Does any religion matter at all today?

by Stox 16 Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:35 am

First topic message reminder :

I will be interested to read peoples thoughts on this question. Does any Religion matter at all today?

I cannot see that any religious church's or anything religious even matters today at all. The only true religion I have ever come across is, Money, Political Power, Land, and greed. all the things we are told they are against, this goes for all religions too in my view.

in fact all the faiths I have come across use all of the tools of money, political power, Land and greed to re-force there religious views on there followers. i have never come across any religion that does not use at least one of this tools to enforce there religious views on the people they are said to be looking after.

I have read over the years all the religious books i can find, and have yet too be moved by any of them. some have very good stories that have something in them for every reader. but their it ends for me. maybe someone can explain why any of this is so important today? as i cannot find anything within the books that states this is very important today or in the past. I myself have come to believe that religion has more to do with the thought of death or dying and the human need to believe that life goes on after death.

However, when we was all born we did not feel pain or come into being with some religious thought in our heads or a book in our hands did we? in fact we had know idea about religion at all? so only find out what religion we are when someone tells us that this is our religion? yet you would think we would all know this already if there was a god? So we only find out what our religion is after birth? or do you believe you know what you religion was before birth? (i did not) if someone told me i was a follower of Islam, I would of said OK at five years old. in fact they could of given me any religion and i would of said fine.

So religion seems to me, religion only matters a get deal more the older you get? so I am told, well if so its failing on me badly. so anyway, it matter more as you get closer to death then? so is this more to do with our human need for life to go on somehow? as we find it hard to believe that life comes to an end and we go into darkness of no mans land? just like before we was born?

I was told at about 6 years old by my mother that this was my faith. but in total truth my mother could of said any faith was my religion and i would of gone along with what she said. To me that was it, Its that simple then. i did not then think about anything religious till i was in the Army in standing in a street in the middle of green line in a war zone in the Lebanon. with both Christains killing, Muslims Killing, Catholic Maronite's Killing, Druze faith Killing, Jewish killing. at first wondering why they was all doing this? not for religion or faith but power and using religion to justify there actions. I remember thinking. just suppose these people had been given a different religion by there mothers. they would instead of killing as a Maronite gunman they would of been killing Maronite's as a Druze gunman?

So your religion is picked for you in my view and some even change it too. yet you would think if you know your god at your death. you should know who you god is before birth? but we do not. So does any of this really matter any more?

well i well be interrested to read your thought on this. its not about any one religion but all of them.

by oftenwrong Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:39 pm

But if Adam never met Eve, how did we all get here?

The theory that we originated from the eruptions of undersea volcanoes is not flattering, but explains some of the people you meet.

by Tosh Tue Apr 16, 2013 6:52 pm

But if Adam never met Eve, how did we all get here?

I believe it had something to do with a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil, but don't quote me.

by polyglide Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:08 pm

The only thing you have ever got partly right Tosh is calling me a nitwit.

Now you have a 50/50 chance of getting this right.

Is it that Iam a nit or a wit.

by polyglide Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:10 pm

I have never said I do not believe in evolution.

Things can and do evolve within a species buit they do not create new ones.

by oftenwrong Wed Apr 17, 2013 5:16 pm

Who will you argue with when you get to Heaven, polyglide? Might be rather boring if everybody is always in agreement.

by snowyflake Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:06 pm

Is it that Iam a nit or a wit.

Definitely a nit. Smile

Things can and do evolve within a species buit they do not create new ones.

When genetic mutations occur over a long period of time, the genetic differences are enough to consider them a different species. For example, chimpanzees and humans share nearly 96% of their DNA. Are you suggesting therefore that chimpanzees are not a separate species from humans? And chimps are more closely related to us than they are to gorillas.

The genetic differences between humans is about 0.1% which is in itself very strong evidence that we all descended from a common ancestor.

by Tosh Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:37 pm

Things can and do evolve within a species buit they do not create new ones.

