[Debate] Do you believe in God? If so why? And If not, reasons? :)

[drknght]

There is a DIRECT correlation between the sark ages and religion. You have to be absurdly blind to think otherwise.

I didn't say that they are not correlated, I said that one didn't cause the another. I don't think you even know the definition of the word correlation, based on what you just posted.

I say this one more time for the sake of this topic. Believing in God allows people to take risk which is essential to our progress in this ****ing world. People that don't believe in God are not going to risk their life, because they think death ends everything. Believing in God was one of the factors that gave rise to US in 19th century. People were abandoning their families, risking and contributing with their hard work. Now you have the opposite. Period.

 

[Brother Numpsay]

Bump, cause it can't be stressed enough that the bible is a book written by man with no ghost writing by god

You must be registered for see links

 

[8thHokage]

If I listed all the books, videos, DVDs, etc. I've studied on both sides of this topic over the years, let alone discussions with people on all facets of the question, it would probably bore you to tears.

Biology as a science has absolutely no need for an evolutionary framework in order to survive, and neither does any other branch of science. That's just the usual mantra evolutionists use to dupe the uninformed into believing evolution is indispensable. Biology was around way before evolution, and will continue just fine once the theory is abandoned. There is nothing in biology nor medicine that benefits from a faith belief in evolution. All processes are explainable without any recourse whatsoever to the religious theory.

Sickle Cell Anaemia Does not Prove Evolution.As for microevolution, keep in mind that it's not creating anything new. It's just minor changes that are better called adaptations,Sickle Cell Anaemia is an extremely painful condition which is definitely not beneficial.And that are the result of information that's already contained in the genes of the organism. The evolutionists will corner you and say that numerous "micro" evolution events add up to macro evolution. They do no such thing. For "macro" evolution to occur would require massive amounts of NEW information that was not already contained in the genome. Doesn't happen. Never did. Never will. They know we have that argument so are looking desperately for any example of "new" information arising from nowhere. The one or two attempts they've come up with have been pathetic, for instance the ability of some bacteria to digest nylon.

There are thousands of scientists who don’t believe in evolution. They’re just not as vocal or powerful a force (yet) as the evolutionary religionists. But the façade is crumbling as more and more people are recognizing that evolution has no basis in reality.

haha, im sorry, but your position is just laughable.. i feel like im watching a segment on fox news, of listening to conservative radio.. i bet you dont think global warming is happening either.. i wont argue with you anymore, it is obviously pointless, im jus glad your position on evolution is part of the minority, as it should be..

 

[ImmaculateShadow]

If I listed all the books, videos, DVDs, etc. I've studied on both sides of this topic over the years, let alone discussions with people on all facets of the question, it would probably bore you to tears.

I would love to here who your influences are. So please name a few major ones.

Biology as a science has absolutely no need for an evolutionary framework in order to survive, and neither does any other branch of science. That's just the usual mantra evolutionists use to dupe the uninformed into believing evolution is indispensable. Biology was around way before evolution, and will continue just fine once the theory is abandoned. There is nothing in biology nor medicine that benefits from a faith belief in evolution. All processes are explainable without any recourse whatsoever to the religious theory.

Sorry Sasori, but that statement is just false — in fact nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolutionary theory. Please, could you name one thing about biology that you think has an explanation wholly unrelated to evolution?

This is why I ask — if you can come up with some thing that isn't "because god made it that way" then I'll be impressed.

Sickle Cell Anaemia Does not Prove Evolution. As for microevolution, keep in mind that it's not creating anything new. It's just minor changes that are better called adaptations,Sickle Cell Anaemia is an extremely painful condition which is definitely not beneficial. And that are the result of information that's already contained in the genes of the organism. The evolutionists will corner you and say that numerous "micro" evolution events add up to macro evolution. They do no such thing. For "macro" evolution to occur would require massive amounts of NEW information that was not already contained in the genome. Doesn't happen. Never did. Never will. They know we have that argument so are looking desperately for any example of "new" information arising from nowhere. The one or two attempts they've come up with have been pathetic, for instance the ability of some bacteria to digest nylon.

Actually, the nylon consuming bacteria is a fantastic piece of evidence for the ability for mutations to occur in a gene pool that can be quite beneficial. Could you please tell me what about is in fact pathetic?

There is some thing I noticed about your statement that needs to be corrected:

- Minor changes in a gene pool can only be called "adaptations" if they are not detrimental. There for some are adaptive and some are nonadaptive.

- Sickle Cell Anaemia is a nonadaptive mutation which generates blood cells with a less flexible & sickle like shape. The sickling occurs because of a mutation in the hemoglobin gene.

