The Death Thread [Archive] - New Doom Forums

Nomad

March 27th, 2007, 02:13 PM

What happens when you die? You die. Your thoughts simply cease, and there is nothing. You're not aware you're dead, there is simply nothing.

Most people can't handle that, and through wishful thinking hope for some kind of afterlife, but there is nothing to suggest this is true. It is only wishful thinking. Everything that is the "soul" is contained within the complex network of neurons in the brain. When the brain ceases to function, there's nothing.

Sounds like something very hopeless, but I don't think so. I think when you realize you only have this one life to live, you try to live it to its fullest. That doesn't necessarily mean partying all the time, but accomplishing all you can to help the common good.

That said, I'm not afraid of death--I'm afraid of not accomplishing anything during my life. So I hope my death comes at the appropriate time--I hope it's not too early, but I don't want to live super long either.

After death, I sure hope the brain/thinking part really dies and I quit thinking. If not, being trapped forever unable to move and nothing left but a pitch black view and your thoughts ... I'd rather be obliterated then.

The brain ceases function, yes. It would be impossible for the brain to continue function with no respiration process feeding it oxygen and nitrogen and all that good stuff.

Pieter Enis

March 27th, 2007, 02:49 PM

The brain ceases function, yes. It would be impossible for the brain to continue function with no respiration process feeding it oxygen and nitrogen and all that good stuff.
I know, biologically speaking it ceases to function, but I'm talking about a more spiritual approach. You know, what with all the ghosts 'n stuff. I'd certainly haunt my kids, just for kicks. But if it'd be true (you never know, no one actually got back from 'that place' eh? :p) I'd rather have a bit of freedom rather than being stuck inside my, by then decayed, shell.

Sometimes it actually makes me (want to) cry. After all, everything we're doing here has no use whatsoever. We die, the next generation dies and so on and so on. In the end we'll all end up dead and have-beens and all the inventions and technology and whatnot will be for naught.
Then again, life only exists through death, but that's another thing.

I don't know, I think the ultimate purpose of being here is cheating death or discovering it is impossible.
But then what?

Makes me want to kill myself just because it doesn't really matter. But that same reason keeps me from doing it, becuase after all, it doesn't really matter, does it?

Time for a random smiley: *smooch*

xbolt

March 27th, 2007, 02:59 PM

What happens when you die? This is what.

Either:
A: You accepted Christ in this life, and you live in Heaven forever.
or
B: You do not accept Christ, and you burn in hell forever.

You do not simply blip out, as Nomad says.

Nomad

March 27th, 2007, 03:07 PM

I'd like to see the evidence you have that supports this claim. "The bible says so" doesn't count. There's nothing in the natural world that suggests anything like that.

xbolt

March 27th, 2007, 03:19 PM

Tchakkazulu

March 27th, 2007, 03:22 PM

I witnessed someone just poof and have just written it down. Since you have no evidence at all that this is utter bullcrap, you have to believe me.

EDIT: Okay, I realised that that one comment was silly, and shouldn't be taken seriously. My point is: I only believe an eyewitness if I am one myself, and not even then. There are many who saw Christ and wrote down what they saw, yes, but how do they provably know it was Christ? If there is a possibility that what they saw was not Christ, then that witness is untrustworthy.

There are also people who see Christ in a dog's arse (http://www.calarts.edu/~jwhite/gbj/index.html), but I assume we're talking about other sightings?

Nomad

March 27th, 2007, 03:27 PM

My dad always says that an eyewitness is the best kind of evidence, and that you believe witnesses until they are proven wrong.
There are many who saw Christ and wrote down what they saw. I haven't ever seen them proven untrustworthy.

An eye witness to a delusion is hardly good evidence. If someone claimed to see Christ today, would you believe them? Picture yourself walking down the street, and some dude just walks up to you and says that he will give you anything you ask for, would you believe he is Christ, and that his offer is legit?

Odds are, you'll probably think both are kooks. 2,000 years doesn't make any difference there--a kook is a kook.

What evidence do you have to support your claim?

Common sense combined with high school education makes it pretty obvious that once the brain is starved from oxygen, it ceases to function. Don't need to be a brain surgeon to figure that one out.

xbolt

March 27th, 2007, 03:36 PM

OK, maybe that was a bad example. However, two seconds of Googleing uncovered this (http://www.evidenceofgod.com/answers/death.htm), this (http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml), and this (http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html).

Common sense. I thought so.
The human body is made of two parts: the flesh (Brain, etc.) and the soul (The part of you that makes you YOU) The flesh dies, (Your brain stops working) and and it rots. The SOUL lives on.

Nomad

March 27th, 2007, 03:39 PM

Too long; Didn't Read.

Have any pictures of these "souls", or know anyone that's seen one? (Yeah, yeah. I'm poking fun at your previous comment).

Raptor Jesus

March 27th, 2007, 03:43 PM

My shoe has a sole :D

xbolt

March 27th, 2007, 03:46 PM

*owell* Sheesh, how can I have a proper argument with you if you don't look at my evidence?

Nomad

March 27th, 2007, 03:57 PM

I've yet to see "Christian Science" that was actually science.

This comic puts it better than I ever could:
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/5305/scimethodqp9.jpg

FATAL

March 27th, 2007, 04:02 PM

The whole concept of soul is just a poor way to explain something too complex to understand (yet). If we modify my last signature a little bit, I could say that "the hypothesis of soul grants us a way to understand much without knowing anything". Once neurology advances even further and can explain brain activity better, Christianity will abandon the sinking ship and make up another way to defend the idea that there is a soul.

And all those sites you provide tell that Christianity has been proven to be correct, but after a quick glance, I could only find declarations on how great and correct the bible is and not the actual proof.

xbolt

March 27th, 2007, 04:11 PM

Really? Cause when I read them, I see evidence supporting the Bible, not just statements saying it's true.
I think that if science does uncover facts about the soul, I'm sure they will actually be supporting it.

'Christian Science' is not Christianity. It's all bunk.

Tchakkazulu

March 27th, 2007, 04:23 PM

From what I found on the first site (Apologetics), they assume God exists. It may be a good proof when the assumption is correct (I have not checked), but the whole thing crumbles to dust if you assume otherwise.

Second (How Do You Know The Bible Is True?). Seems to be based on statistics and the assumption that a lot of people thinking the same way makes it true, rather than proof. I haven't completely read it, but claims like "No one ever refuted the New Testament writings as “fairy tales.”", while true, don't prove anything.

Third site (Manuscript Evidence).
First heading seems to be more number-smashing.
Second heading (The Variants) describes how, from all the variants, the original text can be constructed. This doesn't make the truth value of the original text more true. The variants may be made independently from eachother, they aren't independent from the original. This makes every variant, as well as the total of all variants, as trustworthy as the original.
The third heading again states that the current version isn't much different from the original. Also it boasts the New Testament's ancientness. Being very old and with many doesn't make a proof stronger. If all these many things are in some way related to eachother, the amount doesn't even make it more likely.
Fourth heading (Support [...] from the Church Fathers) states that people who have similar ideas about things write similar texts about these things. No, duh.
Fifth heading (Manuscript Evidence for the Old Testament) also seems to be based on the accuracy of the information transmission, rather than the accuracy of the original.
Sixth heading (God's Preservation) assumes that God exists, and therefore the Bible must be accurate. This may be very true, but again, once you assume God does not exist, the whole paragraph is worth nothing.

Aliotroph?

March 27th, 2007, 04:25 PM

There have been some interesting articles written on how humans could have got it into their thick heads that souls exist separate from bodies. I should go find the one I was reading recently.

Christianity must be comforting to anyone who can stomach bowing down before an all-powerful dictator that seeks to control or punish all it created. Such a thing must have gone mad at the lack of purpose in its own existence, much like many humans seem to do.

xbolt

March 27th, 2007, 04:38 PM

Osiris's_Legacy

March 27th, 2007, 04:43 PM

Seriously, this topic will be discussed forever. There is always going to be at least one person agreeing and one person disagreeing. One person saying there is life after death, and one person saying there is nothing after death. There will be flaming eventually, one way or the other. Religion is the worst topic to argue about. It is inevitable.

It will never end.

Raptor Jesus

March 27th, 2007, 04:55 PM

I was reading this magazine while I was on the crapper that had an article where the actually put dieing patients on a scale while they died. The took measurements of the body before they died and then after. They were trying to see if the soul, assuming there is one, actually had weight. Only one case out of the many had a difference but they assumed that was just an isolated incident.

Aliotroph?

March 27th, 2007, 05:08 PM

Those articles all just state God exists because the people writing them refuse to believe anything complex can happen without God creating them. How then did God come to exist? Surely if he can pop out of nothingness than so can just about anything else!

Here's the article I had in mind. It's kind of long, but it's neat: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=a43cfb7b24423cc6&ex=1330664400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

rustyslacker

March 27th, 2007, 05:54 PM

Those articles all just state God exists because the people writing them refuse to believe anything complex can happen without God creating them. How then did God come to exist? Surely if he can pop out of nothingness than so can just about anything else!
Yes. Christian "science" is just as it's depicted in the comic Nomad posted.
Really? Cause when I read them, I see evidence supporting the Bible, not just statements saying it's true.
I think that if science does uncover facts about the soul, I'm sure they will actually be supporting it.
Specific examples?

You represent a religious double standard concerning science. Evidence contradictory to religious belief is thrown out, and any [what little there is] evidence supporting religious belief is embraced and embellished. Can't have it both ways.

Nomad

March 27th, 2007, 09:21 PM

OK, so I need to prove that God exists.

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/
http://www.doesgodexist.org/
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/proof-that-god-exists-faq.htm

And I'm very sorry, but I have to go now.

I really have to, I'm not just making up a cheap way of evading the argument. *bad*

Those are all fine and good, but I'm sure each and every one of those can also be used to "prove" Yahweh's, Allah's, Brahma's, Lord Vishnu's, Ahura Mazda's, Uranus's, and whatever other deities there are out there's existences. Surely not ALL of them are the "one" true creator of everything right? What makes you so sure that your god is the god?

+Acyclitor+

March 28th, 2007, 12:10 AM

i've been around occult practices to see and experience enough to know that existence doesn't end with death. i'm not a practitioner myself (too much responsibility!), but i study and i observe - and its been enough to convince me that science is only half of the story when it comes to understanding the nature of reality. its kinda personal, so i don't want to goto detail about my experiences with the occult, but its kind of a pointless argument anyway - the very nature of occult practices is that they cannot be proven/disproved as it is a completely subjective experience. its just something you'll have to go experience for yourself if you want to know what i'm talking about.

but i don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with Nomad's atheist factual outlook. you die, brain quits functioning, logically that would be the end of your "mind" or "soul." don't fret, its not like you'll be aware of the loss anyway. and this outlook is certainly preferable (and less damaging!) than the self-serving philosophies of monotheism (ie, Judaism, Islam, Christianity). its just my opinion that some of us who learn enough and become aware enough of ourselves and the universe in a metaphysical sort of way depart to an extra-planar sort of existence.

but ultimately, its not a big deal. nobody is going to know for sure until they experience it for themselves. live, do what you feel you gotta do, and try to make your time on earth worth the while.

jester

March 28th, 2007, 01:08 AM

1. About religion, personally, I don't think any of the 'proof' is at all credible. James Randi has a $1 million challenge for anyone who can provide proof of anything supernatural to him. It's been going for years but no-one has won it.

2. Okay, I don't want to depress anyone here, because the stuff I'm about to say could be, in my view, really depressing if you don't already see things this way. Seriously. I wish I'd never thought of it myself. So if this shit is all getting a bit heavy, you might want to stop reading this stuff.

It relates to the people who are saying "Death isn't that bad, just live your life etc.". How can you claim this is logical? Most people worry about the most trivial things, like making a public speech, like an exam, like spiders or something. With death, there is the probability that you will spend ETERNITY as nothing. We're not talking about, oh, a few hours, a few days. We're talking about NEVER being able to do anything you want again. Anything at all. You're feeling pissed off, you go for a walk, or whatever, you hang out with your friends, to chill. When you're dead, you're probably NEVER going to be able to do that again. You're never going to be able to achieve anything again, relax again, feel any kind of satisfaction whatsoever again.

How on earth can anyone say "Well, just live for today!" or shit like that. It reminds me of when my grandmother died. She was really old, she was ill etc., but when it came time for her to die, she clung on to life. Because, even in her old, undignified, semi-dependent state, she still wanted to live.

On the other hand, time could be circular, energy can't be destroyed, time-travel and incredibly advanced future technology may mean that an artificial heaven could be created for the consciousness of everyone.. but even with all that crap, death as the end of everything is still a possibility.

I think the song 'Blind' by Korn really sums up the whole thing quite well to be honest.

So yeah, ultimately, as far as I'm concerned, the only thing in life worth anything is finding a relationship with someone you care about more than yourself, and going for it.

Dutch Devil

March 28th, 2007, 06:02 AM

They should put an rocket launcher next to me in my coffin I might need it when I go to hell for some final cleaning up.

xbolt

March 28th, 2007, 11:07 AM

OK, I'll state my exact reasons for being a Christian.

1) Take a look at the computer sitting in front of you. If someone came up to you and told you that the computer just happened, you'd say he's nuts. Somebody had to have designed that thing. Now take a look at your hand. Wiggle your fingers. THAT is a LOT more complicated than a computer, and you say it just happened? I don't think so. There IS a God.

2) Now that I've said why God exists, you ask: why Christianity? Well, I believe the eyewitness accounts in the Bible, and the forensic evidence to support the Bible. My favorite example of forensic evidence is this: many historians said for a long time that there were no Hittites, who were mentioned several times in the Bible. Then some archaeologists were digging, and guess what? They found Hittite stuff!
Now other religions don't have all that evidence to back them up. I'll pick on Mormonism for example. Joseph Smith said there were all these cities in South America, and when the archaeologists went down there, they could find absolutely no evidence that these cities ever existed.

I hope I've made it clear WHY.

And I had a talk with my dad last night, and he said that some people refuse to believe in God no matter what you say. So I will stop arguing now.

But this discussion was, in a way, actually good for me. It made me think long and hard about why I believe what I believe, and so I will be more prepared for arguments like this in the future. Thank you for that. :)

Pieter Enis

March 28th, 2007, 12:35 PM

1) Take a look at the computer sitting in front of you. If someone came up to you and told you that the computer just happened, you'd say he's nuts. Somebody had to have designed that thing. Now take a look at your hand. Wiggle your fingers. THAT is a LOT more complicated than a computer, and you say it just happened? I don't think so. There IS a God.

I find the hand to be actually less complex than a Computer and I'm not going to bother you with anything else but one question: Where did God Him/Her/Itself then come from? If He/She/It created us after His/Her/Its image, who or what created His/Her/Its hand?

The computer also evolved, just like we are assuming humans did, for now, untill proven wrong. A lot more evidence has been found than human-written books. You must know there are people out there who'd easily write a story about some guy having wings on his ankles and being Mr Super Postman? I remember a Super Hero like that existing, not the Flash, could be called Hermes tho'
Now assume people like that wrote a book with, in the backs of their heads, the thought "I have to write this to make people actually believe something superior exists so that we can all gather them under this ... hmm, what to call it ... ah! Religion."
Not saying it's a bad thing, back in the days it's a great move. But it's being questioned as of now as I am doing here.
Not many more people believe since there is much more proof than a simple book proving God or WhomsoeverUpInTheSkyEatingTheirPie does not exist.

I also got quite pissed at reading this (http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/) site:
First page doesn't let you click anything but the upper left one. Smart move I must say, but doesn't really leave it open for choice eh? Why would people who already believe have to be 'convinced'? I don't see the use, but whatever.

Step One
No problem tho believe that the Laws of Logic exist. We wouldn't call it logic otherwise and the chances that we'd turn into a rubber duck anytime soon are pretty slim.

Step Two
Laws of Maths are Man-made. We created the numbers and we created ways to work with them. No harm there, think of it as just a little plaything to keep us busy at the least.
Clicking they don't exist gives the example of a clerck changing your 100$ bill to 2 5$ bills. Now, when laws of Maths are different to each person, I'd take the bills and leave. You could, theoretically, buy a Porsche for 1$. It just depends on the kind of maths you're using.
Fun stuff.

Step Three
Laws of Science.
I clicked they don't exist the first time. No real laws of physics exist, just theories. These 'theories' are accepted as being right for the time being untill we land some case in which the theories we were using before don't apply anymore and we have to alter those and assume the newest theory to be true untill it repeats itself over and over again.
When your cat is pregnant, do you fret about the possibility that it might produce an elephant or do you trust the laws of science for a kitty litter?
There's always a possibility your 'cat' will produce an 'elephant', just depends on evolution and whatnot.
Also a note about stubbing your toe is made, I'd rather not lose my time trying to kick the wall again and get on with my life untill I hit something again and take note of how it feels then. It might have changed. Also 'pain' doesn't exist. It's a mere signal sent out by your nerves to tell you something is amiss and it has to be experienced as "not fun"
If you could reprogram yourself in some way, you could become 'immune' to 'pain'.

Step Four
"Rape, and child molestation, are two examples of absolute moral wrongs."
I have a problem with this. It's not an absolute moral wrong. I believe that some while ago, when all we could say was "Ugh ugh" and "Ooog" or "Aag!" we accepted this as being part of life. It's a normal biological need for humans to have the urge to try and reproduce. If the only (fe)male in your surroundings happens to be your own offspring or an unwilling mate, I believe they'd try and reproduce.
More about that 'absolute': I'm sure there's at least 1 person who thinks rape isn't wrong in the present as we know it. Thus abolishing it as being absolute.