...this is hardly a scientific objection, do you have one you nitwit ?

by Shirina Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:10 pm

Things can and do evolve within a species buit they do not create new ones.

If that were the case, then we would still have dinosaurs and no birds.

by Guest Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:57 am

Shirina wrote:
If that were the case, then we would still have dinosaurs and no birds.

You have stated an unsubstantiated hypothesis as rock solid fact.

by snowyflake Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:02 am

It is a rock solid fact, Rock. Birds are the only living survivors of dinosaurs. This is a fact.

by Guest Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:21 am

snowyflake wrote:
It is a rock solid fact, Rock. Birds are the only living survivors of dinosaurs. This is a fact.

snowyflake wrote:It is a rock solid fact, Rock. Birds are the only living survivors of dinosaurs. This is a fact.

What has been hypothesized is that birds are related to dinosaurs. Insofar as I know, most scientists agree. I also agree.

What has also been hypothesized is that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Insofar as I know, many scientists agree. I disagree.

Rock solid proof insofar as evolution from dinosaur to bird is concerned does not exist.

by oftenwrong Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:32 am

What degree of "proof" is provided by this example ?

Does any religion matter at all today? - Page 16 Archaeopteryx-banner_112755_1

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/collections-at-the-museum/museum-treasures/archaeopteryx-fossil/index.html

by Guest Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:46 am

oftenwrong wrote:
What degree of "proof" is provided by this example ?

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/collections-at-the-museum/museum-treasures/archaeopteryx-fossil/index.html

This example provides proof that there are fossilized bones and fossilized bone imprints in solidified dirt.

by Tosh Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:39 am

This example provides proof that there are fossilized bones and fossilized bone imprints in solidified dirt.

I think in Texas this is called a scientific deduction, in the rest of the scholarly world it is called blind ignorance of science and its methods.

by oftenwrong Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:20 pm

Does anyone believe that Internet discussion will survive for a similar period of time as fossil remains have done?

by Tosh Fri Apr 19, 2013 1:15 pm

What has also been hypothesized is that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Insofar as I know, many scientists agree. I disagree.

99.9 % of relevant scientists are not just " many " and I am sure they, like me, do not give a toss what you agree or disagree with. Why you believe your ignorant opinion is worth a shit is beyond me, and a scholar should be able to recognize the enormous difference between an evidence based fact and an hypothesis.

More unscientific objections to a scientific theory, these people are just backward.

by Tosh Fri Apr 19, 2013 1:33 pm

Ancient ancestor had chimp and human traits

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/04/12/3734941.htm?site=science/brokenstory

by Tosh Fri Apr 19, 2013 1:51 pm

Same old story, wacko creationists without any evidence to contradict evolution and no evidence to support any alternative explanation.

Intellectual fraud trying to disguise itself as scholarship, just pathetic.

by snowyflake Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:00 pm

What has also been hypothesized is that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Insofar as I know, many scientists agree. I disagree.

You have that right, Rock. You're wrong but you have a constitutional right to be wrong. Smile

by Shirina Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:46 am

This example provides proof that there are fossilized bones and fossilized bone imprints in solidified dirt.

This is akin to a defense attorney arguing against a signed confession from the killer by saying, "This confession only proves that there is a bunch of letters on a piece of paper!"

by Guest Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:29 am

by Guest Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:43 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
This example provides proof that there are fossilized bones and fossilized bone imprints in solidified dirt.

Shirina wrote:
This is akin to a defense attorney arguing against a signed confession from the killer by saying, "This confession only proves that there is a bunch of letters on a piece of paper!"

You mean that those are not fossilized bones and fossilized bone imprints in solidified dirt? I’m open for discovery of what they are.

by Shirina Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:36 am

You mean that those are not fossilized bones and fossilized bone imprints in solidified dirt?

You mean that a signed confession from a killer is not a bunch of letters on a piece of paper? I'm open for discovery of what they are.

by polyglide Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:07 am

Snowyflake you could not get anything right if I gave you three attempts.

If you need a million grains of sand to perform an act and you are just one short you might just as well not have the others.

