Computer Science Canada

religion?
Author:  chopperdudes [ Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:31 pm ]
Post subject:  religion?
just wondering how many computer programmers are religious here. i'm a hardcore atheist myself heh. my bet is there's gonna be more atheists as computer programmers xD
Author:  BigBear [ Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:47 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
I celebrate Chrisian events but don't go to Church
Author:  chopperdudes [ Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:59 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
lol i mean, i celebrate the christmas break and stuff too, but i guess what i'm trying to get at, is if you believe in a deity, or a higher being.
Author:  DemonWasp [ Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:30 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
Atheism shows a correlation with intelligence and education, though it's not particularly strong, as I recall - there are atheists among the stupid / retarded, and there are believers among the genius / mensa group.

Atheist myself, but I have at least one fairly-religious friend in CS, and he's pretty smart.
Author:  michaelp [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:17 am ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
Same as BigBear here. I celebrate Christmas, Easter, etc, as I'm Christian, but I've never gone to Church, other than a wedding maybe, and I don't believe in god, or even the concept of god.
Author:  ecookman [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
here is a fun one...

God's son, jesus gave light to the earth---the sun like the big ball of fire 3 planets in front of us....that one.


yea...atheist


pretty much god was created as a "scapegoat" to explain things that science couldn't explain at the time...

-creation of solar systems and the universe.

-tides (ever heard of the moon)

-human life (personally i belive the ape evolution)

-even down to the crops that are grown...good harvest= "you are recognized and blessed by god".... in reality...you found fertile soil (again the iconic figure of god had nothing to do with it) and you also were fortunate to have rain...not because of god...just because of your relative position to a water body...etc (if you are interested..http://tinyurl.com/c3a463



but i celebrate the holidays and events because i have to, and it is an excuse to have time off.

seriously i fall asleep in church...the only time i have gone...is when i was forced to. (once for a day-camp,a nd when i was bored and did a 30hr famine...my friend had to poke me please stand...i don't think so.


I could probably write a novel on this stuff


pray all you want....the world isn't gonna change unless you do something...besides asking the famous thought.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
another fun one is the 10 commandments...but that is another story.... Twisted Evil
Author:  Tallguy [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:56 am ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
umm, i'm a really hard core religious person, so i'm at least one computer programmer that believes in a higher being....
Author:  jbking [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
chopperdudes @ Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:31 pm wrote:
just wondering how many computer programmers are religious here. i'm a hardcore atheist myself heh. my bet is there's gonna be more atheists as computer programmers xD


Depending on what scope of religion you mean, I think I'd doubt that statement. Now, I'm not talking about Christianity, Judeaism, or Islam, but rather those "fan boys" that fall into a religion all their own. To give a few examples:

Microsoft - Is this a good company that has brought computing to the masses or is it a rotten company that did evil things way back when? I remember when I was in university there were some that would never work for Microsoft, ever. If that isn't religion, I'm not sure what is.

Intel - Once again, is this a company that abuses its monopoly and bullies other companies?

AMD - Some people would use AMD even if it meant having inferior hardware.

nVidia - Rather infamous battles between nVidia and ATi like there were between Intel and AMD, IMO.

Linux - Is this the most awesome O/S ever?

Those questions are rather rhetorical, of course. Smile
Author:  Tallguy [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:19 am ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
@jbking

ha ha, you have no idea how much i laughed when i read yourt post, i fell off my chair, but i think he meant actually relgious, not tech relgion
Author:  A.J [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
ecookman wrote:

pretty much god was created as a "scapegoat" to explain things that science couldn't explain at the time...


I don't agree with you, ecookman. I too pondered about whether god was created as a mere 'scapegoat' as you put it, and I don't believe this is so. People could argue that 'God' was merely an entity created by people to soothe their need for knowing everything. There are quite a few phenomenons that people can't seem to find a rational explanation for, so they believed that this was due to a 'supernatural being'. I believe that this is not the case. There are other reasons for religions to revere their deities.

I don't want to get into an argument (that's the last thing we want in a computer programming website, arguments based on whether god exists or not).

Myself, I am hindu, and yes, I am religious.
Author:  BigBear [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
jbking @ Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:58 am wrote:
chopperdudes @ Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:31 pm wrote:
just wondering how many computer programmers are religious here. i'm a hardcore atheist myself heh. my bet is there's gonna be more atheists as computer programmers xD


Depending on what scope of religion you mean, I think I'd doubt that statement. Now, I'm not talking about Christianity, Judeaism, or Islam, but rather those "fan boys" that fall into a religion all their own. To give a few examples:

Microsoft - Is this a good company that has brought computing to the masses or is it a rotten company that did evil things way back when? I remember when I was in university there were some that would never work for Microsoft, ever. If that isn't religion, I'm not sure what is.

Intel - Once again, is this a company that abuses its monopoly and bullies other companies?

AMD - Some people would use AMD even if it meant having inferior hardware.

nVidia - Rather infamous battles between nVidia and ATi like there were between Intel and AMD, IMO.

Linux - Is this the most awesome O/S ever?

Those questions are rather rhetorical, of course. Smile



Execpt what happend to good old Canadian Ati
Author:  md [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:11 am ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
This argument has been had before. They were long threads

The big three religions (Christianity, Judaism, and muslimism (supid not having a proper name...)) are all basically the same with minor variations in practices. Shocking given that they are all based upon the same thing... anways, they are basically the same and while they do have some good ideas (treat others as you wish to be treated, etc.) they are also the single largest source of bullshit and turmoil in history. It's rather well documented too; so arguing that they aren't is a foolish endevour.

I will posit that some religions have a much lower ratio of bullshit:good ideas, however they are still rather full of bulshit you don't need - much of it relating to explaining things which should be explained through science (or God(s)).


I posit that no person can claim to be both rational and religious without being a liar.
Author:  A.J [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
md wrote:

I posit that no person can claim to be both rational and religious without being a liar.


Well, I beg to differ. Although being emo (Laughing ij Laughing), for the sake of this argument, I claim that I am both rational and religious. And I can assure you that I am not lying.

I can see both sides of the coin, and I believe that people can indeed be rational and religious.
Author:  btiffin [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
old guy opinion piece
I continually reinvent my own religion. Today I call it Quantum Buddhism.

Siddhartha Gautama didn't think the quest to discover meaning to Life, the Universe and Everything was that worthwhile. His stock response was "it does not further". I can't NOT quest to discover the root Truth of 42, so I don't feel worthy of calling myself a Buddhist (not that Buddhism is really a "faith in a higher power" belief system; as faith leads to desire and desire leads to misery). I can't lose my desire to know, so I'd die in misery if I follow that path, so ... I invented Quantum Buddhism and aim to live at peace within myself, knowing full well that I'll never know, but it's ok to try.

And no, no one else can have my religion. It's personal, for me, by me. I would only "preach" to others that they invent their own; it's not that hard really. Self delusion of having a clue is a wonderfully calming state. Smile

Cheers
Author:  A.J [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
hmm...why does Quantum Buddhism make me think of Scientology...oh well, mere coincidence I guess...
Author:  btiffin [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:11 am ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
Case in point. Scientology was invented after L Ron decided he'd (as an exercise) take a kick at writing a plausible creation myth as part of a science fiction story.

His mistake was pushing those beliefs on others. A big bad mistake imho. Smile

Cheers
Edit; typos
Author:  Tallguy [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:15 am ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
People can be rational and religious. It takes a rational person to be relgious, to think it through and come to an understanding of ones belive, without reasoning one canot choose a relgion or let a lone follow it.

rational = ("proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning"(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational))

Another persons relgion can be likened to trying to read a computer language you have never seen before. You don't understand it, and possible can't belive that some things work with it. So then you make fun of it, or don't belive in it so that others think more highly of yourself and don't learn the language. When one gets the basics of such a language, you notice that the very basic are similar to lets say C++, or java, so you never look deeper into this language saying thats its the same as everything else.

This is an outsides view on relgion, but once one learns more of one relgion there are MAJOR differences to be found.
Author:  md [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:36 am ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
I'll argue the rational/religious thing when I get home after work (crafting god arguments takes time and I should be working Razz).

However I do want to point out that Scientology is a bit more nuanced then L. Ron Hubbart making a mistake and publishing. He almost certainly didn't believe a thing he wrote (though he may have towards the end...), however he did purposely set out to create a religion and build a personal fortune through it.

Scientology *is* a scam. At best it's a cult and at worst a criminal organization that has killed people in recent memory.
Author:  A.J [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:44 am ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
You are luck that there aren't that many (if any) scientologists in this forum, or else you would have been their next victim Laughing
Author:  DanielG [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:37 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
you can't be sure there aren't any. He hasn't written on this topic since that post.
Author:  saltpro15 [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:39 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
Christian here, don't hate Very Happy
Author:  ecookman [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
A.J @ Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:25 am wrote:
ecookman wrote:

pretty much god was created as a "scapegoat" to explain things that science couldn't explain at the time...


Myself, I am hindu, and yes, I am religious.


i see where you are coming from....it really falls into the category of :

2 different people 2 different opinions
Author:  A.J [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
ecookman wrote:

i see where you are coming from....it really falls into the category of :

2 different people 2 different opinions


Laughing yes, thats true Very Happy
Author:  ecookman [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:17 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
what ever floats your boat...is my religon
Author:  Saad [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
My view is that I am skeptical about religion and the lack of religion and so far I consider myself an atheist (I'm not sure what the correct term for this is). I have studied different religions, essentially the major ones, and came to the conclusion that there isn't strong enough evidence to make me believe. Showing that god exists doesn't cut it for me - You have to actually prove he can't not exist to get my to believe. (Essentially arguing that the criticism is in fact false).

Offtopic: What irks me about any religious belief is people blindingly believing anything without understanding what it actually is and says. It is not limited to religion, this is also true for any times of atheism too; though, I don't classify atheism as a religion.
Author:  bbi5291 [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
Saad - you'd probably be classified as an agnostic. (When Bertrand Russell was asked for his religious affiliation, this is what he said).

Atheist here. As much as I hate to admit it, you are right - sometimes atheists do behave like religious fundamentalists. So I am better classified as a secular rationalist humanist... (the "rationalist" part means I don't behave like a religious fundamentalist Very Happy )

I am also an incompatibilist determinst, and hence I automatically do not believe in karma, either.

The hard problem of consciousness really bothers me, though. It may be the best argument in existence for the existence of... things beyond the physical universe. And I do not expect to see it resolved within my lifetime.
Author:  CodeMonkey2000 [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
ecookman wrote:

pretty much god was created as a "scapegoat" to explain things that science couldn't explain at the time...


Actually I think God originally existed to serve the sole purpose of controlling the masses. Look at the dark ages, and the structure of most religious societies. Today this is still somewhat true, but I think most people cling on to God because it gives them purpose, or a reason for existence, even though there isn't any. I don't think it's about comfort as most atheists say (it's part of it, but not the main reason). As Carl Sagan once said, we are all significance junkies.

I am like Hindu-Atheist, I most of the Hindu values that I grew up with, and celebrate all our festivals, but I don't believe in a being that created everything, and fully support scientific inquiry. In science you never assume; if there is no evidence to support the existence of something, then by default you say it doesn't exist (that's the null hypothesis), and there is no point in perusing it (much like why no one tries to determine the existence of fairies or unicorns).

For a while I was agnostic; undecided whether or not there was a god.
Author:  chopperdudes [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
yeah there are studies and surveys that shows that people with a higher IQ tends to be atheists (not saying that if you become one you'll get smarter)... but i read that it's also due to geographic locations and such if i rmbr correctly.

bout being logical and religious, i find that rather impossible. at least if you actually think things through, the idea of God to me is just the same as solving a big problem with a bigger mystery. To really and truly believe without evidence is beyond illogical by me (ESPECIALLY when they take faith over science, ie. big bang, evolution, the flood, age of universe, etc.). The thing is, nowadays science and religion cross, i'd say science stumbled upon some fields where religion already has stories for, but that wasn't the main goal of science. (i.e. science wants to find out where we came from, and the results just happens to show that we didn't come from adam and eve). and i guess that crossed the line with religion.

i'm an uber hardcore atheist, not that i won't accept a higher deity if one day there is absolute proof of it, but that i highly doubt its existence without proof. so i guess you can call me an equivalent of those christian fundamentalists. but there is a real difference between me and them, and that i think (thru alot of debates with religious ppl), is that i actually have empirical evidence and scientifically accepted proofs to back up my point, where as mostly my opponent centers around intelligent design, the bible, "His words", etc, which is either a) already been dismissed, or b) holds no referencable (yes i know i just made up that word) power. (ie. you just can't say the bible is the proof of god).

and what i really think about how god came to be, is that it is more or less used to plug our "holes" of knowledge. we humans do not want to admit that we don't know, and wants an explanation for every possible thing. what we do not know, we create stories about (how at the edge of the earth you fall in and have monsters eat you up those kinda things. how the volcanoe/sea god is angry and you need to make a sacrifice etc.) I really think that "in the first day, man created god".

just my view on it.
Author:  saltpro15 [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:20 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
guys may I mention I am impressed, every religion convo I have ever been in always ends in a flame war, but so far it's been all intelligent posts, althought I expected nothing less Wink
Author:  bbi5291 [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
chopperdude: My comparison of some atheists with religious fundamentalists does not refer to atheists like you. I am referring mainly to the "unreasonable" and "illogical" aspects of religious fundamentalism. That is to say, atheists who use science to back up their claims are the "good" type of atheist; the "bad" types are the ones that viciously attack theists and do other things of that sort.
Author:  SNIPERDUDE [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
To answer the question and get my two cents in:

This argument (Is the a God, etc) can often be broken down into these categories that most people miss, no matter how 'smart' or 'logical' they really are: Religion vs. Faith, Christianity vs. Evolution (focusing more on Christianity in this case), and Science vs. Christianity.


