gametechmods
Off-Topic => Chatterbox => Topic started by: Sage on May 03, 2009, 12:34:08 PM
-
What's the meaning of life? Post thoughts here.
-
Man, THIS is going to be a battleground.
-
Got the Fire Truck ready.
-
to have flame wars in posts(not really) and to make awesome ra2 bots!
-
42
-
*Puts flame barrier up around self* If you want me to be deadly honest, I think we're here to further the survival of our species.
-
42
Damn, you beat me to it
-
What the hell? One person predicts a flame war so everyone thinks 'Haha I'm so funny, I'm gunna post something to look like I predicted the flame war and be funny at the same time haha!'
-
No I'm not trying to be funny, I just think this is gonna turn into an argument.
-
No I'm not trying to be funny, I just think this is gonna turn into an argument.
Arguments ≠ Flamewars
-
Shut up, bitch. =P
I agree with Craaig, as that is the basic purpose of all lifeforms. (Viruses, Bacteria...)
-
Reier, you let that one out too quickly...
EDIT:^^ S32 agrees however.
-
we be here 4 the reason of God put us here. dont even think about it, Jeffery.
-
Good point Hydro. Right now, I'm writing a book.
-
yay! me has an ooh nice deathspike!!!
-
we be here 4 the reason of God put us here. dont even think about it, Jeffery.
You have absolutely no evidence to support that.
There is, however, overwhelming evidence to support what Craaig said.
-
You have absolutely no evidence to support that.
here's your proof:
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/36911bible.bmp)
so ha.
-
Sorry Hydro, I don't want to start a grudge or become involved in a flame war, but the Bible contradicts itself in several areas. God is all-loving but gay people go to hell? And should you or shouldn't you have sex?
Just my personal opinion, nothing against you personally Hydro. And I'm not siding with Jeffery, I'm not siding with anyone at the moment.
-
understood. it was technicly written in an age when most people were understanding things differently.
-
True. It was also written by many different people as far as I understand. I'm glad we're ok with each other on that one. I really don't like grudges...
Any way, just to get back on topic, I agree with Craaig and S32.
-
Who cares?
-
well, we all have opinions.
brb...
-
For simplicity: Religion is a way for people live their lives. A guideline on how to live and some have different beliefs. If people didnt have somethign to beleive in or have respect for, no one would have something to look forward too. All im saying... is cavemen are our anscestors.
-
here's your proof:
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/36911bible.bmp)
so ha.
What evidence do you have to prove that the Bible is true and the Qur'an is false?
I have nothing against people being religious. Some of my very good friends are devout Christians. What I have a problem with is when people assert their religion as an explanation for things that are better explained by science.
-
Shut up, bitch. =P
I agree with Craaig, as that is the basic purpose of all lifeforms. (Viruses, Bacteria...)
I do belive that the validity of viruses being alive is a heated debate. Anyway though, I don't think there is any one true meaning of life.
-
this might come in handy:
(https://gametechmods.com/uploads/images/7581flalewarender.bmp)
fire extinguisher on steriods
-
That is true. There is still much debate amongst biologists whether or not viruses are living. I'm not sure where I stand on that issue. Viruses exhibit some characteristics of life, but they cannot reproduce on their own. It's really interesting (for those of us biology nerds).
-
i got your pm, so i ate the banana.
-
Well if viruses arn't living, then what are they?
-
programs that reproduce and spread rendering a computer useless.
-
Well if viruses arn't living, then what are they?
That's sort of the issue. They're definitely not abiotic, but they don't meet all of the qualifications of being biotic.
-
I believe that we are here to love and to live out and do our best to obey the will of God. Thats what I believe though. Viruses may or may not be alive. They are basically nothing more than a strand of genetic info inside of a protien capsule. They cannot reproduce on their own, as they require a host cell to do so. Fire seems to fit the def of life better. It breathes, moves, produces its own heat, requires fuel (food), grows, makes more of itself (reproduction), and can be extinguished (killed). The only thing it lacks is a cellular metabolism. A sterile mule (all mules are sterile) cant reproduce. Does this mean they are not a lifeform? Doubtful. The def of life seems to be flawed.
-
I believe that we are here to love and to live out and do our best to obey the will of God. Thats what I believe though. Viruses may or may not be alive. They are basically nothing more than a strand of genetic info inside of a protien capsule. They cannot reproduce on their own, as they require a host cell to do so. Fire seems to fit the def of life better. It breathes, moves, produces its own heat, requires fuel (food), grows, makes more of itself (reproduction), and can be extinguished (killed). The only thing it lacks is a cellular metabolism. A sterile mule (all mules are sterile) cant reproduce. Does this mean they are not a lifeform? Doubtful. The def of life seems to be flawed.
Fire also doesn't have DNA, which viruses do have.
-
Fire is just energy in the form of heat and light. Having said that, I'm impressed with the metaphorical links between that and life.
-
Fire also doesn't have DNA, which viruses do have.
And you misinterpret what I was going for. I was only trying to get across some of the discrepancies in the generally accepted def. of life.
-
EDIT: In response to what Jeffery said.
I have to say, so am I.
Imagine if fire was living though. Humans would surely be their gods, they seem to create so much of it.
-
here we go again...
-
... Do we? What?
-
flame wars suck.
-
Ha ok, let me just say that of course I dont think fire is alive. I just think that perhaps we as a race should attempt to refine our def of life, so non organic and inanimate structures dont bear as many, or even close to as many traits relating to life as certain things that do possess it. Such as a sterile mule for example. Just a thought.
-
EDIT: In responce to Hydro. I think he was talking to me, but I might be wrong...
Ooh. Yes, they do but I wasn't referencing that. I was on about wars and terror and all that stuff. Going off topic a bit I guess.
-
oy vey.
-
flame wars suck.
This is not a flame war. Flame wars consist of nothing but insults. No insults are currently being thrown.
As for sterile mules, they are still biotic. The reproduction "rule" is for the species, not for the particular organisms.
-
once again, oy vey.
-
The biological definintion of life is very complex. Fire is simply not alive.... though sterile mules are. Bacteria are clearly alive, and viruses, in my view, are not alive.
-
all viruses or computer viruses?
-
I completly agree. As I said, "I just think that perhaps we as a race should attempt to refine our def of life, so non organic and inanimate structures dont bear as many, or even close to as many traits relating to life as certain things that do possess it." I was demonstrating that certain non living things acatually come close to bearing as many traits of apparent life as certain living things.
-
Oh and by the way, here are the generally accepted characteristics of life---- cells, organization, energy use, homeostasis, growth, and reproduction.
-
my brain just melted some...
-
my brain just melted some...
Have you not learned much about biology yet? Question #2-- Are you from a state where theology is taught in science classes instead of biology?
These are serious questions, and I'm not intending on making fun of you (though I admit that the second question is a bit slanted).
-
no, and no. i'm a freshman. havent taken biology yet.
-
no, and no. i'm a freshman. havent taken biology yet.
Alright then, that's understandable. When I was a high school freshman, I didn't know much about biology either. By the time I was a college freshman, I knew quite a lot (which made my biology class very easy).
-
ah. now it's all coming together.
-
No one's really discussed the "meaning" of life. WHY are we here? What PURPOSE do we serve? Are we the only ones?
-
good point.
-
No one's really discussed the "meaning" of life. WHY are we here? What PURPOSE do we serve? Are we the only ones?
Why are we here? We're here as a result of millions of years of evolution. Evolution occurs because of an inherent need to survive and spread. Our sole purpose, as a species, is to procreate. The same can be said about any living thing.
-
i dont agree...
-
i dont agree...
You've admitted to not knowing anything about biology, so how can you disagree? The only rational thing you can say is that you don't know enough about the topic to agree or disagree.
-
i dont believe in "evolution".
-
i dont believe in "evolution".
You don't know enough about biology to rationally oppose the theory of evolution. Just as I don't know enough about physics to rationally oppose the theory of gravity.
-
oh, shush.
-
oh, shush.
Living an irrational and ignorant life is no good, and it hurts the species.
EDIT: By the way, even the Catholic church recognizes that evolution is a scientific fact.
-
yes... arguing with Inf IS irrational...
-
You know Jeffery, you debate really well. :)
I believe evolution is pretty much a fact. We really can't successfuly deny that evolution takes place, as we have see livings things mutate and change to better suit their environment. An obvious example is bacteria, which evolve to become resistant to antibiotics. And we can see that over billions of years from fossil reocrds, life a has changed over time.
-
that's called adapting. the special forces do it all the time.
and i dont like catholics.
-
I don't see how adapting is that much different from micro-evolution.
-
i like the name better :-D
-
I see.
-
yes...
-
You know Jeffery, you debate really well. :)
And I only did a year of college debate (and got $600 in scholarships to do it).
-
I did a year of high school debate! We should debate sometime Jeffery!
-
yeah. that would be interesting... :-D
-
I did a year of high school debate! We should debate sometime Jeffery!
I once made somebody defend NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association).
-
Wow... for a while there, was there actually an intellectual discussion going on at GTM's?
-
Viruses do not technically have the signs of a lifeform by themselves (eating, reproducing, etc), but indirectly (they use living things, eg cells to multiply). So i really don't know about this.
-
Well it depends on how specific your definition of life goes.
In my opinion, something has life if it exists with cells and can metabolize. So in that case, viruses are in the category of what I believe is 'non-cellular life.'
-
I on the other hand happen to know a good deal about biology, and if anyone would like to debate "pro evolution" I'd be glad to help out. All of my arguments have scientific basis. night.
-
Viruses do not technically have the signs of a lifeform by themselves (eating, reproducing, etc), but indirectly (they use living things, eg cells to multiply). So i really don't know about this.
Don't parasitic wasps do the same?
-
Wow. Now this was interesting to read on a dull May-Day morning.
