PDA

View Full Version : What is your religion?



IliaDN
05-25-2005, 17:15
What is your religion?
I am just curios.
P.S. Sorry for sp.

ah_dut
05-25-2005, 17:18
I am Roman Catholic and proud

The Wizard
05-25-2005, 17:37
To say I'm atheist is going a bit far; something must've started that big bang, or if you suppose that's a natural process like natural selection, something must have started that.

But to say I'm a believer in concrete terms is going a whole lot further.



~Wiz

Big King Sanctaphrax
05-25-2005, 17:38
Moved. I'm an atheist, by the way. Secular humanism, woo!

Lazul
05-25-2005, 17:42
agnostic and so on, hard to expline.

JAG
05-25-2005, 17:42
Atheist. Sartrean humanist.

Duke Malcolm
05-25-2005, 17:42
Gah!, 'cause I'm agnostic. Indecision is the way forward!

King Henry V
05-25-2005, 17:45
Yes but atheism, agnosticism and indecision is not a religion. You just don't have one.

Dutch_guy
05-25-2005, 17:46
atheist

Duke Malcolm
05-25-2005, 17:49
Yes but atheism, agnosticism and indecision is not a religion. You just don't have one.

I view athiesm as a religion, because it is the belief that no deity exists. Agnosticism is merely indecision on the subject, but with a fancy name.

Idomeneas
05-25-2005, 17:51
Im Orthodox as the 99.9% of my country. But to tell the truth i have many objections against churches(any kind). I believe in god though. I cant see anything wrong cause even if Jesus never existed as God-man there is nothing bad in his practices and his words.
You know i ve been always wished for an andisputted archeological discovery of a book with the real words of jesus at the time cause im suspecting that many things had been paraphrasised or altered through the ages. For example the position of women in church or afterlife issues.

Byzantine Prince
05-25-2005, 17:57
Well I'm a pagan cultist wannabe. ~;)

Studying atheism though.

Crazed Rabbit
05-25-2005, 17:58
To say I'm atheist is going a bit far; something must've started that big bang, or if you suppose that's a natural process like natural selection, something must have started that.

A dieist, perhaps? I.e., the belief that a God created the universe, but does not affect the universe any longer, as if he were retired and disinterested.

It's too bad so many here are atheists. ~:(

As for me, I'm Catholic and proud of it!

Crazed Rabbit

Spino
05-25-2005, 18:00
Atheist. Social Darwinist... with a heart of gold! LOL! ~D

Duke Malcolm
05-25-2005, 18:09
There are Jews in the world, there are Buddists,
There are Hindus and Mormons and then
There are those that follow Mohammad, but
I've never been one of them.

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six footer,
You don't have to have a great brain,
You don't have to have any clothes on,
You're a Catholic the moment Dad came

I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself after seeing the Catholics. I have to admit, though, that I used to be a Catholic, and was since before I was born...

Shadow
05-25-2005, 18:15
Looks like I am the only Buddhist here ~D

BDC
05-25-2005, 18:23
I'm just anti whoever happens to be speaking.

Although Douglas Adams had quite a good view on this. Something along the lines of "if you can prove it like you'd have to prove something scientifically, it's valid. If not, there is no reason I should respect your views just because you think I should".

Mikeus Caesar
05-25-2005, 18:40
I made my own little religion. Basically i believe in a god (a magic Coyote who lives in the Sun) who controls our fates, but didn't create the Universe. The Big Bang created the Universe. It's basically Science mixed with my personal form of stupidity.

Templar Knight
05-25-2005, 18:48
I follow my own Spiritualist religion ~:)

Big_John
05-25-2005, 19:09
i'm an atheist.. i worship Atheos, the Brilliant Tuvan God of the Seltzers.

edit: wow, the children of Atheos are proud and numerous on these forums i see..

ShadesPanther
05-25-2005, 19:12
Presbyterian
But I'm not that religious I see too many gaps so i sort of add Science into it. Works for me.

Tribesman
05-25-2005, 19:28
I am Roman Catholic and proud
As for me, I'm Catholic and proud of it!
Oh dear , you two seem to be guilty of the first and most grevious of the seven deadly sins , now run along to confession quickly to recieve absolution ~;)

Mount Suribachi
05-25-2005, 19:37
Christian (evangelical protestant)

GoreBag
05-25-2005, 19:37
Satanist.

Byzantine Prince
05-25-2005, 19:40
I am Roman Catholic and proud
As for me, I'm Catholic and proud of it!
Oh dear , you two seem to be guilty of the first and most grevious of the seven deadly sins , now run along to confession quickly to recieve absolution ~;)
~:joker:

Somebody Else
05-25-2005, 19:40
I'll find out when I die, so I won't bother with it 'til then.

Procrustes
05-25-2005, 19:57
I was raised a Unitarian. I still consider myself one, though as an adult I haven't found another congregation I want to join.

Ironside
05-25-2005, 20:03
Agnostic here.

I that an "other", "atheist" or "Gah" vote?

Duke Malcolm
05-25-2005, 20:04
Gah, that's what I put, although I am still undecided, caus it could be other

Fragony
05-25-2005, 20:06
I would love to believe in god, but he didn't shape me that big ~D

Adrian II
05-25-2005, 20:10
Miles Davis

The Wizard
05-25-2005, 20:25
You, sir, have good taste ~;)

Uesugi Kenshin
05-25-2005, 20:55
I would have to say that I am religiously Atheistic!

Quite enthusiastic about it at least anyway.

Craterus
05-25-2005, 21:43
Christian - Church of England

Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-25-2005, 22:06
Catholic, and I'm glad I am.
Seriously, who the heck voted "pagan"? And who do you worship? Jupiter (Roman)? The Blue Sky (Mongol)?

GoreBag
05-25-2005, 22:07
Catholic, and I'm glad I am.
Seriously, who the heck voted "pagan"? And who do you worship? Jupiter (Roman)? The Blue Sky (Mongol)?

Nowadays, when someone says they're a pagan, they really mean "new age hippie".

Craterus
05-25-2005, 22:11
Pagan - BP?

Leet Eriksson
05-25-2005, 22:14
No other muslims voted besides me?

I remember about 1 or 2 others that were here in the backroom, can't recall their names though.

Idomeneas
05-25-2005, 22:43
i'm an atheist.. i worship Atheos, the Brilliant Tuvan God of the Seltzers.

edit: wow, the children of Atheos are proud and numerous on these forums i see..

you mean ΑΘΕΟΣ? you worship the greek word that means godless? ~;)

Idomeneas
05-25-2005, 22:46
Well I'm a pagan cultist wannabe. ~;)

Studying atheism though.

what exactly does this mean? wich pagan cult from the numerous?

Byzantine Prince
05-25-2005, 22:55
It's a joke. No one can be pagan, if they claim so they are not trully pagan, because all pagan religions of Europe have been wiped out.

I just love the mythology and all that so much that I like to label myself pagan wannabe. I don't believe in god at all though.

GoreBag
05-26-2005, 00:22
It's a joke. No one can be pagan, if they claim so they are not trully pagan, because all pagan religions of Europe have been wiped out.

I just love the mythology and all that so much that I like to label myself pagan wannabe. I don't believe in god at all though.

