Question on Christianity

Science also seems to change at a far more rapid pace than religeon. The basic principles of religeon have stayed the same, but comparing scientific knowledge from past to present is a difference of night and day.

Originally posted by eddieboy Hey man, I am by no means a creationist, I am a divine interventionist. What troubles me is why would we care to pass our genes along or perfect them if we are not going to be around to see the results in some way/shape/form. If we are here by chance, which is what evolutionists believe why would the cycle of life want animals to longer lifespans, or procreate so there species doesnt die out?? If this is by chance what difference does it make if the average man lives to be 20 or 80?? This is not a flame No problem. You are asking good questions. 1. Again, the idea has krept into what you are writing that we are "perfecting our genes". I cannot emphasize enough: We not "perfecting" our genes. We, as a species, merely adapt to changing conditions. A particular gene might be great to have at one time, but a positive disadvantage at another. Neither a change of conditions nor a mutation requires divine intvervention. We can observe both happening almost daily. 2. Yes, you are correct that passing on our genes is of no particular advantage to our selves. If fact you could say that in the case of humans, having children is a positive disadvantage to us personally, since caring for them requires our energy and food. The fact is though, that evolution is driven by what is best for a species at a particular time, not what is best for an individual. Is it good for a honey bee to sacrifice his life by stinging some animal that is trying to break into a hive? Nope, he will die in the effort. However, it is very good for his hive, as the others are now assured a longer life (and more progeny). There are those who go further and say that genes are "selfish" and care nothing for the vessel they are in at the moment, but exist only to propogate themselves. A father might jump in front of a truck to push his children out of the way. He dies, but his genes live on through his children, and his actual role in life (as a genetically driven organism) is for his own genes to live on in one way or the other. A desire to see our genes and our species continue on after our death likewise does not require divinie intervention. We can easily see that we and the the others around us are driven by at least some degree of communal instinct. Lastly, a truly selfish species that cared nothing at all for the well-being of other members of its species would almost certainly die out. It might mate, but then it would like eat the mother of its children and its own progeny (or likewise be eaten). Also, a female that did not care for its eggs but would rather eat them would not contribute anything to a species. Even viruses do not destroy members of their own species. Metal

Personally I believe it is just to perfect to be a mere "chance" or coincidence. Humans tend to be skeptikal of even the slightest coincidence in day to day life, but so easily write off "life" as a whole as a coincidence

To all the Christians posting here, read the bible. It is sad when an athiest knows more about how we should treat people than you do. Read John 14, christians are supposed to be known by their love.

Originally posted by Satan buddhism and hinduism both believe in a "soul" and i do not. fundamentally i am at odds with both religions but i do find them to have more "life applications" than christianity. For what reason do you not believe in a soul? If you travel outside the US you'll discover that American Christianity is a unique thing.

Originally posted by RockSolid "Who created God?" is illogical, just like "To whom is the bachelor married?". I dont think so buddy "To whom is the batchelor married?" is total nonsense and I fail to see how you can even compare the two statements, troglodyte!!! "If God is envoked as an explanation for the physical universe , then this explanation cannot be in terms of cause and effect" God created the universe is no explanation at all, the statement is completely devoid of meaning, for you are merely defining God to be that thing which creates the universe!! If God needs no creator then by your logic why does the universe need a creator???? 😀 I believe that is 'Check and Mate'

Originally posted by eddieboy Personally I believe it is just to perfect to be a mere "chance" or coincidence. Humans tend to be skeptikal of even the slightest coincidence in day to day life, but so easily write off "life" as a whole as a coincidence Good point. Very good point. I'm an atheist but I've noticed that alot of atheists have a rather jaded view on everything. The universe is an amazing thing, there is no denying that, the way the sun planted its seed in this planet and spawned life should have us all constantly saying "wtf?". For me the intricacy of eco-systems in particular raises an eyebrow. But at the same time none of this lends any credibility to any religion whatsoever. If anything the existing religions greatly cheapen the magnificence of existence. I've got a feeling there is a whole lot more to it than we think. The gaia theory is interesting and should be looked into deeper.

