Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

alright im just going to write some things, most talk about differnt things people said in a random order.
1) people say that if there is a God then why doesn't it make the world perfect: if there was a perfect world then there would be no decision, which would remove all the reason and choice that most people believe make human beings actually human beings. there are still many people who believe in materialism that everything is caused from physical substance which would make everything predetermined due to cause and effect.
2) The possibility of materialism: this is pretty much the entire basis of religion in that is is all based on faith. It is impossible to prove or disprove God considering that God is not a physical being and in that science cannot "prove" a higher being you cannot use science to prove something that it does not try to understand. But with materialism, it means that everything comes from cause and effect, since everything is caused by physical entities then whatever happens to one causes something to happen to another. This would mean that there is no free choice and people are forced into decisions. There is a popular book called [U]Consilience[/U] that trys to prove this.

I have no idea if evolution existed or not but i don't believe that has any effect of the existence of God, maybe it could help disprove the existence of a Christain God but not God in it's entirety. But i personally believe in morals and I think morals come from something that is "higher" or more perfect than us since if you don't believe in morals and think that evolution can explain everything then it would say that moral relativism is correct. With moral relativism, there are no wrong answers to morals but only answers based on culture and with that, no one is wrong so Hitler would just have had a different view instead of a wrong view. I believe that something inside everyone thinks that what Hitler did is wrong and some people act on that while others follow what he says out of fear or anger.

With this long post (if you made it through) there are probably many things you can discount but I personally believe that everyone's personal philosophy is based on their own attitude on life or what their influences told them to believe. With that, it would mean that optimistic people or people who are pushed to a religion are more inclined into believing in a God, while many others want more than just faith; which in it's definition is based on something that cannot be proven.

The one thing i can hope is that people try and understand or actually look into other beliefs instead of sticking with one idea and trying to find ways to disprove other ideas. Too many people grow up with a religion or belief and follow it to the death and this creates seperation and problems which are pointless and cause more problems like crusades or bombings of abortion clinic . Both of which make no sense to me since the people who apparently "believe" in Jesus and his teachings partake in actions that are the opposite of what he thought.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

that was long and probably had a lot of grammar problems... sorry.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=Daseal;267526]Personally, I'm agnostic. To me, I have trouble believing as truth books supposedly written from 3rd, 4th, and 5th hand information. Many of those books translated many time from ancient languages and by hand. There's also the issue of books of the bible found that were omitted which seems odd to me.

I think religion can be a great force for people. If someone truly believes in prayer, then I think it helps. The mind is an extremely powerful healer.

As far as the heaven and hell thing. In my opinion, as long as you live what would be considered an honest life, I don't think there will be any issues. For instance, I don't feel eating pork will keep me from entering heaven.

As far as when did I stop and why did I stop. I never began. Part of the reason a lot of churches in the community I grew up in is their congregation's average age must be hovering around 55-60. They can't get any young people; my theory is that now days parents aren't forcing children to adopt their beliefs without exploring a bit on their own first, this leads to more people being either extremely casual (not going to church) about religion or become agnostic like myself.

One thing I'd like to clear up that sometimes people misunderstand. Agnostic is not the same as atheist. Agnostic means you believe that there's some sort of higher power, but you don't exactly claim to know what.[/quote]

Soooo, agnostic is like a...........lazy Atheist?

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=saden1;268013]What were you doing when god was changing you? Sit idle? My take is that you made the necessary changes, god just inspired you.

I am glad for you but the fact of the matter is your "transformation" is not something you can scientifically study to prove the existence of god. In hard sciences anyways but perhaps psychologically and philosophically.[/quote]

You're looking for an ontological proof of God, right? That is, either a logical set of deductions or scientific evidence, but no requirement of a leap of faith. This is a HUGE field of study, and, AFAIK, there haven't been a whole lot of satisfying answers. Most ontological proofs wind up like the Tootsie Pop commercial ("1...2...3...CRUNCH!"), and I think the vast majority of the religious followers go the "faith" route.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=saden1;268077]I'm glad you find it funny. I'm not really sure how gambling and wind entered the conversation.

Folks, this tread is about me and god and whether I'm going to hell for no longer having faith in him/her/[B]it[/B]. A poll is perhaps in order?[/quote]

God is a flying spaghetti-monster. Obviously.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=Hog1;268095]Soooo, agnostic is like a...........lazy Atheist?[/quote]

An agnostic is like an atheist without balls.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

The coolest thing about it all is this. You get to believe whatever you want. If your a non-believer, or any other type of believer. You will find out what the truth is. Only problem is, if you have been wrong all these years, it may get real hot............or not..........and NOBODY can prove differently....