Asatru has been reconstructed enough to be a considered a religion, but you're right, it is no longer truly pagan.

AntiochusIII
05-26-2005, 00:30
Hmm...

You guys keep spelling Buddhism wrong.

There's an h between d and i, you see.

So it's Buddhism and not Buddism.

~;p

By the way, I worship...myself, as a demi-god in service of... ... ...Master Yoda. Does that count?

Papewaio
05-26-2005, 00:47
Tim Tams.

They are formed in a holy trinity of chocolate biscuits bonded by chocolate cream and immersed in chocolate.

Tim Tams have gone through the reformation and as such other versions of the orthodox faith can be found. Dark, White, Tia Maria, Chilli and many more versions are found that have the physcial form redefined so that the worshippers can have an interface that they can more easily digest.

Adrian II
05-26-2005, 00:59
Tim Tams have gone through the reformation and as such other versions of the orthodox faith can be found. Dark, White, Tia Maria, Chilli and many more versions are found that have the physcial form redefined so that the worshippers can have an interface that they can more easily digest.That would be an intraface, then. :book:

Drisos
05-26-2005, 12:25
Sorry for this, but: what is 'pagan'? I'm sure to know what it means if it was in Dutch, but I don't know much difficult words in English.

My religion is the closest to the christian regligion. I didn't want to vote other, cause I think that mostly means having a total other belief(for instance with many gods, while I only believe in one. ~:))

doc_bean
05-26-2005, 12:34
Sorry for this, but: what is 'pagan'? I'm sure to know what it means if it was in Dutch, but I don't know much difficult words in English.


Heiden is probably the best translation, it refers the (mostly polytheistic) religions before the 'big' religions came along.

Personally I'm a Jedi !

Drisos
05-26-2005, 13:24
Then that is the same as 'other' isn't it?

Why isn't judism in there also? I mean, there are much jews, so they shouldn't be just part of other. ~:confused:

Krusader
05-26-2005, 13:31
Agnostic!! But still member of the (Evangelic Lutherian) Church of Norway...or what's it called in english.

cunctator
05-26-2005, 17:08
Agnostic too

King Henry V
05-26-2005, 17:24
A member of the one True Catholic Church. I have dedicated my life to the slaughter of the enemies of Mother Rome, who are all destined to be burned in Hell forever. :devilish:
I am part Roman Catholic, part Anglican and I generally think that all Christian religions put aside their differences to help fight their main enemy, atheism.

xemitg
05-26-2005, 17:35
Roman Catholic.... I went to Catholic school from K-8 and I have the scars to show it. The nuns would beat the pulp out of us. Somehow, I am still Catholic after all that abuse.

econ21
05-26-2005, 17:46
What is your religion?

Science.

Duke Malcolm
05-26-2005, 17:49
A member of the one True Catholic Church. I have dedicated my life to the slaughter of the enemies of Mother Rome, who are all destined to be burned in Hell forever. :devilish:
I am part Roman Catholic, part Anglican and I generally think that all Christian religions put aside their differences to help fight their main enemy, atheism.

Yes! Let's get Ratzinger's replacement and join the Inquisition. Burn the infidels.

ah_dut
05-26-2005, 17:51
I am Roman Catholic and proud
As for me, I'm Catholic and proud of it!
Oh dear , you two seem to be guilty of the first and most grevious of the seven deadly sins , now run along to confession quickly to recieve absolution ~;)
gah! I went along to confession after I wrote that anyways ~D as part of normal protocol...you are no match for the power of the force ~:cheers:

Idomeneas
05-26-2005, 18:36
Sorry for this, but: what is 'pagan'? I'm sure to know what it means if it was in Dutch, but I don't know much difficult words in English.

My religion is the closest to the christian religion. I didn't want to vote other, cause I think that mostly means having a total other belief(for instance with many gods, while I only believe in one. ~:))

As far as i know pagan derives from the roman word paganus=villager=countryside inhabitant.
When Roman empire converted to christianity the villagers being more isolated and conservative retained the old gods pantheon. There had to be many efforts to enforce the new relligion. So later the word pagan meant the worshiper of old belief and finally was interpreted by medieval priests as the worshier of satan (since according to them all old gods were satans pals ~;) )

PanzerJaeger
05-26-2005, 21:00
Wow alot of Christians in here.. i wonder why the God poll went so awry. :inquisitive:

GoreBag
05-26-2005, 22:16
As far as i know pagan derives from the roman word paganus=villager=countryside inhabitant.
When Roman empire converted to christianity the villagers being more isolated and conservative retained the old gods pantheon. There had to be many efforts to enforce the new relligion. So later the word pagan meant the worshiper of old belief and finally was interpreted by medieval priests as the worshier of satan (since according to them all old gods were satans pals ~;) )

Etymology aside, it refers to the original religion that a culture develops as an expression and reiteration, if you will, of the beliefs and norms of that culture. German paganism involves Thor, Odin and Balder, for example.

GodsPetMonkey
05-26-2005, 23:57
Tim Tams.

They are formed in a holy trinity of chocolate biscuits bonded by chocolate cream and immersed in chocolate.

Tim Tams have gone through the reformation and as such other versions of the orthodox faith can be found. Dark, White, Tia Maria, Chilli and many more versions are found that have the physcial form redefined so that the worshippers can have an interface that they can more easily digest.

Worship the Tim Tam, then eat it! Yum! Tim Tams are why Australia is the best place on earth ~;)


Well, I'm actually a Quaker.

Papewaio
05-27-2005, 00:24
Well, I'm actually a Quaker.

You are a quaking because of sugar withdrawal have a Tim Tam ~:handball:

LittleGrizzly
05-27-2005, 00:27
Wow alot of Christians in here.. i wonder why the God poll went so awry.

its the title, intentionally made to scare away atheist voters! ;)

Devastatin Dave
05-27-2005, 01:02
Southern Baptist, you're all going to hell except me. ~D

ichi
05-27-2005, 01:05
ichi is an adherent of Shinto. Specifically a branch referred to as ichiism.

ichi :bow:

econ21
05-27-2005, 01:31
Wow alot of Christians in here.. i wonder why the God poll went so awry.

its the title, intentionally made to scare away atheist voters! ;)

Yup, strictly speaking, atheists like myself should not even vote. We don't really have a religion.

Papewaio
05-27-2005, 01:34
ichi is an adherent of Shinto. Specifically a branch referred to as ichiism.

ichi :bow:

Sounds like you are only scratching the surface of Shinto ~D

Uesugi Kenshin
05-27-2005, 03:23
I go to any thread that mentions religion. I like lively debate!

Anyway I think there are more christians due to either scaring away some Atheists and the fact that Agnostics probably voted no on the God poll.

BTW this whole Inquisition thing is getting a bit worrisome, I think we Atheists need our own country with which to protect Atheists around the globe.

Big King Sanctaphrax
05-27-2005, 03:26
Yup, strictly speaking, atheists like myself should not even vote. We don't really have a religion.

Well, the pollster did make the answer I am atheist, which seems to acknowledge that it's not a religion.

I think the reason for the disparity between the two polls is that they generate different responses from agnostics.

