The rational choice is to believe there’s a God

[catstevens]

http://www.asmilies.com/upload/uploading/bsm.gif
Hi everyone, I hope you are all fine and happy today and everyday, Amen =)

The rational choice is to believe there’s a God
By CHARLEY REESE

Published Thursday, June 9, 2005



Christopher Hitchens, the British writer who has fallen in love with American neoconservatives, recently said this about people of faith: "I can’t stand anyone who believes in God, who invokes the divinity, or who is a person of faith. I mean, that to me is a horrible, repulsive thing."

Well, it doesn’t really matter what the old-left, born-again neoconservatives think. I cite the quotation, from a radio interview in the United Kingdom to set the stage for the point that atheism and Darwinism are matters of faith, not scientific fact. They are rationalizations for another form of secular faith: materialism.

It is impossible to prove there is no God, just as it has so far been impossible to prove that life began as a single cell in some primordial pond. If either of these beliefs was just a matter of reason and science, then the people who hold it would feel no hostility against those who disagree with them. But, as my example shows, they are hostile to people who disagree with them.

The atheist-Darwinist-materialist acts exactly like the religious zealots he professes to scorn. He is evangelical, dogmatic and tends to view people who disagree with him as either idiots or enemies. It seems that humans are incapable of living without faith. They just have different gods.

Intelligent design is a far more plausible theory than the belief that life in all its incredible profusion and complexity is a mere accident. There is no fossil evidence of any species ever becoming another species. What the fossil records show is exactly what mankind has seen since we learned to write: Some species die out. Some don’t. Occasionally, some genetic mutation will cause a slight change in some life-form, but never to the extent of creating a new form of life. The fact that one occasionally sees an albino squirrel does not mean that all of squirreldom will become white.

The war between materialists and people of faith has gone on for millennia. It is going on today. There are very important philosophical differences between the two camps. The materialist believes he has no responsibility to take care of others. That’s why Darwinism and its survival-of-the-fittest claim were seized upon by the materialists as a perfect rationalization of their selfishness. People of faith, however, feel a God-given responsibility to help their fellow human beings.

Every tyranny has been materialistic, though some tyrannies are frequently disguised with a false altruistic covering. As we have seen in communist countries both past and present, the reality contradicts theory. The reality is rule by an oligarchy that enslaves the population. As George Orwell so perceptively saw, everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others. In the Soviet Union, the aristocracy was replaced by the Communist Party leadership, and the top communist acted with the same absolutism as the czars of old. The communist czars, however, were a million times more murderous than the old czars.

Today, the selfish materialists have trotted out another god - the free market. The market, these people claim, if left free will always make rational economic decisions. Once again, reality contradicts theory. Unregulated capitalism will make the rich extremely rich and the poor extremely poor. "Rational" and "moral" are two different and unrelated things. In the unregulated early days of capitalism, industrialism created hellish conditions for the working men and women. The capitalist, unless constrained by religious faith or, in the absence of that, government regulation, can be as ruthless and brutal as any commissar. It might be rational to close a factory in America and move it to a country where desperate people will work for pennies, but it darn sure isn’t moral.

Keep in mind the bet as expressed by the French genius Blaise Pascal: If you bet there is no God and you win, you win nothing, but if you lose, you lose everything. If you bet there is a God and you win, you win everything, and if you lose, you lose nothing. Rationally speaking, God is the best bet.

I prefer to live in a country of people of faith rather than in a country of people like Christopher Hitchens. People who claim there is no God intend to play God themselves, with us as their subjects.


Former Orlando Sentinel columnist Charley Reese writes for King Features Syndicate.

Source:

http://www.showmenews.com/2005/Jun/20050609Comm003.asp (http://www.showmenews.com/2005/Jun/20050609Comm003.asp)



links:

The Dirty Methods Of Evolutionists - FOSSIL FORGERY (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158482)

Where did everything come from?What is the proof? Big Bang (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150591)

Tsunami's waves formed Allah's name (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148092)

Understand this life more (1) [The dream] (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151683)

How there isn't (creator=designer=God)? (Presentation) (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150620)

Dedication to those who seek the truth and need help :) (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134476)

The secret of ''Allah's name''! (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129307)

Belief in God's existence (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100025)

Something cannot come from nothing (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1476127&postcount=18)

Design indicates a designer (short) (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1478424&postcount=20)

Darwinism fails (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1483061&postcount=28)

Now a famous Professor Atheist believes in God existence (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111701)

Peace and love

Yours Sincerely,

Cat Stevens

Cat Stevens' latest threads (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/search.php?do=process&showposts=0&starteronly=1&exactname=1&searchuser=catstevens)

http://www.islamawareness.net/bullet.gif Note: Silly, Irrelevant, and the like, responses, posts, comments will be ignored (it depends on my mood and time if I won't ignore them), taking off the topic is losers' style, ask yourself: will you write such response if the writer wasn't a Muslim!

[themnax]

the rational choice is to accept that what is unknown is unknown instead of using disaggreements over speculation as to its nature and origen as excuses to beat each other over the head.

i'm not saying this just, or even primarily to islamists, but primarily to christians, moslems, and any other form of chauvanism, no just of belief but of economics and idiology as well.

yes there are all sorts of things no one knows anything about, and one god or even many of them could very well be among them.

=^^=
.../\...

[catstevens]

themnax
Hi again themnax, really nice to see ya =)
the rational choice is to accept that what is unknown is unknown instead of using disaggreements over speculation as to its nature and origen as excuses to beat each other over the head.
yup, Totally agreed =)
yes there are all sorts of things no one knows anything about,
Except Allah knows in my POV =)
Much peace and love

Yours Sincerely,

Cat Stevens

Cat Stevens' latest threads (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/search.php?do=process&showposts=0&starteronly=1&exactname=1&searchuser=catstevens)

http://www.islamawareness.net/bullet.gifNote: Silly, Irrelevant, and the like, responses, posts, comments will be ignored (it depends on my mood and time if I won't ignore them), taking off the topic is losers' style, ask yourself: will you write such response if the writer wasn't a Muslim!

[Libertine]

The rational thing to do is to STOP attributing that which is unexplained (as of yet) to "supernaturalism" over and fucking over again.

Why after thousands of years and hundreds of discoveries proving this point, is this lesson still unlearned? The capacity for human self-deception is sad, frightening, and ridiculous.

Why answer mysteries with mysteries? Why not admit that some things are just "unknown" and that is ok?

Why do we have to continue fill the gap with our fairytale bullshit?

History has shown us to keep our minds open rather than fill those unknown gaps with supernatural answers (which always wind up being disproven). Why continue?

The rational choice is to believe that what we don't know is simply unknown and requires no "God", no fairies, no trolls, no angels, no leprechauns, no ghosts, no demons , no Mother Goose/Brothers Grimm horseshit to fill those empty spaces--only patience...and experiment until it happens.

[catstevens]

http://www.al-jarodiah.com/vb/images/smilies/a5.gif
However,
The rational thing to do is to STOP attributing that which is explained to "evolution" over and over again.
Why after thousands of years and hundreds of discoveries proving this point, is this lesson still unlearned?
this, what this? exactly.
DEAR FOLKS
IT IS REALLY BETTER TO GIVE BOTH SIDES A CHANCE
REAL CHANCE
There is a difference, many people don't give a real research and time for this matter, a mere question doesn't make any sense, such question should lead you to a journey of finding out the answer and truth, it really doesn't matter if it will take years, because it really deserves it, and in such journey we should be patient, don't give up fast and to be objective. Some people just read theories and assumptions from those who they like their belief and read their proofs and it is enough for them! They don't give other beliefs a chance Or they don't like to read about the opposite belief of their in details! (Which maybe you will change your mind after reading it and will find gaps in your belief because you didn't noticed it before) Myself I read about my belief from Muslims and non-Muslims, I read what the critics say about my belief, why they think it isn't the religion of God etc.

It is important to go to those who claim that they have the logical, evident answer which is supported with proofs, not to anyone we choose who may doesn't convince us or not informed enough or don't know how to prove it by words or whatever, I don't mean that the people who you asked them have no idea, I am saying that if your belief isn't logical or isn't supported with evidences or when you cannot prove it that it is right or you aren't confirmedly believe it is true 100% without any doubts (gaps), you have doubts, THERE ARE WHO REFUTATED with evidences and logic refutation, then it is better to ask again and again till you reach the truth, no matter what it is.
the point is, what do you think? How did we exist? you may say, isn't big deal, I don't know, but there are people like Muslims, Christians, Jews etc are claiming that there is a God, and eternal life after this life (Hell-Paradise-Judgment)? so it is a big deal Why did he create us? What's the goal? What if they are claiming the truth, and if there is a God what does he want? To follow a scripture of his or just to enjoy the life, I think it is a big deal, regarding your belief , do you think it is the truth i.e. do you have a confirmed belief which is supported with proofs (logical proofs)?

What about searching more, i.e. to have a firm belief and answer of is God existed or not? What if there is a God and he wants you to believe in him? Or maybe there is a God and he doesn't want anything from the creatures, Etc try to find out the truth, think a lot, such things deserve it
Much peace and love


Yours Sincerely,

Cat Stevens

Cat Stevens' latest threads (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/search.php?do=process&showposts=0&starteronly=1&exactname=1&searchuser=catstevens)

http://www.islamawareness.net/bullet.gifNote: Silly, Irrelevant, and the like, responses, posts, comments will be ignored (it depends on my mood and time if I won't ignore them), taking off the topic is losers' style, ask yourself: will you write such response if the writer wasn't a Muslim!

[Hikaru Zero]

Christopher Hitchens, the British writer who has fallen in love with American neoconservatives, recently said this about people of faith: "I can’t stand anyone who believes in God, who invokes the divinity, or who is a person of faith. I mean, that to me is a horrible, repulsive thing."

American neoconservatives are horrible, repulsive things.

Well, it doesn’t really matter what the old-left, born-again neoconservatives think.

HAH! You think that neoconservatives are the old-left? You have much to learn about American politics. Neoconservatives still support the right-wing GOP, and are still a bunch of corrupt motherfuckers. (Pardon my opinionatedness on this matter, but I am heavily involved with politics.)

atheism and Darwinism are matters of faith, not scientific fact. They are rationalizations for another form of secular faith: materialism.
It is impossible to prove there is no God, just as it has so far been impossible to prove that life began as a single cell in some primordial pond. If either of these beliefs was just a matter of reason and science, then the people who hold it would feel no hostility against those who disagree with them.

I have one word for you.

THEORY

Sorry cat, but you're a complete and utter moron for thinking that ANYONE has claimed "proof" that we evolved form a single cell.

Beyond that, Darwin's Theory of Evolution does not state ANYWHERE that we evolved from a single celled organism, or that we weren't created!

Read On the Origin of Species before you make such a blatantly uninformed post as this one.

