|
|
Ednaguy
Supreme Hero
My water just broke! No, wait.
|
posted March 16, 2009 06:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think its acceptable to kill one baby to save 10 puppies.
Yeah, but would you think the same if it was one baby vs one puppy?
Quote:
In my eyes all life is equal and not "zomg humans to rule them all!!!" like in most religion.
Do you splat mosquitos?
Quote:
Also I find most moral questions in most religions today (except Buddhism, I agree with the buddhists even though I will never bother to become one myself) very wrong and weird.
Have you been to your local church lately and listened to what is being said there? If not you can't say that the moral questions in Christianity is weird.
Quote:
Science adapts to survive advancements in knowledge over the universe etc while religion doesnt.
Again, have you been to someone/somewhere religious to see if it's adapted to survive?
____________
"Edna, there's a special, tiny, tiny place in hell, waiting just for you... "
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
posted March 16, 2009 06:24 PM |
|
|
ehm
Quote:
You really only know of one kind of religion, don't you? For me religion isn't about how the world was created, and how mankind cam into existence. Let science figure that out.
so... if you go by science you obviously don't buy the Adam & Eve story... without original sin what is the point of the crucifixion exactly?
Quote:
For me, religion is about what's right and wrong (although most of it is decided by common sense)
erm.. if you use common sense to decide what is right and wrong, why do you need religion? it just complicates things
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
Ednaguy
Supreme Hero
My water just broke! No, wait.
|
|
posted March 16, 2009 09:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
so... if you go by science you obviously don't buy the Adam & Eve story... without original sin what is the point of the crucifixion exactly?
Don't tell me people haven't sinned other times...
Quote:
erm.. if you use common sense to decide what is right and wrong, why do you need religion? it just complicates things
Well, religion can make it easier to "learn" common sense (yeah, I'm far out now, I know). I usually doesn't use religion for finding out what's right and wrong... That was a bad example. But when you're afraid or something, then religion is good to have 
____________
"Edna, there's a special, tiny, tiny place in hell, waiting just for you... "
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 17, 2009 09:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Elodin you didn't answer my question, would you be a Christian now if you were born and live in Afghanistan?
Yes.
Quote:
There was nothing scientific in determining the flatness of the Earth - no measurements took place etc. It was assumed flat by philosophers and Christian theologists - Church directly opposed the round Earth concept.
Reguardless of who thought what the Bible does not teach concept of a flat earth. There are figures of speech in the Bible just as we use figures of speech in day to day speech.
If you say you are so hungry you could eat a horse I do not to expect to see you chase down a horse and start eating it.
Long time before Aristotle the Bible refered to the world as being a sphere.
Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Quote:
Religion fails over science because it sticks to one belief all the time.
Many theories of science have been proven wron over the years.
Quote:
In religion its always "God just said something and exists for no reason" and they never try to improve and flesh up their belief. They always stick to "God said something".
It is the atheist who says things exist for no reason and came into being without cause. A theist says God wanted to create and he created.
"Science" is definitely not more likely to be true for it has many times been proven wrong.
Quote:
I think its acceptable to kill one baby to save 10 puppies.
That is very strange morality. So if you run into a burning building and have choice to grab a puppy in each hand or to carry out a little girl you chose the puppies. Hmmmmmm.
Quote:
so... if you go by science you obviously don't buy the Adam & Eve story... without original sin what is the point of the crucifixion exactly?
Science cannot prove evolution of human beings. Regardless, human had first parents. It is the teaching of the Bible that you are punished for your own sins. Jesus came to deal with the sins YOU have committed.
Quote:
erm.. if you use common sense to decide what is right and wrong, why do you need religion? it just complicates things
"Common sense" doesn't fly. There are those who think it is perfectly ok to kill people to save animals. Or ok to rape bablies. Ect.
The atheists tyrants who tried to create a "religion free utopia" certainly produced a society that was greatly immoral. So it would seem the atheist "common sense" claim does not work. Or woul you say Stalin's society was a utopia?
