It seems you should obtain better phone/internet service. You have been tainted by religion to misinterpret those images as random. You must to pursue the path of science to see the message in those images. The path of science always welcomes you.
@FDFederation: GoI'll try to keep a matching amount of factual evidence and analysis as you do.
"I don't think you understand science. Science takes a probabilistic approach, because there could be infinite valid possibilities, but the most probable explanations have more supporting evidence and the least probable explanations have little to zero supporting evidence (evidence must be able to be reproduced/verified by other people; personal experiences/visions/dreams are not evidence because they can not be verified/reproduced). The probability distribution curve for possible explanations shifts as scientists gather more evidence. (This was already discussed in previous posts.)"
You're correct. Science in-and-of itself is a healthy, natural, unbiased, and explorative process. People, is where we believe the problem resides. They're hardly ever as pure as the science they do. It's not an issue with science (which would suggest we have a problem with evidence and facts) but more with the people who conduct it, generally corrupting evidence, etc. It's common Christian belief that the Devil seduces this world and seeks to appear as a God, this is one way we [most of us? not sure] believe he does so. Would you say we are not allowed to critisize any studies of science? No, even other scientists do that. This isn't about the actual scientific processes. But thanks for the recap.
"Human evolution is also supported by the appearance vestigial organs, parts: male nipples, the tail bone, wisdom teeth, ear lobes, ear ridges, etc (again, this has already been discussed in previous posts). Vestigial organs have a diminished or zero functionality, but are relics of the traits of our evolutionary ancestors. Our ape-like ancestors (i.e. Australopithecus) had large enough jaws to accommodate wisdom teeth, but most modern humans have smaller jaws that cannot accommodate those wisdom teeth. (The shrinkage of jaw size and increase of cranial volume are related, larger jaws required larger muscles, and since the muscles are attached to the skull ridge at the top of the skull, larger jaw muscles required larger skull ridge, and for the skull to support larger skull ridge and larger jaw muscles, the cranial capacity needed to be smaller )."
A male's nipples are vestigial? At birth, both male and female infants are mostly identical. Sex-related traits become enhanced later. This is a common characteristic throughout time and with a wide variety of species, that both male and female animals have nipples. The tail bone is not vestigial. 9 muscles are anchored to it, and it serves a function of helping one defecate. A creationist explanation for wisdom teeth is that people used to be bigger. Wisdom teeth are just an example to us of degeneration mentioned in the Bible. There are Bible-compatible theories that support it as well. Such as, pre-flood humans had larger jaws. I'm sure there are some explanations for ear lobes and ridges, but to me it just seems negligable. I mean, while we're at it why don't we throw eyebrows out as vestigial as well? Such small purposes could be identified for those as well. I hardly see skull shapes as supporting evolution. I could easily imagine someone fiddling around with the skulls, trying to order them in relation to human skulls. "Well, this one supposably came first but it looks more human-like so I'll just put it here." Or mix and matching the jaws with skulls. We really don't know. Ever notice skull displays of ape skulls through humans never have time periods near them?
"We have genetics to support evolution. Genetic mutations and inheritance and distribution of genetic mutation (this was also discussed in previous posts). In short order, scientists have found genetic material in other Homo and other hominid remains and have been able to analyze the DNA. Geneticists can compare the DNA sequences of different species, related species (species that share a "very recent" ancestor) will have similar DNA patterns. From the available genetic material that archaeologists and anthropologists have found modern modern humans are related to several extinct species in the Homo genus (at one time several species (species is NOT ethnic groups/tribes/nationality) of humans co-existed). Anthropologists are always trying to find remains that contain genetic material, but Africa, the cradle of humanity, does not have an environment that is conducive to preserving organic material the way that glacial and bog sites do. Note that fossils are rock and do not contain DNA; whereas actual bones may or may not contain DNA depending on the environment."
I sure hope similar-looking animals have more similar genetic make-up than two non-similar animals. Again, this is easily a case where mix-and-matching to find what should hypothetically fit. DNA, in a sense, describes our body. Two species with similar bodies logically have similar cellular structure. I do understand biologists have advanced ways of analyzing mutations through DNA, like the use of the 16S rRNA molecule, though I'm not really qualified to go into that, and I'm sure neither are you.
"It's very improbable for an ape-like ancestor to give birth to a modern human (that's probably how you think evolution occurs). The traits of modern humans didn't appear all at once. From the available evidence, scientists think bipedal gait evolved first (we still don't know if the pelvis evolved first or the foot), then several million years later the refinement of bipedal gait allowed cognitive abilities to evolve (bipedal ancestors may have had advantage in obtaining 'softer' foods requiring weaker/smaller jaws, which may have inadvertently gave rise to cranial volume). However, the vast majority of scientists agree and KNOW humans evolved from ape-like ancestors."
They'res nothing to suggest any of us here needed that first part explained. We've already discussed how scientists determine things like that. Like I told Eiveyn, don't use what scientists believe as factual support.
"Evolution is supported by multiple disciplines of science (i.e. biomechanics, chemistry, genetics, etc) and unfortunately, I probably left out some things that would have been helpful in understanding evolution better. Evolution is a dynamic process that is still occurring in modern humans because genetic mutations still occur, but due to science (particularly medicine) some individuals born with "deleterious" traits are able to survive and have children; those children may also inherit those traits."
I'm sure we all understand at least the basics of the theory of human evolution. You don't see anyone else posting unnecessary details like this, do you? Not even Eiveyn. So far, the discussion has been rather focused on specific topics. You're just spamming new ones without addressing current ones. Do you really want us to discuss so many points at the same time? From what I've seen so far, you're uncapable of basic discussion about this topic (accuse me of being wrong, I DARE you) so its only natural that your attempts are as pointless and unconstructive as this. I do appreciate the effort though, better than the insulting and spamming.
You`re still not imagining pre-big bang. What created the universe had to have been beyond the universe. We dont have to call it God, but whatever it was had to have just been "there" rather than something created. Otherwise we wouldn`t be here.
Using a loose example with numbers, we can say 10 comes from 9, which comes from 8, which comes from 7
All the way down to 1
Where does 1 come from?. From 0?. No. 0 is the perceived absence of 1.
1 comes from the very defining properties that make it 1. The very dimensions and physics that make 1 possible. Its abstraction.
Same thing when we backtrack in time to the beginning of the universe and beyond. We can invent stupid theories like magical branes playing galactic pinball, and bumping each other and creating universes, and stuff like that. But its not logical and does not solve the equation of itself even.
People are thinking in terms of 0, which is wrong.
The main difference between us that you think that things arise from complex things into simple things and I think that things arise from simple things into complex things.
In other words, I am ok with that we are coming from 1, but you suggest that we come from complex thing which has consciousness and named as God. Everything that I encountered in this universe suggest to me that things have "small beginnings". (Like 2/3)
Thats why you will never accept evolution. Thats why you need something supernatural, because you think the universe is too simple for "consciousness" (or for your ego), which is sad.
Btw It would be a very boring world (or the life of a God) if everything tend to come from complex things and progress into simple things.
You`re still not imagining pre-big bang. What created the universe had to have been beyond the universe. We dont have to call it God, but whatever it was had to have just been "there" rather than something created. Otherwise we wouldn`t be here.
Using a loose example with numbers, we can say 10 comes from 9, which comes from 8, which comes from 7
All the way down to 1
Where does 1 come from?. From 0?. No. 0 is the perceived absence of 1.
1 comes from the very defining properties that make it 1. The very dimensions and physics that make 1 possible. Its abstraction.
Same thing when we backtrack in time to the beginning of the universe and beyond. We can invent stupid theories like magical branes playing galactic pinball, and bumping each other and creating universes, and stuff like that. But its not logical and does not solve the equation of itself even.
People are thinking in terms of 0, which is wrong.
How can you say this with a straight face without immediately asking yourself "What caused God?"
"Oh, he doesn't need a cause." I'm sure you'd retort. Why? How do you know? What makes you think you know what rules apply outside our universe?
Secondly, if there must be a first cause, what makes you think it's not the universe or multiverse?
Number of processes discovered in nature that require gods: 0.