- As to your claim that mutation does not cause an increase in information — it is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. You have gotten by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, there for by any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of ...

† increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
† increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
† novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
† novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

- According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

Could you please tell me how these examples are inadequate or, to use your language, pathetic? If indeed these do not qualify as "information," then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

There are thousands of scientists who don’t believe in evolution. They’re just not as vocal or powerful a force (yet) as the evolutionary religionists. But the façade is crumbling as more and more people are recognizing that evolution has no basis in reality.

I would be willing to bet that these scientists you mention, who don't accept evolution as a correct scientific theory, would agree that it is the best explanation we have for the multiple forms of life — evolutionary theory is antithetical to their religious beliefs and there for hold that there MUST be some thing else going on that we haven't figured out yet. However that's not an answer as to why evolutionary theory is NOT the best explanation for variety of life.

A challenge I would put forth to you is this — how old is the earth and can you please give me some facts in support of your answer. Thanks.

I didn't say that they are not correlated, I said that one didn't cause the another. I don't think you even know the definition of the word correlation, based on what you just posted.

I say this one more time for the sake of this topic. Believing in God allows people to take risk which is essential to our progress in this ****ing world. People that don't believe in God are not going to risk their life, because they think death ends everything. Believing in God was one of the factors that gave rise to US in 19th century. People were abandoning their families, risking and contributing with their hard work. Now you have the opposite. Period.

This is simply a bad generalization of the human character of atheists, anti-theists & agnostics — might I suggest that a case can be made for those non-theists who do hold to the golden rule but find that it does not need a deity to provide motivation? Because I was one. I know many. If you watch the Atheist Experience, a public access show from TX, profess hold to to the golden rule and further explain that the preservation of life has nothing to do with a divine agent but the understanding that a group of people can help each other in all walks of life.

Not only this but I personally know non-theists who would live and die for ideals and people simply because they believe in those ideas and those individuals who they love.

Also — your right about Christianity being a factor in the creation of the US but a far grater influence was the Age of Enlightenment which took place from 1650—1700. If you don't know that then you simply haven't read history carefully enough.

 

[Vegeta]

You must be registered for see links

Read that shit, I've researched many religions but they are the strangest case. They worship themselves as master of their own fate, and according to the values they follow, almost everyone included 99% of christians also follow their rules and don't even realize it! Wow

 

[Anorien16]

From your statements its hard to believe u have proper critical thinking skills:

Evolution is absolutely true as it has been observed that life can adapt and change if given the chance (take ur bacterial resistance for example, simple things are easiest to change) . . . . but the real question here is just because we know that living things changes itself did they begin as simple being or spontaneously appeared? Well fossils will indicate one and certain books other. (Dont call the little evidence gathered pathetic as fossils are very rare but much more consistent than supernatural events)

Also another thing is that if the Creator or God or whatever exists, his existence must have been created by a superior creator as things can not just simply pop into existence.

Funny thing is that many of these Mr. Scientists did more for the human race than any group or sect but they get less trust or respect than common outspoken fanatic.

 

[Swizzik]

If I listed all the books, videos, DVDs, etc. I've studied on both sides of this topic over the years, let alone discussions with people on all facets of the question, it would probably bore you to tears.

Biology as a science has absolutely no need for an evolutionary framework in order to survive, and neither does any other branch of science. That's just the usual mantra evolutionists use to dupe the uninformed into believing evolution is indispensable. Biology was around way before evolution, and will continue just fine once the theory is abandoned. There is nothing in biology nor medicine that benefits from a faith belief in evolution. All processes are explainable without any recourse whatsoever to the religious theory.

Sickle Cell Anaemia Does not Prove Evolution.As for microevolution, keep in mind that it's not creating anything new. It's just minor changes that are better called adaptations,Sickle Cell Anaemia is an extremely painful condition which is definitely not beneficial.And that are the result of information that's already contained in the genes of the organism. The evolutionists will corner you and say that numerous "micro" evolution events add up to macro evolution. They do no such thing. For "macro" evolution to occur would require massive amounts of NEW information that was not already contained in the genome. Doesn't happen. Never did. Never will. They know we have that argument so are looking desperately for any example of "new" information arising from nowhere. The one or two attempts they've come up with have been pathetic, for instance the ability of some bacteria to digest nylon.

There are thousands of scientists who don’t believe in evolution. They’re just not as vocal or powerful a force (yet) as the evolutionary religionists. But the façade is crumbling as more and more people are recognizing that evolution has no basis in reality.

Do you even know what a mutation is?