According to one wag we are related to cabbages on that basis I could introduce him to many other relatives at Sunday lunch.

It matters not how close the genes are of any species, it is obvious that when God created all living things there would be those with relative close genes.

A near miss is as good as a mile.

I do not expect you to understand the significance of the above, please find an intelligent person to explain.

by snowyflake Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:04 pm

Snowyflake you could not get anything right if I gave you three attempts.

Rude.

If you need a million grains of sand to perform an act and you are just one short you might just as well not have the others.

Eh?

According to one wag we are related to cabbages on that basis I could introduce him to many other relatives at Sunday lunch.

No one wants to meet your family. Smile

It matters not how close the genes are of any species, it is obvious that when God created all living things there would be those with relative close genes.

Why is it obvious? If God created us, why did he create such a complicated system. Why not just be empty shells with just spirits that go to heaven when we're done with it? Why have blood and bones and endocrine systems and neurotransmitters? Why would God create us in such a complicated way? Why not just create us without all the structure? He's God. We could live anyway anywhere anyhow he pleased. But no, he creates a being that requires sustenance, that grows, that lives and dies. What for?.... if our only purpose is to worship him ad nauseum? We don't need any of the extraneous stuff do we?

A near miss is as good as a mile.

Why create beings with such close ties genetically. We can prove relationships with genetics now and we can prove it over time, vast amounts of time. Why would you think that our DNA, the only code on the entire planet, would not indicate our relatedness? It does and it proves evolution is a fact. If we took the DNA from 100 people we could find out who is related closely to whom. We also understand mutation rates and population genetics which answers the question of relatedness. That you don't understand it, is just your own ignorance and religious bias getting in the way of your brain.

I do not expect you to understand the significance of the above, please find an intelligent person to explain.

Not you then. Smile

For a christian, you're quite the hypocrite.

by Shirina Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:05 pm

it is obvious that when God created all living things there would be those with relative close genes.

*sigh*

Once again, you see logic and run in the opposite direction.

One could make a far more credible argument by asking why it is that there is no evidence of magic in the world? Why aren't there square planets or stars that burn prune juice? Why aren't there mountains that stand on their peaks, places where things fall upwards, or trees that live on strawberry milkshakes. Oh, I know you're going to accuse me of being silly - but that's just it: We don't see the kind of whimsy and strangeness that a universe created by magic would logically bring about. Instead, everything is governed by explainable rules, and those rules are absolute and inviolate.

There is absolutely NO reason why God would have to make all creatures carbon-based, for instance, or even have DNA. Are you suggesting that God has to play by physical laws, too?

by Guest Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:11 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
What degree of "proof" is provided by this example ?

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/collections-at-the-museum/museum-treasures/archaeopteryx-fossil/index.html

RockOnBrother wrote:
This example provides proof that there are fossilized bones and fossilized bone imprints in solidified dirt.

Shirina wrote:
This is akin to a defense attorney arguing against a signed confession from the killer by saying, "This confession only proves that there is a bunch of letters on a piece of paper!"

RockOnBrother wrote:
You mean that those are not fossilized bones and fossilized bone imprints in solidified dirt? I’m open for discovery of what they are.

Shirina wrote:
You mean that a signed confession from a killer is not a bunch of letters on a piece of paper? I'm open for discovery of what they are.

Oftenwrong,

Apparently this example provides proof “that a signed confession from a killer is not a bunch of letters on a piece of paper.”

My bad.

by Shirina Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:25 pm

Apparently this example provides proof “that a signed confession from a killer is not a bunch of letters on a piece of paper.”

You know exactly what I meant. I'm not playing this game.

by Guest Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:57 pm

Shirina wrote:
You mean that a signed confession from a killer is not a bunch of letters on a piece of paper? I'm open for discovery of what they are.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Oftenwrong,

Apparently this example provides proof “that a signed confession from a killer is not a bunch of letters on a piece of paper.”

My bad.

Shirina wrote:
You know exactly what I meant.