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=Hog1;268225]The coolest thing about it all is this. You get to believe whatever you want. If your a non-believer, or any other type of believer. You will find out what the truth is. Only problem is, if you have been wrong all these years, it may get real hot............or not..........and NOBODY can prove differently....[/quote]

I'd like to believe God is more forgiving and understanding than sending the non-believers to hell.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=Hog1;268225]The coolest thing about it all is this. You get to believe whatever you want. If your a non-believer, or any other type of believer. You will find out what the truth is. Only problem is, if you have been wrong all these years, it may get real hot............or not..........and NOBODY can prove differently....[/quote]

Well if everyone discovers that there isn't a God, their brains won't be functioning at that point, and they'll cease to exist. So will we even be able to think to ourselves, hey, there's no God after all?

The cool thing about all this is the questions it raises. Like was our world/universe/matter created? Or did it simply always exist?

If you think of matter relative to our human concept of time, it's hard to fathom matter always existing. Because to us, everything has a beginning and an end, a notion that comes from our concept of time.

But our concept of time may be limited to the fact that we can't travel faster than the speed of light. Imagine this: you're looking at a clock, it says 8:00 pm. The reason you see that it's 8:00 pm is because the light shining from the face of the clock travels the space between the clock and your eye, reaching your eye basically instantaneously. But now imagine that you're moving away from the clock at the speed of light. What does the clock read? The image of 8:00 pm would be traveling at the same speed as you, so from your vantage point, it would appear to be stuck on 8:00 pm until you slowed down.

That's Einstein's theory of relativity in a nutshell. Time and space are relative to your velocity as you approach the speed of light.

Isn't it possible that our definition of "time" is too limited to define a beginning to our world/universe? With so many objects moving at such vastly different speeds through space, each object would have it's own sense of time.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;268000]to say that you have NEVER lost in roulette, either you have only played a handful of times, or are full of it. because sooner or later, its always about the money[/QUOTE]

If you read my entire post, you will see that I say you will lose if you stay too long. I have lost small battles, but have always won the war...in other words, I have always walked away from my time at playing (sometimes a 4 or 5 times a day, for 5 straight days) with money in my pocket. Does that help you understand what I meant?

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;267999]I wasn't going to respond to this, but since Jsarno actually bought this crap, now I feel the need.

You can see and feel the effects of the wind because it has been scientifically proven to exist. Wind is caused by the movement of air molecules (oxygen, nitrogen, etc.) which moves due to differences in high and low barometric pressure. Those molecules are gaseous matter. They move towards low pressure pockets in the atmosphere. You can measure the wind's velocity - our weathermen can tell us when wind gusts hit 50 mph. This isn't voodoo. It's science.

And pretty simple science at that.

This post of yours makes me feel very disappointed in the American education system, specifically the math & science departments. You don't have to see something to know it exists. There are other ways to prove it. However, there is no proof that God exists.[/QUOTE]

Yet another example of you missing the point.

Why does something have to be "scientifically proven" ie: thought to be true by MAN, for you to beleive it?
There are galaxies farther away from us than we can see or touch, a ton of them beyond our technologies...do they exist? By your standards, they don't. Only what can be seen or touched is true. I would hate to be limited by what a flawed man tells me to be true.

He was talking about the air not being able to be seen, but it still exists. Please understand what people are saying, because to have to explain things twice gets annoying. We're all listening to you, listen to everyone else too. You don't have to agree, just don't jump to conclusions.

ps- there are fish / creatures that live deep in the oceans that we have yet to reach, there is a whole world in our seas that we have not tapped...do they exist? There is literally millions upon millions of things that man has yet to prove, does that mean it doesn't exist? Is cancer curable? Is there an answer to birth defects? What is the meaning of life...ok I threw that one in for giggles.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;268045]

What a fucking joke. Give me a scientific journal or some other source with credibility. I mean give me an effing break, the Vatican can't even put out anything that disproves the theory of evolution.[/QUOTE]

Have you ever heard the expression that when you point your finger, there are 3 pointing back at you?
You have talked about having lively debate, but most everyone here has been calm and provided ample info to wrap your mind around (for or against religion / evolution) but you use anger, profanity and demean people. Why?
This is my last response to you. Some people are just closed minded and they can't think outside the box...you my friend are the poster child at this point.
When you make a comment we look at it and evaluate it. When we make a comment, it's like you don't even read the entire post, you just instantly go into attack mode. It doesn't make for lively debate.
I'm not trying to attack you, if you feel I have, I am sorry for that. Just remember you can learn something from the oldest man, or the youngest child. I learn something every day from the oddest places.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;268344]If you read my entire post, you will see that I say you will lose if you stay too long. I have lost small battles, but have always won the war...in other words, I have always walked away from my time at playing (sometimes a 4 or 5 times a day, for 5 straight days) with money in my pocket. Does that help you understand what I meant?[/quote]

No. It actually makes no mathematical sense. The more you play, the more you lose. It's a basic law of averages.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;268357]Yet another example of you missing the point.

