to Sport, the "out of your ass" i was referring to was you falsely putting words into my mouth, which really pisses me off, thats why i was mad.
to Sport, the "out of your ass" i was referring to was you falsely putting words into my mouth, which really pisses me off, thats why i was mad.
Better yet... here's some more Sagan for you guys.
well my answer would be... if you say there should be something that evolves beyond humans.... then i could say 'well why isn't there anything that evolved beyond creature X?' Then we can have an endless snowball effect of creatures evolving to be superior to anything else and next thing you know there's creatures than can run 300mph, fly, swim underwater, and shoot laser beams out of its eyes. And then the next step will involve running 320mph, gills and lungs, laser beams out of the eyes, fly, and can stop a train with it's tail.
Basically you are asking why isn't there a rapid snowballing effect of specie abilities/advantages?
Well we humans technically aren't the top of the animal kingdom. Technically I would say there is no top of the kingdom. As humans evolved, we lost our great physical strength and developed our brains. Put an unarmed human in the jungle and you would be a super easy kill to most of the predators there if they wanted to eat you. We are not more physically better than a bear, but we are smarter. In the ocean, we are not more physically evolved than a dolphin.
So its hard to say what exactly "surpass" means in your question. Humans fail in every category except for the brain I don't see it as a clear above/below scenario. They evolve how they need to evolve to survive, or they die.
An example, for thousands of years the squirrel populations of Europe and America have been just fine. In Europe they have the Red Squirrel and in America there is the Grey Squirrel. Red squirrels have been doing just fine for massive amounts of time, but a while back some grey squirrels crossed the Atlantic ocean onto England. Red squirrels have a much worse memory (to remember nut locations) than the grey squirrel. Once the grey squirrel was introduced into England, the red squirrel population drastically dropped, the grey squirrel is much better in life than the red squirrel. So things were just fine for thousands of years or so until the red squirrel could no longer survive the way it used to for thousands of years, it can no longer survive unless it evolves a better memory or if the human campaign to get rid of grey squirrels works.
So if its not broken, don't fix it. Animals who were brought up in our urbanism have learned to adapt to it, it works for them. But there is always little things need tweaking I would say, but those take thousands of years. And those tweaks eventually snowball into huge changes in some animals.
well my body is going into cryo-preservation, im going to live forever son and dont get it twisted.
bible makes it clear u go to hades/sheol
aka mankinds common grave aka the fricken dirt.
Dust you are and dust you will return.
Only if you beleive in holy books.Originally Posted by PSINXS
We're all going to return to the "fricken dirt" anyway.
So what's the point in having some organization tell you that your alleged immaterial existence will suffer eternal torture if you don't believe in their interpretive illusion?
In modern society, there is no longer a point to it.
Im gonna have to agree with Leo Tolstoy here when he said "life without faith is evil and senseless. what a few strong and consistent people do is understand the utter stupidity of the joke being played on them, and realizing the blessing of the dead are far greater then the living, and that the best thing of all is to not live, they act accordingly and instantly bring an end to this stupid joke."
ATL_DA_Squad #3
STREET<3LOVE
im going to have to agree with these quotes:
-"Human beings will find a balanced situation when they do good things not because God says it, but because they feel like doing them."
Olof Palme
-"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
Albert Einstein
"It[religion] is the opium of the people."
Karl Marx
i prefer the word "placebo" instead of opium.
I see faith as unnecessary. I bet most of the people here practice their specific religion simply because their parents did, and their parents before that. If you were raised in Saudi Arabia you would believe Mohammad was the last prophet and the black stone came from heaven. If you were raised in India, you would be a Sikh, Jain, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, something.
Its not like you when you were a little kid your parents placed different pieces of paper representing different religions and the paper had a summary of each religion and your parents let you choose which you think is the one that suites your beliefs.
At a different time in history you would be a different religion, at the time would you know that its the correct one? No. Even some guy named Ron Hubbard started his own religion that now has a following.