I had to write the last paragraph. If only to see what your ideas were and learn more.
Gad 't is a long post. I'll spare you the rest but continue taking the test. *flip*
Hope I drew out a deal of controversy while I was at it ^_^

Okay, okay, I had to add one more thing:
The argument is that you must borrow from the Christian worldview, and a God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible in order to prove anything.
Isn't it man himself who's making up the 'laws'? Also, the laws are just there, it's a way of describing the way things went, are going and will go on any object. Fun site :p

Nomad

March 28th, 2007, 12:42 PM

It relates to the people who are saying "Death isn't that bad, just live your life etc.". How can you claim this is logical? Most people worry about the most trivial things, like making a public speech, like an exam, like spiders or something. With death, there is the probability that you will spend ETERNITY as nothing. We're not talking about, oh, a few hours, a few days. We're talking about NEVER being able to do anything you want again. Anything at all. You're feeling pissed off, you go for a walk, or whatever, you hang out with your friends, to chill. When you're dead, you're probably NEVER going to be able to do that again. You're never going to be able to achieve anything again, relax again, feel any kind of satisfaction whatsoever again.

I can claim it's logical because it is. What should I do then, if I'm not supposed to try to live my life to its fullest? Should I just sit around and do nothing, because I'm going to die anyway?

1) Take a look at the computer sitting in front of you. If someone came up to you and told you that the computer just happened, you'd say he's nuts. Somebody had to have designed that thing. Now take a look at your hand. Wiggle your fingers. THAT is a LOT more complicated than a computer, and you say it just happened? I don't think so. There IS a God.

As complex and unlikely as our universe is, as complex and unlikely as we are, God is infinitely more complex and unlikely to just "happen". I don't buy it that "God" is somehow immune to the same reasons that you claim that we couldn't just "happen".

Where's the logic in that?

And I had a talk with my dad last night, and he said that some people refuse to believe in God no matter what you say. So I will stop arguing now.

You're right. I'll never believe nonsense.

Anakite

March 28th, 2007, 12:57 PM

*sigh*
Here's the problem: religion is freaking trench warfare. You'll be hard-pressed to get EITHER side out of their holes so that you can "get" them.
It's a useless argument, really. People will believe what they want to believe.
Personally, I believe science much more readily than I do religion. It's always been that way for me, even though I grew up in a devoutly Christian home. I find facts to be much more believable than exaggerated theories into the metaphysical.
In fact, I'm going to apply that generalization to myself. I believe what I want. I don't particularly like the idea of the Christian God. I'd still love to be proven wrong, though; I say that to point out that I'm not decided either way, and I'm not one of those that say, "No one can convince me...," regarding anything. I follow the philosophy that I must be ready to abandon any belief I have if I find it to be wrong, pressure from peers or past decisions be damned.

This is not to mention that devout Christians leave a bad taste in my mouth... like every single site xbolt posted a link to. I don't think anything less of him, of course, but stubborn people really get on my nerves. Probably has something to do with my mother... where's Freud? :p

I need to point out, though (dunno if it's been mentioned) that most of the "proof" on that philosophy site can be debunked by instinctive behaviors by all animals. And also, the "order" from the "chaos" was going to happen somewhere in the universe. It was chance that it happened in this particular solar system. God knows we wouldn't know the difference if it was elsewhere.

And about the afterlife: this was something I pondered before I more-or-less abandoned my beliefs. What "satisfaction" is there in heaven? There is no conflict, there is no turmoil... and consequentially, there is no release from either of those. Am I supposed to be satisfied for all of eternity about being "released" from the "turmoils" of life?

jester

March 28th, 2007, 01:38 PM

Nomad, I'm not saying I know what you should do if death is the end of everything. My point is that if it is, it sucks, that's all. People are so ready just to put everything into some neat system that makes sense of everything when in reality there's loads of stuff we don't know, and shit happens.

I suppose it all boils down to human behaviour being somewhat illogical anyway really. After all I think it's our genes that are pulling our strings at the end of the day. Of course whether that makes any difference is another question because it doesn't change the fact that we experience what we experience, whatever causes it.

But there is such a thing as self-deception. I mean, if you think about it in a logical way, life consists of a series of moments. Those moments can be good bad or neutral. Well it's conceivable that in heaven they could all be good forever. If death is just nothingness then it sucks to lose out on forever's worth of good stuff.

Anakite

March 28th, 2007, 02:07 PM

But with no "bad points" to add contrast, everything would just seem like a neutral point. :\

xbolt

March 28th, 2007, 02:42 PM

I find the hand to be actually less complex than a Computer
What? The computer has all those chips, wires, and fans, but can it heal itself?
I'm not going to bother you with anything else but one question: Where did God Him/Her/Itself then come from? If He/She/It created us after His/Her/Its image, who or what created His/Her/Its hand?
God is all-powerful. He IS power. He has existed forever. Don't ask me how, I haven't a clue.

That's one of the things about Christianity. Faith. Believing even when it makes no sense.

Anakite

March 28th, 2007, 03:07 PM

If something doesn't make sense, why agree with it? If you don't agree with something, why follow it?

A religion's job isn't to not make sense. It's to bring people to a higher spiritual state, not deter members with nonsense.

+Acyclitor+

March 28th, 2007, 03:32 PM

Nomad

March 28th, 2007, 04:04 PM

Jester: It's better to have lived and lost than to have never lived at all. ;)

Aliotroph?

March 28th, 2007, 04:11 PM

That stuff about order not coming from chaos is crap. For starters, there's no real info to prove that there was ever any true chaos. Then all you have to do is go looking around and bump into all kinds of signs that we got stuff with a potentially very average situation: we orbit an average star in an average-looking galaxy. There is utterly no evidence to suggest we're anything other than a fairly average civilization of a type that appears once in a while and eventually dies (or doesn't).

It's true we may as well not argue about it though. We'll never sway anyone save for a few fence sitters.

+Acyclitor+

March 28th, 2007, 08:49 PM

thats true, its almost for sure that nobody is going to change their preformed opinions based on this discussion. but i for one am not trying to convince anybody - only state my opinion and listen to those of others and debate and so forth in the cause of provoking thought and understanding.

on another note: anybody hold any views on the manner of ones death being important? i for one would like to die mostly in the course of fighting for a cause i believe in.

rustyslacker

March 28th, 2007, 08:55 PM

That's one of the things about Christianity. Faith. Believing even when it makes no sense.
Theists are breaking my heart. Please, open your eyes! There's so much wonder and beauty in this universe without having to attribute it all to an ancient book and an imaginary friend in the sky. Theists are breaking my heart and destroying any/all hope for the future.

xbolt

March 28th, 2007, 11:18 PM

Saying it makes no sense was a bad choice of words on my part. A better way of putting it would be: I believe even when I don't understand everything that's going on.

How am I breaking your heart and destroying hope for the future?

If there was no intelligent design to the universe, where did all this stuff come from? You say evolution, which states that life formed from basic amino acids coming together in just the right order to produce 'simple' life.
So by that reasoning, if I took a frog, a hamster, and a parrot, and put them in a blender, and then set the slop (Not just amino acids, but DNA also!) outside, it would eventually form life. Can't you see that it just wouldn't happen?

And if science has all the answers, tell me, why are two planets attracted to eachother? There's nothing connecting them. There's just empty space between them.

FATAL

March 29th, 2007, 05:47 AM

If there was no intelligent design to the universe, where did all this stuff come from? You say evolution, which states that life formed from basic amino acids coming together in just the right order to produce 'simple' life.
So by that reasoning, if I took a frog, a hamster, and a parrot, and put them in a blender, and then set the slop (Not just amino acids, but DNA also!) outside, it would eventually form life. Can't you see that it just wouldn't happen?
How come it wouldn't happen? When there's hundreds of millions of years time, even the most improbable occurring will likely happen.

Denying evolution on the basis that none of the tests trying to reproduce the first step of evolution (life appearing from dead matter) have succeeded is downright idiotic, as trying to do something that takes many hundreds of millions of years in just a couple of dozen is doomed to fail.

Besides, in your example, the blender mix would already be oozing with life, and thus it's a bad example.

Basing beliefs in a book that's mostly filled with fiction is downright idiotic. I bet that even you don't believe in the story of Noah and his wonderful ark housing each and every species on earth, yet you "know" that some other stories are true. What makes you determine on what stories to believe and what not? How can someone know which stories are symbolic and which ones are to be taken as a scientific fact? After all, you're defying god's word when you say that something isn't true.

Either you accept the teachings of the bible and during your math lessons use 3 as the value for pi, or do not take the bible for real at all, but rather as a good story.

Osiris's_Legacy

March 29th, 2007, 06:00 AM

Some people believe in some things and others don't. Why is it people are trying to force their ideals and beliefs on others? It's not up to any of us what others should believe or think or do. We have our say sure, but I don't think anyone should be going at religion just because you believe in something else. Indirect and direct insults is just a pathetic and poor way of mocking others and baiting for flaming. For those who did that, you know who you are. Just let us all believe what we think and not forcefully convert each other or bicker for a million years about who is right or wrong.

Inevitiably and eventually this will all end in tears for everyone and this thread will become a flaming ground, as has many other religion debating threads before this. End it while you can or actually discuss what this topic was originally about.

FATAL

March 29th, 2007, 06:23 AM

Some people believe in some things and others don't. Why is it people are trying to force their ideals and beliefs on others? It's not up to any of us what others should believe or think or do.
However, religion can, and is harmful to society. While the usual Joe won't bother much and will live an ordinary life, as long as religions exist, there are always those who take it to the extreme, and therefore become a burden. Those people can act violently, or indirectly harm others in many ways. This is most true in countries where religions strongly influence people's lives.

A good example of this is northern Ireland, in which, as Mystic once said, people were killing each other to determine who are better Christians. Also USA's way of halting scientific advancing by cutting government funding of certain research, because it's against the leaders' beliefs, is idiotic, and other kind of action would save many lives in the future. Not only this has effect on Christian people, but also people who have nothing to do with religion. There are so many examples when religions make people's lives worse that I don't think there's much possibility for rebuttal in this area.

In modern world, religions are absolutely optional (while the scientific method certainly isn't). While some people find a meaning for their lives by believing that there's a grand prize at the end, surely after one generation such would completely cease, and, as I would say, world would be a better place with more logic and less blind faith going on.

Nomad

March 29th, 2007, 08:14 AM

If there was no intelligent design to the universe, where did all this stuff come from? You say evolution, which states that life formed from basic amino acids coming together in just the right order to produce 'simple' life.

No, it doesn't. You are confusing Evolution with the beginning of life. Two completely different concepts.

Evolution is simple. Very simple. It works on many, many scales. It can take mere years to work its course--resulting in the multitudes of different breeds of dogs, for example. On a larger scale, it results in the many different genus of mammals.

I could probably explain it, but you probably wouldn't listen anyway. If you ever get a wild hair, I suggest reading the book The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.

So by that reasoning, if I took a frog, a hamster, and a parrot, and put them in a blender, and then set the slop (Not just amino acids, but DNA also!) outside, it would eventually form life. Can't you see that it just wouldn't happen?

I suppose that, rather, man was created from a pile of dirt, and woman from his rib! Or, if you go on the second creation story in Genesis, they were both created at the same time.

You guys can't even get your story straight--at least our decades of research is leading us to the same point where we will someday hit the breakthrough we need to uncover the beginnings of life.

And if science has all the answers, tell me, why are two planets attracted to eachother? There's nothing connecting them. There's just empty space between them.

Ah, but there is something connecting them. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. But you can see it, though; you can see its effect. The fabric of space and time warping with the presence of large amounts of mass. This is simple Einstein physics. Maybe you would do well to get some public schooling.

And before you go pointing out that the same thing applies to "God" (just because i can't see it doesn't mean it's not there, and I can see it's effect, blah, blah, blah), I've never claimed that I do not believe in god because I've never seen it. This is probably a trick your father told you to try, but it's not going to work. Sorry.

xbolt

March 29th, 2007, 12:09 PM

How come it wouldn't happen? When there's hundreds of millions of years time, even the most improbable occurring will likely happen.
So by that reasoning, given a million years, a butterfly will likely spontaneously turn into an internal combustion engine.

Denying evolution on the basis that none of the tests trying to reproduce the first step of evolution (life appearing from dead matter) have succeeded is downright idiotic, as trying to do something that takes many hundreds of millions of years in just a couple of dozen is doomed to fail.
Let me deny evolution in this way, then:
Evolutionists talk about 'missing links'. But they're just that. MISSING! They're missing because they JUST DON'T EXIST.

Besides, in your example, the blender mix would already be oozing with life, and thus it's a bad example.
Let me put it this way: If I took some paper and ink, and randomly threw them together, I would get a mess. But you say that given a million tries, I would eventually write a Shakespearian play.

Basing beliefs in a book that's mostly filled with fiction is downright idiotic. I bet that even you don't believe in the story of Noah and his wonderful ark housing each and every species on earth, yet you "know" that some other stories are true. What makes you determine on what stories to believe and what not? How can someone know which stories are symbolic and which ones are to be taken as a scientific fact? After all, you're defying god's word when you say that something isn't true.
On the contrary, I do believe in Noah's ark. The only things in the bible that are symbolic stories, are Jesus's parables.

Evolution is simple. Very simple. It works on many, many scales. It can take mere years to work its course--resulting in the multitudes of different breeds of dogs, for example. On a larger scale, it results in the many different genus of mammals.
That's true that the dogs change into other breeds. But the dogs ARE STILL DOGS! Where is evidence for this so-called 'macro-evolution'?

Here's a quote by Charles Darwin, commenting on his own theory:
"Why, if species descended from other species by fine graduations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them?"

I suppose that, rather, man was created from a pile of dirt, and woman from his rib! Or, if you go on the second creation story in Genesis, they were both created at the same time.
Man came from dirt because GOD DID IT. They didn't just appear.

It doesn't say they were created at the same time. I assume this is the verse you were referring to?
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
It doesn't say He created them at the same time, it just says they were created.

Ah, but there is something connecting them. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. But you can see it, though; you can see its effect. The fabric of space and time warping with the presence of large amounts of mass. This is simple Einstein physics. Maybe you would do well to get some public schooling.
See, that's what I thought you would say. But what does it MEAN? How does space-time warp in the presence of a mass? What does it look like?

And before you go pointing out that the same thing applies to "God" (just because i can't see it doesn't mean it's not there, and I can see it's effect, blah, blah, blah), I've never claimed that I do not believe in god because I've never seen it. This is probably a trick your father told you to try, but it's not going to work. Sorry.
I hadn't even thought about saying that until you said that.

Anakite

March 29th, 2007, 12:39 PM

The fabric of space-time is such a complicated subject that we could not possibly explain it to you without typing for hours. Suffice to say that it works similarly to a real fabric with something in the center, which creates an indentation, attracting other objects to its vicinity. I said *similar,* though, not *exactly.* There are differences.

Even if you refuse to believe that God had nothing to do with it, and even if you're right, you need to open your friggin' eyes. The only way that Christianity could POSSIBLY be right, is if it accepts that God works through science, not around it. God = Truth, yes? Well, (true) science = truth. Therefore, God = Science. Interpret that however you want.

Scientists have even been able to cause DNA to be created in a controlled environment by constructing devices that simulate the conditions of the earth during primordial times. There needed to be a catalyst for reaction, of course (in this case, I believe I recollect that it was extreme weather), but it happened.

Science runs much deeper than you seem to think. If you approach what I've said with an open mind, you'll realize that believing in God is actually more just preference than changing your approach to reality. God or no, these things are. The only real reason we haven't proven evolution completely is because we can't go back in time to record these things happening.

A small amount of proof, though, is in our changes. Our craniums are growing larger, our jaws are shrinking, and we're losing our little toes.

Nomad

March 29th, 2007, 01:04 PM

I'm going to jump around a lot here, I apologize.

Here's a quote by Charles Darwin, commenting on his own theory:
"Why, if species descended from other species by fine graduations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them…?"

Charles Darwin: 1802 - 1889.

Since his death (almost 120 years), there has been plenty of discoveries of these transitional forms. We haven't just done absolutely nothing for the last 100 years. I'm sure your parents don't bother teaching you anything in homeschool about evolution because it's probably not required by your state. Only fools that know nothing about evolution are so quick to dismiss it.

Let me deny evolution in this way, then:
Evolutionists talk about 'missing links'. But they're just that. MISSING! They're missing because they JUST DON'T EXIST.

What missing links are you talking about? "Missing Link" is just "Christian Science" psychobabble for transitional fossils, which they claim don't exist. I urge you to visit the Smithsonian Institute some time in your life where you will find that this simply is not the case.

Man came from dirt because GOD DID IT. They didn't just appear.

Where's the evidence? There is nothing to suggest that we are composed of dust.

What about the dinosaurs? Where is the evidence that dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time as humans? Surely, since humans were created before the Terrible Lizards, there would be evidence of such a thing. As time goes on, more and more the evidence shows that the creation story of the bible is not the case.

I must ask you, what will you think when we finally do reach the breakthrough that shows the origin of life? When the code is broken, are you still going to be able to believe that Adam was created from a pile of dust, Eve from his rib, and that all of the billions of species of animals of the world were created soon after?

See, that's what I thought you would say. But what does it MEAN? How does space-time warp in the presence of a mass? What does it look like?