Religion vs Faith:

Most people argue about religion (from both sides of the argument) without even knowing the difference. Religion is not the same as faith - faith is one's personal beliefs. religion is organization of faith. Now, I am a man of faith, not religion. I have never fully agreed with religion, only because it has strayed so far from its original purpose. Religion and Church is supposed to be to bring those who are already of that faith (Christianity in this case), not to evangelize. Not to make war, convert (or die), or become a form of power, as it has. If you are Christin and disagree with me in this area, than you would be close-minded. You do not need to go to church to worship (or at all, as long as you are living for God and worshipping him (because you want to)), go to the Pope or other people in the church hierarchy for forgiveness, etc - that's what Jesus died for.


Christianity vs Evolution:

To be fair I will call it Darwinism, or Macro-evolution if you will. To explain this, evolution does appear in reality - within species and creatures on the molecular level, to adapt (over time) to their environment. This is called micro-evolution. Macro-evolution on the other hand is the main premise of Darwinism (often just referred to as 'evolution'), which is the evolution between species, and even completely different animal classifications (sorry, can't think of the word right now). In other words, a fish turning into an amphibian. There is no way (due to evolution having to take place over generations) that even over time a creature could adapt to an entirely different environment all together (take a fish out of water?). Not only that, but over the past 150 years evolution has been so disproved, as well as Christianity (scientifically (archaeology), theologically, and philosophically (all put under the same principals as any case under judgement [eyewitness evidence documentary evidence, corroborating evidence, rebuttal evidence, scientific evidence, psychological evidence, circumstantial evidence])) proven the most logical - it actually takes more faith to believe in that than to believe in Christianity.

But to to both parties involved being so closed-minded, ignorant, and even judgemental, both fail to do their homework (using up to date facts and material) and learn before being so ignorant.


Science is NOT the opposite of Christianity:

Too many times do people argue that it is either Science or Religion. I would like to clear up to fact that they are not in fact opposites, never have been, and never will be. Darwinism does not equal science, but is a theory that came out of it; Christianity is not (or should not be (the Church has clouded up a lot of stupid ideas over their time in power during the wars (ex: science = bad, sex = bad, not going to church = bad, fun = bad))) against science. It does not say anything in God's word (the Bible) say that any of the things I mentioned are a bad thing at all, some good in fact. Sex is awesome, just be careful. Not going to church doesn't send you to hell, who or what you do or don't believe does. And nowhere in the bible does it say science (or anything related) is strictly restricted.

Science only proves more and more the historical happenings of the bible over the years (sometimes months, weeks, or days). You can argue about that all you want, but that won't take away the evidence found (all reliable and by scientists, don't judge the credibility right away without any knowledge).

Any for those on both side who do this: If Anybody takes certain parts of the Bible out of context (homosexuals should be stoned?), or literally (the Beginning), you are a disgrace to proper research and analysis. The stoned section is out of context (part of the Old Law, before the coming of Christ (or before Christ died and changed the Law)), often used by both sides (Christians against homosexuality and non-Christians against some of the teachings of the Bible) without knowing what they are talking about. As for the beginning, some Christians (don't generalize and say all) believe word for word what it says "God said it, it must be right", leaving a very bad impression on the rest of us. On the other hand, there are those in the "scientific" community who don't believe it for sounding so foolish and ridiculous to be true (like a kid's story!), leaving Christian believers in the scientific community shaking their heads. Truth is: It's a story of what really happened, in the context of a kid's story. Why did they do it like that, why was it written that way? "If you want us to take it seriously, don't write it in such a manner". Honestly, look at the context of when it was written. Do you really think people would have understood what God was even talking about if he went into the details? You'd be foolish to believe otherwise.


Honestly people, this is an online community that thrives in modern science and theologies - but I mean it when I say (to both Christians and Non-Christians (When I have been saying non-believers, I do mean Atheists and Agnostics)), Go home, and do some research before you get up on your high-horse. May I recommend "The Case For A Creator" by Lee Strobel.


Rant over. For those who say "tl;dr", you are truly a disgrace to literature and the psychological "advancement" of mankind.
For those who take offence to any of the above statements, you only prove your own ignorance.
For those who agree with me and know they are wrong somewhere, your welcome, and good luck with your future research.
Author:  saltpro15 [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:35 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
"He who kills in the name of his God effectively kills his God"

there's my 2 cents Very Happy

btw excellent rant SNIPERDUDE
Author:  CodeMonkey2000 [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
SNIPERDUDE @ Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:31 pm wrote:

Christianity vs Evolution:

To be fair I will call it Darwinism, or Macro-evolution if you will. To explain this, evolution does appear in reality - within species and creatures on the molecular level, to adapt (over time) to their environment. This is called micro-evolution. Macro-evolution on the other hand is the main premise of Darwinism (often just referred to as 'evolution'), which is the evolution between species, and even completely different animal classifications (sorry, can't think of the word right now). In other words, a fish turning into an amphibian. There is no way (due to evolution having to take place over generations) that even over time a creature could adapt to an entirely different environment all together (take a fish out of water?). Not only that, but over the past 150 years evolution has been so disproved, as well as Christianity (scientifically (archaeology), theologically, and philosophically (all put under the same principals as any case under judgement [eyewitness evidence documentary evidence, corroborating evidence, rebuttal evidence, scientific evidence, psychological evidence, circumstantial evidence])) proven the most logical - it actually takes more faith to believe in that than to believe in Christianity.

But to to both parties involved being so closed-minded, ignorant, and even judgemental, both fail to do their homework (using up to date facts and material) and learn before being so ignorant.


Ok do you know how ignorant you sound? Have even taken a biology course? Do you understand how fundamental evolution is to the field of biology? Have seen the overwhelming evidence for evolution? There is overwhelming evidence for it in the fields of archeology, genetics (ESPECIALLY genetics), there is overwhelming evidence in zoology. The list keeps going. It's not Darwinism, that isn't even a valid term. The link between apes and humans has been proven by modern day genetics.
Author:  saltpro15 [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:40 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
and here comes the flame war, spoke too soon I guess ...
Author:  chopperdudes [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
okay please no flame war. but yes i would agree that the part about evolution (especially how you termed it macro vs micro etc), you do sound abit uneducated.

first of all what you termed macro evolution i think you meant speciation? how different species arise over time? just wiki i know, but really there is much more if you search it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation . not too long ago i also saw a video of this strange fish which "hops" in the water, and uses its fins as legs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf9zFVXGOUE .

also, i really do doubt your claim of historic proof of the bible. for one, Noah's ark (as described in the bible) has been disproved in w/e way possible, it can be concluded that the story of the flood in the bible and the ark is impossible (as in physically impossible).

and of course, i don't take the literal interpretation of genesis. but you do know that no matter how you bend or make the big bang theory into a kid's story, it comes nowhere close to genesis right? i've actually done quite a bit of research on both sides. and the evidence FOR religion in general just doesn't cut it for me.
Author:  CodeMonkey2000 [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:47 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
Evolution is a scientific theory, and as such it has undergone rigorous testing (150 years of it in fact). Evolution is the fundamental basis for modern day biology. We understand the mechanisms of evolution (natural selection) and the fundamental principles that allow it (genetics for inheritance and rise of new traits). If you think evolution has been disproven, then I'm sorry, you are just out of it. I would say that we have a better understanding of evolution than we do of gravity.
Author:  CodeMonkey2000 [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:51 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
I didn't mean to start the flame war, but I knew someone was going to say something about evolution with out understanding it, and of its importance to science.
Author:  SNIPERDUDE [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:02 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
I am not completely uneducated, nor make up any new terms.

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/darwinism

I never said I was the best at explaining things either, I explained it how I knew how to off the top of my head. I really do recommend reading "The Case For A Creator" by Lee Strobel. If it helps your initiative any, it was written by a hardcore atheist (at the time).

I never flamed, and I kept undelying the fact that there is (and always will be) ignorance on both sides of the table. If you want to get picky, if my post was ignorant, so was your post saying I was.
Author:  Dan [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:08 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
Darwinism and Macro/Mirco-evolution for the most part are terms only used by creationists trying to disprove evolution.

No one calls evolution or the bealf that the modern theroy of evoultion is ture "darwinism". The theroy of evoultion has changed alot since drawins days and almost every one who says they think evoultion is correct is talking about the modern theroy and not what drawin came up with (tho it was a bases for it). It makes no more sence to call peoleop who belive in evoultion drawisits then it does to call poeleop who belive in gravity newtionists or call the theroy of gavarity newtionism.

As for macro/micro evolution, these terms are almost never used as the disitenction between them as defined by creationists does not make sence if you understand what evolution is. The hole theroy is based on very very small changes leading to bigger ones (assuming the changes are postive and it does not get killed off). No one thinks somthing like an ape can magicly changes to a man in a singal generation. It takes thousands of generations of small (micro) changes.

If you are going to aruge agisnted evoultion at least use your own ideas and not creationist propaganda.
Author:  bbi5291 [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
I would really like to know why, in your first link, the purported flaws #1 and #2 are bolded, but a bold #3 is nowhere to be found.

Anyway, the contention that no transitional fossils have ever been found is simply wrong.
See http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html for a list. (I love this site!)
Author:  chopperdudes [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:18 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
oh bbi, another part of that great site!

http://www.toarchive.org/indexcc/list.html
Author:  SNIPERDUDE [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:21 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
Micro and Macro evolution is not a theory, but rather just a definition of evolution scale. I never (or any other article never) stated that macro evolution happens at any faster rate than micro.

Brush up on the origins of the terms before you say something like that.
Author:  bbi5291 [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
The argument of irreducible complexity is flawed too.
I think you need to read up on theories of the evolution of flight. For example, I found this with Google:
From http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html
Quote:
Wings evolved because bipedal animals were leaping into the air; large wings assisted leaping. (This is possible; any amount of wing could assist leaping. Remember that we first need phylogenetic evidence for a bipedal running or leaping origin.)


This is one hypothesis. I am not arguing for its certainty, but - who says that a partially developed appendage HAS to be used for either perfect flight OR as a leg? The argument on the link you gave is like a proof of the Cosine Law only for right triangles.
Author:  Dan [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:religion?
SNIPERDUDE @ 23rd March 2009, 6:21 pm wrote:
Micro and Macro evolution is not a theory, but rather just a definition of evolution scale. I never (or any other article never) stated that macro evolution happens at any faster rate than micro.

Brush up on the origins of the terms before you say something like that.


The terms (in the way you are using them) where made by creationist originations for the sole purposes of trying to use a straw man to disprove evolution theory. They don't come from science at all and are used solely to try and implie that evolution defines small changes and big changes spertatly, the idea being that creationist can say i blive in micro evolution and all those tests the scientists have done that prove it are just proving micro evoultion and then say that what they don't bevlie in is macro evolution. This however does not fallow as oviesly small changes over time lead to big changes.

Normally this argument is also done as "i blive in changes within in a speice but not one species changing to another", however again this does not hold up. There is nothing in nature that fixes things to a given species and if two members of the same species undergo enough changes in diffrent directions, over time they will become diffrent species. For example if i had a car and each day i made a new car exctatly the same but one part was changed with that of a air plane, over time i will eventual have something is a new plane and not a new car at all even tho the changes might have been very very small over a very very long time period. (this might not be the best example as it would be guided by my selection rather then natural selection but it should still show my point).

Link with more info on why the use of terms in this way are wrong: http://www.toarchive.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html

Link talking about cases where speciation have been observed: http://www.toarchive.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
Author:  SNIPERDUDE [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
In reality, there will be articles and "won" arguments for each topic on both sides. If I spent the time, I could probably find a counter argument. How much research of it is our own? It doesn't matter though, because we both know that no matter what we say, you are not going to find anybody changing their opinion. Humans are stubborn. Now, I'm not saying I believed the first thing I was tought, that would be foolish in the end. I've been around, done some stuff (and the other way around), and learned as a rational human being would to question.

And this has gotten way off my origins of the topic: Darwinism. I never said I was against evolution (as the theory has changed greatly over the years (as with the definitions of Micro and Macro evolution)), but Darwinism (the original theory). Evolution may very well have been a process (to some degree) to where we are now. To how we started. But one thing keeps coming to mind when I hear these topics on evolution, it is very complex. Too complex I'd say. I think it may be similar to the whole "Big Bang" thing too. What I mean by this is, God never explained how he created the universe. Or even how he created us. We may be able only disprove theories, but it will always be drawn a blank when it comes to the most important factor: The world is far too complex to have started itself, and created from nothing. Heck, as far back as it goes, we both believe the same thing: The world started (had a beginning), and came from nothing. And everything that has a beginning, has an end too. Right? In the end, I highly doubt that this world that we know came from nothing, and has no purpose as a result.

If we came from nothing, there is no God, than we have no purpose, right? If this is the case, why do we have universal morals? Why does every person have the same standard set of morals (including those away from modern civilization and ideals): Thieving is bad, stealing is bad, hurting others is bad, and killing is worse? If this rule of natural selection was applicable then, why not now? All I'm saying is: To me it makes too much sense to believe that something out there (outside time and space) has to have created us, and have some set of standards for us. If we truly have no purpose, why is suicide so looked down upon? Why don't we kill others and ourselves now? Sometimes the hard choice just makes too much sense.

In reality, the odds may be against not there being intelligent design, but at the same time I can't show you God. Hell, even if I showed up with God at my side to your house, performed a few miracles, you still wouldn't. As bad as it sounds, it only proves the our stubbornness.
Author:  Insectoid [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:53 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
Quote:

Science only proves more and more the historical happenings of the bible over the years (sometimes months, weeks, or days). You can argue about that all you want, but that won't take away the evidence found (all reliable and by scientists, don't judge the credibility right away without any knowledge).


You claim there is abundant evidence, care to give us some?

I was a christian at one point, but one day I realized, this is a flawed and crazy story! Why have I been believing this my whole life?