It just seems like people need to realize that religion doesn't matter. You would be the same exact person with or without religion. People don't need to live with "faith". It's arbitrary. People need to 'free their mind'.
you have no explanation of why you think faith is unnecessary all you said was people believe what they believe because of how they were raised or where they were raised. Which is extremely false. i have multiple friends who were sons or daughters of ministers and today are atheist and friends who were raised by atheist parents and now believe in some kind of higher being. i also have a friend from jordan raised to be muslim who believes in the teachings of the bible.
ATL_DA_Squad #3
STREET<3LOVE
if you reviewed each religion and decided "yes, i do believe that jesus was the son of a god and died to 'save' us" then good for you, you took in all the information and decided. or you could be a son of a minister, went on the internet and looked at different religions or even thought about if you want to be religious in the first place. And decided "well I like the teachings of the Buddha, i believe one can attain Nirvana, I believe in dhrama, karma, the Samsara cycle... I think I'll be Buddhist." Even after being raised for 18 or so years by hardcore christian or something.
Then they have thought about it, they used their brain, I respect that.
But there are so so many mindless drones who have not thought out their beliefs, they practice their religion, not because they actually took the time to ask "do i believe this", but simply because its all they know.
But I did say an explanation as to why faith is unnecessary. It absolutely does nothing. Its like you can say faith is the act of jumping on 1 foot and rotating in 3 circles at exactly 11:32am each day. What does it do? What would happen if I didnt jump on 1 foot and rotate in 3 circles at exactly 11:32am?
Can you give an explanation as to why faith is necessary? Must we have to have it? What life fulfilling aspect can you only get from 'faith' that you can't get anywhere else?
i also have a lot of respect for anyone who goes out and researches and studies different philosophies on why and how we came about to be here. and that is what i did when i was in high school. i was raised in church and it was all i knew. when i hit a certain age i decided i had no reason to believe in what i believed in. so i went out and researched everything i could. and i eventually came back to christianity because for me it was the only thing that made sense.
for me when i didn't believe in anything i didn't find any reason or point to life without faith in something. if you have no faith in anything and ask yourself what is the meaning of life? what kind of answer can you can up with? i couldn't figure out any. there is no reason to live. if nothing that we did here in this life meant or counted for anything what would be the point in trying to do good or help people or anything if we had no repercussions to what we did in this life? science gave me no answers to the meaning of life, it has no explanation of it.
ATL_DA_Squad #3
STREET<3LOVE
To me, the meaning of life is to survive and make sure your people survive.... to me that is the basic pillar of life...if you have no faith in anything and ask yourself what is the meaning of life? what kind of answer can you can up with?
Every single creature tries to follow that pillar.
If there was no life, there would be no need to do those things. Unlike Christianity, I do not believe that life is a god's reality TV show. Mars, Venus, trillions of planets get along just dandy without life. We do not need to be here to make Earth exist. We are somehow here, so better make sure it stays that way.
And to me, helping and being kind is part of that important pillar, to ensure that your species continues in an equal or better way than you are now. I like to think about how I would feel if I was in another person's position, because like me, they are also trying to get by. So the point of doing good and helping people is to be a postive aspect of the community. To be selfless in the face of betterment for mankind. They need to survive just as you try to. I know I am 1/6.5+ billion people and 1/alot of total creatures, and we all have to share this planet. You, your people, and your species exist... so dont fuck it up.
There is no meaning to life, the universe is uneffected by Earth's precense. We are nothing compared to anything. Our domain is 200 miles above the surface to a little bit below the surface. That is nothing, the whole solar system is not even the size of half a pixel at any real distance. So do what you can with your 1/50000th of a pixel.
You live to live, you survive to ensure living. You help other people survive, you help the species survive. You help anything to deserves to live. Help those who cannot help themselves. That is not a meaning, but a drive to make the community a better place.
If someone help's a person or animal... I hope they are doing it for the sake of that person, not for god-points or god fear or something.