-
quit spamming :-D
-
Shut up.
hydro, Even if god "existed", Creating the 6 billion different species is quite a feat, and if I was a god, I'd choose evolution to do my dirty work.
Food for tought: If we were created in god's image, why aren't we all omnipotent, omniscient invisible beings?
-
i cant directly answer that. why dont you ask him?
42
i need to watch that movie :-D
-
I take pills to keep him and the bad man away.
-
then you're S.O.L.A.N.O.
-
i need to watch that movie :-D
You need to read that book =]
-
hitch hiker's guide to the galaxy?
-
Ye, the book is best. And you should read "The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide".
-
hmm? never heard of it.
-
Here (http://www.just****inggoogleit.com)
-
lol. my brother told me about that site :-D
-
Wow.... I totally noobish question:
How do you give a link, then make some other word represent it while posting, like Oggie just did?
-
Text [ / url ] (http://http//:link )
-
Lemme try,
Like this? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python%27s_The_Meaning_of_Life)
-
You can also write the text, mark it, and hit the "Insert Link" button.
-
I'm assuming you actually clicked on my link Oggie. Just thought it would be slightly relevant. Might get us back on topic too.
-
I didn't click it, but I had a look at what you linked to and smiled :)
Back on topic: I'm not sure there are any meaning as to why we live, but I belive the reason we keep on reproducing is that we enjoy doing it.
-
Don't parasitic wasps do the same?
Parasitic wasps do eat.
-
Evolution can't technically be a scientific fact because it isn't observable, testable or repeatable. Or am I wrong?
Some could say bacteria becoming more resistant to antibiotics is proof, but actual proof of evolution would require proving that one species actually became another species, which unfortunately takes to long to really observe.
As for our purpose as a species, survival is definitely on the list, but I believe there is more than that.
And Hydro, please stop posting about stuff if you have no idea what you're talking about.
-
Don't parasitic wasps do the same?
They don't technically need other creatures to procreate. They just zombify other creatures to enhance their ability to procreate.
Evolution can't technically be a scientific fact because it isn't observable, testable or repeatable. Or am I wrong?
Some could say bacteria becoming more resistant to antibiotics is proof, but actual proof of evolution would require proving that one species actually became another species, which unfortunately takes to long to really observe.
As for our purpose as a species, survival is definitely on the list, but I believe there is more than that.
Evolution is just as observable and testable as gravity. Like gravity, it allows for accurate predictions to be made.
-
The notion that evolution is simply one animal coming from another is completly wrong. That is an aspect of evolution yes, but the entire theory itself is more encompassing and broad than that.
EDIT: Yes, it works (http://gametechmods.com)
-
The notion that evolution is simply one animal coming from another is completly wrong. That is an aspect of evolution yes, but the entire theory itself is more encompassing and broad than that.
EDIT: Yes, it works (http://gametechmods.com)
I blame Pokémon for that ultra-simplistic view of evolution.
-
I blame Pokémon for that ultra-simplistic view of evolution.
So very true! :mrgreen:
-
Fastest Thread to reach 100 posts (as far as i know)
-
0.o wow...
-
Well here's my 2 cents.
1st cent: Regarding Creation vs. Evolution. First off, contrary to popular belief, creation and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. God may have created the first life forms, true, but it makes sense that they would have changed somewhat since the beginning of time. Evolution, in other words. Especially when you factor in the Fall. People often ask, "If God created life, then why does it suck so much?" although usually in more words than that. Well originally, it didn't suck. But as soon as Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, evil entered the world, and you got stuff like disease and aggression and all that nastiness.
However, what I want to say here is that it doesn't matter how life on Earth came about, or to what degree evolution played a part. All that matters is that God did it. How, why, when, we can never know any of those things for sure and I really don't think God cares whether we believe he created the universe in six literal days or whether it was over billions of years, as science suggests. Just that God is behind it all, however it happened.
2nd cent: Regarding the meaning of life. Even Christians will give you widely varying answers to this, and frankly I'm not 100% sure of it myself. I think it's safe to say that our purpose on Earth is "To Do God's Will", although that is an oversimplification and gets into the issue of what is God's will, which is a totally different gnarly religious issue.
While I can't say with any clarity what exactly "the meaning of life" is (unless you count 42), I can say that it's NOT just to procreate. Even the lowliest of animals have a greater purpose than that. Down to the smallest bacterium, it will at least provide a food source for some other organism higher up the food chain, some more advanced lifeform that could not survive on its own. Smaller organisms keep on providing sources of nourishment for larger ones on up the food chain until you get to the top, where humans are. We are entirely dependent on bugs and germs for our continued existence.
The purpose of the lowliest organisms, therefore, could be said to be "to procreate and to support higher forms of life." However, even that is an incomplete definition. Many more advanced forms of life exist for less scientific reasons. What is the purpose of a domestic dog or a cat? Perhaps originally they were kept nearby to control pest populations, but today their main purpose is to bring happiness to their owners. Survival of the fittest alone cannot explain the existence of many domesticated breeds of cats and especially dogs. Pets are something we humans have artificially--I hesitate to use the word "created"--guided the evolution of, recently for the sole purpose of companionship and/or beauty. Sometimes, we even preclude the most basic purpose of life--procreation--by sterilizing our pets, in order to focus on those last qualities, and we always prevent them from becoming food (unless you're either a sadist or starving). Therefore, the purpose of pets could be said simply to be, "to bring happiness, companionship, and/or beauty into the world."
Now if mere cats and dogs have such a noble purpose as that, don't you think humans should have a purpose at least as noble? I'm not going to try and get into exactly what that nobler purpose might be, but I will say that to assert "the purpose of life is to procreate" is to reduce humanity lower than the most basic, animalistic level of existence. We have something no other life form has--intelligence and self-awareness--and with it comes the power to change the world for better or for worse. I don't want to sound cliched, but... with great power comes great responsibility. We have a responsibility to care for the world and protect its life for the sake of future generations. To simply Exist and Procreate is to ignore that responsibility, with the inevitable result that the world will be less able to support life. It's happened many times before on a small scale, every time a pest organism invades new territory and drives local species to extinction. Only with humans (which, if you change the definition of a pest to be "harmful to Earth's welfare" instead of "harmful to human welfare", fit every aspect of it) the scale is the whole world and the local species are worldwide.
Not to mention that the idea of our sole purpose being procreation and the perpetuation of microscopic strands of peptides is just plain depressing. What about people who never reproduce? Einstein never had any kids. Neither did Jesus, for that matter. Did they have no purpose then? Just inconsequential blips in the course of history that may as well have never existed for all the difference it makes? In that case, nothing we do matters. "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die," in the words of the Bible.
And eventually, if a meteor doesn't strike the Earth first, or we don't ruin the environment to the point where life is impossible, the sun is going to burn out and go dark, and nothing will be able to live anymore. All our efforts to preserve the species will be for naught. In the end, entropy always wins. There is a limited amount of energy in the universe and it grows less every day. Even if we eventually settle other planets and continue the human genetic line there, we can't escape that basic, cosmic truth. A billion, or a trillion, or a googleplex years from now, it doesn't matter, the universe will run down and there will be no meaning or purpose to anything anymore. In fact, with that in perspective, there is no meaning or purpose to anything now either, if you believe we are only here to procreate.
That's why I don't understand people who believe that about the meaning of life. If you ask me, I couldn't live without the idea of some higher purpose, some hope of beating entropy. The alternative is just too bleak.
...Whew. That turned out more like two dollars than two cents. If you actually read that whole post, congratulations, you get a virtual cookie or something. I'm going to sleep now...
-
I've been waiting to discuss religion with you since I read your website. Here it goes.
1st cent: Regarding Creation vs. Evolution. First off, contrary to popular belief, creation and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. God may have created the first life forms, true, but it makes sense that they would have changed somewhat since the beginning of time. Evolution, in other words. Especially when you factor in the Fall.
I think most Catholics and other rational theists would agree with you on that.
People often ask, "If God created life, then why does it suck so much?" although usually in more words than that. Well originally, it didn't suck. But as soon as Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, evil entered the world, and you got stuff like disease and aggression and all that nastiness.
I think that is a rather pessimistic look at life on Earth. In no way does life "suck". Life is amazing (in the true sense of the word)! Sure, there are a lot of horrible things that occur (genocide comes to mind), but to say that life sucks doesn't sit right with me.
The story of the forbidden apple (or pomegranate, depending on who you ask) doesn't sit well with me, either. What kind of tyrannical dictator would set up such a trap? God created Adam and Eve with the "flaw" of curiosity. He then tells them that they can eat from any tree, except that one. Of course with the inherent flaw of curiosity, the built in desire to learn, they'd go for the apple (and since God is all knowing, he knew they would before he even made such "flawed" beings). Then, like a true fascist, God punishes them and all of their descendants by making them feel pain, shame, and marked them with original sin. If what God did wasn't evil, what is?
However, what I want to say here is that it doesn't matter how life on Earth came about, or to what degree evolution played a part. All that matters is that God did it. How, why, when, we can never know any of those things for sure and I really don't think God cares whether we believe he created the universe in six literal days or whether it was over billions of years, as science suggests. Just that God is behind it all, however it happened.
What makes you believe it was the Christian God that created all? Why do you subscribe to this supernatural being, and not Zeus, Thor, Mithra, Horus, Krishna or any of the other gods?
2nd cent: Regarding the meaning of life. Even Christians will give you widely varying answers to this, and frankly I'm not 100% sure of it myself. I think it's safe to say that our purpose on Earth is "To Do God's Will", although that is an oversimplification and gets into the issue of what is God's will, which is a totally different gnarly religious issue.