I don't agree with this and I don't find that study as being conclusive evidence of the decline of religion. To me, this aligns with the nature of modern youth to be less and less concerned with spirituality until later in life. Societal pressures have far more pronounced effects on religion amongst youth than science will likely ever have in our lifetimes. Science doesn't push conformity nor does it lash out at you for being different; social norms do. As a 22 year old Mormon, my beliefs are rarely challenged by science. Instead, my beliefs are challenged on a daily basis by those who find my decision to reject profanity, alcohol, drugs and sex as contrary or "silly." None of which have anything to do with scientific advancement.
Couldn't disagree more. I'd state the exact opposite. Societal pressures are what keep people religious. I'm sure you'd disagree as a mormon, because you're not surrounded by others of the same faith. Most people, not just Christians, are surrounded by people of identical faith. Christians socially exile apostates. Muslims just kill them.
Religious beliefs tend to become more important when the question of raising a family surfaces. Given that this is also becoming less of a priority for modern couples (get married later, don't always have kids), it is logical that religion is also taking a back seat to personal interests. This ALSO relates to societal pressures considering that there is a rise in the "need" to be independent. Science isn't telling people to postpone having a family in favor of pursuing self-interests.
We're living in a fairly selfish age where youth are encouraged both to conform and focus on their own needs. Those needs being ones that align with social expectations such as sexual reputation. Being a virgin past high school is taboo. What does that have to do with science? Drug use is moving towards legal recreational consumption. Science for the win? Nudity is quickly becoming an acceptable form of family entertainment. Is that science too? The world is all about "does it feel good? Great!" It can be difficult to find religion in the midst of that.
This sounds more like a rant than a point. I think you're associating religious decline with moral decline?
If so, I disagree. Some of the world's most atheistic and secular countries like Sweden, Norway and Japan, are also the ones with the lowest rates of crime.
"No affiliation" atheists/agnostics makes up <1% of the US prison population, while being 15% of total US population.
To me, science is more likely to affect the middle-aged person's religion conviction than a twenty-something. I think this particular statement is one of your less thoughtful remarks.
The fire has to be kept burning. Although I do sincerely believe that as the world's scientific literacy improves, religion will decline. You already see this. 85% of Americans believe in a god. 7% of NAS (American's top scientists) believe in a god. Belief declines as education improves. This, like it or not, is a brute fact. There could be other causes (I personally doubt it), but numbers do not lie and do not care for opinions.
You're tainted by religion, so you wouldn't naturally understand.
Do you even know what vestigial means? Male nipples are remnants of an evolutionary ancestor where nipples had function in both genders, through evolution, male nipples lost it's primary function (i.e. breast feeding), while female nipples had retained and/or increased functionality. I forgot to even mention third and fourth nipples in humans. The tailbone is the remnant of an evolutionary ancestor that had a tail. Eyebrows and eyelashes aren't considered vestigial because they help keep sweat from dripping into our eyes and obscuring our vision. Chest hair, back hair, knuckle hair, hair near the rectum, etc. are vestigial. You need to have a basic understanding of biomechanics to understand the skulls, it will explain the way the skulls attach to the cervix, the relation of jaw size to cranial volume, etc. You don't mix and match jaws with skulls. Modern ape skulls and modern human skulls don't look similar because their ancestors stopped breeding with each other and through evolution, the species diverged. Ever notice how the further back in time you go, you see the skulls of ancestors of modern humans and modern apes look more and more similar? This link should be simple enough for you to understand vestigiality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality
How is DNA comparison of animarls "mix-and-matching to find what should hypothetically fit." Related animals share similar traits because they have similar DNA patterns (since you don't seem to understand what DNA does, DNA is the reason why species have certain traits). You're not qualified to discuss DNA because you're unable to understand books, journal articles, etc. that discuss DNA and evolution (by the way, all those materials are available for free on the Internet)
You and the other religious people don't understand evolution, hence the function for stating that the traits of modern humans didn't evolve all at once. If you understood evolution, I wouldn't need to nitpick all the things to discuss. I notice how you don't really have any evidence against religion, so you resort to calling out facts that are "pointless, unnecessary, spam." You bear the taint of religion, so, of course you wouldn't understand the facts of evolution.
Yes, you are wrong. The basic topic was, "Do you consider yourself part of an organized religion?", and most of the posters here have taken this thread far beyond it. Instead of making another thread for, "Science 101 for Religious Cavemen", I clump the myriad topics here. If you don't see the relevance, you need to cleanse yourself of your religious taint and devote yourself to the path of science. Hope and salvation awaits you on the path of science.
Dont quote me like that. Some of the quotes I cant even find, and its all out of context.
Here's something I can learn from. I don't think I have any more time for discourse with a person that insists on believing in miracles.
Everything is a miracle. You being alive is a miracle. You know nothing about the creation of the Universe?, The anomaly that caused matter to beat anti-matter by just "1"(which it should not have) to get things in motion.
Do you know the complexities involved in star development?, and the formation of galaxies?. Do you think it randomly came together?. Do you believe in randomness?. What is your definition of randomness?
Do you know how the moon formed?. Do you think it was by accident? Do you think the accident was calibrated as precisely for that purpose?
If you know everything , what can be impossible for you?
Do you understand how sentience can form from non-sentience?, or that perhaps there is a hidden sentience even from the very star dust from which we formed?
Do you think laws are not bound to conjoining and even higher laws?. Are you certain violations are not permissible on any level?. Do you know the highest law/s well enough to make that answer?
What is it that can be accomplished from unbelief?
"Do you rely on faith?"
Everyone relies on faith in one way or another. Yes I do.
You do not really explain how you logically get from that to a god/deity/father that cares about me, does miracles, gives me the potential to inherit eternal life, wants me to believe him and worship him, gives me 10 commandments that I will be punished if I break without repenting, and does it all for his own glory. Nor do you come close to explaining satan's existence
This is the hard part. You have so many different options available to you in life and for whatever purpose it may be. One of those options were exposed to me(The bible), and this was through a christian person I`d observed at the time. This person had a level of certainty and conviction, which I had never seen before in any other person. I never believed all religions lead to the truth , or that truth itself is fragmented and/or unattainable. That was my motivation to pursue it on my own and at the very least, embrace the claims of the bible in an effort to arrive at so and so conclusions later on.
That is what I chose to do. And now here I am, not unfairly gifted or special in anyway whatsoever, telling you of something exclusive and hidden. No. but as one that put the damn time and effort into learning some things that can beckon others to a motivation of knowing the same very thing.
But upon reflection and close examination, I find that you cannot defend your position without resorting to a slew of logical fallacies, such as: argumentum ad baculum, argumentum ad verecundiam, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum verbosium, affirming the consequent, appeal to emotion, begging the question, cherry picking, equivocation, non-squitur, red herring, conjunction fallacy, historian's fallacy, homunculus fallacy, mind projection fallacy, nirvana fallacy, and at least a few cognitive biases.
Hmm?. From my point of view, My atheist counter-parts cant defend their positions without drawing to illogical notions, biased conclusions(clumping of all religions), Substituting an open mind for a closed mind with broken theories and science claims. They cannot take up my challenges, and dismiss/shrug all evidence of claims in their arrogance.
For someone who's so sure about something, your arguments should be able to stand by themselves, don't you think? For someone who professes to be so educated, this should be second nature to you by now. Indeed, you are the most convincing theist I have talked to.. but apparently even you can't defend the position without resorting to so many logical fallacies.
My arguments stand by themselves. If not, Point it out, as well as the perceived logical fallacies. Point it out to me!
Even if I rained fire down from Heaven before your eyes, You would not believe its God. That alone proves nothing. We can question how, and by what means it happened, and that there`s still no explicit reason why you should think Its God and more so, the God of the bible.
Perhaps subjective evidence is both unfair and not really sufficient?, and maybe the revelation of God comes from his own way of showing it. A way that is not unfair, available and accessible to all, and it bears testimony in his word(the bible). Not so?
Is it through (a) FAITH, (b) KNOWLEDGE, (c) DOUBTING, and/or (d) DISCUSSIONS that one finds the truth? Apparently you can't even agree with yourself.