Last edited by zimabog; 04-03-2009 at 05:47 PM.
i respect that. i personally could find no purpose to live like that. it just isn't enough for me. nothing against you though i respect everyones beliefs.
how do you think it all and we all got here?
ATL_DA_Squad #3
STREET<3LOVE
This post is what actually scares me about religion. The fact that you have to suck God's dick for all eternity just to have a purpose in life is retarded! Check this out and lemme know if it makes sense:
Truth: It ALWAYS leads to another question which leads to another truth, and so on. Truth is infinite.
Falseness/lies: Does not lead anywhere but a dead end.
Religious people always choose the second option.
Something I've also come up with is that people with an IQ over 100 automatically equals protection from organized religion.
no purpose to survive? its life's meaning to me. how i live my life, i can go beyond 'just surviving'. I have 1 life, so I try to live it to the fullest as I can. Do good things and be humble about those things.i personally could find no purpose to live like that.
it? whats it?how do you think it all and we all got here?
Last edited by zimabog; 04-04-2009 at 10:11 AM.
I have no idea what's going on in this thread so I'll just post up some interesting shit and by shit I mean some evidence against God. Not REAL evidence of course but something to think about.
It's a silly notion to think one can expect a logical proof of God's non-existence(although the hoary paradox of whether or not God can build a rock so big he can't move it does come close). Still, it is not necessary for the atheist to do this; for reasonable people, enough evidence to be persuasive should be adequate to enable them to reject most concepts of God, given the dearth of persuasive evidence on the other side.
Here are some lines of evidence:
1. The existence of non-believers. In a God created world, would non-belief even be possible?
2. The persistent and unrelieved suffering among all living things. One does not have to accept the existence of "evil" (nor try to explain it). Just the existence of suffering is enough.
3. The simple fact that all beings die. How could something eternal and perfect create mortal beings?
4. The ultimate randomness of all existence when viewed from the quantum level and the fact that the appearance of causality now seems to be no more than an illusion brought on by the law of large numbers (statistics).
Now obviously theists have answers to these points, but are the answers sufficient? Can we believe in something that has such basic problems with only mythical rationalizations to explain them away?
Last edited by Maniacurabus06; 04-04-2009 at 10:47 PM. Reason: nicca i don't need a fucking reason... im me you fuck
Understandably, you just posted to things to simply think about and wanted to reply with my thoughts. So, no means trying to argue, just simply putting my perspective on the questions.
Absolutely. Conscientiousness will always breed free will or choice. If we did not have choice, we would not be conscience of our being... essentially robots.
Not all suffering should be construed as being evil. Suffering can be also be constructive. In reference to the Bible, no where does it say if you believe God or Jesus, you will not suffer. (Although our culture and society has portrayed or trademarked it as such... such a thing is definitely false.)
Same as 1. Choice.
Same as 1. Choice.
The Finite will NEVER fully comprehend what is Infinite. (Not just talking about God, but also such things like gravity, space (outter space), and the means of our own existence.) We can come up with theories or conjectures all we want... it doesn't change the universal truth of: No one really knows.
Arguement could be: if that is the case why believe in a religion, diety, or higher being? The opposite is potentially: Why not?
Boils back down number 1. Choice.
Free will, ehh...
That just excuses God from all actions, and even excuses him from appearing to exist! His complete inaction in anything but the magical here-after is supposed to demonstrate love, while all it really demonstrates is a rationale for the obvious appearance that God is absent.
The problem is paradoxical anyway, since a truly free world and a truly omniscient God are mutually exclusive.
i think truth can lead to not another question, but just to plain, unaltered fact. which can have a meaning that you can think about.Truth: It ALWAYS leads to another question which leads to another truth, and so on. Truth is infinite.