I then found numerous things that are odd in the bible; Israel (the guy, not the people) willingly left Canaan in favor of Egypt. He effectively renounced ownership of that land. Hundreds of years later, Israel's descendants are enslaved, and so God through Moses took them out, called the Canaanites (who took over Canaan after Israel left) evil, and proceeded to slaughter everyone in the Israelites' path. AT Jericho, every inhabitant was slaughtered except one person- a prostitute. There is no indication in the Bible that Rahab the prostitute ever gave up her practice. This is just one example of the questionable acts in the Bible. Another is the story of Job- is God so insecure that he has to prove to Satan that his buddy Job is a good guy by killing his wife and kids and taking away his fortune and giving him terrible diseases? Or is he justified because he gave him a new wife and kids? Am I then allowed to go kill my neighbor's dog as long as I buy him a new one?
Author:  bbi5291 [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
The "too complex to have started from nothing" argument is flawed also. According to quantum mechanics, random fluctuations can appear out of nothing. And yes, this has been observed. That's like seeding a vast grid of Conway's Game of Life with random living cells, and pressing Play. Every once in a while a p30 Gosper glider gun appears. And is the Universe not incomparably large compared to the grids we can simulate on our computers, and the laws of physics incomparably complex compared to the rules of GOL?
Author:  SNIPERDUDE [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:14 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
I'm sorry then that you got the wrong messages created (by Christians) from any of the stories. For anything questionable in story or theory in the Bible, there are sound answers for. I am still a kid (in essence), I will not give you the answers. Heck, you're a computer programmer - you should be good at finding answers (what's a google? or a library?).

As to my whole religion vs faith rant, in that time in history near the beginnings of the church, many horrid things came from that time. Not only violence and power lust, but to keep their followers from straying many many lies and misconceptions were created as a "part of the Bible". So you will always run into things that are supposedly "Christian" that are outright wrong. I recommend reading the Bible start to finish, and researching everything - there is a lot behind even the sunday school stories that you wouldn't know from the church's teachings (they just never seem to come up I guess).

But trust me when I say there are sound answers to every biblical enquiry - even some of the more touchy areas like "why is there a Hell if God loves us so much?", "If God is so loving, why is there so much suffering?", or even "If God made the world, how do you explain evolution?"

As to what you asked about my references, I know this may be the age of technology, but for the most part I still use books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book
Author:  Dan [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
SNIPERDUDE @ 23rd March 2009, 6:52 pm wrote:
In reality, there will be articles and "won" arguments for each topic on both sides.


Not if we are using the scientific method.....

Quote:

I never said I was against evolution (as the theory has changed greatly over the years (as with the definitions of Micro and Macro evolution)), but Darwinism (the original theory).


No one believes in the original theory, thats not how science works. As we learn more we change the theory to match what we have observed from testing hypothesis. Drawn knew nothing about gentices or DNA both of wtich play a masive role in the modern theory. When peoleop say the blive evourltion to be true they mean the modern theory.

As for micro and macro evoultion i think i have made it clear that the way you use them has never been used in evourltionary theroy (note i side how you use them, the words them self have been used but not defined anything like how you and other creationists use them).

Quote:

Evolution may very well have been a process (to some degree) to where we are now. To how we started.


Evoultion is not a theory about how we started, it's how we and every living thing gets from point A to point B over many many many generations. It says nothing about how they started, that abiogeniuses.


Quote:

But one thing keeps coming to mind when I hear these topics on evolution, it is very complex. Too complex I'd say. I think it may be similar to the whole "Big Bang" thing too. What I mean by this is, God never explained how he created the universe. Or even how he created us. We may be able only disprove theories, but it will always be drawn a blank when it comes to the most important factor: The world is far too complex to have started itself, and created from nothing.


Says who? Where is the proof to back up the statment that somthing complex needs a creator? And even if that is ture the thing that created the universe would have to be even more complex and thus by your own logic need a creator it's self and so on.

Quote:

Heck, as far back as it goes, we both believe the same thing: The world started (had a beginning), and came from nothing.


The big bang theory does not say we came from nothing.....

Quote:

If we came from nothing, there is no God, than we have no purpose, right? If this is the case, why do we have universal morals? Why does every person have the same standard set of morals (including those away from modern civilization and ideals): Thieving is bad, stealing is bad, hurting others is bad, and killing is worse?


This is a veyr intrsting topic and Dr. dawkins has some great theroys about how morals occured threw natorial selection that you might want to read up on. A simple version is most of the things that are universaly moral are also befinical to the tribe/socitey you live in. If it helps keep you and your firends alive and you mate and have kids the gens for that get passed down well members of the tribe that are anti and asocial are pushed out an mate less.

Quote:

If we truly have no purpose, why is suicide so looked down upon? Why don't we kill others and ourselves now? Sometimes the hard choice just makes too much sense.


It's not looked down on in every culter but as i was saying if you kill your self it hurts the tribe and you don't rerpoce so the genses don't get pssed on. So genes that make you look down on kiling your self lead to you having more offspring and them having more offspring.

Quote:

In reality, the odds may be against not there being intelligent design, but at the same time I can't show you God. Hell, even if I showed up with God at my side to your house, performed a few miracles, you still wouldn't. As bad as it sounds, it only proves the our stubbornness.


If you did that i would blive in God or at least something with the same powers of it. However i would not blive it was an all good god or even a moral god or nersarly the god of the bible or the creator of the universe.
Author:  Tallguy [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
just to add more 2 cents to the ever growing penny pile

1st - i think evolution is bs,(srry for steeping on some toes) Darwin "father of evolution" never applied it to humans, his student who was looking for a name for himself applied it to humans and put Darwin's name to it, if one does research they would find that Darwin believed in a higher source

2nd - evolution is like leaving a pile of lumber in a field and expecting it to become a house, it can't happened, it has to something/someone to take the lumber and BUILD the house, the same is true with humans

SNIPERDUDE wrote:


But trust me when I say there are sound answers to every biblical inquiry - even some of the more touchy areas like "why is there a Hell if God loves us so much?", "If God is so loving, why is there so much suffering?", or even "If God made the world, how do you explain evolution?"

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book


3rd - who says there is hell? hell was a concept created by the catholic church to instill fear into the populace, making them docile, easier to control

ps. don't trust Wikipedia, any one can write stuff there that isn't true

4th - religion in itself is perfect, its the rulers that make it imperfect

insectoid wrote:


Science only proves more and more the historical happenings of the bible over the years (sometimes months, weeks, or days). You can argue about that all you want, but that won't take away the evidence found (all reliable and by scientists, don't judge the credibility right away without any knowledge).


5th - thank you, the dead sea scrolls for one,and some historical places have only been uncovered using the bible of a source

6th - the bible is scientifically correct in many ways
-sanation
-the world is round
- water cylcle
-the list is endless, all these never before known truths @ their time were correct and can be found in the Bible


SORRY FOR STEEPING ON SOME TOES, THIS IS A SERIOUS TOPIC SO I'M SORRY IF I RUBBED ANYONE THE WRONG WAY!!!
Author:  saltpro15 [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:27 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
Tallguy, I love you. Excellent post, I will even give away some precious bits I love it so much
Author:  bbi5291 [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
Tallguy @ Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:24 pm wrote:

2nd - evolution is like leaving a pile of lumber in a field and expecting it to become a house, it can't happened, it has to something/someone to take the lumber and BUILD the house, the same is true with humans


No, this example is totally unrelated. The example you gave does not happen because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Also, a partially built house is, in a certain sense, no closer to being complete than a pile of lumber, as it cannot catalyze its own construction.

However, phospholipid molecules automatically assemble themselves into bilayers, like cell membranes; adenine molecules can be synthesized inorganically out of hydrogen cyanide without contrived conditions; RNA can catalyze its own replication. The trend towards increasing complexity does not by any means violate the Second Law.
Author:  CodeMonkey2000 [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
Ok so you want to talk about ethics right? Creationists claim that atheists and evolution demoralize people right? Ok here goes...

So I am from India, particularly from a small city called Goa. You probably don't know this but a few centuries ago we were colonized by the Portuguese. We went through a period of inquisition; the Inquisition of Goa, and boy do I have horror stories to tell you. They slaughtered the parents, butchered all the people who didn't convert. My family fled to a bordering state. They did this all in the name of "God". Now I ask you how moral is that? Throughout most of Christian history, they have done very little in terms of moral deeds. Where was the church when black slavery was all the rage? (if you didn't know, they supported it) Where were they during the apartheid in Africa? They never spoke out against any injustices. It was Gandhi through who freed India through peaceful means, the church did nothing in terms of the social injustice we faced in India. Hindus have done a lot of cruel things too, they butchered Muslims, we discriminate the low caste, and the Muslims butchered Hindus, and various other ethnic groups. To be cruel is a human thing; it's not because we don't believe in God, since theist are very capable of being immoral. Morality isn't something you attain from a book or religion. It's something you develop with your life experience, and your interactions with other people. It's always changing. Caring about those around you is a human thing, not something restricted to just theists. I try to be courteous (in general) not because I fear God, but because I know that there is a chance that they will do the same when me or my friend/family is in need. This is an evolutionary trait. It is common in a fair number of mammals. Wolves do it, as do a variety of dogs and birds. Forming a community is very natural, and important for survival.
Author:  Dan [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
Tallguy @ 23rd March 2009, 8:24 pm wrote:
just to add more 2 cents to the ever growing penny pile
1st - i think evolution is bs,(srry for steeping on some toes) Darwin "father of evolution" never applied it to humans, his student who was looking for a name for himself applied it to humans and put Darwin's name to it, if one does research they would find that Darwin believed in a higher source


Scientific theories are idpedent of there creator. It does not matter what drawin thought, did, apilied anything too or if he made it or my cat did as long as the theory stands up to the scietefic method, peer review, can be tested and the tests can be repated it is considered to be vaild. Modern evorultionary theory passes all of these and alot of bilogiy is based on it and has been put in to application in fighting virues and creating vaceies.

Quote:

2nd - evolution is like leaving a pile of lumber in a field and expecting it to become a house, it can't happened, it has to something/someone to take the lumber and BUILD the house, the same is true with humans


You cleary don't under stand evolution. I sugest you read up on it. Acuatly this some what sugests you lack a basic understanding of reproduction witch scares me a bit.


Quote:

ps. don't trust Wikipedia, any one can write stuff there that isn't true


There may be untrue things on wikipedia and it's not a valid source on it's own but you can't say everything on wikipeida is false. Tho it would be fun to post "This is false." on wikipedia just to see what happens if that was true.

Quote:

4th - religion in itself is perfect, its the rulers that make it imperfect


Any source, statment, logic or agurment to back that up at all? I don't think it's perfect by far. One could aruge that if it was perfect it could not be adbused by the rulers of the world.


Quote:

5th - thank you, the dead sea scrolls for one,and some historical places have only been uncovered using the bible of a source

6th - the bible is scientifically correct in many ways
-sanation
-the world is round
- water cylcle
-the list is endless, all these never before known truths @ their time were correct and can be found in the Bible


Even if that was ture, it would not prove anything else in the bible ture. I could write a book with tones of peridections for the futtuer and about the world and i would proably get at least one right, but that does not make anything else right in it.

Also most of thoes scienetice proofs in the bible are more peoleop looking for what they want in poorly transalted and poorly interpeited passages. If god had some kind of hand in the bible why not just make the staments right out.

I find it realy funny that the world is round is on your list as i blive the chatolic curch used to excumicate peoleop for beliving that so i guses the pope of the time did not read that line :p
Author:  CodeMonkey2000 [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:52 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
The church tried to hang Galileo for saying that the solar system was heliocentric.
Author:  A.J [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:09 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
well, he was in house arrest...I wasn't aware of any attempt at hanging him....
Author:  McKenzie [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
Dan @ Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:39 pm wrote:
Not if we are using the scientific method.....

Dan, you can't be serious. The scientific method takes "no God" or "God has no effect" as an axiom. Not very usefull in this discussion.

First, for those who say people who believe in God do so without evidence is silly. We are all here, so we had to come from somewhere is the obvious start of the investigation. The second big piece of evidence is the Bible. It is interesting how as a society we are willing to accept things like the life of Julius Caesar or Alexander the great or the Trogan Wars yet so many just assume the Bible is pure rubbish. The way historians judge historical writings is based on how soon after the events happened were the books written, how many external supporting writings there are from the period and how many refuting pieces there were from the time. The life, death and RESURECTION of Jesus is as solid as it gets from a historical point of view.

PROBLEMS WITH EVOLUTION
It's bad science.

The theory is based on an unwavering belief that there is no God. From here parts of the theory are filled in as needed to make it work. Let me touch on a few glaring examples off the top of my head.

1. Abiotic Genesis - The belief that biological matter emmerged from non-biologic matter. It's never been observed in nature and has never been reproduced in a lab desite many many trials. Science is supposed to be based on what you can observe. This belief is purely faith based.

2. Fossil history - If one species of animal evolves into another sciecies of animal over millions of years of gradual mutations then when we look at the fossil record we should see most of the fossils as these in-between mutations. Let me use the number line for a second. If I look at one line of evolution and I have species 0 evolve into species 1 then into species 2 by gradual mutations. What I would expect to see when I dug up earth anywhere and found fossils would be the real number line. The vast majority should be stuff like 1.4324 or 0.87645 but what we see in fact is a lot of 0's 1's 2's and a very very few 1.1s or 2.05s. Again evolutionists continue to use what they BELIEVE rather thabn what they actually observe.

3. The 2nd law of thermodynamics. Among other things states that left to their own devices things entropy. Things tend to a less complex state rather than a more complex state. Clearly evolution has complexity springing from non-complexity. The world of a single-celled organism is vastly complex, yet science simply turns a blind eye to it and ignores the 2nd law with simplistic explanations like, well if you observe crystals they can for complex patterns. No, not nearly good enough. A single-celled organism has obvious design within it. You can believe it came from random chance if you like but don't try to tell me that you are doing science anymore.

