This is an archive of a previous version of Sodarace.

Please visit http://sodarace.net for the latest version.

forum  |  »» sodaplay
 
»» forums  »» artificial intelligence forum

subject: Evo, vs crea,

497 replies on 34 pages. most recent reply: Mon, Aug 27 8:06 PM by cactus2

»» back to topic list  

This topic has 497 replies on 34 pages [ « | 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 | » ]
»» previous topic   »» next topic  


PYROSMOKEY888

»» models
»» homepage

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 02-Jul-06 04:58   »» 
Those who think that everything may be proven through science are completely ignorant. Those who rely solely on religion are ignorant.
Science or logic cannot prove the existence of a god and cannot prove the lack of a god. I am not speaking purely from the perspective of one religion, so I am not being ignorant of other religions.

Oh and once again, Face (Lance Rando) is a bitch.

lol

FACE

»» models
»» homepage

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 02-Jul-06 15:31   »» 

"proof" is scientific in itself. the definition of proof is the evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. or determination of the quality of something by testing; trial.

science and logic have the ability to prove or disprove ANYTHING. explain how it couldn't.

maTTHew decarlo i am sorry about the typo, next time i'll be sure to proofread. and calling me a bitch really makes you sound smart too. i am really surprised you havent been banned yet. the mod of this forum never comes here though.

what do you beleive anyway?

PYROSMOKEY888

»» models
»» homepage

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 02-Jul-06 16:27   »» 
I called you a bitch for even mentioning my name.

You are correct that science and logic may prove anything, but you're assuming that people already know everything there is to know through science. Like, for example, when people "knew" that the earth was flat because they used logic to determine that if the earth was round, we would simply fall off (or some schit like that).
When I said that nothing may be proved through science and logic, I meant that purely from the perspective of now and not thinking of the future possibility that people will know everything. Not everything has already been discovered through science.

You should really proofread your posts more. I don't BELIEVE in very much. I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should be malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate.

I like to think that there is something more to life that cannot be explained, but if you like to believe that this is it and there is nothing more to life then that's fine with me. I like to think there is a god. I guess it's all kinda like that "glass half full" kind of schit. You can choose to look at a down side or choose to look at a slightly better side. Since neither side can be proven, I would prefer to stay optimistic about life in general.

FACE

»» models
»» homepage

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 03-Jul-06 04:58   »» 
beleiving in nothing has nothing to do with optimism or pessimism. i could see how beleivig in a god could make you a better/happier person, but i don't need something that i don't even think exists to live by and assure me of my fate, i just live however i want to live. i am not going to beleive in something "just in case" its true and i might go to hell. why not become muslim? to me being atheist is like being neutral, and religions are the extremes. as stupid as this sounds... just live a good life then whatever happens, happens. suppose mormon is the way to go (the south park scenario) well then it doesnt matter anyway... like is there a "right" religion? i mean all these religions were created by man in the first place... oh man i really am done with this thread.

i NEVER capitalize... oh and i am a hypocrite. oh and i won't proofread just for you. :'(

-L-

PYROSMOKEY888

»» models
»» homepage

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 03-Jul-06 07:56   »» 
What is your problem with spelling the word "believe" wrong.

I before E except after C, or when sounded like AY as in neighbor and weigh.


Besides, I never said that i thought there was a god just in case there was one so that I wouldn't go to hell or anything like that. Living a good life is what most religions teach anyway. You simply asked me what i believed, and i said i thought there was a god. It doesn't make me feel special that there is a god and thats not at all what i meant. What i meant was that if there is no god, then there would be no after life, therefore, this life would be all and death would mean our ultimate end. (This is where the optimism comes in.) Because it's kinda pessimistic to think about death as the end.

Maybe choosing a religion is like choosing what you want to be when you grow up. No choice is really the wrong one, but just different from the rest. It's the thought that counts, right?

FACE

»» models
»» homepage

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 05-Jul-06 04:57   »» 
i know the ie rule.... but remember i don't proofread... see that i spelled believe INSANELY wrong once.

that whole last paragraph was... weird. that analogy i am not even going to touch. i just dont see how you can say that no religion is the wrong one when most of them say that they are the only true faith. you are giving religions no credibility by saying that you choose one based on what you think... not a very large percentage of people get this deep into what they believe... they are dumb for having such blind faith. i suppose it's the thought that counts, but some people don't think at all.

i hope i am not twisting your words again, but now you sound like the only reason to believe in any faith is to be optimistic about having an afterlife, period. that is one characteristic of most faiths. i have a feeling that all religions were created with concerns like existence, and afterlife in mind. i think their creation gives no credibility to any religion, though. either you beleive that people wrote some texts that became what they are today through people's willingness to beleive because they could have all their questions answered and provide a moral guide, or you believe that whatever holy text that your religion uses was actually written by prophets, through the hand of god, ect.

again... as nice as as afterlife would be, i just think it was written into holy texts, just to give people optimism about living a good life and getting rewarded.

before i start ranting... thats it.

-L-

PYROSMOKEY888

»» models
»» homepage

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 05-Jul-06 06:41   »» 
Wierd? Yes it was absolutely wierd, but then again you have to take into account that it was written by a "wierd" person. That is one thing I think we can both agree on.