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 17, 2009 10:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I think its acceptable to kill one baby to save 10 puppies
what the...?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 17, 2009 11:07 AM |
|
|
I understand Xerox's view on the puppies, I used to think the same a while ago.
However, I later understood that, though all life is equal, it is a law of nature that every specie will rescue those of their own specie first and foremost. If a cat could choose to rescue one kitten or two human babies, it would save the kitten - not to mention if it's its own progeny.
It is natural that you will first and foremost try to save your closest ones - such as your children. Then another human being, since they are of your specie. Then a puppy, because it is also a mammal and hence similar and closer to you. Then would come a butterfly, then a flower, etcetera. If we had to choose between one puppy and several flowers, we would choose the puppy because it is closer to us. By that logic, it would also be natural to choose a baby above several puppies - though of course that doesn't mean that puppies are a lower specie or worth less than the baby.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted March 17, 2009 02:40 PM |
|
|
@Elodin.
Who don't the rest of them in Afghanistan find Jesus, but you would?
Quote:
Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
A little basic geometry for you. Circle is 2-dimensional, a shape on a plane. Aka as flat as it gets. That is exactly the passage that some may have read and interpret.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 17, 2009 03:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Religion fails over science because it sticks to one belief all the time.
Many theories of science have been proven wron over the years.
Quote:
"Science" is definitely not more likely to be true for it has many times been proven wrong.
Sciense is not constant. Sciense is litteraly "knowledge and facts", the label name is just to have a heap to put it in.
To put it blunty:
1: "The earth is flat"
2: "Then do you have evidence for that?"
1: "No, but if i found the edges of the world i have proven it"
Unless we find the edges of the world its noting more than a teori, a speculation. If we find them however its a "fact". However later on we figured out that there was a dark mist below that separated those people from the world, and it was actually round. Then the a fact beats another fact and explains why it was wrong.
You se, we make teories and prove them. Then we figur out someting else that affects the teoris and adds on more information. If a teori is put to the test and got mostly succes well, its kind of more bulletproff.
But i guess your reffering to Darwinisme, the "religion/faith/belif" that there nothing but Science and its facts. Those people are despicable in ways.
Quote:
That is very strange morality. So if you run into a burning building and have choice to grab a puppy in each hand or to carry out a little girl you chose the puppies. Hmmmmmm.
Its a refferance to the greater good. Would you kill 1 person to save 10? 10 for 1000? 1000 for humanity?
Quote:
Science cannot prove evolution of human beings. Regardless, human had first parents.
Actually i can't disagree at this point. We can only prove that the DNA's from old skeletons are a part of evolving. We might never find the missing link or it might never existsted, but there is a chance that we evolved from monkeys(and note the word evolved).
____________
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 17, 2009 03:50 PM |
|
|
Lol I thought even christains believe in evoloution.
Evoloution is just so obvious.
Yes, science does change its opinions many times and thats a good thing. If science did like religion then we would still be trying to tell people that the Earth is flat etc.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 17, 2009 04:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Actually i can't disagree at this point. We can only prove that the DNA's from old skeletons are a part of evolving. We might never find the missing link or it might never existsted, but there is a chance that we evolved from monkeys(and note the word evolved).
Nobody negates the evolution, but the monkey->human concept - well, more and more of the science world turns away from it. There is absolutely no evidence. NOTHING. It's a guess. A theory. Unproved, and slightly dumb, at least for me.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 17, 2009 05:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There is absolutely no evidence.
I beg to differ.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted March 17, 2009 06:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Nobody negates the evolution, but the monkey->human concept - well, more and more of the science world turns away from it.
Any sources for that statement?
Quote:
There is absolutely no evidence. NOTHING. It's a guess. A theory. Unproved, and slightly dumb, at least for me.
Not sure if you can call 97% identical DNA "dumb".....
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 17, 2009 06:58 PM |
|
|
Oh, I have a lot of sources, but I can't really quote any of the moment, unless you want scans of polish science magazines. And I don't think you do 
And isn't it 98%?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 17, 2009 07:08 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 19:08, 17 Mar 2009.
|
Quote:
It is natural that you will first and foremost try to save your closest ones - such as your children. Then another human being, since they are of your specie. Then a puppy, because it is also a mammal and hence similar and closer to you. Then would come a butterfly, then a flower, etcetera. If we had to choose between one puppy and several flowers, we would choose the puppy because it is closer to us. By that logic, it would also be natural to choose a baby above several puppies - though of course that doesn't mean that puppies are a lower specie or worth less than the baby.
