ChatterBank1 min ago
What do you believe in
44 Answers
Do you believe in God?.
Do you believe in a benevolent or an unforgivng God?.
If your a believer, and practice, why is your religion the
right one?.
If your a non -believer, why?.
Enough questions to be going on with, I think.
My own belief, after being brought up in a strict religious society, is that there may be a creator, seeing how everything natural fits together like a jigsaw, can't make my mind up, but I definately do not believe in a benevolent God.
Every living thing on this planet, has to eat something thats either alive, or has been alive, and that, to me, if we were created by a benevolent God, is the sickest joke around, that, and supposed free will.
Do you believe in a benevolent or an unforgivng God?.
If your a believer, and practice, why is your religion the
right one?.
If your a non -believer, why?.
Enough questions to be going on with, I think.
My own belief, after being brought up in a strict religious society, is that there may be a creator, seeing how everything natural fits together like a jigsaw, can't make my mind up, but I definately do not believe in a benevolent God.
Every living thing on this planet, has to eat something thats either alive, or has been alive, and that, to me, if we were created by a benevolent God, is the sickest joke around, that, and supposed free will.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Lonnie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Succinct and accurate:
You: "Well, it looks like a dog and it barks."
Your Religion: "It's a cat."
You: "Are you sure? I think it's a dog."
Your Religion: "Do you want to burn for all eternity, smarty-pants?"
You: "Oh, right. It's a cat."
I found it on here:
http://www.stupidwish.net/religion.html
Well worth a read. Great final summation as well.
You: "Well, it looks like a dog and it barks."
Your Religion: "It's a cat."
You: "Are you sure? I think it's a dog."
Your Religion: "Do you want to burn for all eternity, smarty-pants?"
You: "Oh, right. It's a cat."
I found it on here:
http://www.stupidwish.net/religion.html
Well worth a read. Great final summation as well.
I DO believe in God.
I do not believe that science has answered all of our questions, but, to use their own words, they believe in the present theories, as tyhese are the best they have, but are prepared to drop these beliefs when a better theory comes along to replace the existing one.
That's fair enough. In other words, they have faith in their incomplete theories.
So, like believers in God, they also have faith.
I do not believe that science has answered all of our questions, but, to use their own words, they believe in the present theories, as tyhese are the best they have, but are prepared to drop these beliefs when a better theory comes along to replace the existing one.
That's fair enough. In other words, they have faith in their incomplete theories.
So, like believers in God, they also have faith.
Theland, your constancy is endearing.
1) Come on, you know that 'theory' when used in a scientific sense isn't defined as you've used it below.
2) '*When* a better theory comes along'? No no. *If*. Biiiiiig, argument-destroying difference.
3) 'Faith'. Er, yes. Small matter of evidence on one side and not t'other, dear chap. It's like comparing apples and legal postitivism.
1) Come on, you know that 'theory' when used in a scientific sense isn't defined as you've used it below.
2) '*When* a better theory comes along'? No no. *If*. Biiiiiig, argument-destroying difference.
3) 'Faith'. Er, yes. Small matter of evidence on one side and not t'other, dear chap. It's like comparing apples and legal postitivism.
Well let's see, shall we?
One is based on a rigorous system of checks, relying on falsifiable conjectures supported by observable and repeatable evidence from experimentation.
The other is based on a contradictory and historically inaccurate book of unprovable provenance and 'I just know it, m'kay?'.
No, you're right. They are the same.
One is based on a rigorous system of checks, relying on falsifiable conjectures supported by observable and repeatable evidence from experimentation.
The other is based on a contradictory and historically inaccurate book of unprovable provenance and 'I just know it, m'kay?'.
No, you're right. They are the same.
The abiogenesis gambit, eh? Which only falls down on the fact that it's not scientific theory, but hypothesis. This does not, as I suspect is the point you're trying to make disprove evolution. Science is totally okay with hypothesis. This is not a refutation of science but a massive great clap on the back for how utterly splendid the scientific method is.
The Big Bang, however, is a scientific theory, based on those aforementioned observable and repeatable experiments. Whilst there is (quite correctly) debate about some of the finer points of the mechanisms, there really aren't many who dispute the fact that it happened. Not that are taken seriously, at least. More to the point, the theory is not static, in the sense that the evidence that proves it is constantly being added to, e.g. the scientific method continues to be applied, yet it does not fall down.
You're still not even close to comparing apples and apples.