It is through all, but patience comes first. Truth is like a sand castle, the sand of it is the `knowledge`, faith(belief in action) puts it all together, doubting prompts you to strengthen your faith along the way or rethink it entirely if you`re failing at steps.
So how do you come to find the truth?
In the days of old, you would have had to seek it out for yourself. However, now the truth actively goes forth, searching for hearts and minds that can accept it. It isn`t far from you.
Only 2000 years ago did the Messiah come, and that changed everything. The single greatest event in human history. The polarization of Christ vs Satan(the world and all its false doctrines and idol based religions) is already well underway.
I have sacrificed A LOT of my time trying to figure out what I can about god; and by all accounts I am no fool. But the more I learn the less I believe in god...
For example, my relationship with my parents is very strained right now because I despise the way they raised me and my siblings (sheltered, taught us almost nothing but their religion); but this relationship would be healed if I believed in god/etc. But I can't do the faith thing, lying to myself would be even worse than this.
Do not be deceived and so fall easily into despair. Christ seeks a relationship with you now(one you never had growing up because of those reasons), not some blind faith dogmatic belief. No parents are perfect and they raised you as best they thought how. But God wants YOU to know him of your own volition, not because you were forced by the views put on you at childhood.
Nor do you come close to explaining satan's existence
The Angelic and demon hosts contend in the origin and sphere of thoughts, of vices, of your chosen actions, and the determination of your will. They control mindsets, thinking patterns, and groups. Satan and his fallen angels, bring disease, death, depravity, confusion, evil, and ultimately destruction on an individual. The angels help, and seek to guide and minister to us. They rejoice when we repent and turn to God, because they know the struggle faced on both ends(Of God reaching out to us, and Us reaching out to God)
In the same way, there is more joy in heaven over one lost sinner who repents and returns to God than over ninety-nine others who are righteous and haven't strayed away!Luke 15:7
But it is also written that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.2 Corinthians 11:14
I dont have a time machine to take you back 2000 years ago, to the time of the early Christians and Jesus and the apostles. But a good place to start would be the bible. Ignore the peanut gallery telling you its a fairy tale book. Ive shown its not in heavy discussions that point otherwise for several aspects about it. The truth itself becomes revelation to the individual. The Bible can stand its ground both scientifically, historically, and otherwise. They dont know or want to know anything about the Bible, because they hate and refuse to acknowledge an intelligent God that created everything. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+17%3A16-34&version=NIV
The reason I did not reply to your post was because It wasn`t a simple question to begin with. I was also not trying to convert you and hence I was in no haste to reply, because we have enough false and stupid Christians and there is no rush on you to ever make any decision in your life unless you felt strongly about it with your heart AND mind. You can assess arguments and debates on your own intelligence, and draw conclusions from that, but the more you know the better your decisions will be. Which is why I continued rebuking the hellish blindness covering some of these atheists in regards to their understanding of the bible, and nonsensical science they look at as truth contrary to evidence against it.
P.S. I am sorry for replying so late, regardless. It did anger you which was not my intention.
How can you say this with a straight face without immediately asking yourself "What caused God?"
"Oh, he doesn't need a cause." I'm sure you'd retort. Why? How do you know? What makes you think you know what rules apply outside our universe?
Secondly, if there must be a first cause, what makes you think it's not the universe or multiverse?
Number of processes discovered in nature that require gods: 0.
Hmm... Ive been pondering this for awhile now and realized that Its commonly thought some people use less % of their total brain capacity than others. That is why you probably cannot understand, and your own intelligence betrays you. Honestly speaking, not trying to be insulting, but I cant fathom how what Im trying to explain to you , you cant seem to grasp.
I don't have anything mixed up. I am quite clear in my understanding of my beliefs. Don't make the mistake of assuming that because I disagree with you I am incredulous of what you "believe" to be true. What you're saying is not fact, it is your interpretation and therefor merely your opinion. I happen to believe my interpretation is the correct one, but I'm not about to demean you for it because I understand that it is no more factual than your beliefs.
I think it's cute that you're trying to "correct" my understanding of the Bible, but I have no interest in throwing verses back and forth when you don't believe in the sources I trust in and I don't believe in the interpretations of the Bible you trust in. It is a fruitless argument because my conviction in my faith is equal to your own.
I'm not here to argue you into adopting my faith, merely provide information for those interested. Doing so provides others with the ability to choose for themselves what they will without my influence. I feel as though your attitude is that you can argue someone into believing the Bible in "your way." For someone boasting conviction and knowledge in Christianity, I feel as though you are missing many of the key tenets for being Christ-like. You certainly aren't very tolerant of beliefs you disagree with.
I'm not interested in continuing a discussion with you about Mormonism if you are unwilling to maintain a neutral perspective in which you can entertain the idea that you might be wrong. I have no problem questioning my beliefs in such a way, but I expect reciprocity in the matter.
I always entertain the idea I might be wrong, thats why I asked you those questions. Im never offended if someone calls me out on something, and I can defend it or admit when it looks and "is" wrong or dodgy.
I happen to believe my interpretation is the correct one,
And why is that?. Because its in the book of Mormon and you were raised a Mormon and taught to believe its a factual extension of God`s word?. On what grounds do you believe your interpretation is correct?. Explain
You certainly aren't very tolerant of beliefs you disagree with
I am, I only question hard. May not seem that way, true. But anyway,
To the Galatians, Paul expressed grave concern. "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ" (Gal. 1:6,7).
In Revelation, Christ rebuked the church in Pergamos for their indifference toward the false teachers in their midst: "But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam . . . you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate" (Rev. 2:14,15).
In numerous other passages, we hear of things like "false brethren" (Gal. 2:4), "false apostles" (2 Cor. 11:13,14), "false prophets" (Mt. 24:11), and even "false christs" (Mk. 13:22). Wherever we go in the Bible, we're confronted with this reality: the existence of any true thing is always accompanied by the devilish possibility that it will be counterfeited. Perhaps the Psalmist summed it all up long ago: "Through Your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way" (Psa. 119:104). Whatever is false is to be rejected, no matter who promotes it or under what circumstances. There is a great need for us to beware.
Im sorry but the Bible does not teach the existence of a “heavenly mother.”(http://www.gotquestions.org/heavenly-mother.html) God is also the first and the last. The living one. He created all things and by his power sustains all things, and was not/and is not a creation of the big bang. If you substitute the book of Mormon for the Bible, You are in deep error. Plain and simple.
There is no heavenly mother, God does not have a father nor an eternal partner, We do not have a `Grandfather`, There is no super mystery hidden God that created and is behind our God.
All prophets are from Israel. You failed to answer my questions related to that. I would also like to ask you about the parable of : http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16%3A19-31&version=NIV
And how that relates to the mormon`s view of the afterlife and the different planes of existence.
Talk to experts in Judaism and Christianity for a clearer understanding. Because what you are saying is blasphemy and utter nonsense and you confuse people from the simple truth. This is why all denominations and sects of Christianity fail, because they substitute God`s word for their own teachings and regulations.
I feel as though you are missing many of the key tenets for being Christ-like
In this thread, most definitely. However, here we argue on truths and knowledge and its because I care that Im quick to point out error, or even challenge people in an effort to resolve our conflicts in opinion and understanding. Im more than happy when Im challenged like wise and have to contend my beliefs with what I think I know.
Experiments have actually shown that people who have difficulty comprehending or accepting reality or that reality causes stress/anxiety flee to religion because religion offers a feeling of comfort and control (like a narcotic) to the brain, even though religion is false.
Experiments have actually shown that people who have difficulty comprehending or accepting reality or that reality causes stress/anxiety flee to religion because religion offers a feeling of comfort and control (like a narcotic) to the brain, even though religion is false.
Religion actually grounds a person in stability. Even though a religion might be wrong/false in one way or the other. Its a way of life. Religious people are less likely to fall into drugs, gangs, low self esteem, suicide, depression, violence etc. Since all religion more or less advocates teachings against that sort of hopeless lifestyle. A lifestyle devoid of hope, purpose, reason, and any meaning.