 

[Son of God]

I would love to here who your influences are. So please name a few major ones.


Sorry Sasori, but that statement is just false — in fact nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolutionary theory. Please, could you name one thing about biology that you think has an explanation wholly unrelated to evolution?

This is why I ask — if you can come up with some thing that isn't "because god made it that way" then I'll be impressed.


Actually, the nylon consuming bacteria is a fantastic piece of evidence for the ability for mutations to occur in a gene pool that can be quite beneficial. Could you please tell me what about is in fact pathetic?

There is some thing I noticed about your statement that needs to be corrected:

- Minor changes in a gene pool can only be called "adaptations" if they are not detrimental. There for some are adaptive and some are nonadaptive.

- Sickle Cell Anaemia is a nonadaptive mutation which generates blood cells with a less flexible & sickle like shape. The sickling occurs because of a mutation in the hemoglobin gene.

- As to your claim that mutation does not cause an increase in information — it is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. You have gotten by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, there for by any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of ...

† increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
† increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
† novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
† novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

- According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

Could you please tell me how these examples are inadequate or, to use your language, pathetic? If indeed these do not qualify as "information," then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.


I would be willing to bet that these scientists you mention, who don't accept evolution as a correct scientific theory, would agree that it is the best explanation we have for the multiple forms of life — evolutionary theory is antithetical to their religious beliefs and there for hold that there MUST be some thing else going on that we haven't figured out yet. However that's not an answer as to why evolutionary theory is NOT the best explanation for variety of life.

A challenge I would put forth to you is this — how old is the earth and can you please give me some facts in support of your answer. Thanks.


This is simply a bad generalization of the human character of atheists, anti-theists & agnostics — might I suggest that a case can be made for those non-theists who do hold to the golden rule but find that it does not need a deity to provide motivation? Because I was one. I know many. If you watch the Atheist Experience, a public access show from TX, profess hold to to the golden rule and further explain that the preservation of life has nothing to do with a divine agent but the understanding that a group of people can help each other in all walks of life.

Not only this but I personally know non-theists who would live and die for ideals and people simply because they believe in those ideas and those individuals who they love.

Also — your right about Christianity being a factor in the creation of the US but a far grater influence was the Age of Enlightenment which took place from 1650—1700. If you don't know that then you simply haven't read history carefully enough.

I am so happy with you.

 

[ImmaculateShadow]

I am so happy with you.

I was once a Fundamentalist Christian myself, I know ALL of the arguments.

PS —Do you also except the name "Son of Man"?

 

[Son of God]

I was once a Fundamentalist Christian myself, I know ALL of the arguments.

PS —Do you also except the name "Son of Man"?

Would be a change from the norm. Why not!

 

[Zenryoku]

I dont have a religious faith or a belief in a god that religions may percieve however i enjoy philosophy and the way it teaches to accept the possibility and that "god" may or may not exist but in philosophy it also teaches you that god if to exist may have many context for example i believe through the understandiing of philosophy thay a god in a sense does exist but the context is completely different and that context is that god is man, the world and all life itself, we and the world and life have the power to control and manipulate what may live or die and we essentially control life so i just thought i would share this view with people in the hope to broadern peoples views and oppinons and to add a different edge to this discussion of a belief in a gods existance

 

[NarutoDKurosaki]

I dont have a religious faith or a belief in a god that religions may percieve however i enjoy philosophy and the way it teaches to accept the possibility and that "god" may or may not exist but in philosophy it also teaches you that god if to exist may have many context for example i believe through the understandiing of philosophy thay a god in a sense does exist but the context is completely different and that context is that god is man, the world and all life itself, we and the world and life have the power to control and manipulate what may live or die and we essentially control life so i just thought i would share this view with people in the hope to broadern peoples views and oppinons and to add a different edge to this discussion of a belief in a gods existance

I respect your decision, but you say that you do not have a religious faith, when you name is nirvana, and your sig has hindu influences and budha influences, lol i find this funny. not trying to be offensive or be mean, just wanted to point that out.

 

[Zenryoku]

I respect your decision, but you say that you do not have a religious faith, when you name is nirvana, and your sig has hindu influences and budha influences, lol i find this funny. not trying to be offensive or be mean, just wanted to point that out.

i have them because i like the symbolism of them as i am self studying zen philosophy and that has an origin back to india but i do not have a religious faith and not tied to any religion

 

[drknght]

This is simply a bad generalization of the human character of atheists, anti-theists & agnostics — might I suggest that a case can be made for those non-theists who do hold to the golden rule but find that it does not need a deity to provide motivation? Because I was one. I know many. If you watch the Atheist Experience, a public access show from TX, profess hold to to the golden rule and further explain that the preservation of life has nothing to do with a divine agent but the understanding that a group of people can help each other in all walks of life.

