing body of evidence supporting. The odds are extremely high with as many countless man/hours over many hundreds of years (thousands if you consider early mythological explanations for the fossil record) have been invested in solving this mystery, that it happened just as Science explains it - We essentially evolved from apes whether this offends anyone or not, the odds are staggering.

But why stop there? Keep going back. Why aren't fundamentalists even more offended that all life came from one-celled animals, maybe even not unlike bacteria? I don't see this as offensive. It seems beautiful to me, but more importantly, after tracing many seemingly disparate "footsteps", over time the pattern emerges so whether you believe in a Creator or not, this IS how it happened, unless your God is The Trickster. It's not guesswork. It's a painstaking and slow process that leads to inescapable conclusions. Either that or there is no point in attempting to understand anything. Choose.

If you feel compelled to throw a "Designer" into the mix, I invite you to spend some time considering Occam's Razor, but OK I suppose it is within the realm of possible explanations. It just unfortunately has no evidence to support it, nor can there likely ever be, nor is it at all required since it seems that everywhere we look, the Universe is busily creating complexity out of simplicity and denying this body of work supporting our evolution based on Myth is simply superstitious, and stubbornly ignorant. With recent discovery of the Higgs Boson and strong physical evidence supporting The Big Bang and Inflation (the new, improved and Nobel worthy mapping of background microwave radiation just released) , the Standard Model is more robust than ever.

Nobody with any serious respect for Reason can deny The Standard Model works exceedingly well and constantly improves just how solid it is. Such reasonable people cannot in good conscience take any religion seriously that denies the evidence without a supportable alternative. The Cause is up for grabs but if one chooses to just create a Designer out of thin air, then please accept that for what it is - Blind Faith, and stop trying to apply Reason to support that which is impossible to test, and "render unto Caesar...". Stand or fall for what you are and stop trying to have it both ways please.

Originally Posted by jamison20000e <big Tinkerbell snip> Edit: for the poll we can add Agnostics to Atheists and really beat out the blind faithers! It's just that your parents were wrong to join cults unless humanity.

I'd have no interest in beating them out if they'd just stop commenting outside their area of expertise beyond their limits of understanding and more importantly demanding everyone on the planet acknowledge (at the point of a gun) they have the inside track to The One True Way and the only effort to get there is to read one single old book and interpret it exactly like they do.

I did edit that, not that it changes your good points.

Change is so slow where's my hoverboard?

Originally Posted by enorbet It absolutely astounds me that any rational, non-lazy person imagines in his wildest fever dreams that Evolution is not a basic, proven fact.{...}

It is still theory! Facts can't be fixed and corrected due time. A rock yesterday and today will be rock tomorrow! Nothing will change that(if we change description of what rock is it does not count!). Ahh! Pointless! You need watch more material like this >> What atheists still confuse << Burden of proof is required for both sides! Yes people do need to provide proof God exists if they claim such but at the same time people who claim God doesn't exist are also required to provide evidence! None have done that(provided previously mentioned) so this is still open for debate!

Originally Posted by Arcane Yes people do need to provide proof God exists if they claim such but at the same time people who claim God doesn't exist are also required to provide evidence! None have done that(provided previously mentioned) so this is still open for debate!

Hogwash. You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof does not lie with the person who says that something does not exist, because that would be impossible.

To me, there's a lot more "faith" in this broad interpretation of "archaeological evidence" than always-skeptical scientific inquiry should warrant. Be careful that you do not see in a few rocks and bones what you want to believe, especially if you are looking for certainty.

What we actually see are examples which seem to have certain characteristics in varying degrees. We also see that even our own pre-natal bodies go through some interesting phases: at one point, a human fetus has gills; at another, it has a tail. Yet by the end of a successful pregnancy, all those things are (well, usually ...) gone. Furthermore, a fair number of pregnancies are aborted ... we call it "miscarriage." So, there is some kind of quality-control mechanism in place, even though we don't know how it operates.

We are operating, and we are thinking, almost all the time with a dearth of solid "information." Even the experimental method is of very limited use.

A very, very critical aspect of "the philosophy of science" (or: "scientific philosophy") rests with this key notion, "directly contradictory." We're exploring how far a train-of-thought might take us without stumbling into one of those land-mines. But we have no way to know whether or not this train-of-thought is, in fact, "The TRVTH." And, basically, we never will. There are many, many things that we can conjecture, and for which we have not yet found a directly contradictory piece of evidence. But, despite all of this, we do not "know."

There are those for whom this uncertainty is simply not acceptable. "If no direct-contradiction has been discovered, then I must be right." Unfortunately there's no way to know whether you are "right" or not.

Myself, I'm skeptical, because this would presuppose a successful crossing of "the genus boundary." And this would presuppose that "visible similarities" (e.g. between an ape and a chimp or a human) imply the absence of "DNA = genetics obstacles" to such a transformation of the DNA structure and message ... and, beyond that, a transformation which still produces a creature that can survive, let alone prosper. (Once again, "millions-of-years hand-waving" doesn't cut it for me. It merely means you're guessing. As are we all.)

