Religion ( a must see )

[TheDrop]

Because if you ask your parents why did they punish you (for some reason), they will answer "because we love you".
Ask it now if you don't believe me.

so fcking true
Once my uncle slapped me and my mom said it was becuz he loved me.
from then on i started thinking my grandmother (who never hit me) hated me -_-

[Amarisa]

abusive relationship?

You love your wife. If you find out she has been cheating on you for about 2 years, according to you, you shouldn't divorce her because you love her?

It seems like you're just posting just to post...

It's like you're asking why do I get punished for doing something I shouldn't be doing.


To all: Please, please do read your whole posts before you post them. Maybe in a 2nd read you can see how little sense you make.

lul how does divorce = eternity in hell?

i am not asking why do i get punished for what i do wrong. i am asking why do you send the ones you "love" to hell if they don't worship you.

do you punish the one you love if they don't worship you?

Because if you ask your parents why did they punish you (for some reason), they will answer "because we love you".
Ask it now if you don't believe me.

no i wouldn't get the "because we love you" i would get something along the lines of "what you were doing is wrong."

response on why it was wrong would be "because i said so"

[PR0METHEUS]

extremists are just people who want attention and power and use religion as an excuse. unfortunately they brain wash a lot of people with their crap.

Or the religious extremists may have been brainwashed themselves. They become religious, really really religious, think that people who do not hold the same extreme beliefs are worthless, must be eliminated... Yeah... Religion can be a great thing, until people take it too far and use it as a weapon against other people.

Use it to improve your life, not to destroy others' lives.

if you say jesus and god loves me....why do they punish me to hell for eternity if i disobey? abusive relationship much?

abusive relationship?

You love your wife. If you find out she has been cheating on you for about 2 years, according to you, you shouldn't divorce her because you love her?

I understand where you're coming from, but this comparison would make more sense if after you divorce your wife, you imprison her in a fire filled torture chamber for the rest of her life. Make her immortal, but still feel pain.

Does she really deserve that because she didn't worship you?

[NuclearSilo]

Because if you ask your parents why did they punish you (for some reason), they will answer "because we love you".
Ask it now if you don't believe me.

no i wouldn't get the "because we love you" i would get something along the lines of "what you were doing is wrong."

response on why it was wrong would be "because i said so"

If that's the case, ask : "if you love me, why did you punish me?"

[Amarisa]

Because if you ask your parents why did they punish you (for some reason), they will answer "because we love you".
Ask it now if you don't believe me.

no i wouldn't get the "because we love you" i would get something along the lines of "what you were doing is wrong."

response on why it was wrong would be "because i said so"

If that's the case, ask : "if you love me, why did you punish me?"

same as above really. plus parents can't punish you to hell can they?

i'm not talking about simple punishment. i am talking about hey look i don't believe you are real if you are then i guess i'm going to hell.

[Ningyotsukai-san]

It seems like you guys think hell is a place you go to if you just tell one lie. It's not. It's not even a place you go to after a thousand lies. But here, we're talking about denying his existence. There cannot be any sin bigger than that. That's it, max level! You deny God's existence.

Still can't see why denying it's existence is the greatest sin.

Why is that, so? ... because it says so? ... I've heard far better excuses from my father

Does it need the ego boost, is it desperate for recognition, or does it really gain a thing, if anything, from us believing that it exists?

Is it simply a fact one can't attribute human characteristics to it because it's something "greater" ? ....heh

You look around and can't really see signs of it's existence, (yea, you can toss about the word: "life", but eh) yet, it'll sure damn a "soul" to an eternity of the utmost of pain and suffering for the smallest fraction of time you're actually alive, solely because it says you must believe in it, but didn't...

I'm sorry, but I see no love in that ideology, whatsoever; Believe it exists or you'll suffer for all time...

[NuclearSilo]

same as above really. plus parents can't punish you to hell can they?

i'm not talking about simple punishment. i am talking about hey look i don't believe you are real if you are then i guess i'm going to hell.

Nope, coz they aren't gods.
But you didn't actually go to hell, did you? If not, it's a pure assumption that you'll go to hell if you don't believe in god

[*BlackFox]

extremists are just people who want attention and power and use religion as an excuse. unfortunately they brain wash a lot of people with their crap.

Or the religious extremists may have been brainwashed themselves. They become religious, really really religious, think that people who do not hold the same extreme beliefs are worthless, must be eliminated.

I agree with both of you.. completely!

[NuclearSilo]

extremists are just people who want attention and power and use religion as an excuse. unfortunately they brain wash a lot of people with their crap.

