Stretch
Subscriber
I may be a moron. But if you think the christian God is a myth, I think you're going to burn in hell. You're educated. I would recommend "a case for christ". Its a great book.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Why there almost certainly is No God!!
- Thread starter Desibaba
- Start date
I may be a moron. But if you think the christian God is a myth, I think you're going to burn in hell. You're educated. I would recommend "a case for christ". Its a great book.
The entire concept is ridiculous! The vast majority of people practice whatever religion they were born into. So all the Jews and Muslims and Buddists are going to hell because they were born into the wrong family?
The concept of going to hell if you don't worship my religion is nothing more than an attempt to increase Christianity's numbers, money and power in the world. After all, who could pass up a religion that promises you safety from eternal damnation?
Stretch
Subscriber
No. You're not burning yet.
But I am confident some day you will remember that joke and it sucks to think that more and more people are agreeing with your philosophy every day.
In regards to people around the world. I believe that the Bible supports the notion that God will judge, to a large degree, based upon the amount of light (knowledge) with which we are provided. You can't read the Bible one word at a time: "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed" you must study it in its entirety. I doubt you have done so, just regurgitating a logical opinion, either of your own devices or reading.
Why thank you...it IS a very logical opinion!
I don't blame your need to believe. There is very good science suggesting humans evolved to need the concept of an external higher power. Fear based Christianity is also a strong force when you grow up believing it as a kid. The consequences of not believing and the fear (and the requirements to avoid the consequences and alleviate the fear) become part of you.
I'd like to think since I grew up in an atheist house the all knowing and all forgiving God would cut me some slack...especially if I live a good life, help others, make the world a better place.
I'm sad to know all the great non-Christians who have died are all burning? Even non-Christians people who have changed the world in profound ways burning because they chose the wrong book but some shit kicker who doesn't do anything too wrong but certainly does nothing to change the world in a positive way is IN...cause his momma and daddy chose the right book.
Seems logical, reasonable, fair......
With deference Idster, Man has found plenty of reasons to kill one another with or without religion.
In fact damn near every religious conflict, including the crusades, were fought with the ulterior motive being the acquisition of land, power, wealth or some lame combination.
The belief religion was the modus operandi for yesteryears wars has been propagated by contemporary secularists or atheists whom are adamantly opposed to "organized religion", in part because the notion much of our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values seems absolutely abhorrent, "philosophically". IMO.
I recall years ago when it was the family, communities and the "churches" responsibility to aid the poor, ill and helpless but they did so with tough love, committed to the process of helping others HELP THEMSELVES.
Now the "Welfare state" is one of the most dysfunctional duty of government, and what a wasteful and outrageously expensive morass that's become.
In fact damn near every religious conflict, including the crusades, were fought with the ulterior motive being the acquisition of land, power, wealth or some lame combination.
The belief religion was the modus operandi for yesteryears wars has been propagated by contemporary secularists or atheists whom are adamantly opposed to "organized religion", in part because the notion much of our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values seems absolutely abhorrent, "philosophically". IMO.
I recall years ago when it was the family, communities and the "churches" responsibility to aid the poor, ill and helpless but they did so with tough love, committed to the process of helping others HELP THEMSELVES.
Now the "Welfare state" is one of the most dysfunctional duty of government, and what a wasteful and outrageously expensive morass that's become.
Stretch
Subscriber
I never suggested my beliefs would seem logical, reasonable or fair to someone who doesn't understand the concepts taught by the Bible. Gods ways are not our ways. We don't need to agree. He is the supreme being. He is the master of our fate. He is the boss. Believe me, everything in my personality resists the preceding few sentences.
Read the book. Idmd. Please. For your own sake.
This is turning into an argument with no profit. I am not getting through. Just like many couldn't get through to me for years.
My mom was a stripper. My dad a functioning alcoholic. I wasn't raised with religion. I don't NEED to believe anything. Many times, to my shame, I wish I could "unlearn" the facts I know to be true. Its humorous how out of touch you are with my beliefs/personality.