Now, as I said, we have (and then lose) both gills and tails, and so-far we have not the slightest idea why. Sequencing of genomes has revealed only that there is a vast amount of incomprehensible-to-us information in there. Yet we do know that everything does come down to those genomes ... which, it would appear, have not changed substantially in however-many years.

These are among the many reasons why I am very conservative in my consideration of the scope and abilities of "evolution," even though I do not dispute that the phenomena exists. I consider many of these ideas to be "flights of fancy" that require every bit as much "faith," if not more so, than their religion-based alternatives. I don't "know," and I don't claim to. I haven't the faintest idea.

Mutation, as mentioned even ones we can watch happen or create like more examples pollution, the Aids virus, birds, frogs &c,,, is evolution. How is this not simple enough to understand unless blindly faithful?

Babes learn best so while you are programed socially, manipulated (even if in wrong ways and unrealized like society) or perhaps malnutritioned(food or puzzles for your growing mind perhaps never then able to gain brain power past not being easily brain washable(?)) and infinite other variables! (EXPLAIN THE STATE OF THE WORLD!!!) Perhaps at this super learning age some things (like free will) just get set in stone? I would think religious people feel stronger about it when they are and\or have kids and when they are very old or stressed?

Seems to me that when your young your more prone to average and older to dying?

Originally Posted by Arcane It is still theory!

Here we go again. You are using the word "theory" in layman's terms at best as if it was the equivalent of imagination or guess. Rather than use an actually scientific (and more rigorous reference) here it is from wikipedia

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive — that is, they seek to supply strong evidence for but not absolute proof of the truth of the conclusion—and they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4] Typically, before a scientific theory can be created, a hypothesis must be developed which is a supposition or proposed explanation that is formed on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. If a substantial amount of evidence is gathered that consistently suggests the validity of a hypothesis, the hypothesis can be converted into a theory.[citation needed] The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light). Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).[5]

Originally Posted by Arcane Facts can't be fixed and corrected due time. A rock yesterday and today will be rock tomorrow! Nothing will change that(if we change description of what rock is it does not count!). Ahh! Pointless! You need watch more material like this >> What atheists still confuse << Burden of proof is required for both sides! Yes people do need to provide proof God exists if they claim such but at the same time people who claim God doesn't exist are also required to provide evidence! None have done that(provided previously mentioned) so this is still open for debate!

Rocks are not immutable. Sandstone was once an ancient seabed. Granite mostly evolves from magma. The constituent atoms of each were created and evolved in stars with the heavier ones coming from novae. That you continue to judge things based on your ability to observe them within your own lifetime seems to imply you are incapable of abstract thought and deductive reason.... that, or you reserve such illogical criticism for areas that are sacred to you. You have every right to be illogical but don't expect such "arguments" to be respected by those who require evidence that has withstood the test of many competing eyes and brains over time.

To assume that Science is skewed by those that seek "evidence" only to support their suppositions, whether merely misguided and hopeful or actively a hoax, denies the competitive nature of Man. It is always the case that someone will come along and possibly with different skill set and tools as well as hypothesis, dead set on proving you wrong. This is the self-correcting nature of Science and why, as a body of knowledge, it, too, evolves.

One difference between the guided evolution of Science and the random Evolution in Nature, is that Science is goal directed to improve over time whereas in Nature, it is merely random or adaptive, not working to improve. Some evidence of this (there are many such as male nipples and possibly cancer) is that although we have some 60% DNA in common with yeast, implying a common ancestor at some point, yeast is essentially immortal at least in human terms, and we, of course, are not, having lost that ability long ago.

On a less dramatic front, it is known that twice the ancestors of whales were land creatures. Who can say if their lives were better on land or in the sea, but the fact is that all the land-based progenitors either went to sea or died off. It just happened to work to their benefit.

Back to the burden of proof for a Creator, I do not claim one does not exist because that is an impossible task. I can only state that one does not have to exist and that it makes no difference anyway since existence is what it is and having a Creator is a difference that makes no difference. If you assume it does make a difference because of some "after death Heaven and Hell eternal accounting" then you have not only assumed the conclusion before the premise, but a host of other unprovable, unsupportable assumptions as well. That is simply and most assuredly illogical by any definition.

Go ahead. Keep your Faith. Just stop trying to "fit a square peg in a round hole" or "having your cake and eating it, too" by convincing yourself and especially others that Faith is scientific or can be proven logically. Faith is Faith and Logic is Logic. Oil and Water.

Scientists won't form a mob and come to your house and drag you and your family off to be burned at the stake, jailed, or even refuse you employment just because you Believe.

I think, with our brains it's easier for people to learn coexistence whereas religions don't have brains...

We can learn to praise or demonize anything, keyword being learn.