Not only this but I personally know non-theists who would live and die for ideals and people simply because they believe in those ideas and those individuals who they love.

Also — your right about Christianity being a factor in the creation of the US but a far grater influence was the Age of Enlightenment which took place from 1650—1700. If you don't know that then you simply haven't read history carefully enough.

Yes, I know that. It influenced the Constitution, but the most important was the idea of libertarianism which I'm totally devoted to.

 

[drknght]

This is simply a bad generalization of the human character of atheists, anti-theists & agnostics — might I suggest that a case can be made for those non-theists who do hold to the golden rule but find that it does not need a deity to provide motivation? Because I was one. I know many. If you watch the Atheist Experience, a public access show from TX, profess hold to to the golden rule and further explain that the preservation of life has nothing to do with a divine agent but the understanding that a group of people can help each other in all walks of life.

Not only this but I personally know non-theists who would live and die for ideals and people simply because they believe in those ideas and those individuals who they love.

Also — your right about Christianity being a factor in the creation of the US but a far grater influence was the Age of Enlightenment which took place from 1650—1700. If you don't know that then you simply haven't read history carefully enough.

Yes, I know that. It influenced the Constitution, but the most important was the idea of libertarianism which I'm totally devoted to.

 

[Tsujan9484]

Spoiler

[video=youtube;vOHXGNx-E7E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vOHXGNx-E7E[/video]

She did suicide just recently.

So tell me again Where the Fu*ck is so called GOD? HUH?



P.S I am from Nepal. And Amanda Todd! you will always remain brave and beautiful to me. I am really very sorry that i could not do anything then just to show sympathy even after your death. I wish i could have known you earlier. You just needed a shoulder to cry on.

May you rest in Peace.

 

[SilverSlick]

For me, theology is depressing to think about, so I try not to think about it. I don't like people asserting their stances as fact and I can't stand atheist bitching about religion.

 

[Vegeta]

Religion:The popular lie

The most dangerous weapon MAN ever created

 

[Xentinel]

For me, God has provide all the evidences to us, but still some people still refuse to acknowledge it. Why cant they realise?
The Holy Quran, read it and see how many scientific evidences and proves are there. To name it all, is almost impossible to write it here.

God also gave mankind "The Choice". Its up to them to decide, to obey or to against. Out of God's infinite mercy, He then assisted mankind with many factors in order to guide them to His true path. Firsty, by sending Messengers. In this manner, no matter how much mankind tried to corrup His religion, it would always availabke to those who searched for it.

Secondly, He supplied mankind wih MINDS. So that they can distinguish between right and wrong using LOGIC . Finally, God gaves mankind an inborn sense or a small voice inside each on of us.
(Depicted from "What did Jesus really say?")

Lastly, here is my advice.

You only live once. Why condemn everything? When you yourself are still unsure of it? Life is not just ticking clock. As it ticks, it will never turn back again. Open your minds and see. Im sure that deep in your heart, the Love for God still exists. But this love is covered by full of sins.

[video=youtube;3Rxsil3qNuw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rxsil3qNuw&feature=relmfu[/video]

 

[Stencil]

For me, God has provide all the evidences to us, but still some people still refuse to acknowledge it. Why cant they realise?
The Holy Quran, read it and see how many scientific evidences and proves are there. To name it all, is almost impossible to write it here.

God also gave mankind "The Choice". Its up to them to decide, to obey or to against. Out of God's infinite mercy, He then assisted mankind with many factors in order to guide them to His true path. Firsty, by sending Messengers. In this manner, no matter how much mankind tried to corrup His religion, it would always availabke to those who searched for it.

Secondly, He supplied mankind wih MINDS. So that they can distinguish between right and wrong using LOGIC . Finally, God gaves mankind an inborn sense or a small voice inside each on of us.
(Depicted from "What did Jesus really say?")

Lastly, here is my advice.

You only live once. Why condemn everything? When you yourself are still unsure of it? Life is not just ticking clock. As it ticks, it will never turn back again. Open your minds and see. Im sure that deep in your heart, the Love for God still exists. But this love is covered by full of sins.

[video=youtube;3Rxsil3qNuw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rxsil3qNuw&feature=relmfu[/video]

But then again you can surely say that science provides us with a lot of answers I'm not disrespecting your point though also you said that he gave us brains for logic, but a lot of people doubt gods existence, so could you really say that? also I think saying that our mind is blocked full of sins so we can't see god is a bit disrespectful to others :/