"Doing God's Will" can be a pretty dangerous statement. So much evil has been done for that cause. On the Muslim side of the fence, there was the Armenian Genocide, the genocide going on in Sudan, the September 11th hijackings, and a whole lot of violence in between. On the Christian side of the fence, there was the holocaust (Hitler was raised a Roman Catholic, and used Christianity to rally people together), the genocide in Rwanda, the genocide in Bosnia, and a whole lot of violence in between.
All of these atrocities were backed by passages out of their respective holy books. While the more sane members of the religion tend to dwell more on the cheery and uplifting passages, it cannot be denied that the justification is there.
While I can't say with any clarity what exactly "the meaning of life" is (unless you count 42), I can say that it's NOT just to procreate. Even the lowliest of animals have a greater purpose than that. Down to the smallest bacterium, it will at least provide a food source for some other organism higher up the food chain, some more advanced lifeform that could not survive on its own. Smaller organisms keep on providing sources of nourishment for larger ones on up the food chain until you get to the top, where humans are. We are entirely dependent on bugs and germs for our continued existence.
While organisms do serve as nutrition for other organisms, that doesn't mean that we serve a purpose other than spreading our DNA far and wide. In fact, many organisms are intentionally eaten so that they can better spread.
The purpose of the lowliest organisms, therefore, could be said to be "to procreate and to support higher forms of life." However, even that is an incomplete definition.
Supporting higher forms of life really isn't the purpose, though. If I was eaten by a bear, my purpose on Earth wasn't to become brunch for a bear. My purpose was still to spread my DNA (which means I would have failed as I have no children. That's beside the point, though). The bear evolved in such a way to take advantage of my slow running speed and small physical stature to eat me, and thus increase its chances of having [more] babies.
Many more advanced forms of life exist for less scientific reasons. What is the purpose of a domestic dog or a cat? Perhaps originally they were kept nearby to control pest populations, but today their main purpose is to bring happiness to their owners. Survival of the fittest alone cannot explain the existence of many domesticated breeds of cats and especially dogs. Pets are something we humans have artificially--I hesitate to use the word "created"--guided the evolution of, recently for the sole purpose of companionship and/or beauty. Sometimes, we even preclude the most basic purpose of life--procreation--by sterilizing our pets, in order to focus on those last qualities, and we always prevent them from becoming food (unless you're either a sadist or starving). Therefore, the purpose of pets could be said simply to be, "to bring happiness, companionship, and/or beauty into the world."
Survival of the Fittest explains domesticated pets perfectly. We used cats for ridding our homes of pests. Cats used us to get a warm home and guaranteed meal. We were mutually helping each other to survive. While things have changed a bit, the premise is about the same. Cats relieve stress, which helps us avoid heart and other health problems. We still provide them with a warm home and meals. Thus, mutual survival.
We used dogs to help us hunt, navigate, and to give us company. Dogs used us for protection, guaranteed meals, and a warm home. Mutual survival, again. Now, it's about the same.
Now if mere cats and dogs have such a noble purpose as that, don't you think humans should have a purpose at least as noble?
No, because I don't believe they have those purposes. I think you're treating pets as if they are material things that are here for the purpose of entertaining us. While it's fun to pretend that cats sit on our laps because they love us, the truth is that they are just wanting some warmth, and our laps happen to be a very good, and comfortable, source of that.
I'm not going to try and get into exactly what that nobler purpose might be, but I will say that to assert "the purpose of life is to procreate" is to reduce humanity lower than the most basic, animalistic level of existence.
We are simply animals, so our existence is the same as any other animals. Just because our nervous systems are more complex, that doesn't mean that our biological instincts are any different from the days of Lucy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)) and before.
We have something no other life form has--intelligence and self-awareness--and with it comes the power to change the world for better or for worse.
Dolphins, great apes, bears, octopods, and many other animals are also highly intelligent. While they may not be as smart as us, they are certainly intelligent. And any species (including species outside of the animal kingdom) can change the world for better or worse. It'll take longer, but you mentioned nothing about time being a factor.
I don't want to sound cliched, but... with great power comes great responsibility. We have a responsibility to care for the world and protect its life for the sake of future generations.
Why? I agree that we should intentionally try to kill off any species, and that we should keep our pollution to a minimal, but that doesn't mean that we have to prevent species from going extinct. If a species can no longer cut it, it's their time to join the 90% of creatures that ever existed.
To simply Exist and Procreate is to ignore that responsibility, with the inevitable result that the world will be less able to support life.
Earth supported life just fine before us.
It's happened many times before on a small scale, every time a pest organism invades new territory and drives local species to extinction. Only with humans (which, if you change the definition of a pest to be "harmful to Earth's welfare" instead of "harmful to human welfare", fit every aspect of it) the scale is the whole world and the local species are worldwide.
The Earth has always had the metaphorical bumper sticker that says, "Adapt or GTFO!" If they aren't surviving, perhaps it's because they're not the fittest. If we can't adapt to life without them, perhaps we're not so great after all.
Not to mention that the idea of our sole purpose being procreation and the perpetuation of microscopic strands of peptides is just plain depressing.
Why would that be depressing? Why must you serve a tyrannical space dictator by worshipping and preventing weaker species from going the way of the dodo?
What about people who never reproduce? Einstein never had any kids. Neither did Jesus, for that matter. Did they have no purpose then?
Whether or not Jesus actually existed is debatable, but due to the needlessly complicated (and utterly false) story moving him from Nazareth to Bethlehem, I'll concede that the Jesus in the Bible is at least partially based on the life of a man of that time. Anyways, biologically speaking, their purpose was to spread their seed. Just because Einstein was a whiz at physics, that doesn't mean his biological urge to have lots and lots of sex went away (though shackin' up with his cousin probably helped).
Just inconsequential blips in the course of history that may as well have never existed for all the difference it makes? In that case, nothing we do matters. "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die," in the words of the Bible.
Why must one fulfill his/her biological purpose in order to be significant? Besides, Einstein did quite a bit to further our species by expanding our knowledge in physics. We've been able to survive because of our expansive knowledge, and expanding it further will only help us survive better. Besides, his work in relativity may someday save our sausages.
And eventually, if a meteor doesn't strike the Earth first, or we don't ruin the environment to the point where life is impossible, the sun is going to burn out and go dark, and nothing will be able to live anymore.
You forgot something! Our sun might also swell up into a nice red giant. Or we could get swallowed by that red giant that's heading this way.
All our efforts to preserve the species will be for naught. In the end, entropy always wins. There is a limited amount of energy in the universe and it grows less every day.
We have always had the same amount of energy. Energy, like matter, cannot be created or destroyed.
Even if we eventually settle other planets and continue the human genetic line there, we can't escape that basic, cosmic truth. A billion, or a trillion, or a googleplex years from now, it doesn't matter, the universe will run down and there will be no meaning or purpose to anything anymore. In fact, with that in perspective, there is no meaning or purpose to anything now either, if you believe we are only here to procreate.
If we are here to serve a fascist and to prevent dud species from dying out, how will that matter once "the universe runs down"? And what do you mean by that? Do you mean once the universe is no longer inhabitable by us?
That's why I don't understand people who believe that about the meaning of life. If you ask me, I couldn't live without the idea of some higher purpose, some hope of beating entropy. The alternative is just too bleak.
You want to live under a ruthless dictator who demands that you worship at his feet, despite providing no evidence to his existence, or suffer the consequences of eternal punishment? To me, that would be bleak.[/QUOTE]
-
I read it, and I disagree with most of it.
While I can't say with any clarity what exactly "the meaning of life" is (unless you count 42), I can say that it's NOT just to procreate. Even the lowliest of animals have a greater purpose than that. Down to the smallest bacterium, it will at least provide a food source for some other organism higher up the food chain, some more advanced lifeform that could not survive on its own. Smaller organisms keep on providing sources of nourishment for larger ones on up the food chain until you get to the top, where humans are. We are entirely dependent on bugs and germs for our continued existence.
It is. But more advanced (Multicellular) lifeforms choose what to eat, where to eat. Perhaps it's because the species is too slow to catch prey, and must become a herbivore. Viruses and bacteria Can't really think, but are still capable of doing the two basic things for survival (Eating and reproducing) And over time they can change their food. It's how swine flu came to be.
Not gonna say much, I have a cold.
-
But more advanced (Multicellular) lifeforms choose what to eat, where to eat.
Nearly all of them don't. An animal won't make unnecessary efforts to get some food when they can get some in an easier/safer/less tiring way.
-
On the Christian side of the fence, there was the holocaust (Hitler was raised a Roman Catholic, and used Christianity to rally people together),
I am not used to investigate such debate, but i can't accept such an idiocy : this is deep misinformation or deeper stupidity !
All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.
10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.
14th October, 1941:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.
...
current catholic pope shows off in one of his recent book how far was hitler ideology from christian's one. And even if tomorrow we get a mad pope, a christian ben Laden wishing war and crimes, all we should say is that this man is far from the jewish or christian message of peace and happiness. Christian philosophy (and jewish) is on the opposite side of Nietzsche one.
The fact that there have been christian supporting Nazi, Fascist or Franco (in spain) does not mean that their belief is coherent with those ideology, it just mean that there are not coherent with themselve... idiocy is universal.
-
Thanks, Phil, I was going to mention that...
I has been biting my tongue, not saying anything cause I all is not home and on an dial-up connection slower than a mopar running on 2 cylinders. And even then my time is sooo limited for RA2 forum stuff(as I recently informed ACAMS).
These arguments are too narrow; i.e Survival of the fittest does not at all facilitate evolution, but only lets the strongest still live. Evolution requires an increase in extremely complex and specific information to produce a more complex life form.
On the other side, God does not exist/not-exist just because we want or don't want Him to. Try pretending that with a Mac truck is/is not coming at an intersection,,... Reality it is what it is. My thinking needs to be subject to reality because reality is not subject to my thinking...