Are you proposing that god moves the planets himself, then? That's the only thing I can surmise from your argument here.

On the contrary, I do believe in Noah's ark. The only things in the bible that are symbolic stories, are Jesus's parables.

FIRST OF ALL!

Genesis 6: 15:
15And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

A cubit is about 1.5 feet. So on a ship measuring about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, 45 feet tall, a man hearded together not just two of every "unclean" species of animal on the earth to save them, but SEVEN of each of "clean" species. There are at least 1,250,000 modern species of animals living today (Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Numbers_of_species)), which is a very small number compared to the number of known extinct animals.

So on this 1,518,750 cubic foot boat there were at least 2,500,000 animals, ignoring the ones to be taken by sevens? That's well over one animal per cubic foot!

Where was the food stored for the herbivores? How did Noah and his small family keep the carnivores from eating the herbivores? Where did all the waste from these animals go? What about all of the plants and other non-sentient biological organisms? Surely all the trees, bushes, and flowers of the earth could not survive 40 days and 40 nights of complete flood!

I could go on listing tons and tons of more impossibilities of this situation, but we will continue on to the next problem that plagues the story of the Flood.

Why? Why did "god" decide to destroy all that lived on the earth, but was it their fault? Satan had corrupted the people. God created Satan in the first place. Why did not god get to the real source of the problem? There really was no point to the flood otherwise.

And then he promised not to punish the people again, creating the rainbow as his bond of promise. I'm sure before the flood, the laws of physics that god had already created didn't allow for rainbows to appear, though.

But I digress. The story of Noah is clearly not possible, nor does it make any sense. I don't know how anyone can take it any more than a story.

Tchakkazulu

March 29th, 2007, 01:39 PM

For laughs, I'm going to post Douglas Gasking's 'proof' of the inexistance of God.

Broken logic time. Find the error(s), and you'll get a non-existing cookie!

1) The creation of the world, the universe and everything is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2) The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3) The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4) The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5) Therefore if we suppose that the world, the universe and everything is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6) Therefore God does not exist.

I know you can use Curry's paradox to prove everything, but please don't do so. It destroys the fun of looking at wrong things in a proof. Logic is broken anyway. Though as long as you don't use self-referring sentences (no things like "this sentence is false"), it's consistent.

Pieter Enis

March 29th, 2007, 02:59 PM

I found it:
... everything is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6) Therefore God does not exist.
But he claimed they'd start from the idea the 'person' that would have 'made' the universe actually exists and from that he derives the 'fact' that the person does not exist.

Do I get my theoretical cookie now?

About the "creation of man": I've learnt (read: heard) it the other way around. God first created all the plants, animals and whatnot and after that he thought "My Me, it's so boring here. I need someone to take care of things here while I go play a videogame" or whatever He was thinking and then created man after his own image.
Then he let all the creatures come to man and let him name them. Which is the start of our own 'free will'

Also, God didn't actually create Satan, he's just a fallen angel that refused to submit himself to man.

I don't know what to think of the story about Noah's Ark, except that it's quite impossible to have happened unless there's some sort of Waterworld type thingy going on with a single island left in the midst of the seas.
Could be that there actually was a flood of sorts, as a result of the ice from the last Ice Age melting?
I'd just take it as a good story as Nomad said, because other than saying "Man can build HUGE ships and pwns at it" I don't see any moral in it.

I hate it when people force their beliefs onto others, yet refuse to accept any type of factual and/or objective evidence.
It's not a bad thing to accept your idea was wrong, you know. People really need to stop being so competitive all the time.

xbolt

March 29th, 2007, 03:07 PM

Charles Darwin: 1802 - 1889.

Since his death (almost 120 years), there has been plenty of discoveries of these transitional forms. We haven't just done absolutely nothing for the last 100 years. I'm sure your parents don't bother teaching you anything in homeschool about evolution because it's probably not required by your state.
If there are so many 'transitional species', show me proof.

Only fools that know nothing about evolution are so quick to dismiss it.
Do I detect a subtle flame?

What missing links are you talking about? "Missing Link" is just "Christian Science" psychobabble for transitional fossils, which they claim don't exist. I urge you to visit the Smithsonian Institute some time in your life where you will find that this simply is not the case.
If it isn't the case, again, show me proof.

Where's the evidence? There is nothing to suggest that we are composed of dust.
Because God changed the dust into something completely different.

What about the dinosaurs? Where is the evidence that dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time as humans? Surely, since humans were created before the Terrible Lizards, there would be evidence of such a thing. As time goes on, more and more the evidence shows that the creation story of the bible is not the case.
Job 40:15-19:
"Look at behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God, yet his Maker can approach him with the sword."

It sounds like He's describing a dinosaur, probably a Brachiosaurus.
Also, read this (http://www.creationists.org/mananddinos.html).

I must ask you, what will you think when we finally do reach the breakthrough that shows the origin of life? When the code is broken, are you still going to be able to believe that Adam was created from a pile of dust, Eve from his rib, and that all of the billions of species of animals of the world were created soon after?
Of course I would. IF 'the code' is broken, it will prove Creation IS right.

Are you proposing that god moves the planets himself, then? That's the only thing I can surmise from your argument here.
No, I'm saying that science doesn't have all the answers.

FIRST OF ALL!

Genesis 6: 15:
15And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

A cubit is about 1.5 feet. So on a ship measuring about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, 45 feet tall, a man hearded together not just two of every "unclean" species of animal on the earth to save them, but SEVEN of each of "clean" species. There are at least 1,250,000 modern species of animals living today (Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Numbers_of_species)), which is a very small number compared to the number of known extinct animals.

So on this 1,518,750 cubic foot boat there were at least 2,500,000 animals, ignoring the ones to be taken by sevens? That's well over one animal per cubic foot!

Where was the food stored for the herbivores? How did Noah and his small family keep the carnivores from eating the herbivores? Where did all the waste from these animals go? What about all of the plants and other non-sentient biological organisms? Surely all the trees, bushes, and flowers of the earth could not survive 40 days and 40 nights of complete flood!
Here, this could explain it better than I could:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp

Why? Why did "god" decide to destroy all that lived on the earth, but was it their fault? Satan had corrupted the people. God created Satan in the first place. Why did not god get to the real source of the problem? There really was no point to the flood otherwise.
That is one of the things I do not fully understand. Why indeed, did God not simply destroy Satan? A fascinating question.

And then he promised not to punish the people again, creating the rainbow as his bond of promise. I'm sure before the flood, the laws of physics that god had already created didn't allow for rainbows to appear, though.
Genesis 2:56 suggests it did not rain before the flood: (No rain, no rainbow)

"Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth; and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground."

Nomad

March 29th, 2007, 03:14 PM

About the "creation of man": I've learnt (read: heard) it the other way around. God first created all the plants, animals and whatnot and after that he thought "My Me, it's so boring here. I need someone to take care of things here while I go play a videogame" or whatever He was thinking and then created man after his own image.

Then he let all the creatures come to man and let him name them. Which is the start of our own 'free will'

This is true enough. Either way. at some point the bible suggests that all animals and men walked the earth together at some point.

Also, God didn't actually create Satan, he's just a fallen angel that refused to submit himself to man.

God created the angels. :P

I don't know what to think of the story about Noah's Ark, except that it's quite impossible to have happened unless there's some sort of Waterworld type thingy going on with a single island left in the midst of the seas.

Huh? What would an island have to do with anything?

Could be that there actually was a flood of sorts, as a result of the ice from the last Ice Age melting?

The myth tells about a storm lasting 40 days and 40 nights, it wasn't just a sudden flood.

I'd just take it as a good story as Nomad said, because other than saying "Man can build HUGE ships and pwns at it" I don't see any moral in it.

The moral would probably be "Be good or god will DROWN YOU."

Nomad

March 29th, 2007, 03:20 PM

It never rained before the flood!?

Hahaha.

I'm sorry, this is ridiculous. Surely the biological requirements of plants didn't just suddenly change to require rain out of the blue.

xbolt

March 29th, 2007, 03:23 PM

It never rained before the flood!?

Hahaha.

I'm sorry, this is ridiculous. Surely the biological requirements of plants didn't just suddenly change to require rain out of the blue.
"Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth; and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground."

Nomad

March 29th, 2007, 03:26 PM

Reading your "explanation" of the flood, I've heard this classification of "kinds" of animals. How do we get a handful of "kinds" into all 1,250,000 species of animals today without evolution? You creationists need to make up your minds.

xbolt

March 29th, 2007, 03:31 PM

Nomad

March 29th, 2007, 03:49 PM

Let me rephrase:

How do we get a handful of genera of animals into all 1,250,000 species of animals today without evolution? You creationists need to make up your minds.

xbolt

March 29th, 2007, 04:13 PM

Let me rephrase:

How do we get a handful of genera of animals into all 1,250,000 species of animals today without evolution? You creationists need to make up your minds.
Species includes all the different variations on a certain genus. Take dogs for example. St. Bernards, Terriers, etc. weren't around at the time of the Flood, there was just the one type of dog. So Noah only had to take that one aboard.
But if he did take all the species on board, there are some that weren't. Most invertebrates are sea-dwelling, so they didn't need to be on the Ark. So that leaves us with the 58,808 vertebrates, half of which are fish. So we now have: 5,743 amphibians, 8,240 reptiles, 9,934 birds, and 5,416 mammals, for a total of 29,333, a much smaller number.

Nomad

March 29th, 2007, 04:27 PM

That still doesn't explain how you get from the genus to the individual species without evolution.

Tchakkazulu

March 29th, 2007, 04:37 PM

I found it:

But he claimed they'd start from the idea the 'person' that would have 'made' the universe actually exists and from that he derives the 'fact' that the person does not exist.

Do I get my theoretical cookie now?

Ah, no, sorry. It is a simple proof by contradiction:

If we assume that a creator exists, we can derive (by Gasking) that no creator exists. This is clearly a contradiction. An assumption can only be true or not true (classical logic, intuitionistic logic disagrees with this. Yes, there are multiple logics.). If you assume something to be true, and this results in absurdity (a contradiction), then clearly the assumption is false, thus the creator cannot exist. This is called a proof by contradicion, or reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum).

It's often mis-used as a lot of people don't know how it works, and will attempt to use straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) or slippery slope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope) arguments.

There are two errors, one minor and one major. Minor error:
Suppose the creation of the world, the universe and everything (from now on known as The Creation, because I'm lazy. Capital letters for bonus drama value) is _not_ the most marvelous thing? In that case the proof is worth nothing. Then again, suppose there is something even more marvellous, then the creator of that thing doesn't exist (according to Hasking).
Major error:
4) The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
Non-existence is a handicap, but something that doesn't exist cannot have a handicap, because it doesn't exist. So any existing thing with handicap is more handicapped than an inexisting thing, because the latter doesn't have a handicap. On the other hand, non-existance is a greater handicap than whatever handicap the existing thing would have.
The idea is that we cannot speak of "existence" as a property. It doesn't make sense when you say "This apple is red, juicy, has a worm in it, and doesn't exist.".

In case you didn't get it already, I love playing weird brain-fucking logic games. Curry's paradox and Gödel's incompletion theorem are great for proving that it makes sense that things don't make sense. People tend to stay away from me at parties, though. I wonder why.

Meh, here's a cookie anyway. *insert cookie here*

xbolt

March 29th, 2007, 04:46 PM

Oh, I just looked up genus, and the definition was different than I had thought it was. But still, only about 29,333 species had to be on the ark, many of which are fairly small. Plenty of space.

Nomad

March 29th, 2007, 04:48 PM

Third time you've avoided my question. :)

rustyslacker

March 29th, 2007, 04:51 PM

Species includes all the different variations on a certain genus. Take dogs for example. St. Bernards, Terriers, etc. weren't around at the time of the Flood, there was just the one type of dog. So Noah only had to take that one aboard.
But if he did take all the species on board, there are some that weren't. Most invertebrates are sea-dwelling, so they didn't need to be on the Ark. So that leaves us with the 58,808 vertebrates, half of which are fish. So we now have: 5,743 amphibians, 8,240 reptiles, 9,934 birds, and 5,416 mammals, for a total of 29,333, a much smaller number.
You imply that you believe this story?

xbolt

March 29th, 2007, 04:52 PM

OK, I'll state my answer more plainly.

I thought that you could get from genus to species without evolution, but after reading about it, it appears I was wrong.

Does that answer your question adequately?

And I most certainly do believe it, Rusty.

I have to leave again, but I'll be back later.

Nomad

March 29th, 2007, 05:03 PM

Certainly if you mated two wolves, you won't get a chihuahua right off, no. I'm no expert on evolution, but that is indeed what it is.

I'm done with this anyway. I get the feeling you're too thick headed to understand logic anyway. :P

Anakite

March 29th, 2007, 06:29 PM

Haha, I remember making the sad mistake of calling D_D thick-headed, a few years ago... I barely got out of that alive. :p

I think maybe everyone here is a bit thick-headed. Note that this is coming from a skull-avatar. :D

xbolt

March 30th, 2007, 12:00 AM

I'm done with this anyway. I get the feeling you're too thick headed to understand logic anyway. :P
Have a nice day, then. :)

This discussion was a very interesting experience for me. I learned a lot from it. I think I am able to argue better than I did last week, and it confirmed many of the things my dad said would happen when having a discussion about this subject. (Even down to someone eventually saying I'm too stupid to understand)

For my closing statement, I am honored to have had the chance to defend the Faith, and suffer in the name of Jesus Christ. (True that it's not nearly as bad as what's happening to some Christians, but still, it's something. :))

Thank you, and good night.

(The question now is, are you guys going to drag me back in to the argument? ;))

jester

March 30th, 2007, 02:41 AM

Okay, I did start writing a response to some of the things about religion, but I'm really beginning to wonder.. what is the point? All that ever happens in these debates is that people end up going round in circles. I think, ultimately, it depends whether you believe in science, or in one particular religion (as opposed to the thousands of others). Personally I believe in science- and that means all science, not just one aspect of it that you prefer e.g. physics.

I think whether you believe in science or religion probably depends on your genes, or it's something that can't be changed once you reached a certain age. Either way, these debates never change anything. To be honest, it's getting away from the original idea of the thread, which was to look at death from a logical point of view.

Anyway, those responses I started writing..

On transitional species:

1. There aren't as many fossils because transitional species are by their definition less effective at surviving than non-transitional ones. If there is a space in an environment for a trait to evolve, it will evolve, over a period of time. Obviously those creatures who have thus evolved the trait fully will survive better than those who are sort of half-way there. Hence there will be VASTLY more of them as fossils.

On religion in general:

1. Religious people always go on about supernatural stuff being proof for the existence of God yet James Randi has a $1 million challenge for anyone to prove anything supernatural to him. No-one has. Nor is there any empirical evidence of supernatural phenomenon, anywhere. Do a google scholar search for a paper proving the existence of ghosts, or any other supernatural stuff and you won't find anything that does.

2. All the arguments I've heard for the proof of God could apply to any God, from any religion, present or past. Thus they don't prove the validity of any particular religion.

3. Isn't it a coincidence that the vast majority of people follow the same religion as their parents?

Cheers.

FATAL

March 30th, 2007, 02:59 AM

To be honest, it's getting away from the original idea of the thread, which was to look at death from a logical point of view.
If believing in god and afterlife was a logical thing to do, I wouldn't be an atheist.

Also I wouldn't like to follow a god who is bad at math.
pi = 3

As for the topic, there isn't really much to add. Dying is either a halt in brain activity (refer to the first posts) or hocus pocus. The rest of the thread went on in disproving the latter, as the former one is pretty damn hard to disprove if you ask me.

jester

March 30th, 2007, 04:35 AM

I dunno. Even if there's no God,

1. Time could be circular, meaning that you just relive your life for eternity, instead of stopping existing.
2. Since energy can't be destroyed, maybe, after you die, the particles in your body might get put back together in such an order that you become conscious again (though you lose your memory, obviously). Also obviously, this would take trillions upon trillions of years to happen.
3. If technology advanced to a sufficient level, an artifical heaven could be created so that everyone's stream of consciousness experiences eternal heaven. Of course that depends on whether it's physically possible.
4. If death is the end, that's not necessarily a bad thing (although I think that it is). There are different ways of looking at it, like that life is actually crapper than you think it is, because your brain gives you the illusion that loads of effort is worth tiny amounts of satisfaction etc. Also if you live an extremely satisfying life you may just effectively not want to live forever, because you've done all you want to.

+Acyclitor+

March 30th, 2007, 04:43 AM

Nomad, give up the ghost and come help me burn a church.

Anakite

March 30th, 2007, 07:36 AM

xbolt, you just LOVE to instigate fierce near-flame arguments, don't you? If that's what you're ACTUALLY thinking, keep it to yourself. It doesn't need to be said, and you know it.

In my opinion, it doesn't matter if we think about these things right now. The answers should reveal themselves down the road, sooner or later; that is, if there are any.

xbolt

March 30th, 2007, 11:36 AM

xbolt, you just LOVE to instigate fierce near-flame arguments, don't you? If that's what you're ACTUALLY thinking, keep it to yourself. It doesn't need to be said, and you know it.
I assure you, nothing could have been farther from my mind.

(And actually, Nomad started this thing when he asked me for proof)

Also I wouldn't like to follow a god who is bad at math.
pi = 3
What on earth does pi have to do with anything?

Tchakkazulu

March 30th, 2007, 01:17 PM

I have no clue, but I think you could counter it by linking to this site (http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/pi.htm).