"Religion actually grounds a person in stability."
That's actually false. You only feel like you're in control and it feels comforting, despite reality. Religion does not actually stabilize your life.
"Religious people are less likely to fall into drugs, gangs, low self esteem, suicide, depression, violence etc."
That's also factually incorrect. One example, vast majority of prison inmates are religious. Higher rate of depression occurs among religious individuals than atheist individuals. Religious people also commit more suicides because they want to go to the afterlife so desperately. The vast majority of all the violence in our civilization have been inspired and influenced by religion.
"Since all religion more or less advocates teachings against that sort of hopeless lifestyle. A lifestyle devoid of hope, purpose, reason, and any meaning."
Religion more or less dictates you to be eternal slaves to gods that don't exist. The atheist teachers, philanthropists, scientists, etc are full of hope, purpose, reason, and enthusiasm for life.
Hmm... Ive been pondering this for awhile now and realized that Its commonly thought some people use less % of their total brain capacity than others. That is why you probably cannot understand, and your own intelligence betrays you. Honestly speaking, not trying to be insulting, but I cant fathom how what Im trying to explain to you , you cant seem to grasp.
"That's actually false. You only feel like you're in control and it feels comforting, despite reality. Religion does not actually stabilize your life."
From my experience with you so far, I can confidently say I don't believe your life is stable. Religion itself won't do anything, it is simply a belief that there is a God. For some people, that can definately bring stability and comfort. I like how you said "That's actually false" and supported it with your opinion lol.
"That's also factually incorrect. One example, vast majority of prison inmates are religious. Higher rate of depression occurs among religious individuals than atheist individuals."
The studies don't represent what belief system they had BEFORE they went to prison. It is very common for people to convert during prison. Anyway, just because someone claims to be a theist doesn't mean they take they're beliefs seriously. I'm sure the vast majority of Christians in prison don't practice it or didn't when they went to prison.
"Religious people also commit more suicides because they want to go to the afterlife so desperately."
You're an idiot.
"The vast majority of all the violence in our civilization have been inspired and influenced by religion."
You're an idiot.
"Religion more or less dictates you to be eternal slaves to gods that don't exist. The atheist teachers, philanthropists, scientists, etc are full of hope, purpose, reason, and enthusiasm for life."
"From my experience with you so far, I can confidently say I don't believe your life is stable."
Well, yeah, so what? No one has a "stable" life. Because of the development of the brain of religious people, they didn't have the strength to cope with "unstable" reality, so they flee to religion; religion is for the weak-minded. I'm very happy that you saw how I was able to thrive with my "unstable" life without the temptation of religion; perhaps someday you'll be strong enough to ween yourself from the narcotic of religion and live with the realities of life.
"it is simply a belief that there is a God. For some people, that can definately bring stability and comfort. I like how you said "That's actually false" and supported it with your opinion lol."
It's not opinion, it's been shown from experimental results that measured the dopamine levels in people's brains.
You know I'm right, otherwise, you wouldn't have resorted to calling me an idiot.
"Speculation."
Just look at Stephen Hawking and how he loves life and is so enthusiastic about learning more about the universe. Stephen Hawking is just one individual, but studies have shown atheists to be more happy and optimistic about life, while religious people tend to be pessimistic about life. Someday, you might be strong enough to journey the path of science.
frankly i came here cause i wondered how a thread with the question "do you consider yourself to be part of an organized religion?" survived for so long. mostly cause i think that would just end up being a "yes" or "no" type answer. after scanning through the more recent posts it just seems like this has become an opinion thread about how each of us views religion. so here's my opinion.
to the thought of evolution vs. god making us:
neither side can be truly proved or disproved it simply goes back to what we can see of the past from our present and speculate as to what happened. going all the way back to the theory of the world's creation one can simply ask "if God created everything, who created God? and who created the creator of God?" etc and so forth. same for science: "if mass collision of particles produced the 'big bang' where did those particles come from?" as far as the physicists go i don't think they'll really be able to prove anything one way or the other. as for me personally, i think that everything exists because we desire for it to exist and we are alive only because we believe that we are and that life was originally created because of the universal desire to... eh... "live" (can't think of a word to properly describe it). this is not the same as God making us, more like we made ourselves from our universally connected subconscious. but of course this also begs the question of "does that mean that space is actually alive with thoughts and feelings" and then more questions asking existences existing before existence. i don't care what you believe in, but if you're going to argue with someone and try to make them believe in something they don't, i'll just laugh at you for trying to convert a rock.
as for religion, people, and politics in general:
it's fine to believe in whatever you want, but don't try to force others to believe in it as well!! this is probably off topic-ish, but i feel like waying in anyway.
how many people realize that despite the USA claiming to be separate from church and state, really most politics are completely controlled by religion. honestly, as far as i'm aware, science and politics find nothing wrong with gay marriage. scientifically, they can't have a child (except lesbian couples [sperm bank if you weren't already aware]) therefore genetic diversity may not change, but overpopulation will not increase due to them. politically, the church doesn't like gays so they make a great scapegoat to blame all our problems on (this is why i hate politicians). i find it funny how most of those who believe in God seem to forget that God is supposed to have made everyone in His (or Her or It, can't rule out the possibility) image AND loves each and everyone of them REGARDLESS. you don't like gay marriage because YOU don't like it not that God says it's bad. going far back to the topic of abortion now. just because you believe in a higher power doesn't mean you are that higher power. you can't just force someone to follow what you want. it's their damn body so it's their choice. you are a human NOT GOD and remember that God is SUPPOSED to love everyone regardless of the decisions they made in life. it seems though that politics finds it very convenient (probably because more voters are religious) to simply side with the church. i honestly don't know why we still have problems allowing gays to marry and allowing women to choose whether they want to have a child or abort it. the only reasons i can think of are that most voters are religious and the politicians want to appeal to those voters and that if 2 girls are allowed to marry that means that there are less chances for guys to get it on with those girls. in summary, i believe that if you believe that it's wrong don't do it, but don't shove your dick down someone else's throat and demand that they do as you say just because YOU don't like it. not that i'm saying any of you here do that, just for future reference when you decide to scold someone for doing something they thought was right, but you didn't like.
Couldn't disagree more. I'd state the exact opposite. Societal pressures are what keep people religious. I'm sure you'd disagree as a mormon, because you're not surrounded by others of the same faith. Most people, not just Christians, are surrounded by people of identical faith. Christians socially exile apostates. Muslims just kill them.
You make a fair point about religion in areas where the local government fails to properly separate church and state. Muslims are a prime example of intolerance of... well... anything different. I should have been clearer in my statement as I was focused on Western Culture where science plays a more significant role in daily life. I doubt Muslims care what science has to say at present. It's unlikely this will change soon.
With regards to Western Culture, I feel my point still stands. People of any clique tend to "exile" those that are different. This is not a phenomenon that is unique to religion. I agree that some take their beliefs a tad far such as the father that kicks his son to the curb for rejecting God, but these actions don't line up with what Christianity is "supposed" to represent: tolerance. The anti-gay movement is another situation where the actions of those participating are contrary to what they claim to believe. As much as it sounds like I'm rationalizing discriminatory behavior, the reality is that people make mistakes. For many, religion serves as a convenient shield to hide behind.
This brings me to why being surrounded by people of the same faith doesn't mean much in the bigger picture. I've found that it's just as likely to drive people away as it is to keep them tethered. A prime example of this is what many call the "Weekend Christian." These individuals "follow the rules" on Sundays, but live contrary lives the rest of the week. The idea that they can "repent for it later" being a common rationalization. This creates tension given that Weekend Christians tend to adopt many social values that oppose Christian beliefs.
Christianity teaches chastity and sexual purity before marriage. Modern entertainment advocates sex as a normal, healthy activity that everyone should participate in regardless of marital status. From an objective standpoint, these directly oppose each other. Masturbation, pornography and other sexual acts have also become more socially acceptable, opposing religious beliefs. I find it hard to attribute the rise of sexual freedom/independence to scientific advancement.