[B]Why does something have to be "scientifically proven" ie: thought to be true by MAN, for you to beleive it?[/B]
There are galaxies farther away from us than we can see or touch, a ton of them beyond our technologies...do they exist? By your standards, they don't. Only what can be seen or touched is true. I would hate to be limited by what a flawed man tells me to be true.

He was talking about the air not being able to be seen, but it still exists. Please understand what people are saying, because to have to explain things twice gets annoying. We're all listening to you, listen to everyone else too. You don't have to agree, just don't jump to conclusions.

ps- there are fish / creatures that live deep in the oceans that we have yet to reach, there is a whole world in our seas that we have not tapped...do they exist? There is literally millions upon millions of things that man has yet to prove, does that mean it doesn't exist? Is cancer curable? Is there an answer to birth defects? What is the meaning of life...ok I threw that one in for giggles.[/quote]

No you're misunderstanding me. I understood his point, he said just because you can't see the wind doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Likewise, you can't see God, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist. I got the point. Now here's mine: I only believe that things exist if there is scientific evidence that it exists. I don't have to see the evidence with my eyes, but there has to be evidence. Wind: you don't see it, but you feel it on your skin, and you can measure its velocity. Chemical scanners can analyze it and tell you that it's made up of oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and other gases. Other stars in space: detected by Hubble.

I don't believe God exists because there's no evidence of it. People who believe in him go on faith. In the bolded part above, you're simply asking the fundamental question. Do you or don't you believe God exists? I don't. I need evidence. There is NONE. There is only faith. That's not enough for me. If it is for you, that's fine. But please, don't try to tell me that because I can't see the wind, and because I can't see God, therefore he exists. That's the most retarded logic in the world.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=Schneed10;268045]You call this "proof"???

"There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present."

That doesn't prove anything. All that says is that evolution has not been proven. It definitely does not say that evolution has been disproven.

PS Don't give me a link to a ridiculous site done by some hack named Doug LaPointe and pass it off as scientific proof.

What a fucking joke. Give me a scientific journal or some other source with credibility. I mean give me an effing break, the Vatican can't even put out anything that disproves the theory of evolution.[/quote]
Here is some more "proof." [URL="http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html"]Scientific Evidence against Evolution (concise and short)[/URL]
If it's all so wrong, why don't you disprove it, instead of taking two sentences and saying that this doesn't disprove evolution. What you said didn't prove anything about evolution either.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;268364]Have you ever heard the expression that when you point your finger, there are 3 pointing back at you?
You have talked about having lively debate, but most everyone here has been calm and provided ample info to wrap your mind around (for or against religion / evolution) but you use anger, profanity and demean people. Why?
This is my last response to you. Some people are just closed minded and they can't think outside the box...you my friend are the poster child at this point.
When you make a comment we look at it and evaluate it. When we make a comment, it's like you don't even read the entire post, you just instantly go into attack mode. It doesn't make for lively debate.
I'm not trying to attack you, if you feel I have, I am sorry for that. Just remember you can learn something from the oldest man, or the youngest child. I learn something every day from the oddest places.[/quote]

I seem close minded to you because I'm unwilling to go on faith alone regarding the existence of God. I was engaging the morons in this thread who tried to present "scientific" evidence that the theory of evolution has been disproven. I won't apologize for coming harsh at someone who does that. Everyone knows that there is no scientific evidence disproving the theory of evolution. If there was, it would never be taught in our public schools again. Giving me a link to some guy's musings and passing it off as scientific proof is nothing short of retarded, and quite frankly, insulting to my intelligence.

I have no problem with your views at all. I think if you believe in it, that's great. There really is no harm in being religious at all (as long as you don't organize against other faiths or discriminate against other faiths, and I don't think you do). What I have a problem with is trying to pass off a heaping pile of crap as actual evidence. I mean we all went to high school right? We all know that evidence needs to come from credible sources, right? We know that if we write a term paper and say something like E=MC2 (my friend James told me so). No, we have to put E=MC2 (Einstein).

