The ancient lands.


    Religion thread, part deux

    Anonymous
    Guest
    Guest

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Religion thread, part deux

    Post by Guest on September 12th 2010, 2:04 pm

    Right then, seeing as religious debate is piling up in the life philosophy thread, which was intended to be more or less free of such, I suggest it be taken here.

    Now that we have a brand-new thread for this, go ahead and rip each other to shreds. You know you want to.
    Yioibon
    Yioibon


      : Male
     Rep3

     Posts: : 638

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Re: Religion thread, part deux

    Post by Yioibon on September 12th 2010, 7:06 pm

    This thread is already funny.

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Re: Religion thread, part deux

    Post by Gamma The Great on September 22nd 2010, 9:09 pm

    Religion is true because there is no proof. Atheism is true because there is no proof.

    Ignoramuses are attracted to the smell of inane logic.
    Roterblitz
    Roterblitz

    Religion thread, part deux VOZLn

    Religion thread, part deux Blackr10Religion thread, part deux Medalw11Religion thread, part deux Medalg10Religion thread, part deux White10Religion thread, part deux Medal13

      : Male
     Rep6

    Age: : 28
     Posts: : 1117

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Re: Religion thread, part deux

    Post by Roterblitz on September 22nd 2010, 9:57 pm

    The existence of God is, by definition, impossible to disprove, but the same can be said about vampires.
    Shade
    Shade

    Religion thread, part deux VOZLn

    Religion thread, part deux Medalw11Religion thread, part deux Zigzag10Religion thread, part deux Medal13

      : Male
     Rep2

    Age: : 25
     Posts: : 6559

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Re: Religion thread, part deux

    Post by Shade on September 29th 2010, 5:26 pm

    Roterblitz wrote:The existence of God is, by definition, impossible to disprove, but the same can be said about vampires.

    It's also impossible to prove the existence of God.
    karkooshy
    karkooshy

    Religion thread, part deux Imagee10

    Religion thread, part deux Medalg10

      : Male
     Rep9

    Age: : 24
     Posts: : 478

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Re: Religion thread, part deux

    Post by karkooshy on September 29th 2010, 6:46 pm

    It is not impossible to prove the existence of god. It's just so easy to deny it :faic:
    Look around you. Every creation has a creator.
    Even when a child breaks something, the child doesn't say it broke by itself, he blames someone else :mrgreen:
    This universe, it's so diverse, so complex, so organized... it's hard to believe that all of this happened by accident.


    _________________

    Religion thread, part deux Grunge10
    Anonymous
    Guest
    Guest

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Re: Religion thread, part deux

    Post by Guest on September 29th 2010, 7:01 pm

    karkooshy wrote:It is not impossible to prove the existence of god. It's just so easy to deny it :faic:
    Ahaha, aha. No.
    Look around you. Every creation has a creator.
    I fail to see how that's even relevant.
    Even when a child breaks something, the child doesn't say it broke by itself, he blames someone else :mrgreen:
    Some children are stupid enough to try that, actually. Digressions aside, though, even if that were true, it would prove nothing.
    This universe, it's so diverse, so complex, so organized... it's hard to believe that all of this happened by accident.
    Um...why?
    Roterblitz
    Roterblitz

    Religion thread, part deux VOZLn

    Religion thread, part deux Blackr10Religion thread, part deux Medalw11Religion thread, part deux Medalg10Religion thread, part deux White10Religion thread, part deux Medal13

      : Male
     Rep6

    Age: : 28
     Posts: : 1117

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Re: Religion thread, part deux

    Post by Roterblitz on September 30th 2010, 2:43 am

    karkooshy wrote:It is not impossible to prove the existence of god. It's just so easy to deny it :faic:
    If there was concrete scientific evidence that proved the existence of God, we would not be having this discussion.
    karkooshy wrote:Look around you. Every creation has a creator.
    Who is the creator of Hawaii?
    karkooshy wrote:Even when a child breaks something, the child doesn't say it broke by itself, he blames someone else :mrgreen:
    Centuries ago, we used to believe the sun rising was an act of divinity.
    karkooshy wrote:This universe, it's so diverse, so complex, so organized... it's hard to believe that all of this happened by accident.
    Just because something was not specifically planned out by an intelligent creator does not mean it was an accident, there is a very good reason why water falls from the sky even though no one is making it happen.
    karkooshy
    karkooshy

    Religion thread, part deux Imagee10

    Religion thread, part deux Medalg10

      : Male
     Rep9

    Age: : 24
     Posts: : 478

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Re: Religion thread, part deux

    Post by karkooshy on September 30th 2010, 4:11 am

    Roterblitz wrote:
    If there was concrete scientific evidence that proved the existence of God, we would not be having this discussion.
    Who is the creator of Hawaii?
    Centuries ago, we used to believe the sun rising was an act of divinity.
    Just because something was not specifically planned out by an intelligent creator does not mean it was an accident, there is a very good reason why water falls from the sky even though no one is making it happen.