FATAL

March 30th, 2007, 01:20 PM

What on earth does pi have to do with anything?
Seems like you believe in something you don't even know about. ;)

1 Kings 7
23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Being a devout christian, you should first be familiar with the book you so eagerly defend.

xbolt

March 30th, 2007, 02:12 PM

1 Kings 7
23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
Ah... So that's what you meant.

I think that those values are an approximation. I seriously doubt they could get exact numbers back in those days, is it not possible that it's diameter was really 9.6 cubits, and its circumference was 30.1 cubits?

Being a devout christian, you should first be familiar with the book you so eagerly defend.
*sigh* It's true that I'm not as familiar as I'd like to be, and I forgot about that passage.

(You had to bring me back into the argument, didn't you :p)

Nomad

March 30th, 2007, 03:52 PM

Ah... So that's what you meant.

I think that those values are an approximation. I seriously doubt they could get exact numbers back in those days, is it not possible that it's diameter was really 9.6 cubits, and its circumference was 30.1 cubits?

Ah, but God wrote the bible. God certainly should know what Pi is.

xbolt

March 30th, 2007, 10:55 PM

The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, and I'm not completely sure about this, but I'm pretty sure, that the Hebrews didn't have a way to write down decimal numbers.

+Acyclitor+

March 31st, 2007, 01:36 AM

as an added fun factoid, "Lucifer" quite literally means light-bringer. from dictionary.com:
Lu·ci·fer

1. The archangel cast from heaven for leading the revolt of the angels; Satan.
2. The planet Venus in its appearance as the morning star.
3. lucifer A friction match.

[Middle English, from Old English, morning star, Lucifer, from Latin Lūcifer, from lūcifer, light-bringer : lūx, lūc-, light; see leuk- in Indo-European roots + -fer, -fer.]

[Origin: bef. 1000; ME, OE < L: morning star, lit., light-bringing, equiv. to lūci- (s. of lūx) light + -fer -fer]

-fer
a combining form meaning “that which carries” the thing specified by the initial element, used in the formation of compound words: aquifer; conifer; foraminifer.
[Origin: < L, deriv. of ferre to bear1, in L generally forming adjs.; the corresponding E adjs. add -ous; see -ferous]

the reasons for this are probably pretty simple: Venus (aka the "mourning star" here) is the symbol of the divine feminine - enemy numero-uno of the Hewbrew religions.

also, Leviathan is, in my opinion (i've just recently been forming this theory), one version of the Serpent of Knowledge. the Serpent of Knowledge is a symbol representing spiritual wisdom, as well as a twisty-turny line of thought, and perhaps a struggle for understanding (or so i've pieced together in my study). Tiamat is a great example of a Serpent of Knowledge in mythology - Tiamat, serpent of Mesopotamian mythology who was killed and the universe made from her corpse (symbolically, i think this means its humans who understand the universe by their exploration of thought and their struggle to understand). so Leviathan, being a form of Lucifer (the light-bearer, Venus, divine feminine from which all life comes - at least based on the history of the symbolism that forms it) represents all those things: human understanding and thinking, as well as the divinity of females - both very, very pagan ideas.

and of course in Judaic/Islamic/Christian mythology, God kills Leviathan. God kills human understanding and the divinity of women as life-givers. no coincidence - especially when you consider the other serpent in the bible, the serpent who tempts Eve with (and here is where the bible pretty much admits it wants you to be a dumb drone devotee) the Fruit of Knowledge.

so there you go, thats how the monotheist God shows he wants you to be dumb and ruled over.

MrSlapHappy

March 31st, 2007, 03:12 AM

I can't help noticing that it is this sort of closed-mindedness that has ensured that this debate and combat in the so called "holy land" has been on going in the last 500 years or so. Science steps up and provides evidence disproving religion and religion backs itself up with...what else, the bible, which is itself.

if you reexamine this technique it is the equivalent of me quoting myself to back up my claims. obviously it doesn't have quite the convincing impact that something like say, supporting yourself with evidence from a different (and credible) source. simple googling "god is real" can get you a million sites that all have their own personal sources (themselves) supporting the claim that there is a god.

my own personal feeling is thus: religion, being based entirely on blind faith, is for those that can only survive in life clinging to some great idea of life. the rest are able to support themselves based entirely on their own thoughts and feelings, they dont need the answer all instruction manual for life bible to show them how to think.

one final thought: the bible, supposedly the divine word of god, or some such (excuse my vagueness as i am not religious), then how did it get to Earth? It was passed to humans through god telling man to write it? then how can it be possible that man was able to understand all that god spoke. what if it was misinterpreted? as such i still believe that the bible was written by a bunch of old white dudes a long ass time ago...just imagine what Scientology will be in 600 years :)

thats my two cents on this and also my return to newdoom :)

Nomad

March 31st, 2007, 08:43 AM

The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, and I'm not completely sure about this, but I'm pretty sure, that the Hebrews didn't have a way to write down decimal numbers.

It's still God's fault then. Don't you remember the Tower of Babel? God created all the languages, so why didn't he allow for decimals? That doesn't seem too bright. *annoyed*

But then again, I guess god doesn't want people to be smart. He wants them to just shut up and worship him.

+Acyclitor+

March 31st, 2007, 02:14 PM

But then again, I guess god doesn't want people to be smart. He wants them to just shut up and worship him.and of course the underlying point here and in my previous post (as both Nomad and I don't believe in God) is that in fact its the church that wants you to be dumb - just like a dictator keeps his public stupid so they are a lot less capable of challenging his rule.

Pieter Enis

April 1st, 2007, 05:27 AM

Yay, got my cookie :p

Now, Nomad, the island would have harboured the species Noah didn't get to take on his little trip, much like in Ice Age, teh m0vie.
And the ice from the previous Ice Age melting wouldn't just happen in a mere day, it would've taken a much longer period of time and I never stated it took just one day. As far as I can remember.
But you knew that :p

Also, come to think of it, how did one old man get to warn all the creatures in about 40 days?
I calculated it just then and, unless you'd like to try stating the earth is flat or something, one person running (at approx. 10 km/h) would need 83.33333 days to run 20.000 km, which is half of the earth's [brain failing here]. Either way, it's a fun thing to think of.

Maybe this is Black 'n White? With God fighting Allah and such? And we need to sacrifice more babies so he can use miracles because right now his mana isn't rising fast enough.
I wonder where their monsters are though.

Much like xbolt, I've learnt a lot from reading this too and I'm using this knowledge if I ever get into another debate with someone deeply religious and I'm locked in with him/her/it (<= you never know ...)

Still, I hope after death there's nothing. And if there is such a thing as Hell and Heaven and Purgatory, I'd rather not go to the Heaven described in the books, but a more personal one.

jester

April 1st, 2007, 05:50 AM

Enis, why do you hope there's nothing?

Wouldn't you rather live in some kind of paradise? People say you might get bored if it were for eternity but then in paradise maybe your personality would be altered so you couldn't feel bored.

Pieter Enis

April 1st, 2007, 06:35 AM

If anything I'd like to live in my personal Paradise.
Sorry if I didn't make that come out as much as it should have.

The paradise written about in books mostly involves clouds, lots of light, maidens to have sex with (not to eat, geez), golden spoons and silver cups of rice or whatever.
The silver cups might even give me lead poisoning.

jester

April 1st, 2007, 01:24 PM

Oh, yeah, right. I agree with you then. I suppose the problem is, you're never really sure what you want, because experiences can take ages to fully happen.. it's not like happiness is just a moment by moment thing. I guess it's also kinda like that guy was saying about logic not being a great guide for your actions.

Pieter Enis

April 2nd, 2007, 08:25 AM

Mind elaborating on that?
I just thought out something weird:
What if this was Paradise?
And everything around our universe isn't actually there, this one is what is real and this is our 'bliss'
In actuality we're a completely different species in another, or this (would make this more entertaining) dimension and we'd live about the same lives we do now.
Then again that wouldn't be my exact paradise, but still. Life is nice to live. Nice enough to be afraid enough of the dark looming shadow whatever thingy in front of me, called death.
I won't start babbling on about how I don't get why it's black 'n all, but I just did. Sorry.

jester

April 3rd, 2007, 05:06 AM

Elaborating on happiness not being a moment by moment thing?

Well, if you think life consists of a series of moments, then if each moment was perfect, they would all have to be the same, blissful experience. If they were all the same, you wouldn't be able to experience freedom, knowledge, emotion etc., because these all involve a series of different moments. There's also the minor issue of being able to consider the existence of other people, other streams of consciousness. If your life was just one long stream of perfect moments, you couldn't do that. On the other hand, paradise could just have loads of different moments, so it's still conceivable.

So I guess ultimately it's possible that there is some kind of a point to all the suffering in the world, it's just that we don't understand it. I mean, one day, we could look back and think "well, that had to happen for the amazing stuff to happen later". But personally I don't agree with that because of the disgustingly awful stuff that happens in the world every day.

So yeah, I suppose it's not impossible that this could turn out to be paradise, I guess, eventually. But I don't see it yet.

And I agree with life being nice enough for it to be worth fearing death. I think most people would if they were actually confronted with it. That's the problem with it, really. People can just say "oh you're depressed about death", but it's bigger than that. If anyone really thinks about it properly, I think most people would start to crap themselves about it, because- and this is the real point here- it's not something that could happen, it's something that will happen. It's not depression. It's fear.

Still on the other hand, I suppose you never really know what you want. You never know one day maybe we'll be satisfied that we've done enough with our lives not to care. I'm not sure I'd want to live forever. I think I would, but I'm not sure.

xbolt

April 4th, 2007, 12:33 PM

So I guess ultimately it's possible that there is some kind of a point to all the suffering in the world, it's just that we don't understand it. I mean, one day, we could look back and think "well, that had to happen for the amazing stuff to happen later". But personally I don't agree with that because of the disgustingly awful stuff that happens in the world every day.
I too, wonder why there is so much suffering in the world. God could snap His fingers and end all of it, but He doesn't. Noone knows why but God Himself.

And I agree with life being nice enough for it to be worth fearing death. I think most people would if they were actually confronted with it. That's the problem with it, really. People can just say "oh you're depressed about death", but it's bigger than that. If anyone really thinks about it properly, I think most people would start to crap themselves about it, because- and this is the real point here- it's not something that could happen, it's something that will happen. It's not depression. It's fear.
I don't fear death at all, really. In a way, you could say I actually look forward to it.

Pieter Enis

April 4th, 2007, 07:10 PM

I say. The reason pain etc. exist is so that we may experience the not having of pain, i.e. joy, happyness, bliss and such.
It's as simple as Day and Night to me. If it weren't for Day, we wouldn't know of any Night.

Brings me to something I learnt whilst playing Star Wars: KOTOR (No, really :p) Sometimes you don't have to help someone or something to actually help them. Like a person having trouble opening the door. I don't help out. Why? Because if the person would later come upon a similar situation and no one is around, they would not be able to figure things out on their own or help themselves out. So I'm doing more good in not helping.
Same goes for things like thrown soda cans. I never pick them up because ants or such creatures can find sugar in them, but I'm not really buying that one. Mostly because I haven't got the time and other people are getting paid to clean it up. Whatever.

Anyhow, what I wanted you, jester, to elaborate upon was this:
... guy [was] saying about logic not being a great guide for your actions.

On with the topic:
I am looking forward to death because I know it's going to happen and I know I won't be escaping it if Mr Boney arrives. Also, my body hurts quite the bit and I'm really hoping there's an afterlife in which I can legally start killing people 'till kingdom come.
And most of all, no more incessant bickering! No more whining, no more duties, no more questions ... NO MORE TALKING! WHOOOPTEDOOOOO!
I'm not looking forward to death because everyone here will miss me. At least that's what they tell me. I don't want to leave them behind since I don't want them to do any stupid things. I want to help them since I've always been the guy they turn to when in need of serious advice.
My girlfriend being a female doesn't help. I don't want to leave her alone when I die. I love her in a way so that I could easily let go. I'm sure she could never do that and since another friend of mine is having serious problems with something similar his entire life, I don't want my kids to have the same issue.

That is, if I'm ever going to actually make kids.
I hate kids, babies. They're creepy. And people's reactions to pregnancy are hypocritical at best.
I'm thinking that kids suck. But I'm going to keep my mouth shut and see for myself if it's really that great to get them, as most parents claim. Quite unfair to my kids too if I'd refuse. Then again, maybe I'm one of those people that don't get kids. I'll see later on.

[Edit: Added some space]

jester

April 11th, 2007, 11:14 AM

With the logic thing, I just meant in terms of trying to plan things out. You never know how you'll feel in the future because there are so many variables, plus your emotions affect how you look at things. So what's logical one moment might be illogical at another moment. It's like if something is near you and it's scaring the crap out of you, it's an emotional thing, and in your head, you'll think the chances of it damaging you are greater than they would be if it was far away from you and you weren't thinking about it.

Anakite

April 11th, 2007, 06:23 PM

I don't fear death at all, really. In a way, you could say I actually look forward to it.

If my experience with christianity is worth diddley-crap, I don't believe it promotes this kind of view. You're not supposed to fear death (but rather fear God, who can destroy your soul, but of course claims he wouldn't v_v), but you're also not supposed to desire it, as it would "disrupt God's plan for you," or something like that.

But here's something that olden-time christians learned a long time ago: throwing your life away for nothing achieves nothing. Back in the day, christians would throw their lives at the emperor's feet, just so that they could be martyrs. The leader of the church at the time (pope?) denounced these actions, sooner or later. As soon as his attendants got him to put his hat on, I believe.

Pieter Enis

April 12th, 2007, 03:30 AM

... So what's logical one moment might be illogical at another moment. ...

True, that's why I try real hard to think without emotions involved, I learnt that thinking with your 'heart' isn't the best thing to be doing, but sometimes going with a 'gut feeling' is your best option. Ev0l choices *crazy*

xbolt

April 12th, 2007, 12:07 PM

I don't believe it promotes this kind of view. You're not supposed to fear death (but rather fear God, who can destroy your soul, but of course claims he wouldn't v_v), but you're also not supposed to desire it, as it would "disrupt God's plan for you," or something like that.
I said "In a way". I don't look forward to death itself, far from it. What I look forward to, is what comes after it.

+Acyclitor+

April 12th, 2007, 01:16 PM

xbolt

April 12th, 2007, 01:38 PM

i look forward to a good death - meaning i would hate to die old and feeble. i would much rather be killed by some extremist Christian asshole because i wore my "fuck your god" shirt in the wrong neighborhood.
A Christian who would actually kill you for that would be pretty hard to find.

My dad saw somebody wearing a shirt that said something like that, so he went out and made a shirt that said 'God Created You'.

I can think of a certain other religion though, who would kill you for wearing a shirt that said something bad about some old Arabic guy...

Pieter Enis

April 12th, 2007, 06:53 PM

A Christian who would actually kill you for that would be pretty hard to find.
Not too sure about this as you are though. Some people claim to be religious but go against what their religion tells them they should do in the situation at hand. Meh.

My dad saw somebody wearing a shirt that said something like that, so he went out and made a shirt that said 'God Created You'.
Dad : 1 - Unknown guy : 0 :p

I can think of a certain other religion though, who would kill you for wearing a shirt that said something bad about some old Arabic guy...
I'm going to stand on this little patch of ground I have and keep telling everyone that they are just behind on us. They have yet to go through their "Enlightenment" and realise Religion does help, but isn't everything about life.
This also brings to mind that 'Anti-Islamic' cartoon. If it were with Jesus no one would've noticed nor cared. There would've been no media attention either, it's all propaganda!
Or something like that, my brain hurts too much to figure things out ATM.

Now that I'm thinking of it, why can't Religion and Science get along? I mean, just make a law or something that states we quit caring whether God exists or not, it's what you have to make up for yourself and get on with research?
And while we're at it, make another law that gives a single name to God, Allah or whatnot (Ganeisha? Hmmm): The Upper Deity.
There, descriptive enough and neutral enough. Then maybe people 'd realise it's the same general idea, it's just taught in a different way.

Anakite

April 12th, 2007, 08:27 PM

Nah, unconstitutional. We need to retain national self-control, and abide by the laws we set forth for ourselves.

jetflock

April 12th, 2007, 08:36 PM

Aaron Donahue.

+Acyclitor+

April 12th, 2007, 11:32 PM

A Christian who would actually kill you for that would be pretty hard to find.you've never been to the south, have you?

xbolt

April 13th, 2007, 04:16 PM

you've never been to the south, have you?
Do you have specific examples?

Aaron Donahue is certainly not a Christian, if that's what you are implying.

+Acyclitor+

April 13th, 2007, 10:27 PM

well the south is pretty damn "we don't like your kind around here boy" and they are all Baptist.

but yeah i have been jumped before by assholes thinking they were doing "god's work."

jetflock

April 13th, 2007, 10:57 PM

http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/
look around here for a bit, if its too much garbage, forget about it.

+Acyclitor+

April 13th, 2007, 11:50 PM

http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id313.html

i found this article of particular interest.

xbolt

April 13th, 2007, 11:57 PM

http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id313.html

i found this article of particular interest.
Bush the antichrist? Navajo and Apache aliens? Oh, please...

+Acyclitor+

April 14th, 2007, 12:39 AM

i only said it was interesting.

Aliotroph?

April 14th, 2007, 12:46 AM

Wow, that was one of the stupidest piles of crap I've ever read.

