Science has much better answers than "God did it" (Buddhism, Rastafarian)
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.
Oh, I can answer that. Scientifically speaking, there is no reason to remove them, except in very rare instances. The Abrahamic religions, however, totally eschew science in favor of superstition and ignorance by mutilating their children.
While all of the Abrahamic religions mutilate the genitals of their baby boys, only a few mutilate the genitals of the baby girls. I guess it's only fair to point that out. (Again, Islam set's itself apart as being the most extreme and barbaric of the Abrahamic religions in the modern day.)
Oh and by saying that superstition and ignorance created God you are proving your ignorance when it comes to science. Regardless of whether truth does or does not lie within religion. Religion has been a basic ground for humanity since the beginning of time and Phylosophy and sciences evolved and rose in origin from religion (example Alchemy, medicine, physics, astrology ... etc) You are also totally ignoring the sociological historical cultural moral etc role of religion in our world. And that is PURRELY a scientific point of view for someone who arrogantly claims to know scientific truth. Nonesence.
Supernatural beings or gods were invented in the mind of men long before any so called christian god was dreamed up. You are correct, religion is the opiate of the masses, but it's origin was to fill the void of knowledge about basic science.
Man's understanding of science perhaps rose to the point he figured out fire was useful for keeping warm and cooking some food. But there was no understanding of what 'fire' was, thus the god of fire manifested itself in the mind of men. Same for whatever controlled the sun, and everything else. Today's gods are merely a merging of all the minor gods, much more convenient to worship a single god vs. many different ones.
Eventually man developed an understanding of these science mysteries, yet failed to discard the gods, thus they remain today as superstitions, and are still used to explain away things or alleviate fears in the minds of men. And of course help the scared with the fear that there is nothing after death, thus a superstition of an afterlife.
I have a suggestion to all. Why not get into some specifics of the matter?
This is what I mean.
First why not discuss what is the major accepted scientific belief as to how the universe came to be?
We can go from there by looking at whatever scientific and logic principles we can use to see if things came to exist on their own and from there to see if there was some type of cause that resulted in the universe getting to exist.
This will take some reading and maybe researching on our parts to see if we come up with some type of consensus in some areas and maybe even learn more from each other.
The only think I would suggest is to keep in mind a Buddhist wise words: The true path is only difficult for those who make distinctions. Do not like, do not dislike. then everything will become clear.
Master Seng Ts'an.
If your are going to discuss this topic with your emotional biases as I can all over the post you will not get anywhere. As much as peoplle claim to be objective I can that often it is not the case. Trying to keep the feelings out of the discussion will greatly help, take care.
I'll take you up on that argument, free from emotional responses.
(Sorry if this tome contributes to your feeling nauseous, MC, but I just could not leave this simple challenge unanswered.)
First off, elamigo, "science" does not currently have an "accepted scientific belief" as to the origins of the universe. We do have a catalog of reliably observed phenomena which we continue to try to fit into an overall Greater Unified Theory of the universe but to date that has not been achieved.
For instance, current state-of-the-art research at the Large Hadron Collider (the LHC) is ongoing and hopes to identify the Higgs boson-type particle, the only one as yet unobserved but predicted in a well-respected theory of our beginnings. Such groundbreaking work may well identify additional particles and relationships that could well lead to a conclusive hypothesis or "theory" for the origins of our universe. Patience please.
Meantime, while not understanding even the theoretical basics of the work going on there, several Christian groups have already mounted vigorous protests against it. We all know why of course....
Of course, we do know so much more factual information today than we did, for instance, even 5 or 10 years ago. Scientific knowledge is advancing at an exponentially increasing pace, while biblical "knowledge" remains fixed in time, a time characterized by a very real lack of factual knowledge as to how things worked. This was coupled, as mentioned above, by a cultural belief in the supernatural, in things we have long since refuted. The result was a book of hopeful fairy-tales, miracles and prophecies, none of which have ever unambiguously occurred to date. I'd be a bit suspicious frankly, but then I did abandon Christianity as my education, maturity level and academic experience proceeded.
When we do collect and reliablyandunemotionally fit together closely related information, we can then consider that information to be a well-supported "theory" (generally considered by the scientific community as fact).