    The sun rising is due to the rotation of earth. According to my religion, the rotation of planets was designed by god. So yes, I do believe that the sun rising (or rain falling for that matter) involves an act of divinity. God has created this world, this universe, and all the rules and laws of physics. :)
    God sends prophets aided with miracles to proof his existence.

    On the other hand, if I asked you to go back in time, you'd eventually get to hydrogen- which according to the big bang theory, was the first element to be spawned by this explosion. What came before that? Nothing. How can "nothing" suddenly cause an explosion of matter and become "everything". More than that, how could this original nothing bring such perfect and diverse life?




    _________________

    Religion thread, part deux Grunge10
    Shade
    Shade

    Religion thread, part deux VOZLn

    Religion thread, part deux Medalw11Religion thread, part deux Zigzag10Religion thread, part deux Medal13

      : Male
     Rep2

    Age: : 25
     Posts: : 6559

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Re: Religion thread, part deux

    Post by Shade on September 30th 2010, 4:21 am

    Even when a child breaks something, the child doesn't say it broke by itself, he blames someone else

    Mechanics lecture upcoming; Yeah. The blame rests with the laws of physics. Basically, imagine the object is on the ground, and the child broke it. The force the child is exerting on the object is greater than the force the object is exerting on the child. Due to a build up of tension in the object, it snaps. Simple as that.

    Look around you. Every creation has a creator.
    This universe, it's so diverse, so complex, so organized... it's hard to believe that all of this happened by accident.

    I'll tackle both of these quotes by a single statement. The Earth was formed through a series of chemical reactions, when all time and matter was created. You can see these reactions in science labs (through a smaller scale). It's very doubtful it's the work of a divine being.



    Anonymous
    Guest
    Guest

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Re: Religion thread, part deux

    Post by Guest on September 30th 2010, 9:43 pm

    karkooshy wrote:The sun rising is due to the rotation of earth. According to my religion, the rotation of planets was designed by god. So yes, I do believe that the sun rising (or rain falling for that matter) involves an act of divinity. God has created this world, this universe, and all the rules and laws of physics. :)
    But why? Why do you involve in the equation a being whose existence you have no concrete evidence of and is entirely unneeded given our understanding of the universe around us? This would be logically acceptable a few thousand years ago, when the human race hardly understood anything major about the universe, but now it's basically saying there are invisible penguins whose existence can not be proven. Even assuming there are invisible penguins, they aren't causing any events, situations or the like which can not be explained in a far more logical manner.

    God sends prophets aided with miracles to proof his existence.
    The last documented case of such a thing happening was over two thousand years ago, and there's this little thing called "adaptation decay," which basically means that, for all we know, the modern bible is nothing like what it once was and therefore can't be trusted to relay such high-importance information as what we should believe and why. Tell me: Have you ever even read any part at all of the original copy of the bible?

    On the other hand, if I asked you to go back in time, you'd eventually get to hydrogen- which according to the big bang theory, was the first element to be spawned by this explosion. What came before that? Nothing. How can "nothing" suddenly cause an explosion of matter and become "everything". More than that, how could this original nothing bring such perfect and diverse life?
    Maybe you should google "physics of nothing" and see the other side's perfectly reasonable explanation instead of automatically assuming yours is true. As for your second question, I can answer that myself: We only see this universe of "perfect and diverse life" because we are conscious beings which can observe it. If we didn't come about, we wouldn't be conscious beings which can observe it, so the unthinking atoms would be none the wiser to the fact that they aren't in a universe full of "perfect and diverse life." We can only observe the odd chain of lucky events that allow us to observe.
    karkooshy
    karkooshy

    Religion thread, part deux Imagee10

    Religion thread, part deux Medalg10

      : Male
     Rep9

    Age: : 24
     Posts: : 478

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Re: Religion thread, part deux

    Post by karkooshy on October 1st 2010, 6:50 am

    Fatum Cruelis wrote:
    But why? Why do you involve in the equation a being whose existence you have no concrete evidence of and is entirely unneeded given our understanding of the universe around us? This would be logically acceptable a few thousand years ago, when the human race hardly understood anything major about the universe, but now it's basically saying there are invisible penguins whose existence can not be proven. Even assuming there are invisible penguins, they aren't causing any events, situations or the like which can not be explained in a far more logical manner.