Beyond that, do you think we have to prove that there is a God? You are the one making the claim that God exists, and you are the one who has to prove it. Thus far, it has not been proven, so it is not worth believing in. You have failed to prove that a God exists, and so has everyone else before you who has tried. Your argument that God exists is no better or worse than the argument that God doesn't exist.

Furthermore, human beings are creatures of emotion. Science an reason, contrary to popular fundamentalist theist beliefs, allow emotion into the grand equation. People get hostile with those who believe, because those who believe get hostile with those who don't believe!

Do you not believe me? Rememeber the Crusades! Remember the Jihads! Believers in all kinds of gods have been responsible for mass murder, genocide and unchecked slaughter of non-believers for centuries!

You are the real ones to blame for all of the hate and hostility in this world!!

Intelligent design is a far more plausible theory than the belief that life in all its incredible profusion and complexity is a mere accident.

Again, you show your lack of knowledge by stating that it is a "mere accident."

This is totally incorrect, and almost NO atheists, pantheists, panentheists, etc. believe that life is an accident.

STOP GENERALIZING, CATSTEVENS, before you make yourself like even MORE of an asshole, as you did by flooding the Christian boards with more propaganda. I tried to be nice before, and asked you privately to not do that, but now I have to go through your post and call you stupid for making these idiotic generalizations that you do. I didn't want to have to do this.

Most atheists believe that life in the universe was a probability, that it was ultimately going to happen at some point in time in the life of the universe, because of how vastly insane the universe is.

I don't believe that you understand just how incredibly big the universe is. If you did, and you did some of the math and conceptualizing (stepping down from your view of the Earth being the only important thing in the universe just because we live here), you would realize that the probability of life existing is MUCH, much larger than the probability of life not existing. Even in all of its complexity (which is NOT irreducible, despite that it seems to be).

There is no fossil evidence of any species ever becoming another species. What the fossil records show is exactly what mankind has seen since we learned to write: Some species die out. Some don’t. Occasionally, some genetic mutation will cause a slight change in some life-form, but never to the extent of creating a new form of life. The fact that one occasionally sees an albino squirrel does not mean that all of squirreldom will become white.

Again, I have to call you a complete moron for this. You clearly do not understand genetics at all.

ALBINO ORGANISMS ARE NOT MUTATIONS OR EVOLUTION. An organism that is albino simply has matching pairs of genes that cause a lack of pigment. These genes are present in ALL similar organisms.

Secondly, not only do fossil records show that human beings have evolved from previous species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution, this link actually shows a list and description of previous human forms, and also has a section about the recently-found link between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens), but beyond that, we have documented evidence of evolution of species, that human beings have observed!

As a matter of fact, we have controlled the evolution of plants for HUNDREDS OF YEARS. We have created new plants simply by changing the environment and exposures those plants had. Ever eat brussel sprouts? How about sweet corn? Sweet corn wasn't sweet corn until we took maize and bred it to evolve into sweet corn.

Evolution of species is a proven fact. Evolution of all species from a single source (abiogenesis) is not a proven fact but there is a LOT of evolutionary evidence suggesting that it is not only possible, but also suggesting that it is true.

Whereas science has ten thousand books on evolution, religion only has a handful, and only two big ones, which were written thousands of years ago, and which don't even apply to the modern world anymore. Religion is outdated, face it.

The war between materialists and people of faith has gone on for millennia. It is going on today. There are very important philosophical differences between the two camps. The materialist believes he has no responsibility to take care of others. That’s why Darwinism and its survival-of-the-fittest claim were seized upon by the materialists as a perfect rationalization of their selfishness. People of faith, however, feel a God-given responsibility to help their fellow human beings.

WHAT the FUCK does materialism have to do with atheism or non-belief?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

Cat Stevens, this is the absolutely most retarded concept you have ever posted to date.

MATERIALISM is "The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life."

You can be a theist and be a materialist, and you can be an atheist and be a materialist, and you can also be agnostic and be a materialist!

In fact, many of the world's materialists in-practice are Christian theists in control of the government.

I am presuming that you are not actually talking about materialism, but rather you are talking about non-theism (those who don't believe in a sentient higher power).

Firstly, NON-THEISTS DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE OF OTHERS.

I am a non-theist, and I have yet to find a single person that believes in a deity that cares more about the environment, more about social equality, more about health and kindness to animals and other humans, than I do.

I am a crusader for animal rights. I believe in not hating others, and strive to hate noone! That is more than your faith can say, your faith orders you to pick up the spear and sword, and take them to all those who will not believe in Allah! I can get you the verse in the Quran that says so!

YOU people are the PLAGUE of the Earth!

Today, the selfish materialists have trotted out another god - the free market. The market, these people claim, if left free will always make rational economic decisions. Once again, reality contradicts theory. Unregulated capitalism will make the rich extremely rich and the poor extremely poor.

Actually, this one I don't disagree with at all. You're entirely correct with this statement.

Keep in mind the bet as expressed by the French genius Blaise Pascal: If you bet there is no God and you win, you win nothing, but if you lose, you lose everything. If you bet there is a God and you win, you win everything, and if you lose, you lose nothing. Rationally speaking, God is the best bet.

THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

Theists are thrown into a world of suffering and repressing their own emotions and desires. Sexual desires are a natural occurrance -- it's necessary for the survival of the human race. How can something that is necessary be evil? Instead of being responsible and informed about things like sexuality and sin, theists say "this is wrong and you will burn in the underworld for even THINKING it!"

So what does this produce? The forbidden fruit factor causes infidelity. IT CAUSES SIN. It has been proven statistically that, when a person is told not to do something, they want to do it even more.

What is the result? MORE THAN HALF of all marriages in the United States end up in divorce! There is murder for the sake of murder, sin for the sake of sin! People do not as they are told, but rather the opposite!

You say "If you bet there is no God, and you win, you win nothing, but if you lose, you lose everything."

Perhaps you have never heard of Limbo? That nice little slice of nothingness between Purgatory and Hell. Limbo is where all of the virtuous non-believers go. It's where all the unbaptized children, and all of the good pagans and great atheists go. THERE IS NO PUNISHMENT IN LIMBO. Dante describes it as "a garden illuminated by the light of reason, wherein many shades dwell." This is where all of the great, moral thinkers, the great philosophers and virtuous scientists go. Socrates and Plato. Aristotle. All of the names that you learn in school, that the ease of your current life belongs to, go here upon death, according to various sources.

I call that TRUE salvation, better than any heaven without knowledge could be. That is truly "life" after death.

Besides! How SACRED could life possibly be, if it goes on forever?

The beauty in life is beautiful, only because one day, it may all come to an end! That is why it is treasured! That is why it is held as sacred! BECAUSE IT ENDS. Life would be taken for granted if it were not for death! If you take Allah's eternal life and think about it ... it's ETERNAL. It is as timeless as the wind. It is as thoughtless as the rain. If it is truly eternal, it is as constant as Allah himself, and what is the beauty in a guaranteed life? There is none!

Rationally speaking, God is the best bet.

NONE of your post has been even the slightest bit rational, except for the part about Capitalism! It is FULL of errors, FULL of generalizations.

And here is the biggest part:

YOUR ENTIRE POST IS FULL OF HYPOCRACY

But how can this be, Cat Stevens? You talk about how others are hostile because they have no faith, and yet THE FAITHFUL have always been the ones who are hostile, AND YOU ARE DRIVEN BY YOUR FAITH TO POST THIS EXTREMELY ARROGANT, MISGUIDED, IGNORANT POST BY YOUR FAITH.

Cat Stevens, you are the devil.

I wish it weren't true, but it is. Even in the Bible, Lucifer, the light bearer, believes that he is great, greater perhaps even than YHWH, and yet, all of the "truly good" people see that he is evil.

You are the same way: You believe that WE are evil, when YOUR PEOPLE are the ones who are warring, YOUR PEOPLE are the ones full of hatred and contempt for others, YOUR PEOPLE are the ones who are sinning, YOUR PEOPLE are the ones committing infidelity in their marriages.

People who claim there is no God intend to play God themselves, with us as their subjects.

People who believe in God intend to play God themselves with us as their subjects.

How can I say this?

YOU ARE DOING IT RIGHT NOW. YOU ARE SAYING "if you don't believe in this, you will not be saved." THAT IS NOT SOMETHING FOR YOU TO SAY, CAT. THAT IS SOMETHING FOR GOD TO SAY.

AND UNTIL I HEAR THOSE WORDS FROM THE MOUTH OF THE LORD, ADONAI, YHWH, I DO NOT TRUST YOU OR YOUR OLD ASS BOOK.

:X <- evil
:H <- awesome

This post brought to you, in truly vicious fashion, mimicking the vicious fashion in which Christians and Muslims have killed eachother, and others, for centuries.

/bow

[Hikaru Zero]

Oh yeah ... I just read an article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/science/07evolve.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Here is the beginning of the article, I suggest you read it, before you start saying that there is no evidence of evolution:

"Study, in a First, Explains Evolution's Molecular Advance

By KENNETH CHANG
Published: April 7, 2006

By reconstructing ancient genes from long-extinct animals, scientists have for the first time demonstrated the step-by-step progression of how evolution created a new piece of molecular machinery by reusing and modifying existing parts.

The researchers say the findings, published today in the journal Science, offer a counterargument to doubters of evolution who question how a progression of small changes could produce the intricate mechanisms found in living cells."

[r33f3r_m4dn3ss]

As much as I agree with everything Hikaru says, I don't beleive that some who cares so much humanity and the Earth, and then calling people scum, or the plagues of the Earth will keep them from being any less hostile. You share the same beleifs as I do when it comes to this topic, although I don't think having faith or no faith should grant people any less or equal. It is basically government that does this, radical views conflicting with radical government views.

As for the Limbo thing, I never took Dante's Inferno seriously, other than the fact it was a form of propoganda made up by the Chruch to enstill this "fear" that surrounds Hell. Yet, when I read it, I always perceived limbo as life as we know it know, the free thinkers we're simply reincarnated so that the rest of the people could share their ideas and become enlightened, this is the "illumination" that is brought up.

To me life is hell, and the only thing we can do is try and make it better for everyone around us. I myself beleive in a greater force, and the universe itself should be evidence of such a power.

[Hikaru Zero]

As much as I agree with everything Hikaru says, I don't beleive that some who cares so much humanity and the Earth, and then calling people scum, or the plagues of the Earth will keep them from being any less hostile.

LOL I know, I was being satirical (that kind of "mockery" thing). That's why I put this at the end:

"This post brought to you, in truly vicious fashion, mimicking the vicious fashion in which Christians and Muslims have killed eachother, and others, for centuries."

I made it sound evil for a reason. :D

But, it is true that I was a bit peeved, because Cat Stevens has been spamming the Christianity boards with propaganda and more drivel, and I asked him politely to keep the balance -- now he starts attacking non-believers, not just Christians, so I figured it's kind of a duty to tear him a new one.