Pieter Enis

April 14th, 2007, 09:56 AM

Wow, that was one of the stupidest piles of crap I've ever read.
I'll take your word for it *l7*

+Acyclitor+

April 14th, 2007, 01:26 PM

Wow, that was one of the stupidest piles of crap I've ever read.perhaps you have not seen the Mad Revisionist? he "proves" that the moon does not exist and that donuts do not have holes.

Tchakkazulu

April 14th, 2007, 03:54 PM

If this sentence is true, then the moon does not exist.

Now, assume that sentence is true. In that case we know that whenever that sentence is true, the moon does not exist. Since we assumed the sentence is true, the moon does not exist.
But wait! We just assume that the sentence is true, and the result is that the moon does not exist. That's exactly what the sentence says, so it's true.
Result: The moon does not exist.

jetflock

April 14th, 2007, 04:44 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkt4UUNpth8
lol

william

April 15th, 2007, 12:39 PM

man,wot is this would coming to?

Pieter Enis

April 15th, 2007, 12:46 PM

Generally put?
A bunch of people with bad spelling...

+Acyclitor+

April 16th, 2007, 07:16 PM

what is the world coming to? a point of massive change i think. 2012 is the year i place my bet on as the boiling-over point.

xbolt

April 17th, 2007, 01:11 AM

The video you posted would take rather long to load on my slow dial-up. Could you post a quick summary, please?

Nomad

April 17th, 2007, 08:31 AM

It'll probably offend you anyway.

xbolt

April 17th, 2007, 11:33 AM

I know it would, but I want to know what it is so I can address it.

+Acyclitor+

April 17th, 2007, 03:08 PM

he covers a lot of stuff - its worth your time to let it download if your really interested. and some of the comments are worth reading too.

jester

April 18th, 2007, 04:32 AM

Here's a few questions for you guys, that kind of get back to my original idea behind this thread.

1. Would you rather live forever than not?
2. What do you think happens when you die?
3. Do you fear death and just choose to not think about it? Or do you think about it, and not fear it anyway?

Cheers.

FATAL

April 18th, 2007, 09:52 AM

I do not want to live forever, unless my brain capacity does not start to decline. The moment I need someone else's help to manage my daily routines (hopefully not in 60 years), I will consider, and possibly commit suicide, as the doctors are really bitchy about euthanasia.

I don't fear death. I would be dearly annoyed if I died before actually achieving something to be proud of, but I doubt I would remember it at the time, unless I had a slow death.

Bring 'em on!

jetflock

April 18th, 2007, 11:08 AM

1: In a "The Picture of Dorian Grey"(which I suppose is more about keeping youth) and/or a "Jitterbug Perfume" kind of way.
2: Worms eat you.
3: I like to contemplate it, only because it would ruin my sex life.

Nomad

April 18th, 2007, 12:14 PM

1. Would you rather live forever than not?
If everyone else could, sure. I wouldn't want to be the only one, being forced to witness every one of my loved ones' deaths.

2. What do you think happens when you die?
Decomposition.

3. Do you fear death and just choose to not think about it? Or do you think about it, and not fear it anyway?
I do not fear death, but much like Fatal, I fear not accomplishing anything before dying. To me, this accomplishment may just be achieving higher education and getting a productive career, and a family. Nothing flashy for me.

Pieter Enis

April 18th, 2007, 02:05 PM

1.
I would very much so like to live forever. While I'm at it, add the following to my wish list:
- Charred earth, people trying to survive.
- Wings, flying by yourself while you're eating people is supposedly fun.
- Fire breath, roast people are more fun to eat.
- Tentacles that spawn and grow/shorten at will.
- Psychic powers <- dey are kool!
- Long diamond-like nails (or anything harder) ... make my bones the same material.
- An infinite amount of blood, so I could lick it up.
- No need for air.
- The ability to end myself by thinking it, yet being able to respawn at will, just to annoy the hell out of people when they see me return.

2.
Sleep quite puts it well, you won't realise you're dead ... I hope

3.
I fear it because I'm bored as hell and I was actually hoping there'd be something interesting, which is the same reason as to why I would welcome it.
Either way, it leaves me quite indifferent, when my time's up, whatever, reap me.

xbolt

April 18th, 2007, 02:36 PM

1. Yes, I want to live forever. (Not down here on earth, but in Heaven)

2. You either go to Heaven, or hell.

3. I rarely think about it, and I am not afraid at all.

jetflock

April 18th, 2007, 10:53 PM

1. Yes, I want to live forever. (Not down here on earth, but in Heaven)

2. You either go to Heaven, or hell.

3. I rarely think about it, and I am not afraid at all.
Heaven or Hell? That is bullshit? Seriously though, do you really believe in that?

Tchakkazulu

April 19th, 2007, 03:37 AM

Heaven or Hell? That is bullshit? Seriously though, do you really believe in that?

Yes, he does. The fact that this thread got so long is perfect proof.

(in other words, read the discussion on the previous pages).

jetflock

April 19th, 2007, 05:38 AM

i wasn't being serious. i don't care in whatever fairy tales you guys want to belive in.

xbolt

April 19th, 2007, 10:17 AM

Yes, I do believe it.

Pieter Enis

April 19th, 2007, 03:08 PM

Same goes for all those pseudo-healing things. If it works for you, fine, just don't try and talk me into it :p

rustyslacker

April 19th, 2007, 05:36 PM

1. Would you rather live forever than not?
If the people that I care about [and hopefully care about me] do as well, absolutely. As Nomad said, I don't want to live forever to see them all die.

2. What do you think happens when you die?
I think that I just close my eyes and don't open them again. I go back to where I was before I was born.

3. Do you fear death and just choose to not think about it? Or do you think about it, and not fear it anyway?
I do not fear death. I do fear the suffering that might come before my death. I have thought about it, following the two near-death experiences I have had (one near-drowning and one serious problem with dehydration). The pain and the process of approaching my death is what is frightening to me.

xbolt

April 19th, 2007, 10:43 PM

Same goes for all those pseudo-healing things. If it works for you, fine, just don't try and talk me into it :p
Are you talking about those faith-healers (I think that's what they're called) on TV?

jester

April 20th, 2007, 12:57 AM

I agree, all supernatural stuff is a load of crap- ghosts, healing chrystals, alien abductions, the loch ness monster, moth-man, old woman looking into a crystal ball at a circus, cattle mutilations etc. Although some of it is pretty funny.

Just look up James Randi.

xbolt

April 20th, 2007, 01:58 PM

ghosts, healing chrystals, alien abductions, the loch ness monster, moth-man, old woman looking into a crystal ball at a circus, cattle mutilations
On all of those, I agree with you. And the faith-healers, you will probably be surprised to hear me say this, but an atheist said it very well: "I see crutches, but no wooden legs." Meaning they get people to get off their crutches and hobble around, but they can't grow a new leg, as Jesus did.

jetflock

April 20th, 2007, 01:59 PM

Its a fact Jesus is a myth. Its all borrowed from earlier myths. He is up with ghosts and aliens really.

Nomad

April 20th, 2007, 02:15 PM

Its a fact Jesus is a myth. Its all borrowed from earlier myths. He is up with ghosts and aliens really.

Even I am not aware of any evidence that backs this up. :P

jetflock

April 20th, 2007, 04:32 PM

Even I am not aware of any evidence that backs this up. :P
maybe i should have said "most likely" instead of fact. what evidence do you have of christ?
older stories than christ tell the same damn thing as the new testament.
not to mention old testament stories like the flood.
What evidence do you have of Jesus anyway?
Why should we denounce occult happenings and aliens when people worship such fanciful things?
Jesus could very well be an amalgam inspired by Dyonisis/Bacchus.
if i find anything neat (for or against :) ) i'll post it, otherwise i am not going to get in a religious debate with fanatics(i don't mean that as an insult), i would choose a diff forum for that.lol.
this seems neat, have to read it first though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_as_myth
food for thought if anything, and the best christians should always question what they believe in.

Nomad

April 20th, 2007, 05:20 PM

Dude, you obviously dont pay enough attention. I am a pretty staunch atheist. Preaching to the choir.

I'm just saying that there really is just as much evidence for or against his existence. Just short of finding bones I dont think it can be proven he did, but at the same time its not like we have his DNA filed away to verify. :P

Anakite

April 20th, 2007, 05:39 PM

Seems I was a damn good christian, then. ^_^

I've got something to say about - and then to - xbolt, though.

It's perfectly fine for him to believe in an afterlife. If he's right, all the better for him; he gets to go to heaven. He's not hurting anyone. If he's wrong, he's not in much danger anyway.

Now TO xbolt: Your beliefs are all fine and such, but I have a proposal for you: that you listen to both science and religion. If any religion is right, science should never truly conflict with it, and you should be fine. I don't propose this as proof that any specific religion is wrong, but rather as a humanitarian act, so that your mind doesn't atrophy from the disuse that is encouraged by many christians. If god gave you your mind, he fully intended you to fully use it.
Really, I was in the exact same position that you're in, right now. Defending christianity on NewDoom. I'm interested to see what choices you'll make. From a philosophical and self-reflective standpoint, that is.

EDIT: What Nomad just said reminded me of something.

Christian science is completely useless. Not only do they not seem to do anything other than argue against theories they regard as "hostile" to christianity, but they also try to do the impossible: prove God exists. Impossible, even if he does. It's completely logical to say that, even by christian beliefs, god won't let himself be proven, as it would void faith. So what are 'christian scientists' doing? They're wasting their own lives, and our time.

jetflock

April 20th, 2007, 05:47 PM

i wasn't meaning YOU particularly. lol.

Pieter Enis

April 21st, 2007, 03:35 PM

[About pseudo-healing things] Are you talking about those faith-healers (I think that's what they're called) on TV?
Not really, I was more thinking about things like Homeopathy or whatever it's called, can't be bothered to look it up.
Same goes for Horoscopes and, as has been said, fortune tellers.
I'm not going to believe anything they say, but as long as they're not forcing me in any way and they help other people without abusing them. I'm fine with it.

... its not like we have his DNA filed away to verify. :P
I'd ask him to give you guys some of his blood, but he lost most of it on his cross some while ago and he doesn't want me to "fill him up"
I really don't know why he runs off everytime I suggest I do that though.

xbolt

April 21st, 2007, 11:55 PM

Now TO xbolt: Your beliefs are all fine and such, but I have a proposal for you: that you listen to both science and religion. If any religion is right, science should never truly conflict with it, and you should be fine. I don't propose this as proof that any specific religion is wrong, but rather as a humanitarian act, so that your mind doesn't atrophy from the disuse that is encouraged by many christians. If god gave you your mind, he fully intended you to fully use it.
Really, I was in the exact same position that you're in, right now. Defending christianity on NewDoom. I'm interested to see what choices you'll make. From a philosophical and self-reflective standpoint, that is.
You were a Christian defending Christianity? If you don't mind me asking, why did you stop?

And science does not conflict with Christianity.

"Wait a minute," you say. "What about evolution? That certainly contradicts Christianity." Indeed it does. But is it true? The simplest argument against it is also my favorite: (I've said this before, but I'll say it again) If someone went up to you and told you that the computer in front of you had no intelligent design, of course you would say he's crazy. Now, take a look at yourself. You must admit, you are more complex than the computer. And yet, you say that there was absolutely no intelligent design behind you.

"But," you say. "Given a billion years, even the most unlikely event will occur." Really? Think about it. If I were to randomly dump some ink on paper, I would certainly get a mess. Yet, given a billion years and that logic, I would eventually write a Shakespearian play. Or, going back to my example of the computer, if I took a pile of capacitors, resistors, wires, little light bulbs, metal, and plastic, and randomly threw them together, I would end up with... a pile of junk. A billion tries later... another pile of junk. To make a computer, you have to have some intelligent design behind it, just like you have to have intelligent design behind you, me, and the entire universe.

Nomad

April 22nd, 2007, 01:07 AM

"But," you say. "Given a billion years, even the most unlikely event will occur." Really? Think about it. If I were to randomly dump some ink on paper, I would certainly get a mess. Yet, given a billion years and that logic, I would eventually write a Shakespearian play. Or, going back to my example of the computer, if I took a pile of capacitors, resistors, wires, little light bulbs, metal, and plastic, and randomly threw them together, I would end up with... a pile of junk. A billion tries later... another pile of junk. To make a computer, you have to have some intelligent design behind it, just like you have to have intelligent design behind you, me, and the entire universe.

Yet god is immune to these same things? However unlikely and complex the universe is, god is infinitely more complex and unlikely. This is a huge event where your religion and science conflict.

As for your comments on Intelligent Design, that is treading into "Christian Science" waters, and I think we've all agreed by now that "Christian Science" is bullshit. There is really nothing to suggest that evolution by natural selection requires any kind of "divine intervention". I urge you to actually formally study evolution before you come to the ID conclusion. I very strongly suggest the books The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mt. Improbable both by Richard Dawkins. I know many theists cringe when they hear his name, but he is by far one of the most knowledgeable of Darwin's Evolution by Natural Selection theory and of the advancements in the field that have come since Darwin's time.

I could present to you a myriad of examples of what is very mockingly called "Unintelligent Design", namely the most prolific of them: The fact that we eat, drink, talk, and breathe through the same hole. Millions of people die each year due to simple asphyxiation because of this. Surely god could have worked around this by giving us two different holes to eat and breathe through--Dolphins and Whales do. :P

I will present some more examples of how your religion and science conflict at a later time, but right now it is 2am, and I am tired.

+Acyclitor+

April 22nd, 2007, 05:11 AM

XBolt, that isn't how evolution works. those metaphors aren't anywhere close to applicable.

lets say be pure chance the correct chemical reaction occurred to create a single cell. that cell divides, each new cell being made having some small amount of mutation from its parent. eventually some will develop mutations that make them less resistant to the hazards of the environment, and those ones will die before they can pass on their genetic code. also eventually, some develop mutations that make them more resistant, and those ones of course are more successful. and it just keeps doing this over and over, over billions of years, until we start to see life-forms as we would recognize them.

but you might be asking "why do they mutate?" well my understanding (which may be incorrect) is that tiny amounts of ambient radiation that is everywhere cause parts of the divided cell's DNA to be altered. this is essentially the same reason we age - ambient radiation slowly breaking down our bodies. correct me if i am misinformed on this part, anybody.

jester

April 22nd, 2007, 05:37 AM

Yeah. The whole looking at a computer thing doesn't make sense. A human being is constructed in a completely different way.

For example, why do we have legs? Wheels would be much more efficient.

Pieter Enis

April 22nd, 2007, 08:21 AM

Acy, I've seen (last year in school, so don't think I'm Mr Know-it-all about this) that the mutation occurs simply because the RNA mixed up a letter or something.
Doesn't seem odd either, there's a gazillion buckets of letters in each string of DNA which gets transferred to RNA.
Now, don't ask me why the DNA knows exactly how to support itself, but I'm mostly thinking we're all carriers for DNA and that that which we call DNA is the actual lifeform on Earth.

And jester, I wouldn't know where you got that, but try climbing stairs or even a slope with wheels :p
I'd say spider-like legs would be much more handy. About 4 of them should do.
But where to put them?
Actually I see octopusses as having the body closest to perfection *cool*

jetflock

April 22nd, 2007, 08:25 AM

No, you know the Cacodemon is more maneuverable than the SpiderMasterminds or Arachnatrons. :)
Its all about gas.

jester

April 22nd, 2007, 08:50 AM

Maybe we could have both legs and wheels or something. Maybe that wasn't such a great example.

But you know, there's loads of other stuff. Like whales. Isn't it a coincidence that whales have lungs like land mammals, and loads of other features like land mammals and unlike fish e.g. a tongue..

It's also a coincidence that the fossil record shows they only started appearing after land-based creatures?

Xbolt do you believe in genetic mutations and inheritance?

Tchakkazulu

April 22nd, 2007, 09:30 AM

Woodlice have gills, coincidence? I think not.

xbolt

April 22nd, 2007, 04:33 PM

Yet god is immune to these same things? However unlikely and complex the universe is, god is infinitely more complex and unlikely. This is a huge event where your religion and science conflict.
You are thinking of God as a physical being confined to the limitations of the universe. He is not. He it a spiritual being that exists outside the boundary of the universe.

lets say be pure chance the correct chemical reaction occurred to create a single cell. that cell divides, each new cell being made having some small amount of mutation from its parent. eventually some will develop mutations that make them less resistant to the hazards of the environment, and those ones will die before they can pass on their genetic code. also eventually, some develop mutations that make them more resistant, and those ones of course are more successful. and it just keeps doing this over and over, over billions of years, until we start to see life-forms as we would recognize them.
Where is the fossil record of such small changes? If there were so many changes, we would expect the fossil record to show them, but they just aren't there.

Xbolt do you believe in genetic mutations and inheritance?
Mutations as in the small quirks, such as a turtle having two heads, yes. But they're still turtles.
Inheritance as in dogs inheriting the mutations of their parents and forming the different breeds, yes. But the dogs are still dogs.

+Acyclitor+

April 22nd, 2007, 04:40 PM

Where is the fossil record of such small changes? If there were so many changes, we would expect the fossil record to show them, but they just aren't there. well its hard to keep a fossil of something that doesn't have the right composition to be fossilized in the first place. also by now, rock from that long ago has almost all been destroyed - or do you not believe in tectonics either?

and hey isn't the evangelical stance on fossils that they were placed there by satan to deceive humanity? cause by Christian theology the world is only like 10,000 years old.

Pieter Enis

April 22nd, 2007, 04:45 PM

Oooh, ooh!