Just like in Redskin related threads we ask for links to news stories, I'm doing the same thing here. You can't come on the board making claims that aren't true and then go linking to some hack. Again, the problem wasn't with his or your belief. The problem was with the style of debate.

Religion is all about faith. For anyone to think they can prove the existence of God, then they don't even understand religion at all. His existence cannot be proven. You can only believe in him based on faith. That's the entire point of religion: believe in Him and ye shall be saved.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=steveo395;268369]Here is some more "proof." [URL="http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html"]Scientific Evidence against Evolution (concise and short)[/URL]
If it's all so wrong, why don't you disprove it, instead of taking two sentences and saying that this doesn't disprove evolution. What you said didn't prove anything about evolution either.[/quote]

Dude, what don't you understand here?? You are linking to Christian websites.

I said SCIENTIFIC evidence. Did you go to high school?

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=steveo395;268369]Here is some more "proof." [URL="http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html"]Scientific Evidence against Evolution (concise and short)[/URL]
If it's all so wrong, why don't you disprove it, instead of taking two sentences and saying that this doesn't disprove evolution. What you said didn't prove anything about evolution either.[/quote]

While I would have phrased it much more diplomatically than Schneed, he is correct that the types of websites you have linked to are not scientific proof. At best, they are collections of sound-bites cobbled together to provide talking points. I think he is asking for something that follows the scientific method and that has been accepted through the peer-review process (even if peers don't agree with it).

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=Schneed10;268373]Dude, what don't you understand here?? You are linking to Christian websites.

I said SCIENTIFIC evidence. Did you go to high school?[/quote]
You're not even reading it. It is scientific evidence. Do you think there is no such thing as a scientist that believes in God? If it is all false, then why don't you disprove it?

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=724Skinsfan;268018]Roulette 101: Pick a number, put down a wager, like $5. If the ball does not land on your #, you lose $5. Since you are down $5 you need to make the original wager plus your total loss. So place a $10 bet on the same number. If you lose the $10 dollars you must put in (at least) $15. You have to have sufficient funds to continue with this way of wagering until eventually your number is the one that the ball lands on. It may take a thousand dollars or more but that's about the only (and simplest) way of making cash in roulette. The key is picking the same number (or group of numbers) until you win AND you always bet more than your total loss thus far.[/QUOTE]

You actually have a good mind for what my system says. But don't bet the actual numbers. Bet the black and reds, and bet the 1st / 2nd / 3rd 12's, and the even / odds. A simple way is this...put $5 on 2nd 12, and $5 on 3rd 12. Then put $5 on red, and $5 on odd. (total of $20 on table) So let's say it hits on black 13. You won with 2nd 12, so that's $10 winning there, you also won with $5 odd, so that's $5 there, so you won $15, and get $10 back from your wager (the $5 on 2nd twelve and the $5 on odd) You lost $10 total (from 3rd 12, and black). So you now have $25 in your pocket, which means you are up $5 total. Now since you already won 2nd 12 and odd, don't play those again, but double the money in the area you did lose in. So bet $10 red this time. If You lose again, bet $20 and so on, so let's say you hit on that $20 bet. Now you win $20, but only lost $10...$15 if you count the first $5, but I already counted that in my previous numbers, so you just won $10 more. So now your first session is over and you have won / taken away from the table, $15. Repeat the process when you notice patterns. ie: Red has hit 3 times in a row, or 1st 12 hit 2 times in a row. Etc.

A non beleiver will always be a non beleiver unless they try.
So try [url=http://www.freeroulette.com]Free Roulette: Learn to play roulette today for free[/url] and give my basic system a try. I have a complex system that I use, but that would take a really long time to explain.
I usually only do the system once or twice, occasionally 3 times depending on the patterns, then I walk away from the table with anywhere from $15-$75. Do this 10 times, and even at the smallest amount, you are up $150. I will generally play 30 times throughout my cruises (for instance) and the first time I went on a cruise I won over 1k. But I rarely win less than $500 when I do play. That is kinda my bench mark of success.
The second you get greedy, you lose. The second you stray from the process, you lose. If you think small, and think strategically, you'll win. Never let the other players around you intimidate you to play more, just stick to the process. The reason people lose at a lot of these games is because they get greedy. The best times to play are after 00 or 0 hit, cause the chance they hit again are slimmer. But after about 10-13 times of green not hitting, put $1 on both, when they do hit, and they will, you come out on top even more, if they don't while using my system, no biggy, you lost only a few dollars but you are still up a lot.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