As for the Limbo thing, I never took Dante's Inferno seriously, other than the fact it was a form of propoganda made up by the Chruch to enstill this "fear" that surrounds Hell. Yet, when I read it, I always perceived limbo as life as we know it know, the free thinkers we're simply reincarnated so that the rest of the people could share their ideas and become enlightened, this is the "illumination" that is brought up.

Actually, Dante's Inferno wasn't the first thing to mention Limbo.

Hell, Limbo, and Purgatory, are all mentioned in the Bible (although Limbo isn't described in that much detail, other than being a place of no suffering but also no unwarranted rewards -- a place similar to this world).

Dante simply takes Hell a lot further with his Inferno, and sectionizes it into the Nine Circles of Hell.

To me life is hell, and the only thing we can do is try and make it better for everyone around us.

I try to see things as, life can be hell or heaven, it's all about what you make it. In the past, life for me was hell, and I decided, you know what, I'm going to live with no regrets, and be true to myself and to others, and ever since then, my life has gotten a lot better -- I wouldn't call it hell anymore.

[Libertine]

http://www.al-jarodiah.com/vb/images/smilies/a5.gif






However,
The rational thing to do is to STOP attributing that which is explained to "evolution" over and over again.


I said nothing about evolution, Cat. Although, I do think that it is a more viable explanation than fairytale gods. :D But, you ought to keep a rational mind and realize that only the gullible and primitive attribute things they can't explain to the supernatural over and over again. From believing in volcano gods to the earth's rotation to sickness being attributed to "demons", science has exposed these silly superstitions time and time again, yet people like you keep holding on to myth and propaganda. The definition for ignoring evidence and repeating the same mistakes over and over again in the face of blatant contrary evidence is simply nothing more than insanity.

[r33f3r_m4dn3ss]

Well these fairy tale gods could have been the designers of such things as the laws of physics, evolutionary traits, genetic coding, intelligent design. But that doesn't necessarily mean they created us to worship them. That's almost like a computer gaining advanced intelligent and praising it's designer every time he logged on, it does nothing but inflate the ego.

[catstevens]

Hikaru Zero (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/member.php?u=7407)

Pardon my opinionatedness on this matter, I am heavily involved with politics

That what policy does to people, anger, sick, mad ….. *sigh*

Sorry cat, but you're a complete and utter moron for thinking that ANYONE has claimed "proof" that we evolved form a single cell. Beyond that, Darwin's Theory of Evolution does not state ANYWHERE that we evolved from a single celled organism, or that we weren't created!

Most atheists believe that life in the universe was a probability,

See, you said, Most! Not all and BTW:

The rational choice is to believe there’s a God
By CHARLEY REESE

Published Thursday, June 9, 2005

Myself I disagree with many things in the article, I highlighted some things because I want to know other members' opinion about them. He said:

atheism and Darwinism are matters of faith, not scientific fact. They are rationalizations for another form of secular faith: materialism.
It is impossible to prove there is no God, just as it has so far been impossible to prove that life began as a single cell in some primordial pond. If either of these beliefs was just a matter of reason and science, then the people who hold it would feel no hostility against those who disagree with them.



I think he is referring to all theories which atheists or Darwinists believe in, Big Ban or whatever. Have you never heard about this: life began as a single cell è this is one of the theories.

Beyond that, do you think we have to prove that there is a God?

No, because it is very clear, really doesn't need, just to open your eyes, heart, brain in my POV.

You are the one making the claim that God exists, and you are the one who has to prove it. Thus far, it has not been proven, so it is not worth believing in. You have failed to prove that a God exists, and so has everyone else before you who has tried. Your argument that God exists is no better or worse than the argument that God doesn't exist.

I already did,

Where did everything come from?What is the proof? Big Bang (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150591)

How there isn't (creator=designer=God)? (Presentation) (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150620)

Belief in God's existence (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100025)

Something cannot come from nothing (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1476127&postcount=18)

Design indicates a designer (short) (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1478424&postcount=20)

Darwinism fails (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1483061&postcount=28)

Now a famous Professor Atheist believes in God existence (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111701)

You didn't read all of the claims do you? Reading on or two or three articles about proving God's existence doesn't mean that we all failed, read the rest the other proofs too, It is important to go to those who claim that they have the logical, evident answer which is supported with proofs, not to anyone we choose who may doesn't convince us or not informed enough or don't know how to prove it by words or whatever, I don't mean that the people who you asked them have no idea, I am saying that if your belief isn't logical or isn't supported with evidences or when you cannot prove it that it is right or you aren't confirmedly believe it is true 100% without any doubts (gaps), you have doubts, THERE ARE WHO REFUTATED with evidences and logic refutation, then it is better to ask again and again till you reach the truth, no matter what it is. YES, It has been proven, read more, give it a real chance and time of yours.

Read more before you make such a blatantly uninformed claim as this one =)

Here are some people who claim to have the proof, contact them

http://www.answering-christianity.com/01banner1_hy.gif

http://www.harunyahya.com/ (http://www.harunyahya.com/)

http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_atheism.php (http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_atheism.php)

http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_darwinism.php (http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_darwinism.php)

http://www.elnaggarzr.com/Test_fre/English/index_E.asp (http://www.elnaggarzr.com/Test_fre/English/index_E.asp)
There are more and more, have you ever given them a chance?

Furthermore, human beings are creatures of emotion. Science an reason, contrary to popular fundamentalist theist beliefs, allow emotion into the grand equation. People get hostile with those who believe, because those who believe get hostile with those who don't believe!
Do you not believe me? Rememeber the Crusades! Remember the Jihads! Believers in all kinds of gods have been responsible for mass murder, genocide and unchecked slaughter of non-believers for centuries!
You are the real ones to blame for all of the hate and hostility in this world!!

Again: isn't me who wrote this article if you think so, plus, Myself I disagree with many things in the article, and one more thing, religion will never ever be responsible for its followers deeds when they are doing things against the teachings of their religion or when they are not practicing it, this is the utter stupidity. I believe people do evil believers and non-believers, people do good deeds believers and non-believers.

you did by flooding the Christian boards with more propaganda. I tried to be nice before, and asked you privately to not do that, but now I have to go through your post and call you stupid for making these idiotic generalizations that you do.

I don't know if you PM those who were flooding the forums with flaming off topic posts. You may missed them or DS or wasn't as I was doing (my right here!) however, I don't care, I am not generalizing anything, and yeah, NO BODY has the right to tell me or ask me privately to not do that the hipforums give me this right!!!!!!! I WILL DO WHATEVER I WANT IN THIS FORUMS AS LONG AS I AM RESPECTING THE GUIDELINES HERE, Make your own forum, if the truth is too harsh or you don't like to find different opinion or criticism or whatever, no body forced you to come here,

because of how vastly insane the universe is.

It doesn't make universe insane when we misunderstand it or cannot understand or don't know the truth about it, we are the insane then! Rather limited minded
I don't believe that you understand just how incredibly big the universe is



I do believe it, rather more than this, I believe that the one who created them is incredibly greater than the universe ^^ actually, comparison between them is stupid, unacceptable, forgive me God, just wanted to clear something, love you my lord =)

If you did, and you did some of the math and conceptualizing (stepping down from your view of the Earth being the only important thing in the universe just because we live here),

As you said, if, did I?

Earth, universe whatever, Allah is the most important, these are temporary things, Allah can rub out them in a second if he wants, just as he can rub out a village or city when he wants to punish people, All this is his, he is the owner =)

Peace and love

Yours Sincerely,

Cat Stevens

My latest threads (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/search.php?do=process&showposts=0&starteronly=1&exactname=1&searchuser=catstevens)

Note: Silly, Irrelevant, and the like, responses, posts, comments will be ignored (it depends on my mood and time if I won't ignore them), taking off the topic is losers' style, ask yourself: will you write such response if the writer wasn't a Muslim!

[catstevens]

r33f3r_m4dn3ss
the fact it was a form of propoganda made up by the Chruch to enstill this "fear" that surrounds Hell.
Before the Churches people knew about Hell! how is it made up!
Peace and love

Yours Sincerely,

Cat Stevens

My latest threads (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/search.php?do=process&showposts=0&starteronly=1&exactname=1&searchuser=catstevens)

Note: Silly, Irrelevant, and the like, responses, posts, comments will be ignored (it depends on my mood and time if I won't ignore them), taking off the topic is losers' style, ask yourself: will you write such response if the writer wasn't a Muslim!

[catstevens]

Hikaru Zero
now he starts attacking non-believers


hahaha


http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_205.gif


do you consider this attack hahaha http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_72.gifI can't believe this hahaha




hahaha Lord I just can't believe this help me Lord




hahaha




http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_12_6.gif


Peace and love

Yours Sincerely,

Cat Stevens

My latest threads (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/search.php?do=process&showposts=0&starteronly=1&exactname=1&searchuser=catstevens)

Note: Silly, Irrelevant, and the like, responses, posts, comments will be ignored (it depends on my mood and time if I won't ignore them), taking off the topic is losers' style, ask yourself: will you write such response if the writer wasn't a Muslim!

[catstevens]

Libertine
The definition for ignoring evidence and repeating the same mistakes over and over again in the face of blatant contrary evidence is simply nothing more than insanity.
very true ^^
yet people like you keep holding on to myth and propaganda.

very wrong ^^
I keep holding on to rationality and logical proofs =)
Peace and love

Yours Sincerely,

Cat Stevens

My latest threads (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/search.php?do=process&showposts=0&starteronly=1&exactname=1&searchuser=catstevens)

Note: Silly, Irrelevant, and the like, responses, posts, comments will be ignored (it depends on my mood and time if I won't ignore them), taking off the topic is losers' style, ask yourself: will you write such response if the writer wasn't a Muslim!

[catstevens]

r33f3r_m4dn3ss
But that doesn't necessarily mean they created us to worship them. If there is God we have to know, Does he want us to worship him or not, start your own journey now ^^
we don't know when we'll die
so, Do not delay =)
It is up to you
Hell - paradise
Best wishes
http://www.jmcdesign.org/csyi/cat_100b.jpghttp://www.jmcdesign.org/csyi/cat_181b.jpghttp://www.jmcdesign.org/csyi/yusuf_204.jpghttp://www.jmcdesign.org/csyi/yusuf_194.jpg

Peace and love

Yours Sincerely,

Cat Stevens

My latest threads (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/search.php?do=process&showposts=0&starteronly=1&exactname=1&searchuser=catstevens)

Note: Silly, Irrelevant, and the like, responses, posts, comments will be ignored (it depends on my mood and time if I won't ignore them), taking off the topic is losers' style, ask yourself: will you write such response if the writer wasn't a Muslim!

[Meagain]

Just a quick quote or two from Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance that may or may not be relevent.


The primary goal of the Church of Reason...is always Socrates' old goal of truth, in its everchanging forms, as it's revealed by the process or rationality. Everything else is subordiante to that. Normally this goal is in no conflict with the location goal of improving the citizenry, but on occasion some conflict arises, as in the case of Socrates himself....
True churchmen in such situations must act as though they had never heard these threats. The primary goal is never to serve the community ahead of everything else. their primary goal is to serve, through reason, the goal of truth.