You are thinking of God as a physical being confined to the limitations of the universe. He is not. He it a spiritual being that exists outside the boundary of the universe.
But then he is bound by laws of that universe, is he not? If he is not, I can safely say that you think he is outside every single universe out there, so that would make him a universe in himself, which places him inside a universe: Him, which nullifies the fact that he resides outside all universes. So it's safe to say he lives in a certain universe and has to abide it's laws. Thus God is not all-powerful.
What you're looking for is the simple statement that God is with those who believe simply because they believe in Him. The only place he resides in is people's imagination.
The reason I'm making sure I don't use "live" is because He doesn't necessarily live :p

Where is the fossil record of such small changes? If there were so many changes, we would expect the fossil record to show them, but they just aren't there.
We're looking for them, as far as I know. Lets reverse the roles a bit: Do you have proof that the fossils aren't there nor will they ever be found?

Mutations as in the small quirks, such as a turtle having two heads, yes. But they're still turtles.
Yay for turtles having two heads. But maybe the two-headed turtle can eat more and take in more breath for each dive?
Maybe it can defend itself better?
Maybe it can see more of it's surroundings even?
If enough of these turtles mate, we've got a new breed of turtles, which would then point upward to your previous question :p

Inheritance as in dogs inheriting the mutations of their parents and forming the different breeds, yes. But the dogs are still dogs.
Are you saying you believe in evolution now?
Because that's what the "formation of new species and/or breeds" is. Evolution.
Not going to explain more as it's 2 AM here

No, I couldn't refrain from replying

Nomad

April 22nd, 2007, 06:11 PM

You are thinking of God as a physical being confined to the limitations of the universe. He is not. He it a spiritual being that exists outside the boundary of the universe.

If the universe we live in requires a creator to exist, I find it just as unlikely that something could exist outside this universe on its own without its own creator. It simply makes no sense.

Where is the fossil record of such small changes? If there were so many changes, we would expect the fossil record to show them, but they just aren't there.

Do you know what is required to fossilize something? Not every creature that ever lives is "fortunate" enough to drop dead near a water source which deposits sediment over its remains over thousands of years, eventually creating pressures so tense that the remains turn to rock. Most animals just rot and decay to nothing--when they arent eaten, that is.

On the other hand, it probably doesnt matter how many transitional fossils we do find, because in Creationists' minds, one transitional fossil just means we need to find two more fossils to show what happens in between, just creating one big circle jerk to ignore the truth in front of our eyes.

Inheritance as in dogs inheriting the mutations of their parents and forming the different breeds, yes. But the dogs are still dogs.

Correction: Dogs are wolves, jackals, and dingoes. "Dogs" did not exist until humans started domesticating wolves,jackals, and dingoes--mixing and matching the different offspring over hundreds, if not thousands of years. Which is evolution.

xbolt

April 22nd, 2007, 06:26 PM

well its hard to keep a fossil of something that doesn't have the right composition to be fossilized in the first place. also by now, rock from that long ago has almost all been destroyed - or do you not believe in tectonics either?
Why are there fossils of other things, but not the "intermediate species"?

and hey isn't the evangelical stance on fossils that they were placed there by satan to deceive humanity? cause by Christian theology the world is only like 10,000 years old.
No. The current methods of dating fossils are inaccurate, and fossils can form in a short amount of time. Take for example the miner's hat that was found in Tasmania. It was only there for about 50 years, and yet it was fossilized.

But then he is bound by laws of that universe, is he not? If he is not, I can safely say that you think he is outside every single universe out there, so that would make him a universe in himself, which places him inside a universe: Him, which nullifies the fact that he resides outside all universes. So it's safe to say he lives in a certain universe and has to abide it's laws. Thus God is not all-powerful.
What you're looking for is the simple statement that God is with those who believe simply because they believe in Him. The only place he resides in is people's imagination.
The reason I'm making sure I don't use "live" is because He doesn't necessarily live
Again, you're thinking that God is under the same set of rules as us. He exists in the spiritual realm, above our set of rules.

We're looking for them, as far as I know. Lets reverse the roles a bit: Do you have proof that the fossils aren't there nor will they ever be found?
I don't have proof that they don't exist, just as you don't have proof that they do exist.

Yay for turtles having two heads. But maybe the two-headed turtle can eat more and take in more breath for each dive?
Maybe it can defend itself better?
Maybe it can see more of it's surroundings even?
If enough of these turtles mate, we've got a new breed of turtles, which would then point upward to your previous question
So then we would have a new breed of turtle. Not a different animal.

Are you saying you believe in evolution now?
Because that's what the "formation of new species and/or breeds" is. Evolution.
Formation of the different breeds of dog is micro-evolution, and is true.

Macro-evolution, the changing of one type of animal to another, on the other hand, is not true.

Correction: Dogs are wolves, jackals, and dingoes. "Dogs" did not exist until humans started domesticating wolves,jackals, and dingoes--mixing and matching the different offspring over hundreds, if not thousands of years. Which is evolution.
If it was evolution, the mixing and matching would be random chance. But there was intelligence behind the mixing and matching.

rustyslacker

April 22nd, 2007, 07:23 PM

If it was evolution, the mixing and matching would be random chance. But there was intelligence behind the mixing and matching.
It's called natural selection. Not "random chance". There's a world of difference.

Macro-evolution, the changing of one type of animal to another, on the other hand, is not true.
Says who? Your parents?

No. The current methods of dating fossils are inaccurate, and fossils can form in a short amount of time. Take for example the miner's hat that was found in Tasmania. It was only there for about 50 years, and yet it was fossilized.
Again, says who? This is just bullshit.

So then we would have a new breed of turtle. Not a different animal.
Eventually the new breed of turtle would start genetically drifting farther away from the original turtle. After a lot [no exact number :p] of generations, the two-headed turtle and the original one-headed turtle would no longer be able to produce fertile offspring together. That's how to know it's a different species.

Nomad

April 22nd, 2007, 07:23 PM

If it was evolution, the mixing and matching would be random chance. But there was intelligence behind the mixing and matching.

And THAT, my friend, is the biggest misconception among "critics" of evolution. While genetic mutations themselves may be "random", the art of evolution is NOT in any way random.

Watch this, please. It is about 45 minutes long. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2043771442443928848. It is a little aged, but the point is still the same.

+Acyclitor+

April 22nd, 2007, 10:40 PM

Why are there fossils of other things, but not the "intermediate species"?
Do you know what is required to fossilize something? Not every creature that ever lives is "fortunate" enough to drop dead near a water source which deposits sediment over its remains over thousands of years, eventually creating pressures so tense that the remains turn to rock. Most animals just rot and decay to nothing--when they arent eaten, that is.

On the other hand, it probably doesnt matter how many transitional fossils we do find, because in Creationists' minds, one transitional fossil just means we need to find two more fossils to show what happens in between, just creating one big circle jerk to ignore the truth in front of our eyes.

So then we would have a new breed of turtle. Not a different animal.
Formation of the different breeds of dog is micro-evolution, and is true.
Macro-evolution, the changing of one type of animal to another, on the other hand, is not true.wrong. its not one animal changing into another - its an animal changing its characteristics until it becomes unlike the animal it used to be - and that happening so many times the results become so varied that we see the kind of diversity we have now.

your parents who seem to be your only source of knowledge obviously aren't of enough mental fortitude to give you much accurate information - and i'm not referring to your religion.

jester

April 23rd, 2007, 03:27 AM

Xbolt, wolves have been bred into poodles, mastifs etc. Given that major changes like this can occur in a few thousand years, don't you think that over millions and millions of years more significant ones could happen?

jetflock

April 23rd, 2007, 04:32 AM

"Again, you're thinking that God is under the same set of rules as us. He exists in the spiritual realm, above our set of rules."
Let him know I said hi.

Anakite

April 23rd, 2007, 12:56 PM

You were a Christian defending Christianity? If you don't mind me asking, why did you stop?

I started losing interest. It's hard to explain. I didn't lose faith like most "strays," I just started finding it depressing and asenine.

Everything evolves. Culture, Government, Media, Religion, Organisms... even the astro-phenomena.

xbolt

April 23rd, 2007, 03:05 PM

Depressing? Why did you find Christianity depressing? I find the prospect of just blipping out when you die to be depressing.

Says who? Your parents?
Them, and I've been doing research over the internet as well.

I kid you not about the fossil hat. Fossil Hat (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/fossil_hat.asp)

There's a fossil boot, too. Fossil Boot (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-fossils-rapid-petrifaction.htm)

Nomad

April 23rd, 2007, 03:41 PM

You're grasping for straws. Sure, under the right conditions, things can fossilize rapidly--for that matter, I'm sure that in a laboratory setting, artificial fossils can be made in a few days. But that does not mean that everything takes such short times to petrify.

jester

April 23rd, 2007, 03:54 PM

I find it depressing that people would believe in a God that there's no proof for rather than do their utmost to advance technology to the point where we can alter the fact that we "blip out" when we die.

rustyslacker

April 23rd, 2007, 04:56 PM

I kid you not about the fossil hat. Fossil Hat

There's a fossil boot, too. Fossil Boot
Regardless of how fast an object might fossilize, it doesn't make radioactive dating systems less accurate. Some isotopes can be used to determine age within decades.

Here, I'll make a rebuttal for you.

But God could have created the earth 6000 years ago and made it appear to be much older, include fossils already in place.

+Acyclitor+

April 23rd, 2007, 08:50 PM

I kid you not about the fossil hat. Fossil Hat (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/fossil_hat.asp)

There's a fossil boot, too. Fossil Boot (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-fossils-rapid-petrifaction.htm)nice biased sources.

anyway i'm going to steer the conversation into another direction. Xbolt, do you believe in the rapture?

jetflock

April 23rd, 2007, 11:10 PM

Christianity is depressing because it halts evolution. Close it up mod! Lol. GO believe in the ignorance of the ages!
Christianity IS a myth mind you. That IS a fact. No real proof of Jesus exists. The religion isn't so bad once you go beyond the terrible shit in it (promoting slavery, anti-gayness, etc...), the thing is, terrible people control the institution. Sorry X-bolt, but this is lame.

Pieter Enis

April 23rd, 2007, 11:42 PM

To top that off, being gay is totally natural.

I can think of a reason for the hat/boot to fossilise as fast. Namely that because they were miners' they got buried under a heap of earth, creating the pressure required to start fossilising it. But get a scientist to explain it, rather than me.

"Research over the internet" can be both a good thing and a bad thing, depends upon which sites you visit.

"The spiritual realm" would be a whole different universe with it's own set of rules. Which would still be another universe. In which God would reside.

About those transitional fossils, we're looking for them, stop telling us not to try if you don't have proof they aren't there :p

The twin-headed turtle was also a reply to the evolutionary changes, but meh. It'd happen much like dogs (wolves etc.) did, we'd then have thesea turtles, the tiny turtles you put in your room, the giant sea turtles and then we'd have the mutant twhin-headed scaled turtle that breathes fire while we're at it *flip*

Got to go now, I'll add more later when/if I feel like it.

xbolt

April 24th, 2007, 12:35 AM

I'm going to change this thread's direction, if you don't mind.

If God doesn't exist, and therefore didn't create the universe, then what caused the universe to appear?

Aliotroph?

April 24th, 2007, 01:47 AM

Probably the same thing that caused God to appear if He exists. If God exists then you're still stuck with the same problem: why does anything exist? Can't say I care too much either way.

+Acyclitor+

April 24th, 2007, 01:50 AM

If God doesn't exist, and therefore didn't create the universe, then what caused the universe to appear?i, for one, am not going to pretend to know. there is evidence to support the Big Bang theory, but as to the cause i'm not sure if anybody can do more than hypothesize.

does the lack of an immediate answer to this question somehow validate the idea that God created the universe?

jester

April 24th, 2007, 03:53 AM

Xbolt, you mind answering my question?

Xbolt, wolves have been bred into poodles, mastifs etc. Given that major changes like this can occur in a few thousand years, don't you think that over millions and millions of years more significant ones could happen?

Pieter Enis

April 24th, 2007, 10:46 AM

I'd like to think this is one big experiment from another universe and we're, in that universe, actually microscopical beings. Later on we'll be able to create microscopical life that will evolve way faster than we do and experience time as such, faster.

But that just freaks me out, because giving it the "endless loop" twist makes it just as silly as letting the magnification loop end somewhere.

Nomad

April 24th, 2007, 11:15 AM

If God doesn't exist, and therefore didn't create the universe, then what caused the universe to appear?

God did, naturally. Because we dont know what happened, it MUST have been God.

Come on. Thats on the same level of the Ancient Greeks thinking earth quakes and tsunamis happened because Poseidon got pissed off.

rustyslacker

April 24th, 2007, 04:55 PM

Come on. Thats on the same level of the Ancient Greeks thinking earth quakes and tsunamis happened because Poseidon got pissed off.
Which poses another interesting question: Why is the universe, if it was created by a god, the creation of the Christian god specifically?

Nomad

April 24th, 2007, 05:13 PM

Because all the other gods are fake. DUH!

rustyslacker

April 24th, 2007, 05:15 PM

Because all the other gods are fake. DUH!
Well, we're all atheists to varying degrees.

Pieter Enis

April 24th, 2007, 05:20 PM

If anything created it, I'd rather stick by the neutral approach of two universa colliding and the resulting energy forcing our "space" to be created.

rustyslacker

April 24th, 2007, 05:38 PM

Then where did the other two universes come from?

+Acyclitor+

April 24th, 2007, 08:32 PM

an atom is to a star, what a star is to a galaxy, what a galaxy is to the universe. something like that. i'm saying our universe as we know it could just be a small piece of a larger scale reality. in this hypotheses, this process just keeps going and there is no point at which a deity must exist.

i guess in a mathematical way i could describe that existence in general is like a multiverse based on the golden ratio.

its just an idea though.

Aliotroph?

April 24th, 2007, 09:48 PM

That still wouldn't explain why anything exists in the first place. There probably is no explanation for that.

xbolt

April 24th, 2007, 10:04 PM

If you have no idea what caused the universe to happen, why is it not a possibility that God created it?

Xbolt, wolves have been bred into poodles, mastifs etc. Given that major changes like this can occur in a few thousand years, don't you think that over millions and millions of years more significant ones could happen?
No. The poodles and the mastiffs are still just as much dog as the wolf is. They're not part fish.

Osiris's_Legacy

April 24th, 2007, 10:10 PM

That still wouldn't explain why anything exists in the first place. There probably is no explanation for that.

QFT.

And since no one knows how the universe was created, yes there is a possability god created it, along with every other theory ever made, most of which make little sense.

+Acyclitor+

April 24th, 2007, 10:33 PM

If you have no idea what caused the universe to happen, why is it not a possibility that God created it?because god does not exist, i guess. thats my perspective, just like yours is god does exist therefore he must have created the universe.

No. The poodles and the mastiffs are still just as much dog as the wolf is. They're not part fish.nobody is saying they are part fish. you are so clueless its hilarious. whoever explained the theory of evolution to you had no idea what they were talking about - and neither do you. you should stop trying to argue this point cause you suck at it.

Pieter Enis

April 25th, 2007, 02:07 AM

Then where did the other two universes come from?
Two universa (heh, fun name, I'm thinking it's not even good speelink) collided and created a universe, ours, on one of these universa.
So you'd need one "other" universe.
But that's the string theory.

You could of course think about the universe we life in as something like your intestines. Those are also curled up to conserve space and could, if the opportunity arises, collide with one another.

But then again, the people who're thinking about the string theory are like those scientists who claimed cows used to have wings and those snapped off miraculously one day and 'coïncidentially' all those wings landed on some dino's head and killed it.
*crazy*

PS God exists

jester

April 25th, 2007, 03:25 AM

Xbolt, given that you believe that the difference between wolf and dogs is down to evolution, don't you think that, over millions of years, there will end up being more dramatic changes in creatures than there would be over thousands of years?

i.e. if you saw a wolf that had some great grand-children that had been bred to be smaller than it, this would be less surprising than if you saw a wolf that had some descendents (thousands of generations later) that were poodles or mastifs.

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/Paleontology/Paleozoology/LatePaleozoic/comparison.gif

Cheers.

Giftmacher

April 25th, 2007, 10:54 AM

If you have no idea what caused the universe to happen, why is it not a possibility that God created it?

Ah, yes but if you yourself don't know how god created the universe or how he was created in the first place, how can you argue that he did?

Pieter Enis

April 25th, 2007, 03:27 PM

It's still a possibility, is it not?
And every (reasonable) possibilty should be kept open.
Much like the teensy weensy likelyhood one of us might turn into a white elephant any second.
One 'possibility' we can safely exclude is the possibility of you never dying. That is, in this universe.

xbolt

April 25th, 2007, 04:04 PM

nobody is saying they are part fish. you are so clueless its hilarious. whoever explained the theory of evolution to you had no idea what they were talking about - and neither do you. you should stop trying to argue this point cause you suck at it.
I know nobody said they're part fish. My point was that the poodles are still 100% dog, and not part whatever you believe they evolved into. It was late, and I didn't want to try and find out what you think dogs evolved into, so I just picked fish.

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/Paleontology/Paleozoology/LatePaleozoic/comparison.gif
Does the fact that the two skeletons are somewhat similar prove evolution to be true?

Ah, yes but if you yourself don't know how god created the universe or how he was created in the first place, how can you argue that he did?
God has always been. The uncaused cause, as my dad puts it.

How He has always existed? I do not know. That is one thing He hasn't fully explained.

However, He did explain how He created the universe. "And God said, 'Let there be light.' and there was light."