Last edited:
Evolution is NOT I REPEAT a SCIENTIFIC FACT, but it is a bonified scientific THEORY.
It should NOT be confused with "NATURAL SELECTION" as DARWIN himself described his own "discovery", now termed "survival of the fittest".
Evolutionists if you can legitimately describe for me, or anyone else, how the eye "evolved" from ZIPPO to one with "compound features" which is common to every creature capable of "sight" as we understand that sense today, there is a Nobel prize awaiting you!
Jim
This is a topic I generally avoid. That said, I don't understand the religious objection to the big bang or evolution. For believers, why is it so hard to accept that perhaps the big bang and evolution are the tools used by the creator? Why do so many fundamentalists view the big bang and devine creation as mutually exclusive? If one believes the stories in the bible are parables rather than literal, why the conflict? I don't get it.
Evolution of phototransduction, vertebrate photoreceptors and retina
Trevor D. Lamb
Evolution of phototransduction, vertebrate photoreceptors and retina
Department of Neuroscience, and ARC Centre of Excellence in Vision Science, John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia
Abstract
Evidence is reviewed from a wide range of studies relevant to the evolution of vertebrate photoreceptors and phototransduction, in order to permit the synthesis of a scenario for the major steps that occurred during the evolution of cones, rods and the vertebrate retina. The ancestral opsin originated more than 700 Mya (million years ago) and duplicated to form three branches before cnidarians diverged from our own lineage. During chordate evolution, ciliary opsins (C-opsins) underwent multiple stages of improvement, giving rise to the ‘bleaching’ opsins that characterise cones and rods. Prior to the ‘2R’ rounds of whole genome duplication near the base of the vertebrate lineage, ‘cone’ photoreceptors already existed; they possessed a transduction cascade essentially the same as in modern cones, along with two classes of opsin: SWS and LWS (short- and long-wave-sensitive). These cones appear to have made synaptic contact directly onto ganglion cells, in a two-layered retina that resembled the pineal organ of extant non-mammalian vertebrates. Interestingly, those ganglion cells appear to be descendants of microvillar photoreceptor cells. No lens was associated with this two-layered retina, and it is likely to have mediated circadian timing rather than spatial vision. Subsequently, retinal bipolar cells evolved, as variants of ciliary photoreceptors, and greatly increased the computational power of the retina. With the advent of a lens and extraocular muscles, spatial imaging information became available for central processing, and gave rise to vision in vertebrates more than 500 Mya. The ‘2R’ genome duplications permitted the refinement of cascade components suitable for both rods and cones, and also led to the emergence of five visual opsins. The exact timing of the emergence of ‘true rods’ is not yet clear, but it may not have occurred until after the divergence of jawed and jawless vertebrates.
Stretch
Subscriber
I can't speak for anyone else, but I am not opposed to the big bang being God's mechanism for creation.
The theory is just seriously whacked.
Stretch
Subscriber
You couldn't be more wrong.
Clearly much has happened which isn't in the Bible. The Bible isn't clear on ALL aspects of life. Much is left for individual interpretation, and unfortunately, that individual interpretation combined with the divisive nature of man, has led to the multitude of sects within Christianity.
Although inter-species variation may help explain differences in either the genotype AND phenotype of a particular organism, I'm not aware of ANY evidence which substantiates inter-genus alterations of the magnitude required for "evolution" to be considered even a remote approximation of scientific "fact".
IMO the imagination needed to legitimize such beliefs is analogous to comic book hero's being deemed "real".
Jim
IMO the imagination needed to legitimize such beliefs is analogous to comic book hero's being deemed "real".
Jim
Interesting correlation and analysis CBS, yet the changes in rods and cones is only ONE component of compound vision the other essential elements include; effective ophthalmic integration into the CNS such as the cerebellum, brain stem, frontal and occipital lobe, precisely coordinated extra-ocular movements, adaptable pupillary changes, morphing of the lens, developed occipital cortex, MLF brain stem integration etc are not explained ALL of which are mandatory for compound vision.