Byzantine Prince
05-27-2005, 03:51
Southern Baptist, you're all going to hell except me. ~D
I can only hope you are right... ~D


Sadly thoughm, I think I'll just disapear like everyone else. :sad2:
-

ichi
05-27-2005, 03:54
Sounds like you are only scratching the surface of Shinto ~D

Sometimes I tell myself not to scratch so hard, that it only makes it worse. A little lotion helps.

ichi :bow:

Uesugi Kenshin
05-27-2005, 03:58
Well BP we don't exaclty dissappear, lots of little critters have a field day eating us or we donate ourselves to medicine first. Then we are usually allowed to decay, though a few people are frozen, mummified, preserved in a plastic like substance or the like.

Byzantine Prince
05-27-2005, 04:14
-
Most of us are gonna be put to decompose whilst in time our bodies will become part of ecosystems and we will indeed disapear. We will disapear even more when the sun implodes and destroys the Earth as well.

Also if you consider that all cells renew themselves from the time we are born with animals and plants we eat, no one ever existed to begin with. ~:eek:

So I guess what I'm getting at is that it would be great if the Christians were right and I WAS going to hell when i die. That would be sooooo great. What a relief. Sadly though I highly doubt that would ever hapen.
-

Papewaio
05-27-2005, 04:17
Actually the sun will expand until it swallows the earth.

Not such a bad thing to become part of a 3rd generation star.

Big King Sanctaphrax
05-27-2005, 04:18
-

So I guess what I'm getting at is that it would be great if the Christians were right and I WAS going to hell when i die. That would be sooooo great. What a relief. Sadly though I highly doubt that would ever hapen.
-

Er, yes, eternal, firey, sulphurous torment. Sounds great... :dizzy2:

lars573
05-27-2005, 04:21
Well BP we don't exaclty dissappear, lots of little critters have a field day eating us or we donate ourselves to medicine first. Then we are usually allowed to decay, though a few people are frozen, mummified, preserved in a plastic like substance or the like.

Actually you donate your body to science and you end up as a med students cadaver. Then maybe as a decom experiment in a field.

Byzantine Prince
05-27-2005, 04:26
Er, yes, eternal, firey, sulphurous torment. Sounds great... :dizzy2:
That stuff is all imaginery. At least it's existence and meaning though, it would prove god exists, which is highly unlikely.
-

Big King Sanctaphrax
05-27-2005, 04:28
You said 'If the Christians are right'. If they are, then that stuff isn't imaginary.

IliaDN
05-27-2005, 04:38
Wow lot's of atheists here ~:confused:
Didn't expect this from westerners.

Papewaio
05-27-2005, 04:45
Where do you expect atheists?

kiwitt
05-27-2005, 04:49
Believe in God = No, therefore Atheist.

Believe in Human Rights = Yes, therefore possibly Humanist.

IliaDN
05-27-2005, 05:25
Where do you expect atheists?
Maybe in former republics of the USSR , because atheism was a religion.
I always thougth of western people like of those who attend church on Sunday , guess I was wrong.

Papewaio
05-27-2005, 05:28
Atheism in the West is the rejection that there is a higher power, God to be precise.

It is not a religion.

Byzantine Prince
05-27-2005, 08:15
-
Atheism in the former communist states of Europe was not a religion it was a mandatory requirement. You could not be religious even if you believed in god. So basically you could be atheist and still believe in god at that time.

Fortunatly though that trend created large pockets of youngsters who did not go to church nor learn about Jesus and so you have a lot of surplus atheism.

This is different from the growing western Europe and N.America atheism which is influenced by existentialist thought and disenchantment from the whole concept of a higher being.
-

Lazul
05-27-2005, 09:35
Wow lot's of atheists here ~:confused:
Didn't expect this from westerners.

I would guess that Westerners are the most Atheistic (is that a word?). Personally I dont know a single person that goes to church, mostly old people doing that here it seams.
Last time my friends and I talked about religion it was clear we where all Atheists or Gnostic.
And I was so happy about it. ~:cheers:

Sigurd
05-27-2005, 10:08
Last time my friends and I talked about religion it was clear we where all Atheists or Gnostic.

What esoteric knowledge do you or your friends possess that combines this with not believing in a supreme power?
Or is this the gnosis that achieves emancipation from any supreme power? The new age anarchist?

Duke Malcolm
05-27-2005, 12:45
Athiesm is the belief that no supreme being exists, so surely it is also a religion?

A.Saturnus
05-27-2005, 14:53
Athiesm is the belief that no supreme being exists, so surely it is also a religion?

If you're afraid of nothing, does that mean you are afraid?

If you believe in nothing, does that mean you believe?

Byzantine Prince
05-27-2005, 15:16
If you're afraid of nothing, does that mean you are afraid?
LOL, what the hell? If you are afraid of nothing, you have no sense of fear.



If you believe in nothing, does that mean you believe?
No one believes in nothing. Everyone has things that can be called beliefs. Like for example saying you know nothing because the universe has infinite secrets and you'll never find them all out is a belief. I don't see how it relates to believing in god though.

Quietus
05-27-2005, 15:35
I'm an Atheist because there's no God, Heaven, Hell or Soul. ~D :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2:

IliaDN
05-27-2005, 18:12
I just think peiple begin to believe when they are get old and they just need some hope to live further.

Duke Malcolm
05-27-2005, 18:15
If you're afraid of nothing, does that mean you are afraid?

If you believe in nothing, does that mean you believe?

Athiests believe in the non-existence of a supreme being. The more zealous of them claim to know of the non-existence of a supreme being.

Big King Sanctaphrax
05-27-2005, 18:15
LOL, what the hell? If you are afraid of nothing, you have no sense of fear.

I belive Sat was getting at the fact that it can be read as being afraid of nothing-as in, being frightened by nothingness.

Ronin
05-27-2005, 18:48
were is the "sleeping till noon on weekeends" option?...

i´m sure a lot would go for that one!

Uesugi Kenshin
05-28-2005, 04:05
Actually you donate your body to science and you end up as a med students cadaver. Then maybe as a decom experiment in a field.


Actually I read a book on the many expiremts and such done through the ages on human cadavers and some are being preserved to let future generations know exactly what we look like. They are covered in a plastic like material when wearing nothing but a natural pose. Many are also used for the Gross Anatomy Lab as you said, but some are used to find the tolerance of the human body to allow car manufacturers and testers to understand what would happen to a body in a crash. Others are also used for practice dummies by practicing doctors.

Also somebody mentioned that they were Gnostic, did you mean Agnostic? The Gnostics were to the best of my knowledge an early Christian sect that was wiped out for being against priests and all of that structured religion.

Well I am not afraid of what death will bring. As this quote illustrates: "A man's dying is more his survivor's affair than his own." C.S. Lewis. When I die I will likely not know it and therefore have no time to worry, up to the last moment I will probably cling to life and believe I have some miniscule chance. If not why worry? It will merely be the end of my stroy, the world will continue to spin. My brain will just cease to function and I will continue on to nothing. This does not mean I welcome death, but when it comes I am ready.

A.Saturnus
05-28-2005, 15:04
Athiests believe in the non-existence of a supreme being. The more zealous of them claim to know of the non-existence of a supreme being.

That is mainly a straw man. Most atheists do not believe in the non-existence of a supreme being. They just accept a nul-hypothesis.