Or the religious extremists may have been brainwashed themselves. They become religious, really really religious, think that people who do not hold the same extreme beliefs are worthless, must be eliminated.

I agree with both of you.. completely!

So to combine both ideas : brainwashed extremists brainwash lots of other people.

[BuDo]

I understand where you're coming from, but this comparison would make more sense if after you divorce your wife, you imprison her in a fire filled torture chamber for the rest of her life. Make her immortal, but still feel pain.

Does she really deserve that because she didn't worship you?

See, your comparison is off.

I compared it to divorce beacuse you simply marrying her, not creating her.

If you marry someone you love, and they do a wrong move, you divorce them.

If one you create denies your existence, after forgiving him a million times (God is most merciful), forgiving him more then any human can forgive anyone, I guess hell is the answer.

It seems like you guys think hell is like a place you go to if you just tell one lie. It's not. It's not even a place you go to after a thousand lies. But here, we're talking about denying his existence. There can not be any sin bigger then that. That's it, max lvl. You deny God's existence.

I agree with PR0METHEUS. We are talking about religion here. Hell is "supposedly" eternal. If god loves and made us to behave and live the way we do then just because we deny his existence shouldn't be grounds for a life of eternal suffering.

That's like me refusing to believe that my parents exist and they sending to me to prison for rest of my life....That is a contradiction of the love they keep professing for me. Especially if I've never seen my parents before because for some reason they refuse to show themselves.

If god is a reasonable entity I can't see how he/she/it will be mad for us doubting his/her/it's existence. We are mere humans...basic in our thinking and our ways because that's how we were made...and by this very same god.

[Fresh]

religion was the reason why WWII started. basically, i try to avoid it due to the amount of fail our Mother Earth possesses.

[Blurred]

religion was the reason why WWII started. basically, i try to avoid it due to the amount of fail our Mother Earth possesses.

Seriously...?

[Amarisa]

If one you create denies your existence, after forgiving him a million times (God is most merciful), forgiving him more then any human can forgive anyone, I guess hell is the answer.

It seems like you guys think hell is like a place you go to if you just tell one lie. It's not. It's not even a place you go to after a thousand lies. But here, we're talking about denying his existence. There can not be any sin bigger then that. That's it, max lvl. You deny God's existence.

if god made us and sets the road ahead of us then why is their atheists? the devil? i still don't know if a "fallen angel" can turn 30% of the US population into atheists

If you marry someone you love, and they do a wrong move, you divorce them.

not always true i know of a few marriages that someone cheated on them yet they stayed together. your saying that if the person you marry does something you don't like you toss them.

define a wrong move. saying a wrong move is just like saying something you don't like/ approve of. its based off your opinion.

[Blurred]

if god made us and sets the road ahead of us then why is their atheists? the devil? i still don't know if a "fallen angel" can turn 30% of the US population into atheists

This is a common misconceptions that most Atheist use as an argument. "Why god doesn't heal amputees?" According to religious beliefs, god has given people 'free will'. You do whatever you want in the physical word. Remember, he has given you 'free will', you can choose to do what's right and what's wrong. Seriously though, a Google search could of answered this. In addition, he does not pave the world for you either. The existence of a god differs from what a god should or should not do based on religion.

On another note, I personally think that people who turn into 'atheists' need to research all the possibilities of the existence of a god, and not just base it off religion. The best scientist will follow the scientific method by trying to prove something wrong in every way possible rather than right.

[EvGa]

On another note, I personally think that people who turn into 'atheists' need to research all the possibilities of the existence of a god, and not just base it off religion. The best scientist will follow the scientific method by trying to prove something wrong in every way possible rather than right.

BRB - Spending eternity trying to prove wrong all possibilities of everything. You don't see the problem here? You claim there is a god, prove it.

I claim there is a teapot orbiting the sun, I must prove it true, it's not your job to prove it wrong. If that was the case there would be an infinite long list of 'things' scientists must prove wrong...

I will look into all possibilities of the existence of God when I see a shred of evidence to suggest that I should even begin looking.

[Blurred]

On another note, I personally think that people who turn into 'atheists' need to research all the possibilities of the existence of a god, and not just base it off religion. The best scientist will follow the scientific method by trying to prove something wrong in every way possible rather than right.

BRB - Spending eternity trying to prove wrong all possibilities of everything. You don't see the problem here? You claim there is a god, prove it.