I can go on but I won't. My purpose is not to convert you athiests. I just want the believers here not to lose faith and think that Science has proven them wrong, it is far from the case.
Author:  CodeMonkey2000 [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:27 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
McKenzie, you haven't shown at all how evolution is bad science. The point of science is not to assume. Evolution neither assume the existence or lack of existence of a God. It simple explains the complexity of life. Abiotic is a completely different field, evolution simple explains the biodiversity of life. How much have you researched about the fossil record? Have you looked at the great work done by the American national science foundation? Or the work of Kevin Paidin? The 2nd law of thermodynamics still applies, nature is random.

Evolution is fundamental to modern biology, and it is the reason why we have modern day genetics, and medicine. If you think evolution is bad science, then please show us all, by disproving the fossil record, what we know true about genetics, and all the advances we made in genetic theory and understanding.
Author:  Dan [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
McKenzie @ 23rd March 2009, 9:16 pm wrote:

Dan, you can't be serious. The scientific method takes "no God" or "God has no effect" as an axiom. Not very usefull in this discussion.


Thats not true at all. It says things have to be testable and repeatable. The is the reason that it does not work with God is that you can't test what does not existence. If you could prove that there was a god it would be noble prize wining work. Science is not ignoring religious claims, it just can't test them becues there is nothing there to test.

Quote:

First, for those who say people who believe in God do so without evidence is silly.


Is this still aimed at me? I don't rember syaing that.....but it's ture any way. Evidence has to be testable and reproducable.

Quote:

We are all here, so we had to come from somewhere is the obvious start of the investigation.


What are you basing this claim on? I don't think you can assume thats true with out some kind of logical arugment at the very least.

Quote:

The second big piece of evidence is the Bible.


The bible can't be evidence for it's self. Thats begging the question and circuler logic.

Quote:

It is interesting how as a society we are willing to accept things like the life of Julius Caesar or Alexander the great or the Trogan Wars yet so many just assume the Bible is pure rubbish.


argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacie.

Quote:

The way historians judge historical writings is based on how soon after the events happened were the books written, how many external supporting writings there are from the period and how many refuting pieces there were from the time. The life, death and RESURECTION of Jesus is as solid as it gets from a historical point of view.


The books describing jessues resurcection where made years affter it apprently happened. Also it does not matter if it was made the same day, it does not prove it to be true if it was writen close to when it is allgied to happen. Also a book having some true events in it does not make all events in it true. For example the davice code has alot of hisotrical stuff in it but it does not make it true.

Quote:

The theory is based on an unwavering belief that there is no God. From here parts of the theory are filled in as needed to make it work. Let me touch on a few glaring examples off the top of my head.


I don't think you understand how science works.... witch scares me a lot since you are a high school teacher. What you did just describe perfictly is how religion works not science. When a hypotheises is proposed in the science world it has to be tested, repetable and peer reviewed by the scientifce comunity. It's not just one guy coming up with things and it sounds good so we throw it in the text books.

Also drawin blived in a god at the time he was creating his hyporthies about evoultion but it would not matter if he did or not to the truth value of them. The have been countless papers and experments done on the subject of evoultion and they have all come out indicating it's ture. If you want i could post some links to papers but i am sure you could find them on your own.

Quote:

1. Abiotic Genesis - The belief that biological matter emmerged from non-biologic matter. It's never been observed in nature and has never been reproduced in a lab desite many many trials. Science is supposed to be based on what you can observe. This belief is purely faith based.


Abittic genesis is not part of evoultionary theroy at all. It has nothing to do with it and i have no idea why you bring it up.

Quote:

2. Fossil history - If one species of animal evolves into another sciecies of animal over millions of years of gradual mutations then when we look at the fossil record we should see most of the fossils as these in-between mutations. Let me use the number line for a second. If I look at one line of evolution and I have species 0 evolve into species 1 then into species 2 by gradual mutations. What I would expect to see when I dug up earth anywhere and found fossils would be the real number line. The vast majority should be stuff like 1.4324 or 0.87645 but what we see in fact is a lot of 0's 1's 2's and a very very few 1.1s or 2.05s. Again evolutionists continue to use what they BELIEVE rather thabn what they actually observe.


Every fossil is an in-btween mutation, we are in-btween mutations. Every living thing is a state between two other generations.

Also we do have fosielse that you could consider in-btween mutations, there are so many that are debates in arhtopology about just where each one fits in. Even wikipeida has info on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil and here are some on the hominid skull: http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html

There is a great artical on the arugmetn you are giving and whats wrong with it here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

It lists tones of theses in-btween mutations.

You could have at least googled this......

Quote:

3. The 2nd law of thermodynamics. Among other things states that left to their own devices things entropy. Things tend to a less complex state rather than a more complex state. Clearly evolution has complexity springing from non-complexity. The world of a single-celled organism is vastly complex, yet science simply turns a blind eye to it and ignores the 2nd law with simplistic explanations like, well if you observe crystals they can for complex patterns. No, not nearly good enough. A single-celled organism has obvious design within it. You can believe it came from random chance if you like but don't try to tell me that you are doing science anymore.


Thermodnamics only works for closed systems, i will leave it as a exceries for the reader to find out why the erath is not a closed system (hint: look up during the day).

Also thermodnamics only applies to heat and enegery.

Quote:

I can go on but I won't. My purpose is not to convert you athiests. I just want the believers here not to lose faith and think that Science has proven them wrong, it is far from the case.


Eveoultion has nothing to do with being an athiest or not. There could be atheists that don't blive in it and very religues peoleop that do.

Honestly i am very shcoked that you have theses views. I can only hope you don't teach biology.
Author:  chopperdudes [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:51 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
Quote:

The scientific method takes "no God" or "God has no effect" as an axiom. Not very usefull in this discussion.


the thing is, science doesn't deny the existence of a higher being. it just doesn't find evidence for one (ever), and thus does not assume the existence of one. when one says "it's god", then it's the equivalent of saying "it's magic", and magic =/= science.

and also, god doesn't actually "explain" it. it's just an opt out.
Author:  bbi5291 [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
Quote:

The theory is based on an unwavering belief that there is no God.

No, that's not what the theory is based on. The theory of evolution does not by any means exclude the possibility that God was controlling the evolution. A significant portion of the population actually believes this - that random mutations may not have been truly random.
However, the theory does strive to explain speciation without breaking from physicalism. A scientific theory should do just that.

Quote:
From here parts of the theory are filled in as needed to make it work. Let me touch on a few glaring examples off the top of my head.

Nobody can glimpse an entire theory at once. You observe physical phenomena, then you start to think you understand it, and you build the theory slowly, starting with some basic ideas (intuition), and gradually adding more and more as you gather more physical evidence. It is simply not a requirement in science that all the details be filled in at once.

Quote:

1. Abiotic Genesis - The belief that biological matter emmerged from non-biologic matter. It's never been observed in nature and has never been reproduced in a lab desite many many trials. Science is supposed to be based on what you can observe. This belief is purely faith based.

It seems to me that you do not understand what evolution is about. It is not up to the theory of evolution to explain how life began on Earth. Once we suppose that a first cell existed, the theory of evolution attempts to explain how that cell gave rise to the incredible diversity of life on Earth today. You may choose to believe that God created this first cell if you desire.

Quote:

2. Fossil history - If one species of animal evolves into another sciecies of animal over millions of years of gradual mutations then when we look at the fossil record we should see most of the fossils as these in-between mutations. Let me use the number line for a second. If I look at one line of evolution and I have species 0 evolve into species 1 then into species 2 by gradual mutations. What I would expect to see when I dug up earth anywhere and found fossils would be the real number line. The vast majority should be stuff like 1.4324 or 0.87645 but what we see in fact is a lot of 0's 1's 2's and a very very few 1.1s or 2.05s. Again evolutionists continue to use what they BELIEVE rather thabn what they actually observe.

The fossil record only shows skeletal structure. Thus, two fossils that appear to be quite similar may be from organisms that were actually quite different when they were alive.

Quote:

3. The 2nd law of thermodynamics. Among other things states that left to their own devices things entropy. Things tend to a less complex state rather than a more complex state. Clearly evolution has complexity springing from non-complexity.

You are absolutely wrong. The second law of thermodynamics does NOT state that anything tends to a less complex state over time. It is closer to, "a closed system will evolve over time in the most statistically likely way that is consistent with the other laws of physics". If two hydrogen atoms collide, they bond to give a molecule of hydrogen gas. It does not matter that a hydrogen molecule is less complex than a hydrogen atom. The Second Law does not contradict any other law, and the Universe, and all systems within it, will evolve in a way dictated by the laws of physics and chemistry.

Quote:

The world of a single-celled organism is vastly complex, yet science simply turns a blind eye to it and ignores the 2nd law with simplistic explanations like, well if you observe crystals they can for complex patterns. No, not nearly good enough. A single-celled organism has obvious design within it. You can believe it came from random chance if you like but don't try to tell me that you are doing science anymore.

This random chance argument is getting quite ridiculous too. You are comparing the appearance of the first cell with, say, throwing a million cards, numbered from 0 to 999999 Smile in the air, and then collecting them and finding that they are in order. Nobody here ever claimed that the first cell arose when a bunch of molecules just happened to be in the right place at the right time.
Even still, if the universe is infinite, then any event, no matter how improbable, will almost surely occur an infinite number of times. This comes straight out of mathematics (and that is the one thing that nobody can argue - mathematics.)

Quote:
I can go on but I won't. My purpose is not to convert you athiests. I just want the believers here not to lose faith and think that Science has proven them wrong, it is far from the case.


My purpose is also not to convert theists. Science does not attempt to prescribe ethics; and accordingly religion should not attempt to prescribe fact. Science and religion should almost never come into conflict because the educated individual should realize that they serve two completely different purposes.
Author:  chopperdudes [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:55 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
may i also add that the miller experiment successfully created organic matter (amino acids, the basic building blocks of protein), from inorganic materials by simulating the theoretical composition of the early earth's atmosphere and inducing an electric current thru it.

edit: this is on the matter of abiogenesis and not evolution.
Author:  CodeMonkey2000 [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:02 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
Dan thermodynamics still applies to evolution (the earth can be considered a closed system). Just because we see order in nature, doesn't mean there is order. Our brains evolved to see order and patterns in this natural world. If we went to a different place with totally different environment, we would think this is chaotic, and it makes no sense. For example most people will find theoretical physics very confusing and very chaotic. Most people's brains haven't evolved to understand it, but to physicists it makes sense (to a degree), since they study it, and they make the small 5% of people who are capable of understanding it (this is expected since evolution says that new traits are always arising, even if it isn't beneficial, arrival of traits is random, if a trait is beneficial it gets passed, and then becomes dominant). There are many systems of life underwater that make no sense to us, and seem extremely chaotic to our minds. This is again expected since we gain no benefit from interpreting and find patterns in underwater life.
Author:  Dan [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:religion?
CodeMonkey2000 @ 23rd March 2009, 10:02 pm wrote:
Dan thermodynamics still applies to evolution (the earth can be considered a closed system).


It's not a closed system, almost all of the energery comes from the sun. Maybe you could take the solar system as a closed system but thermodynamics still does not apply to complexy of DNA or specieses it applies to energery and heat. So i guses you could applie it to the heat and energery invloded in it but then there is no conflcit at all.
Author:  Tony [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:religion?
CodeMonkey2000 @ Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:02 pm wrote:
Dan thermodynamics still applies to evolution (the earth can be considered a closed system).

It's a system with an abundant source of energy. Thermodynamics tell us that when the Sun stops burning, the solar system will eventually cool to a uniform distribution. Until then, this external energy drives the environmental processes, life, and random events.

It might also be of interest that organic matter has been found in meteorites
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061204195843.htm
Quote:

NASA researchers at Johnson Space Center, Houston have found organic materials that formed in the most distant reaches of the early Solar System preserved in a unique meteorite. The study was performed on the Tagish Lake carbonaceous chondrite, a rare type of meteorite that is rich in organic (carbon-bearing) compounds.


Earth is very much not a closed system.
Author:  btiffin [ Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:33 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
Oh oh .. a meme.

One of the things I pester people on astronomy boards about is the quest for "Life Star". What supernova (or plural) exploded and splattered the solar system with the higher order elements. I think we should look back, find it, and then send a Thank You card to the remnants. Smile

Cheers
Author:  Tallguy [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:11 am ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
just curious,
how do you think everything got going? big bang? or it just happened? some molecules that never existed before just appeared and started to create thinghs?
Author:  Zeroth [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
I think there is a fundamental confusion for some people in this discussion about the scientific process. Let's review.

Science starts from saying we know nothing, but what we can observe or detect. Then we make a guess, a prediction. Then we test that prediction. Whether it fails or not, we have still learned something new. If we record our exact procedure, and anything that could have possibly affected it, like the temperature of the day, mistakes and accidents during the experiment, someone can repeat our experiment and verify for themselves that these facts are true.

Science relies on testable predictions. Papers are written up describing the entire experiment and the results. Sometimes scientists make mistakes. This is okay. That is why we document the procedures of the experiment. If someone duplicates our experiment several times, and cannot get the same result, obviously, we missed something. This is still good science. Maybe some effect was taking place we didn't record. Maybe its something new we don't know about. Science still proceeds.

Now, nowhere in there does science rely on beginning axioms. In fact it relies on none, aside from the axiom that what we observe is true. Nothing about God. Nothing about faith. Science is impersonal. It is simply truth.

Now this is not to say that science does not and cannot coexist with belief in God. However, belief in God cannot be an axiom in your scientific knowledge. It has not been proven. And as theists say, its a matter of faith, not proof. Accepted. Some people have faith, some don't. But the fact of their being a God has not been proven. It must start from the fundamentals and cannot use the bible as a self-reference for God's existence. This is by no means a challenging of faith, which all people are allowed to have, nor a ridicule, nor an attack against your beliefs. Simply a statement that faith has no place in science.

Now, onto evolution. Lets explain it.

Evolution is the process of tiny mutations and changes over long time scales. It says nothing about them being better changes, or a more positive development. In fact its relentlessly neutral. Lets take a look at the eye. The eye, despite its complexity... is horrendously designed. The retina is upside down. It is even backwards, with the nerve connections to the rods and cones in the retina going in front of them, not behind. But our brain substitutes missing pieces in for us. So we don't see this. But how could it arise?