Uesugi Kenshin
05-29-2005, 04:44
True many think it is most likely that there is no God, but some, like me, do believe that there is none. Though I cannot say that I know there is none.

TheWingedVictory
05-30-2005, 04:23
Without religion, people don't really have a purpose in life, and that's a sad thing. Also, comeon, soul does exist. Ancients and all cultures in history believed in spirit or soul in some sort. Phenomena that happens about dreams and soul and all sorts of things are not all false. It doesn't always relate to human brain malfunction or something like that you know. ~:cool:

Papewaio
05-30-2005, 04:27
I think therefore I am.

Many people have a purpose outside of religion.

Uesugi Kenshin
05-30-2005, 04:49
Are you saying that because I am an Atheist I have no purpose in life? Not true sah! I have plenty of purpose, though I will die and it could all be for naught I will still try to make the world a bit better, to help some people. I will also try to have a good life. Isn't that purpose enough? To try to have a good, productive life?

Besides if I can make the world a bit better, even if it is just a smidgeon (though I hope it is more than that) better haven't I served my purpose?

Religion is not as powerful as you may think and is not essential as you seem to think.

I think I have a better purpose than religion could ever give me because I have chosen my purpose in life, I have not allowed the beliefs of other people, let me clarify: other dead people tell me what my purpose is.

Just because nearly everyone thinks something exists does not mean it exists. IMHO there is no soul, all that we are is in our body and none of it is non-corporeal. This does not mean that some people are not bad people or whatnot it just means that all we are is here.

Also dreams are merely your subconscious taking over for a time and you actually remembering. They are fickle and really show us nothing because though they can show what you really want they are only a reflection of what you think and have no real bearing on the outside world. Everything we think, feel and experience we experience through our brain. Nothing that we experience is not related to our brain.

Phatose
05-30-2005, 05:17
Religion as a utility to give lives meaning:

When looking at religion, I see a thousand different religions, each with a different meaning. Any human who accepts one religion therefore has discounted several thousand others, each which also offer a reason to be. In such a circumstance, I tend to believe the meaning is not intrinsic to religion at all, but rather something humans manufacture.


Souls:

A soul is nothing more then a word for the pattern and process of our minds.

Shambles
05-30-2005, 05:25
Religion is a utility to give men power over others,
Its a way to make people do what You want them to,

Its always been the same,
Most of the time the message is
GOD SAYS THIS SO DO IT OR YOU GO TO HELL!!


Just like the fact that christian parents say If you behave all year round santa will bring you presents,
Religion states if you behave all your life you will get To go to heven

Now we all know santa does not exist,
But I guess i cannot Say for shure that god doesnot exist,
But to me

The storys are So similar its Almost obvious That they are just storys to keep people under controll.

So i say there is no god

Shambles
05-30-2005, 05:31
Souls:

A soul is nothing more then a word for the pattern and process of our minds.

Now I am an atheist
But I say this,

If you could make a chip that acts just like a human brain,
Then you constantly uploaded your mind in to it. "updating the chip whith your mind every 30 seconds"

Then when you died,
And allowed it to be placed in to a robot,

The robots thought process and mentalaty would be Exactly the same as yours,
But Would it be you?

No Which implies that the "soul" is not mearly your thought process

Byzantine Prince
05-30-2005, 05:32
Beautiful analogy Shambles. God=Santa. :laugh:

Papewaio
05-30-2005, 05:32
Now I am an atheist
But I say this,

If you could make a chip that acts just like a human brain,
Then you uploaded your mind in to it.

And allowed it to be placed in to a robot,

The robots thought process and mentalaty would be Exactly the same as yours,
But Would it be you?

No Which implies that the "soul" is not mearly your thought process

If the robot was a clone of yourself would it have no soul?

Shambles
05-30-2005, 05:38
If the robot was a clone of yourself would it have no soul?

If you really think about it,
Any clone of your self no matter how exact cannot be you,
Even if you are gone The coppy is still not going to be you,

So theres something missing from the clone,

This missing piece could be described as your soul.

Papewaio
05-30-2005, 05:43
Can I measue the energy difference in a clone without a soul and the orginal?

Shambles
05-30-2005, 05:45
Now i never said the clone would have no soul,
Its just that the clone would not be you
Which implies his/her soul is difrent.

Where as the robot would have no soul at all,

A soul could also be described as in star wars As the Life force,

Or in the case of budism chi.

Byzantine Prince
05-30-2005, 05:48
It's impossible to completely get all information onto a computer. Your being IS your brain. It cannot be replaced or dublicated.

If this somehow is surpassed then if you copied your brain completely, it wouldn't be you, it would be a bunch of useless information about what you would be like. Sort of like a mirror image. If you made an exact copy of yourself it wouldn't be you, it would someone else that is exactly like you. Remember we are made out flesh. I think biology is the way of immortality.

Heh, I just realized that. I always thought like Shambles about this and I just had a moment of clarity. What do you know? ~:handball:

Papewaio
05-30-2005, 05:48
A clone is really just a twin afterall.

Why can't robots have souls?

Shambles
05-30-2005, 05:51
I supose A robot could have a soul,
But would that then make his ceator a god?

And would his creator have the power over everything.
And Would he also be able to make a heven to go to when the robots batterys ran out?

I do not think so.

Which is also a reason as to why i do not beleve in heven and hell.

But again there are many things we cannot fathom in this life.

Papewaio
05-30-2005, 05:52
Why would its creator be a god.

I'm about to be a parent, I don't think I am a god... my wife is a goddess on the other hand ~D

Shambles
05-30-2005, 05:54
So Who ever or what ever created Man would not be a god either?

Thats fine by me,
Becous i have cultivated bactiria and watched it grow Just with water and Light,

But you dont even need light,
Heat is enough,

This would imply the old religions that worshiped the sun and the earth would be more acurate that the modern christian ideas of a single being with power over all.

But to me religion is just mans way to keep people in line.

Phatose
05-30-2005, 06:03
Now I am an atheist
But I say this,

If you could make a chip that acts just like a human brain,
Then you constantly uploaded your mind in to it. "updating the chip whith your mind every 30 seconds"

Then when you died,
And allowed it to be placed in to a robot,

The robots thought process and mentalaty would be Exactly the same as yours,
But Would it be you?

No Which implies that the "soul" is not mearly your thought process

It would certainly claim to be me. If placed in an adequated disguised body, people would claim it was me. Why wouldn't it be me?

And more to the point....

How am I to know that this didn't already happen?



Moreover, imagine this scenario. You are fine, mostly, but one day scientist discover a single neuron in your head is malfunctioning. It's going to misfire and eventually kill you. But lucky you. They can replace it with a synthetic neuron. Since death seems rather unpleasant, you undergo the procedure.

But later, other neurons go bad. One by one, each neuron in your head starts going bad, and one by one they get replaced. By the end, every neuron in your head has gone bad, and every single one has been replaced by an artifical equivalent.

I ask you....where does YOU end and the robotic clone you begin?

Shambles
05-30-2005, 06:05
Think obout it as your going to sleep,
Imagine it happening,
And then Really think IS the clone going to be you?

To otheres it may look sound and feel like you,
But you know,
That You are you,
So It's not you,

And i cannot tell you when you will stop being you and become a copy,
Its your soul,
You know who You are,
And any thing that difers from you is taking away from your own being.