An example? This is the case for Evolution, where information obtained just within the past 2 - 3 years, using the brand-new tool of DNA mapping, has allowed us to now accurately track micro-shifts in allele type and position (specific "genes" that create specific proteins), and when we assemble our DNA maps from slightly different but related organisms, and then couple those with what we also know about the sample's age (reliably obtained by comparing various independent isotopic decay, X-Ray fluorescence and geological strata studies) we can then assemble an accurate lineage that clearly shows micro- and macro-changes in the organism's structure and function over time. Since this is defined by science, not the church, as Evolution, we can pretty much accept it as a well-proven, undeniable and incontrovertible fact.
As well, it happens to make completely logical and simple sense. This is far from blindly believing, for example, an ancient and often plagiarized old Greek fairy-tale that Noah crowded all 30+M species, in quantities sufficient to allow subsequent reproductive success on a flood-ruined, vegetation killed planet, onto a leaky unpowered barge and kept them alive for 180 days with insufficient food and water. And then dropped them off on a frozen mountain top to fend for themselves. Unlikely at best, wouldn't you agree?
And yet that's what we're up against in various religious story versions. Completely daft stories, obviously improbable or worse: impossible, versus proven factual evidence that, by the way, makes perfect, obvious and logical sense.
The only reason such proven "theories" (i.e.: facts) are routinely and frantically denied is that if they are true, then by corollary, the alternate ancient mythological religious versions are not. Thus the entire fabric of the greater religious mythology begins to quickly unravel, and people's feeling are hurt. That, unfortunately, is not a good basis for an assumption of truth.
(Sorry if this tome contributes to your feeling nauseous, MC, but I just could not leave this simple challenge unanswered.)
First off, elamigo, "science" does not currently have an "accepted scientific belief" as to the origins of the universe. We do have a catalog of reliably observed phenomena which we continue to try to fit into an overall Greater Unified Theory of the universe but to date that has not been achieved.
For instance, current state-of-the-art research at the Large Hadron Collider (the LHC) is ongoing and hopes to identify the Higgs boson-type particle, the only one as yet unobserved but predicted in a well-respected theory of our beginnings. Such groundbreaking work may well identify additional particles and relationships that could well lead to a conclusive hypothesis or "theory" for the origins of our universe. Patience please.
Meantime, while not understanding even the theoretical basics of the work going on there, several Christian groups have already mounted vigorous protests against it. We all know why of course....
Of course, we do know so much more factual information today than we did, for instance, even 5 or 10 years ago. Scientific knowledge is advancing at an exponentially increasing pace, while biblical "knowledge" remains fixed in time, a time characterized by a very real lack of factual knowledge as to how things worked. This was coupled, as mentioned above, by a cultural belief in the supernatural, in things we have long since refuted. The result was a book of hopeful fairy-tales, miracles and prophecies, none of which have ever unambiguously occurred to date. I'd be a bit suspicious frankly, but then I did abandon Christianity as my education, maturity level and academic experience proceeded.
When we do collect and reliablyandunemotionally fit together closely related information, we can then consider that information to be a well-supported "theory" (generally considered by the scientific community as fact).
An example? This is the case for Evolution, where information obtained just within the past 2 - 3 years, using the brand-new tool of DNA mapping, has allowed us to now accurately track micro-shifts in allele type and position (specific "genes" that create specific proteins), and when we assemble our DNA maps from slightly different but related organisms, and then couple those with what we also know about the sample's age (reliably obtained by comparing various independent isotopic decay, X-Ray fluorescence and geological strata studies) we can then assemble an accurate lineage that clearly shows micro- and macro-changes in the organism's structure and function over time. Since this is defined by science, not the church, as Evolution, we can pretty much accept it as a well-proven, undeniable and incontrovertible fact.
As well, it happens to make completely logical and simple sense. This is far from blindly believing, for example, an ancient and often plagiarized old Greek fairy-tale that Noah crowded all 30+M species, in quantities sufficient to allow subsequent reproductive success on a flood-ruined, vegetation killed planet, onto a leaky unpowered barge and kept them alive for 180 days with insufficient food and water. And then dropped them off on a frozen mountain top to fend for themselves. Unlikely at best, wouldn't you agree?
And yet that's what we're up against in various religious story versions. Completely daft stories, obviously improbable or worse: impossible, versus proven factual evidence that, by the way, makes perfect, obvious and logical sense.
The only reason such proven "theories" (i.e.: facts) are routinely and frantically denied is that if they are true, then by corollary, the alternate ancient mythological religious versions are not. Thus the entire fabric of the greater religious mythology begins to quickly unravel, and people's feeling are hurt. That, unfortunately, is not a good basis for an assumption of truth.
Care to continue?