You are never dedicated to somthing you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.

[themnax]

Except Allah knows in my POV =)

which is well and fine and you are welcome to feel that way and may even be right.

but the point is, my point anyway,
is that all a we know about Allah, or whatever else anyone may wish to call that about which no one knows anything other then that something greater then ourselves exists, is a
picture
of a cat, and not even a real picture,
though it may be of a real cat.

=^^=
.../\...

[catstevens]

You are never dedicated to somthing you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt. http://www.al-jarodiah.com/vb/images/smilies/a5.gif
Peace and love

Yours Sincerely,

Cat Stevens

My latest threads (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/search.php?do=process&showposts=0&starteronly=1&exactname=1&searchuser=catstevens)

Note: Silly, Irrelevant, and the like, responses, posts, comments will be ignored (it depends on my mood and time if I won't ignore them), taking off the topic is losers' style, ask yourself: will you write such response if the writer wasn't a Muslim!

[catstevens]

HI , welcome back themnax ^^ really nice to see ya
is that all a we know about AllahIs this a q? if so, no
Peace and love

Yours Sincerely,

Cat Stevens

My latest threads (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/search.php?do=process&showposts=0&starteronly=1&exactname=1&searchuser=catstevens)

Note: Silly, Irrelevant, and the like, responses, posts, comments will be ignored (it depends on my mood and time if I won't ignore them), taking off the topic is losers' style, ask yourself: will you write such response if the writer wasn't a Muslim!

[Hikaru Zero]

That what policy does to people, anger, sick, mad ….. *sigh*

Too bad that I'm on the side that is actually lacking policy, the side of the poor people who get crapped on with pesticides (it's happened before, with helicopters and everything!) and who has to drink shitty contaminated water.

See, you said, Most! Not all and BTW:

Of course I said most, not all, because I don't flgrantly generalize like a moron. There are SOME atheists out there which have different opinions, and I do not intend to speak for them.

I think he is referring to all theories which atheists or Darwinists believe in, Big Ban or whatever. Have you never heard about this: life began as a single cell è this is one of the theories.

In the quote which you refer to, it says "They are rationalizations for another form of secular faith: materialism."

The problem with this statement? Materialism is not a form of secular faith!! How can you possibly use the writings of this person, when the author is clearly a moron who does not understand what he is speaking about?

To answer your question, YES, I have heard of life beginning as a single cell. If you read my post (which specifically mentions abiogenesis -- or life beginning as a single cell), you would know this.

Truthfully, this is what I think probably happened, but I do not speak for all atheists, only the ones who think this probably happened, so I am not about to say "all," only "most."

No, because it is very clear, really doesn't need, just to open your eyes, heart, brain in my POV.

(this was in regards to me saying, "Beyond that, do you think we have to prove that there is a God?")

Sorry, cat. What I meant to say was, do you think we have to prove that there ISN'T a God? My bad. I was talking about having to disprove the idea of God, when you haven't proven it to begin with.

I already did,

Where did everything come from?What is the proof? Big Bang

How there isn't (creator=designer=God)? (Presentation)

Belief in God's existence

Something cannot come from nothing

Design indicates a designer (short)

Darwinism fails

Now a famous Professor Atheist believes in God existence

You didn't read all of the claims do you? Reading on or two or three articles about proving God's existence doesn't mean that we all failed, read the rest the other proofs too, It is important to go to those who claim that they have the logical, evident answer which is supported with proofs, not to anyone we choose who may doesn't convince us or not informed enough or don't know how to prove it by words or whatever, I don't mean that the people who you asked them have no idea, I am saying that if your belief isn't logical or isn't supported with evidences or when you cannot prove it that it is right or you aren't confirmedly believe it is true 100% without any doubts (gaps), you have doubts, THERE ARE WHO REFUTATED with evidences and logic refutation, then it is better to ask again and again till you reach the truth, no matter what it is. YES, It has been proven, read more, give it a real chance and time of yours.

Read more before you make such a blatantly uninformed claim as this one =)

Cat, none of these lame little posts of yours that you linked to show any proof whatsoever of God's existance.

If God's existance was proven, it would be a national uproar. I wouldn't need to post rebuttals, I wouldn't need to read selected articles about God, because it would be in the news, it would be in the streets.

And yet, sadly,it's not proven.

Here are some people who claim to have the proof, contact them


http://www.harunyahya.com/

http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_atheism.php

http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_darwinism.php

http://www.elnaggarzr.com/Test_fre/English/index_E.asp
There are more and more, have you ever given them a chance?

The key word in what you said?

CLAIM to have the proof.

They don't actually have the proof. If they did, they wouldn't need to sell the books in those links in order to make money, they'd be filthy rich from all of the news interviews, from all of the publicity.

I have read many "proofs" using reason of God's existance, and found problems in every single one. I've read books about it, and plenty of articles claiming to have proof of God. None of them were even remotely close to complete, let alone close to good arguments.

Again: isn't me who wrote this article if you think so, plus, Myself I disagree with many things in the article, and one more thing, religion will never ever be responsible for its followers deeds when they are doing things against the teachings of their religion or when they are not practicing it, this is the utter stupidity. I believe people do evil believers and non-believers, people do good deeds believers and non-believers.

Oh so, if there are 100 people in the Ku Klux Klan, and then 20 of those people go into town, burn down buildings, blow up hotels, destroy places where black people work, all while crying out the name of the Ku Klux Klan and wearing white hoods ...

Then by your logic, the Ku Klux Klan is not responsible for what those followers did!

THIS IS THE MOST ABSURD THING I HAVE EVER HEARD IN MY LIFE, CAT.

You are insisting that stupid people who are a part of the group, who do stupid things ... should not be considered a part of the group, when they clearly are a part of it?

If you do not want stupid, murderous, sinful people in your religion, then don't let them into it in the first place!

I don't know if you PM those who were flooding the forums with flaming off topic posts. You may missed them or DS or wasn't as I was doing (my right here!) however, I don't care, I am not generalizing anything, and yeah, NO BODY has the right to tell me or ask me privately to not do that the hipforums give me this right!!!!!!! I WILL DO WHATEVER I WANT IN THIS FORUMS AS LONG AS I AM RESPECTING THE GUIDELINES HERE, Make your own forum, if the truth is too harsh or you don't like to find different opinion or criticism or whatever, no body forced you to come here,

YOU ARE NOT RESPECTING THE GUIDELINES HERE, CAT!

That is my point! THIS ENTIRE POST is an attack on non-believers of ALL sorts, but especially atheists and agnostics such as myself! Why do you think I responded to this thread when I haven't responded to your others?

Cat, believe me man, you have every right to free speech, on this and every other forum. But not only are you spamming for the sake of pissing people off, but your posts are belligerent, aimed attacks at non-believers!

Keep your anti-non-believer shit on your Islam boards, where it is relevant!

Oh and also -- I damn well do have a right to ask you privately to stop spamming the hip forums, when you are spamming the hip forums with propaganda and violating the terms of service!

Here, let me post part of the guidelines for you, cat ...

"Flaming/Trolling: Flames are posts intended to insult and provoke. Posters who speak incessantly and/or rabidly on some relatively uninteresting subject or with a patently ridiculous attitude will be banned. Repeated posts directed with hostility at a particular person or group of people or their beliefs will be cause for banning. Any individual who chronically trolls, who regularly posts arguments, flames or personal attacks for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion will be banned."

Cat stevens, IN YOUR PM REPLY you stated that the reason you were flooding the Christianity boards was because they were "flooding" the Islam boards!

Now, I went to the Islam boards to check it out, and I found a total of two threads that were started to question or attack Islamic beliefs. That is hardly flooding.

And yet, when I was last on the Christianity boards ... I counted a total of SEVEN threads that were outright attacks on Christian beliefs, started by you. They weren't even started by others on the Islam boards, YOU are the only one bringing the "fight" over to the Christianity boards.

According to the guidelines, YOU CAN BE BANNED FOR THIS.

Now, cat, I don't want to see you banned, personally I think most of your posts have good points (minus this one, which pissed me off).

However, you are clearly in violation of the terms of using the hip forums. Before you talk about being within acceptable limits, you should actually READ the guidelines first.

It doesn't make universe insane when we misunderstand it or cannot understand or don't know the truth about it, we are the insane then! Rather limited minded

I meant in size. And yeah, I'd call it vastly insane, when humans quite literally can't even really fathom how big it is. Perhaps insane wasn't the best choice of words, though ...

do you consider this attack hahaha I can't believe this hahaha

An attack on the beliefs of non-believers? Yeah, I'd call it that. In your post, you said:

"If either of these beliefs was just a matter of reason and science, then the people who hold it would feel no hostility against those who disagree with them. But, as my example shows, they are hostile to people who disagree with them. "

Insinuating that all ahteists and non-believers are hostile towards others all of the time.

"The war between materialists and people of faith has gone on for millennia. It is going on today. There are very important philosophical differences between the two camps. The materialist believes he has no responsibility to take care of others. That’s why Darwinism and its survival-of-the-fittest claim were seized upon by the materialists as a perfect rationalization of their selfishness. People of faith, however, feel a God-given responsibility to help their fellow human beings."

Calling us all materialists, and and then saying we have no responsibility to take care of others -- that our claims are "perfect rationalizaitons of our selfishness."

"People who claim there is no God intend to play God themselves, with us as their subjects."

And then insisting that we are trying to play God with everyone else, in some sort of malicious or spiteful way.

Yes, Cat, I would call that an attack on both non-theists, and their beliefs.

You can roll around laughing and post smilies rolling around laughing all you want -- it just goes to show how BELLIGERENT and spiteful your posting is.

very wrong ^^
I keep holding on to rationality and logical proofs =)
Peace and love

No, you don't! That's why you didn't even respond to any of my plausible arguments in my original post, because they completely and utterly destroyed what you call your "rationality" and "logical proofs." Your "proofs" are some of the most illogical attempts to prove God that I have ever seen!

You are never dedicated to somthing you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.

A good thing to mention, Meagain.

Not that he's fanatically shouting because he believes.

He's fanatically shouting because he's trying to anger others because he feels that the couple of posts on the Islam boards are spam and wants to share his wrath with the rest of the Hip Forums.

-- at least, that's what I got out of what he said in his PM.

[r33f3r_m4dn3ss]

r33f3r_m4dn3ss




If there is God we have to know, Does he want us to worship him or not, start your own journey now ^^
we don't know when we'll die
so, Do not delay =)
It is up to you
Hell - paradise
Best wishes



I don't beleive in Hell. Life is Hell, and life is my test. So what if there is a God, is it fair he has put me on this Earth and put me through the things he has done, maybe not, but I still understand everything happens for a reason. If I have faith in something greater than me, which I do, then why should I need to label God by putting him in a religion where my ideals don't coincide?