...
Some other relevant factors in this equation:
...RNA/DNA and Information Systems
...Irreducible systems.
...Radio-metric dating.
...Ontology
...Systems analysis within Increasing Entropy
...Order Facilitating factors
...Epistemology (the most primary)
As a former atheist and thus evolutionist, I used to hold this same paradigm as Jeffrey. But I must say that at least he thinks about these grander themes in/of life, instead of living in a little shell.... like most.
Later...
.
-
Reality it is what it is. My thinking needs to be subject to reality because reality is not subject to my thinking...
...
Since i've seen Madiaba driving a ten ton truck on a crossroad while i was surfing on a quantum wave, i may believe in everything
-private joke-
For Jeffery, it's strange that a man from longview, WA writes pokémon with a "é", it looks very french.
-
Wow.... I just read both Jeffery and Clickbeetle's posts, and I am blown away. I still don't see how viruses fit into your "equation" Clickbeetle. Viruese do not support other life forms, as other lifefroms very rarely use them as food. Also, were they created by god? Not all viruses are a bad thing, some actually form mutualistic relationships with other animal (There is an example of this involving a virus and a wasp but I forgot the details). But anyway, since viruses can be considered both living and nonliving, were they created by god?
And System 32, viruese do not eat. They simply transfer their genetic material into the host cell which then causes the host cell to become "hijacked" and begin making more viruses, after which its cell membrane ruptures and new viruses are launched out. And also something to note, the viruse "dies" when it infects another cell.
And yes, incase you are wondering, I love viruses.
-
SpiderYourdoomweight?
I saw that on in the womb. The viruses attack the host's immunity cells, allowing the wasp's eegs to survive.
-
Urjak = biohazard weapon.
Anyways, are viruses really used for FOOD by several species? That makes no sense to me. They're tiny as hell compared to other lifeforms, not really nutritive excepted for the shell's proteins and dangerous to eat for an unicellular organism (risk of infection if the unicelllar phagocytes the virus)...
-
Virus's are not living as there is a list of properties a thing must have to be classed as living (Can't remember) that we did in science one time and a virus has only 2 or 3 of them so it is therefor not living.
-
Virus's are not living as there is a list of properties a thing must have to be classed as living (Can't remember) that we did in science one time and a virus has only 2 or 3 of them so it is therefor not living.
I think the debate amongst biologists is whether or not to change the definition of "living" to include viruses.
I'll respond to philetbabe later. I'm about to drive seven hours across the state.
-
This should be interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimivirus
Though the virus doesn't metabolize nor show response to stimuli, it does contain codes for amino acid and nucleotide synthesis.
-
I actually just learned from this that the Mimivirus is so large that another virus is able to infect it and use it as its host cell.
-
I actually just learned from this that the Mimivirus is so large that another virus is able to infect it and use it as its host virus.
Edited. Note that a virus doesn't have the necessary components to become a cell.
-
Ah, very true. Wrong word usage there.
-
You're all talking about life, but what actually is it? I mean, a car can be perfectly designed but still won't do anything without fuel and batteries. What's our battery? What makes us tick? What gets our hearts to start beating?
Food fuels us, but where does our electricity come from?
-
SEX, DRUGS & ROCK and ROLL...........and robots
-
i'll agree with that last one...
-
I don't see why we need our own "electricity". You are comparing a car to a living thing, two very different objects. I am not saying we don't have our own kind of "electricity, I'm saying just becaused a car needs it does not mean we need it. :)
-
our brains/neurons use electricity to transmit signals, much like old telephone lines.
-
Don't blood cells kinda become non-living? They don't have a neucleus, so that means no reproduction, and the don't feed.
-
They do feed on the nutriments around them in the bloodstream. All cells need an energy source.
-
Our lecky comes from respiration yes?
-
our brains/neurons use electricity to transmit signals, much like old telephone lines.
that is why you can easily do brain wave stuff.
-
Alright, I'm back home now. I'll try to get to that reply I promised in the next day or so. I'm a bit too tired to be digging up Hitler quotes right now.
-
Sweet. Keep this thread alive. :D
-
I know we're talking about viruses now, but this is still fairly recent...
(Sorry for the confusing quote format; GTM doesn't do nested quotes apparently.)
I think that is a rather pessimistic look at life on Earth. In no way does life "suck". Life is amazing (in the true sense of the word)! Sure, there are a lot of horrible things that occur (genocide comes to mind), but to say that life sucks doesn't sit right with me.
I just mean that there is a lot of stuff in life that sucks. I was paraphrasing an argument against God that I've heard on several occasions. (Incidentally, I don't agree with it.) Namely that if God is perfect, then life should be perfect, but it's not.
The story of the forbidden apple (or pomegranate, depending on who you ask) doesn't sit well with me, either. What kind of tyrannical dictator would set up such a trap? God created Adam and Eve with the "flaw" of curiosity. He then tells them that they can eat from any tree, except that one. Of course with the inherent flaw of curiosity, the built in desire to learn, they'd go for the apple (and since God is all knowing, he knew they would before he even made such "flawed" beings). Then, like a true fascist, God punishes them and all of their descendants by making them feel pain, shame, and marked them with original sin. If what God did wasn't evil, what is?
It wasn't a trap and God is not a fascist... in fact, quite the opposite is true. God gave man the choice whether or not to obey him. If he didn't put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden and tell Adam and Eve not to eat from it, there would be no way for them to disobey, and they would be forced to love God without even knowing there was an alternative. God could have easily just made us his loyal slaves... but he didn't. At the risk of ruining his own creation, God gave us the choice of obedience. Last I checked, not too many evil dictators will do that.
Going off on a tangent here, God is still giving us that choice. People often wonder why God doesn't just reach down and smite the bad guys with a lightning bolt. Or why Jesus hasn't returned yet. Well it all makes sense if you consider that he's giving us as much time as possible to repent. He wants to smite as few people as possible.
What makes you believe it was the Christian God that created all? Why do you subscribe to this supernatural being, and not Zeus, Thor, Mithra, Horus, Krishna or any of the other gods?
I'll admit it, that's a difficult question. Mostly because I don't know much about other religions and can't make informed statements about them. But there's a couple of reasons why I think Christianity is "the right one". Quickly: One, the Bible was written over hundreds of years by several different authors who sometimes had no contact with each other, yet the message remains consistent throughout. Two, after Jesus was crucified, the disciples were scattered, disheartened, and depressed. It doesn't make sense for them to be so enthusiastic about the idea that he rose from the dead if he didn't really do it. And three, Christianity actually changes lives. Maybe I'm biased, but I haven't heard many stories of addicts and criminals repenting and finding a better life and staying that way after coming to faith in some other religion.
"Doing God's Will" can be a pretty dangerous statement. So much evil has been done for that cause. On the Muslim side of the fence, there was the Armenian Genocide, the genocide going on in Sudan, the September 11th hijackings, and a whole lot of violence in between. On the Christian side of the fence, there was the holocaust (Hitler was raised a Roman Catholic, and used Christianity to rally people together), the genocide in Rwanda, the genocide in Bosnia, and a whole lot of violence in between.
All of these atrocities were backed by passages out of their respective holy books. While the more sane members of the religion tend to dwell more on the cheery and uplifting passages, it cannot be denied that the justification is there.
True. Religious teachings, like anything else in the world, can be misinterpreted. It's hard to know God's will and some people get it grossly wrong. That's why I chose not to get into that particular issue.
While organisms do serve as nutrition for other organisms, that doesn't mean that we serve a purpose other than spreading our DNA far and wide. In fact, many organisms are intentionally eaten so that they can better spread.
Supporting higher forms of life really isn't the purpose, though. If I was eaten by a bear, my purpose on Earth wasn't to become brunch for a bear. My purpose was still to spread my DNA (which means I would have failed as I have no children. That's beside the point, though). The bear evolved in such a way to take advantage of my slow running speed and small physical stature to eat me, and thus increase its chances of having [more] babies.
Is not the purpose of food to nourish? So if you become food, your purpose is to nourish the organism that eats you, so that organism can reproduce. I won't belabor the point, though, since "The Meaning of Life" is no more to be food than it is to reproduce.
Survival of the Fittest explains domesticated pets perfectly. We used cats for ridding our homes of pests. Cats used us to get a warm home and guaranteed meal. We were mutually helping each other to survive. While things have changed a bit, the premise is about the same. Cats relieve stress, which helps us avoid heart and other health problems. We still provide them with a warm home and meals. Thus, mutual survival.
We used dogs to help us hunt, navigate, and to give us company. Dogs used us for protection, guaranteed meals, and a warm home. Mutual survival, again. Now, it's about the same.
Yes, domesticated pets were originally bred for that purpose. But what about now? What about all these "purebreed" cats and dogs people can enter into contests and such? Some modern pets would be very unfit for life in the wild.
No, because I don't believe they have those purposes. I think you're treating pets as if they are material things that are here for the purpose of entertaining us. While it's fun to pretend that cats sit on our laps because they love us, the truth is that they are just wanting some warmth, and our laps happen to be a very good, and comfortable, source of that.
Yes, but a wild cat won't sit on your lap no matter how warm it is. We've bred modern cats so that they will, and serve the purpose of comfort.
We are simply animals, so our existence is the same as any other animals. Just because our nervous systems are more complex, that doesn't mean that our biological instincts are any different from the days of Lucy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)) and before.
Technically, humans are animals, but our existence is vastly different from other animals. I don't think I need to make a list of human accomplishments to make that point. And while our biological instincts may be the same, we have higher thought processes that can (and often should) override those. When confronted with a plate of food, for instance, we can choose whether or not to eat it. An animal guided by pure instinct will just gobble it up as long as it's hungry.