I claim there is a teapot orbiting the sun, I must prove it true, it's not your job to prove it wrong. If that was the case there would be an infinite long list of 'things' scientists must prove wrong...

I will look into all possibilities of the existence of God when I see a shred of evidence to suggest that I should even begin looking.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." -Albert Einstein.

It is called Falsifiability.

[EvGa]

On another note, I personally think that people who turn into 'atheists' need to research all the possibilities of the existence of a god, and not just base it off religion. The best scientist will follow the scientific method by trying to prove something wrong in every way possible rather than right.

BRB - Spending eternity trying to prove wrong all possibilities of everything. You don't see the problem here? You claim there is a god, prove it.

I claim there is a teapot orbiting the sun, I must prove it true, it's not your job to prove it wrong. If that was the case there would be an infinite long list of 'things' scientists must prove wrong...

I will look into all possibilities of the existence of God when I see a shred of evidence to suggest that I should even begin looking.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." -Albert Einstein.

It is called Falsifiability.

Exactly, the concept of God is not falsifiable, it does not fall in the realm of science or any other means of testing that we have. It falls into the same category as an infinite number of other unfalsifiable 'things'. The fact you can't prove it false in no way proves it true or even contributes at all really.

[Nick Invaders]

On another note, I personally think that people who turn into 'atheists' need to research all the possibilities of the existence of a god, and not just base it off religion. The best scientist will follow the scientific method by trying to prove something wrong in every way possible rather than right.

BRB - Spending eternity trying to prove wrong all possibilities of everything. You don't see the problem here? You claim there is a god, prove it.

I claim there is a teapot orbiting the sun, I must prove it true, it's not your job to prove it wrong. If that was the case there would be an infinite long list of 'things' scientists must prove wrong...

I will look into all possibilities of the existence of God when I see a shred of evidence to suggest that I should even begin looking.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." -Albert Einstein.

It is called Falsifiability.

That's why a lot of stuff in science are theories. They aren't able to be proven true, but we have found stuff to support that it might be true.

[Skyve]

Same way god might exist. At the end,both Science and Religion are theories

[NuclearSilo]

Same way god might exist. At the end,both Science and Religion are theories

Yes, and in the end, people here waste to time argue theories vs theories

[strangelove]

if god made us and sets the road ahead of us then why is their atheists? the devil? i still don't know if a "fallen angel" can turn 30% of the US population into atheists

This is a common misconceptions that most Atheist use as an argument. "Why god doesn't heal amputees?" According to religious beliefs, god has given people 'free will'. You do whatever you want in the physical word. Remember, he has given you 'free will', you can choose to do what's right and what's wrong. Seriously though, a Google search could of answered this. In addition, he does not pave the world for you either. The existence of a god differs from what a god should or should not do based on religion.

On another note, I personally think that people who turn into 'atheists' need to research all the possibilities of the existence of a god, and not just base it off religion. The best scientist will follow the scientific method by trying to prove something wrong in every way possible rather than right.

Which is why these religious beliefs are non-sensical. To say that a God has given people free will entirely refutes the purpose of free will in the first place. Do you not see the paradox? If we do have free will it's because we have no other choice.

On what basis would one justify there being a god or deity if not through some type of religious affiliation? As far as I can tell, any other justification that involves a deity without a religion is either subjective or simply for one's personal spirituality, which are not valid reasons in the field of science. Justifications usually include things such as attributing the beauty of nature to a deity, attributing physical constants to a deity, attributing creativity (poems, music, paintings, etc) to a deity, or some other vague claim that either needs no explaining or cannot be subject to explanation (read: unfalsifiable).

@ExSoldier
Not quite. As I've (probably) mentioned before, science only needs to restate facts (i.e, empirical evidence). Religion needs to make assertions. A run-of-the-mill theory is not the same as a scientific theory and that's something a lot of people have trouble differentiating.

Edit: Missed a "will".

[Nick Invaders]

^ indeed. Let's say we find fossils. Over a period of time (let's say 5 million years) we notice some fossils to change little by little. Because of this we can assume the species has evolved, thus supporting evolution. The theory of evolution has evidence to support it, but never enough to prove it to be true.

[EvGa]

Same way god might exist. At the end,both Science and Religion are theories

Yes, and in the end, people here waste to time argue theories vs theories

Some hold more water than others. (Read: Some are bottomless buckets, they hold none.)

[strangelove]

^ indeed. Let's say we find fossils. Over a period of time (let's say 5 million years) we notice some fossils to change little by little. Because of this we can assume the species has evolved, thus supporting evolution. The theory of evolution has evidence to support it, but never enough to prove it to be true.