Religion is nothing more then mass conformity. The temple is you, inside your mind, and in your mind is where you will find God, because he is part of us all. Just because I don't give complete submission to God by putting my hands, feet, and head on the ground that doesn't mean I'm going to hell. I praise the lord by living a moral and healthy life, and giving God recognition everyday by knowing this Earth wasn't made by humans, it was made by something more advanced we can't fathom it.

As for Hell, pfshh, Hell is nothing more than a scare tactic. It is a completely ridiculous to think God made this special pit where everyone will burn in hellfire and brimstone if they don't praise him. I will continue living my life beleiving in something greater until the day I die and receive the ultimate wisdom once I am granted passage into the after life.

Life is paradise, Life is Hell. Death is my savior, because death is God.

As for proving his existence, well I think the universe should be proof enough. I mean such intricate laws of gravity, the complexity of organisms, the design of the human genome, and the human brain. I don't think it all came down to mere chance. If anything, the universe was chaos, but it happened for a reason. There was a drive or force behind it designed by a greater power.

The only thing I worship is the sun. It generates warmth, it produces life, and it is the most amazing and wonderful thing I have yet to see in my life. This is the only thing outside our atmosphere that seems to do anything for us, so why don't more people worship it? Seeing as how the Egyptian Pharoah Akhenaten decided to become monotheistic and worship the sun because all the religions were fighting and killing over different deities, just like today with the conflicting the religions.

I am not saying the sun is God, rather a composite of the allmighty's greatness and supremacy.

[FreakerSoup]

Just a quick comment, as I have not and probably will not read the whole thread: Since when does faith come from reason? I don't think there has ever been anyone who became religious because it was the rational thing to do. Don't confuse emotional with rational. Rationally, you wouldn't be worried about saving your soul, because there's no logical evidence that a soul exists. It's an emotional belief.

[Hikaru Zero]

Just a quick comment, as I have not and probably will not read the whole thread: Since when does faith come from reason? I don't think there has ever been anyone who became religious because it was the rational thing to do. Don't confuse emotional with rational. Rationally, you wouldn't be worried about saving your soul, because there's no logical evidence that a soul exists. It's an emotional belief.

Thank you for pointing this out.

[r33f3r_m4dn3ss]

I have faith that when something bad happens to me, the reason is that it makes me stronger is because I know I'll be gaining something by having it teach me a lesson and give me strength for other situations. That's all.

[catstevens]

Hikaru Zero (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/member.php?u=7407)

Again, I have to call you a complete moron for this. You clearly do not understand genetics at all. ALBINO ORGANISMS ARE NOT MUTATIONS OR EVOLUTION. An organism that is albino simply has matching pairs of genes that cause a lack of pigment. These genes are present in ALL similar organisms. Secondly, not only do fossil records show that human beings have evolved from previous species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution), this link actually shows a list and description of previous human forms, and also has a section about the recently-found link between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens), but beyond that, we have documented evidence of evolution of species, that human beings have observed!

Again isn't me who wrote this article, + if you found or read about an evidence of that maybe the writer doesn't consider it evidence, maybe he read a rebuttal or something concerning that theory, and don't forget there are many theories not only one! So the writer is referring to one of these theories which says: There is no fossil evidence of any species ever becoming another species. What the fossil records show is exactly what mankind has seen since we learned to write: Some species die out. Some don’t. Occasionally, some genetic mutation will cause a slight change in some life-form, but never to the extent of creating a new form of life. The fact that one occasionally sees an albino squirrel does not mean that all of squirreldom will become white.

As a matter of fact, we have controlled the evolution of plants for HUNDREDS OF YEARS. We have created new plants simply by changing the environment and exposures those plants had. Ever eat brussel sprouts? How about sweet corn? Sweet corn wasn't sweet corn until we took maize and bred it to evolve into sweet corn.

You said: we è (mankind by our brain) have controlled the evolution of plants… Sweet corn wasn't sweet corn until we took maize and bred it to evolve into sweet corn. Q: do you think that things can be evolved by itself and giving us amazing results!! Oh Come on!

*If you will spill three different colors in a white paper you will never have a picture for Wales' flowers! Or a picture of London's street! Even if you will leave it for zillions centuries! Take for example the Puzzle or the Jigsaw puzzle [a picture cut up into many pieces] would you believe me if I will tell you that a wind or something fitted these pieces together? Something which doesn't have a brain to think where it should put each piece!! Impossible, there is someone who arranged your body's organs and nerves and gave them their functions.*Look to your self and body it is too complicated and there are countless nerves in your body each nerve is linked to an organ and have its function! Is that happened by evolution? if we will assume that the human was the first being for example who suited his teeth to eat? Who linked each nerve with a specific organ? Who? the nothingness or the randomness which cannot think of the purpose of doing such things like teeth to eat, ears to hear etc. when the human has two holes in his nose to breath, it is happened by chance?, why human have digestive system, it was this by chance or evolution??? Why there is a link between the digestive system and the urinary system, by evolution? Why there is a pipe which delivers what you ate to your stomach by chance? Why you have teeth, was it a decoration? Impossible, there must be someone who formed each creature, who made this magnificent system in the creatures of eating, breathing etc

Evolution of species is a proven fact. Evolution of all species from a single source (abiogenesis) is not a proven fact but there is a LOT of evolutionary evidence suggesting that it is not only possible, but also suggesting that it is true.

Who created these species! Where did they come from?

Quraan: were they created from nothing or did they create themselves. Or did they create the heavens and earth? Nay, but they have no firm belief.

Humans were created by something already created. This implies in infinite regression of causes which ultimately means that humans do not exist. If C1 were caused by C2, and C2 by C3 to CN, then C1 cannot exist unless C2 does, etc. And CN means that it has no beginning. Consequently, C1 cannot exist. In other words, if human existence is preceded by an infinite amount of causes requiring an infinite amount of time to take place, it is the same as saying that they will never take place. Human existence thus becomes impossible. The Greek philosopher Aristotle argued similarly that the infinite regression of the cause and effect chain was impossible.

Whereas science has ten thousand books on evolution,

Ten thousands books, I am not sure how many books on rebuttal are there? =)

religion only has a handful, and only two big ones, which were written thousands of years ago, and which don't even apply to the modern world anymore. Religion is outdated, face it.

Outdated hahaha NO, I won't face this, because it isn't true at all =) did you read Quraan! I really don't know, but if you didn't read it, then it is stupid to say something about something which you have no idea about,

Allah proved in Quraan that there is God , it is he the only true God the creator he in Quraan is talking to atheists, believers, Christians, Jews, pagans etc all people, Some People at Jesus' time, miracles were enough proof for them to his existence! But nowadays many people don't accept such a proof? That's why Allah put so many different types of proofs, like miracles, prophecies, etc in Quraan besides that he put proofs in the Quraan which even the Arab at the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) didn't understand it as we do today, Allah stated: "And you shall certainly know the truth of it after a while.", but because other type of proofs was enough to them they accepted that proofs as well, this type of proofs are the scientific proofs The difference between miracles of the previous Messengers, which proved their veracity, and those of the messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, is that their previous miracles were effective during the lifetime of everyone of them, whereas the miracle of the Quraan remains effective, everlasting and unchallenged until the Day of Judgment. How does the miracle of the Quraan remain effective? The Quraan which was revealed 14 centuries ago, mentioned facts only recently discovered or proven by scientists, '' We will show them our signs in the universe, and in their ownselves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Quraan) is the truth' this proves without doubt that the Quraan must be the literal word of God, revealed by him to the prophet Muhammad and it was not authored by any human being even Muhammad didn't claim so, Allah has sent prophets to show people his religion and how to worship him, Every prophet had something special from God to be a proof that he is the messenger of God and that God is existed. And that special thing called '' Miracle'' Allah has supported his last prophet Muhammad with many miracles and many evidences which prove that he is a true prophet sent by God. It is beyond reason that anyone 14 hundred years ago would have known these facts discovered or proven only recently with advanced equipment and sophistical scientific methods, you can check them here (http://www.islam-guide.com/) and Watch scientists’ comments on the scientific miracles in Quranè Science confirms Quraan is from Allah (http://islamyesterday.com/science/) and here is another website (http://www.elnaggarzr.com/Test_fre/English/index_E.asp) after visiting the websites or before, I ask, How could Muhammad have possibly known all this 1400 years ago, when scientists have only recently discovered this using advanced equipment and powerful microscopes which did not exist at that time?

Why did Allah choose Muhammad?

Muhammad (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) was raised illiterate, unable to read or write, and remained like that till his death. Among all his people, he was known as being truthful and trustworthy. Before receiving revelation, he had no prior knowledge of Religion or any previously sent Message. He remained like that till the Revelation came to him with the Quraan.

Allah stated: ''Neither did you (O Muhammad) read any book before it (this Quraan), nor did you write any book (whatsoever) with your right hand. In that case, indeed the followers of falsehood might have doubted'' This is a proof that the Quraan is from God Because although the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was illiterate in both (reading & writing), he brought such a book Quraan which is one his miracles,'' In that case, indeed the followers of falsehood might have doubted'' that if Muhammad (PBUH) was reading or writing then disbelievers will be in doubt and they will say '' perhaps Muhammad learned that or read it in some where! But they didn't say that because they know that Muhammad was orphan (both father &mother), Poor and illiterate in both (reading & writing) and he was living between them. Consequently, how could Muhammad have possibly known all this 1400 years ago, Surely, Allah told him.

Quraan: Nor does he (Muhammad) speak of (his own) desire, it is only a Revelation revealed. He has been taught (this Quraan) by one mighty in power…So Allah revealed to His slave (Muhammad) whatever He revealed…And that to your Lord (Allah) is the End (Return of everything)….(then he started to talk about the creation and that he created us and everything) etc very nice chapter

'' And this Quraan is not such as could ever be produced by other than Allah (Lord of the heavens and the earth)'' Allah created everything that why Allah knows about all these facts which ARE known recently and he put such facts in Quraan as a proof.

Quraan: Do they not then think deeply in the Quran, or are their hearts locked up (from understanding it)?

Quraan: What ! Did you then think that WE had created you without purpose, and that you would not be brought back to US ?

Quraan: Do they then wait for anything other than that the angels should come to them, or that your Lord should come, or that some of the Signs of your Lord should come (i.e. portents of the Hour)! The day that some of the Signs of your Lord do come, no good will it do to a person to believe then, if he believed not before, nor earned good (by performing deeds of righteousness) through his Faith. Say: "Wait you! we (too) are waiting."