At the end of the day, people are far more likely to engage in various forms of entertainment (Game of Thrones anyone?) than scientific anything. That modern entertainment is so integral to our social lives causes many to abandon their faith to avoid guilt over fitting in. Modern society is steadily growing to oppose religious values, such that, it's easier for social norms to push people away from religion than it is for science to show them the "unreasonableness" of their beliefs.
This sounds more like a rant than a point. I think you're associating religious decline with moral decline?
If so, I disagree. Some of the world's most atheistic and secular countries like Sweden, Norway and Japan, are also the ones with the lowest rates of crime.
"No affiliation" atheists/agnostics makes up <1% of the US prison population, while being 15% of total US population.
I'm definitely not associating religious decline with moral decline. I'm also not suggesting that refusing religion makes you a criminal. My point is that what religion considers unacceptable used to line up with Western Culture, but society now finds various forms of self-indulgence acceptable that religion would not. This is what I mean by selfish.
The fire has to be kept burning. Although I do sincerely believe that as the world's scientific literacy improves, religion will decline. You already see this. 85% of Americans believe in a god. 7% of NAS (American's top scientists) believe in a god. Belief declines as education improves. This, like it or not, is a brute fact. There could be other causes (I personally doubt it), but numbers do not lie and do not care for opinions.
I've found that the more I learn about science, the stronger my faith grows. I know I'm not alone in this. I also find it funny that you would use statistics just before stating that "numbers do not lie and do not care for opinions." Mark Twain would disagree with you.
You certainly aren't very tolerant of beliefs you disagree with
I am, I only question hard. May not seem that way, true.
There are no questions, hard or otherwise, to stating that I am "in deep error" for my "blasphemy and utter nonsense." It is one thing to reject my beliefs in disagreement as you are expressing your opinion. It is another thing to attempt to supplant my own with yours by correcting what you perceive as erroneous. It is foolish and vain to believe that you have a factual understanding of the Bible because such a thing simply isn't possible. All understanding is through faith and thus is humble and respectful. Knowledge is shared, not forcefully imposed.
I feel as though you are missing many of the key tenets for being Christ-like
In this thread, most definitely. However, here we argue on truths and knowledge and its because I care that Im quick to point out error, or even challenge people in an effort to resolve our conflicts in opinion and understanding. Im more than happy when Im challenged like wise and have to contend my beliefs with what I think I know.
There is no excuse for deciding not to act in accordance with what you believe. If your desire is to be Christ-like, you will emulate him in all your dealings. To do otherwise is to be of two minds.
I've already stated that I am not here to argue matters of faith. I find no value in discussing my beliefs with you if you're going to disrespectfully discard and denounce anything you disagree with as if it were factually incorrect.
I think you need to re-examine yourself by reading James. I use the King James Version of the Bible, but I've supplied both your version and my own:
I'm done with this conversation unless your tone changes. You once became upset to the point of unwarranted personal attacks over the word "idiot." How you justify your current use of language as acceptable after the fact is beyond me.
@ProzaicMuze: Go
It seems you should obtain better phone/internet service. You have been tainted by religion to misinterpret those images as random. You must to pursue the path of science to see the message in those images. The path of science always welcomes you.
@FDFederation: GoI'll try to keep a matching amount of factual evidence and analysis as you do.
"I don't think you understand science. Science takes a probabilistic approach, because there could be infinite valid possibilities, but the most probable explanations have more supporting evidence and the least probable explanations have little to zero supporting evidence (evidence must be able to be reproduced/verified by other people; personal experiences/visions/dreams are not evidence because they can not be verified/reproduced). The probability distribution curve for possible explanations shifts as scientists gather more evidence. (This was already discussed in previous posts.)"
You're correct. Science in-and-of itself is a healthy, natural, unbiased, and explorative process. People, is where we believe the problem resides. They're hardly ever as pure as the science they do. It's not an issue with science (which would suggest we have a problem with evidence and facts) but more with the people who conduct it, generally corrupting evidence, etc. It's common Christian belief that the Devil seduces this world and seeks to appear as a God, this is one way we [most of us? not sure] believe he does so. Would you say we are not allowed to critisize any studies of science? No, even other scientists do that. This isn't about the actual scientific processes. But thanks for the recap.
"Human evolution is also supported by the appearance vestigial organs, parts: male nipples, the tail bone, wisdom teeth, ear lobes, ear ridges, etc (again, this has already been discussed in previous posts). Vestigial organs have a diminished or zero functionality, but are relics of the traits of our evolutionary ancestors. Our ape-like ancestors (i.e. Australopithecus) had large enough jaws to accommodate wisdom teeth, but most modern humans have smaller jaws that cannot accommodate those wisdom teeth. (The shrinkage of jaw size and increase of cranial volume are related, larger jaws required larger muscles, and since the muscles are attached to the skull ridge at the top of the skull, larger jaw muscles required larger skull ridge, and for the skull to support larger skull ridge and larger jaw muscles, the cranial capacity needed to be smaller )."
A male's nipples are vestigial? At birth, both male and female infants are mostly identical. Sex-related traits become enhanced later. This is a common characteristic throughout time and with a wide variety of species, that both male and female animals have nipples. The tail bone is not vestigial. 9 muscles are anchored to it, and it serves a function of helping one defecate. A creationist explanation for wisdom teeth is that people used to be bigger. Wisdom teeth are just an example to us of degeneration mentioned in the Bible. There are Bible-compatible theories that support it as well. Such as, pre-flood humans had larger jaws. I'm sure there are some explanations for ear lobes and ridges, but to me it just seems negligable. I mean, while we're at it why don't we throw eyebrows out as vestigial as well? Such small purposes could be identified for those as well. I hardly see skull shapes as supporting evolution. I could easily imagine someone fiddling around with the skulls, trying to order them in relation to human skulls. "Well, this one supposably came first but it looks more human-like so I'll just put it here." Or mix and matching the jaws with skulls. We really don't know. Ever notice skull displays of ape skulls through humans never have time periods near them?
"We have genetics to support evolution. Genetic mutations and inheritance and distribution of genetic mutation (this was also discussed in previous posts). In short order, scientists have found genetic material in other Homo and other hominid remains and have been able to analyze the DNA. Geneticists can compare the DNA sequences of different species, related species (species that share a "very recent" ancestor) will have similar DNA patterns. From the available genetic material that archaeologists and anthropologists have found modern modern humans are related to several extinct species in the Homo genus (at one time several species (species is NOT ethnic groups/tribes/nationality) of humans co-existed). Anthropologists are always trying to find remains that contain genetic material, but Africa, the cradle of humanity, does not have an environment that is conducive to preserving organic material the way that glacial and bog sites do. Note that fossils are rock and do not contain DNA; whereas actual bones may or may not contain DNA depending on the environment."
I sure hope similar-looking animals have more similar genetic make-up than two non-similar animals. Again, this is easily a case where mix-and-matching to find what should hypothetically fit. DNA, in a sense, describes our body. Two species with similar bodies logically have similar cellular structure. I do understand biologists have advanced ways of analyzing mutations through DNA, like the use of the 16S rRNA molecule, though I'm not really qualified to go into that, and I'm sure neither are you.
"It's very improbable for an ape-like ancestor to give birth to a modern human (that's probably how you think evolution occurs). The traits of modern humans didn't appear all at once. From the available evidence, scientists think bipedal gait evolved first (we still don't know if the pelvis evolved first or the foot), then several million years later the refinement of bipedal gait allowed cognitive abilities to evolve (bipedal ancestors may have had advantage in obtaining 'softer' foods requiring weaker/smaller jaws, which may have inadvertently gave rise to cranial volume). However, the vast majority of scientists agree and KNOW humans evolved from ape-like ancestors."
They'res nothing to suggest any of us here needed that first part explained. We've already discussed how scientists determine things like that. Like I told Eiveyn, don't use what scientists believe as factual support.
"Evolution is supported by multiple disciplines of science (i.e. biomechanics, chemistry, genetics, etc) and unfortunately, I probably left out some things that would have been helpful in understanding evolution better. Evolution is a dynamic process that is still occurring in modern humans because genetic mutations still occur, but due to science (particularly medicine) some individuals born with "deleterious" traits are able to survive and have children; those children may also inherit those traits."