The Big Bang, however, is a scientific theory, based on those aforementioned observable and repeatable experiments. Whilst there is (quite correctly) debate about some of the finer points of the mechanisms, there really aren't many who dispute the fact that it happened. Not that are taken seriously, at least. More to the point, the theory is not static, in the sense that the evidence that proves it is constantly being added to, e.g. the scientific method continues to be applied, yet it does not fall down.
You're still not even close to comparing apples and apples.
(I think I'm right in saying that ) there are currently no computer chips using light to rather than electricity. It is not a matter of faith but a matter of certainty that they will come to pass within a few short years, yet according to your argument, this means it is 'faith'. It is not. It will happen, and we know it will happen because we understand the principles that are involved. We simply lack the ability to make the tools required to carry out the process at the current time.
You are calling two different things by the same word and pretending that the same letters in the same order mean the same thing. They do not, no matter how hard you insist otherwise.
You are calling two different things by the same word and pretending that the same letters in the same order mean the same thing. They do not, no matter how hard you insist otherwise.
Light or electricity powering computer chips are a fact, opto-electrics I believe. Also, microorganisms are being used to store information, although I think that they are still in the development stages.
But there remains a barrier between inorganic material and life. We can use either for our purposes, they already exist, but we can't change dead elements into living things, even at the simplest level. The barrier remains. Yet, with no evidence to the contrary, there remains faith that one day this will happen, and in faith, that it has already happened, somewhere, sometime, in nature.
But there remains a barrier between inorganic material and life. We can use either for our purposes, they already exist, but we can't change dead elements into living things, even at the simplest level. The barrier remains. Yet, with no evidence to the contrary, there remains faith that one day this will happen, and in faith, that it has already happened, somewhere, sometime, in nature.
Okay, so they do exist, but my point remains - simply that just because something is not currently possible, it does not defacto render it happening at some future point a matter of faith, unless you are redefining what 'faith' means. It certainly does not have any corrollary with what it means to have religious faith, yet you continue to use the word in this sense.
However, this is somewhat moot, because you're continuing to talk about abiogenesis (which is not in any case Evolution, but nevertheless does at least have the fact that self-replicating proteins are well known, so the notion that belief in abiogeneis is analogy to the blind faith of religion is already flawed). In your original point (2nd on this page) you talk of 'faith in theories', (which from a science perspective is a nonsense anyway), and then use a hypothesis (not a theory) to try and prove your point. Well of course hypothesis are not proved, otherwise they'd be theories, wouldn't they?! You're trying to prove that something isn't the actuality when its very description acknowledges that fact - hello Mr Tautology!
More to the point, abiogensis continues to be studied. If enough evidence is discovered, it will become a theory. If it turns out that it cannot be supported, it will be rejected. This is the greatness of the scientific method at work.
Again, not like your blind faith in religion.
However, this is somewhat moot, because you're continuing to talk about abiogenesis (which is not in any case Evolution, but nevertheless does at least have the fact that self-replicating proteins are well known, so the notion that belief in abiogeneis is analogy to the blind faith of religion is already flawed). In your original point (2nd on this page) you talk of 'faith in theories', (which from a science perspective is a nonsense anyway), and then use a hypothesis (not a theory) to try and prove your point. Well of course hypothesis are not proved, otherwise they'd be theories, wouldn't they?! You're trying to prove that something isn't the actuality when its very description acknowledges that fact - hello Mr Tautology!
More to the point, abiogensis continues to be studied. If enough evidence is discovered, it will become a theory. If it turns out that it cannot be supported, it will be rejected. This is the greatness of the scientific method at work.
Again, not like your blind faith in religion.
I have faith in Mans' conquest of space, even though it is in its infancy, as I can see where the technology is going, but is not there yet.
This is not using the word "faith" in the same sense as just sitting around waiting for the scientists to develop the technology to create life in a test tube. No new technology is needed to replicate conditions on earth when life, (was created?), happened.
So you are right. different meanings of "faith."
This is not using the word "faith" in the same sense as just sitting around waiting for the scientists to develop the technology to create life in a test tube. No new technology is needed to replicate conditions on earth when life, (was created?), happened.
So you are right. different meanings of "faith."
Ho ho! Most disengenous, you prankster!
Nobody is sitting around waiting in the idle sense that you use it. Much work is being done and continues to be done, for example, building on the work of Miller and Urey in the 50s (and though their work was undoubtedly flawed, it went a huge way to showing abiogenesis was a likely solution). We know and have observed organic acids in test tubes interacting chemically in the manner required for replication.
What you appear to be saying is, 'Well, they haven't done it, therefore it's impossible!' which is frankly dumb.