Quraan: This (Qur'ân) is a clear insight and evidence for mankind, and a guidance and a mercy for people who have Faith with certainty. Or do those who earn evil deeds think that We shall hold them equal with those who believe (in the Oneness of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism) and do righteous good deeds, in their present life and after their death? Worst is the judgment that they make…

Peace and love

Yours Sincerely,

Cat Stevens

Cat Stevens' latest threads (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/search.php?do=process&showposts=0&starteronly=1&exactname=1&searchuser=catstevens)

Note: Silly, Irrelevant, and the like, responses, posts, comments will be ignored (it depends on my mood and time if I won't ignore them), taking off the topic is losers' style losers' fate (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94500) , ask yourself: will you write such a response if the writer wasn't a Muslim!

[Hikaru Zero]

Again isn't me who wrote this article, + if you found or read about an evidence of that maybe the writer doesn't consider it evidence, maybe he read a rebuttal or something concerning that theory, and don't forget there are many theories not only one! So the writer is referring to one of these theories which says: There is no fossil evidence of any species ever becoming another species. What the fossil records show is exactly what mankind has seen since we learned to write: Some species die out. Some don?t. Occasionally, some genetic mutation will cause a slight change in some life-form, but never to the extent of creating a new form of life. The fact that one occasionally sees an albino squirrel does not mean that all of squirreldom will become white.

No, you didn't write the article, but you are the one posting it, in all of its anti-atheist remarks.

You, cat, are the one supporting these claims. You're the one who posted the article, so take some responsiblity for what you post.

He didn't read a rebuttal because the journal was just posted yesterday.

There are many theories, yes. However, the theory that "there is no fossil evidence of any species ever becoming another species," has been PROVEN to be incorrect, time and time again. It is no longer a theory -- rather, at this point, it is merely an old myth that is being constantly regurgitated by the religious folk of the world for decades now.

The truth of the matter is, it's entirely incorrect.

Q: do you think that things can be evolved by itself and giving us amazing results!! Oh Come on!

Let me tell you a sad story for a second, cat.

Off the coast of California, there are now fish with both male and female organs. They are hermaphrodites. What did this to them? The increased presence of estrogen from feminine waste that was dumped into the sea by our government.

Despite the fact that now, we have hermaphroditic fish, and that's probably not a good thing, it's important to note that this was NOT a controlled or even attempted evolution. This happened on its own.

Something as incredible as turning fish into hermaphrodites happened only because a larger presence of a single chemical was introduced!

"Oh come on!" yourself, cat. Evolution is happening all around you, and you fail to even notice it. Sweet corn is an example of human-controlled evolution. However, it was not human-induced. All we did was replant it in more fertile soil, and replant the seeds that came out the best.

Given more time, the maize would have eventually turned into sweet corn anyway -- along with various other evolutions, probably everything from bitter corn to salty corn (these are just examples, I'm not a biologist so I couldn't tell you exactly what else might have arisen, other than that other things would have).

If you will spill three different colors in a white paper you will never have a picture for Wales' flowers! Or a picture of London's street! Even if you will leave it for zillions centuries!

That's because Wales' flowers and London's streets contain more than three different colours.

Besides that, RANDOMNESS IS NOT THE ARGUMENT, cat! When are you going to get this through that thick head of yours!

Things don't got right from "random" to "complex." London's streets weren't built in a day! It took many years, even when controlled, to build London's streets.

The argument isn't one of "complexity created instantaneously out of randomness," the argument is one of "simple structures created over a probablility, which then were able to prolong their existance and facilitate their own development."

You mistake the real argument for one that nobody believes in.

Impossible, there is someone who arranged your body's organs and nerves and gave them their functions.

Don't you think for a second, cat, that it's possible for your body to have had a role in the development of those organs and nerves?

Our bodies, as complex as they are, are designed to grow and repair themselves. They are designed to adapt to their environment! They are designed to facilitate the process of evolution! Evolution is certainly not the only force that leads to complex structures.

Look to your self and body it is too complicated and there are countless nerves in your body each nerve is linked to an organ and have its function!

Guess what, cat! All of those nerves have the same function! They don't each have their own. Nor are they countless.

if we will assume that the human was the first being for example who suited his teeth to eat?

Teeth arose out of necessity! Those creatures which needed to eat foods which were difficult to consume, and required chewing, would have certainly developed simple things such as callouses in their mouths from chewing, and eventually, over many generations, those callouses (which are predominantly calcium) would have eventually become simple enamel structures (which are also predominantly calcium), and over the millions of years that animals have had teeth, eventually turned into the teeth that we have now!

the randomness which cannot think of the purpose of doing such things like teeth to eat, ears to hear etc

RANDOMNESS DOES NOT THINK, but this does not mean that things that arise out of randomness do not have a purpose!

The things that are suited to tasks survive (because the tasks can be done), and the things that are not suited to tasks do not survive (because the tasks do not get done)!

Why do you think that humans hiccup, cat? Hiccupping is the exact same mechanism that gills use to draw in oxygen! That is why, when you hiccup, you are pulling air into your lungs! But why do we not hiccup all the time, then? Because humans do not have gills! Gills were great for water organisms, but when organisms began the movement onto land, we needed something that could breathe air, so the gills that had exposure to the air gradually became more used to it, until they eventually turned into primitive lungs.

And yet, the lungs we have today were once gills -- that is why we hiccup -- because the gill behaviour is still latent inside our bodies.

why human have digestive system, it was this by chance or evolution???

Digestion is a simple process involving acid! You could pour acid over anything, and call that "digestion"!

Why there is a link between the digestive system and the urinary system, by evolution?

That which doesn't get used after digestion has to go somewhere, cat, or else we'd all be fat! Duh.

Why there is a pipe which delivers what you ate to your stomach by chance?

The same reason that unused digested food goes somewhere else! It has to come from somewhere too. Input and output.

Why you have teeth, was it a decoration?

It was a necessity to eat large structures.

Who created these species! Where did they come from?

They came from those species before them!

Humans were created by something already created. This implies in infinite regression of causes which ultimately means that humans do not exist. If C1 were caused by C2, and C2 by C3 to CN, then C1 cannot exist unless C2 does, etc. And CN means that it has no beginning.

YOUR RELIGIOUS DOGMA IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THIS PROBLEM OF LOGIC!

What does it matter if humans were created from other organisms, or if humans were created by God?

Those other organisms had to come from somewhere.

And God had to come from somewhere?

What's that you say, God just popped into existance one day, in all of his infinite perfection that is beyond that of even a human??

GUESS THE FUCK WHAT, CAT, YOU JUST RUINED YOUR ARGUMENT. What is the difference between "God just came into existance" and "A single-celled organism just came into existance"? God is far more complex and perfect than a single-celled organism! Believing that God just came from nowhere or has always existed, is even less plausible than believing that a protocell just came from nowhere or has always existed (which has already been pretty much proven, btw -- we have created protocells from what scientists believe was a simulation of a primitive Earth environment).

Ten thousands books, I am not sure how many books on rebuttal are there? =)

Tons upon tons.

And yet, those theories that haven't been successfully rebuttled, are still having books written about them today.

Do you think that if Darwin's Theory of Evolution made absolutely no sense, that people would still be proving the links today?

Edit: I don't see Allah, in all his infinite wisdom, disproving the rebuttals and contradictions that have been found in the Quran. Maybe that's because he doesn't exist? Or maybe he thinks his Holy Book is so outdated that it's not worth revising?

ask yourself: will you write such a response if the writer wasn't a Muslim!

Absolutely.

In fact, I tend not to write such a response to Muslims, because they are generall thick-headed and don't listen to begin with.

I thought maybe you'd listen to reason, but perhaps I was wrong about that one too ...

[FreakerSoup]

There is no fossil evidence of any species ever becoming another species. Because that's an action. Actions cannot be fossilized. What the fossil records show is exactly what mankind has seen since we learned to write: Some species die out. Some don’t. New ones arise. Occasionally, some genetic mutation will cause a slight change in some life-form, but never to the extent of creating a new form of life. That's a hell of an assertion. The fact that one occasionally sees an albino squirrel does not mean that all of squirreldom will become white. If albinism provided an advantage, such as protection from predators, or allowing it to find more food, it would. There are many arctic animals that are white. Polar bears, foxes, rabbits...If the world were to suddenly get cold and covered with snow all the time, that squirrel would go a long way towards making all squirreldom white. And eventually, yeah, all squirrels (unless they adopted new behavior) would be white.


You said:weè (mankind by our brain) have controlled the evolution of plants… Sweet corn wasn't sweet corn until we took maize and bred it to evolve into sweet corn. Q: do you think that things can be evolved by itself and giving us amazing results!! Oh Come on!
*If you will spill three different colors in a white paper you will never have a picture for Wales' flowers! Or a picture of London's street! Even if you will leave it for zillions centuries! Take for example the Puzzle or the Jigsaw puzzle [a picture cut up into many pieces] would you believe me if I will tell you that a wind or something fitted these pieces together? Evolution is nothing like that. In the world, there is a constant influx of energy from the sun, the below-crust earth, and sometimes even meteors and stuff from space. It would be more like if you had a machine that put random paint markings on a canvas. But lets not forget that natural selection does away with the genomes that aren't up to par, so this machine makes random paint lines/spatters/whatever, but when it see something that looks bad, it covers it up with a new line/spatter/whatever, and the bad part is dropped from the painting (i.e. Gene pool). Eventually, given enough time, and enough random paint lines/spatters/whatever, the machine would produce what it(evolution) would consider the perfect painting, with nothing wrong with it...evolutionary ideal. But it would still keep going, making the painting better and better. Something which doesn't have a brain to think where it should put each piece!! Impossible, there is someone who arranged your body's organs and nerves and gave them their functions.Sea anemones have no brains, but they eat and reproduce. Same with corals, sponges, and plenty of other animals. Bacteria can align with each other and exchange DNA, and they have no brains. How do they orchestrate that? Plants have no brains, yet they can change the shape of their growth to maximize sunlight. Flowers close at night, HIV has done a good job of reproducing. A brain is not needed, and often not used for organization. All that is needed is a simple function of what works and what doesn't, and I think it's safe to say that every living thing and many nonliving forces have that function. *Look to your self and body it is too complicated and there are countless nerves in your body each nerve is linked to an organ and have its function! Is that happened by evolution? if we will assume that the human was the first being for example who suited his teeth to eat? Who linked each nerve with a specific organ? Who?Who's assuming the human was the first being besides you? The ENTIRE POINT of human evolution is that that's not the case. The fact is, the human wasn't the first being, and teeth have been used for eating for hundreds of millions of years. Maybe more. Each nerve isn't always linked the way it's supposed to be. That organism usually dies, or doesn't reproduce, and that doesn't happen again until another random circumstance. Does god just not love blind people? Nerves are linked to organs because that's what has worked best throughout earth's history.
the nothingness or the randomness which cannot think of the purpose of doing such things like teeth to eat, ears to hear etc. when the human has two holes in his nose to breath, it is happened by chance?, why human have digestive system, it was this by chance or evolution??? Why there is a link between the digestive system and the urinary system, by evolution? Why there is a pipe which delivers what you ate to your stomach by chance? Why you have teeth, was it a decoration? Impossible, there must be someone who formed each creature, who made this magnificent system in the creatures of eating, breathing etc Is there a link between digestive and urinary? The blood, I guess, but then everything is linked to everything, and how intelligent is that? It's not by chance. Evolution is not chance. Mutation is chance. If the mutation in that tiny organism all those millions of year ago resulted in an esophagus that went out the back of it's head, it would not pass on that gene, because it would not give an advantage, and probably would give a disadvantage. If a full esophagus never evolved, we would not be here, because large organisms require it for nutrition.