Well, not exactly. Evolution has been shown to be correct time and time again. The fact that the fossil record can provide proof of speciation (when new species begin appearing) is a good bonus, but is not at all the epitome of evidence. There have been well over a million (if not more) documented studies of evolution and speciation which have produced similar results. Here's a list of a few of the studies if you're interested-

Spoiler!

Direct Experimental Tests Of Evolutionary Concepts

A Model For Divergent Allopatric Speciation Of Polyploid Pteridophytes Resulting From Silencing Of Duplicate-Gene Expression by Charles R.E. Werth and Michael D. Windham, American Naturalist, 137(4): 515-526 (April 1991) - DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL TO MATCH OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

A Molecular Reexamination Of Diploid Hybrid Speciation Of Solanum raphanifolium by David M. Spooner, Kenneth. J. Sytsma and James F. Smith, Evolution, 45(3): 757-764 - DOCUMENTATION OF AN OBSERVED SPECIATION EVENT

Cavefish As A Model System In Evolutionary Developmental Biology by William R. Jeffrey, Developmental Biology, 231:, 1-12 (1 Mar 2001) - contains experimental tests of hypotheses about eye evolution

Chromosome Evolution, Phylogeny, And Speciation Of Rock Wallabies, by G. B. Sharman, R. L. Close and G. M. Maynes, Australian Journal of Zoology, 37(2-4): 351-363 (1991) - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Crystal Structure Of An Ancient Protein: Evolution By Conformational Epistasis by Eric A. Ortlund, Jamie T. Bridgham, Matthew R. Redinbo and Joseph W. Thornton, Science, 317: 1544-1548 (14 September 2007) - refers to the reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals by back-tracking along the molecular phylogenetic trees and demonstrating that the proteins in question WORK

Evidence For Rapid Speciation Following A Founder Event In The Laboratory by James R. Weinberg Victoria R. Starczak and Danielle Jörg, Evolution 46: 1214-1220 (15th January 1992) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Evolutionary Theory And Process Of Active Speciation And Adaptive Radiation In Subterranean Mole Rats, Spalax ehrenbergi Superspecies, In Israel by E. Nevo, Evolutionary Biology, 25: 1-125 - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Experimentally Created Incipient Species Of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230: 289 - 292 (2nd April 1971) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Founder-Flush Speciation On Drosophila pseudoobscura: A Large Scale Experiment by Agustí Galiana, Andrés Moya and Francisco J. Alaya, Evolution 47: 432-444 (1993) EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Genetics Of Natural Populations XII. Experimental Reproduction Of Some Of the Changes Caused by Natural Selection by Sewall Wright & Theodosius Dobzkansky, Genetics, 31(2): 125-156 (1946) - direct experimental tests of natural selection mechanisms

Hedgehog Signalling Controls Eye Degeneration In Blind Cavefish by Yoshiyuki Yamamoto, David W. Stock and William R. Jeffery, Nature, 431: 844-847 (14 Oct 2004) - direct experimental test of theories about eye evolution and the elucidation of the controlling genes involved

Initial Sequencing Of The Chimpanzee Genome And Comparison With The Human Genome, The Chimpanzee Genome Sequencing Consortium (see paper for full list of 68 authors), Nature, 437: 69-87 (1 September 2005) - direct sequencing of the chimpanzee genome and direct comparison of this genome with the previously sequenced human genome, whereby the scientists discovered that fully twenty-nine percent of the orthologous proteins of humans and chimpanzees are IDENTICAL

Origin Of The Superflock Of Cichlid Fishes From Lake Victoria, East Africa by Erik Verheyen, Walter Salzburger, Jos Snoeks and Axel Meyer, Science, 300: 325-329 (11 April 2003) - direct experimental determination of the molecular phylogeny of the Lake Victoria Superflock, including IDENTIFYING THE COMMON ANCESTOR OF THE 350+ SPECIES IN QUESTION and NAMING THAT ANCESTOR as Haplochromis gracilior

Phagotrophy By A Flagellate Selects For Colonial Prey: A Possible Origin Of Multicellularity by Martin.E. Boraas, Dianne.B. Seale and Joseph .E. Boxhorn, Evolutionary Ecology 12(2): 153-164 (February 1998 ) - direct experimental test of hypotheses about the origins of multicellularity

Pollen-Mediated Introgression And Hybrid Speciation In Louisiana Irises by Michael L. Arnold, Cindy M. Buckner and Jonathan J. Robinson, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 88(4): 1398-1402 (February 1991) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