No afterlife means no haunted houses, no ghosts, and, worst of all, no Casper the friendly ghost. People that believe in their religion with faith, according to you, are blind in their assumptions. So, according to what you believe, a bunch of people thousands of years ago sat down and just pulled this religion stuff out of their asses to get stupid people to follow them. But if that were true, then wouldn't they also write down somewhere (like if they had journals or something) that all religion is complete bull? Did they simply get caught up in their lies and believe in it themselves. It seems very improbable, but not completely impossible, that they would leave no trace for people to somehow find out that these people made it up.
So there's kosher food everywhere for no reason at all, people waste mass (no pun intended) amounts of their lives away for no reason, and guys get skin cut off their dick for no reason.
I actually agree with the last one, but thats not the point. My point is that somewhere there must be evidence that people just made this all up. There has to be a reason besides feeling better that people made this up (if they actually did make it up). It's not something like a white lie that you make up to make someone feel better, its misleading and immoral.
Guilt is a human emotion. Whoever made this all up had to feel immense guilt. People who feel guilty about something usually tell someone else. So, logically, there should be historical evidence somewhere (maybe it wasn't found yet or something) that someone made this up.
Until there is absolute proof though, i will choose to believe contrary.


sorry, i think i kinda ranted on about nothing for a while there. oh well, hopefully you get what i was trying to say. i am not always as good with conveying my ideas.

FACE

»» models
»» homepage

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 05-Jul-06 20:51   »» 
oh and just FYI.... "weird" is an exception to the i-e rule. and there are over 14 million google indexed pages with weird spelled wrong on them.

i am not in the mood to say anything more... except that i still have my "dick skin". :)

-L-

PYROSMOKEY888

»» models
»» homepage

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 05-Jul-06 23:41   »» 
good for you

theduke

»» models

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 20-Aug-06 02:10   »» 
"God" is a government conspiracy to start Wars. Economies live off war.

If god was so great why is it the biggest contributer to death. (WAR)

pyrosmokey888

»» models
»» homepage

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 21-Aug-06 00:11   »» 
Duke, please do NOT start on all of that government conspiracy stuff. Because that only leads to places that i don't want to go.

Economies do not live off of war. I mean just take a look at Canada and get back to me.

RJRocket53

»» models
»» homepage

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 25-Aug-07 19:39   »» 
Bump,

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose: ONe is spontaneous generation-a rising evolution. The other is a supernatural act of God.

Spontaneous generation was scientifically disprover 120 years ago by Pasteur and others.
This leaves us with only one logical conclusion- that life arose as a supernatural act of God.

I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in what I know to be scientifically impossible." --- George Wald, professor emeritus, Harvard University; Nobel peace prize in medicine, 1967


Evolution states that in the beginning, there was nothing, then there was a big bang, and the universe, matter, and everything was just there. I'm not saying the big bang didn't happen, but that something must have started it.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth"
Genesis 1:1

Can't get much clearer than that.

But if you doubt the bible, consider this:

Dr. Hugh Ross, a world renowned astrophysicist say that about 2000 of 2500 prophesies in the Bible have come true to the letter with no errors.

thats a probability of 1 in 10^2000

cactus2

»» models

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 25-Aug-07 20:31   »» 
Sorry, don't have a copy of the Bible. I do believe that the Bible also said slavery was okay, and that Noah built a giant arch, its existence still disproved to this day.

Physicists belive a field called an infanton field allowed gravity to reverse for a short period of time, causing it to expand rapidly.

"Spontaneous generation was scientifically disprover 120 years ago by Pasteur and others.
This leaves us with only one logical conclusion- that life arose as a supernatural act of God."
Spontaneous generation is not at all related to the creation of life. Spontaneous generation says that life can be created without any starting materials or stimulation. Evolution's theory of life's creation says that compounds present reacted with one another in the conditions of early Earth, which has been proven possible by scientists.

RJRocket53

»» models
»» homepage

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 26-Aug-07 22:38   »» 
But the big bang says the universe came from nothing, something (or someone) must of started it i.e. God.

RJRocket53

»» models
»» homepage

Re: Evo, vs crea,   posted: 26-Aug-07 23:26   »» 
> I do believe that the Bible also said slavery was okay

It said slavery was OK as a punishment and that no matter what, they must be paid in full for their services after seven years, and that if a slave runs away, anyone who finds her/her cannot return them to the owner. Slaves cannot work on Sundays either.

________________________________________________
> Noah built a giant arch, its existence still
> disproved to this day.

if it is disproved, how come, accoring to Wikipedia "A large percentage of the world's cultures past and present have stories of a 'great flood' that devastated earlier civilization."
If that many people said that, they can't all be false, because there had to be somehing that started it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_%28mythology%29

________________________________________________
> Physicists belive a field called an infanton field
> allowed gravity to reverse for a short period of
> time, causing it to expand rapidly.

Scientists "believe" many things that aren't true, evolution is just one example. How can they belive in what they know is false, yet not believe in what they know has been proven.

________________________________________________
> "Spontaneous generation was scientifically disprover
> 120 years ago by Pasteur and others.
> This leaves us with only one logical conclusion- that
> life arose as a supernatural act of God."

I didn't say that, a Nobel Peace Prize winner did.

________________________________________________
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/historical_evid.html
http://www.probe.org/content/view/841/77/
http://www.layevangelism.com/qreference/--%20bible.htm



This topic has 497 replies on 34 pages [ « | 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 | » ]


»» previous topic   »» next topic  

»» back to topic list  »» top of the page  

PLEASE READ THE FORUM GUIDELINES AND ALWAYS PREVIEW TO CHECK MESSAGES BEFORE POSTING...
...Help keep our forums creative and constructive. Thank you.


»» forum home