LOL this is getting good

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;268365]No. It actually makes no mathematical sense. The more you play, the more you lose. It's a basic law of averages.[/QUOTE]

Do me a favor, and just try my basic thoughts (that I posted in a previous post) on that website. Let me know how much you win.
If you lost, you either didn't follow what I said, or didn't understand my instructions.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=steveo395;268369]Here is some more "proof." [URL="http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html"]Scientific Evidence against Evolution (concise and short)[/URL]
If it's all so wrong, why don't you disprove it, instead of taking two sentences and saying that this doesn't disprove evolution. What you said didn't prove anything about evolution either.[/quote]

OK I'll humor you. Your Christian website has a very limited understanding of the law of thermodynamics. The law states that matter becomes more disorderly over time - ie decays. But evolution states that the order of organic matter is actually becoming more organized, therefore it violates the law of thermodynamics. That's laughable.

When a person dies, their bodies do indeed decay. But evolution is the result of changes in the OFFSPRING of the dead person. I ask you, how does a human being grow? It takes the matter (organic molecules from food, like protien) synthesizes them, and adds the molecules to the body. That body grows to full size, and later dies. Then the decay happens. But while some people are dying and decaying, others are being born and growing. As our great grandparents lay dead in their caskets and decaying, our children are growing up, and creating new babies. Every time you create a new baby, you're not actually taking matter away from the parents, you know that right? The new child builds it's body up on FOOD, not decaying matter.

And you want to call this science? They don't even understand the disconnect between the law of thermodynamics and new life growing through the introduction of fresh food to the body.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;268390]OK I'll humor you. Your Christian website has a very limited understanding of the law of thermodynamics. The law states that matter becomes more disorderly over time - ie decays. But evolution states that the order of organic matter is actually becoming more organized, therefore it violates the law of thermodynamics. That's laughable.[/QUOTE]

You want humor? Here's some [URL="http://youtube.com/watch?v=oWorVoeZd3A"]humor[/URL] (wait for it)

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;268380]You actually have a good mind for what my system says. But don't bet the actual numbers. Bet the black and reds, and bet the 1st / 2nd / 3rd 12's, and the even / odds. A simple way is this...put $5 on 2nd 12, and $5 on 3rd 12. Then put $5 on red, and $5 on odd. (total of $20 on table) So let's say it hits on black 13. You won with 2nd 12, so that's $10 winning there, you also won with $5 odd, so that's $5 there, so you won $15, and get $10 back from your wager (the $5 on 2nd twelve and the $5 on odd) You lost $10 total (from 3rd 12, and black). So you now have $25 in your pocket, which means you are up $5 total. Now since you already won 2nd 12 and odd, don't play those again, but double the money in the area you did lose in. So bet $10 red this time. If You lose again, bet $20 and so on, so let's say you hit on that $20 bet. Now you win $20, but only lost $10...$15 if you count the first $5, but I already counted that in my previous numbers, so you just won $10 more. So now your first session is over and you have won / taken away from the table, $15. Repeat the process when you notice patterns. ie: Red has hit 3 times in a row, or 1st 12 hit 2 times in a row. Etc.

A non beleiver will always be a non beleiver unless they try.
So try [URL="http://www.freeroulette.com"]Free Roulette: Learn to play roulette today for free[/URL] and give my basic system a try. I have a complex system that I use, but that would take a really long time to explain.
I usually only do the system once or twice, occasionally 3 times depending on the patterns, then I walk away from the table with anywhere from $15-$75. Do this 10 times, and even at the smallest amount, you are up $150. I will generally play 30 times throughout my cruises (for instance) and the first time I went on a cruise I won over 1k. But I rarely win less than $500 when I do play. That is kinda my bench mark of success.
The second you get greedy, you lose. The second you stray from the process, you lose. If you think small, and think strategically, you'll win. Never let the other players around you intimidate you to play more, just stick to the process. The reason people lose at a lot of these games is because they get greedy. The best times to play are after 00 or 0 hit, cause the chance they hit again are slimmer. But after about 10-13 times of green not hitting, put $1 on both, when they do hit, and they will, you come out on top even more, if they don't while using my system, no biggy, you lost only a few dollars but you are still up a lot.[/quote]

Jsarno, I'd love to discuss gambling more, because I do love it. But given that it's off topic, this is going to be my last post on the subject.