I'm sure we all understand at least the basics of the theory of human evolution. You don't see anyone else posting unnecessary details like this, do you? Not even Eiveyn. So far, the discussion has been rather focused on specific topics. You're just spamming new ones without addressing current ones. Do you really want us to discuss so many points at the same time? From what I've seen so far, you're uncapable of basic discussion about this topic (accuse me of being wrong, I DARE you) so its only natural that your attempts are as pointless and unconstructive as this. I do appreciate the effort though, better than the insulting and spamming.
The main difference between us that you think that things arise from complex things into simple things and I think that things arise from simple things into complex things.
In other words, I am ok with that we are coming from 1, but you suggest that we come from complex thing which has consciousness and named as God. Everything that I encountered in this universe suggest to me that things have "small beginnings". (Like 2/3)
Thats why you will never accept evolution. Thats why you need something supernatural, because you think the universe is too simple for "consciousness" (or for your ego), which is sad.
Btw It would be a very boring world (or the life of a God) if everything tend to come from complex things and progress into simple things.
Jainism contains the same argument of the universe and scientific method of living.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
How can you say this with a straight face without immediately asking yourself "What caused God?"
"Oh, he doesn't need a cause." I'm sure you'd retort. Why? How do you know? What makes you think you know what rules apply outside our universe?
Secondly, if there must be a first cause, what makes you think it's not the universe or multiverse?
Number of processes discovered in nature that require gods: 0.
Couldn't disagree more. I'd state the exact opposite. Societal pressures are what keep people religious. I'm sure you'd disagree as a mormon, because you're not surrounded by others of the same faith. Most people, not just Christians, are surrounded by people of identical faith. Christians socially exile apostates. Muslims just kill them.
This sounds more like a rant than a point. I think you're associating religious decline with moral decline?
If so, I disagree. Some of the world's most atheistic and secular countries like Sweden, Norway and Japan, are also the ones with the lowest rates of crime.
"No affiliation" atheists/agnostics makes up <1% of the US prison population, while being 15% of total US population.
The fire has to be kept burning. Although I do sincerely believe that as the world's scientific literacy improves, religion will decline. You already see this. 85% of Americans believe in a god. 7% of NAS (American's top scientists) believe in a god. Belief declines as education improves. This, like it or not, is a brute fact. There could be other causes (I personally doubt it), but numbers do not lie and do not care for opinions.
@Charysmatic: Go
You're tainted by religion, so you wouldn't naturally understand.
Do you even know what vestigial means? Male nipples are remnants of an evolutionary ancestor where nipples had function in both genders, through evolution, male nipples lost it's primary function (i.e. breast feeding), while female nipples had retained and/or increased functionality. I forgot to even mention third and fourth nipples in humans. The tailbone is the remnant of an evolutionary ancestor that had a tail. Eyebrows and eyelashes aren't considered vestigial because they help keep sweat from dripping into our eyes and obscuring our vision. Chest hair, back hair, knuckle hair, hair near the rectum, etc. are vestigial. You need to have a basic understanding of biomechanics to understand the skulls, it will explain the way the skulls attach to the cervix, the relation of jaw size to cranial volume, etc. You don't mix and match jaws with skulls. Modern ape skulls and modern human skulls don't look similar because their ancestors stopped breeding with each other and through evolution, the species diverged. Ever notice how the further back in time you go, you see the skulls of ancestors of modern humans and modern apes look more and more similar? This link should be simple enough for you to understand vestigiality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality
How is DNA comparison of animarls "mix-and-matching to find what should hypothetically fit." Related animals share similar traits because they have similar DNA patterns (since you don't seem to understand what DNA does, DNA is the reason why species have certain traits). You're not qualified to discuss DNA because you're unable to understand books, journal articles, etc. that discuss DNA and evolution (by the way, all those materials are available for free on the Internet)
You and the other religious people don't understand evolution, hence the function for stating that the traits of modern humans didn't evolve all at once. If you understood evolution, I wouldn't need to nitpick all the things to discuss. I notice how you don't really have any evidence against religion, so you resort to calling out facts that are "pointless, unnecessary, spam." You bear the taint of religion, so, of course you wouldn't understand the facts of evolution.
Yes, you are wrong. The basic topic was, "Do you consider yourself part of an organized religion?", and most of the posters here have taken this thread far beyond it. Instead of making another thread for, "Science 101 for Religious Cavemen", I clump the myriad topics here. If you don't see the relevance, you need to cleanse yourself of your religious taint and devote yourself to the path of science. Hope and salvation awaits you on the path of science.
@TLBarrin: Go
Dont quote me like that. Some of the quotes I cant even find, and its all out of context.
Here's something I can learn from. I don't think I have any more time for discourse with a person that insists on believing in miracles.
Everything is a miracle. You being alive is a miracle. You know nothing about the creation of the Universe?, The anomaly that caused matter to beat anti-matter by just "1"(which it should not have) to get things in motion.
Do you know the complexities involved in star development?, and the formation of galaxies?. Do you think it randomly came together?. Do you believe in randomness?. What is your definition of randomness?
Do you know how the moon formed?. Do you think it was by accident? Do you think the accident was calibrated as precisely for that purpose?
If you know everything , what can be impossible for you?
Do you understand how sentience can form from non-sentience?, or that perhaps there is a hidden sentience even from the very star dust from which we formed?
Do you think laws are not bound to conjoining and even higher laws?. Are you certain violations are not permissible on any level?. Do you know the highest law/s well enough to make that answer?
What is it that can be accomplished from unbelief?
"Do you rely on faith?"
Everyone relies on faith in one way or another. Yes I do.
You do not really explain how you logically get from that to a god/deity/father that cares about me, does miracles, gives me the potential to inherit eternal life, wants me to believe him and worship him, gives me 10 commandments that I will be punished if I break without repenting, and does it all for his own glory. Nor do you come close to explaining satan's existence
This is the hard part. You have so many different options available to you in life and for whatever purpose it may be. One of those options were exposed to me(The bible), and this was through a christian person I`d observed at the time. This person had a level of certainty and conviction, which I had never seen before in any other person. I never believed all religions lead to the truth , or that truth itself is fragmented and/or unattainable. That was my motivation to pursue it on my own and at the very least, embrace the claims of the bible in an effort to arrive at so and so conclusions later on.
That is what I chose to do. And now here I am, not unfairly gifted or special in anyway whatsoever, telling you of something exclusive and hidden. No. but as one that put the damn time and effort into learning some things that can beckon others to a motivation of knowing the same very thing.
But upon reflection and close examination, I find that you cannot defend your position without resorting to a slew of logical fallacies, such as: argumentum ad baculum, argumentum ad verecundiam, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum verbosium, affirming the consequent, appeal to emotion, begging the question, cherry picking, equivocation, non-squitur, red herring, conjunction fallacy, historian's fallacy, homunculus fallacy, mind projection fallacy, nirvana fallacy, and at least a few cognitive biases.
Hmm?. From my point of view, My atheist counter-parts cant defend their positions without drawing to illogical notions, biased conclusions(clumping of all religions), Substituting an open mind for a closed mind with broken theories and science claims. They cannot take up my challenges, and dismiss/shrug all evidence of claims in their arrogance.
For someone who's so sure about something, your arguments should be able to stand by themselves, don't you think? For someone who professes to be so educated, this should be second nature to you by now. Indeed, you are the most convincing theist I have talked to.. but apparently even you can't defend the position without resorting to so many logical fallacies.
My arguments stand by themselves. If not, Point it out, as well as the perceived logical fallacies. Point it out to me!
Even if I rained fire down from Heaven before your eyes, You would not believe its God. That alone proves nothing. We can question how, and by what means it happened, and that there`s still no explicit reason why you should think Its God and more so, the God of the bible.
Perhaps subjective evidence is both unfair and not really sufficient?, and maybe the revelation of God comes from his own way of showing it. A way that is not unfair, available and accessible to all, and it bears testimony in his word(the bible). Not so?
Is it through (a) FAITH, (b) KNOWLEDGE, (c) DOUBTING, and/or (d) DISCUSSIONS that one finds the truth? Apparently you can't even agree with yourself.