Dolphins, great apes, bears, octopods, and many other animals are also highly intelligent. While they may not be as smart as us, they are certainly intelligent. And any species (including species outside of the animal kingdom) can change the world for better or worse. It'll take longer, but you mentioned nothing about time being a factor.
I didn't say intelligence is unique to humans. Intelligence and self-awareness, however, is. As I said before, we have the capability to ignore our instincts. Also, while it's true that any species outside of its native range can have drastic global effects, none of them could do damage on the scale humans are capable of. Imagine if we did not restrain ourselves from exploiting the environment as much as we wanted (which is to say, restrain ourselves from obeying our instincts). Whole biomes would collapse. The ozone layer would vanish. The Earth would turn into a radioactive oven. I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up killing everything bigger than algae.
Why? I agree that we should intentionally try to kill off any species, and that we should keep our pollution to a minimal, but that doesn't mean that we have to prevent species from going extinct. If a species can no longer cut it, it's their time to join the 90% of creatures that ever existed.
Earth supported life just fine before us.
The Earth has always had the metaphorical bumper sticker that says, "Adapt or GTFO!" If they aren't surviving, perhaps it's because they're not the fittest. If we can't adapt to life without them, perhaps we're not so great after all.
That's just callous. Suppose rice were threatened with a new disease that was wiping it out. Would you condemn it to extinction then, and cause mass starvation all across Asia? That seems to go against your belief that the meaning of life is to procreate. By preserving the Earth's ecosystems, as opposed to ruining them, we increase humanity's own survival.
Why would that be depressing? Why must you serve a tyrannical space dictator by worshipping and preventing weaker species from going the way of the dodo?
Because if the purpose of life is to procreate and nothing more, there is absolutely no reason for our ability to override our instincts. We might as well live as animals, mating with as many people as possible and killing our rivals. There is no reason for creativity. Art, entertainment, love, it all just gets in the way of our primary purpose. Nothing we do matters except how many kids we can overpopulate the Earth with. No kids, you might as well be dead. Everyone on this forum, in fact, is wasting their time with meaningless distractions when they could be out raping women!
If you don't think that view of life is depressing, man, you have problems.
Whether or not Jesus actually existed is debatable, but due to the needlessly complicated (and utterly false) story moving him from Nazareth to Bethlehem, I'll concede that the Jesus in the Bible is at least partially based on the life of a man of that time. Anyways, biologically speaking, their purpose was to spread their seed. Just because Einstein was a whiz at physics, that doesn't mean his biological urge to have lots and lots of sex went away (though shackin' up with his cousin probably helped).
Einstein's sexual behavior has nothing to do with anything; I was just using him as an example of someone important who didn't have any kids. The same with Jesus. Even if you don't believe he was God, you would have to agree that he was important.
Why must one fulfill his/her biological purpose in order to be significant? Besides, Einstein did quite a bit to further our species by expanding our knowledge in physics. We've been able to survive because of our expansive knowledge, and expanding it further will only help us survive better. Besides, his work in relativity may someday save our sausages.
That's exactly my point! You don't need to fulfill your "biological purpose" in order to be significant. That is the Meaning of Life I'm getting at--significance beyond simply reproducing.
You forgot something! Our sun might also swell up into a nice red giant. Or we could get swallowed by that red giant that's heading this way.
We have always had the same amount of energy. Energy, like matter, cannot be created or destroyed.
But energy can be lost as heat. Things always move from a higher energy state to a lower state. Entropy is always increasing, and the only way to decrease it again is to put energy into it (thus increasing entropy somewhere else.) My point is that, one way or another, Earth and probably the entire universe will eventually cease to support life.
If we are here to serve a fascist and to prevent dud species from dying out, how will that matter once "the universe runs down"? And what do you mean by that? Do you mean once the universe is no longer inhabitable by us?
You want to live under a ruthless dictator who demands that you worship at his feet, despite providing no evidence to his existence, or suffer the consequences of eternal punishment? To me, that would be bleak.
It matters if you believe in an eternal afterlife. Only in the context of eternity does anything at all have any meaning whatsoever. If you die and that's it, that's all she wrote, then the Earth might as well explode tomorrow for all the difference it makes, because it's going to end anyway someday, and it won't matter how many children you have or how fit your DNA is.
I could say more about God and how the concept of him being a cruel dictator is a gross misconception, but I've already talked about that and I'm really tired now. I'll probably wake up and notice a bunch of mistakes in this post... meh.
-
Well Click i have also several questions...
-I am an agnostic, because i have absolutely no clue about God existing or not. Because... how can we know ? A book or what someone told you ? How do you know that is true ?
- Converting because of the promise of a happy eternity in paradise is a purely egoistical reason. Do you think Christians have to be like that ?
-And why the hell an all-loving god and someone who gave us the choice of freedom would sent us to hell if we don't believe in him, that looks to me like something very cruel ?
-And also why an atheist that contributed to humanity's good would go to hell and a tyrant would go to paradise if he repents ?
-About the paradise... You say it is ever-lasting joy. But this isn't human ! Human nature is both experimenting joy and suffering (i am really simplifying). While we all crave for happiness, paradise looks like too much... that might turn us insane, or just drugged people just acting on instinctive urges to find pleasure. You must know that something pleasurable is much more pleasurable if you lacked it for some time.
-About immortality... The human mind has limits, and especially that we all grow bored of something while experimenting it for a long time. No matter how long it takes, one day or a hundred years, but you WILL most probably grow bored of that endless cycle. There are a lot of theories about the final boredom of eternity and IMO they have very good reasons to support them.
So according to my theory, the paradise would be full of drugged "junkies" always seeking for pleasure (first step, the newcomers) or bored people (second step, after many and many years of paradise). What's the point of that if God wanted humans to be both happy (that the second doesn't have) and gave us freedom (that the first doesn't have)?
I'd rather live longer on this world and age slower (not more than a couple hundred years though) and then fade into nothingness if i die.
That is all.
-
I don't believe in a god, or an afterlife. Clickbeetle says that the world may as well end tomorrow if there is no afterlife, because we'd be getting nowhere.
Well maybe he's right. Maybe life is meaningless.
For many people, thats a very bleak and depressing veiw. So, thats why I think we have to create meaning for ourselves. We have to succeed in doing what we want, be happy, tell each other how successful we've been. If we can't do that, then lifes meaning is lost to us. But only because, perhaps, life has no real meaning. Like I said, we create meaning for ourselves.
-
On your arguments about the rice plant Clickbeetle, if you were to save these rice plants, you would instead be killing off another species, the disease. Now, assuming it is a bacteria, or if you consider viruses living, then you will probably be killing another living thing off becasue it must have mutated, perhaps to only affect rice plants. Now, without human intervention, the disease would be "the most fit" and survive, while the rice either built up an immunity or perished. Thus, with human intervention, you may be saving one species but kill off another.
-
@ Click--I'll provide you with a response in the next day or so. I don't want to not address any of the points you raised, so I'll need some time to write up a good response.
On the topic of Hitler:
While he did not attend church regularly, he very much considered himself a Christian, and believed (at least on a public level) that he was doing the work of God. Here's a quote from a speech he gave one April 12th, 1922:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."
If that's not sufficient, read Mein Kampf. It's riddled with references to his Christian faith.
-
"Be not fond of that dull Blueish Yellow light form the human world. That is the path of thing accumulated propensities of violent egotism come to revive thee. If thou art attracted by it, thou wilt be born in the human world and have to suffer birth, age, sickness, and death; and thou wilt have no chance of getting out of the quagmire of worldly existence. That is an interruption to obstruct thy path to liberation. Therefore, look not upon it and abandon egotism, abandon propensities, be not attracted towards it; be not weak." -The Bardo Thodol
Live life to your fullest. Your body is a gift, use it and care for it. The reward of the afterlife may be given to those that make the best of their worldly existence. Be peaceful, love others, love yourself. Build and create to your hearts content for no-ones benefit but yourself and those you love.
I am not religious in any specific degree... but i read alot. Recently i read the Tibetan Book of the dead (the bardo thodol) and it was terrific.
-
The meaning of life:
Whatever you choose to do with the one you have, regardless of sex, race, or religion.
-
the one
I really hope you mean by that "your life" and not more...
-
If that's not sufficient, read Mein Kampf. It's riddled with references to his Christian faith.
if Hitler used christian faith to support its mad ideology, it is demagogy and is not the fact of a religious man trying to act in conformity with his religion.
i do not agree with you, and in fact, i don't know why do you support such a thesis which shows a real unknowledge of both chrisitan and nazi thoughts.
You've perhaps read mein kampf and the bible, but, indeed, you did not understand much from, at least, one these book to look so confuse about their respective ideology.
-
if Hitler used christian faith to support its mad ideology, it is demagogy
I agree.
-
I just mean that there is a lot of stuff in life that sucks. I was paraphrasing an argument against God that I've heard on several occasions. (Incidentally, I don't agree with it.) Namely that if God is perfect, then life should be perfect, but it's not.
The atheists who say that God doesn't exist because life sucks are most likely not really atheists, but some sort of theist who has had a rough time.
It wasn't a trap and God is not a fascist... in fact, quite the opposite is true. God gave man the choice whether or not to obey him.
Stalin also gave his people the choice whether or not to obey him. If the soviets chose to cross him, they got taken out by the KGB, just like if you cross God you get tortured in hell literally forever. Now, do either of these two scenarios seem like the people get much of a choice?
If he didn't put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden and tell Adam and Eve not to eat from it, there would be no way for them to disobey, and they would be forced to love God without even knowing there was an alternative.
But that alternative, according to the New Testament, is pain and misery for eternity. If we don't accept this type of behavior from world leaders, why should we praise this kind of behavior from an invisible being in the sky?