After just watching 47 Ronin (baffled me when a kid from Japan turned into Keanu Reeves) I would like to sarcastically say how "cool" it would be to be a samurai or a dragon and at lest with reincarnation for the most part you wouldn't have to have the same thoughts and conversations for F-ing infinity. That being said (along with many things nowadays) may tick off large groups? But, in time as humanity gets smarter (or worse) it will change.

Do many (like myself) eat animals because animals don't go to war ("\think") or because we have nothing better for them like being pets, solders or extinction?

Wow after rereading this, I should really go to sleep!

Originally Posted by enorbet {...}Scientists won't form a mob and come to your house and drag you and your family off to be burned at the stake, jailed, or even refuse you employment just because you Believe.

But atheists do such thing! Just like those annoying BELIEVErs who come to your house etc. they force others to accept there is no other explanation but evolution! That is not true. Aliens also are possibility alongside God and Evolution and who knows maybe we will find out even more options later! And yes if Evolution would be fact not theory we wouldn't discuss this further because we would just know not think!

Evolution video for dummies
Funny how they use same book method in this video to proove their point. That video still doesn't answer why evolution exists.

P.S.People need to stop attacking poster(s) instead of post itself. Just because someone posts something about God, Evolution or Aliens doesn't mean they are part of that belief system. Some people just explore all possibilities and are truth seekers independent of source(s)!

The "evolutionists" that you speak of, the "science science über alles" crowd in general, these people too are like the "believers" that you speak of. They're on an extremist fringe, really, having (in their own eyes ...) found in "science" a justification (in their own eyes ...) for what they wish to believe is true. And unfortunately, they also want to shove those same things in your face. It isn't Science, though, and in my private personal belief, it really isn't God, either. Their central tenet seems to be "to know." But we simply can't do that. We're stuck on one large rock and it seems we barely make it out of puberty before we are dead. We find ourselves in this fantastic place and spend our brief lives trying to make sense of some part of it, and yet we might easily live-and-die never knowing that the world is not, in fact, a flat plate sitting on the back of a celestial tortoise. (Or maybe, that it is! Now, wouldn't that be fun?)

<sigh> OK one more time

Evolution is a fact - Anyone who doubts this has only to look at dogs and virtually ALL of the food we eat. All have been selectively bred to get an improved outcome, a new Family and in some cases, those with longer time frames and therefore opportunity for permutations, new species.

Dogs are not wolves anymore. They are a different species even though their more recent ancestors were wolves. This has come about mostly because of Planned Selection, by humans. When the neighbor's boxer ties with your poodle and the progeny are mixed, that's Natural Selection. If you'd actually like more specifics I'd suggest the 2nd episode of the "Cosmos" reboot on your TV or at various websites like Hulu.

Incidentally since some animals like fruit flies have short lifespans and lots of offspring, it is possible to directly observe both Planned and Natural Evolution. Again, in Science the word Theory does NOT equal imagination or story-telling.

Science is not Religion Even though as Carl Sagan put it, Science and Religion often seek answers to the same Big Questions, there is a basic difference.

Religion is self-contained and relatively slow to change because it comes down to us from some "authority" who essentially says, "This is Truth. This is how it is and if you disagree you are a heretic". Religious people tend to take criticism personally because it is a personal belief system and is not a system that allows for updates, being most often based on some ancient text, unassailable.

Science is not a body of knowledge, although that is included in it. It IS a PROCESS! It is the application of Reason to observation and peer review that never stops, always testing, with extremely rigorous Rules of Evidence, and either accepting or rejecting new observations and results into the mix.

Although it is the nature of people to wish to be correct, and certainly some scientists have held on to cherished conclusions despite new and contradicting evidence and taken disagreement as a personal injury, this is because they failed to live up to the scientific process which contends that it is better to have been mistaken and correct that mistake, than it is to pretend and continue to be mistaken to somehow protect ephemeral feelings of pride. That's just people and our limitations, but as a whole the entire system, the process, which involves many people devoted to falsifying and self-correction, the whole will triumph in discovering what is real and what is not.

Since modern Jurisprudence is based on that same process, you might ask yourself whether you would prefer to face a Religious Court or a Civil Court. Which is likely to be more fair and accurate?

Some things atheists should STOP saying video

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs {...}They're on an extremist fringe, really, having (in their own eyes ...) found in "science" a justification (in their own eyes ...) for what they wish to believe is true. And unfortunately, they also want to shove those same things in your face.{...}

And the funny thing in all this debate is also pointless one. Despite all their efforts to force Evolution to religious people or extraterrestrial supporters is that it is complete waste of their time! Why? Because of this brilliant quote:

evolution does not disprove god

So you worked so hard to prove Evolution wins? You won Nobel prize? You made it scientist #1 Top chart finally after so many years? It doesn't matter because even if Evolution theory becomes fact - God won't be cancelled by that event! For all we can guess there could be all 3 possibilities true and none false at same time!