Lets say we have a simple multi-cellular creature. We'll call it Rolf. Lets say that one cell undergoes a slight mutation due to this Rolf's DNA that makes that cell slightly light sensitive instead of touch sensitive. If a predator came from above, that Rolf could detect that, and survive longer. That Rolf lives to breed and pass on its mutation. Now in the next generation, these new Rolfs... some of them have the light cell, and some don't. The ones without would, due to natural selection, reproduce slightly less than the one's with the light cell. Probably a difference of say 1%. Each generation, that gene spreads. It provides a slight advantage, growing as the gene slightly mutates. Those without die off faster. They don't contribute their genes as much. Within several hundred generations, every Rolf in the area has a light sensitive cell. New mutations arise. Like more cells. Seeing color. Lids to protect the eyes. Muscles to contract the cornea. Nerves to the brain. Every piece builds up painstakingly, because each half-way version gives a very slight advantage to the mutant over the non-mutants.

That is evolution. It does not talk about God. It does not talk about how life started. It does not say that having an eye is inherently better. It does not say that complexity cannot happen, but in fact shows the exact process. All it says is that a slight mutation gives a slight reproductory benefit that takes generations to propagate.
Author:  DemonWasp [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:50 am ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
All current evidence points to a "Big Bang" event of some variety. Theoretical physics may have a fair bit to say about how it may differ from the current best-model, but the existing model seems to adequately explain most of the traces we have of it.

Evolution, Abiogenesis, and the Origin of Life the Universe and Everything
Each of these theories deals with a very specific portion of the problem of "why are we here". They happen to be compatible, but do not necessarily have anything to do with each other. Evolution is independent of Abiogenesis is independent of the Big Bang; certainly the extrapolated information from one theory may work well with another, but disproving one pillar does not necessarily disprove the others.

That said, none have been disproven. If they had been, the theories would have been discarded immediately, like the Geocentric model of the Solar System.

Evolution deals with how existing living things change over time, due to genetic variation, reproduction and selection. Variations in organisms of the same species can give vastly differing abilities to survive in a given set of conditions - those that survive get to reproduce and pass on their variations to the next generation. Evolution includes speciation, convergent and divergent evolution.

Modern evolution differs from what Darwin originally proposed, though he was correct in a few of the key aspects. Disproving Darwinian evolution does not disprove modern evolution.

There are literal mountains of support for evolution, and nothing that disproves it.

Abiogenesis deals with how living things came from non-living matter. The current best-theory is that the early Earth's oceans were a "primordial soup" of various molecules which included the basis for organic molecules; stimulation by electricity or other sources led to molecules combining in strange ways that resulted in amino acids and the other building blocks of life; these combined into extremely primitive life forms over millions of years. Much of abiogenesis has been demonstrated in a labratory - to the point of generating amino acids, though not whole organisms (somehow, running a million-year experiment seems difficult); probability and a long enough time scale suffices for the second portion of the process.

The Big Bang deals with how the universe and all the matter and energy within it, came to be. The theory is based on a number of observable phenomena including the cosmic microwave background. Although we have no current theories to describe how the infinitesimal point of near-infinite density and energy came about, this does not trouble the theory; it doesn't even try to explain that part. The Big Bang is an inference from a variety of observations.

None of these theories is an argument for, or against, a god or gods.

For those who believe in a god or gods, can you tell me why you believe in that single god, and not all the others? Why only one god, and how can you know which is the true god? Ground rules for this question include:
1. You cannot rely on the age of religious documents. Ancient Egypt was around for several thousand years and had thousands of gods.
2. You cannot form a circular argument (God->therefore Bible->therefore God doesn't work).
3. This is not my idea originally; I'm parroting here. My source is this:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

Edit: Apologies to Zeroth for covering much the same material. I didn't see your message.
Author:  CodeMonkey2000 [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:religion?
Tallguy @ Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:11 am wrote:
just curious,
how do you think everything got going? big bang? or it just happened? some molecules that never existed before just appeared and started to create thinghs?


Everything didn't start somewhere. Time has always existed, if time started somewhere, then there was a period of time before then where time didn't exist (a paradox!), so therefore time must have always existed. The big bang tries to explain where the origins of the current state of the universe, but that still isn't the beginning. Since matter is never created or destroyed, it always existed, only in different forms.
Author:  Dan [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:religion?
CodeMonkey2000 @ 24th March 2009, 10:15 am wrote:

Everything didn't start somewhere. Time has always existed, if time started somewhere, then there was a period of time before then where time didn't exist (a paradox!), so therefore time must have always existed. The big bang tries to explain where the origins of the current state of the universe, but that still isn't the beginning. Since matter is never created or destroyed, it always existed, only in different forms.


Thats some what debateable, i blive some theroies say that space-time it's self was created in the big bang so there would be no time before that. I know that sounds like a paradox but thats only becues we think of time as being linear when it is not at all. Time is not constant threw out the univerise and runs at diffrent rates depending on alot of factors (mostly speed and garitional forces).

One posiblity that i just came up with could be that if we are to blive that the big bang started with a singal point of matter witch contained all matter in the univiserse the gravitional forces of this point would be masive that time it's self could be totaly stoped (tho more acriatiely it would have not started yet) and was only created by the big bang spreading the matter out and creating space time it's self in doing so. Tho in the first few milla seconds of the big bang the laws of psysics get all messed up so it's hard for any one to say right now what happened. I am sure that there are much better and more researched expolionations of why time could have been created at the big bang.
Author:  Zeroth [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
No worries DemonWasp. I realized afterwards that there was another portion of scientific process to talk about: scales of time, matter, or energy that make experiments impossible or ill-advised. This is stuff like cosmology, astrophysics, particle physics(although that limit changes pretty often with more and more powerful cyclotrons), and evolution.

That process is like this: observations are made, and recorded. Polarization of light coming out of the sun, for example. A model of the universe is proposed that explains the observations. Ideally, the model also makes predictions, like hypothesis. A great example would be Einstein's Theory of Relativity. At the time, it seemed like a lot of fancy mathematics, but mathematics that explained a lot of issues with physics of the day. It explained why Mercury's orbit was so different from that predicted by Newton's laws. It explained a lot of things, and made a lot of predictions. One of those predictions was that an intense gravity well would "lens" the light of the stars behind it around the star. However, because the sun is so bright, this lensed light is drowned out. During the eclipse of I believe it was 1919, they observed the sky around the sun, of stars they knew would be close to the sun. The stars were in different positions than they should have been, thus proving Einstein's theories in a dramatic and incontrovertible fashion.

This is how the other side of science works, on the scale of time, energy, or matter too large or too small to perform experiments. But the theories, much like the theory of evolution, make predictions that can be tested. If those predictions fail, then the model is wrong. If they work, then the model is verified. In the case of einstein's theories, proving his theory right also at the same time showed the limitations of Newton's theories. One model was disproven, while another was proven.

The theory of evolution makes a lot of predictions, and among those is what creationists like to call "micro-evolution".

I'd like to propose a thought experiment that I would like those that deny evolution on these boards to actually think about.

Imagine a web site was set up. On that website, are a series of procedurally generated pictures. These pictures come from a "code", that tells the algorithms how to grow the picture. To represent natural selection, we have the people on the internet, and we ask them to choose ones that are visually appealing to them. The winning codes are then "bred" and "mutated" with a 1% chance of mutation. New pictures are generated. People submit their opinions. In this thought experiment, with natural selection working to weed out weird or ugly pictures, the resulting population would slowly become more and more aesthetically pleasing to us. That is evolution. But a very simple form. We don't have sexual selection factored in, nor do we have speciation. If such an experiment can be supposed to, with enough time and selections, produce genuinely beautiful pictures, then evolution is a valid model.

I admit there is no speciation, and no sexual selection. I know the limits of my thought experiment. But the main reason is that sexual selection and speciation, while we know they happen, we still don't understand fully the entire mechanisms behind them. But just because we don't fully understand them, does not mean that evolution should be discounted in its entirety. There are things that we still don't understand about cosmology and astrophysics, but because it conflicts with the bible and our human pride, we have to throw it all out? Bollocks, I say.

Which leads me to my next point, for which I lacked the time to make clear. Evolution has no place in a discussion on religion or faith. Religion and faith have no place in a scientific discussion about evolution. Science and faith deal in separate areas. Science deals with the 'how', and faith deals with the 'why'. Very, very different arenas. And so I propose that we try to get back to our religious discussion.

Ah, someone mentioned Buddhism. I like Buddhism, as originally envisioned by the Buddha, because it asks its followers not to believe blindly, but to analyze, challenge, and study the tenets of the teaching. Its more a philosophy of life than of religion. Enlightenment can only be gained with personal effort and sacrifice. It cannot be granted. It cannot have shortcuts by its very definition.

Consider the idea that to Buddhists, the self has five aspects: body, sensations, ideation, mental formations and consciousness. Can any one of those individually be called the 'self'? Or is it the interaction of the five aspects that forms the self? Buddha famously said, "I have no self."

But of course, all religions strive to ease suffering and pain, some may have a different way of doing that. The Eightfold Path of Buddhism is very similar to the Virtues of Christ that Christians are supposed to embody.
Author:  chopperdudes [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:37 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
wow guys nice job. i couldn't have said it better myself.

yes none of those theories is an argument for, or against, a god or gods. but i would also like to point out that those theories disproved major claims of the world in scriptures. we now do not hold the believe that we all came from only a man and a woman (adam and eve, who was made from a rib of adam). we are also not made from dust etc, and that creatures were not all "made" by this omnipotent being, the universe isn't young, the global flood never happened... etc.

and as some1 pointed out previously, things should be considered false until proven true. and i personally really like to say that the LACK of evidence FOR god (despite humongous effort to find it) is not proof, but certainly evidence AGAINST the existance of one.
Author:  jeffgreco13 [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:31 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
the worst part about this discussion is the reference to "atheism being an indicator towards intelligence". Choosing whether or not to believe in a higher power, has absolutely NO bearing on intelligence whatsoever, and to believe so is completely ludicrous.

I am a christian myself. I believe in God, but I am not ignorant to other opinions and religious beliefs. To categorize all other religions as lesser intelligent people displays immense weakness in ones own intelligence.

For anyone who actually uses the basis that Atheists are statistically more intelligent than others, as incentive for their decision not to believe in a higher power is simply pathetic. Everyone is entitled to their own belief.

To those Atheists who modestly yet intelligently believe that scientific proof outlaws any higher being, then this I can respect because you have taken a sincere belief... Although to all those Zeitgeist-watching, statistical bandwagoners, you quite frankly have no reason to make ANY comment on religion.
Author:  Zeroth [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:religion?
chopperdudes @ Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:37 pm wrote:
wow guys nice job. i couldn't have said it better myself.

yes none of those theories is an argument for, or against, a god or gods. but i would also like to point out that those theories disproved major claims of the world in scriptures. we now do not hold the believe that we all came from only a man and a woman (adam and eve, who was made from a rib of adam). we are also not made from dust etc, and that creatures were not all "made" by this omnipotent being, the universe isn't young, the global flood never happened... etc.

and as some1 pointed out previously, things should be considered false until proven true. and i personally really like to say that the LACK of evidence FOR god (despite humongous effort to find it) is not proof, but certainly evidence AGAINST the existance of one.


I'd just like to point out that the statement, "Things should be considered false until proven true" is a logical fallacy in science. Until something is proven true or false, it exists in an indeterminate state. It is unknown. No assumptions are made, because we have no proof either way. As it stands, there is no proof either way for God or Gods. It doesn't mean they don't exist. Just that we have no position on that matter.
Author:  Dan [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:37 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
I would not say athiests are more intelligenent, i think most studys that try to link IQ to relgion are finding corlations that have to do with other factors.

However i do think that athiests and agunotsitcs are being more rantational in there ciritical thinking processe at least when it comes to the subject of god. I can't think of a logical and valade arugment that you could give for god that would not also work for the flying spegitiy monster or if there is a magic tea cup floating around the sun. If there is no evidecen witch stands up to secientifc process and review i don't see any reason to blive in it (where it can be anything from gods to ghosts or dowsing).
Author:  CodeMonkey2000 [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:31 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
Normally I don't really care about other people's beliefs. What I do care about is people who bash fundamental concepts of science (particularly biology) like evolution because it doesn't "jive" with their religion. I am passionate about science, it is the best we as humans have to offer. Science is not the work of just one person, but the culminative work of many throughout our history. Science has come a long way, explained a lot of things, gave us the knowledge to build great architectures, computers and paved the way for modern medicine. I want to keep science cutting edge, I don't want science to degrade back to what it was back in the dark ages. That is what you are doing when you criticize any aspect of science without looking at the literature, research, and breakthroughs achieved, only to push your religious beliefs.
Author:  isaiahk9 [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
This is sort of related to what Hacker Dan said :
Haven't most test trying to relate religion to things such as stress, happiness and generosity have been completely positive, and IQ tests have been a smattering of both? Like some of the news articles below ....

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090304/reigion_anxiety_090304/20090304?hub=Health

http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/happy.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2008/dec/19/religion-iq-atheism

Most arguments calling religion "stupid" are similar to the documentary "Religulous" (tvshack.net and you can watch it), which proved that the host was a little stupid in himself? He makes fun of the most absurd religions possible and points at the weakest flaws and claims that they represent religion. It's the strawman argue - create a ridiculous opponent and attack them instead of the real opponent.


And this is sort of related to what CodeMoneky2000 said :
I couldn't agree with you more. Honestly, I have no idea why anybody in their right minds would say that religion is against evolution. A smart man I once knew explained that they both were true :
"The Bible is a book saying why things happened. A science textbook is a book saying how things happened. If I ask you who painted The Monet Lisa, would it be Leonardo Divinci or the paintbrushes? Both are true. The artist acts through his tools. The Bible says God made man in one day. But a day is probably not 24 hours, as we didn't even have the sun for the first couple days. When it says God created man, it could mean that God created man through evolution. The two ideas aren't mutually exclusive."
Author:  CodeMonkey2000 [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
isaiahk9 @ Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:55 pm wrote:
When it says God created man, it could mean that God created man through evolution. The two ideas aren't mutually exclusive.