Protein Engineering Of Hydrogenase 3 To Enhance Hydrogen Production by Toshinari. Maeda, Viviana. Sanchez-Torres and Thomas. K. Wood, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 79(1): 77-86 (May 2008) - DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION OF EVOLUTION IN THE LABORATORY TO PRODUCE A NEW BIOTECHNOLOGY PRODUCT

Resurrecting Ancient Genes: Experimental Analysis Of Extinct Molecules by Joseph W. Thornton, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 5: 366-375 (5 May 2004) - direct experimental reconstruction in the laboratory of ancient proteins from extinct animals

Sexual Isolation Caused By Selection For Positive And Negative Phototaxis And Geotaxis In Drosophila pseudoobscura by E. del Solar, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 56: 484-487 (1966) - direct experimental test of selection mechanisms and their implications for speciation

Speciation By Hybridisation In Heliconius Butterflies by Jesús Mavárez, Camilo A. Salazar, Eldredge Bermingham, Christian Salcedo, Chris D. Jiggins and Mauricio Linares, Nature, 441: 868-871 (15th June 2006) - DETERMINATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE, FOLLOWED BY LABOARTORY REPRODUCTION OF THAT SPECIATION EVENT, AND CONFIRMATION THAT THE LABORATORY INDIVIDUALS ARE INTERFERTILE WITH THE WILD TYPE INDIVIDUALS

Speciation By Hybridization In Phasmids And Other Insects By Luciano Bullini and Guiseppe Nascetti, Canadian Journal of Zoology 68(8): 1747-1760 (1990) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

The Gibbons Speciation Mechanism by S. Ramadevon and M. A. B. Deaken, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 145(4): 447-456 (1991) - DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL ACCOUNTING FOR OBSERVED INSTANCES OF SPECIATION

The Master Control Gene For Morphogenesis And Evolution Of The Eye by Walter J. Gehrig, Genes to Cells, 1: 11-15, 1996 - direct experimental test of hypotheses concerning eye evolution including the elucidation of the connection between the Pax6 gene and eye morphogenesis, and the experimental manipulation of that gene to control eye development

The Past As The Key To The Present: Resurrection Of Ancient Proteins From Eosinophils by Steven A. Benner, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA., 99(8): 4760-4761 (16 April 2002) - direct experimental reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals

Evolution has plenty of evidence going for it– more than you'll ever need for any other concept. Fact is, there will never be enough evidence to sway people from believing the supernatural. No matter how many peer-reviewed studies you show them, you will be hard-pressed to convince a religious person of our origins for the simple fact that evolution and science cannot answer questions they would like answers to: "What is my purpose? What happens after death? Why am I alive?" Unfortunately, science can't answer these questions because science does not specialize in wish-thinking as most religions tend to do, and that is very inconvenient for someone under the illusion that they have all the answers already.

[EvGa]

Unfortunately, science can't answer these questions because science does not specialize in wish-thinking as most religions tend to do, and that is very inconvenient for someone under the illusion that they have all the answers already.

I would dare say it is actually convenient for them, allowing them to continue on unabated in there wish-thinking beliefs, beliefs that claim to know the answers to unanswerable questions.

[strangelove]

I would dare say it is actually convenient for them, allowing them to continue on unabated in there wish-thinking beliefs, beliefs that claim to know the answers to unanswerable questions.

Whoops, yeah. Head isn't right today. Had a little too much to drink (and I never drink) but I couldn't let these little nuggets go unanswered. It's a disease!

[Amarisa]

On another note, I personally think that people who turn into 'atheists' need to research all the possibilities of the existence of a god, and not just base it off religion. The best scientist will follow the scientific method by trying to prove something wrong in every way possible rather than right.

why don't all religious people research all the possibilities of the non existence of a god. why must atheists do all the work? i did my research

[BuDo]

And it is these unanswerable questions which makes it wise to take an agnostic approach. I will not try to foolishly prove or refute that of which I know nothing about.

[NuclearSilo]

There is not enough material facts to explain how a fish can transform into a dinosaur. The evolution we know till know is that there is relation between species. And natural selection is a guess because we didn't actually see it with our own eyes.

[EvGa]

There is not enough material facts to explain how a fish can transform into a dinosaur. The evolution we know till know is that there is relation between species. And natural selection is a guess because we didn't actually see it with our own eyes.

We can't witness natural selection with our own eyes? Go check out bacteria. Get back to me.