God could have easily just made us his loyal slaves... but he didn't. At the risk of ruining his own creation, God gave us the choice of obedience. Last I checked, not too many evil dictators will do that.
Stalin certainly gave his people a choice. If the women stayed in the kitchen and popped out babies, the homosexuals abstained from having homosexual relationships, and everybody followed the other crazy laws, the KGB would not take them out. But, if they did disobey the great Stalin, they would be taken out. How is this any different than what the NT's version of hell?
Going off on a tangent here, God is still giving us that choice. People often wonder why God doesn't just reach down and smite the bad guys with a lightning bolt. Or why Jesus hasn't returned yet. Well it all makes sense if you consider that he's giving us as much time as possible to repent. He wants to smite as few people as possible.
That is a huge copout. It is also a very evil thing to do. Provide the people with no evidence of your existence, let genocide occur at all times, and then send people to a put of fire for not believing. At least Stalin's people could see that he was real.
I'll admit it, that's a difficult question. Mostly because I don't know much about other religions and can't make informed statements about them. But there's a couple of reasons why I think Christianity is "the right one".
Do you think that it might be possible that you believe in the Bible because that is what you were raised with?
Quickly: One, the Bible was written over hundreds of years by several different authors who sometimes had no contact with each other, yet the message remains consistent throughout.
The message was just fulfilling the Jewish prophecies of the OT. They took one of the guys running around claiming to be the messiah, and retrofitted his life to match that of the prophecies. (There were several "messiahs" around Jesus's time. One such person was Apollonius. It's interesting that modern Christians don't even consider that guy as a candidate for their God).
Two, after Jesus was crucified, the disciples were scattered, disheartened, and depressed. It doesn't make sense for them to be so enthusiastic about the idea that he rose from the dead if he didn't really do it.
So many gods did the same exact thing (Horus, for example). Not only that, but that story existed before the NT (much like the flood story was around with different characters before the OT).
And three, Christianity actually changes lives. Maybe I'm biased, but I haven't heard many stories of addicts and criminals repenting and finding a better life and staying that way after coming to faith in some other religion.
That's because you're not actively seeking out those stories. There's also a high probability that you don't know very many Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu, atheists, agnostics, etc.
True. Religious teachings, like anything else in the world, can be misinterpreted. It's hard to know God's will and some people get it grossly wrong. That's why I chose not to get into that particular issue.
How do you know that some people get it grossly wrong? There are passages in the Bible that clearly support genocide (which I'll get to when I respond to philetbabe again). There are passages in the Bible that clearly support men being dominate over women. There are passages in the Bible that clearly support slavery and child rape. While rational humanist Christians tend to ignore these insane passages, they are still there, waiting for a crazy member of their religion to use it as justification for all sorts of wrong.
Is not the purpose of food to nourish? So if you become food, your purpose is to nourish the organism that eats you, so that organism can reproduce. I won't belabor the point, though, since "The Meaning of Life" is no more to be food than it is to reproduce.
That's a fair point, and one I didn't really consider.
Yes, domesticated pets were originally bred for that purpose. But what about now? What about all these "purebreed" cats and dogs people can enter into contests and such? Some modern pets would be very unfit for life in the wild.
They are unfit for the wild because they are biologically meant to be paired with humans. On a philosophical level, I suppose they serve a purpose to entertain us, but I was speaking purely on a biological level.
Yes, but a wild cat won't sit on your lap no matter how warm it is. We've bred modern cats so that they will, and serve the purpose of comfort.
It depends on the situation. If you raise a wild cat, it will consider you its mother. So long as that wild cat recognizes you, it would probably sit on your lap. (though it might be a bit rough with you since it's much stronger).
Technically, humans are animals, but our existence is vastly different from other animals.
No technically is necessary. We are animals with DNA that is nearly identical to that of modern chimps.
I don't think I need to make a list of human accomplishments to make that point.
Yep. We developed very smart brains (due to having weak bodies) in order to survive.
And while our biological instincts may be the same, we have higher thought processes that can (and often should) override those. When confronted with a plate of food, for instance, we can choose whether or not to eat it. An animal guided by pure instinct will just gobble it up as long as it's hungry.
That's not true. A wild scavenger will likely gobble up that food, but others are very particular in their diets. This is assuming that the wild animal isn't on the brink of starvation. In that case, the animal would scarf the food (much like a person in the same situation).
I didn't say intelligence is unique to humans. Intelligence and self-awareness, however, is.
Chimpanzees are self aware, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
As I said before, we have the capability to ignore our instincts. Also, while it's true that any species outside of its native range can have drastic global effects, none of them could do damage on the scale humans are capable of. Imagine if we did not restrain ourselves from exploiting the environment as much as we wanted (which is to say, restrain ourselves from obeying our instincts). Whole biomes would collapse. The ozone layer would vanish. The Earth would turn into a radioactive oven. I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up killing everything bigger than algae.
So much of your life is based on your primal instincts. You may not realize it, but that 'fight or flight' reaction is very common in human lives. Yes, our instincts have changed quite a bit, but the basic survival instincts have remained the same.
Since we are smarter than the rest of the animals (and by extension, the lower forms of life), we are able to affect the whole world much faster. That doesn't, however, mean that we are the only ones who can.
That's just callous. Suppose rice were threatened with a new disease that was wiping it out. Would you condemn it to extinction then, and cause mass starvation all across Asia? That seems to go against your belief that the meaning of life is to procreate. By preserving the Earth's ecosystems, as opposed to ruining them, we increase humanity's own survival.
They would need to find a new source of food, or find a way to keep rice around (or die out). In a global economy, I really don't think that would be much of a threat to humanity (though it would be quite inconvenient).
Because if the purpose of life is to procreate and nothing more, there is absolutely no reason for our ability to override our instincts. We might as well live as animals, mating with as many people as possible and killing our rivals. There is no reason for creativity. Art, entertainment, love, it all just gets in the way of our primary purpose. Nothing we do matters except how many kids we can overpopulate the Earth with.
Wrong again, Tom. Because of our massive intelligence, we are able to survive. We build houses with heating units because we lack the fur to keep warm. We develop vaccines and such to keep us from dying of disease. Just because our purpose is to procreate, that doesn't mean that everything else we do is rendered void.
Take art, for example. It allows us to express our emotions and attract others who feel the same way. Thus furthering the species.
No kids, you might as well be dead. Everyone on this forum, in fact, is wasting their time with meaningless distractions when they could be out raping women!
I'm not religious, so I have no justification for rape. We can further the species even if we don't procreate ourselves. We could help raise other children, or provide other services to help ensure the survival of the current and next generation of humans.
If you don't think that view of life is depressing, man, you have problems.
I will agree that your view of the world is depressing.
Einstein's sexual behavior has nothing to do with anything; I was just using him as an example of someone important who didn't have any kids.
Don't bring it up if you don't want to talk about it. Einstein furthered human survival (and in a way caused massive death).
The same with Jesus. Even if you don't believe he was God, you would have to agree that he was important.
Real or not, Jesus was important. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and various other dictators were also important.
That's exactly my point! You don't need to fulfill your "biological purpose" in order to be significant. That is the Meaning of Life I'm getting at--significance beyond simply reproducing.
If you don't further the cause of human survival, or greatly hinder it, you will most likely not be significant to the masses.
But energy can be lost as heat.
Energy is never lost; it just becomes different kinds of energy.
Things always move from a higher energy state to a lower state. Entropy is always increasing, and the only way to decrease it again is to put energy into it (thus increasing entropy somewhere else.) My point is that, one way or another, Earth and probably the entire universe will eventually cease to support life.
The Earth will eventually be non-existent, so at that point, it'll no longer be able to support life of any kind. As for the universe, if it ever stops being able to support life, it'll probably eventually go back to being able to support life at some point. Not sure if that makes sense, but it makes sense in my head.
It matters if you believe in an eternal afterlife. Only in the context of eternity does anything at all have any meaning whatsoever.
Why must we live forever to have meaning?
If you die and that's it, that's all she wrote, then the Earth might as well explode tomorrow for all the difference it makes, because it's going to end anyway someday, and it won't matter how many children you have or how fit your DNA is.
That's a pretty pessimistic view. So the only reason why you bother to wake up in the morning is because you eagerly await living forever with a space dictator? How awful. I prefer to enjoy the 75+ years of time I have here on Earth.
I could say more about God and how the concept of him being a cruel dictator is a gross misconception, but I've already talked about that and I'm really tired now. I'll probably wake up and notice a bunch of mistakes in this post... meh.
I've already shown the similarities between God and a dictator. If you can't see that God, as depicted in the Bible and the Qur'an, is an invisible tyrant, I don't know what would convince you.
-
There is no meaning to life.......you live......you die.........game over.....FTW
and that is not "for the win"...... "free trade worldwide" either
-
Just a few (random) comments:
What language were Adam and Eve speaking when God told them not to eat the apple?
How come God doesn't heal amputees?
Is religion anything more than a explanation for the unexplainable? (For example, the Greeks thought up Zeus because they didn't know what caused lightning bolts).
Why do Atheists only compare God to bad people? Didn't he do good things? I mean, sure there was the bad apple, but God gave the two a giant garden of paradise. It's like a rich man giving a poor man a huge area of land to farm and telling him not to dig in one spot because that's where his wife is buried. That's not a trap, just a request.
God can't be compared to Hitler because Hitler was a murderer. I have not heard of God ever smiting anyone. I don't think he's the kinda guy who would gas six million because he doesn't like them.
Why don't people believe in Terry Prachett's vision of Disc World where the Earth is flat and lies on the back of a giant turtle? Well, because we know the Earth is round. It's scientifically proven. People accept that fact, and a lot of other scientific things. So, what I'm asking is, what is the reason to believe in God is explanation is not needed anymore?
