Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It can be argued that there is no need for a man and a woman to have sex in order to produce a child. Happens all the time. Yet the fact remains that the vast majority of children come to be thru a man and a woman having sex.
The "no need for God" arguement is nothing more than a mental excercise. Proves nothing.
There is no need for god. Please show me a clear example of anyone needing god, and I will show you in return a situation where a person is either extremely lazy and complacent or, on the other end, extremely desperate.
Fact remains, there is no god. So that is a non-factor.
As forr your anaology to sex, it makes no sense on this topic, so I would venture you are more on the desperate end of the god continuum....?
Fact remains, there is no god. So that is a non-factor.
As forr your anaology to sex, it makes no sense on this topic, so I would venture you are more on the desperate end of the god continuum....?
1. Facts require proof. Have any?
2. Your failure to get the idea that sex is not necessary to cause children is unfortunate in the light of your statement (it does parallel the idea that God is not necessary to produce a universe).
3. If you are going to spout opinion as fact, the least you can do is to make sure your spelling and grammar are correct.
I've never really understood the argument between science and religion; fundamentalism and literalism, sure, but not religion. Science explains how the world works.
And what on earth could bring us closer to God (for those of us who believe, that is) than understanding creation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
Science also knows how the Earth was formed, much different than the creation story.
Congratulations Largekingcat. Your children, and those like them, are the hope for our future, where mysticism is discouraged.
Mysticism is not the problem . . . human vanity, hubris and arrogance among believers and atheists alike is the real problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juliet Bravo
Biblical literalism isn't religion. There have always been many ways to understand the myths found in Genesis.
It really is too bad so many Christians have failed to learn that.
Religion is an intuitive holistic way of understanding God. Science is a rational and reasoned way of understanding God. Religions each claim to define and know who and what God is. Science does not . . . and refuses even to call it God. No matter. There is only one phenomenon and they are both referring to the same one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson
There are countless scientists who believe that there is more to this world that what science can explain. In all of nature there is positive and negative, yin and yang. Therefore, for the yang that is science, there must be a complementary yin which is the spiritual. I am not saying there is a Jesus, or a God, in the "traditional" sense, but we are part of this planet and this planet is part of the known universe and nowhere in that universe is there positive without negative, yin without yang. To assume that science is the end-all-be-all, is folly.
20yrsinBranson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
Science is about studying from our observations. Then from there we hypothesize and experiment. The thing is, our observations are limited. We can't observe everything from the distant past. There are things that were once observable that played a hand in our history, are no longer observable. So if the beginning point of all our sciences come from observation, there may be many blindspots we are working with. Einstein tried with all his might to come to a conclusion on how to join quantum mechanics with general relativity. Yet he couldn't. Of course now we have string theory as a possible answer to join the two, yet string theory itself seems like something right out of religion. Ultimately this tells us science is not enough to come to a complete understanding of our origins, but is only going half way.
This should be common knowledge, 20yrs and Heavenese . . . but the bias against God is strong . . . BECAUSE of the idiocies of religions and their history of persecution of science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop
This is such absurd stupidity that it really shouldn't even be anything but laughable in this day and age. Your argument is like saying that the detectives at a murder scene couldn't observe the murder happening and therefore all murder convictions have many blind spots. The truth is that, no, we don't have a video camera recording the activities of the distant past but the forensics data are implicitly telling us a very factual story. In fact, many of the forensic tools available to today's CSI teams were developed by scientists researching their own fields independent of murder investigations and are probably more reliable and credible than eyewitness accounts!
You can bask in your ignorance of science by proclaiming that "we weren't there to witness it so I get to cop out of a responsible viewpoint and wallow in my own pathetic ignorance of science to promote a farcical and childish view of the origins of the universe" but, in the end, that's just an irresponsible excuse for an irresponsible train of thought.
As well, there are certain aspects of science that we don't fully understand (like your Einstein quip). But, you make it sound like what we currently know is the end of what we ever will know. Two years ago, we had the mathematical calculations and behavioral predictions of a Higgs Boson. We needed extraordinarily powerful equipment to meld our calculations to our observations but we finally did see a five-sigma (that's 5 standard deviations) event that fit just about perfectly with the Higgs model. At this point, based on the "spin" of what they found, they will either declare it a graviton or a Higgs Boson. Either will be a huge deal for the scientific community.
Quantum mechanics probably sounded just as eerily supernatural in the early 20th century as string theory does to us today. But, repeated test after repeated test has confirmed the reality of quantum mechanics. The same can't be said of string theory but even if string theory is a horrible failure, it doesn't spell the end of our knowledge. What is it with you fundamentalists and not being able to recognize that?
You are not usually given to hyperbole, Troop . . . something must have gotten your goat. Neither of the posts you are responding to seem like the typical Fundy nonsense that you are railing against. You know full well that what we know about reality comes from our understanding of less than 5% of the known universe. The remaining 95+% is currently inaccessible to our science. That hardly seems like the basis for such extreme positioning . . . wouldn't you agree?
IT is fascinating to watch and listen to my gifted children. My ten year old, who is fascinated with mathematics and learning aspects of algebra and statistics that we learned in high school, also has a keen interest in physics and evolution. He asks questions which are so profound for a 10 year old. Questions that show a curious and great mind at work.
Questions that when I asked as a kid , was frequently told "Cause God made it that way" or "Jesus will be back any minute now"
Well, we know "Jesus" is not "coming back." Someone will post on here and say "How do you know that?" well, to save your effort, two reasons: One, because any remnant of who Jesus was is dead, and the dead don't return, and second, because there is no "God" involved as such.