Who created these species! Where did they come from?

Quraan:were they created from nothing or did they create themselves. Or did they create the heavens and earth? Nay, but they have no firm belief.

Humans were created by something already created. This implies in infinite regression of causes which ultimately means that humans do not exist. If C1 were caused by C2, and C2 by C3 to CN, then C1 cannot exist unless C2 does, etc. And CN means that it has no beginning. Consequently, C1 cannot exist. In other words, if human existence is preceded by an infinite amount of causes requiring an infinite amount of time to take place, it is the same as saying that they will never take place. Human existence thus becomes impossible. The Greek philosopher Aristotle argued similarly that the infinite regression of the cause and effect chain was impossible. If anything, creationism is illustrated by that. C1 is humans, C2 is god, C3? C4? You can apply that to anything if you really stretch. C1 is I am here. C2 is I was down the road a mile. C3 is I was down the road two miles. CN is I was at school. Since I could not have BEGUN down the road, does that mean I'm not here? How did I begin that trip? It defies all logic. I must be back at school. Man, I wish I were here. Just because YOU don't understand the theories for how life started doesn't mean they are wrong. Give them more than just a reading. Go somewhere besides some highschool students science project website.





this type of proofs are the scientific proofsNo they aren't. Even if they deal with a scientific subject matter, that doesn't make them scientific. You know how I know they aren't scientific proofs? THERE'S NO SUCH THING. Science doesn't prove things, math does. Measure doesn't equal prove. Science can measure. Science gives evidence. There is evidence for evolution. There is evidence for global warming. There is evidence for the law of universal gravitation.

No matter how many times you say it, a book cannot prove itself true. The validity of the book is in question whether or not "prophesies" and "miracles" occur. Let's say, just for example, that the koran predicted that in the year 2001, two 747's would crash into two large towers in NYC and the pentagon in Washington DC. That all happened. So yes, that part of the book was accurate. But the next sentence says and objects of large mass fall faster than objects of little mass in a vaccuum. That's just false. One sentence being true doesn't make the false sentence true, and that's just the way it is.

[Hikaru Zero]

Because that's an action. Actions cannot be fossilized.

True. But progress from those actions can be fossilized.

By the way, I like the quote in your signature. :D

[FreakerSoup]

Hehe, thanks.

[catstevens]

Ops! I forgot this thread where did I stop! http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_6_2v.gifHowever, mmm not in mood, Ok, quickly, few glances


Religion is outdated, face it.
God is existed, Hell and paradise too, face it or accept it, know the truth before it is too late
you can't prove ''There is no God''http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_6.gif
Whereas science has ten thousand books on evolution,
And all these books (ten thousands) have the same opinions /theories or different, some contradicts other theories, if so, what does this mean, today they prove something tomorrow they change their mind, Even so, let's imagine they proved whatever they think, it doesn't mean God isn't there, Nobody can prove ''there is no God'' ^^
I'll be back someday =)
Peace and love

Yours Sincerely,

Cat Stevens

Note: Silly, Irrelevant, and the like, responses, posts, comments will be ignored (it depends on my mood and time if I won't ignore them), taking off the topic is losers' stylelosers' fate (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94500) , ask yourself: will you write such a response if the writer wasn't a Muslim!

[Hikaru Zero]

Originally Posted by Hikaru Zero
Religion is outdated, face it.

God is existed, Hell and paradise too, face it or accept it, know the truth before it is too late
you can't prove ''There is no God''

I think it's funny how you make the opposite claim that I make, and say "face it" right after I did.

The only reason I even said that is to be just as dogmatic as you. Honestly, I could care less about proving a God -- I don't have to disprove something that hasn't been proven to begin with.

And all these books (ten thousands) have the same opinions /theories or different, some contradicts other theories, if so, what does this mean, today they prove something tomorrow they change their mind, Even so, let's imagine they proved whatever they think, it doesn't mean God isn't there, Nobody can prove ''there is no God'' ^^
I'll be back someday =)
Peace and love

Very few of those books discredit evolution, the those that do are generally founded on an "uncertainty" that comes with the idea that "evolution hasn't been proven." While this is true, that doesn't mean that 99% of the evidence suggests that evolution is correct.

Those books with differing theories or different accounts of what happened are trying to close that last 1% gap. For example, recently, there was an article about a new dinosaur that was discovered -- as large as the T-Rex, except it hunted in packs. Apparently, this is yet another one of those "missing links" that was found and connects a few pieces of the puzzle of evolution.

But yeah, there is no evidence that God doesn't exist. But, there is also no evidence that God does exist, and there IS evidence that YOUR God (YHWH/ the Christo-Judean/Islamic God) doesn't exist, or at least that the Bible is not His word and that the accounts of what happened are at least recorded incorrectly.

[Kharakov]

But, there is also no evidence that God does exist, You're wrong Hikaru. You have to see it for yourself. Anyway, I want you to know that until I saw evidence, I said the same thing.

[99%atheist]

you summed up your entire religious views in the statement that if you were correct in the existence of a God that you win everything and if you were wrong you lose everything. People believe in god as a retirement vehicle. You, or nobody else truly believes in a god. they all just say that they do just in case there is.

[Hikaru Zero]

You're wrong Hikaru. You have to see it for yourself. Anyway, I want you to know that until I saw evidence, I said the same thing.

Let me clarify that -- no objective evidence. People say there is subjective evidence all the time, but subjective evidence can never be proven.

Objective evidence can be verified, and used as proof. Subjective can't. That is why there is no "proof" of God's existance.

[r33f3r_m4dn3ss]

Couldn't subjective evidence be indicative on objective evidence? Just like Darwin, when he went to the Gallapagos Islands. He saw species (objective evidence) and subjectively came to the conclusion that it was due to evolution. I could probably think of a better metaphor but I the point I'm trying to make is that if someone can come up with subjective evidence and have it relate to you, is that any lesser than objective evidence? I guess it would have to come down to experiencing the same mind changing event for it to have any effect.

[Smurfing-Nibbles]

rational choice? so i should abandon my beliefs in favor of one that is safer to go along with just because theres a chance god will smite my ass if i dont believe in him. im sorry but this is a load of crap to me

[Smurfing-Nibbles]

btw the idea of god isnt one that ive pushed out of my mind or anything its just that the reasoning given here to believe in god is ridiculous

[chameleon_789]

I think god is probably the most misunderstood concept in the history of man. Most people won't believe in god if there's all this fire and brimstone, heaven and hell stuff attatched to it, and rightly so imo.. but that doesn't mean "god" doesn't exist, just that we've incorrectly defined it. When people say "god is all", I think that's the statement that is closest to the truth. God = life, and life = all. Yeah... a pen's not alive but neither are the atoms and quarks that you're made of, right?

I think the reason people believe in gods, attach themselves to religions etc, even if it is "outdated" :), is that science (the answer, apparently) has no explaination for LIFE... and it won't ever find one if its roots are based in logic and math. Science is a way of using two or more abstract concepts to prove another. In other words, speed and distance and time.... energy and the velocity of light.. beginning and end... chicken and egg... these are human concepts which all only exist in relation to each other. God only exists in relation to everything, and we don't even have an answer for where or why life and consciousness came to be, therefore it's obvious that science CAN'T answer these questions. To dismiss the possibility of god simply because there's no scientific explaination is imo very wrong. The first step to 'understanding god' is to realise that any something can also be *something else*.

[Hikaru Zero]

Couldn't subjective evidence be indicative on objective evidence?

The short answer? No.

The long answer? Subjective evidence is called that because only some people are capable of having this sort of "evidence." Subjective evidence includes things that one must experience, such as a sensation of a deity existing, or an experience of talking with such a deity.

However, modern science has shown that such subjective experiences are common and possible with various psychoactive substances, and modern science has also shown that even the air we breathe (oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide) is highly psychoactive, and such experiences are not only possible, but somewhat common, in a "normal" frame of mind.

Because these experiences can be often explained by science (or by an accusation such as lying), and because there is no way to verify the validity of such an experience, it's subjective evidence, and can't be considered universal (as only universal evidence can prove a universal truth such as God).

Just like Darwin, when he went to the Gallapagos Islands. He saw species (objective evidence) and subjectively came to the conclusion that it was due to evolution.

There is no subjectiveness involved. He made an observation, which is something that can be verified and performed again. It was all objective evidence.

I could probably think of a better metaphor but I the point I'm trying to make is that if someone can come up with subjective evidence and have it relate to you, is that any lesser than objective evidence?

It would have to relate to everyone past, present, and future, and be both confirmable and testable, to be objective evidence.

I guess it would have to come down to experiencing the same mind changing event for it to have any effect.

That's exactly right. Because not every single person has the same experiences, it can't be considered "universally true".

rational choice? so i should abandon my beliefs in favor of one that is safer to go along with just because theres a chance god will smite my ass if i dont believe in him. im sorry but this is a load of crap to me

Especially when that deity is responsible for countless murders, slaughters, crusades, for rousing his followers to take up sword and spear to all who oppose his doctrine, etc.

science (the answer, apparently) has no explaination for LIFE... and it won't ever find one if its roots are based in logic and math.

That's an absurd statement to make.

Life is both subjective and objective. The more we understand about it, the more of it we can consider objective.

Centuries ago we didn't know much about life. Now we know how life is created, and we have a pretty solid idea of how life came to be.

Haven't you ever heard of the theory of evolution? :p That's a pretty good explaination for life ... observable and testable.

Science is a way of using two or more abstract concepts to prove another.

Now this is just obviously wrong. Science does not use abstract concepts anymore than math does. A fairly large part of science relies on observation, description, and interaction between physical parts of the world -- in fact, the scientific method is based off of this.

The only "abstract concepts" that get involved is when you are dealing with things that are abstract to the human mind -- things like supernovae and black holes, things like quarks and electrons and gravity.

But science isn't just about these abstract things. Observation -- using non-abstract concepts -- is the reason why we know that gravity exists. It's the reason we know that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around, etc.

In other words, speed and distance and time.... energy and the velocity of light.. beginning and end... chicken and egg... these are human concepts which all only exist in relation to each other. God only exists in relation to everything, and we don't even have an answer for where or why life and consciousness came to be, therefore it's obvious that science CAN'T answer these questions. To dismiss the possibility of god simply because there's no scientific explaination is imo very wrong. The first step to 'understanding god' is to realise that any something can also be *something else*.

Just because you can't pole-vault over a cliff the first few times you try, doesn't mean that you will never be able to.