We may not agree on everything CBS BUT at least we both try to maintain an evidence based discussion
Jim
We may not agree on everything CBS BUT at least we both try to maintain an evidence based discussion
Jim
Is it a literal interpretation of the bible by fundamentalist Christians that's driving this opposition?
As far as I can tell (and I haven't looked at this in depth) is the modern opposition to evolution and the strict adherence to the idea of Intelligent Design theory is a uniquely American thing promoted by fundamentalist Christians. I don't believe there's an opposition to evolution among Christians anywhere else in the world. The catholic church certainly don't oppose evolution and Darwin's theory is not necessarily viewed as atheistic by the Vatican. ” In a1996 speach to the Pontifical Academy, Pope John Paul II said “new scientific knowledge has led us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.” It seems to me, fundamentalist Christians feel threatened by science when they really don't have to be.
Don't most other Christians in the US think Catholics have horns?
To state intra and even inter species changes have occurred is scientific fact IMO.
However the extension of such reasoning to include man and ALL other living things as having "evolved", either directly or indirectly, from some ad hoc "primordial soup" is an entirely different matter, and void of scientific evidence.
To that end, evolution should be relegated to a form of structured belief system, much like most religions, IMO.
Moreover when questioned deliberately the majority of Christians believe "evolution has occurred in some form". However the issue (and a point of contentious secular v non-secular debate) from their perspective is, who or what is responsible!
Jim
However the extension of such reasoning to include man and ALL other living things as having "evolved", either directly or indirectly, from some ad hoc "primordial soup" is an entirely different matter, and void of scientific evidence.
To that end, evolution should be relegated to a form of structured belief system, much like most religions, IMO.
Moreover when questioned deliberately the majority of Christians believe "evolution has occurred in some form". However the issue (and a point of contentious secular v non-secular debate) from their perspective is, who or what is responsible!
Jim
nano
New Member
I couldn't agree with you more.
There is almost certainly no supreme being and the bible is written thousands of years ago by people with a very poor world view. In my opinion, theism is for lazy who just want to explain everything away to "God's will"
But on the same note, science doesn't currently have ALL the answers for everything either, and new things are being discovered everyday. People need to realize that is the whole point of science, to keep looking and keep learning.
It's a crime to humanity to just say "Oh I don't understand it, so I'm just gonna say God mad it this way" and than stop further exploring for the truth.
nano
New Member
Concepts taught by the Bible are archaic. Raping virgins and paying the father 50 pieces of silver to take the rape victim as a wife. Putting people to death who work on Sunday. God causing bear to maul and kill a bunch of kids because they taunted an old man... I understand the concepts in the Bible. and the Old Testament is mostly not logical, reasonable, or fair by any means. The New Testament is better at teaching a more positive philosophy one can apply towards living a good life. But one can get the same from real people, like Buddha and Gandhi.
"Gods ways are not our ways. We don't need to agree. He is the supreme being. He is the master of our fate. He is the boss."
Please show me proof of this? or is this cultist ideology?
Whacked how? If you mean bizarre, I agree but so is a lot of physics until looked at mathematically. Time dilation is bizarre. Quantum physics gets really strange but with a few exceptions, it works mathematically. Stranger still is string theory and M-theory - 11 dimensions - length, width and height that make up three-dimensional space plus time and 6 other dimensions we cannot see. But I still don't see why any of this matters from a theistic perspective to so many. It doesn't *disprove* the existance of God or even theistic evolution and creation since The Bible only gives a sequence of the events of creation and not blueprint.
Would you agree that believing Man decended from a "primordial soup" is not necessarily atheistic? IYO, can one believe single-celled organisms evolved to become Homo sapiens and be a Christian at the same time or are those beliefs mutually exclusive?
They are neither mutually inclusive of exclusive, IMO.