SO I was fascinated with some recent scenarios he had written about the end times. He has gone on line and researched this out. He points out the only thing definite is the expansion of the sun, in several billion years. He also said there is a slighter chance of a massive supernova bathing the planet in radiation, and lesser probability of a collision with an asteroid or comet. But he has embraced something we both find more exciting: human evolution.
We know that our planet is always changing. We know that species still evolve and mutate. We know that change is the only constant (ha!) in the universe. So it follows that humans will over a few hundred thousand years evolve into a new species of Homo. I have been saying this for years, and I guess I am not the only one now. What fascinates him more is how and what humans will evolve into !!! Think about that...we are not, as some suggest, the final product of some grand scheme, but rather the byproduct of our evolutionary process !!! And we are still on a planet that is neither final nor Static!
I think that along the way I am encouraging and raising a child who will one day contribute to the solutions of humanity's problems. Some on who is educated, responsible and a problem solver. Someone who will contribute answers to science and reason. Someone who will actually improve the quality of the human condition.
The greatest thing is that he represents the future of humanity. That evolution toward a greater good. And we need no GOD for that. Perhaps this represents the ultimate symbolism of the victory of science over religion, and perhaps that defining conflict will be resolved by a race of Homo Superious. For those who live in fear and conflict, in apathy and despair, religion is still there to comfort them. But For those who want answers, we look not to myth, but to science.
The Muslim Fundamentalists knew* Algebra was of Satan. So they banned it. Cud-dos to your kid.
The Muslim Fundamentalists knew* Algebra was of Satan. So they banned it. Cud-dos to your kid.
*pretended to know
And, as we all know, it was Arabian mathematicians who invented algebra. This took place during the Christian "dark ages" when the Vatican disallowed any such activity.
It seems that wherever that mythic "god of Abraham" appears, ignorance results. Even on this forum that is evident. Makes many of us further question the need for such a deity.
Mysticism is not the problem . . . human vanity, hubris and arrogance among believers and atheists alike is the real problem.
Religion is an intuitive holistic way of understanding God. Science is a rational and reasoned way of understanding God. Religions each claim to define and know who and what God is. Science does not . . . and refuses even to call it God. No matter. There is only one phenomenon and they are both referring to the same one.
You won't even provide the attributes of your god, so how can religion or science understand it? I believe mysticism is the entire problem, where individuals use such mystical experiences to arrogantly proclaim the truth from supposed special privilege.
You are not usually given to hyperbole, Troop . . . something must have gotten your goat. Neither of the posts you are responding to seem like the typical Fundy nonsense that you are railing against. You know full well that what we know about reality comes from our understanding of less than 5% of the known universe. The remaining 95+% is currently inaccessible to our science. That hardly seems like the basis for such extreme positioning . . . wouldn't you agree?
Nah... What gets my goat, Mystic, is that this is a common tactic by young earth creationists to try and discredit the entirety of science. I recently saw a video online where some YEC buffoon was standing in front of a huge audience of young children and he was telling them that the next time someone brings up the theory of evolution, they're supposed to ask them "Were you there?!"
Basically, they have this shtick where eyewitness accounts are the only way to accurately assess something that happened and therefore, if you didn't see it, it didn't happen and therefore all events are equally plausible. When I read Heavenese's response that's all I could think about... Just another person trying to peddle a severe sense of ignorance at whatever cost to those around him because it makes him comfortable. To hell with the curiosity of children and their natural willingness to learn.
Take, for example, some bonehead who was telling me we don't even know how cell membranes form and then, to my astonishment, one of the biology courses I'm taking went into elaborate detail about hydrophobic and hydrophilic molecules and how they arrange themselves in a "Custer vs. Sitting Bull" pattern and it all dawns on me that these people just make any claim at all and stick with it. I lose my patience very, very quickly with this sort of irrationality and couple that with the time change screwing up my sleep patterns and you have a recipe for a very hyperbolic Troop.
LKC wrote: "Well, we know "Jesus" is not "coming back."
Well, we know Jesus is coming back.
If you kid wants to believe he came from a stupid, ignorant ape/monkey/[fill in the blank] he can. As for me, I'd rather know I came from a very intelligent human couple named Adam and Eve.
Too bad they are brainwashing kids with this speculative, unscientific, unproven stuff called evolution.
LKC wrote: "Well, we know "Jesus" is not "coming back."
Well, we know Jesus is coming back.
If you kid wants to believe he came from a stupid, ignorant ape/monkey/[fill in the blank] he can. As for me, I'd rather know I came from a very intelligent human couple named Adam and Eve.
Too bad they are brainwashing kids with this speculative, unscientific, unproven stuff called evolution.
Hmmm...what to believe... in evolution - or an intelligent couple, one of them crafted from the rib bone of the other, that were convinced to defy their creator by a talking snake into eating a forbidden apple which caused billions of unborn children to be marked by a grievous sin?
There is no need for god. Please show me a clear example of anyone needing god, and I will show you in return a situation where a person is either extremely lazy and complacent or, on the other end, extremely desperate.
Fact remains, there is no god. So that is a non-factor.
As forr your anaology to sex, it makes no sense on this topic, so I would venture you are more on the desperate end of the god continuum....?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150
1. Facts require proof. Have any?
2. Your failure to get the idea that sex is not necessary to cause children is unfortunate in the light of your statement (it does parallel the idea that God is not necessary to produce a universe).
Yet again; silence. The hope this challenge gets buried. *sigh*
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cud-dos to your kid.