Papewaio
05-30-2005, 06:06
Because we could weigh your soul and the difference would point out the imposter from the real you.

Then we would disintergrate the clone version.

Of course we might just accidentally kill the real you if you are dieting and your clone is stuffing his face with twinkies but hey that is the price of human xeroxing. ~:eek:

Phatose
05-30-2005, 06:10
Think obout it as your going to sleep,
Imagine it happening,
And then Really think IS the clone going to be you?

To theres it ma look sound and feel like you,
But you know,
That You are you,
So It's not you,

And the clone knows it is me as well. Who is accurate? Me because I'm biological? If it can copy me perfectly - then it's certainly got as much claim to being me as I do, and in fact, we're both me.

Shambles
05-30-2005, 06:12
And the clone knows it is me as well. Who is accurate? Me because I'm biological? If it can copy me perfectly - then it's certainly got as much claim to being me as I do, and in fact, we're both me.

But the origional Knows the truth,
and the clone is a synthetic copy who just THINks he knows he is you,

so if you died,
you would be no more,

But the clone lived,
You would have no knowlage of this as you were dead,

So you u are not the clone
and there fore the clone is not you

SO if you are no more and the clone exists.
he is most definatly not You Becous You are dead,
Something differs.
An no matter How precise you make the clone or what the clone Thinks,
Or who has a claim as to who is who,

You are both seperate beings,
And when 1 dies the other may not,
So you are not the same.
And that means that something is not the same.

Which is what i am saying


EDIT.

Imagine the clone then Murders you,
Would You still exist?

Of cours not,
It would be a clone of you who just acts like you and may be able to fool others in to thinking he is you,
But Something would differ in a fundimental level That means he could not actualy EVER Really be you,

And this imply's people have souls.

(still does not mean that the soul does not die when the body does though)

Phatose
05-30-2005, 06:31
But the origional Knows the truth,
and the clone is a synthetic copy who just THINks he knows he is you,

so if you died,
you would be no more,

But the clone lived,
You would have no knowlage of this as you were dead,

So you u are not the clone
and there fore the clone is not you

SO if you are no more and the clone exists.
he is most definatly not You Becous You are dead,
Something differs.
An no matter How precise you make the clone or what the clone Thinks,
Or who has a claim as to who is who,

You are both seperate beings,
And when 1 dies the other may not,
So you are not the same.
And that means that something is not the same.

Which is what i am saying


EDIT.

Imagine the clone then Murders you,
Would You still exist?

Of cours not,
It would be a clone of you who just acts like you and may be able to fool others in to thinking he is you,
But Something would differ in a fundimental level That means he could not actualy EVER Really be you,

And this imply's people have souls.

(still does not mean that the soul does not die when the body does though)


Of course, there is one very very large problem with your protest.

Where do I end, and the rest of the universe begins?

Consider: I have a pattern and a process. The process, in my case, is the laws of physics. But what of the pattern?

The pattern, of course, includes a location. This clone of yours cannot have the same position as "me" - the laws of physics prevent that. Which means, each of our patterns have different locations.

The laws of physics hold position as important. My brain and the clones brain will recieve different input. Gravity will affect our brains differently, different light will reach us. Different sounds, different EM interference.

This 'we' is really two of us, because despite your best attempts, you cannot make a second truly identical pattern, thus avoiding the question entirely.

Big_John
05-30-2005, 06:33
one need not invent a soul to understand how a clone and an 'original' are not the same person. fundamental to the concept of a person is the concept of self. the concept of self, in turn, is founded upon perception and memory. the reason a clone is not the same person as an original is because the clone is not the same self as the original.

the clone will have different perceptions (and therefor memories) by simple virtue of being confined to a different body. even assuming that a clone's mind will be identical in structure and function, the clones perspective/perceptions/memories are necessarily different because the clone occupies a different physical space that the original.

Byzantine Prince
05-30-2005, 06:34
The mind is not just simply sh!t you know. It's more then that. It's also your sense of self which cannot be dublicated because it's hadrcoded(funny RTW reference ~;)).

If you were only the information you memrized you would be just as useless as a computer without a human telling it what to do.

I don't think there is a soul per se, I think it's all organic. IF the soul lived forever wouldn't that be awful boring, for ever and ever and ever. You'd go insane. :dizzy2:

Shambles
05-30-2005, 06:38
No matter what you say or do,
Even if you could defy the laws of physics gravaty and all the rest of the equasion you are trying to put forth to make your stance more acceptable,

No clone will ever be you

Its all about sence of self.
Both you and the clone can have the same sence of self,

But You would never be the same,
No matter how intrecate you made the clone how precice,
Even if you placed him in a parallel dimention so he could stand in the same spot in a difrent plane and do exactly what you do as you do it,
you would both still be seperate beings,

which as i have said implies that people have a soul,
And i also said, This does not mean that the soul lives for ever

"i am using the term soul loosley here, And not in any conventional way, The soul could loosley be described as a sence of self But the clone would also have that same sence of self, So seeing as the clone is not you then it cant really only be the sence of self that is described as your soul"

Phatose
05-30-2005, 06:43
No matter what you say or do,
Even if you could defy the laws of physics gravaty and all the rest of the equasion you are trying to put forth to make your stance more acceptable,

No clone will ever be you

Its all about sence of self.
Both you and the clone can have the same sence of self,

But You would never be the same,
No matter how intrecate you made the clon how precice,
Even if you placed him in a parallel dimention so he could stand in the same spot in a difrent plane and do exactly what you do as you do it,
you would both still be seperate beings,

Simply because there will never BE a true clone. Both me and you have a sense of self. I am this process, in this pattern, here. The laws of physics dictate that no other can be this process, in this pattern, here. Therefore, the clone is impossible. Makes it pretty straightforward.

Big_John
05-30-2005, 06:55
you would both still be seperate beings,

which as i have said implies that people have a soulwhy does that imply a soul to you? it implies nothing of the sort to me. i can sort out the different selves easily based on the limitations of perspective and memory.

Shambles
05-30-2005, 06:57
simply becousl All these things You state could be cloned, in the origional version of what i said,
But even after doing so,
You would not be the same

So something differs,
And untill some 1 comes up with a better word for it,
I will use the word soul

I beleve your definition of the word soul and my definition of the word soul Differ Greatly.
And that is where we get this hidious comunication break down.

You can say Your soul is your thought process. "cloneable"
or Your sence of self "cloneable"
Or a combination of both "cloneable"

But never the less even if you do clone them all Perfectly.
You would not be the same.
Which implies theres something els, that makes you who you are,
And thats what im calling a soul, "maby in years to come they will say Its a neuron that attaches its self to your frontal lobes"
But untill then i will call this Un known entity your soul

Just like if your parents concived you 3 days latter than they did realy,
Everything is the same,
But you would not be you,
You would be some 1 els.
So there for a difrent soul being or essance

Big_John
05-30-2005, 07:06
simply becousl All these things You state could be cloned, in the origional version of what i said,
But even after doing so,
You would not be the same

So something differs,
And untill some 1 comes up with a better word for it,
I will use the word soul

I beleve your definition of the word soul and my definition of the word soul Differ Greatly.
And that is where we get this hidious comunication break downthen why don't you try to define what you mean by "soul". i ask you to do this because i do not believe in souls*, so i'm interested in how you think the disparity in personal identity between two people demonstrates the existence of a soul.