I think the theist vs atheist arguments miss the interesting question. Instead of asking "Is there a God?" the better question would be "Is there value in believing in a God?" I'm guessing that most of the atheists on this board use faith on a regular basis. You visualize a 1 RM lift, you imagine yourself succeeding, you convince yourself you can lift it, then you do the lift. Your muscle structure didn't change before and after visualization. You succeed in making a challenging lift because you believe that you can. Why couldn't the same techniques be applied to living life? Whether God exists or not is an irrelevant question if the act of believing makes you a better person. Maybe religion for some is basically "psyching yourself up for life" in the same way that someone might "psych themselves up for a lift"? I wouldn't call it being weak minded to do something that works for you...

Originally posted by Data Actually the majority of changes within a species are just random mutations that do not benefit the individual organism. Often gene recombination does not always successful replicate a perfect organism. Evolution has no goal, it has no direction, the majority of the time these mutations or whatever do not give the organism an advantage. exactly, if you were born with 0 fingers then you would have probably died and not reproduced, while if you were born with 4 fingers and an opposable thumb your odds of living long enough to copulate would increase many fold.

Originally posted by Data A lot of theists present the argument ... If something can not come from nothing ... then how was the universe created without a creator? In that context, it is logical to ask who created the creator. If something cannot come from nothing, and God is something, then where did he come from? I think that was his point...

Originally posted by eddieboy Ive always wondered why we evolve if there is no god? What is the point of "evolving" to make our survival better, if this life surves no purpose?? If there is no god "life" would be nutral and not care how long a species lived, and there would be no point to evolv. Why would a hominid need a fifth digit when he survived without one for thousands of years?? what is the point of evolution if there is nothing after this life?? athiest are the luckiest group of people on earth as they have all won the lottery already You really need to do some reading on evolution. Things do not evolve for a reason, there are random mutations and if the mutation gives the creature an advantage over his relatives more than likly his relatives will go extinct before he does. Life does not care how long you live.

Originally posted by 250ByXmas I think the theist vs atheist arguments miss the interesting question. Instead of asking "Is there a God?" the better question would be "Is there value in believing in a God?" I'm guessing that most of the atheists on this board use faith on a regular basis. You visualize a 1 RM lift, you imagine yourself succeeding, you convince yourself you can lift it, then you do the lift. Your muscle structure didn't change before and after visualization. You succeed in making a challenging lift because you believe that you can. Why couldn't the same techniques be applied to living life? Whether God exists or not is an irrelevant question if the act of believing makes you a better person. Maybe religion for some is basically "psyching yourself up for life" in the same way that someone might "psych themselves up for a lift"? I wouldn't call it being weak minded to do something that works for you... Interesting argument, but I prefer my own bodybuilding analogy. Evolution and science have been proven to work. Training your mind, like training your body, is proven to work. Science has been demonstrably effective in the past several hundred years in promoting healthier life, extending our life span, increasing our understanding of our universe, and decreasing our sense of fear of the unknown. We no longer live in the fear that we did 500 years ago. Life is demonstratably better on all of these fronts. Life did NOT improve between the end of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the Rennaisance during which time religion had free rein to improve men's lives. In fact life got demonstrably WORSE. People become no better morally, physically, or intellectually. If Christianity had any capacity to promote morals, you wouldn't have expected that Christians would spend most of the 15th and 16th Century (the end of its independent rein in Europe) boiling and baking heretics and "witches". Most creationalists remind me of those "natural" people who deny that roids work, or try to make them illegal because they do not understand them and have not really data, just suppositions promoted by society. There aren't any bbers trying to make natural training illegal, and there aren't really any scientists trying to make religion illegal. Yet Creationists ARE trying to make the teaching of evolution illegal (or difficult). When the onslaught is so one way, who can blame men for at least intellectually trying to defend themselves? While laws cannot be made (and should not be made) forcing people to give up their idols, science is under serious threat from organized religion. It becomes a bit ridicuous to then come along and say "Hey, why can't you two just get along?" when one guy keeps trying to club another one to death, while that man just sits and tries to reason with his attacker. The only threat that science presents to religion is that it makes people think, and organized religion hates that. God's punishment of Adam and Eve for partaking of the fruit of knowledge is an illustrative metaphor for just what organized religion has in mind (damnation for independent thought). You can't just ask intelligent people to shut up and stop defending themselves when such an action would result in a one way onslaught from religion. Metal

Originally posted by eddieboy Ive always wondered why we evolve if there is no god? What is the point of "evolving" to make our survival better, if this life surves no purpose?? If there is no god "life" would be nutral and not care how long a species lived, and there would be no point to evolv. Why would a hominid need a fifth digit when he survived without one for thousands of years?? what is the point of evolution if there is nothing after this life?? athiest are the luckiest group of people on earth as they have all won the lottery already You really need to do some reading on evolution. Things do not evolve for a reason, there are random mutations and if the mutation gives the creature an advantage over his relatives more than likly his relatives will go extinct before he does. Life does not care how long you live.