Thanks for the response. First I noticed you selectively quoted out of my message. I would add I wrote "major accepted scientific belief".All I am suggesting we discuss with what we have in front of us. No one was there when the universe came to be. What we may believe now as you said may change in the future. The Steady State? Big Bang? etc. It does not matter. At this point what is the belief, theory, etc. most people think is at this point?
I never did not bring out religion into the picture nor do I care. It simply surfaces religious bias to the point you see religion when it was not there in my request? That is why quoted the wise suggestion above.
I love sharing knowledge and learning from others, that is why I got into this discussion. However, as i sense in your message you gave this feeling looking down on me in your answer. "Simple challenge"? "Care to continue"?
If in some form you wanted me to feel inferior to your due to knowledge or something else, believe me you did not. You may be have greater scientific knowledge and I am glad you do. I would love learning from those that have more knowledge than I in any field but it is somewhat sad that at time people tend to at least in a subtle give this demeaning attitude on others. It is no different than religiouse arrogance some of you accuse others of displaying. A long time ago I was a practicing Jehovah's Witness and as learned more in life and in reading I saw many flaws in the way religious people think of faith I thought this was not for me. Now, I saw this discussion and I see the same type of condescending attitude as for the first time tried to discuss and learn more from both sides of the issues and now you come up with this florid paragraph adding more than what I asked. Did I ever said anything about religion? Definitely not. Then why bring it into the picture? Did I ever said anything about evolution? Not at all, why mentione it also. I simply was trying to talk about the origin of the universe, no more no less.
I asked something very simple, no more no less. Why not simply discuss with whatever knowledge is in front of us? No, it has to get more complicated. However, again, I do thank you for taking your time, take care.
You speak of scientific resoning and logic ... yet I'd love to see you prove to me, scientifically, that God does not exist.
All you do is tell stories and make biased claims that in your reasoning explain why the idea of a creator must be a "BIG FAIL" and that the vast majority of humanity is still making that mistake up until today.
I'd like to see some scientific or logical proof.
Believing in a God because you need to believe in a God doesn't mean God does not exist. It's a Logical fallacy.
^^^^^^^^^ neither do unicorns. Get back to me when you have some proof; till then the ball is in your court
Oh, Hi evofreak, where ya been?
WEEEEEEELL...the only reason the ball is in the "God Exists" court...is because "God Exists" IS the court!
But it's up to you to "outshoot" the "Champion".
I've said this many times before..."Burden of proof" would be on the "God Exists" claim...all else being equal--But, all things ARE NOT equal.
When you are the veeeeeeeeery slight majority...contesting the worldwide "standard"...that's a totally different story.
Belief has been the "norm" (8to9 out of 10) for THOOOOOOOUSANDS of years. It's the "incumbent position"...the "ruling viewpoint"...the "champion concept"! "God Exists" doesn't have to prove itself...it currently "holds office"! It's upon the weak challenger (Atheism) of nearly negligible merit/influence to prove itself. So far it's gotten steamrolled and flattened, in every "race". If it were seen as an "election"...Atheism would be viewed as being defeated in the biggest landslide EVER.
Until YOU PROVE otherwise..."God Exists" is THE concept---Is now, has been, and will always be---Especially when "science" proves "the Universal Field that establishes our existence"...then it'll be "a wrap".
WEEEEEEELL...the only reason the ball is in the "God Exists" court...is because "God Exists" IS the court!
But it's up to you to "outshoot" the "Champion".
I've said this many times before..."Burden of proof" would be on the "God Exists" claim...all else being equal--But, all things ARE NOT equal.
When you are the veeeeeeeeery slight majority...contesting the worldwide "standard"...that's a totally different story.
Belief has been the "norm" (8to9 out of 10) for THOOOOOOOUSANDS of years. It's the "incumbent position"...the "ruling viewpoint"...the "champion concept"! "God Exists" doesn't have to prove itself...it currently "holds office"! It's upon the weak challenger (Atheism) of nearly negligible merit/influence to prove itself. So far it's gotten steamrolled and flattened, in every "race". If it were seen as an "election"...Atheism would be viewed as being defeated in the biggest landslide EVER.
Until YOU PROVE otherwise..."God Exists" is THE concept---Is now, has been, and will always be---Especially when "science" proves "the Universal Field that establishes our existence"...then it'll be "a wrap".
Still stuck on the fallacy the that being in the majority makes you correct. No it only means you are in the majority, and the majority have bought into the greatest con job in the history of mankind.
Don't you have some women to degrade by producing more porn?
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.
I'll take you up on that argument, free from emotional responses.