    The last documented case of such a thing happening was over two thousand years ago, and there's this little thing called "adaptation decay," which basically means that, for all we know, the modern bible is nothing like what it once was and therefore can't be trusted to relay such high-importance information as what we should believe and why. Tell me: Have you ever even read any part at all of the original copy of the bible?


    Maybe you should google "physics of nothing" and see the other side's perfectly reasonable explanation instead of automatically assuming yours is true. As for your second question, I can answer that myself: We only see this universe of "perfect and diverse life" because we are conscious beings which can observe it. If we didn't come about, we wouldn't be conscious beings which can observe it, so the unthinking atoms would be none the wiser to the fact that they aren't in a universe full of "perfect and diverse life." We can only observe the odd chain of lucky events that allow us to observe.



    You can explain how the universe works, but you can't explain how it was originated using facts. God created this universe, and maintains it's balance. That is my belief :)

    At your second comment, I hate to say this, and I mean no offense to any of the christian members, but christianity doesn't define religion. I'm not a christian. So no, I haven't read the original bible, and I know it has been changed.

    You've already asked me to google "The Physics of nothing". Quite frankly I don't understand it. Do you understand it? Laughing
    If you do, please clarify. If you don't, you should understand things before asking other to research them ^^


    _________________

    Religion thread, part deux Grunge10
    Shade
    Shade

    Religion thread, part deux VOZLn

    Religion thread, part deux Medalw11Religion thread, part deux Zigzag10Religion thread, part deux Medal13

      : Male
     Rep2

    Age: : 25
     Posts: : 6559

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Re: Religion thread, part deux

    Post by Shade on October 1st 2010, 9:45 am

    [/quote]You've already asked me to google "The Physics of nothing". Quite frankly I don't understand it. Do you understand it?[quote]

    I think he means before the creation of time and matter. This was before the existence of atoms of any sort, before the existence of time. There isn't any concrete proof that God existed before the Big Bang, though.
    Super Racer Z
    Super Racer Z

    Religion thread, part deux 56qtD

    Religion thread, part deux Medalw11Religion thread, part deux Medal13

      : Male
     Rep15

    Age: : 24
     Posts: : 2580

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Re: Religion thread, part deux

    Post by Super Racer Z on October 1st 2010, 11:32 am

    karkooshy wrote:
    Fatum Cruelis wrote:
    But why? Why do you involve in the equation a being whose existence you have no concrete evidence of and is entirely unneeded given our understanding of the universe around us? This would be logically acceptable a few thousand years ago, when the human race hardly understood anything major about the universe, but now it's basically saying there are invisible penguins whose existence can not be proven. Even assuming there are invisible penguins, they aren't causing any events, situations or the like which can not be explained in a far more logical manner.

    The last documented case of such a thing happening was over two thousand years ago, and there's this little thing called "adaptation decay," which basically means that, for all we know, the modern bible is nothing like what it once was and therefore can't be trusted to relay such high-importance information as what we should believe and why. Tell me: Have you ever even read any part at all of the original copy of the bible?


    Maybe you should google "physics of nothing" and see the other side's perfectly reasonable explanation instead of automatically assuming yours is true. As for your second question, I can answer that myself: We only see this universe of "perfect and diverse life" because we are conscious beings which can observe it. If we didn't come about, we wouldn't be conscious beings which can observe it, so the unthinking atoms would be none the wiser to the fact that they aren't in a universe full of "perfect and diverse life." We can only observe the odd chain of lucky events that allow us to observe.



    You can explain how the universe works, but you can't explain how it was originated using facts. God created this universe, and maintains it's balance. That is my belief :)

    At your second comment, I hate to say this, and I mean no offense to any of the christian members, but Christianity doesn't define religion. I'm not a Christian. So no, I haven't read the original bible, and I know it has been changed.