If God created man through evolution, then it isn't evolution. By saying that you are introducing an intelligent being that guided evolution, and that simply is not evolution, but rather a form of intelligent design. Evolution is random, there is no external force controlling it, only the natural environment.

As for the Religulous, I did not detect any strawmen (I'm sure there were a few). But you don't find that man was created from mud, and women were created by Adam's rib a wee bit ridiculous?
Author:  Dan [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:21 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
@isaiahk9 i side the colreation between IQ and beliving in a relgion is likey due to other factors. Religion's them self (not the peoleop in them) are stupid in that they ignore any new understanding of the world and keep with ideas that are horiabley out of date. They then try to push theses ideas on poeleop under the guise of being moral.

As for the studies you talk about, they don't in any way show that religion is correct or even befienitcal just that it makes peoleop feal good (at least in limited cases). If an idea makes you feal good it does not make it any more or less correct so you would have to be subcribing to the ignorence is bliss type of idea for that arugment to have any value.

As for Religulous it was ment to be comdey and not take as a seucries documetnary, you could go out and find idoits on both sides. I don't know how you can "prove" some one a bit "stupid" so i don't know what you mean by that. There are better documentatrys about relgion out there, look up some of the stuff by dawkins.
Author:  saltpro15 [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:27 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
good post Dan, and I can now completely 100% understand your posts, I am getting better at this Very Happy
Author:  isaiahk9 [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
@Hacker Dan : You say that people push ideas on people under the guise of being moral : that's why you believe religion is stupid. If that is true, I don't think that those are accuracte representations of religion. Of course there are going to be wackos who call themselves religious, the law of averages says there needs to be. Press thrives on this type of thing. We get a distorted view, as newspapers will never report things like "Christians acting like good people, not doing anything wrong".
The studies I were just pointing out that religion makes us out to be what most people would consider to be "better" - more generous, less stressed, happier. I'm not trying to say that what makes you feel good is a good thing. I was just saying that it is a positive change on people it seems.
I know that Religulous isn't supposed to be taken seriously, it's just that the way that the same ideas are done in real life with the strawman idea - it is a lot easier to prove a nutjob who says they are religious is stupid than a composed, logical and thoughtful person who happens to follow a religion.

. . . but that doesn't mean I disagree with you completely. I believe that using religion as an excuse for your failures is stupid.
Author:  btiffin [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:religion?
Tallguy @ Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:11 am wrote:
just curious,
how do you think everything got going? big bang? or it just happened? some molecules that never existed before just appeared and started to create thinghs?


My take; and I do not wish my beliefs to be believed by others. It's personal.

The Universe is still being created. The edges are the beginning. The big bang is really just the mobius twist of space time "being" or "becoming" as you will. If you twist quantum holograms you get what looks like to us to be an expanding universe, where as it "may be" really just a point of view of the whole. If you were at the edge (and you can't) it would look like it was shrinking. But you can't so it just seems to expand out from a point. Really just a twist. What was, always was, what is always is, what will be, well, already was. I find this eases my little mind. I don't have to worry where it started, it started at the end. And the end is the start, in a nice little (immensely HUGE and simultaneously immensely SMALL) package. But that is just part of Quantum Buddhism. I entreat everyone to simply invent their own creation myth. It's fun.

Part of the math for this is my pseudo-belief that the number line is not openly infinite. -inf, +inf and zero all end up at the same place on my "quantum" number line. And it partly attempts to account for the fact that there are more numbers between 0 and 1 than there are numbers. But I don't have the IQ to cement the math. So I don't try, I just pretend to believe that is the case. And it works for me.

Cheers
Author:  Dan [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
isaiahk9 @ 24th March 2009, 7:49 pm wrote:
@Hacker Dan : You say that people push ideas on people under the guise of being moral : that's why you believe religion is stupid. If that is true, I don't think that those are accuracte representations of religion.


I think you should reread my post, pushing there blifes is just iceing on the cake. There blifes are wrong becues they don't stand up to any kind of vaild testing.

Quote:

Of course there are going to be wackos who call themselves religious, the law of averages says there needs to be.


The goal of almost all relgiones is to get more fallowers. It is even stated in many of them that blivers should be trying to "save" peoleop and spread the word of there relgion. Also many of theses relgiones have some kind of leader and orgnastion behind them witch actively trying to promote there blifes and lobby for them not just with peoleop but to change laws based on them.

Quote:

The studies I were just pointing out that religion makes us out to be what most people would consider to be "better" - more generous, less stressed, happier. I'm not trying to say that what makes you feel good is a good thing. I was just saying that it is a positive change on people it seems.


Drugs could have the same effect as well as doing many other things. As i side how it makes you feel is irelvlent to if it is true or not. I could blive i will live forever and have an unlmited amout of money and it would make me feal realy good but it would not make it true or happen.

Quote:

I know that Religulous isn't supposed to be taken seriously, it's just that the way that the same ideas are done in real life with the strawman idea - it is a lot easier to prove a nutjob who says they are religious is stupid than a composed, logical and thoughtful person who happens to follow a religion.


Both sides do this, and it happens in all arugmetns/debates. Thats why it's a logical fallciey.

Quote:

I believe that using religion as an excuse for your failures is stupid.


I think it is just as wrong to use it as an excuse for your sucuses.
Author:  Tony [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
isaiahk9 @ Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:49 pm wrote:
I don't think that those are accuracte representations of religion.

Except that in certain cases the institutions that are supposed to accurately represent their respective religions happen to be the same level of wacko. From recent memory, I can think of cases where a church has condemned a 13 (I think that was the age, definitely very young) year old girl for getting an abortion, after being raped by her own stepfather (and not so much the stepfather for creating such a horrible situation for the child in the first place). Another is Pope railing about how the use of condoms in Africa is a bad thing.
Author:  chopperdudes [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
Quote:
Except that in certain cases the institutions that are supposed to accurately represent their respective religions happen to be the same level of wacko. From recent memory, I can think of cases where a church has condemned a 13 (I think that was the age, definitely very young) year old girl for getting an abortion, after being raped by her own stepfather (and not so much the stepfather for creating such a horrible situation for the child in the first place). Another is Pope railing about how the use of condoms in Africa is a bad thing.


yes i've read about that. i was soo disgusted by it. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/03/07/catholic-abortion.html some quotes were:

Quote:
"The law of God is higher than any human laws," Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho said in an interview on Globo television. "When a human law is against the law of God, that law has no value."

Quote:
upon learning of the abortion, the regional archbishop excommunicated the doctors, as well as the girl's mother. He did not excommunicate the step-father, saying the crime he is alleged to have committed, although deplorable, was not as bad as ending a fetus's life.

Quote:
"Excommunication for those who carried out the abortion is just," Cardinal Re said.


I'd also like to point out the following quote by zeroth.
Quote:
I'd just like to point out that the statement, "Things should be considered false until proven true" is a logical fallacy in science. Until something is proven true or false, it exists in an indeterminate state. It is unknown. No assumptions are made, because we have no proof either way. As it stands, there is no proof either way for God or Gods. It doesn't mean they don't exist. Just that we have no position on that matter.


this has to do with the burden of proof and the null hypothesis. This website: http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science//item/what_is_a_null_hypothesis does a great way of explaining the null hypothesis. the burden of proof also states that it is the responsibility of the 'claimer' to back up the claim, and not the other side to disprove the claim. the backup evidence of the claim can be disproved, which means that there is no more backup evidence for the claim, but the claim simply cannot be disproved without original backup evidence (ie. "disprove the idea that there is not flying teapot around the sun").

and also, by logic you wouldn't say that the flying teapot is true when there is no evidence indicating so.
Author:  bbi5291 [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
The problem here is that, in a certain sense, "there is a God" and "there is no God" are equally valid hypotheses a priori; it is only when the scope of the question is narrowed that it becomes possible to choose null and alternative hypotheses.

It seems that the most appropriate way to do this would be to assume at first that there is no correlation between what God is supposed to do, and what actually happens here on Earth, which is most similar to "there is no God". Problem is, if you end up rejecting the alternative hypothesis, then one can always argue that God's will was misread. That is, we are uncertain of the significance of our original hypotheses.
Author:  Dan [ Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
bbi5291 @ 24th March 2009, 10:00 pm wrote:
The problem here is that, in a certain sense, "there is a God" and "there is no God" are equally valid hypotheses a priori;


I don't think they are equally valid as you can't prove "there is no God". In fact you can't prove any statment like "there is no X" witch is why the teapot and flying spegiety moster examples work. You could only disprove it by finding an instance where there is an X.
Author:  ecookman [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
well, god is suppposto keep the justice and fairness of the world.

if he/she did, why are there arguments, wars weapons...etc?
and why are prayers not answered
and why has nobody seen them
Author:  CodeMonkey2000 [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
I'm going to shift back to statistics. It is obvious that most religious people are less tolerant towards other cultures (you don't even need statistics to show this, just look at our history and all of the worlds problems). A fair number of them are very intolerant towards homosexuals. To me tolerance is more important than intelligence or being able to feel happy. Atheists tend to be far more tolerant, since the majority of us came from religious background, and understand where theists come from. Most of us are more progressive minded.
Author:  Zeroth [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
CodeMonkey2000 @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:59 am wrote:
I'm going to shift back to statistics. It is obvious that most religious people are less tolerant towards other cultures (you don't even need statistics to show this, just look at our history and all of the worlds problems). A fair number of them are very intolerant towards homosexuals. To me tolerance is more important than intelligence or being able to feel happy. Atheists tend to be far more tolerant, since the majority of us came from religious background, and understand where theists come from. Most of us are more progressive minded.
Emphasis mine.

This is not a thread to condemn religion, or those that are religious. It is purely their own choice. Now, I bolded specific portions of your post, because you are obviously not very tolerant of theists. What hypocrisy. Wink

I do rather dislike your avoidance of using statistics, instead using emotional appeals to "memory". We tend to remember the worst aspects, and not the best aspects. Next time you cast aspersions on an entire group, quote some statistics, like you promised in your quote up there.

How about the Salvation Army? They are a religious organization. Or Buddhists. Do you have a problem with buddhist monks? Do you have a problem with nuns, and run up to them shouting, "I reject your judaic paternal society that has committed innumerable kindnesses"?

And I know you're going to bring up the crusades. Don't. Its still a minor amount of Bad Stuff vs the centuries and millions upon millions of people that religious organizations helped. Before the printing press, and even after, Churches were how people were educated. They raised money to help the unfortunate. Soup kitchens, bread lines, even in the middle ages, because it was the right thing to do. But none of that is as glamorous as writing about atrocities. People always try to belittle and demonize things they don't like. That is a horrifically limited and bigoted thing to do, no matter what side you are on. Understand the situation, see it with a clear mind, free of bias and human context. Bad stuff happened, people suffered. Good stuff happened, people suffered less. Both things are true about religious organizations. They are neither saints nor devils, but flawed, like anything made by humans. Smile Accept the flaws, accept the virtues. You cannot accept and understand one, without wisdom demanding you accept and understand the other.

/walloftext
Author:  saltpro15 [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:04 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
I'm Christian, I'm tolerant of homosexuals, but quite hated by a large group of Atheists at my school, doesn't bother me Very Happy
Author:  Dan [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
Zeroth @ 25th March 2009, 5:51 pm wrote:
How about the Salvation Army? They are a religious organization.


Salvation army is a horiable example

Just take a look at there views on there own website: http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf/vw-dynamic-index/B6F3F4DF3150F5B585257434004C177D?Opendocument

They are actively: anti-Abortion, aginsted Homosexuality, agisnted Pornography and many other things that have nothing to do with what they claim to be about when asking for money and the money goses to promote these views and lobby goverment to make laws about them.


Also some other fun articals invloving them:



If theses peoleop are your example of torrerence i don't what to know what intolrrent is to you.....

P.S. As for Buddhists you should look in to the strict cast system they had when the daillamma of the time was running tabit, you may be shocked to see how "tollerent" budhists can be.[/quote]
Author:  Dan [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:religion?
saltpro15 @ 25th March 2009, 6:04 pm wrote:
I'm Christian, I'm tolerant of homosexuals, but quite hated by a large group of Atheists at my school, doesn't bother me Very Happy


By tolerant do you mean thiking they are going to burn in hell for all of entinery and just don't say anything to them about it? Becues i don't see that as realy being tolerant....

P.S. I don't mean this to be a personal attack aginsted you saltpro15, but rather a comment on persons that blive peoleop are sinning and will burn in hell and then say they are tolerant of them becues they don't nesraly say this to there face or do anything about it. You very well may not blive this your self but you set up a good quote to bring this up with :p
Author:  saltpro15 [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:22 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
no problem Dan! I did set it up pretty well haha. By tolerant I mean I have no problem with them, they have their beliefs and I have mine, my belief is yes, they are going to hell, but that does NOT mean I attempt to convert/bully them into Christianity. A person's spiritual relationship is no one's business but that person's. By hated I mean they attempt to attack my faith with a series of questions they probably found on some youtube video that slams Christianity. To date, NO question has ever gone unanswered, and they are quite frustrated Smile.

and call me Drew, I really am starting to hate my username Sad

to explain, my last name is Saltarelli, thats where the salt's from, pro is short for programmer, easy to remember, and 15, my age Very Happy so now you know Wink
Author:  chopperdudes [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:39 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
lol saltpro, Drew Very Happy this is not towards you but towards religion in general. i don't think that saying everyone who doesn't believe in YOUR god is going to hell is very tolerant at all.

and i don't think attacking faith should be considered bad. thing is, faith is just like any idea. if it claims to be correct, then it should (and will) be attacked. and actually, that is what science is all about. whenever there's a new theory, it gets attacked to death (attacked ie. questioned, trying to find evidences against, etc). and that is actually the basis of peer review etc in the scientific field. i personally don't find anything wrong with asking possible questions about your faith. granted, those questions taken down from youtube more often than not are not that great of arguments. but i personally do not see that as a form of bully/attack. they don't attack you, they're attacking an idea.

and just to relate. i actually do that to a friend of mine. and i really don't see a problem with it if you get a valid argument and actually debate about it instead of calling names.

another point is. most often than not, religious people are "offended" because their faith is attacked. this is understandable, but in my opinion should not be this way. religion is just another idea, and attacking ideas is not an offense. and i think it's rly intolerant of them to expect the critics to back down just because they're offended because we attacked an idea.

and on the same side of tolerance. you see all the churches out there right? right now it's considered the norm. but i don't know if you've heard bout it or not, there's (or was i believe), an atheist campaign on buses, and it's about ads on the side of buses saying "There's probably no god, now stop worrying and enjoy your life". and at least THOUSANDS of people were offended by this ad. you really don't see people getting offended just cuz they saw a church. and think about the response if for every church you see, you see an equally large bilboard or something saying god doesn't exist. i personally cannot imagine.