So are we "above" animals or are we not? Yeah it is natural. So were cavemen, and I'm talking about morals -- they didn't use to have many...
It is my understanding that humans are too stubborn to rise above and evolve, they want to find excuses that "animals do it too" or "animals would do the same to us". I'm not stopping you from returning to stone age, but you don't seem to want that (am talking 100% about MENTALITY here)
Quote:
Not sure if you can call 97% identical DNA "dumb".....
How does that prove evolution or make it more likely than God? I mean, if we ASSUME that God created the world, why wouldn't he just make the monkeys FROM US instead? How does that prove the OPPOSITE -- i.e that WE evolved from them and not they were "created" from US?
We have a completely different brain structure than monkeys btw -- the stuff that makes us "tick" above them, so to speak.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted March 17, 2009 07:37 PM |
|
|
Discussions with you, The_Death, are very exhausting. And I really consider to step back from any kind of replies to your posts in the future. I am really tired of your "devil's advocat" game and it bores me to death. Just stop jumping forth and back in every discussion but stay at the point of those of whom you quote their posts from.
We were talking about how "dumb" a theory is that 1 species evolves from another one if both have an DNA which is 97% (or 98%) identical. What the hell has this statement to do with "IF GOD CREATED US...blablablabla"?
This was NOT the question and NOT asked for.
If you have 2 puzzles with 100 pieces each, and 97 pieces are completely equal, how can you call it "dumb" if someone says those 2 pictures have something in common?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 17, 2009 07:42 PM |
|
|
Depends on the priority, or maybe rather, importance of the pieces.
If pieces ranging from 1 to 95 would concern matters such as: having an opposing thumb; we're indeed similar, but if the 2% is the essence of humanity - our complex mind - well, you can't say it's a good concept.
Like a pram and a car. Both have four wheels, are used to transport people.. well, you get the drift.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 17, 2009 07:45 PM |
|
|
Arguing over "dumbness" is like arguing why you like the color green more than blue. What answer do you EXPECT? What if I say it's still dumb (hypothetical, it was Doomforge who said it anyway)? What are you EXPECTING here? What kind of "discussion" is centered about the classification of "dumbness"?
I'm really tired of "how can you say that's dumb?" or other (supposedly) rhetorical questions which have no basis except for common sense. I'm not saying they're bad but they are completely worthless -- what will result in?
Something like "If you think that's still dumb, this is the end of discussion" post? These things have no basis (I mean, arguing over 'dumbness').
I at least added something constructive.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 17, 2009 07:48 PM |
|
|
Another example.
Student A: marks: A, A, A, A, A, A, A, F.
Student B: marks: A, A, A, A, A, A, A, A.
Almost identical?
What if the first seven marks were of homeworks which both of them copypasted from google, last one being an important exam?
Changes things dramatically, doesn't it?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted March 17, 2009 07:53 PM |
|
Edited by angelito at 19:55, 17 Mar 2009.
|
Those are around 85% doomforge. Don't you think there is a hugh difference between 98% and 85%?
If those 2 students have 100 exams, and in 97 of them they have the same result, you can be sure to call them "similar intelligent" or "similar knowledgable" about the exam topics. No matter how long those exams lasted.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted March 17, 2009 08:01 PM |
|
|
The biggest difference between us and monkeys is tha fact tha monkeys don't walk entirely upright, so I suppose they would be about as smart as the predecessor of the homo erectus, no?
Also, skulls and bones of cavemen would bare some resemblance with monkeys, so it's not at all far-fetched in my ears...
Quick note: Roman-catholicism has accepted evolution theory. Some forms of protestantism have no leader, so their opinion would differ from person to person on this subject matter. Well, I'll just stop talking about other religions altogether now...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