The math is simple. Every spot on the board pays you off as if there are 36 possible numbers to bet. If you bet red or black, they pay you 1 to 1 (36/18). If you bet 1st 12, they pay you 3 to 1 (36/12). If you play a 4-corner bet, they pay you 9 to 1 (36/4). But there are 38 spots on the board. That means, on average, you're going to make your money back on 36 of the 38 spots. On the 37th and 38th spots, you will lose. That's why the house advantage in roullette is 5.2% (on a table with 0 and 00). It's 2.7% on a table with just 0. You can look those numbers up.

That means over time, if you play enough, you will lose either 5.2% or 2.7% of the money you bet.

I can tell that if all you're doing is playing on cruises and the occasional trip to the casino, your system hasn't gotten a good enough workout. I encourage you to play 1000 spins, betting the same amount of money each time, using any system you wish. You'll see the results.

That's it on the subject.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;268368]No you're misunderstanding me. I understood his point, he said just because you can't see the wind doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Likewise, you can't see God, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist. I got the point. Now here's mine: I only believe that things exist if there is scientific evidence that it exists. I don't have to see the evidence with my eyes, but there has to be evidence. Wind: you don't see it, but you feel it on your skin, and you can measure its velocity. Chemical scanners can analyze it and tell you that it's made up of oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and other gases. Other stars in space: detected by Hubble.

I don't believe God exists because there's no evidence of it. People who believe in him go on faith. In the bolded part above, you're simply asking the fundamental question. Do you or don't you believe God exists? I don't. I need evidence. There is NONE. There is only faith. That's not enough for me. If it is for you, that's fine. But please, don't try to tell me that because I can't see the wind, and because I can't see God, therefore he exists. That's the most retarded logic in the world.[/QUOTE]

FYI- thanks for toning down the posts...I feel you offer a good counterpoint to the arguments, so I would not like to see your posts ignored.
I agree that just because you can't see the wind, that is an arguement for the existance of God. I am glad to see you got the point as well.
I do firmly beleive that to prove the existance of God, you need look no farther than the mirror. A human being can not scientifically be proven. There are so many loop holes in how we started to where we are now from a scientific standpoint. How do we all of a sudden "adapt" to our surroundings, then grow stuff to accomodate? The human body is so complex that is could not have been by accident. I realize this is opinion, but so is evolution. (keep in mind I fully beleive in evolution). Evolution is not fact, it is theory...or opinion. After I am done looking at myself in the mirror to my beliefs that God exists, I look around the world at how everything fits just right. How can there be no other planet in all our explored galaxies that can sustain our life? How is it from the billions and billions or stars / planets, this is the ONLY one we can live on? The only one that has such a delecate system that we can actually wipe ourselves off the planet? It's just right, not too hot, not too cold, plenty of oxygen, plenty of sun light...perfect rotation, perfect revolution etc. It's just too much of a coincidence not to be from a higher design. The odds of all this being like this by coincidence is so astronomical I don't have enough space to place the odds. How can science honestly overcome those odds?

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;268371]I seem close minded to you because I'm unwilling to go on faith alone regarding the existence of God. I was engaging the morons in this thread who tried to present "scientific" evidence that the theory of evolution has been disproven. I won't apologize for coming harsh at someone who does that. Everyone knows that there is no scientific evidence disproving the theory of evolution. If there was, it would never be taught in our public schools again. Giving me a link to some guy's musings and passing it off as scientific proof is nothing short of retarded, and quite frankly, insulting to my intelligence.

I have no problem with your views at all. I think if you believe in it, that's great. There really is no harm in being religious at all (as long as you don't organize against other faiths or discriminate against other faiths, and I don't think you do). What I have a problem with is trying to pass off a heaping pile of crap as actual evidence. I mean we all went to high school right? We all know that evidence needs to come from credible sources, right? We know that if we write a term paper and say something like E=MC2 (my friend James told me so). No, we have to put E=MC2 (Einstein).

Just like in Redskin related threads we ask for links to news stories, I'm doing the same thing here. You can't come on the board making claims that aren't true and then go linking to some hack. Again, the problem wasn't with his or your belief. The problem was with the style of debate.

Religion is all about faith. For anyone to think they can prove the existence of God, then they don't even understand religion at all. His existence cannot be proven. You can only believe in him based on faith. That's the entire point of religion: believe in Him and ye shall be saved.[/QUOTE]


Again, I appreciate your points, and your approach.
I will say this, It is by faith I believe in God, just as it is by faith I beleive in evolution. Science said that world was flat, they were wrong. It is faith in the human mind that makes me beleive in evolution. But I also say again, evolution is not the answer to who, but the answer to how.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;268394]Jsarno, I'd love to discuss gambling more, because I do love it. But given that it's off topic, this is going to be my last post on the subject.