EDIT: oh and that friend of mine gets really angry because there's not one thing she can say about what i say against religion. but she's a nice girl and don't hold grudges and stuff for these things.
Author:  Tony [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:religion?
saltpro15 @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:22 pm wrote:
By tolerant I mean I have no problem with them, they have their beliefs and I have mine, my belief is yes, they are going to hell, but that does NOT mean I attempt to convert/bully them into Christianity.

That's not tolerance. There is an adverse reaction -- your belief that a certain group are born to go to hell. The reaction might not be well expressed, but it could still work on subconscious or other levels.

If you want to be actually tolerant, it would be helpful to first understand where they are coming from. It is not a matter of belief for homosexual orientation, but being born with certain genetics; much as it's not a matter of belief that one is born Asian or being born with a connected earlobe.
Author:  saltpro15 [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:53 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
thanks chopperdudes for using my real name Very Happy and I wish I had intelligent conversation to discuss this with Sad I think the most creative name I've heard is "bible thumper" -.- haha, they are actually quite entertaining Very Happy I am not angered by that ad campaign, just saddened. Feel free to attack me with everything you have, I seriously welcome it with open arms, it would be a refreshing change, let's make this the longest damn forum on compsci Very Happy
Author:  btiffin [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:55 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
Just throwing this out there...
Anti-Nowhere League. My God's Bigger Than Your God.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtWB0IQ3AMc

The tune itself is a little bit too repetitive for my taste in metal, but I think it does a good job of getting the point they are trying to make across.

Cheers
Author:  Homer_simpson [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
with regards to religion i value this quote by C.J Keyser
"Absolute certainty is a privilege of uneducated minds and fanatics"
Author:  saltpro15 [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:58 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
man there's a lot of you posting right now Sad
EDIT:

sorry Tony, you posted as I was writing this Laughing Are you suggesting I am racist? I have no problem with homosexuals/asians/people with connected earlobes, all I mean is that I would not be homosexual because I feel it is against my beliefs, I have no place to tell other people how to live.
Author:  Zeroth [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
I don't think you quite got my point Dan. Every organization, religious or not, has its flaws and its virtues. Sally Ann helps millions of people, even if it is intolerant of stuff. They can be intolerant. But we ourselves, cannot attack religion itself or religious organizations for being intolerant. That just makes you yourself intolerant. Wink Intolerance means that despite all arguments or evidence to the otherwise, you simply cannot accept or tolerate whatever it is you dislike. Religious organizations have both bad and good traits to them.

They can be as intolerant as they want, because they don't rail against intolerance. It does not make them hypocrites. While I may dislike that intolerance, I will fight as hard as I can to defend their right to be intolerant. But you, Dan, and the others railing against religious organizations and religion's intolerance and past atrocities are being hypocrites.

I'd say it would be a good idea to discuss religions here. As long as people don't go, "Well, religions sux because they so intolerant pffttt", then fine. But don't attack religions. Look back at the first three pages, and the tone of discussion there.
Author:  chopperdudes [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:07 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
well zeroth, so pointing out that something is intolerant is in itself intolerant? i don't think so. so well, would you say racist people are bad? does saying that means you're intolerant? i personally don't agree with racism, and certainly don't think attacking racism is intolerant. racism is in itself intolerant, but it is just to attack something intolerant no?

and also, please why is there this mindset that religion cannot be attacked? i really don't understand. religion as i've said is yet another idea(s). and there is really no problem with attacking an idea. i personally think that "Well, religion is not good because of this and this (valid arguments)" then it's rly fine. but on the other hand, it is NOT fine to say "You are stupid because you are religious".
Author:  CodeMonkey2000 [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
Zeroth @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:51 pm wrote:

Now, I bolded specific portions of your post, because you are obviously not very tolerant of theists. What hypocrisy. Wink


Umm most of my family members are theists, a fair number of my friends are theists, in fact most people I know are theists. I have never felt any hatred or anger towards any group of people (I might have been angry with a few individuals but that's more personal, nothing to do with their beliefs).

Zeroth @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:51 pm wrote:

I do rather dislike your avoidance of using statistics, instead using emotional appeals to "memory". We tend to remember the worst aspects, and not the best aspects. Next time you cast aspersions on an entire group, quote some statistics, like you promised in your quote up there.

Not using statistics when I promised was a fallacy on my part, but you don't even need emotional memory to see this. Look at the bombings in India recently or the riots between Hindus and Muslims, and the sheer amount of hatred. Or the intolerance between Israel and Palestine. Or even how these christian groups recently banned gay marriage (which I would consider a violation against human rights). Or the persecution of non-Muslims in strictly Islamic countries like Iran. You don't hear about atheists being this intolerant.

Zeroth @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:51 pm wrote:

And I know you're going to bring up the crusades.

I didn't have to Wink
And I don't know too much about them, except for the inquisition in Goa since my family (on my dad's side) is from there.
Author:  Dan [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
Zeroth @ 25th March 2009, 7:59 pm wrote:

They can be as intolerant as they want, because they don't rail against intolerance. It does not make them hypocrites. While I may dislike that intolerance, I will fight as hard as I can to defend their right to be intolerant. But you, Dan, and the others railing against religious organizations and religion's intolerance and past atrocities are being hypocrites.

I'd say it would be a good idea to discuss religions here. As long as people don't go, "Well, religions sux because they so intolerant pffttt", then fine. But don't attack religions. Look back at the first three pages, and the tone of discussion there.


So i am intoleraent becues i am intorleraent of orgnastations that are intorlarent for being introlaerent? Even if that is hypocritical it does not change the point that they are introlerent. The fact that i might be introlernt does not take away from truth of my points. Almost all religions some where in there texts (if they have them) discrimante agsinted some other belif, sex, race, sexulaity, etc and at the very least blive theses peoleop to be less then them self, be it moraly or other wise. Athiesim it's self has no belifes, no rules, no real orginstation and no docutrine so in it's self it's not interolent well many relgiones basic belifes discurminate.

Also just becues a orginstation does some good, does not make up for it doing bad. If i educate and feed the poor it does not give me the right to commit mass genoiced, start wars, burn peoleop avlie, remove peoleops rights and stone peoleop to death. Your arugment would only make sence if all chariorites where based on religiones and that the good they do could some how make up for the bad.


As for my self i think religion is fine but only when it's kept to your self. Once you start pushing your bleifes on other peoleop things start going down hill. The very orginstations that you list that help and are religious also hurt just as much becues they push there belfies along with the good they do (and the Salvation army deftaly does this.). They also end up using money and reocuses donated to them not to help the poor or sick but to try and inductrate them and others in to there religion as well as lobby goverment to change laws to side with there belifes. I question how many peoleop would still give money and donations to the Salvation Army if they truely knew how it was being used. It seems to me that alot of religions are using the "good" parts, helping the poor, educating the populations, feeding the straving to just push the "bad" on them with there belife systems. Also when it comes down to it alot of the peoleop in theses relgiones are not doing good for the sake of good but becues there religion says they will burn in some firey hell if they don't.
Author:  CodeMonkey2000 [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
Dan @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:19 pm wrote:

As for my self i think religion is fine but only when it's kept to your self. Once you start pushing your bleifes on other peoleop things start going down hill. The very orginstations that you list that help and are religious also hurt just as much becues they push there belfies along with the good they do (and the Salvation army deftaly does this.). They also end up using money and reocuses donated to them not to help the poor or sick but to try and inductrate them and others in to there religion as well as lobby goverment to change laws to side with there belifes. I question how many peoleop would still give money and donations to the Salvation Army if they truely knew how it was being used. It seems to me that alot of religions are using the "good" parts, helping the poor, educating the populations, feeding the straving to just push the "bad" on them with there belife systems. Also when it comes down to it alot of the peoleop in theses relgiones are not doing good for the sake of good but becues there religion says they will burn in some firey hell if they don't.


I have to agree with that a full 100%. Although I would like to add that when you push your beliefs on other people, that's where the division starts, and it spirals into ignorance, and finally into intolerance.
Author:  bbi5291 [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
Zeroth, am I interepreting your arguments correctly? Are you actually saying that intolerance is not worthy of criticism?
Author:  Tony [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:religion?
saltpro15 @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:58 pm wrote:
all I mean is that I would not be homosexual because I feel it is against my beliefs

No Drew, you would not be a homosexual because you wouldn't have the right set of hormones to make it work. As hard as one might try to, it's not something you could control. I might believe that everyone should be... lets say Japanese; but that simply can't be the case. The reason I bring up race is that one has as much of a choice in theirs, as in their sexual orientation; and hopefully the society (at least here in Canada) has come to a point to tolerate different races.

Your believe that you should be straight works well, if you are born that way. It's a "norm" that you can associate with, having been born with the same trait as the majority. The problem is the converse. One of the problems I find with many religions is when they impose beliefs that are impossible for some. If one is born gay, they cannot simply believe that they are not; at least as much as a straight person can pretend to be homosexual. Imagine if everyone expected you to go on dates with guys; and your parents were constantly wondering why you are not in bed with that "cute boy from class". Sure, you could try to pretend, and put up a charade just to fit in (and some do!), but that would be a miserable life to go through.
Author:  CodeMonkey2000 [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:religion?
Tony @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:29 pm wrote:
Sure, you could try to pretend, and put up a charade just to fit in (and some do!), but that would be a miserable life to go through.


On an ethical note; Is that ethical? Forcing someone to be someone else, to force them to deny them self. Can you call your self a moral person by doing this? A fair number of christian groups do. I know that if I had a child and they were gay, I would never want to change them. I would accept them no matter what (that's just my parental instinct), I would hate for them to commit suicide because they felt unaccepted in society, or because I didn't accept them for who they were. I wouldn't do it to my child, so therefore I won't do it to anyone else's either.
Author:  Zeroth [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
bbi5291 @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:26 pm wrote:
Zeroth, am I interepreting your arguments correctly? Are you actually saying that intolerance is not worthy of criticism?
No I'm not. But I am trying to point out people's own inherent intolerance. There are good and bad sides to religious organizations. They do good things, and they do bad. Failing to listen to that, and even rail against it, saying all the bad points outweigh the good no matter IS intolerance.

Lets replace this a little bit. Lets say you are talking to someone who is racist. You try to point out that say, red haired people for example, have lots of good traits. In fact they're just people, and worthy of being judged individually. But then that person comes back and says, "Well, what about this, this, and this?! Neener neener neener!" People inherently focus on the bad, without taking into account the good either. You cannot just slam an organization just because its religious. That is inherently intolerant. You can't slam people just because they're religious either. That too is intolerant.

People seem to have a dislike of religious organizations due to the very small minority of preachers, fundamentalists, people that talk to you in the streets, etc. I'm trying to defend the very large majority of people that are quietly religious, without pushing their beliefs on people, with modern viewpoints and quite accepting of people; they just happen to believe in a greater power. One of my new, and good friends, Lauren, is quite devout. But she doesn't go to church. She doesn't talk about religion, until I asked. She wants to study evolutionary biology, and spends her sundays volunteering at the SPCA. She doesn't care about homosexuals, transexuals, or whatever. Lauren is the model for 90% of the religious people in our nation. Attack the people that are pushing their beliefs unfairly, but attack them specifically. Don't paint everyone with the same brush guys. It just makes you seem intolerant. Wisdom comes from accepting the good and the bad, without making snap value judgements.
Author:  x-ecutioner [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:49 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
i'm muslim
i recently got back into it after reading a book on it.
i didnt feel i needed it before until now

its different, having religion.
Author:  chopperdudes [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:49 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
i would like to point out that UN is actually considering "blasphemy" as "illegal". blasphemy is attacks on religion. (ie. saying god doesn't exist will then be illegal). apparently the muslim community was the one to propose this. I seriously hope whoever's making the decision has enough brains to know that we should protect people against attacks, and not ideas.
Author:  CodeMonkey2000 [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:54 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
So being atheist is illegal?
Author:  Dan [ Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
Zeroth @ 25th March 2009, 8:46 pm wrote:

Lets replace this a little bit. Lets say you are talking to someone who is racist. You try to point out that say, red haired people for example, have lots of good traits. In fact they're just people, and worthy of being judged individually. But then that person comes back and says, "Well, what about this, this, and this?! Neener neener neener!" People inherently focus on the bad, without taking into account the good either. You cannot just slam an organization just because its religious. That is inherently intolerant. You can't slam people just because they're religious either. That too is intolerant.


Ummm, in this case we would be aginsted the racist for being racist and not the red heads and i think we would have a vaild point....

Quote:

People seem to have a dislike of religious organizations due to the very small minority of preachers, fundamentalists, people that talk to you in the streets, etc.