    You've already asked me to google "The Physics of nothing". Quite frankly I don't understand it. Do you understand it? Laughing
    If you do, please clarify. If you don't, you should understand things before asking other to research them ^^

    He likely asked you to research it instead of forming a summery of it himself because describing a complex thing to someone when they are perfectly capable of learning about it under their own labor is not fun.

    Also, regarding your first comment, if God created the origins of this universe and the "physics of nothing" theories are completely wrong, then what created this God, and what came before him? If you try to say that God has always existed to completely bypass the question, then why can't the universe have existed forever and the big bang exist as something that has always happened periodically?


    _________________

    My Gamertag is Spec Racer Z and my name is Zack.

    Chatbox Quote
    [13:33:49]  Super Racer Z : Guys, we're talking about Sonic on a Sonic forum. What madness is this?
    [13:34:15]  sykog : I know, this usually never happens in the Piantabox
    [13:34:28]  sykog : Alert the authorities!
    [13:34:42]  Super Racer Z : We are the authorities.
    [13:35:19]  sykog : Oh yeah
    karkooshy
    karkooshy

    Religion thread, part deux Imagee10

    Religion thread, part deux Medalg10

      : Male
     Rep9

    Age: : 24
     Posts: : 478

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Re: Religion thread, part deux

    Post by karkooshy on October 1st 2010, 1:15 pm

    Super Racer Z wrote:
    Also, regarding your first comment, if God created the origins of this universe and the "physics of nothing" theories are completely wrong, then what created this God, and what came before him? If you try to say that God has always existed to completely bypass the question, then why can't the universe have existed forever and the big bang exist as something that has always happened periodically?


    Beginnings and endings are all part of the "time" concept. Due to time, there is a beginning and an end to everything. God created time, so he is not affected by it's flow. In short, there is no beginning or end to god's existence. :)




    _________________

    Religion thread, part deux Grunge10
    Shade
    Shade

    Religion thread, part deux VOZLn

    Religion thread, part deux Medalw11Religion thread, part deux Zigzag10Religion thread, part deux Medal13

      : Male
     Rep2

    Age: : 25
     Posts: : 6559

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Re: Religion thread, part deux

    Post by Shade on October 1st 2010, 1:17 pm

    karkooshy wrote:
    Super Racer Z wrote:
    Also, regarding your first comment, if God created the origins of this universe and the "physics of nothing" theories are completely wrong, then what created this God, and what came before him? If you try to say that God has always existed to completely bypass the question, then why can't the universe have existed forever and the big bang exist as something that has always happened periodically?


    Beginnings and endings are all part of the "time" concept. Due to time, there is a beginning and an end to everything. God created time, so he is not affected by it's flow. In short, there is no beginning or end to god's existence. :)



    Fair point. But is there any concrete proof that God exists?
    karkooshy
    karkooshy

    Religion thread, part deux Imagee10

    Religion thread, part deux Medalg10

      : Male
     Rep9

    Age: : 24
     Posts: : 478

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Re: Religion thread, part deux

    Post by karkooshy on October 1st 2010, 1:28 pm

    Sweet Mercy wrote:
    Fair point. But is there any concrete proof that God exists?

    To some people, yes. To others no. It all depends on if the person is willing to believe. I am 100% sure god exists. Many others may disagree.
    I believe that every creation has a creator, I believe in the holy books, I believe in the prophets and their miracles. That is enough proof for me.
    It's just that some people need more to convince. :)


    _________________

    Religion thread, part deux Grunge10
    Shade
    Shade

    Religion thread, part deux VOZLn

    Religion thread, part deux Medalw11Religion thread, part deux Zigzag10Religion thread, part deux Medal13

      : Male
     Rep2

    Age: : 25
     Posts: : 6559

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Re: Religion thread, part deux

    Post by Shade on October 1st 2010, 1:29 pm

    karkooshy wrote:
    Sweet Mercy wrote:
    Fair point. But is there any concrete proof that God exists?