*the loose definition of soul that i'm using is something like dictionary.com's first entry: "The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity".

Shambles
05-30-2005, 07:10
then why don't you try to define what you mean by "soul". i ask you to do this because i do not believe in souls*, so i'm interested in how you think the disparity in personal identity between two people demonstrates the existence of a soul.

*the loose definition of soul that i'm using is something like dictionary.com's first entry: "The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity".

My definition of a soul is

The un known Part of you That makes you difrent from any clone you could ever make.

I dont beleve In SOULS as in how most people would think of a soul,
its just that the Word soul is The closest thing to what i beleve seperates me from any algorythum that may clone me precisley

I do not beleve in heven and hell I do not beleve The soul lives on,
I beleve That I am my soul,
And that My self is My soul and not any thought process or sence of self i may have.

My soul Is the part of me that makes me me,

Where as i could make a computer think its me and Act like me talk like me, Fool people in to thining it was me,
But it would never actualy be me,
As it would not have my soul

Big_John
05-30-2005, 07:14
My definition of a soul is

The un known Part of you That makes you difrent from any clone you could ever make.but that can be simply accounted for by the physical separation between bodies. a "perfect clone" and it's original aren't the same person because they don't occupy the same point in space, and therefor their perspectives will differ. necessarily, these two people are not the same person. i fail to see where a soul comes into the discussion at all.

My soul Is the part of me that makes me methat sounds like you are simply talking about self-awareness.

Phatose
05-30-2005, 07:14
My definition of a soul is

The un known Part of you That makes you difrent from any clone you could ever make.

I dont ebleve In SOULS as in how most people would think of a soul,
its just that the Word soul is The closest thing to what i beleve seperates me from any algorythum that may clone me precisley

Quick question:

I start two copies of a program on my computer. Each runs the same algorhythim. Are they the same thing?

Shambles
05-30-2005, 07:15
Like i said,
its your definition of the word that differs from mine,

Shambles
05-30-2005, 07:16
Quick question:

I start two copies of a program on my computer. Each runs the same algorhythim. Are they the same thing?


Fundimentaly Not But neither do they have a sence of self,
or a thought process that can be duplicated for both,


I tell you what,

You Make up a better word than Soul for me to use,
And il use that
---------------------------------------


that sounds like you are simply talking about self-awareness.

Self aware ness could also be cloned,
along with thought processes.
and anything els you may want to sudgest
But would still not make the clone me.


Ok hows about this then.

You clone a tree.
And that tree is EXACTLy alike to the 1st one,
They are still not the same,
The simple fact that physics say thay are not the same must be atributed to some thing,

Simply saying theres standing els where does not mean they are not the same,
So something fundimentaly differs.
So A tree would also have my version of a soul

Even without a sence of self or a rational thought process something Makes it individual.
Not just that there standing els where

In fact Everything does,

with exeption to algorythms and writen words,

Big_John
05-30-2005, 07:29
shambles, maybe you should find a better word for your thought than "soul". i think by using such a pregnant word, you're sewing much confusion.

a better word? well, it honestly sounds like you are just dealing with simple self-awareness. instead of "soul", to me it sounds like you are talking about "personal identity". but, i'm getting the impression that you are trying to grant a will or animation of some sort to "personal identity", which i don't understand.

you say "self awareness" could be cloned. but this is not all that is necessary for personal identity. the selves of two people differ, fundamentally, in three ways, imo.

1) the structure and function of the brain/mind - theoretically "cloneable"
2) the structure and function of the rest of the body - theoretically "cloneable"
3) the physical uniqueness (in space-time) of the body/mind - "not cloneable", do to simple physical laws

this third aspect is what accounts for your personal identity discrepancy.

Phatose
05-30-2005, 07:31
Fundimentaly Not But neither do they have a sence of self,
or a thought process that can be duplicated for both,


I tell you what,

You Make up a better word than Soul for me to use,
And il use that
---------------------------------------


Well, if they were written in Java, at least, they have enough sense of self to know what me.* is.

Realistically, I don't oppose your use of the word soul, but it is more a redefinition of the word then it is anything else.

Shambles
05-30-2005, 07:32
you say "self awareness" could be cloned. but this is not all that is necessary for personal identity. the selves of two people differ, fundamentally, in three ways, imo.

1) the structure and function of the brain/mind - theoretically "cloneable"
2) the structure and function of the rest of the body - theoretically "cloneable"
3) the physical uniqueness (in space-time) of the body/mind - "not cloneable", do to simple physical laws

This may be a factor But i certanly beleve there is more to it than that,

If you take in to account the cosmic foam theory of dimentions then You can indeed clone the 3rd physical uniqueness.

But then You still would not be the same,

But a combination of all 3 could in deed be What i deem to be My soul,
for lack of A better word,

And untill i get a better word Im afaraid i will continue to use my definition,
As it most closley describes how I feel about my self,

I must say however i have Really enjoyed this debate with many of you,
You have been verry civil and unlike most of the time in the back room we have been able to deabte this With out the need for insults,

ShambleS
:bow:

Don Corleone
05-30-2005, 07:34
After a week and a half of looking at Chinese & Singaporean girls, I'm a convert. My religion is now the deification of the female form. God, the girls are luscious over here.

All kidding aside, I'm something of a Deist Christian. I believe in the Trinity & all of that, but I believe God has rather limited interaction with us down here. I've seen evidence contradicting this position, and I've seen evidence supporting it. But in the end, I have to ask myself if said Trinity exists (a question I don't have time to get into) why would I be here and what is my purpose? What is the purpose of humanity and what is the purpose of life? Seems like learning to deal with one's problems and move on to helping others with theirs seems like a good place to begin.

My 2 cents.

By the way, I'm gone 1.5 weeks, and we have 3!!!! people on warning level 3???? What the hell happened?

Big_John
05-30-2005, 07:43
This may be a factor But i certanly beleve there is more to it than that,

If you take in to account the cosmic foam theory of dimentions then You can indeed clone the 3rd physical uniqueness.

But then You still would not be the same,

But a combination of all 3 could in deed be What i deem to be My soul,
for lack of A better word,

And untill i get a better word Im afaraid i will continue to use my definition,
As it most closley describes how I feel about my self,

I must say however i have Really enjoyed this debate with many of you,
You have been verry civil and unlike most of the time in the back room we have been able to deabte this With out the need for insults,

ShambleS
that's cool. imo, you are more confused about your idea than i am. ~;) i'll just remember that in the future if i see you talking about "souls".

i will ask you (or anyone) to explain how two separate persons can satisfy my third parameter for 'personal identity'. i think you are inventing a case that does not (actually can not) exist by saying that my third parameter can be satisfied by more than one person. imo, you are trying to jump over a paradox that is fatal to your claim: "But then You still would not be the same".