It is through all, but patience comes first. Truth is like a sand castle, the sand of it is the `knowledge`, faith(belief in action) puts it all together, doubting prompts you to strengthen your faith along the way or rethink it entirely if you`re failing at steps.
So how do you come to find the truth?
In the days of old, you would have had to seek it out for yourself. However, now the truth actively goes forth, searching for hearts and minds that can accept it. It isn`t far from you.
Only 2000 years ago did the Messiah come, and that changed everything. The single greatest event in human history. The polarization of Christ vs Satan(the world and all its false doctrines and idol based religions) is already well underway.
I have sacrificed A LOT of my time trying to figure out what I can about god; and by all accounts I am no fool. But the more I learn the less I believe in god...
For example, my relationship with my parents is very strained right now because I despise the way they raised me and my siblings (sheltered, taught us almost nothing but their religion); but this relationship would be healed if I believed in god/etc. But I can't do the faith thing, lying to myself would be even worse than this.
Do not be deceived and so fall easily into despair. Christ seeks a relationship with you now(one you never had growing up because of those reasons), not some blind faith dogmatic belief. No parents are perfect and they raised you as best they thought how. But God wants YOU to know him of your own volition, not because you were forced by the views put on you at childhood.
Nor do you come close to explaining satan's existence
The Angelic and demon hosts contend in the origin and sphere of thoughts, of vices, of your chosen actions, and the determination of your will. They control mindsets, thinking patterns, and groups. Satan and his fallen angels, bring disease, death, depravity, confusion, evil, and ultimately destruction on an individual. The angels help, and seek to guide and minister to us. They rejoice when we repent and turn to God, because they know the struggle faced on both ends(Of God reaching out to us, and Us reaching out to God)
In the same way, there is more joy in heaven over one lost sinner who repents and returns to God than over ninety-nine others who are righteous and haven't strayed away!Luke 15:7
But it is also written that
Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 2 Corinthians 11:14
I dont have a time machine to take you back 2000 years ago, to the time of the early Christians and Jesus and the apostles. But a good place to start would be the bible. Ignore the peanut gallery telling you its a fairy tale book. Ive shown its not in heavy discussions that point otherwise for several aspects about it. The truth itself becomes revelation to the individual. The Bible can stand its ground both scientifically, historically, and otherwise. They dont know or want to know anything about the Bible, because they hate and refuse to acknowledge an intelligent God that created everything.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+17%3A16-34&version=NIV
The reason I did not reply to your post was because It wasn`t a simple question to begin with. I was also not trying to convert you and hence I was in no haste to reply, because we have enough false and stupid Christians and there is no rush on you to ever make any decision in your life unless you felt strongly about it with your heart AND mind. You can assess arguments and debates on your own intelligence, and draw conclusions from that, but the more you know the better your decisions will be. Which is why I continued rebuking the hellish blindness covering some of these atheists in regards to their understanding of the bible, and nonsensical science they look at as truth contrary to evidence against it.
P.S. I am sorry for replying so late, regardless. It did anger you which was not my intention.
Christianity vs. evolution is a false dichotomy.
Hmm... Ive been pondering this for awhile now and realized that Its commonly thought some people use less % of their total brain capacity than others. That is why you probably cannot understand, and your own intelligence betrays you. Honestly speaking, not trying to be insulting, but I cant fathom how what Im trying to explain to you , you cant seem to grasp.
I always entertain the idea I might be wrong, thats why I asked you those questions. Im never offended if someone calls me out on something, and I can defend it or admit when it looks and "is" wrong or dodgy.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+2%3A11-21&version=NIV
I happen to believe my interpretation is the correct one,
And why is that?. Because its in the book of Mormon and you were raised a Mormon and taught to believe its a factual extension of God`s word?. On what grounds do you believe your interpretation is correct?. Explain
You certainly aren't very tolerant of beliefs you disagree with
I am, I only question hard. May not seem that way, true. But anyway,
To the Galatians, Paul expressed grave concern. "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ" (Gal. 1:6,7).
In Revelation, Christ rebuked the church in Pergamos for their indifference toward the false teachers in their midst: "But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam . . . you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate" (Rev. 2:14,15).
In numerous other passages, we hear of things like "false brethren" (Gal. 2:4), "false apostles" (2 Cor. 11:13,14), "false prophets" (Mt. 24:11), and even "false christs" (Mk. 13:22). Wherever we go in the Bible, we're confronted with this reality: the existence of any true thing is always accompanied by the devilish possibility that it will be counterfeited. Perhaps the Psalmist summed it all up long ago: "Through Your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way" (Psa. 119:104). Whatever is false is to be rejected, no matter who promotes it or under what circumstances. There is a great need for us to beware.
Im sorry but the Bible does not teach the existence of a “heavenly mother.”(http://www.gotquestions.org/heavenly-mother.html) God is also the first and the last. The living one. He created all things and by his power sustains all things, and was not/and is not a creation of the big bang. If you substitute the book of Mormon for the Bible, You are in deep error. Plain and simple.
There is no heavenly mother, God does not have a father nor an eternal partner, We do not have a `Grandfather`, There is no super mystery hidden God that created and is behind our God.
All prophets are from Israel. You failed to answer my questions related to that. I would also like to ask you about the parable of :
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16%3A19-31&version=NIV
And how that relates to the mormon`s view of the afterlife and the different planes of existence.
Talk to experts in Judaism and Christianity for a clearer understanding. Because what you are saying is blasphemy and utter nonsense and you confuse people from the simple truth. This is why all denominations and sects of Christianity fail, because they substitute God`s word for their own teachings and regulations.
I feel as though you are missing many of the key tenets for being Christ-like
In this thread, most definitely. However, here we argue on truths and knowledge and its because I care that Im quick to point out error, or even challenge people in an effort to resolve our conflicts in opinion and understanding. Im more than happy when Im challenged like wise and have to contend my beliefs with what I think I know.
You might want to check this out.
http://www.contenderministries.org/mormonism/falseprophet.php
http://mit.irr.org/failed-prophecies-of-joseph-smith
http://saintsalive.com/resourcelibrary/mormonism/testing-the-prophecies-of-joseph-smith-
@EternalWraith: Go
Experiments have actually shown that people who have difficulty comprehending or accepting reality or that reality causes stress/anxiety flee to religion because religion offers a feeling of comfort and control (like a narcotic) to the brain, even though religion is false.
Religion actually grounds a person in stability. Even though a religion might be wrong/false in one way or the other. Its a way of life. Religious people are less likely to fall into drugs, gangs, low self esteem, suicide, depression, violence etc. Since all religion more or less advocates teachings against that sort of hopeless lifestyle. A lifestyle devoid of hope, purpose, reason, and any meaning.
@EternalWraith: Go
"Religion actually grounds a person in stability."
That's actually false. You only feel like you're in control and it feels comforting, despite reality. Religion does not actually stabilize your life.
"Religious people are less likely to fall into drugs, gangs, low self esteem, suicide, depression, violence etc."
That's also factually incorrect. One example, vast majority of prison inmates are religious. Higher rate of depression occurs among religious individuals than atheist individuals. Religious people also commit more suicides because they want to go to the afterlife so desperately. The vast majority of all the violence in our civilization have been inspired and influenced by religion.
"Since all religion more or less advocates teachings against that sort of hopeless lifestyle. A lifestyle devoid of hope, purpose, reason, and any meaning."
Religion more or less dictates you to be eternal slaves to gods that don't exist. The atheist teachers, philanthropists, scientists, etc are full of hope, purpose, reason, and enthusiasm for life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_brain_myth
Just saying.
@FDFederation: Go
"That's actually false. You only feel like you're in control and it feels comforting, despite reality. Religion does not actually stabilize your life."
From my experience with you so far, I can confidently say I don't believe your life is stable. Religion itself won't do anything, it is simply a belief that there is a God. For some people, that can definately bring stability and comfort. I like how you said "That's actually false" and supported it with your opinion lol.
"That's also factually incorrect. One example, vast majority of prison inmates are religious. Higher rate of depression occurs among religious individuals than atheist individuals."