Falseness/lies: Does not lead anywhere but a dead end.
anyway, i think if there was some sort of intelligent omnipresent god with human like emotions, it would want to be humble, hidden... and not egotistic/narcissistic and wanting to be worshiped like the Abrahamic god.
like Islam has the meaning of "submission"... really? really? you think a god made you just so you can get on your knees 5 times a day and say its name? you might think Christianity or Judaism isnt like that.. well it is. its all about the egotistic/narcissistic man in the sky.
You would think something with such godlike powers would behave so... ungodly.
if there was an abrahamic type god, it would be most likely powerful enough to not have those selfish human emotions.
double post
dont care.
i'll be dead.
To try to separate belief, faith, and science is funny to me.
Actually, it doesn't come down to choice. It comes down to revelation. The decisions we make are not decisions based on what we think is better. They are decisions based off of what has been revealed to us as the choice to take or the way to interpret something. So no matter what options are presented to you, because of factors predetermined, you will always go ONE specific way in any given situation which means that the idea of choice is an illusion to replace the concept of revelation when in actuality it is subject to it. This is one of the things that theists and non-theists will argue because the non-atheist would have to admit that revelation comes from somewhere or is granted or has some foundation in an eternal existence, which proves that there is more than us and our will.
revelation is the application of all the things we see and know and how we have come to understand them and it is fundamentally drawn from belief. It is the mental, internal system by which we make choices. If I only look at the data i could NEVER decide to do things one way or the other, I can only decide after I have weighed in what has been revealed to me as truth. I will only decide ONE way inevitably because only ONE way will meet the foundations of what has been revealed to me. Scientists respond to data because of what has been revealed to them.
Example: In science, what has been revealed is that when you throw something up it will come down. This revelation will assist in dictating what you will do when you have option to jump off the bridge or stay put. Even if you are bungee or skydiving you will still feel that thing that says "if you jump, you WILL fall." science did not tell us this. This entire thing existed long before the scientific method. And it is existing in all life I can think of.
My point is revelation existed before science because revelation is eternal and comes along with the territory for those who believe in an eternal, omnipotent God. Revelation is the foundation of science, logic, rational thinking and discernment and trying to have any of these things while ignoring revelation is foolish, which is why evolution is foolish. It tries to deny these thing their foundations, while granting it a power above the thing that gives it existence. Without an eternal, without an absolute, there is NO science, there is no law.
Think of something current. UFO's.(funny example) two people can look at the same photo or watch the same video or spectacle in the sky, whatever it is and come to different conclusions. This is because the foundation of ALL knowledge really lies in belief. What do you believe is happening when you see this going on. The scientist tries to act as if belief has nothing to do with it, but it does. Belief in the form of speculation is what drive scientist to ask questions in the first place...because they believe something is happening and they believe it can be explained. In the situation of UFO's there are numerous scientist who will say that there is no such thing unless it can be tested and proven. Therefore without the ability to reproduce those experiences then the events remain irrelevant to some in discussion of the phenomenon.
I have heard people argue that science is the reason that things are proven. Well the problem is that things were proven before science. Even in science itself there are laws. The rule for laws is that is has to be repeatable, it has to be something that can be demonstrated over and over again with the same results, but IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE EXPLAINABLE. This definition is a mirror of the definition of something that is absolute. so even the scientist who denies absolution, denies their own method of thinking and ignores the truth, that absolution precedes revelation which precedes belief, which precedes science, and they are all connected to an eternal source and choice is subject to them. ***also keep in mind that there are scientific LAWS that have been dis-proven and are still called LAWS (for those who think a human origin evolution is a proven LAW, it is NOT, which is another reason it is widely rejected by many non-religious scientists who look at the research)***
you could argue that people know things because they were taught. well when did the passing on of this knowledge start? The non-theist would say it started with science, but science started with belief, that came from revelation. so now we again are back to the beginning, and we land on something eternal.
All things when broken down come back to an absolute. All absolutes can only be defined by something that is never changing and forever existing, or eternal.
Last edited by sport_122; 04-28-2009 at 01:57 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