    To some people, yes. To others no. It all depends on if the person is willing to believe. I am 100% sure god exists. Many others may disagree.
    I believe that every creation has a creator, I believe in the holy books, I believe in the prophets and their miracles. That is enough proof for me.
    It's just that some people need more to convince. :)

    You've got a point there. I won't really believe something (and I definitely won't worship something) unless I see irrefutable, concrete proof of it.
    Super Racer Z
    Super Racer Z

    Religion thread, part deux 56qtD

    Religion thread, part deux Medalw11Religion thread, part deux Medal13

      : Male
     Rep15

    Age: : 24
     Posts: : 2580

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Re: Religion thread, part deux

    Post by Super Racer Z on October 1st 2010, 3:18 pm

    karkooshy wrote:
    Super Racer Z wrote:
    Also, regarding your first comment, if God created the origins of this universe and the "physics of nothing" theories are completely wrong, then what created this God, and what came before him? If you try to say that God has always existed to completely bypass the question, then why can't the universe have existed forever and the big bang exist as something that has always happened periodically?


    Beginnings and endings are all part of the "time" concept. Due to time, there is a beginning and an end to everything. God created time, so he is not affected by it's flow. In short, there is no beginning or end to god's existence. :)



    But why is he not affected by the same rules as everything in the universe and in short, cause and effect? What your reason sounded like to me was, "There is no beginning of God's existence or something that came before him because he is God."

    karkooshy wrote:
    I believe that every creation has a creator...

    This is the other thing I wonder about. Considering all of the different ideas of god(s) that have existed over the course of recorded history, what's to determine whether or not God is just a creation of humanity's imagination?

    I don't completely believe in the non-existence of God, just like I'm not completely closed to the idea of a civilization or being that came before us creating the catalyst needed to make the universe. I just do not believe in the existence of god as perceived by the human consciousness.


    _________________

    My Gamertag is Spec Racer Z and my name is Zack.

    Chatbox Quote
    [13:33:49]  Super Racer Z : Guys, we're talking about Sonic on a Sonic forum. What madness is this?
    [13:34:15]  sykog : I know, this usually never happens in the Piantabox
    [13:34:28]  sykog : Alert the authorities!
    [13:34:42]  Super Racer Z : We are the authorities.
    [13:35:19]  sykog : Oh yeah
    Anonymous
    Guest
    Guest

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Re: Religion thread, part deux

    Post by Guest on October 1st 2010, 4:36 pm

    karkooshy wrote:You can explain how the universe works, but you can't explain how it was originated using facts.
    Actually, I can. More on that later on in this rebuttal.

    God created this universe, and maintains it's balance. That is my belief :)
    Error 404: Proof not found.

    At your second comment, I hate to say this, and I mean no offense to any of the christian members, but christianity doesn't define religion. I'm not a christian. So no, I haven't read the original bible, and I know it has been changed.
    Thank you for flawlessly proving my point.

    You've already asked me to google "The Physics of nothing". Quite frankly I don't understand it. Do you understand it? Laughing
    If you do, please clarify. If you don't, you should understand things before asking other to research them ^^
    It's best abridged by Stephen Hawking: "The universe goes through all the trouble of existing because nonexistence is unstable." Or something roughly to that effect. As I was saying before, I can, in fact, explain how the universe originated using facts. In fact, I just did.
    karkooshy
    karkooshy

    Religion thread, part deux Imagee10

    Religion thread, part deux Medalg10

      : Male
     Rep9

    Age: : 24
     Posts: : 478

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Re: Religion thread, part deux

    Post by karkooshy on October 1st 2010, 5:38 pm

    Super Racer Z wrote:
    But why is he not affected by the same rules as everything in the universe and in short, cause and effect? What your reason sounded like to me was, "There is no beginning of God's existence or something that came before him because he is God."


    You misunderstand my point :)
    God is not part of this universe. He is not contained by space nor controlled by time. That is why the "universal rules" don't apply to him.


    Fatum Cruelis wrote:
    It's best abridged by Stephen Hawking: "The universe goes through all the trouble of existing because nonexistence is unstable." Or something roughly to that effect. As I was saying before, I can, in fact, explain how the universe originated using facts. In fact, I just did.

    That is no fact. It's a theory. And it still doesn't make sense to me...
    You make it sound like if the universe has the choice to exist or not to exist. And it choses to, because not existing is unstable? xD


    _________________

    Religion thread, part deux Grunge10
    Super Racer Z
    Super Racer Z

    Religion thread, part deux 56qtD

    Religion thread, part deux Medalw11Religion thread, part deux Medal13

      : Male
     Rep15

    Age: : 24
     Posts: : 2580

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Re: Religion thread, part deux

    Post by Super Racer Z on October 1st 2010, 6:33 pm

    karkooshy wrote:
    Super Racer Z wrote:
    But why is he not affected by the same rules as everything in the universe and in short, cause and effect? What your reason sounded like to me was, "There is no beginning of God's existence or something that came before him because he is God."