Nobody is sitting around waiting in the idle sense that you use it. Much work is being done and continues to be done, for example, building on the work of Miller and Urey in the 50s (and though their work was undoubtedly flawed, it went a huge way to showing abiogenesis was a likely solution). We know and have observed organic acids in test tubes interacting chemically in the manner required for replication.
What you appear to be saying is, 'Well, they haven't done it, therefore it's impossible!' which is frankly dumb.
Lonnie - I was going to say it was good to be back - but then I met Waldo, and he's been hitting me!
Waldo - As for the progress made in the laboratory that you mention, and the making of the amino acids, I agree, obviously. chakka35 makes a similar point.
However, whereas you are confident that this progress will continue, I am not, and for one simple reason, (among others). That is, a collection of highly intelligent people have tried and tried, and so far failed, (I concede some progress - aminos etc), to create life in a test tube, to prove, that life was possible, in the absence of any intelligence whatsoever.
If they created life in the laboratory tomorrow, this would only prove that a lot of intelligence went into it.
So far, I have not come across anything to shake my faith in a creator God.
Waldo - As for the progress made in the laboratory that you mention, and the making of the amino acids, I agree, obviously. chakka35 makes a similar point.
However, whereas you are confident that this progress will continue, I am not, and for one simple reason, (among others). That is, a collection of highly intelligent people have tried and tried, and so far failed, (I concede some progress - aminos etc), to create life in a test tube, to prove, that life was possible, in the absence of any intelligence whatsoever.
If they created life in the laboratory tomorrow, this would only prove that a lot of intelligence went into it.
So far, I have not come across anything to shake my faith in a creator God.
Hitting you, Theland? Asking you to justify your beliefs is 'hitting you'?
You should use one of our Earth dictionarys, containing our human languages, then we'd understand each other better.
"a collection of highly intelligent people have tried and tried, and so far failed, (I concede some progress - aminos etc), to create life in a test tube, to prove, that life was possible, in the absence of any intelligence whatsoever."
So, you're saying that a process that took eons to occur, and which (scientists claim) occurred by random chance, in
"If they created life in the laboratory tomorrow, this would only prove that a lot of intelligence went into it."
LOL! Fantastic piece of goal post-moving, Theland! As usual, you completely misunderstand. First you say the fact that it hasn't been done is proof God did it. Then, when confronted by the fact that very real progress towards showing abiogenesis is possible has occurred and continues to be worked upon, you say, 'Ah, but that required scientists (we'll gloss over the fact that you've just reduced your God to the level of human scientists; I don't want to be accused of hitting you again), so intelligent design is at work'!!! That's a genius defence strategy! Heads you win, tails I lose, eh?
No, what it actually shows it that the hypothesised mechanism for abiogenesis is one that works. I sometimes wonder whether you'd be satisfied with anything less than being show video evidence of the first self-replicating chemicals in the primordial soup! Maybe worse, if they did prove that abiogenesis were a legitimate mechanism, you'd not be satisfied until they were able to do an experiment where a man walked out of the test tube!
"So far, I have not come across anything to shake my faith in a creator God."
If I was as intellectually duplicitous as you've been above, I'd feel the same.
You should use one of our Earth dictionarys, containing our human languages, then we'd understand each other better.
"a collection of highly intelligent people have tried and tried, and so far failed, (I concede some progress - aminos etc), to create life in a test tube, to prove, that life was possible, in the absence of any intelligence whatsoever."
So, you're saying that a process that took eons to occur, and which (scientists claim) occurred by random chance, in
"If they created life in the laboratory tomorrow, this would only prove that a lot of intelligence went into it."
LOL! Fantastic piece of goal post-moving, Theland! As usual, you completely misunderstand. First you say the fact that it hasn't been done is proof God did it. Then, when confronted by the fact that very real progress towards showing abiogenesis is possible has occurred and continues to be worked upon, you say, 'Ah, but that required scientists (we'll gloss over the fact that you've just reduced your God to the level of human scientists; I don't want to be accused of hitting you again), so intelligent design is at work'!!! That's a genius defence strategy! Heads you win, tails I lose, eh?
No, what it actually shows it that the hypothesised mechanism for abiogenesis is one that works. I sometimes wonder whether you'd be satisfied with anything less than being show video evidence of the first self-replicating chemicals in the primordial soup! Maybe worse, if they did prove that abiogenesis were a legitimate mechanism, you'd not be satisfied until they were able to do an experiment where a man walked out of the test tube!
"So far, I have not come across anything to shake my faith in a creator God."
If I was as intellectually duplicitous as you've been above, I'd feel the same.
Latest Posts
Jokes8 mins ago
Crosswords16 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles32 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles52 mins ago