TheWingedVictory
05-30-2005, 07:59
Are you saying that because I am an Atheist I have no purpose in life? Not true sah! I have plenty of purpose, though I will die and it could all be for naught I will still try to make the world a bit better, to help some people. I will also try to have a good life. Isn't that purpose enough? To try to have a good, productive life?
Yes, what you are talking of is of worldly purpose and pleasures. Those don't last long, as you won't know it because you don't believe in any religion. Plus, wouldn't it be better to just take a 50/50 chance? really WHAT IF heaven and hell existed suddenly when you die. You will regret alot to rott in a that disgusting place for eternity while others enjoy eternal peace.

Shambles
05-30-2005, 07:59
but the cosmic foam theory of simentions, Is more than a hypothetical situation.
After all can you tell me where a black hole leads to?

But thats a difrent debate all together,
So i guess il just go to bed :)

Thank you 1ce more for a civil debate,

ShambleS
:bow:

TheWingedVictory
05-30-2005, 08:10
There are alot of phenomenas that science can't explain. For example, most christians, unlike think-they-are-christians in this forum, really devout christians, experience a real weird thing (I don't know the name of the phenomena in English). When they pray really hard and really faithfully and devoutly for hours and hours, they suddenly speak prayer really rapidly(the words comeout automatically, eventhough they are not speaking anything) with another LANGUAGE!! this is true, my mother had it longago with a foreign language that she had never heard before (she only speaks Korean and some english) And there are alot of testimonies of it. One for example, longtime ago was an old lady (american) who invited this korean student immigrant(he goes to my church i think) to see if he can understand what she is saying because she doesn't understand what she is saying during prayer. When that lady suddenly had that thing, she surprisingly spoke rapid korean during prayer (note that she never knew any korean). It could be any language in the world, and there are thousands of testimonies about it, not just koreans. I must mention that all people I noted DO NOT have any psychological problems.

TheWingedVictory
05-30-2005, 09:18
OK, that's IT! I will convert all you atheists to believers by scientifically proving that we are not the descendants of a monkey!! Did YOU know that the scientific comunity is pressuring forcefully to have US high school teachers to teach only about natural selection and evolution theory and never allow ideas of intelligent design, even if it can be right?! If evolution only pose as a theory, why can't we teach about the intelligent design AS a theory?!! There have been cases where when a high school teacher discussed faulty of evolution, he got fired. He wasn't teaching them about religion and creationism either. Here are some of the scientific facts:
*Bacterial flagellum, is much too interdependent with each other's part that it is impossible to work with a part missing, so natural selection cannot apply to it because it can never have been gradually developed. Also, try to look close to the flagellum, it is like a human engineering.
http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/flag_labels.jpg
*Modern scientist don't understand how DNA can be naturally formed in anyways. The formation of coded (specified complexity) information of DNA is more complex than your computer. Those codes can't be suddenly created naturally unless created by something. (not that religious, since some of you atheist can think that we are an alien experiment).
*Miller-Urey experiment produced only the basic stages of composition of life, but never was able to produce complex stages of the formation including RNA/DNA, proteins, and membranes. Plus geochemists now know that Earth's early atmosphere and conditions were far worse and the experiment do not simulate what might reasonably have happened under natural conditions of harsh early periods. (only some electricity in a experiment glass tube)
*The five factors can create a major barriers to chemical evolution. Oxygen in atmosphere (since oxygen can destroy the compound and prevent the chemical reaction that produce organic compounds), reversible chemical reactions (reversible reactions can tear the products into the previous state of building blocks), 3-D chemistry (optical isomers), chemical cross-reactions.
*Johanson's discovery of the ape, Lucy, was not a bipedal ape. Evidently they could walk SOMEWHAT upright, as pygmy chimps do today, but not in the human manner at all. seldom reminds us that he found the knee joint, the strongest evidence for upright stance, in a location some two to three kilometers away, and in a layer of rock some 200 feet lower. Clearly, the knee does not belong with the rests, but even if they do go together, the knee is not diagnostically upright, and; points more specifically to tree-climbing abilities. It is conclusice that two or perhaps three species have been wrongly combined in "Lucy." She was not a human ancestor. At best, she was a form of extinct ape; at worst, she was a mosaic, yet she is still touted as the best "evidence" for human evolution.
*The drawings of Haekel's embryos have always been the foundation for the evidence of evolution for century. These drawings are now found to be fake, thanks to modern science, because of their complete inaccuracy of portraying the embryos of animals during their early stages. Haeckel's drawings are oversimplified to the point of obscuring important differences between classes of vertebrates. Interestingly, this knowledge appears to be "old hat" among German biologists. Haeckel's drawings were not trusted, and Haeckel was accused of scientific fraud by a university court in Jena, where he worked and by other embryologists.
YET, textbook publishers foolishly do nothing to fix it.
http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/Richardson1.gif
Haeckel's rediculous imagination
http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/Richardson3.gif
Real embryos
*The tree of life illustrates the evolutionary changes that have occured. This too can be regarded as a mere hypotheses because the real fossil and molecular evidence shows a completely different story about the origin of numberous species that exists today (the fossil evidence shows that all of them came from exactly similar period at the right time)
*Homology, the science of simililarity of bones and vertebrate limbs, is an area which only supports the evolution. However, this view is comparing similarities of animal bones, which cannot make conclusion and only go in circles.
*The peppered moths case, which support the natural selection, is a very misleading and misunderstood topic, because some experiments regarding this case have been made in a complete artificial situation, which nature does not present.
*finches on the galapagos islands showed a sign of natural selection as their beak size increased as a drought came. BUT, darwin missed the fact that NO major change have occured and that after the drought, the beaks have returned to its normal size.
*To illustrate that there is no real difference between apes and modern humans, evolution supporters have made fanciful drawings of cave-men to make the reader believe it. Though there are hardly any evidence regarding this matter.
In conclusion, those fools have divided the biology community and criticized and rediculed those people who opposed Darwin's theory as being creationist. This is no different than the intolerance of during the scientific revolutions of the renaissance and the catholic inquisition!!!

Shambles
05-30-2005, 12:23
I already know we did not decend from monkeys.
There were actualy 3 or four difrent species of human,
and then there were also Also monkeys,

I do not understand what you hope to proove by this,

try to Scientifically proove to me where god came from.
And if you say no 1 had to create god,

Then i wil say No 1 had to create life.

Now then you can see and watch mutations in the geen pool almost every day "deformed creatures are born"
This is what scientist would call a evolutionary throw back,

Not all mutations in the gene pool are benifactory,
but some most definatly are,
Then It becomes a survival of the fitest ,
Where the ones who mutated in a benificial way Find it easier to adapt and survive,

Humans didnt neciseraly Mutate just becous of evolution,
But becous of what they ate,
A high protine diet helped there brains to grow larger and more complex,
This aided their hunting abilaties and eventualy lead to the humans we know now.
Language was a Huge step in our evolutionary progress,
But Any one who has any real grasp of modern day science also knows The darwin theory to be false.