If animals were meant to be eaten by humans (or bred to be eaten) why do some people feel bad for them and become vegetarians?
Why did God only create life (as far as we know) on Earth?
The Bible states sex must be after marriage, so does that mean only a few of the billions that live on earth are not going to hell? How many Americans do you know that waited until after marriage for intercourse? How many do you know that didn't?
Just pulling that crap out of the top of my head. I really just don't care whether God exists or not.
-
God can't be compared to Hitler because Hitler was a murderer. I have not heard of God ever smiting anyone. I don't think he's the kinda guy who would gas six million because he doesn't like them.
Have you not read the Bible? God kills about 2 million people in there. Here's a fun picture that makes my post look more sophisticated:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v255/furezo/3848827.jpg)
-
And how many did God kill in the story of Lot alone? :P
-
And how many did God kill in the story of Lot alone? :P
It's estimated to be around a sh** load.
-
Click : It wasn't a trap and God is not a fascist...
in fact, quite the opposite is true.
God gave man the choice whether or not to obey him.
Jeff : Stalin also gave his people the choice whether or not to obey him.
If the soviets chose to cross him, they got taken out by the KGB, just like if you cross
God you get tortured in hell literally forever. Now, do either of these two scenarios seem
like the people get much of a choice?
i do not think you could ever convince each other, because you're not talking of ther same thing under the word of 'God'
and , strangely, your nature are very commons :
I explain :
Jeff, you do not want of a god making a trap in a garden, spectator of the poor man eating the apple and
violently punishing them : I agree with you, if THIS is god, i do not want no more a this kind of vicious being,
tempting humanity than going hard on it, you're right, such a god is not far from communist or fascist, it is unloveable,
and it is all your honor to reject such a picture of a despotic god.
Click, you talk a god giving all to men, even the knowledge of what is true and what is false, even freedom.
But a freedom so wide, that the men may also decide to do evil : so God advert them : you know true and false,
good and evil, you have also the ability to pervert yourself and say that true is false, evil is good.
Life and Happiness (Eden Park) is strongly linked to life tending to truth and good. So if men want to change the rule
and take evil for good and so -> they will die : This is not a punishment but a warning among an evidence : evil and lie are
not what men are made for and, far from truth and good, they're is only death. In this point of view, God is not fascist, he gives
all to men : freedom, knowledge of truth and evil and responsibility of their act.
One should say but "this freedom is not real for the men may not really choose Evil or they will die" : by "choosing evil" i do not mean choosing
a soft philosophy (epicurian, stoïcism, etc), no, it is choosing a way of lie and murder for self promotion. What is strange
is that men have this freedom and even more strange, is that that they sometime choose it.but the fact that murder (choosing evil) drive to death
is just an evidence.
why i say that Click and Jeff a very commons :
If both can't share your ideas because of different reading and understing, both of you finally
militate for the same valors : good and freedom from humam kind. Differently, you're finally both humanist, i mean people
wanting the better for humanity.
-
The Earth will eventually be non-existent, so at that point, it'll no longer be able to support life of any kind. As for the universe, if it ever stops being able to support life, it'll probably eventually go back to being able to support life at some point. Not sure if that makes sense, but it makes sense in my head.
Well actually, while energy is never lost, it "dilutes" in the universe. We actually have sources of energy (like stars and planets) and low energetic regions (like outer space). The laws of thermodynamics state that energy tries to leave the more energetic places to go in the less energetic places (by radiation for the stars) and tend to an equilibrum. So, as the sources of energy the Universe has aren't infinite, the Universe will probably finish with every place on it having the same energy (=heat, so the residue of the Sun (dwarf star) will be as hot as the residue of the Earth (dead planet, something like the Moon), as well as intergalatic space.
So i really don't see how the Universe could eventually come back to a state where Earth could support life again...
J
How come God doesn't heal amputees?
Probably because he doesn't involve in human activities anymore.
Is religion anything more than a explanation for the unexplainable? (For example, the Greeks thought up Zeus because they didn't know what caused lightning bolts).
I actually answer yes to this question, and i will also add that religion is also the result of humanity's fears and hopes.
If animals were meant to be eaten by humans (or bred to be eaten) why do some people feel bad for them and become vegetarians?
Because of freedom God is supposed to gave to humans.
________
Anyways a thing i am sure of: If the Bible is true and God exists, he is NOT all-loving and did not gave absolute freedom to man. I don't say he is a tyrant, but perfect he isn't.
An all-loving God would not make justice on Judgment Day (but rather take all humans with him in Paradise and hope his love will make "sinful" humans go good), neither let a place of eternal evil like Hell exist, especially that Hell constantly tries to ruin his work.
What is the point of letting a thorn in your foot if you can remove it easily (he is supposed to be almighty, he could wipe out all demons and devils, including the greater ones and the lords of Hell, in a matter of seconds) ?
Also God gave freedom to men : Hell tries to enslave men and he lets Hell in this world?
-
An all-loving God would not make justice on Judgment Day (but rather take all humans with him in Paradise and hope his love will make "sinful" humans go good), neither let a place of eternal evil like Hell exist, especially that Hell constantly tries to ruin his work.
What is the point of letting a thorn in your foot if you can remove it easily (he is supposed to be almighty, he could wipe out all demons and devils, including the greater ones and the lords of Hell, in a matter of seconds) ?
Also God gave freedom to men : Hell tries to enslave men and he lets Hell in this world?
This point of view of a god creating both the paradise and the Hell was professed by the Manicheism, a christian sect. It has been rejected by the early church as non compatible with the jewish and christian faith. they both claim that god did not create death and evil (manys intance in the bible).
And indeed how could one say he is all loving and let other in hell, i won't for my wife and i'm not god.
On the other part, both Jewish and christian claims that there's hell as a state ( not a location) of "god refusal -ie good refusal) ", going in hell should so be the free will to refuse god, even with the knowledge of what it does mean. So, who populate hell ? don't know. Christians say it is a possibility for human but does not ensure there are some inside. because, as long as we are here, we do not have a true knowledge of the consequence of our act and even the most evil people should, confronted with love, reject their previous abomination.
and why god did not kill for once those who have refuse him (and so eliminate this state of hell) -> still for christian, the power of god is a power of love and life, not death. In this religion, there is a limit in god strength : what love could.
How come God doesn't heal amputees?
Probably because he doesn't involve in human activities anymore.
That's a real question a a legitimate revolt.
There are few school or though considering the pain :
-Archetype : wihch cover almost 99% of the known religions : 1/ the pain the human suffer reflects the part of the life of the the gods in the pantheon all the variation at this point still consider that pain come from gods and the symbiosis man have (or have not) with the life-cycle of the gods.
-Karma and so : even if the religion that teach karma have many commons parts with archetype, they say that each one is responsible for the pain he suffers. In a way, pain is a side/part of justice.
-Islam : if one know the decrees of god from the Coran, god himself is the unknowable and whatever the pain, it is something in god will that we can't understand. So pain is jsutified, but the justification is unknown.
-Jewish/Christian : there is a link between evil and pain, but no much is said about and,in fact, pain is never justified. there is no 'good reason' for pain. Just the faith that it will end. In this way, it gives a hope to human not an explanation.
There is an exemption which is the story of job who suffers a lot with God authorization, joining in this way the islamic point of view. Well, i don't know what to say about, i'm not a specialist after all, but the idea of a god tolerating pain for personnal reason is unbearable for me. i won't tolerate my wife or those i love to be the object of pain experiment for reason i don't know and even for reasons i should know (nothing may justify rape, murder and so !). With the reading i have of this story, it looks incompatible with the over all idea of a god of love. i have to admit Job weaken my christianity.
-
Apart from this turning into a pick on Click thread, anyone care about the meaning of life?
-
Well actually, while energy is never lost, it "dilutes" in the universe. We actually have sources of energy (like stars and planets) and low energetic regions (like outer space). The laws of thermodynamics state that energy tries to leave the more energetic places to go in the less energetic places (by radiation for the stars) and tend to an equilibrum. So, as the sources of energy the Universe has aren't infinite, the Universe will probably finish with every place on it having the same energy (=heat, so the residue of the Sun (dwarf star) will be as hot as the residue of the Earth (dead planet, something like the Moon), as well as intergalatic space.
So i really don't see how the Universe could eventually come back to a state where Earth could support life again...
I agree that the earth most probably won't support life again, but for the reason that the sun will expand and destroy it before it dies completely. But I do belive that the Universe will continue to support life. The reason everything is moving away from each other is the Big Bang. The big question is whether the gravity will pull it back together and make an inverted Big Bang, or if it will continue to grow forever. In the first case it might end upp in a new Big Bang, who knows (It might just be over). This will support life for sure. In the other case we might end up with a place that got the same heat all over the place (not so sure about this), but there can still evolve creatures that can live under these conditions. If I'm right there is made new stars all the time from the particles floating in the universe, so I belive there will always be somewhere where there are more heat than other places. (correct me if I'm wrong)
Short version: Earth will die out, at least for a long time, but I belive the universe will always be able to support life, as long as it don't end.
-
there is made new stars all the time from the particles floating in the universe, so I belive there will always be somewhere where there are more heat than other places.
You are right, with the stars being created by contraction (by gravity) of floating hydrogen clouds, and the hydrogen being used (nuclear fusion) by the star to produce energy, if we can say used.
But - as the universe isn't infinite (it grows, but it has been created from a finite amount of matter), there is a finite amount of these particles - i think the number of atoms of the Universe is something like 10^80 atoms. Most of them are hydrogen, and i think that only a part of it could create stars (because you can't create a star like that, the creation of a star needs enough concentration of hydrogen for the gravity to pull the atoms together).
So there is a finite amount of possible stars in the Universe => there will be a time where all stars will be extinct and the heat will be constant.