The math is simple. Every spot on the board pays you off as if there are 36 possible numbers to bet. If you bet red or black, they pay you 1 to 1 (36/18). If you bet 1st 12, they pay you 3 to 1 (36/12). If you play a 4-corner bet, they pay you 9 to 1 (36/4). But there are 38 spots on the board. That means, on average, you're going to make your money back on 36 of the 38 spots. On the 37th and 38th spots, you will lose. That's why the house advantage in roullette is 5.2% (on a table with 0 and 00). It's 2.7% on a table with just 0. You can look those numbers up.

That means over time, if you play enough, you will lose either 5.2% or 2.7% of the money you bet.

I can tell that if all you're doing is playing on cruises and the occasional trip to the casino, your system hasn't gotten a good enough workout. I encourage you to play 1000 spins, betting the same amount of money each time, using any system you wish. You'll see the results.

That's it on the subject.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you, it is off subject, and we should no longer comment on it. I ask again, just try what I posted. I know the numbers you provide. I have a masters in finance...I KNOW numbers. I beleive I found a small loop hole in the system.
ps- I have played more roulette than everyone on this site combined (more than likely). I'm not trying to tell you to kill someone...I'm telling you just to try my basic system on a free website. That's all. You canPM me with how much you "won". It's free, what's the harm?

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=Schneed10;268390]OK I'll humor you. Your Christian website has a very limited understanding of the law of thermodynamics. The law states that matter becomes more disorderly over time - ie decays. But evolution states that the order of organic matter is actually becoming more organized, therefore it violates the law of thermodynamics. That's laughable.

When a person dies, their bodies do indeed decay. But evolution is the result of changes in the OFFSPRING of the dead person. I ask you, how does a human being grow? It takes the matter (organic molecules from food, like protien) synthesizes them, and adds the molecules to the body. That body grows to full size, and later dies. Then the decay happens. But while some people are dying and decaying, others are being born and growing. As our great grandparents lay dead in their caskets and decaying, our children are growing up, and creating new babies. Every time you create a new baby, you're not actually taking matter away from the parents, you know that right? The new child builds it's body up on FOOD, not decaying matter.

And you want to call this science? They don't even understand the disconnect between the law of thermodynamics and new life growing through the introduction of fresh food to the body.[/quote]
It didn't say that people can't have offspring and grow up. It said that overall in the entire universe, things are moving to disorder and that evolution goes against this. You also still haven't proved anything for evolution.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

It's off to work guys...I'll see you tomorrow.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;268395]FYI- thanks for toning down the posts...I feel you offer a good counterpoint to the arguments, so I would not like to see your posts ignored.
I agree that just because you can't see the wind, that is an arguement for the existance of God. I am glad to see you got the point as well.
I do firmly beleive that to [B]prove the existance of God[/B], you need look no farther than the mirror. A human being can not scientifically be proven. There are so many loop holes in how we started to where we are now from a scientific standpoint. [B]How do we all of a sudden "adapt" to our surroundings, then grow stuff to accomodate?[/B] The human body is so complex that is could not have been by accident. I realize this is opinion, but so is evolution. (keep in mind I fully beleive in evolution). Evolution is not fact, it is theory...or opinion. After I am done looking at myself in the mirror to my beliefs that God exists, I look around the world at how everything fits just right. How can there be no other planet in all our explored galaxies that can sustain our life? How is it from the billions and billions or stars / planets, this is the ONLY one we can live on? The only one that has such a delecate system that we can actually wipe ourselves off the planet? It's just right, not too hot, not too cold, plenty of oxygen, plenty of sun light...perfect rotation, perfect revolution etc. It's just too much of a coincidence not to be from a higher design. The odds of all this being like this by coincidence is so astronomical I don't have enough space to place the odds. How can science honestly overcome those odds?[/quote]

We haven't checked out all the planets in the universe. Because first off, many scientists believe, and this is a recent story, [URL="http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/01/07/mars.life.ap/index.html"]that life does/did exist on Mars [/URL](just not the kind of life we're used to: this life is Hydrogen Peroxide based as opposed to Water based).

If we could examine all the planets in the universe, there very well may be plenty that we can live on.

Secondly, I bolded a section of your post above because it is most alarming. It appears that you don't understand evolution at all. Evolution is not a person's ability to adapt to it's environment. And we definitely didn't do it all of a sudden. Take a skunk's ancestor. The way it works is 99.999% of those animals are born completely normal, similar to the rest of the population. Then there will be one skunk born with the ability to spray smelly crap all over a predator, freaking him out, and scaring him away. That skunk has sex with other skunks. The genetic trait gets passed down. That keeps happening until the predators eventually stop attacking the stinky skunks, and they kill off all the normal ones. This takes generations and generations.

It's not that we can adapt that quickly. It's that every now and then, we make a baby that can survive something the others can. And he passes that trait on until it dominates the population.

Maybe you knew that, maybe you didn't. But I felt the need to clarify the theory.

The other bolded part I noted was your section saying to prove the existence of God, look in the mirror. That's not proof. That's your belief.

Let's get our definitions right:

[URL="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prove"]Prove[/URL] - to establish the truth or genuineness of

[URL="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/believe"]Believe[/URL] - to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;268398]I agree with you, it is off subject, and we should no longer comment on it. I ask again, just try what I posted. I know the numbers you provide. I have a masters in finance...I KNOW numbers. I beleive I found a small loop hole in the system.
ps- I have played more roulette than everyone on this site combined (more than likely). I'm not trying to tell you to kill someone...I'm telling you just to try my basic system on a free website. That's all. You canPM me with how much you "won". It's free, what's the harm?[/quote]

I also have the MBA in Finance. I also majored in math in college.

Masters or not, you're wrong.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=Schneed10;268043]Wrong again, Flanders. There are 38 squares on the board (including 0 and 00), but you only get paid 36 times your money for hitting a number.

Do that over time and you're going to lose, guaranteed.

Gambling wins and losses come from repeating the bets over the short run. Over the short run, luck rules the game. Over the long run, the math always wins.[/quote]

My name's not Flanders. How did you come up with that?

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=jsarno;268405]It's off to work guys...I'll see you tomorrow.[/quote]

Just wondering, where is it that your work begins at 2:00 pm New Mexico time? That's an interesting finance job. Sales maybe?

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=steveo395;268401]It didn't say that people can't have offspring and grow up. It said that overall in the entire universe, things are moving to disorder and that evolution goes against this. You also still haven't proved anything for evolution.[/quote]

Evolution cannot be proven or disproven. The theory is based on what has happened over the last billions of years. If we could go back in time, then maybe it would work.

So please stop asking me to prove evolution. I can offer evidence in support of the theory, but it is common knowledge that it cannot be proven.

No scientist has ever disproven it, either.

As for thermodynamics, you don't understand the law. The law applies to matter. The matter that comprises one person does not get put into a new person. You know that, right? People do not grow by taking matter from other humans. They grow by eating food. They eat it, it decays in their stomachs, gets processed, and gets added to the body. Thermodynamics doesn't apply to the offspring, it applies to the dead body.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[quote=Schneed10;268043]Wrong again, Flanders. There are 38 squares on the board (including 0 and 00), but you only get paid 36 times your money for hitting a number.

Do that over time and you're going to lose, guaranteed.

Gambling wins and losses come from repeating the bets over the short run. Over the short run, luck rules the game. Over the long run, the math always wins.[/quote]

Figured it out, you're right. It would only work for a limited time.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

Schneed10, chill out man...agree to disagree.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

Schneed, how could you believe in evolution if you have never seen it happen. It has never been observed anywhere, not in a lab or in nature. Isn't that the same reason why you don't believe in God? I know some species have slightly changed to their environment, but they have never been changed into a new species. How could you then believe it if it has never been seen?

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=steveo395;268426]Schneed, how could you believe in evolution if you have never seen it happen. It has never been observed anywhere, not in a lab or in nature. Isn't that the same reason why you don't believe in God? I know some species have slightly changed to their environment, but they have never been changed into a new species. How could you then believe it if it has never been seen?[/QUOTE]

Humans have been getting taller over the centuries, does that mean we are evolving? What about monkeys who have developed language skills? Does that mean we are not unique in our cognitive abilities? You have a tail bone yet you don't have a tale?

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck.

Re: Civil Discussion About Religion
 

[QUOTE=saden1;268429]Humans have been getting taller over the centuries, does that mean we are evolving. What about monkeys who have developed language skills? Does that mean we are not unique in our cognitive abilities. You have a tail bone yet you don't have a tale?

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck.[/QUOTE]



Who cares about ducks. I wanna see a "monkey-fish-frog". [url=http://youtube.com/watch?v=enAkc88Q1-M]YouTube - Mrs. Garrison teaching the evolution[/url]