    You misunderstand my point :)
    God is not part of this universe. He is not contained by space nor controlled by time. That is why the "universal rules" don't apply to him.

    So basically, "There is no beginning of God's existence or something that came before him because he is God."

    I'm sorry, but that is just not reason enough for me.


    _________________

    My Gamertag is Spec Racer Z and my name is Zack.

    Chatbox Quote
    [13:33:49]  Super Racer Z : Guys, we're talking about Sonic on a Sonic forum. What madness is this?
    [13:34:15]  sykog : I know, this usually never happens in the Piantabox
    [13:34:28]  sykog : Alert the authorities!
    [13:34:42]  Super Racer Z : We are the authorities.
    [13:35:19]  sykog : Oh yeah
    Sketch Style
    Sketch Style

    Religion thread, part deux GOMM8

      : Male
     Rep2

    Age: : 25
     Posts: : 581

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Re: Religion thread, part deux

    Post by Sketch Style on October 1st 2010, 6:34 pm

    The fact of religion, is based on faith. Its impossible to both prove, or disprove god. For many people, like myself, we believe; same applies for Evolution, we can't prove it happened, we can just gain clues that lead to it. Its a matter of belief, not proof.
    Anonymous
    Guest
    Guest

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Re: Religion thread, part deux

    Post by Guest on October 1st 2010, 7:33 pm

    karkooshy wrote:
    Fatum Cruelis wrote:It's best abridged by Stephen Hawking: "The universe goes through all the trouble of existing because nonexistence is unstable." Or something roughly to that effect. As I was saying before, I can, in fact, explain how the universe originated using facts. In fact, I just did.

    That is no fact. It's a theory.
    Given the definition of theory...
    Proper definition of theory wrote:a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
    ...I agree completely. Seriously, if you're going to try and knock some aspect of science for being poorly supported, at least use the right term: hypothesis. Additionally, I'd like to note that this bit of science is, in fact, not poorly supported, as you should have gathered from looking at the large amounts of evidence supporting it presented to you by Google.
    karkooshy wrote:And it still doesn't make sense to me...
    Sounds like a personal problem.

    You make it sound like if the universe has the choice to exist or not to exist. And it choses to, because not existing is unstable? xD
    Basically, except without the choosing part.

    ETA:
    Sketch Style wrote:The fact of religion, is based on faith. Its impossible to both prove, or disprove god. For many people, like myself, we believe; same applies for Evolution, we can't prove it happened, we can just gain clues that lead to it. Its a matter of belief, not proof.
    Ahaha, aha, ah. No proof of evolution. Allow me to rid you of your inanity the quick and easy way: with a quote of a copy-paste.
    Aeolus wrote:
    Claim [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html]CA612[/url] wrote:Because evolution has never been observed, the theory of evolution requires as much faith as creationism does.

    Copy-pasted Response:

    1. The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed. There is a great amount of this evidence. When evidence is found to contradict previous conclusions, those conclusions are abandoned, and new beliefs based on the new evidence take their place. This "seeing is believing" basis for the theory is exactly the opposite of the sort of faith implied by the claim.

    2. The claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Such faith is better known as gullibility. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings.

    A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone does not mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay. Such faith is not compatible with most creationism. Creationism usually demands that God acts according to peoples' set beliefs, and anything else is simply wrong (e.g., ICR 2000). It cannot accept that whatever God has done is okay.
    Shade
    Shade

    Religion thread, part deux VOZLn

    Religion thread, part deux Medalw11Religion thread, part deux Zigzag10Religion thread, part deux Medal13

      : Male
     Rep2

    Age: : 25
     Posts: : 6559

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Re: Religion thread, part deux

    Post by Shade on October 2nd 2010, 7:49 am

    Sketch Style wrote: same applies for Evolution, we can't prove it happened

    There is proof of evolution. It's called, "The Origin of Species". It shows how creatures adapt over time through the process of natural selection, and shows proof of variation through natural selection. Long story short, it provides the evidence for the theory of evolution.

    Sponsored content

    Religion thread, part deux Empty Re: Religion thread, part deux

    Post by Sponsored content