Nomad

April 25th, 2007, 04:18 PM

Im pretty sure that "The universe != Light".

Raptor Jesus

April 25th, 2007, 04:40 PM

QFT!
Does the fact that the two skeletons are somewhat similar prove evolution to be true?
I haven't read all of this thread but I sounds like you don't believe in evolution. Anyone who doesn't is an ignorant moron how fails to see the truth when the facts are right in front of him. Think about bacteria. They are becomming resistant to the anti-biotics we use. They are evolving. Same thing with insects and pesticide. They are evolving as well.

rustyslacker

April 25th, 2007, 05:02 PM

HAY! Let's drop the dog bit. Discussion of species emergence/divergence can't have dog breeds as an example: all different breeds of house dog are the same species.

Now, there is the possibility that given enough generations, breeds of dogs may be so far genetically apart that individuals of the two breeds could not create fertile offspring. Then it would be a different species.

jester

April 25th, 2007, 05:41 PM

All different breeds of dog may be the same species but the term 'species' is just a category. Ultimately I think your point boils down to there not being many fossilised examples of organisms that fall between two different species- transitional things.

The thing to remember there is that organisms in a transitional phase of evolution would last a relatively short period of time because evolution is still taking place- once you've got a niche for something to evolve in- i.e. for fish that can move on land to some limited extent- then the generations in that niche are going to rapidly (relatively speaking) evolve toward an organism that is the best you can get in that particular niche- in other words, in this particular example, amphibians.

Obviously once something has got to being as selected for the environment as it can get, it's going to become a lot more populous than it's less-well-adapted ancestors were. And hence, leave more crap in the fossil record.

+Acyclitor+

April 25th, 2007, 05:57 PM

God has always been. The uncaused cause, as my dad puts it.as with the rest of christian theology, this is just another way to avoid thinking for yourself.

rustyslacker

April 25th, 2007, 06:07 PM

as with the rest of organized religion, this is just another way to avoid thinking for yourself.
Fixed. :p

Honestly, fellow atheists, I don't think we're ever going to definitively "win" this or any religous debate regarding creation. When stuff is unexplained, it's because God did it, and when science explains it, it's that way because God made it that way.

Nomad

April 25th, 2007, 06:10 PM

Pretty soon they're going to run out of gaps to put their god in... I relish the day.

rustyslacker

April 25th, 2007, 06:57 PM

Pretty soon they're going to run out of gaps to put their god in... I relish the day.
Well, I meant that when they do run out of gaps, they can look at the gaps filled in by science and say "God made it look like that."

I don't want to give them any ideas, though. ;)

xbolt

April 25th, 2007, 10:04 PM

Osiris's_Legacy

April 25th, 2007, 10:20 PM

Pretty soon they're going to run out of gaps to put their god in... I relish the day.

That's funny, because the same could happen for the theory of evolution, and the amount of holes in it accounts for that.

Aliotroph?

April 25th, 2007, 11:30 PM

The thing to remember there is that organisms in a transitional phase of evolution would last a relatively short period of time because evolution is still taking place- once you've got a niche for something to evolve in- i.e. for fish that can move on land to some limited extent- then the generations in that niche are going to rapidly (relatively speaking) evolve toward an organism that is the best you can get in that particular niche- in other words, in this particular example, amphibians.

Obviously once something has got to being as selected for the environment as it can get, it's going to become a lot more populous than it's less-well-adapted ancestors were. And hence, leave more crap in the fossil record.

Nope. While it's true the stuff you're likely to find in a fossil record is going to be what was most common or successful there's nothing to say that various in-between forms don't last millions of years. Some things probably evolve more rapidly than others but the sorts of genetic changes that allow evolution would be constantly ongoing, even in a static environment. The broken ones just don't get killed off in lots of cases.

I wonder how many fish had to crawl out of the water before they decided to stay. I guess maybe some serious food competition could drive that.

jester

April 26th, 2007, 02:19 AM

XBolt, I don't know, I can't give a specific amount of time. My point was that it's relative. Even for the species that were successful, the vast majority of the dead ones don't get fossilised. It's not like millions of fossils have been found for each species that has existed.

And Aliotroph, if the environment remains the same (in terms of how it relates to the organism's capabilities), there is less likelihood that significant evolutionary changes will take place, once a species has adapted to that environment as best as it can. e.g. sharks, crocodiles. If a species isn't adapted to an environment, it will rapidly die out.

And with the fish crawling out of the water thing- well probably not as many as you think- because there was intense selection pressure for them to mutate further in the direction of being truly amphibious. e.g.the ones with the bigger fore-limbs would own the others and out-reproduce them. Evolution happens more in a series of non-linear jumps, rather than a gradual, steady progression.

+Acyclitor+

April 26th, 2007, 04:06 AM

Fixed. :phey i resent that. a few (very few) religions encourage its practitioners to enlighten themselves instead of trying to explain everything for them. don't generalize them all just because the most popular ones are completely moronic. :p

You're saying I don't think for myself because I quoted something my dad said?no. i'm saying christians (in general) make up things like what you said simply to cage understanding into a small, easily digested ultimatum to avoid having to think for themselves... which is really self defeating because you just end up having to defend it from all sides against droves of information and evidence to the contrary, causing you to think up all sorts of other ridiculous stuff just to validate your original mind-limiting box of simplified existence.

FATAL

April 26th, 2007, 07:46 AM

Fixed. :p

Honestly, fellow atheists, I don't think we're ever going to definitively "win" this or any religous debate regarding creation. When stuff is unexplained, it's because God did it, and when science explains it, it's that way because God made it that way.
Haha, I wonder what happens when some extraterrestrial life is actually found. I assume that some new excuses will be made and then it's back to square one.

I don't think that with the humongous amount of stars and planets orbiting them it is possible that only Earth has any kind of lifeforms. Consider the odds. With over 10^11 (visible) galaxies with about 10^10 stars, most (all?) stars having numerous planets, there are some pretty damn good chances that Earth is not unique.

I want them lazy astronomy dudes find more of these (http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/news/superEarth.cfm) kinds of planets.

+Acyclitor+

April 26th, 2007, 08:38 PM

its been 17 hours with no rebuttal, i hereby proclaim myself winner of this thread *smirk*

xbolt

April 26th, 2007, 09:45 PM

its been 17 hours with no rebuttal, i hereby proclaim myself winner of this thread *smirk*
Sorry to get your hopes up, but I'm back. :p

Haha, I wonder what happens when some extraterrestrial life is actually found. I assume that some new excuses will be made and then it's back to square one.
The Bible doesn't say anything about there not being extraterrestrial life. Nor does it say there is. In fact, it doesn't say anything about the subject. (Although I personally doubt that there is, for reasons below)

I don't think that with the humongous amount of stars and planets orbiting them it is possible that only Earth has any kind of lifeforms. Consider the odds. With over 10^11 (visible) galaxies with about 10^10 stars, most (all?) stars having numerous planets, there are some pretty damn good chances that Earth is not unique.
True. There are a lot of planets out there. But how many are able to support life? There are relatively few stars like our Sun, and out of the ones that are, even fewer have planets in the habitable zone.

The vast number of stars brings up another thing. I find it hard to believe that all that came from nothing. If God didn't create the universe, then all those stars would have had to come from nothing. There was nothing, and suddenly, without God's interaction, poof! There is something.

I want them lazy astronomy dudes find more of these (http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/news/superEarth.cfm) kinds of planets.
Life would be very difficult orbiting a red dwarf star, like this newfound planet is. The habitable zone is very close to the star, and the planets in this zone would likely become tidally locked with the star, much like the Moon is to the Earth, which results in a massive temperature difference between the two hemispheres. Also, most of the radiation coming from a red dwarf is infrared, rather than the visible light needed for life. And another thing, red dwarfs are often covered in sunspots, significantly reducing stellar output for months at a time. Some red dwarfs will emit giant flares, greatly increasing the brightness, making it even harder to support life.

Aliotroph?

April 26th, 2007, 10:01 PM

There are relatively few stars like our Sun, and out of the ones that are, even fewer have planets in the habitable zone.Last I checked our sun was pretty average. And technically we have no idea how many of them have planets in the habitable zone. We don't exactly have the tech to find planets as small as Earth.

The vast number of stars brings up another thing. I find it hard to believe that all that came from nothing. If God didn't create the universe, then all those stars would have had to come from nothing. There was nothing, and suddenly, without God's interaction, poof! There is something.Adding in some magical god doesn't cause this to make any more sense. Once again, you're stuck wondering how he came out of nothing.

The habitable zone is very close to the star, and the planets in this zone would likely become tidally locked with the star, much like the Moon is to the Earth, which results in a massive temperature difference between the two hemispheres. Also, most of the radiation coming from a red dwarf is infrared, rather than the visible light needed for life.The temperature difference on the two sides makes no difference. And life doesn't need visible light at all. Technically life doesn't even need any light. There are things that live in the sea that don't use it at all.

+Acyclitor+

April 26th, 2007, 10:48 PM

Sorry to get your hopes up, but I'm back. :phehe, i was just kidding, bored i guess. but still you haven't rebutted to the point i made, or some of my others.

oh and Alio? don't forget about animals and bacteria that live deep in caves. i've heard of bugs that will even die if exposed to white light for long.

xbolt

April 27th, 2007, 12:48 AM

hehe, i was just kidding, bored i guess. but still you haven't rebutted to the point i made, or some of my others.
I knew you were kidding. :p I was kidding. :p
I'll answer you now, then.

no. i'm saying christians (in general) make up things like what you said simply to cage understanding into a small, easily digested ultimatum to avoid having to think for themselves... which is really self defeating because you just end up having to defend it from all sides against droves of information and evidence to the contrary, causing you to think up all sorts of other ridiculous stuff just to validate your original mind-limiting box of simplified existence.
I don't see how me saying something in just a few words makes me not think for myself.
(And I still have yet to see concrete evidence that I'm wrong)

Adding in some magical god doesn't cause this to make any more sense. Once again, you're stuck wondering how he came out of nothing.
God didn't appear from nothing, He has always existed. I don't know how God has always existed, but I believe He has.

Another thing, earlier, Nomad said Christianity is full of holes. Science has no idea why two magnets are attracted to eachother. I'd say that's a pretty big hole.

FATAL

April 27th, 2007, 01:26 AM

God didn't appear from nothing, He has always existed. I don't know how God has always existed, but I believe He has.
If you believe that god has always existed, how can't you imagine that matter has done the same? Because some old bloke didn't write it up back in the days?

xbolt

April 27th, 2007, 01:43 AM

Matter does not possess infinite power.

jester

April 27th, 2007, 03:22 AM

Uh, guys, you mind answering my last post?

And with the aliens thing, funnily enough I probably agree with Xbolt about a lot of it. If there are many aliens out there, thinking about how old the universe is, well, at least some of them should be at least several million years more advanced than us in terms of technology.

Clearly that's not the case because none of them have come along and ceased suffering on earth, which any society that old would end up doing. They would have to be utilitarian to survive that long.

Pieter Enis

April 27th, 2007, 10:41 AM

Matter does not possess infinite power.
It does.
The 'power' you mention (and I think you meant it that way) isn't always as usefull according to the techniques we've developed, however.

Nomad

April 27th, 2007, 10:47 AM

No, I assure you, Pieter, as long as there is a finite amount of matter in the universe, the energy contained within is finite.

This thread pisses me off. Im done.

Giftmacher

April 27th, 2007, 01:05 PM

Clearly that's not the case because none of them have come along and ceased suffering on earth, which any society that old would end up doing..

Yes, but that's just the human idea of what they would do. Remember, they would be complately different from us, what makes anybody so sure they would just blast off to earth and completely end war (*cough*Childhood's end*cough*)? For one, they might not even care. Second, they might be testing us. For all we know, they could have created us, and are testing our ability to adapt to an increasingly important situation (the situation being: we're screwing up earth)

Heck, I don't even think we're from the milky way. Think about it, we have little in common with most animals here (Monkeys being an exception), we're the only thing that can kill anything. We're the pointy tip of the food chain, and I don't quite think that's natural.

We can dominate the earth, heck we already have. No other creatures here can do that. This leads me to believe that we are either:

A. Aliens ourselves, and are the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandchildren of other "humans" that live on another planet somewhere, or we're:

B. A speices created by aliens and placed on earth as a test, Xel'naga style.

Of course it's just a theory, I'm not completely sure what I believe.

FATAL

April 27th, 2007, 01:27 PM

That is highly unlikely, as during the early fetus phases, most animals look very much alike, and humans share many genes with other animals, such as pigs. The similarities do not end there, so it is quite safe to assume that it all started here and that no known species has been brought here separately.

Nomad

April 27th, 2007, 02:03 PM

Heck, I don't even think we're from the milky way. Think about it, we have little in common with most animals here (Monkeys being an exception), we're the only thing that can kill anything. We're the pointy tip of the food chain, and I don't quite think that's natural.

What the fuck. Doesnt anyone even pay attention to high school biology anymore?! What the hell makes you think that we're so different from other animals? Because you walk on two legs and talk? It doesnt make any difference to you that you share every single of the same organs as, say, a pig, or a horse, or to a certain extent even reptiles, birds, and fish?

If anything "created" us, it happened millions of years ago, all species stemming from a common ancestor. The similarities between species are entirely too similar to deny.

And about being at the top of the food chain, I hate to burst your bubble, but the only real advantage you have over other animals is the knowledge to use tools. I guarantee if you squared off with a bear, wildcat, a wild or feral dog, a wolf, jackal, dingo, or just about any other carnivore (land or sea), the other animal will win every time. We are a lot more vulnerable to wildlife than we think.

Man, this thread really pisses me off.

+Acyclitor+

April 27th, 2007, 02:47 PM

Science has no idea why two magnets are attracted to eachother. I'd say that's a pretty big hole.where do you get this stuff!? magnetism is created by an electron exchange, or in other words, an electrical charge inherent in the magnet. any middle school science student knows this. if i were you (except more open-minded) i would be pissed at my parents for shorting my education with the home schooling.

I don't see how me saying something in just a few words makes me not think for myself.this "uncaused cause" you speak of i think is just something you say cause its easier than actually figuring stuff out. thats what i meant.

xbolt

April 27th, 2007, 10:06 PM

where do you get this stuff!? magnetism is created by an electron exchange, or in other words, an electrical charge inherent in the magnet. any middle school science student knows this. if i were you (except more open-minded) i would be pissed at my parents for shorting my education with the home schooling.
I don't know about that, my physics textbook clearly says that we do not know why magnets are attracted to eachother. Can you give me something to confirm this?

this "uncaused cause" you speak of i think is just something you say cause its easier than actually figuring stuff out. thats what i meant.
True, that's a lot easier than figuring stuff out. I did try to figure it out though, but I just can't grasp it.

Giftmacher

April 27th, 2007, 10:08 PM

What the fuck. Doesnt anyone even pay attention to high school biology anymore?! What the hell makes you think that we're so different from other animals? Because you walk on two legs and talk? It doesnt make any difference to you that you share every single of the same organs as, say, a pig, or a horse, or to a certain extent even reptiles, birds, and fish?

If anything "created" us, it happened millions of years ago, all species stemming from a common ancestor. The similarities between species are entirely too similar to deny.

And about being at the top of the food chain, I hate to burst your bubble, but the only real advantage you have over other animals is the knowledge to use tools. I guarantee if you squared off with a bear, wildcat, a wild or feral dog, a wolf, jackal, dingo, or just about any other carnivore (land or sea), the other animal will win every time. We are a lot more vulnerable to wildlife than we think.

Man, this thread really pisses me off.

Heh, I had a sneaking suspicion something like this would happen. :D

Either way, what I was really getting at was that we have the ability to completely screw up the balance between overpopulation and extinction for our "fellow" spieces, which is an ability that we alone possess. Just seemed kind of odd.

Also, with the "tip of the food chain" thing, I meant that although a single human couldn't survive against, say, a full on brawl with some carniverous land creature, at the end of the day we end up beating anything that tries to mess with our population as a whole.

rustyslacker

April 27th, 2007, 10:22 PM

I don't know about that, my physics textbook clearly says that we do not know why magnets are attracted to eachother. Can you give me something to confirm this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism

Looks like the scientists know why. What's the name of your physics textbook? And any of your other "science" textbooks, just out of curiosity?

xbolt

April 28th, 2007, 01:02 PM

Saxon.

How does moving charges produce a magnetic field?

+Acyclitor+

April 28th, 2007, 03:45 PM

molecular attractions and such. read through that wikipedia article or google for some others you could probably find some very in-depth explanations.

rustyslacker

April 28th, 2007, 04:02 PM

How does moving charges produce a magnetic field?
Just because you don't get it doesn't mean scientists don't.

xbolt

April 28th, 2007, 07:28 PM

The magnetic force is actually due to the finite speed (the speed of light) of a disturbance of the electric field which gives rise to forces that appear to be acting along a line at right angles to the charges. In effect, the magnetic force is the portion of the electric force directed to where the charge used to be. For this reason magnetism can be considered to be basically an electric force that is a direct consequence of relativity.
That paragraph there looks like it's trying to explain it. I read that, and I didn't get it. I read it again, and I still didn't get it. I read it a third time, and... I still didn't get it.

I'm positive that the scientists just act like they know what they're talking about. But in reality, they don't have a clue what's going on. I mean, "the magnetic field is caused by a finite speed disturbance of the electric field"? What on earth does that mean?

rustyslacker

April 28th, 2007, 07:38 PM

That paragraph there looks like it's trying to explain it. I read that, and I didn't get it. I read it again, and I still didn't get it. I read it a third time, and... I still didn't get it.