Those are the least of the problem i have with religions, the wacos that just make alot of noise are fine and intintelied to there blifes. It's the ones lobbying goverment to change laws and trying to force the blfies on peoleop i have issues with. Also it's not just one person in the organization, in alot of cases it's the hole orginazation or at a very least a core belife of the orginzation that is the problem. The Salvation Army for example activaely campains aginsted gay mariage as a hole orginzation and the cahtloic church's office poisitoion is that comdons are bad and trys to block there use in affirca. It's also relgiuses groups not indviudal peoelop that got stem cell research blocked in the USA intill recently and scrwed up sex ed for generations of kids causing pergencey (and ironcilky abortion) rates to go up.

Quote:

I'm trying to defend the very large majority of people that are quietly religious, without pushing their beliefs on people, with modern viewpoints and quite accepting of people; they just happen to believe in a greater power.


I and others in this thread have made it quite clear that the problem is with religion and the orginsations not the peoleop fallowing it. However even peoleop that quielty blive a relgion with interalernt and discritoray views cause a problem becues they give justifcation to the actions of the wacos and orngstations that do push there belfies on others. They also vote of groups and poltitions that want to change the laws to match the views of there relgion rather then what is fair and just.
Author:  saltpro15 [ Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:15 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
Tony, you have given me a lot to think about, and I totally blew off my homework to read all this so if I fail I blame you Laughing I don't think anyone is actually born gay, God wouldn't have made it a sin if that were true.
"I'm trying to defend the very large majority of people that are quietly religious, without pushing their beliefs on people, with modern viewpoints and quite accepting of people; they just happen to believe in a greater power. " my deepest thanks to whoever said that, that's the point I'm trying to make Very Happy
Author:  DemonWasp [ Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:20 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
Well said, Dan.

Here's the synopsis of my views:
  • Believing in a higher power - not inherently harmful.
  • Believing that religion is better at explaining the universe than science - inherently harmful and patently untrue. People with this opinion are grossly misinformed and may end up making very poor decisions, both for themselves and for others. See all the issues surrounding "faith healing" and the number of deaths it has directly caused (notably, not through malice, but ignorance).
  • Believing that any group or set of people is inferior to you, will be damned, or is otherwise less favoured than you - unacceptable regardless of the cause. Religion is a flagrant and frequent offender, but not the only cause; none are acceptable. This idea that "we're better than them" is caustic to society and has been for millenia. I won't claim I'm free of that kind of idea, but I do try to avoid falling into that line of thinking.


I find religion to be largely incompatible with science. There is no real way to reconcile the exploratory and discovery-based nature of science with the faith-based, eternally-correct-even-when-we-change-our-minds world of religion. Even going with god-of-the-gaps isn't a great choice because then every time I hear about a new scientific discovery, I'm inherently weakening my religious views.

Religions do make some nice buildings though.
Author:  Dan [ Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:religion?
saltpro15 @ 26th March 2009, 2:15 pm wrote:
Tony, you have given me a lot to think about, and I totally blew off my homework to read all this so if I fail I blame you Laughing I don't think anyone is actually born gay, God wouldn't have made it a sin if that were true.


Thats rather cirucalr logic you are using and rather ignorent as you just ingore all research in to genetics realting to the subject and just say "it's not true becues god would not do that". Also even tho this does not matter, the god of the old testment would do that kind of thing. After all he did mark faimly lines to be blessed and some to be dammed (or at least cursed)....
Author:  saltpro15 [ Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:36 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
If it doesn't matter then why post it Dan?
Author:  bbi5291 [ Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
Perhaps he posted that because he thinks it might matter to you, but believes himself that it is irrelevant [because the point of his post was to encourage you to do some research on what scientific studies have revealed concerning the origin of homosexuality]
Author:  saltpro15 [ Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:53 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
alright, I know I said some real discussion is a good thing, but this is getting old guys, can we attack someone else's deep spiritual beliefs for a while?
Author:  bbi5291 [ Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
all right, check out the new topic I posted if you want to discuss something else Very Happy
Author:  revangrey [ Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
I'm incredibly late for the party but I have a question

Quote:
to account for the fact that there are more numbers between 0 and 1 than there are numbers


If there is an infinite amount of numbers there can't really be more numbers in between any given numbers (1.1,1.2 etc.) ...

can there?

also not to cause any more trouble for Drew but...

Main Entry: in?tol?er?ant
Pronunciation: -r&nt
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1735
1 : unable or unwilling to endure
2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : BIGOTED
3 : exhibiting physiological intolerance <lactose intolerant>
- in?tol?er?ant?ly adverb
- in?tol?er?ant?ness noun

From: http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwdictfr

I think what he was saying is that he thinks that homosexuals should have freedom of expression and full rights, but what he thinks will happen to them when they die is his business.
Author:  [Gandalf] [ Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
revangrey @ 2009-03-27, 1:17 am wrote:
If there is an infinite amount of numbers there can't really be more numbers in between any given numbers (1.1,1.2 etc.) ...
can there?

There's infinite, and there's more infinite. Wink

More seriously, the set of natural numbers (ie. positive integers) is called countably infinite, while the numbers between (ie. the set of real numbers) is uncountably infinite since it has even more elements.

Edit: Oh nice, a useful post in this trash of a topic!
Author:  revangrey [ Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
after consulting my good friend wikipedia I think I understand what you mean...

and if the edit was directed at me then thank you Very Happy
Author:  Tony [ Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:46 am ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
so apparently this has happened:
U.N. body adopts resolution on religious defamation

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE52P60220090326

Quote:

GENEVA (Reuters) - A United Nations forum on Thursday passed a resolution condemning "defamation of religion" as a human rights violation, despite wide concerns that it could be used to justify curbs on free speech in Muslim countries.

Though Canada was one of the few countries to object the text.
Quote:

"It is individuals who have rights, not religions," Ottawa's representative told the body. "Canada believes that to extend (the notion of) defamation beyond its proper scope would jeopardize the fundamental right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of expression on religious subjects."
Author:  DemonWasp [ Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:56 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
Ugh, hopefully someone pulls out the veto on that one. I'm also getting conflicting reports. That's just pure stupidity - should my girlfriend also start wearing a burkha too?
Author:  Dan [ Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:05 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
Does any one realy care what the UN says any more?

I know Canada does not. The UN has side that the chalotic school board is a viloation of humman rights laws (as it is paid for by the goverment and thus your taxes and they don't pay for any other relgious schools). Witch i think they are right about but Canada has doen nothing about it.

The dession is redictuless and i don't see any countries changing there laws becues of it. (if they value free speach they allready have laws protecting it and if they don't they allready are hanging peoleop that say things they don't like). After all the UN does not make the laws of a country so it does not matter much.
Author:  saltpro15 [ Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:06 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
the UN has NEVER once managed to keep the peace, I'm disgusted with them. And no worries guys, I still want this topic to stay alive Very Happy
Author:  Insectoid [ Fri Mar 27, 2009 3:20 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
I leave the thread for 2 days and we're talking about the UN? lol.

The UN in trash. It may have been decent to start with, but it never really got any further. It was a good idea, but like good little humans, we made it not work. The UN is powerless; look at Afghanistan. All we've done is get the Taliban's guns pointed at us rather than the civilians. If we pull our troops out now, the warlords are still pissed off, and they'll lash out at the civilians and it will be worse than before we got there.
Author:  x-ecutioner [ Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:59 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
really wha tpeople dont understand, in my opinion
north america, countries, the whole world; there is no such thing as democracy.

there is only oligarchy the government is never really behind anything. they just make sure the line at the DMV is short at the most. Money talks, money's the strongest power of all, money is what we sell our morals for and always will.

take a look at mainstream music; those arent actual musicians, they are just in it for the money. they sell their morals (i wanna f**k u, up on da floor) just for cash because "thats what the kids wanna hear nowadays". they sell their morals for cash; and can get away with it due to a credibility free system. money talks.
Author:  A.J [ Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:14 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
watch your language...I want this thread to be the first thread on religion in this website not to get locked
Author:  x-ecutioner [ Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:24 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
yep thats why i asterisk'd (if thats a word lol) it
i only used that particular example to make a point is all
i concluded it would be considered acceptable becuase it was used with purpose
Author:  Tony [ Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:33 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
We have a separate thread going for the government/economic systems.
Author:  x-ecutioner [ Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:39 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
its funny though

how government and religion tie so well together
ud think theyd be the two most likely tihngs that should be seperated, right?
Author:  Tony [ Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:58 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
this is why we have the separation of church and state.
Author:  [Gandalf] [ Sun Mar 29, 2009 5:29 am ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
That's why we have the separation of church and state, but that doesn't mean others don't. Smile

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy.
Author:  saltpro15 [ Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:religion?
Tony @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 wrote:
saltpro15 @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:22 pm wrote:
By tolerant I mean I have no problem with them, they have their beliefs and I have mine, my belief is yes, they are going to hell, but that does NOT mean I attempt to convert/bully them into Christianity.

That's not tolerance. There is an adverse reaction -- your belief that a certain group are born to go to hell. The reaction might not be well expressed, but it could still work on subconscious or other levels.

If you want to be actually tolerant, it would be helpful to first understand where they are coming from. It is not a matter of belief for homosexual orientation, but being born with certain genetics; much as it's not a matter of belief that one is born Asian or being born with a connected earlobe.


I'm going to work hard to keep this topic alive.
How am I being intolerant? I believe homosexuals deserve the same rights and freedoms as myself. Hell, I even associate with a few. I think there's an exception if you are genetically born homosexual vs pretending to be out of some sick sexual orientation. And on the topic of Atheism, Atheism is not a religion, Athiesm is a LACK of religion, just to make things clear.
Author:  Dan [ Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:religion?
saltpro15 @ 29th March 2009, 11:35 am wrote:

I'm going to work hard to keep this topic alive.
How am I being intolerant? I believe homosexuals deserve the same rights and freedoms as myself. Hell, I even associate with a few. I think there's an exception if you are genetically born homosexual vs pretending to be out of some sick sexual orientation. And on the topic of Atheism, Atheism is not a religion, Athiesm is a LACK of religion, just to make things clear.


I think tony explained that prity well.

I am not sure why you are bring up that atheism is not a religion, i thought that was prity well know as obviuse. Witch is why it is good that we both have freedom of religion and freedom from it. Speartion of chuch and state would be the second, and athought it is not spefical in our consitition it is in our humman rights laws (tho for some reason the goverment choses to ignore this when it comes to the cathloic school board).
Author:  saltpro15 [ Sun Mar 29, 2009 5:07 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
Well, just wanted to make sure everyone knew, can you blame me? I agree with you, it's a good thing to have freedom of religion and freedom from it, makes it harder for people to complain... they still find ways though...
Author:  Dan [ Sun Mar 29, 2009 5:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:religion?
saltpro15 @ 29th March 2009, 5:07 pm wrote:
makes it harder for people to complain... they still find ways though...


Basic human rights are not about stopping people for complaining and democracy is prity much based around people complaing :p

Also in the case of Atheists, they don't have true freedom from region in Canada yet. If you pay tax you are paying for the cathloic school board and the goverment does not pay for any other relgiues school board. Also the Toronto Cahtloci school board masively adbused this and there board of directs took trips and had masive expse accounts on the tax payers. Thats bad enought for any goverment fundend orngastation but the fact that they also do it in the name of relgion, discrimate agsinted who can work for them, remove time for teaching real subjects with things like coffesion and relgione clases, ban and remove books from there libbray, etc all on my tax money is rediculess. It should be all or none (all relgione based school boards funded or only public).

This also means funds that could go to the public school boards for things like text books, teaching suplies and just geting more teachers are being derivered to chirstion only jobs, relgione text books and putting kids threw prayers and confessional.
Author:  saltpro15 [ Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:religion?
Dan @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 wrote:

democracy is prity much based around people complaing :p



well duh :p
Author:  Tony [ Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
and now, for comedic value: If Atheists Ruled the World
Quote:
All text taken directly from online Christian fundamentalist forums.

So some of it is NSFW/School. Seriously. You've been warned.

Author:  matt271 [ Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:40 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahahahahaahahahahaha Very Happy
Author:  md [ Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:56 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
Tony... that's impressive, though I have a feeling that it's not actual interviews.

Mostly because the people who think like that tend to be less well spoken Razz
Author:  Tony [ Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:03 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
Those are not actual interviews -- it's actors, and they read text found on forums.
Author:  Tallguy [ Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:10 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
i love you tony for that video

no homo, just saying that, that was a great movie
Author:  Exordium [ Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: religion?
Whats interesting is that there is a word for not believing something which is supernatural and for which there is no evidence beyond the anectdotal. There's no word for not accepting alchemy or astrology. Religion is/was our first/worst attempt at a theory of everything. And for those of you who are gonna tell me the bible is the word of god, if some guy came up to you today-in our modern society- and said he had just risen from the dead well... you'd probably think he was unstable to say the least. I don't really agree with the whole religion as a moral compass thing either. The very fact that you can recognize which parts of the bible are blatantly immoral hints that we get our morals from somewhere else... like say from evolution.
Author:  Tony [ Thu May 14, 2009 12:29 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
FYI, abiotic genesis
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
Quote:

Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made.
Author:  endless [ Thu May 14, 2009 12:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:religion?
Tony @ Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:03 pm wrote:
Those are not actual interviews -- it's actors, and they read text found on forums.


ha, that actually originated from a mountain biking forum i go on. it was posted by a teacher who's students created this as a project, can't remember what course it was for though.
i think it's brilliant.
Author:  redisforever [ Tue May 25, 2010 8:00 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
Well, I read in a book that someone was a "Non-practicing Hindu atheist" Just an interesting 'religion' I myself am an Israeli atheist. Or Jewish aetheist. Something like that.
Author:  CodeMonkey2000 [ Tue May 25, 2010 8:16 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
Didn't this die ages ago?

Anyway, a few days ago it was Everybody Draw Muhammad Day! I don't know if this is too controversial to discuss though.
Author:  Dan [ Tue May 25, 2010 8:55 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:religion?
Draw Muhammad Day as a topic is fine but it should be it's own topic. This topic is long since dead and as such is now locked.

:


You can syndicate this boards posts using the file backend.php or view the topic map using sitemap.php.

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy