Homo Sapiens Vs. Adam & Eve

[Morpheus]

[quote name='Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]Meanwhile, the greeks worshipped Zeus, Hera, Athena, Ares, Apollo, Demeter etc, just to name a few. These Gods are [B]made up[/B'], they really are, believe me. What gave the greeks the right to simply assume that the Gods appeared out of chaos, and that the "fell in love" with eachother and had more baby Gods?[/COLOR][/quote]
What gives us the right to assume that the world won't stop turning, or that the sun will not go out? The ability to do so. If we can, then we most definately will do anything.

You really need to have an open mind. I don't believe in god, but I don't put in every single religious debate "OMG!!! Atheism iz te only 1!!! All must B LIk Meh!!!" as you do with Islam. I let people have their own ideas. Some of my friends are Islamic, and they fast during Ramadan. It's what they want to do, so they do it without a word from me. Like I'll radically change their beliefs in 5 minutes.

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='Sepiroth']You mught remeber this post you put in "poll what is your religon?" You go right there and announce in a indirect way that your religon is superior to all others. You need to stop being so high and mighty every religon is riddled with holes. I can point them out easily. I reiterate Fundamentalist.[/quote]Oh wait a minute, are you still talking?

I'm not being high and mighty. I have every right to believe that my religion is the correct one, just like everyone else can. You have every right to believe that my religion is wrong, and you have the right to state that it is. And others have the right to disagree with you and to state that they do. But no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to change your beliefs.

I am simply stating my beliefs, and I really believe in them, so why is it a crime to simply try to convince others? There's something called "free speech", which as long as you don't use it to tell lies and hurt others, is completely acceptable.
[quote name='Sepiroth']Right there you deal a deathblow to your own religon. by using science over faith. "hence" i come to the conclusion you are a hippocritical fundamentalist.[/quote]I don't believe in God just because of faith. I use logic as well. In my opinion, my religion explains science, so I'm not disproving my religion by using scientific examples. How does proving that Helios doesn't drag the sun behind him disprove the existance of other religion's god(s)?

I believe that either God created the universe, just like that, from nothing, or he caused the big bang. Science on it's own doesn't explain to me how the big bang formed. That's why I believe that the universe was created. I believe that God created matter, energy and the the forces in the universe. So if God created the earth, and the sun, and he created gravity, to me that explains why the earth rotates around the sun.

Sounds logical to me.

[quote name='Morpheus']You really need to have an open mind. I don't believe in god, but I don't put in every single religious debate "OMG!!! Atheism iz te only 1!!! All must B LIk Meh!!!" as you do with Islam. I let people have their own ideas. Some of my friends are Islamic, and they fast during Ramadan. It's what they want to do, so they do it without a word from me. Like I'll radically change their beliefs in 5 minutes.[/quote]Having an open mind doesn't mean I have to pretend that other religions might be right. I don't think they are right, and try as you might, you won't convince me they are. Having an open mind means at least giving other religion's a chance. I will listen. I will hear what you have to say, and consider it. I'm still being "open minded". But I will analyze what the religion says, and I will draw my own conclusions from it and determine whether [B]in my opinion[/B] it is right or wrong. I can state out loud that the [U][blank][/U]religion is wrong, it's my opinion. I might try to [B]convince[/B] others, but as I said, I'm not hiolding a gun up to anyone's head.

Anyway, let's get back to topic people. If you want to argue more with me about Greek gods, just PM me and we'll start a "Do the greek gods exist?" thread.

Have a nice day. ^_^[/COLOR]

[Morpheus]

[QUOTE=Chabichou]Having an open mind doesn't mean I have to pretend that other religions might be right. I don't think they are right, and try as you might, you won't convince me they are. Having an open mind means at least giving other religion's a chance. I will listen. I will hear what you have to say, and consider it. I might try to [B]convince[/B] others, but as I said, I'm not holding a gun up to anyone's head.
[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Chabichou']Meanwhile, the greeks worshipped Zeus, Hera, Athena, Ares, Apollo, Demeter etc, just to name a few. These Gods are made up, they really are, believe me. What gave the greeks the right to simply assume that the Gods appeared out of chaos, and that the "fell in love" with eachother and had more baby Gods?[/quote]
I rest my case.

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='Chabichou']Meanwhile, the greeks worshipped Zeus, Hera, Athena, Ares, Apollo, Demeter etc, just to name a few. These Gods are made up, they really are, believe me. What gave the greeks the right to simply assume that the Gods appeared out of chaos, and that the "fell in love" with eachother and had more baby Gods? [/quote]
[quote name='Morpheus']I rest my case.[/quote]Oh, I see what made everyone so offended. Okay, I take it back and I apologize, BUT, I would like to explain what I meant by the greeks "not having the right" to make up gods.

Techinically speaking, we all have the right to our opinion and we can say and do anything we want (within our countries laws). But logically speaking, what gives anyone the right to make a statement about something, when they have not witnessed it, they have not heard it from others who at least claimed that the witnessed it, and there's not a shred of evidence to support their statement?

For instance, I could say: "Morpheus has blue eyes". Technically speaking, I have the right to make this statement. But I have never even seen you Morpheus, and I have never spoken to anyone who knows you or heard anyone saying that you have blue eyes. Honestly, what gives me the right, [B]logically speaking[/B] to state that you have blue eyes when I really (and I mean REALLY) do not know?

Now you might ask, "well [B]logically speaking[/B], what gives you the right to assume that Allah is the only God?"

Well first of all, if their had never been an books revealed that claimed that they were the word of God, I would think I only have the right to assume that some sort of god, or even gods, exist. I would not give my self the right to give him/her/them (a) name(s). [B]Logically speaking[/B], what gives me the right to even state how many gods there are?

But in the case with my belief in Islam, someone has come forward, and claimed that they have seen an angel, and that they are recieving the message of God. Furthermore, I look through the book and realize that their is something quite miraculous about it, "hence" (I bet this word bugs you to no end Sepiroth) I make a conclusion that this is a message from God. The books states what God's name is and hence, [B]logically speaking[/B] I now have the right to assume that Allah is the creator's name. There is some sort of evidence, I have actually heard things, not just made up a name for the creator.

So I hope I cleared up what I meant, and again apologize if that offended anyone, but that statement.

But, I still stand by my belief about greek gods. They don't exist, and logically speaking, I have the right to make this statment, because I have witnessed it for myself. There is proof.[/COLOR]

[Semjaza]

I think the ideas of the Greeks and Romans were largely ludicrous in terms of a religious standpoint. We know a lot of this was just made up to explain things to them because they didn't have any knowledge to prove otherwise. Same with the Norse, Babylonians, Myans, etc. Many religions started simply as explanations of things that couldn't be explained and I would say a lot of the current ones don't completely fall in that category. From what I've studied, I find Islam to be much more convincing than many other religions. I'm not going to argue against whether or not that belief system is any more correct than any others... that's not my point in this post at all.

Yet, using the idea of other religions being improbable because we've never seen any of those mythological gods do anything directly seems really strange to me. Has anyone seen their current god of choice come down from the sky/paradise/heaven/etc and do things? Has anyone witnessed their god create something or is there even an accurate, infallible, completely provable in all senses account of it happening? Has anyone flew up into the skies and actually found a Christian-type of Heaven? Does anyone seriously know what the state of the universe was before any divine being did something to it? There's a lot of people who believe that their god created the universe from nothing (ex nihilo), but what proof is there of that? People had faith in those old religions, just like people have faith in their religion now. I don't see a god riding a chariot across the sky to change the prescence of day and night any more often than I see angels floating across the sky and helping people in need. That is to say, I never have.

I don't want to be offensive to anyone, but the idea of someone seeing some sort of angel in a realistic sense is really not any more believable from an objective standpoint than someone getting inspiration from one of the Muses. If we've not found Heaven, does that mean it simply does not exist at all? We've found no real evidence of any of the Greek and Roman gods either, but if we can't see Heaven, why would we easily see these gods either? Regardless of whether or not they [i]exist[/i], I don't really see how we'd find them any more easily than we would proof of any currently worshiped divine entities.

To say they don't exist because of factual, historical information that more or less proves these ideas were made up by people that were ignorant of many things in their world is one thing. To say they don't exist because we can't physically [I]see [/I]them in our everyday lives is another, as far as I'm concerned.

They're both things no one has any tangible, irreputible evidence of. Having faith in that sort of thing is completely understandable and I'm not challenging that whatsoever, but I don't really understand how comparing them in this sense (i.e., just the basic ideas of these beings, not including one's belief system or religion or faith) makes one any more "true" than another in a logical, basic sense. Logic doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with religion, but not all things need to be, or even can or should be, logical in the first place.

[r3vival]

Well said Generic. Religion really all comes down to a matter of faith and one's willingness to believe in its ideas in the end. Chabichou, in your previous statements you mock the fact that the greeks used their gods as a means to explain things that they didn't understand and that these beliefs were proven ludicrous in the end through science. On the other hand, you also claimed that you have a mixed belief in science and religion due to the fact that science doesn't completely explain such ideas as the existance of matter, energy, and the big bang. Correct me if i'm wrong but this is the exact same idea of using divine beings to explain what we can't through science. To use religion to explain what we don't understand. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe the ideas of the greek gods doing such things as the tails describe at least in physical terms any more believable then you do. Then again, religion is more of a supernatural matter. One that is to be taken far more spiritually then literally as I see it at least. Also, I don't think its so much what you believe as what your belief does for you in the end. It's all a means to feel a sort of completeness in your life in sorts or even something to live for. Religion pretty much states the guidelines to leading the ideal life. Therefore it doesnt seem to me that it matters very much which religion you believe in so much as its a matter of whether or not it can lead you to live a good life. I don't want to offend anybody with these statements as this is the last thing I have in mind but as far as right or wrong religions go I don't believe they can be classified in that sense. They are often different paths to the same end (not to be taken in a morbid sense).

[WW2]

Homo Sapiens Vs. Adam & Eve?!

Hmm, my money would be on the Homo Sapiens. Sure they might not be the sharpest knives in the drawer, but they have animalistic strength! All Adam and Eve could to is fight em' off with their little fig leafs.



Oh...I just realized the thread is about something else.

....sorry. :D

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='Generic NPC #3']Yet, using the idea of other religions being improbable because we've never seen any of those mythological gods do anything directly seems really strange to me. Has anyone seen their current god of choice come down from the sky/paradise/heaven/etc and do things? Has anyone witnessed their god create something or is there even an accurate, infallible, completely provable in all senses account of it happening? Has anyone flew up into the skies and actually found a Christian-type of Heaven? Does anyone seriously know what the state of the universe was before any divine being did something to it? There's a lot of people who believe that their god created the universe from nothing (ex nihilo), but what proof is there of that? People had faith in those old religions, just like people have faith in their religion now. I don't see a god riding a chariot across the sky to change the prescence of day and night any more often than I see angels floating across the sky and helping people in need. That is to say, I never have.[/quote]I know I tryed to show how the greek gods don't exist because we don't see them, but the greeks have given them positions, "the gods live on mount olympus", "Atlas is holding up the sky", "Helios drags the sun". We go to these places and they are not there.

Why can't we see the God muslims jews and christians believe in? Well, he's not here! God is [B]outiside[/B] the universe, and he has decided not to show himself to us (except for the christian believe that jesus is the manifestation of God). We haven't managed to leave the universe, much less our own galaxy, so you're not gonna see God, until the day of judgement when he takes all up to him. I'm not sure if we can actually [B]see[/B] him, because he is not like us, and he created everything, such as light and matter. But we definitely will know then he exists because his presence will be obvious.[/COLOR]

[Semjaza]

So current cultures believing in something we have no physical proof of right now is different from older cultures believing in something they (or even we) have no physical proof of in the past?

I don't believe in Greek/Roman gods obviously, but your argument against this is not "logical" as you claim as much as it is completely faith based. It's impossible to debate or discuss something with someone who subscribes to that approach. No matter what I say or how I word it, a strong belief in a religon will automatically dismiss any other point in any way it can. Faith doesn't require tangible proof whatsoever to make any of its points. Many current religions are no more factually or tangibly (if that's even a word) provable than they were centuries ago. I'm not saying that they're "wrong", because I think faith are spirtuality are important things.

The Greek and Roman gods were personified because that's how the people best knew how to explain their ideas and religion at the time. Just as the Christian/Jewish god is personified (to a lesser extent, admittedly -- but giving him a normal voice at all fits under personification) in early parts of the Bible and through angels in other parts. I definitely agree the Greek and Roman belief systems were made up entirely out of need and have no factual significance, but that's not what I am discussing in the first place. Norse mythology is even more ridiculous, especially considering how long the people there believed the stuff (frost giants...?).

I severely doubt a sane person of the time looked up at the sky and thought he saw Helios anymore than a person nowadays would look up to the sky and expect to see some sort of personification (even if this is just a blinding light that talks to them) of their god or an angel descend and talk to them. People then knew just as much as people do now that they were not going to see these gods in everyday life, even if they tried to. Religious writings and epic stories are not always the best thing to base the belief systems of the general populace on.

[Drix D'Zanth]

Science religion and philosophy owe a lot to each other. From philosophy was born nearly every natural and analytical science we know today. Science and theology were married through the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. I honestly don?t think so many ideas should be so far removed.

It is these mythological god-fearing Greeks that gave us Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. They gave us Pythagoras and Democritus. It would be erroneous to assume one?s intelligence or wisdom is overridingly based upon his belief system. In comparing these religions to one another, we stray from the objective evidences and logics that define the natural sciences. Concurrently, we then stray from the question at hand: can we believe the theory that Darwin proposed?

Darwin obviously recognized microevolution, the variability within a species. This has been demonstrably evidenced and tested all the way down to it?s most basic formulas: genetic. Darwin, in an effort to further explain the natural state of things, claimed that these small progressive evolutions must somehow accumulate to the point of total differentiation between two new species (or one old, one new species). He claimed that if we could evidence any biological change that is not due to some sort of gradual evolution, his theory would be utterly disproven.

Such an event has occurred. However, as the change in the scientific community in facing evolutionary theory was distraught with dissident opinion, so is the idea of some form of [i]intelligent design[/i].

A bold claim, Darwin is wrong? However, as science has a greater understanding of biochemistry on a Lilliputian scale. Here?s an example: Suppose a 4-foot ditch in your back yard? a couple miles long (for the sake of analogy) separates your backyard from your neighbor?s. If one day you met him in your yard and asked him how he got there, he claimed ?I jumped over the ditch.? You would have [i]no[/i] reason to doubt his claim. Let?s say the ditch was 8 feet wide and he gave the same answer, you would probably be impressed by his athletic ability. If the ditch were 15 feet wide, you might become suspicious and ask to see some sort of demonstration. If he declined, feigning some sort of injury, you would harbor your doubts. If the ditch were actually a canyon 100 feet wide you would not consider for a second the bald assertion. However, your neighbor qualifies his claim. He did not come across in a single jump. Rather, he says, in the canyon there are a number of smaller precipes (or buttes, small towers of rock no wider than a couple feet) no more than 10 feet apart from one end of the canyon to the other. You see no buttes, however your neighbor claims they arose in the canyon and he slowly progressed as they popped up. After he left a butte it usually eroded and crumbled quickly behind him.

This analogy teaches us a few lessons. What is the difference between these ?jumps? and changes from one side to another? This allegory of jumps can be applied to evolution. As it can explain tiny micro-evolutionary changes, however the bigger jumps become more difficult to explain. The proposal of relatively tiny changes is a great advance to science, and has been the subject of a great amount of research. With biochemistry we can determine if the ?buttes? in macroevolution could even evolve through the means proposed by Darwin.

Darwinian evolution theorizes that slow, progressive changes that are selectively beneficial to the organism will persist in genetic frequency until the majority (or a detaching population) inherently displays that trait. Take a look at the different types of dogs around us. Each is an example of varying traits in microevolution. They are all, by scientific definition, the same species.

Biochemistry throws the Darwin theory to a standstill. Many of our biochemical functions, essential to our survival are startlingly complex. The simple changes we take for granted are all a perfect balance of the correct enzymes, protein, and ionic mechanisms undergoing precise changes. Not only that, most of our complex processes require [i]every[/i] component to function. These irreducibly complex biomechanical processes are Darwin?s refutation. If this thread continues, I?ll provide some more examples.

Why are we so afraid of intelligent design? Well, biology has almost always undergone a mindset ?well if we ride on the assumption of ?God creating everything? why bother studying it??. Science and religion were not always so far removed from one another. Intelligent Design, Creationism, and Darwinian evolution are all an ends to which the means of science can support. The same science that evidences evolution, supports creationism. There?s no reason to ignore the progress that we have achieved so far, and no reason to delay the progress in understanding how the world around us [i]is[/i]. I propose that understanding the world from an evolutionary-driven standpoint or a creation-driven standpoint will still draw the same conclusions when it comes to natural life in its present state. However, I think that bogging down in evolution-driven explanations is just as detrimental to scientific progress as claiming ?it just is because God made it so.? We should instead focus our efforts on explaining how the world [i]is[/i] before drawing our conclusions as to its origin.