I'm positive that the scientists just act like they know what they're talking about. But in reality, they don't have a clue what's going on. I mean, "the magnetic field is caused by a finite speed disturbance of the electric field"? What on earth does that mean?
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean scientists don't. Just because your education has been circumcised by homeschooling and Christianity doesn't mean that science holds no truth. Just because you're not open-minded and in search of knowledge doesn't mean that everyone is that way.

Ugh, religion sucks.

Nomad

April 28th, 2007, 07:43 PM

I'm positive that the scientists just act like they know what they're talking about. But in reality, they don't have a clue what's going on.

XD

Yes, surely they didnt go through years of college, and waded through decades of research based on centuries of observation. But, a homeschooled 16 year old doesnt understand it, so they must not.

You. Are. A. Douche.

I spelled out for you in case you missed all the subtle hints I've made in previous posts.

rustyslacker

April 28th, 2007, 07:44 PM

You. Are. A. Douche.

It's true. *annoyed*

Aliotroph?

April 28th, 2007, 08:33 PM

Well, it is somewhat true that science can't explain things like that. Ultimately, interactions between most things seem to boil down to: electromagnetism, gravity, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force. Explaining where these fundamentally come from gets pretty hard since we can't directly observe much on a scale small enough to mean anything there. Ultimately we don't know why things exist, what they are on their smallest, most fundamental level, and we may never have a perfect model to describe it all.

But that's ok. The difference here is one of attitude. Science definitely has gaps in what it understands, can explain, and even make educated guesses at. It's still better than a religion that assumes we have no right to bother trying to find out!

This whole debate about magnetism came from this: Another thing, earlier, Nomad said Christianity is full of holes. Science has no idea why two magnets are attracted to eachother. I'd say that's a pretty big hole.

Nobody pointed out the real problem with his argument: he's talking about the wrong kind of holes. Christianity is full of logical holes. It makes an assumption and tries to prove it: God made everything. This is scientifically completely backwards, rather like xbolt's logic. He insists you can prove all of science is wrong because he can't currently make it work for everything.

I can't prove there's no God and I'll never try. Christians can't prove there is a God and they're wasting billions of man hours trying. So far I'm sticking with my belief that science can come up with a half-way decent model to explain and/or predict observable events in our universe, and even use these models to build better science and better technology. We've got a good track record so far but I routinely get proven wrong on far sounder assumptions. :)

xbolt

April 28th, 2007, 10:53 PM

It's still better than a religion that assumes we have no right to bother trying to find out!
Excuse me, but when did I say we shouldn't find out?

He insists you can prove all of science is wrong because he can't currently make it work for everything.
No, no, no, why does everyone take my arguments and run in the opposite direction with them? I'm saying that, science can't say why magnets work, something that we see every day, but it can tell me what happened in a slime pond 4.5 billion years ago?

Yes, surely they didnt go through years of college, and waded through decades of research based on centuries of observation. But, a homeschooled 16 year old doesnt understand it, so they must not.
Now, do you understand how a moving charge produces a magnetic field? And if so, can you explain it? (And it has to be better than 'The magnetic force is actually due to the finite speed of a disturbance of the electric field which gives rise to forces that appear to be acting along a line at right angles to the charges.')

You. Are. A. Douche.
Seriously, how does insulting me do you any good whatsoever?

Aliotroph?

April 28th, 2007, 11:11 PM

Nobody knows what happened in the slime ponds of 4 billion years ago. We also don't know why subatomic particles can exert forces on each other across a distance. That said, we understand tons more about how both of those things might work than we would if we'd sat around on our asses for the last 5000 years attributing everything we see to magical intelligences who refuse to show themselves.

Giftmacher

April 28th, 2007, 11:40 PM

Excuse me, but when did I say we shouldn't find out?

You don't speak for all of christianity, you know. When he/she said "a religion" that means a majority of it's followers, not you specifically. Regardless of whether you are a part of it or not.

Tchakkazulu

April 29th, 2007, 02:50 AM

Now, do you understand how a moving charge produces a magnetic field? And if so, can you explain it? (And it has to be better than 'The magnetic force is actually due to the finite speed of a disturbance of the electric field which gives rise to forces that appear to be acting along a line at right angles to the charges.')

I found it to be quite understandable, and my physics knowledge on electromagnetism and such has been the same, if not less, as when I left highschool. If I would've done physics right now, I totally would give a rant about electromagnetism, because I'm a bastard like that. However, my area is math, so I won't do that. If I'm going to rant about something it's going to be logic and proof theory, because this thread is so full of straw men and similar bugs that it hurts my brain.

rustyslacker

April 29th, 2007, 09:00 AM

Now, do you understand how a moving charge produces a magnetic field? And if so, can you explain it? (And it has to be better than 'The magnetic force is actually due to the finite speed of a disturbance of the electric field which gives rise to forces that appear to be acting along a line at right angles to the charges.')
Well, do you understand how God could exist eternally outside of the physical realm?
He has always existed. I don't know how God has always existed, but I believe He has.
Well, look at that. You don't. Just because Nomad or I can't explain the magnets doesn't mean the science is false, but you seem to think it's that way. You can't explain God's eternal existence, so by your logic you shouldn't believe in it.
That said, we understand tons more about how both of those things might work than we would if we'd sat around on our asses for the last 5000 years attributing everything we see to magical intelligences who refuse to show themselves.
And if we hadn't been sitting on our asses as much as we have, there'd be a lot MORE scientific progress and knowledge. How unfortunate.

Pieter Enis

April 29th, 2007, 09:46 AM

Either way, what I was really getting at was that we have the ability to completely screw up the balance between overpopulation and extinction for our "fellow" spieces, which is an ability that we alone possess. Just seemed kind of odd.

We're not the only species that can kill itself, I just can't remember which species it is.
I think it's the Silverback, National Geographic actually filmed those Gorilla's when they were headed over to some other Silverback 'tribe' and war them.

Other than that, I can't make out what the hell that thing on Wikipedia tries to tell anyone. I seriously think that needs updating, if it's not explained in an understandable manner, it's not explained at all, in my opinion.

I was taught that magnetism just followed from a 'void' of electronegativity. All the negative particles on one side of the magnet moved to another and the second magnet tries to fill up the hole.
But then the same happens on the other side of the first magnet, making an almost-continuos flow of electrons.

And about the energy being finite: I totally forgot the fact that the universe we know is cooling off. Whoops. *casper*

Nomad

April 29th, 2007, 09:59 AM

Now, do you understand how a moving charge produces a magnetic field?

No, and I've never studied it. Because I really dont care. We've said it many times, just because you (or I) dont understand it doesnt mean scientists dont.

If you want a better example of a "hole" that no scientist understands, is how gravity works; or how the quantum world can be so completely random and unpredictable, but the world we are familiar with (and the macro world of the cosmos) is so uniform and predictable.

These are things that science does not fully understand today, but that does not in any way mean that we never will. Science is ever evolving.

Seriously, how does insulting me do you any good whatsoever?

Because it makes me feel better, genius. The stupidity contained in this thread blows my mind, and I need an outlet for my aggression. You were the last person to make a completely idiodic statement (I dont understand how magnetism on my 10th grade level homeschooling, so a post-graduate who has studied magnetism fervently for years, if not decades, clearly cannot understand it), so I insulted you. Douchebag.

Giftmacher

April 29th, 2007, 01:29 PM

We're not the only species that can kill itself, I just can't remember which species it is.
I think it's the Silverback, National Geographic actually filmed those Gorilla's when they were headed over to some other Silverback 'tribe' and war them.

Well I didn't mean war specifically (although war is a good example), but more indirectly. Like for example, we can't be defeated by any other creature (in the long run) so we just keep multiplying, because there is no other predator to make sure we stay in line. So, we overpopulate and the demand for resources gets too high. We are killing ourselves in that we are killing the earth. Once the earth is "dead", we'll soon starve... if global warming (which is also a good example of humanity's killing itself) doesn't fry us first.

Basically, being the undefeated "champion" of the planet is a very bad thing if we aren't smart enough to handle it. And by the looks of things, we aren't.

Also, nice example. I didn't know that. :D

Anakite

April 29th, 2007, 03:25 PM

Depressing? Why did you find Christianity depressing? I find the prospect of just blipping out when you die to be depressing.

Actually, the first thing I thought depressing about it was the thought of joining a collective, omniscient conscience in heaven. Nothing left to learn or strive for, everyone's of the same mind... blech. I'd rather rot in the ground and retain my individuality and accomplishments, rather than have all of those nullified in heaven after death or the rapture.

I remember recently reading an article that stated that Einstein's ToR was proven true. Had something to do with a satellite in geosynchronous orbit shifting a few inches over a few years, I dunno.
But I do have to point out that relativity has little to do with disproving god. Einstein himself was a theist of sorts, if I remember correctly. I believe his quote was, "Religion without science is uninformed(ignorant?). Science without religion is lame."
Not that I agree with it, of course, just sayin'.

Pieter Enis

April 30th, 2007, 06:45 PM

Well I didn't mean war specifically (although war is a good example), but more indirectly. Like for example, we can't be defeated by any other creature (in the long run) so we just keep multiplying, because there is no other predator to make sure we stay in line. So, we overpopulate and the demand for resources gets too high. We are killing ourselves in that we are killing the earth. Once the earth is "dead", we'll soon starve... if global warming (which is also a good example of humanity's killing itself) doesn't fry us first.
Humanity does have a knack for survival.
AIDS got close, but from the looks of it, they're developing some sort of 'micro-proteïn' that can actually numb the AIDS-virus (that's HIV, innit?) down. Something along those lines.
It renders the virus rather useless, simply because it has tinier arms and can put it's fingers in the small holes and force it into not making a connection with any other cell.

Basically, being the undefeated "champion" of the planet is a very bad thing if we aren't smart enough to handle it. And by the looks of things, we aren't.
People are smart enough, there are just more 'stupid' people out there that don't care/realise.
Besides, it "costs too much" to do anything about the destabilisation of Earth.

Also, nice example. I didn't know that. :D
National Geographic, for all your Philosophical needs

I remember recently reading an article that stated that Einstein's ToR was proven true.
What the?
I heard it was proven incorrect and/or they 'improved' his theory.

On top of that, there's not a single thing in the world that's going to make me believe that if you travel, relatively as seen from another object, faster than aforementioned object, you 'slow down time'.
Simply because time is constant.
It's all in the terminology, has nothing to do with science (well, physics, maybe lingual it does) as far as I'm concerned.
But that's another thing. *bliss*

blood imp

April 30th, 2007, 07:37 PM

Well, after reading the first and last pages, I see that this thread has become a flame war between science and religion (particularly Christianity). I did not feel like reading the whole thread because judging from people's posts, half of this thing is complete stupididty (I'm judging from the parts that make that claim). I also don't see much reference to the original topic, which is death. However, I do have some thoughts I'm going to share on science vs. religion.

First of all, I'm an all out Atheist. I feel sorry for those that have chosen faith over reason (well, I'm not really sorry, because it's their choice). I don't have much proof of my claims, which are mostly that God (or whatever you wish to call him/her/it) does not and never has existed, while everything can be explained using mathematics and physics. However, when somebody tells me that I will go to Hell because I'm a none believer... well, that ticks me off. I don't have anything against religion (actually I do, but I can't really do anything about it, so why bother?), but don't try to make other people suffer what you do. That's not fair.
The last time I was in a church (which was not long ago, as my friends went, so I went with them), I was pretty amazed at how much people are actually falling for Christianity. Not to mention that church makes me depressed. All it really is a priest acting as a broken record, repeating the same things over and over; "Jesus gave his body, and if you eat it, you shall be him", or "Let God forgive our Sins, and lead us to a good life." Or something like that. In any case, if you look at it through a dedicated Christian's point of view, everything we do is a Sin. Its so depressing... all this talk about how everyone's a sinner... Jesus, compared to that, blimping out after death is nothing.

That brings me to death itself. I think that once you die (your brain stops functioning), you die. There is no afterlife. There is no hanging around as an invisible being, a Lost Soul (DooM Reference! :D). Your gone. There is no blackness, either. You can't think. It hurts my head, because it is impossible for us to think of not thinking, because our mind always has something in it. What I think happens is this: you began a life again, as a new being. I'm not saying that it's the same consience. NO! Not at all! I mean that you are in fact a completely different person, with nothing to do with your "previous self" at all. There is a consience, you have a consience, but it's not really you.
When I die, I'm dead. My consience will cease to exist, because it is in fact the inner working of my brain, which will then be dead. It's really hard to explain for me. But what I'm trying to say is, when you die, you die. Not even the tiniest bit of the person that was is ever reincarnated. So once you die, you don't begin a new life in a new body not remembering a thing from your previous life. You just die.
I can barely imagine it, even thought I'm thinking about it and writing about it right now. It's so strange. It's one of those things that actually makes my head hurt, like how can there be no begining of time, or what happened before the begining. If you look at it that way, time can't have a begining. But now I'm getting off topic. Although really, I've finished making my point, so I can't really be on topic anymore. With that, I'm finished.

rustyslacker

April 30th, 2007, 07:42 PM

What the?
I heard it was proven incorrect and/or they 'improved' his theory.

On top of that, there's not a single thing in the world that's going to make me believe that if you travel, relatively as seen from another object, faster than aforementioned object, you 'slow down time'.
Simply because time is constant.
Bull. Nothing's ever definitively proven or disproven, and general relativity seems mostly accepted, although there are issues with the weird things like black holes.

Also, I believe the theory states that only the speed of light is constant. Your perception of time may be constant, regardless of how fast time is passing around you. Go stand by a black hole and see what happens to your perception of time.

+Acyclitor+

April 30th, 2007, 07:56 PM

we already had a topic about relativity, lets not repeat it here :p

but hey just for the record i want to make it clear for the ground of this debate: I am not an atheist. I am a pagan, although an unorthodox one who does not conform to any pantheon particularly (though i am closest in mind to the Norse pantheon, and if anything could be called Asatru).

the reason for this strange alignment is that i cannot believe in the tactile existence of deities - i've tried, i just can't make myself believe it. instead, i see various gods as symbolic and personal manifestations of philosophy and force - not "real" in the classic sense, but potent none the less and as "real" as they need to be within my own mind.

just to make myself clear, as well as give xbolt and the rest of you a shot to at me like we've been doing to him. :)

Pieter Enis

May 1st, 2007, 12:39 PM

Bull. Nothing's ever definitively proven or disproven, and general relativity seems mostly accepted, although there are issues with the weird things like black holes.
They can prove a theory is wrong by providing a new theory which would be a closer estimate to the universe's workings that nullifies the former theory.

Also, I believe the theory states that only the speed of light is constant. Your perception of time may be constant, regardless of how fast time is passing around you. Go stand by a black hole and see what happens to your perception of time.
If I 'could' stand by a black hole, which to my knowledge, no one has yet been capable of, I'd probably not see time pass slower around me than 50 feet away from me.
If it did, I'd buy the theory, but I'd like to see it with my own eyes. Or experience it.
Rocket to Pluto, away! *alien*
Now let's end this discussion about Relativity and go back to "The Death Thread" *gloomy bell sounds* allright?

the reason for this strange alignment is that i cannot believe in the tactile existence of deities - i've tried, i just can't make myself believe it. instead, i see various gods as symbolic and personal manifestations of philosophy and force - not "real" in the classic sense, but potent none the less and as "real" as they need to be within my own mind.
Didn't the Norse see their Gods as humanesque beings with superpowers?
If so I'd like to know exactly why you picked Norse religion and not, say, Greek religion. Both have a number of Gods, one for each phenomena, but they're just slightly different.
Besides, Norse Gods are crueler. Or something ...

+Acyclitor+

May 1st, 2007, 04:08 PM

Didn't the Norse see their Gods as humanesque beings with superpowers? If so I'd like to know exactly why you picked Norse religion and not, say, Greek religion. Both have a number of Gods, one for each phenomena, but they're just slightly different.well the Norse gods are very human-like. fallible, mortal, interested in learning, etc. they do not have one deity for each phenomena, like the Greeks. its just that lightning was imagined to be sparks sent flying from Thor's hammer, and things like that. you find lots of things like that in Norse mythology - allusions to godly power that are more about storytelling than tactile belief. just like today somebody might see it is raining and say "i think God is crying." sometimes when reading the Eddas, you can't help but get the feeling that even the Norse themselves only believed in their gods as metaphorical beings.

the reason why i am most connected to Norse is: 1) heritage, and 2) for its core philosophies, both in its prime and modern evolutions

blood imp

May 1st, 2007, 06:06 PM

Why is it that almost every topic about death always leads to a flame war on Christianity? Well, no not really, but it seems a lot do. This one did, and I know a few others that did. Anyhoo...
Norse mythology... I find it quite fascinating. Not that I study it or anything like an obsession, but still, I do enjoy it. I usually find books that include Norse mythology as a major part of their plot very excilerating (I believe I spelled that incorrectly). Although, really, the only things that I even partially know about Norse mythology is that 1) most days of the week (in English) are named after Norse gods; 2) Yggdrasil is a tree that connects all worlds and beings together; 3) the names of some gods, goddesses, and locations (Like Bifrost).

P.S. +Acyclitor+, if it makes you feel better (I'm not saying you were down in the first place), I would gladly flame you, it's just that you haven't done anything to incite me to. ;) Also, nice new avatar.