However, my theory isn't true if your inverted big bang (big crunch) will happen.
-
as long as there is lightning and water Earth will have life (maybe in diff forms though)
-
Lightning?
-
Well sure, in the Bible God may have smited people, but have you actually heard of someone being smited that's been recorded recently?
That is because God doesn't involve himself with human activities anymore
Well... then why do people pray to Him?
-
Lightning?
Yeh, you know, to power all the Frankensteins.
-
Well sure, in the Bible God may have smited people, but have you actually heard of someone being smited that's been recorded recently?
Well, no. That would require proof of god first.
-
I have a passage from a book that's quite interesting:
The word used by the people of Near East for "reality/truth" (emet) is derived from the root "amen" (or some times ”men” due to a weak initial letter ‘a’). It is found through history from Akkadian, down through Egyptian, Ugaritic, Hebrew, Babylonian, Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, Greek, Latin, Swahili and English. The basic meaning of 'amen' (‘men’) is ‘that which is firm/orderly/stable' and hence what is ‘real/true,’ what is ‘reality/truth.’ Thus, the Hebrew word 'amen’ describes reality as a whole.
The word used in Hebrew for "faith/belief" is also derived from the root "amen, "that which exists." Thus, in Hebrew, whenever someone spoke about 'reality/truth/what's real' and/or 'faith/belief,' he would being using slight modifications of this same word, 'amen.'
So, if faith and reality are derived from that same meaning, that gives more philosophical evidence to God's existence than there is to the non-existence of God (there's no real proof either way).
Just thought that would be a fun tidbit to share.
-
So, if faith and reality are derived from that same meaning, that gives more philosophical evidence to God's existence than there is to the non-existence of God (there's no real proof either way).
That just shows that ancient peoples thought that faith and reality were one in the same. It offers no evidence to suggest that a god or gods actually exist.
-
Jeffery is right I think, but that is interesting Sage.
-
The secret meaning of life - NO REFUNDS!
. o O (Boy, y'all are getting too serious about this........ good discussion, though........)
-
Lightning?
one of the things that started life on earth
-
What does lightning have to do with life?
-
Yeah. Lighting didn't even kickstart the chemical reactions for the amino acids.
In a lighter note:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227084.200-molecule-of-life-emerges-from-laboratory-slime.html
-
it didnt.... but Nova said....
-
Darwinists still don't know what started life on Earth.
-
OR what made the BIG BANG EITHER!!
-
Darwinists still don't know what started life on Earth.
OR what made the BIG BANG EITHER!!
And everyone else does?
-
Im not sure about anything, but if the big bang did happend, there must have been a load of mass floating around and piling into one place and then blew up.
And my mom is a REALLY religious person who denies and ignores everything about the big bang theory.
-
I think that Earth is the only planet to successfully have life, and it was by accident.
Think of all the variables that are present in life. For example, the atmosphere is a big one. The composition of the air has to be just right to allow creatures to breathe. Even a little bit off and it might not work. Now look at the human body. What happens if we are born with no brain? We can't survive. Those are just two examples of the countless things that could go wrong, and each one of them did before Earth got everything right. Still, there are diseases and stuff, so it's not perfect.
Now the bigger question. Where do all the planets come from? What about space? How vast is it?
-
Now the bigger question. Where do all the planets come from? What about space? How vast is it?
This is something I read once, I dont remember it 100% but its close to this:
Planets form when multiple meteors smash into each other and stay as one (gas planets are different story, dont remember that tough) and moons come the same way, only then a part of the planet takes off and stays in the planets orbit. And sapce expands continously towards infinity.
-
I'd more or less agree with that. The moons don't nessiccarily have to smash into the planets though, they just have to be bodies that orbit the planet, so maybe some of them got collected by a planets gravity.
-
I think that Earth is the only planet to successfully have life, and it was by accident.
I don't think Earth is the only planet without life. I mean really, there are millions upon millions, maybe even billions of planets out there, and your saying there is only one planet, our Earth, that can support even basic life such as bacteria?!
-
This is possibly the dumbest thread.
-
not as dumb as "break a wish"
-
Darwinists still don't know what started life on Earth.
And we're fine with that. You see, unlike creationists, when we don't know something, we admit it. Creationists make sh** up.
By the way, if everything needed to be created, who/what created God?
-
I don't think Earth is the only planet without life. I mean really, there are millions upon millions, maybe even billions of planets out there, and your saying there is only one planet, our Earth, that can support even basic life such as bacteria?!
sure there is basic life in a lot of places, but anything as complex as humans? remember there are billions upon billions of variables to take into account.
-
sure there is basic life in a lot of places, but anything as complex as humans? remember there are billions upon billions of variables to take into account.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
-
And we're fine with that. You see, unlike creationists, when we don't know something, we admit it. Creationists make sh** up.
By the way, if everything needed to be created, who/what created God?
For both the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Intelligent Design, there has to be something that was just there. For you, it was matter. For us, it was God (any god actually since not all creationists are Christian).
-
For both the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Intelligent Design, there has to be something that was just there. For you, it was matter. For us, it was God (any god actually since not all creationists are Christian).
There is no Theory of Intelligent Design. Only dumb asses who don't know how scientific theories work would say such a thing.
-
yay go Darwin!
-
There is no Theory of Intelligent Design. Only dumb asses who don't know how scientific theories work would say such a thing.
You are my new hero.
-
A theory needs scientific data and evidence to be considered a fact.... Intelligent Design has none....
-
A theory needs scientific data and evidence to be considered a fact.... Intelligent Design has none....
...and what scientific evidence does the theory of Evolution have?
There is no Theory of Intelligent Design. Only dumb asses who don't know how scientific theories work would say such a thing.
Oh so now you're resorting to insults on my intelligence? Can't you come up with a better response than that?
I suppose calling it a theory might be a bit bold, but I was trying to make a point that Intelligent Design is just as valid an opinion as Darwinism. Yes, I know the mainstream scientific community refuses to accept that, in fact they will kick you out if you say such a thing. Perhaps they're afraid of it.
-
...and what scientific evidence does the theory of Evolution have?
Have you ever read a book? Ever? Just today, some more evidence of evolution was revealed. Read for a change http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/darwinius_masillae.php
Oh so now you're resorting to insults on my intelligence? Can't you come up with a better response than that?
Claiming that creationism is based on science insults all of our intelligence.
I suppose calling it a theory might be a bit bold, but I was trying to make a point that Intelligent Design is just as valid an opinion as Darwinism.
Which only proves your ignorance.
Yes, I know the mainstream scientific community refuses to accept that, in fact they will kick you out if you say such a thing. Perhaps they're afraid of it.
Now it all makes sense. You saw Ben Stein's bullsh** movie and are now trying to pretend as though you know about biology. Ben Stein is a dipsh** former speech writer for Nixon, not an expert on biology. Actual biologists, on the other hand, are experts on biology. Over 90% of them agree that evolution is most likely what is responsible for the gradual changes of species (much like how most physicists agree that the invisible force gravity is responsible for attraction to planetary bodies).
Seriously, learn how to read books by biologists. While you're at it, read some scientific journals. If you stick to stuff by Ben Stein and other douchebags, you'll only continue to make yourself look like an ass.
-
Have you ever read a book? Ever? Just today, some more evidence of evolution was revealed. Read for a change http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/darwinius_masillae.php
Claiming that creationism is based on science insults all of our intelligence.
Which only proves your ignorance.
Now it all makes sense. You saw Ben Stein's bullsh** movie and are now trying to pretend as though you know about biology. Ben Stein is a dipsh** former speech writer for Nixon, not an expert on biology. Actual biologists, on the other hand, are experts on biology. Over 90% of them agree that evolution is most likely what is responsible for the gradual changes of species (much like how most physicists agree that the invisible force gravity is responsible for attraction to planetary bodies).
Seriously, learn how to read books by biologists. While you're at it, read some scientific journals. If you stick to stuff by Ben Stein and other douchebags, you'll only continue to make yourself look like an ass.
Yea, I saw his movie awhile agop, but thats not whre Im getting all of this from. I have read many books, actually both by Creation Scientists (they do exsist) and Darwinists.. However I am not even talking about whether or not life evolved right now. Im saying that it is just as possible that life was started by a higher power of some kind as it is that it was started by a lightning strike and a lucky combination of protiens. I am also saying that there is nothing unscientific about belief in a higher power.
-
I am also saying that there is nothing unscientific about belief in a higher power.
Belief.... No.
Saying it is fact.... Yes.
You see, we don't know how life truly started, and that is not what evolution deals with. Thus, saying that a higher power created life would require evidence to prove it exists, not require proof that it does not.
-
Yea, I saw his movie awhile agop, but thats not whre Im getting all of this from.
Then why are you echoing Ben Stein's views verbatim?
I have read many books, actually both by Creation Scientists (they do exsist) and Darwinists..
There are some scientists who are creationists. I'll give you that. That doesn't change the fact that over 90% of biologists (the ones who actually study life) view evolution as scientific fact.
By the way, which books have you read by "Darwinists"? I want specific books and specific authors.
However I am not even talking about whether or not life evolved right now.
You are casting doubt on evolution by comparing it to religious babble.
Im [sic] saying that it is just as possible that life was started by a higher power of some kind as it is that it was started by a lightning strike and a lucky combination of protiens.
I'm not denying the possibility of divine creation. It is possible. Based on the evidence we have, it's not very likely.
I am also saying that there is nothing unscientific about belief in a higher power.
Bullsh**! Science is, in its most basic definition, the natural explanation of things. The divine is supernatural. Since supernatural occurrences are outside of nature, they cannot be scientific. To claim otherwise is pure idiocy.
-
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-woskel0520,0,5292378.story
-
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-woskel0520,0,5292378.story
I linked to the Pharyngula blog story about it earlier.