Similarly, just because science can't answer every single question that Mankind has, doesn't mean that it will never have that capacity.

In the past, science wasn't able to explain the stars. It couldn't explain why we got sick. Or hungry. Or sleepy. Science was very premature back then -- maybe 2 or 3 years old. Can you expect a 3 year old to jump across a cliff? Of course not.

Yet science is only now beginning to mature, with the invention of computers, a worldwide information network, etc. Maybe science still cannot jump that cliff. But give it more time, and I'm sure it will eventually figure out how to pole-vault across. ;)

[pop_terror]

You can't prove that objective reality even exists; this could all be your solitary subjective experience. It could be completely abstract from my solitary experience.

I know that this conundrum has been floating around forever, but it remains. The only way past it, to ultimately prove the existence of an objective reality, would be to prove the existence of an intrinsic oneness to all living things, in which case my experience would definitely be your experience as well. And that would really be a combination of both subjective and objective reality, which I think is the true reality; what is subjective is also objective and experienced by all.

I think scientists make a mistake in assuming that the universe ultimately has to make sense, as if it is required to do so just because, for whatever reason, scientists need it to. It seems like a pathological need for control to me.

Similarly, just because science can't answer every single question that Mankind has, doesn't mean that it will never have that capacity.

In the past, science wasn't able to explain the stars. It couldn't explain why we got sick. Or hungry. Or sleepy. Science was very premature back then -- maybe 2 or 3 years old. Can you expect a 3 year old to jump across a cliff? Of course not. What if I ask "Is there a God?" You can never prove that there isn't one, so the answer can't be "No". If you have an answer to every question there is, the answer can't be "Maybe" or "I don't know". So all that's left is either "Yes" or "Could you repeat the question?"

Science still doesn't fully understand our own sun. So I'm not all that impressed with science. I think it fools a lot of people into being impressed by being intentionally abstruse, which again seems pathological to me. But the truth is that it hasn't even come close to being God. Of all the answers that exist in the universe I'd say human science has approximately, .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of them. And that is being extremely, extremely, extremely generous.

[chameleon_789]

Just because science can't answer every single question that Mankind has, doesn't mean that it will never have that capacity.

In the past, science wasn't able to explain the stars. It couldn't explain why we got sick. Or hungry. Or sleepy. Science was very premature back then -- maybe 2 or 3 years old. Can you expect a 3 year old to jump across a cliff? Of course not.

Yet science is only now beginning to mature, with the invention of computers, a worldwide information network, etc. Maybe science still cannot jump that cliff. But give it more time, and I'm sure it will eventually figure out how to pole-vault across. What you're essentially saying is : given infinite time, we will know everything. I agree and disagree.

Haven't you ever heard of the theory of evolution? That's a pretty good explaination for life ... observable and testable.Yes, I've heard of it... but it isn't an explaination for life, it's an explaination for evolution, how life changes or why we are in our current form. We are no closer to the answer to the question "what is lifes origin", or for that matter, the most important one, "what is life".


Science is a way of using two or more abstract concepts to prove another. Now this is just obviously wrong. Science does not use abstract concepts anymore than math does. A fairly large part of science relies on observation, description, and interaction between physical parts of the world -- in fact, the scientific method is based off of this.

The only "abstract concepts" that get involved is when you are dealing with things that are abstract to the human mind -- things like supernovae and black holes, things like quarks and electrons and gravity.

But science isn't just about these abstract things. Observation -- using non-abstract concepts -- is the reason why we know that gravity exists. It's the reason we know that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around, etc. On a certain level I have no quibble with that, however... if you admit that time itself is an abstract concept, then all the phenomenon that rely on it to be observable (in other words, everything) are also abstract concepts.

I guess my qubbile is that science, in it's current form at least, is about as useful as giving a numerical value to how much you love or hate someone. Yes, it's useful if every person assigns a number to their feelings, but that doesn't mean that love or hate is measurable, or that that numerical value is correct, only that you can say one is bigger or smaller than the other. In essence, science is the illusion of an answered question. Same as religion. I'm not saying that either of them are wrong... at least, not all wrong.. they just make some big assumtions about the nature of the universe.

[pop_terror]

Belief in God is a scientific hypothesis. Human beings observe intelligence existing in heirarchies; we observe this intelligence creating order, designing the universe in heirarchies of complexity. So the hypothesis is that maybe there is an upper limit that is extremely complex.

An analogy...if you were on a planet with only sand or small rocks, you might imagine a great big rock and hypothesize the existence of a bolder somewhere. You could even choose to believe that bolders exist. Would it be wrong to believe bolders exist, lacking evidence, even though you would be right to do so?

Pretty much the same thing with God. You observe intelligent (?) lifeforms designing aspects of the universe; you hypothesize a far greater intelligence at work in designing the universe. If you have a strong hunch that this is true you believe in 'God'. So it's only a matter of how irrational it is to trust one's instincts.

[Green]

The rational choice is to be agnostic.

[chameleon_789]

If life was rational, we wouldn't be here.

[pop_terror]

The rational choice is to be agnostic.So if your instincts tell you there's a God and your instincts are always right, it's rational not to trust them in this case? I would like to see a scientific experiment in which the instincts of theists were tested against the instincts of atheists.

Also I agree with the above poster. The universe doesn't always act according to fixed laws...it's natural and right to be irrational sometimes.

[Hikaru Zero]

So if your instincts tell you there's a God and your instincts are always right, it's rational not to trust them in this case? I would like to see a scientific experiment in which the instincts of theists were tested against the instincts of atheists.

Also I agree with the above poster. The universe doesn't always act according to fixed laws...it's natural and right to be irrational sometimes.

Instincts, by nature, are never always right, no matter theist or atheist.

[StonerBill]

yeh their function is as a shortcut to reason, efficiency of the brain's influence of environment

[pop_terror]

Even if your instincts were only right 60% of the time...it would still be more rational to trust them than not, wouldn't it? It's just like making a bet...it's rational to bet on the better odds. The same can go for disbelief, of course.

I guess agnosticism would be saying it's most rational not to bet at all. But then you would have to apply that to all of your instincts, wouldn't you? Why is it rational not to bet in this one instance, but okay the rest of the time?

[Iconoclast]

Belief in God is a scientific hypothesis. Human beings observe intelligence existing in heirarchies; we observe this intelligence creating order, designing the universe in heirarchies of complexity. So the hypothesis is that maybe there is an upper limit that is extremely complex.This intelligence is assumed, not observed.

[chameleon_789]

I would say that most intelligence is assumed. It's no different now than it was when we thought the world was flat.

[Occam]

I would say that most intelligence is assumed. It's no different now than it was when we thought the world was flat.
Chameleon

Agreed. But ignorance is not. We as individuals and to a lesser extent as a species.
Are far less ignorant. For example occams intelligence can access online. HUGE stores of knowledge and history and he is but a small person with few resources in a big world.
Intelligence is a machine that needs information.
For 150 years it has been getting some.

And look at our world now compared to 1806.

Occam

[pop_terror]

And not all of known physical reality is even bound by time...

This intelligence is assumed, not observed.

Agreed, but no more so than anything that is observed is assumed: Nothing is absolutely certain. If we can only assume that we possess intelligence we can only assume that any of our observations have any degree of accuracy.

All an observation is is an assumption you take for granted as being true. I think it's safe to say that we all take our intelligence for granted as being true: Why speak at all if you don't think you're being intelligible?

[Old Hippie]

What you're essentially saying is : given infinite time, we will know everything. I agree and disagree.

Yes, I've heard of it... but it isn't an explaination for life, it's an explaination for evolution, how life changes or why we are in our current form. We are no closer to the answer to the question "what is lifes origin", or for that matter, the most important one, "what is life".

On a certain level I have no quibble with that, however... if you admit that time itself is an abstract concept, then all the phenomenon that rely on it to be observable (in other words, everything) are also abstract concepts.

I guess my qubbile is that science, in it's current form at least, is about as useful as giving a numerical value to how much you love or hate someone. Yes, it's useful if every person assigns a number to their feelings, but that doesn't mean that love or hate is measurable, or that that numerical value is correct, only that you can say one is bigger or smaller than the other. In essence, science is the illusion of an answered question. Same as religion. I'm not saying that either of them are wrong... at least, not all wrong.. they just make some big assumtions about the nature of the universe. Google "origins of life". Here's a site I found
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/originoflife.html

[r33f3r_m4dn3ss]

Whoever thinks weed is OK because it's grown from mother earth should try ingesting some DEADLY nightshade.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I don't even want to have a discussion with you until I know if you've even smoked pot.

Secondly, what evidence do you have to support that pot isn't ok? I'd love to hear this even more than the discussion going on. Comparing pot to nightshade is like comparing tuna to a lionfish.

Third, do you even realize the spectrums you've just tried to compare? EVERYTHING comes from the Earth. It doesn't just magically appear. So why are we having this discussion? Well because like I said, your sig is the most ridiculous thing I ever have heard. You are comparing plants that have nothing in common because of some bias you have against a plant. I can't understand why, maybe you just have pussy lungs or suck at smoking pot.

[chameleon_789]

Whoever thinks weed is OK because it's grown from mother earth should try ingesting some DEADLY nightshade.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I don't even want to have a discussion with you until I know if you've even smoked pot.

Secondly, what evidence do you have to support that pot isn't ok? I'd love to hear this even more than the discussion going on. Comparing pot to nightshade is like comparing tuna to a lionfish.

Third, do you even realize the spectrums you've just tried to compare? EVERYTHING comes from the Earth. It doesn't just magically appear. So why are we having this discussion? Well because like I said, your sig is the most ridiculous thing I ever have heard. You are comparing plants that have nothing in common because of some bias you have against a plant. I can't understand why, maybe you just have pussy lungs or suck at smoking pot.
Well, ok. To start with.. the point I'm trying to make is not 'smoking weed as bad as ingesting deadly nightshade', it's just an answer to the ridiculous argument that smoking weed must be OK on the grounds that it's grown from the earth. I've heard it a hell of a lot : "man made booze, god made grass". Secondly, I don't condone drinking any more than I do smoking weed. In essence it was a statement made to make people think about their arguments for it.

Yes, I smoked weed for a long time, heavily (as in as much as a heavy smoker would smoke cigarettes) towards the end, even grew it for a while. I know the so-called benefits as much as any other drug user, if I didn't then I wouldn't have continued doing it. I wasn't into popular drug culture, to be honest I found it offensive to my intelligence, although I did take a trip (no pun intended) to Amsterdam, where I smoked, tried shrooms and philosiphers stones, and generally had a great time.

That said, and gruelling details aside, I quit because it has fucked up my life, and my fathers (who was also a smoker for a while and who got me into it) life, and has torn my family apart. I see it dragging my friends down every day too, although most of them have quit or heavily cut down now.

I also think, judging from the tone of your last message, that it's YOU that has a bias against a plant ("I have pu