The studies don't represent what belief system they had BEFORE they went to prison. It is very common for people to convert during prison. Anyway, just because someone claims to be a theist doesn't mean they take they're beliefs seriously. I'm sure the vast majority of Christians in prison don't practice it or didn't when they went to prison.
"Religious people also commit more suicides because they want to go to the afterlife so desperately."
You're an idiot.
"The vast majority of all the violence in our civilization have been inspired and influenced by religion."
You're an idiot.
"Religion more or less dictates you to be eternal slaves to gods that don't exist. The atheist teachers, philanthropists, scientists, etc are full of hope, purpose, reason, and enthusiasm for life."
Speculation.
@Charysmatic: Go
"From my experience with you so far, I can confidently say I don't believe your life is stable."
Well, yeah, so what? No one has a "stable" life. Because of the development of the brain of religious people, they didn't have the strength to cope with "unstable" reality, so they flee to religion; religion is for the weak-minded. I'm very happy that you saw how I was able to thrive with my "unstable" life without the temptation of religion; perhaps someday you'll be strong enough to ween yourself from the narcotic of religion and live with the realities of life.
"it is simply a belief that there is a God. For some people, that can definately bring stability and comfort. I like how you said "That's actually false" and supported it with your opinion lol."
It's not opinion, it's been shown from experimental results that measured the dopamine levels in people's brains.
You know I'm right, otherwise, you wouldn't have resorted to calling me an idiot.
"Speculation."
Just look at Stephen Hawking and how he loves life and is so enthusiastic about learning more about the universe. Stephen Hawking is just one individual, but studies have shown atheists to be more happy and optimistic about life, while religious people tend to be pessimistic about life. Someday, you might be strong enough to journey the path of science.
frankly i came here cause i wondered how a thread with the question "do you consider yourself to be part of an organized religion?" survived for so long. mostly cause i think that would just end up being a "yes" or "no" type answer. after scanning through the more recent posts it just seems like this has become an opinion thread about how each of us views religion. so here's my opinion.
to the thought of evolution vs. god making us:
neither side can be truly proved or disproved it simply goes back to what we can see of the past from our present and speculate as to what happened. going all the way back to the theory of the world's creation one can simply ask "if God created everything, who created God? and who created the creator of God?" etc and so forth. same for science: "if mass collision of particles produced the 'big bang' where did those particles come from?" as far as the physicists go i don't think they'll really be able to prove anything one way or the other. as for me personally, i think that everything exists because we desire for it to exist and we are alive only because we believe that we are and that life was originally created because of the universal desire to... eh... "live" (can't think of a word to properly describe it). this is not the same as God making us, more like we made ourselves from our universally connected subconscious. but of course this also begs the question of "does that mean that space is actually alive with thoughts and feelings" and then more questions asking existences existing before existence. i don't care what you believe in, but if you're going to argue with someone and try to make them believe in something they don't, i'll just laugh at you for trying to convert a rock.
as for religion, people, and politics in general:
it's fine to believe in whatever you want, but don't try to force others to believe in it as well!! this is probably off topic-ish, but i feel like waying in anyway. how many people realize that despite the USA claiming to be separate from church and state, really most politics are completely controlled by religion. honestly, as far as i'm aware, science and politics find nothing wrong with gay marriage. scientifically, they can't have a child (except lesbian couples [sperm bank if you weren't already aware]) therefore genetic diversity may not change, but overpopulation will not increase due to them. politically, the church doesn't like gays so they make a great scapegoat to blame all our problems on (this is why i hate politicians). i find it funny how most of those who believe in God seem to forget that God is supposed to have made everyone in His (or Her or It, can't rule out the possibility) image AND loves each and everyone of them REGARDLESS. you don't like gay marriage because YOU don't like it not that God says it's bad. going far back to the topic of abortion now. just because you believe in a higher power doesn't mean you are that higher power. you can't just force someone to follow what you want. it's their damn body so it's their choice. you are a human NOT GOD and remember that God is SUPPOSED to love everyone regardless of the decisions they made in life. it seems though that politics finds it very convenient (probably because more voters are religious) to simply side with the church. i honestly don't know why we still have problems allowing gays to marry and allowing women to choose whether they want to have a child or abort it. the only reasons i can think of are that most voters are religious and the politicians want to appeal to those voters and that if 2 girls are allowed to marry that means that there are less chances for guys to get it on with those girls. in summary, i believe that if you believe that it's wrong don't do it, but don't shove your dick down someone else's throat and demand that they do as you say just because YOU don't like it. not that i'm saying any of you here do that, just for future reference when you decide to scold someone for doing something they thought was right, but you didn't like.
You make a fair point about religion in areas where the local government fails to properly separate church and state. Muslims are a prime example of intolerance of... well... anything different. I should have been clearer in my statement as I was focused on Western Culture where science plays a more significant role in daily life. I doubt Muslims care what science has to say at present. It's unlikely this will change soon.
With regards to Western Culture, I feel my point still stands. People of any clique tend to "exile" those that are different. This is not a phenomenon that is unique to religion. I agree that some take their beliefs a tad far such as the father that kicks his son to the curb for rejecting God, but these actions don't line up with what Christianity is "supposed" to represent: tolerance. The anti-gay movement is another situation where the actions of those participating are contrary to what they claim to believe. As much as it sounds like I'm rationalizing discriminatory behavior, the reality is that people make mistakes. For many, religion serves as a convenient shield to hide behind.
This brings me to why being surrounded by people of the same faith doesn't mean much in the bigger picture. I've found that it's just as likely to drive people away as it is to keep them tethered. A prime example of this is what many call the "Weekend Christian." These individuals "follow the rules" on Sundays, but live contrary lives the rest of the week. The idea that they can "repent for it later" being a common rationalization. This creates tension given that Weekend Christians tend to adopt many social values that oppose Christian beliefs.
Christianity teaches chastity and sexual purity before marriage. Modern entertainment advocates sex as a normal, healthy activity that everyone should participate in regardless of marital status. From an objective standpoint, these directly oppose each other. Masturbation, pornography and other sexual acts have also become more socially acceptable, opposing religious beliefs. I find it hard to attribute the rise of sexual freedom/independence to scientific advancement.
At the end of the day, people are far more likely to engage in various forms of entertainment (Game of Thrones anyone?) than scientific anything. That modern entertainment is so integral to our social lives causes many to abandon their faith to avoid guilt over fitting in. Modern society is steadily growing to oppose religious values, such that, it's easier for social norms to push people away from religion than it is for science to show them the "unreasonableness" of their beliefs.
I'm definitely not associating religious decline with moral decline. I'm also not suggesting that refusing religion makes you a criminal. My point is that what religion considers unacceptable used to line up with Western Culture, but society now finds various forms of self-indulgence acceptable that religion would not. This is what I mean by selfish.
I've found that the more I learn about science, the stronger my faith grows. I know I'm not alone in this. I also find it funny that you would use statistics just before stating that "numbers do not lie and do not care for opinions." Mark Twain would disagree with you.
There are no questions, hard or otherwise, to stating that I am "in deep error" for my "blasphemy and utter nonsense." It is one thing to reject my beliefs in disagreement as you are expressing your opinion. It is another thing to attempt to supplant my own with yours by correcting what you perceive as erroneous. It is foolish and vain to believe that you have a factual understanding of the Bible because such a thing simply isn't possible. All understanding is through faith and thus is humble and respectful. Knowledge is shared, not forcefully imposed.
There is no excuse for deciding not to act in accordance with what you believe. If your desire is to be Christ-like, you will emulate him in all your dealings. To do otherwise is to be of two minds.
I've already stated that I am not here to argue matters of faith. I find no value in discussing my beliefs with you if you're going to disrespectfully discard and denounce anything you disagree with as if it were factually incorrect.
I think you need to re-examine yourself by reading James. I use the King James Version of the Bible, but I've supplied both your version and my own:
NIV James 1:1-27
KJV James 1:1-27
I'm done with this conversation unless your tone changes. You once became upset to the point of unwarranted personal attacks over the word "idiot." How you justify your current use of language as acceptable after the fact is beyond me.