Originally posted by 250ByXmas I think the theist vs atheist arguments miss the interesting question. Instead of asking "Is there a God?" the better question would be "Is there value in believing in a God?" I'm guessing that most of the atheists on this board use faith on a regular basis. You visualize a 1 RM lift, you imagine yourself succeeding, you convince yourself you can lift it, then you do the lift. Your muscle structure didn't change before and after visualization. You succeed in making a challenging lift because you believe that you can. Why couldn't the same techniques be applied to living life? Whether God exists or not is an irrelevant question if the act of believing makes you a better person. Maybe religion for some is basically "psyching yourself up for life" in the same way that someone might "psych themselves up for a lift"? I wouldn't call it being weak minded to do something that works for you... Interesting argument, but I prefer my own bodybuilding analogy. Evolution and science have been proven to work. Training your mind, like training your body, is proven to work. Science has been demonstrably effective in the past several hundred years in promoting healthier life, extending our life span, increasing our understanding of our universe, and decreasing our sense of fear of the unknown. We no longer live in the fear that we did 500 years ago. Life is demonstratably better on all of these fronts. Life did NOT improve between the end of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the Rennaisance during which time religion had free rein to improve men's lives. In fact life got demonstrably WORSE. People become no better morally, physically, or intellectually. If Christianity had any capacity to promote morals, you wouldn't have expected that Christians would spend most of the 15th and 16th Century (the end of its independent rein in Europe) boiling and baking heretics and "witches". Most creationalists remind me of those "natural" people who deny that roids work, or try to make them illegal because they do not understand them and have not really data, just suppositions promoted by society. There aren't any bbers trying to make natural training illegal, and there aren't really any scientists trying to make religion illegal. Yet Creationists ARE trying to make the teaching of evolution illegal (or difficult). When the onslaught is so one way, who can blame men for at least intellectually trying to defend themselves? While laws cannot be made (and should not be made) forcing people to give up their idols, science is under serious threat from organized religion. It becomes a bit ridicuous to then come along and say "Hey, why can't you two just get along?" when one guy keeps trying to club another one to death, while that man just sits and tries to reason with his attacker. The only threat that science presents to religion is that it makes people think, and organized religion hates that. God's punishment of Adam and Eve for partaking of the fruit of knowledge is an illustrative metaphor for just what organized religion has in mind (damnation for independent thought). You can't just ask intelligent people to shut up and stop defending themselves when such an action would result in a one way onslaught from religion. Metal

Originally posted by metal machine Science has been demonstrably effective in the past several hundred years in promoting healthier life, extending our life span, increasing our understanding of our universe, and decreasing our sense of fear of the unknown. We no longer live in the fear that we did 500 years ago. Life is demonstratably better on all of these fronts. I agree that science has made enormous changes (improvements) in the way people live. But it doesn't address emotional needs and fears, nor does it address questions of morality or purpose. So the question becomes, is there a value in a framework that can give comfort to people in the areas where science can't (or hasn't yet). Life did NOT improve between the end of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the Rennaisance during which time religion had free rein to improve men's lives. In fact life got demonstrably WORSE. People become no better morally, physically, or intellectually. There's a slight fallacy to this argument, because it looks at the decline in living standards and says "look, religion did NOTHING for them". But in fact you could argue that religion is the only thing that survived to link the Renaissance to the Roman Empire. Without the Church, the Roman Empire would likely have been pre-historic. The only threat that science presents to religion is that it makes people think, and organized religion hates that. God's punishment of Adam and Eve for partaking of the fruit of knowledge is an illustrative metaphor for just what organized religion has in mind (damnation for independent thought). I would restate that to say that "some people who are involved in organized religion hate that people think". It certainly isn't universal. I'd encourage anyone to fight and argue when religion attempts to dictate science.