I know exactly what you said. I quoted exactly what you said.

Shirina wrote:
I'm not playing this game.

I’m not playing any game.

by Tosh Sat Apr 20, 2013 6:00 pm

I’m not playing any game.

Your nose is so out of joint it is hilarious, you have decided to drop all pretense of scholarly debate and now intend to inflict upon us your stock trolling techniques.

The fossil is considered by experts in various fields to be an example of a transitional species, unless you think birds have teeth and cold blooded dinosaurs need feathers to keep warm.

So lets cut to the chase, your opinion of this fossil is irrelevant, you are not qualified to make any judgement, but you carry on with your own little mirror pretending to have a brain that actually functions.

by snowyflake Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:33 pm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-fossil-fallacy

Please, creationists, read this article in Scientific American and then read some of the retarded comments following from those educated in the American school system.

I despair for American education and the utter wilful misunderstanding of science in favour of mysticism, superstition and magic.

by Tosh Sun Apr 21, 2013 10:32 am

We know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils such as A. natans but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more. No single discovery from any of these fields denotes proof of evolution, but together they reveal that life evolved in a certain sequence by a particular process.

Together as a whole.

This is a clever debate retort, but it reveals a profound error that I call the Fossil Fallacy: the belief that a "single fossil"--one bit of data--constitutes proof of a multifarious process or historical sequence. In fact, proof is derived through a convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry--multiple, independent inductions, all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion.

Convergence of numerous evidence.

by oftenwrong Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:23 pm

"The opinion of a person unwilling to append their true given name to it may always be disregarded as irrelevant."

Discuss.

10 points available

by snowyflake Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:41 pm

The opinion of a person unwilling to append their true given name to it may always be disregarded as irrelevant."

You mean like on a public forum board like this one?

by Tosh Sun Apr 21, 2013 10:20 pm

Discuss.

You discuss, its your pigeon.

by polyglide Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:22 pm

There is no doubt that dinosaurs once roamed the planet, the largest one that I have seen documented was 45 tons in weight.

This apparently had no wings nor feathers but had eyes, along with all the other necessary organs.

I do not pretend to understand why such a creature was created but it certainly was not by chance.

I do not understand exactly how this fits in with God's creation but he must have had a purpose.

What we do know is that at some time all the vegitation was through some event burried at depths in excess of a mile deep, along with the dinosaurs demise.

The point is were we intended to dig into the past or accept that which God provided for us at the relevant time ?.

There will be an answer and when confirmed at the day of judgement, all things being reveiled we will think what a lot of fools we were to think humans were intelligent.

by polyglide Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:37 pm

How nice when you can talk on behalf of the world choose how wrong you are.

Snowyflake, I have more friends from all walks of life than you will ever have.

Those whose interests I looked after at work would do anything for me without being requested if they thought I needed any help.

The many disabled I enjoy providing entertainment for would also do anything in their power for me.

I have friends in many parts of the world, some who beg to differ with my beliefs, one in particular who wrote many articles on his subject was an athiest through and through but after many discussions I was delighted when in one of his last articles before he died he said, I do not have the answer but I know for sure it is not evolution.

That made my day.

by Shirina Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:40 pm

The point is were we intended to dig into the past or accept that which God provided for us at the relevant time ?

Maybe all the dinosaurs were wiped out because brontosauruses were having sex with tyranosauruses and God simply couldn't bear the sin and evil. So they had to go. A mouse named Noah built a heat-resistant bunker and led all the mammals into it, two by two.

by polyglide Mon Apr 22, 2013 3:56 pm

Why are you obsessed with sex?

Perhaps because you have no answer to the problem.

by Shirina Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:13 pm

Why are you obsessed with sex?

LOL! I'm not obsessed with it. Christianity is. And so are many other religions.

by Tosh Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:48 pm

What we do know is that at some time all the vegitation was through some event burried at depths in excess of a mile deep, along with the dinosaurs demise.

Some event ?

You mean like a great flood lololol ?

by Sponsored content