Humans were here
Many difrent forms
The larger humans suffered greatly from over heating. And had large nasal cavity's,
But could not run very far or fast,
There were a smaller pigmy race of humans,
These could not run very fast but were capable of longer distances but for obvious reason's would not be able to fend against the larger species of humans
Then there were What could be most closley related to us.
Who were smaller than the Large human species But also considerably larger than the pigmy race,
They were the ones who were best suited to the task of living on earth,
and were around just about the same time smilerdon (saber tooth tigers) were wiped out,
These creatures had the abilaty to run for up to 8 hours closley following four legged animals and although could not neciseraly catch them instantly They could out run them over a greater distance and Then capture the animal when it was spent of energy,

This can be witnessed to this day by some abiriginal tribes who still hunt in this manner,

The marrow from animal bones was also rich in protine which again helped form brain matter.
And in turn this species of human Was in deed dominant,

And that is how we are still here today,
and such animals as the saber tooth tiger have dissapeared, "speculated to have been killed of by early forms of human"

Again i fail to see how knowing any of this could Convert any atheist.

There are many things a human mind cannot fathom,
The knowlage that one day you will die and then you will be no more is Quite horendous once you think about it,
And you could end up with people saying IF im going to die any way What the hell And then they could go mad and Do what they wanted, With no regard for any one or anything

So inventing religion is a really good way to make people stay in line,
Its verry strange however that there are No repecussions in the here and now for not having a faith where acording to most religions Many years ago You would have had a plague of locusts or Seas of blood,
Or Mass floods for your lack of faith,

With so many Un beleveres these days Compared to when these storys are ment to have taken place. Wouldnt it be more likeley to happen now,
Than back then when lack of educcation left people more supseptable to beleving in a mythical figure.

I say There Is no God, ANd He MAY STRIKE mE DOWn With A Lightning Bolt right Now, If i am wrong

P.s

about the phenomenon you are refering to
I beleve its called speaking in toungs,

Shambles
05-30-2005, 12:48
Oh yeah,

Im still here No lightning bolt.
So I guess god does not exist

Quietus
05-30-2005, 13:31
TheWingedVictory,

Who said early life used oxygen?

We all have the same ancestors.

Development is dictated with PRECISION by the DNA. And these changes in the dna is randomly occurring.

These are not proofs at all ~:confused: I don't see any science either. ~:confused:

There is no god; and you can call all the priests, imams, mullah, pope, or any religious figures in the world and they will offer you this much evidence:

0

You're trying to put the burden on science to disprove an imagined being that has no scientific proof of existence in the first place. Can you prove there are elves? Can you prove there's a Jabberwocky?

Problem is you create a god-hole and you're trying to fit everything in it. That's not how it works. A square hole according to the bible - yikes - and everything fits into it.

Those Bibles and Koran are ones that have zero basis. Give me any basis of those writings? The basis for christianity are older religious like Zoroasterism and Judaism etc. What are the basis for those religions? You get the idea.

:charge:

TheWingedVictory
05-30-2005, 19:30
I mentioned something, that intelligent design isn't only about God or a supreme being. It could be some ET from outer space. Plus I don't disagree with minor changes which animals adapt to certain conditions, in order to survive. What I was talking was chemical evolution and its nonsense. There is no current explanation for the later stages of life of chemical formation such as DNA, protein, and etc. Scientists still don't know it. I am criticizing the behaviors of modern scientific community. they behold a theory as the truth, which they never fully proven. All I gave you about those infos are not bsed.

try to Scientifically proove to me where god came from.
I can't cuz religion is beyond the realm of science, and it's up to faith in the matter of God.

Papewaio
05-31-2005, 00:14
OK, that's IT! I will convert all you atheists to believers by scientifically proving that we are not the descendants of a monkey!! Did YOU know that the scientific comunity is pressuring forcefully to have US high school teachers to teach only about natural selection and evolution theory and never allow ideas of intelligent design, even if it can be right?! If evolution only pose as a theory, why can't we teach about the intelligent design AS a theory?!!



Why don't Sunday Schools teach evolution?



*Bacterial flagellum, is much too interdependent with each other's part that it is impossible to work with a part missing, so natural selection cannot apply to it because it can never have been gradually developed. Also, try to look close to the flagellum, it is like a human engineering.

Being interdependent does not disprove evolution.



*Modern scientist don't understand how DNA can be naturally formed in anyways. The formation of coded (specified complexity) information of DNA is more complex than your computer. Those codes can't be suddenly created naturally unless created by something. (not that religious, since some of you atheist can think that we are an alien experiment).


Those codes can quite easily be formed given a long enough time line. I suggest you read some popular science books to get the basics.



*Miller-Urey experiment produced only the basic stages of composition of life, but never was able to produce complex stages of the formation including RNA/DNA, proteins, and membranes. Plus geochemists now know that Earth's early atmosphere and conditions were far worse and the experiment do not simulate what might reasonably have happened under natural conditions of harsh early periods. (only some electricity in a experiment glass tube)

Harsh enviroments does not preclude life. Also life may have started beneath the surface of the earth in far more steady conditions.



*The five factors can create a major barriers to chemical evolution. Oxygen in atmosphere (since oxygen can destroy the compound and prevent the chemical reaction that produce organic compounds), reversible chemical reactions (reversible reactions can tear the products into the previous state of building blocks), 3-D chemistry (optical isomers), chemical cross-reactions.


The early earth did not have much oxygen in the atmosphere... it was created later by life ~D . Not all chemical reactions are easily reversibile... otherwise life as we do now know it would desolve into its elements. Optical isomers does not disprove evolution anymore then a mirror does.



*Johanson's discovery of the ape, Lucy, was not a bipedal ape. Evidently they could walk SOMEWHAT upright, as pygmy chimps do today, but not in the human manner at all. seldom reminds us that he found the knee joint, the strongest evidence for upright stance, in a location some two to three kilometers away, and in a layer of rock some 200 feet lower. Clearly, the knee does not belong with the rests, but even if they do go together, the knee is not diagnostically upright, and; points more specifically to tree-climbing abilities. It is conclusice that two or perhaps three species have been wrongly combined in "Lucy." She was not a human ancestor. At best, she was a form of extinct ape; at worst, she was a mosaic, yet she is still touted as the best "evidence" for human evolution.


How does Creationism explain lucy? How does Intelligent design explain lucy? Was it a case of poor project management and a rush to get the product out without proper testing?

The best evidence for human evolution is having large segements of our DNA found in other lifeforms on this planet. This disproves both Alien intervention and creationism.



*The tree of life illustrates the evolutionary changes that have occured. This too can be regarded as a mere hypotheses because the real fossil and molecular evidence shows a completely different story about the origin of numberous species that exists today (the fossil evidence shows that all of them came from exactly similar period at the right time)

Are you stating that fossils are all from the same time period? Not according to isotopic dating schemes.



*Homology, the science of simililarity of bones and vertebrate limbs, is an area which only supports the evolution. However, this view is comparing similarities of animal bones, which cannot make conclusion and only go in circles.


How is it going in circles?



*The peppered moths case, which support the natural selection, is a very misleading and misunderstood topic, because some experiments regarding this case have been made in a complete artificial situation, which nature does not present.


The colour frequency change as the environment changed was very good evidence of evolutionary adapatation to enviromental stress.



*finches on the galapagos islands showed a sign of natural selection as their beak size increased as a drought came. BUT, darwin missed the fact that NO major change have occured and that after the drought, the beaks have returned to its normal size.


You do understand that this is proof of evolution.



*To illustrate that there is no real difference between apes and modern humans, evolution supporters have made fanciful drawings of cave-men to make the reader believe it. Though there are hardly any evidence regarding this matter.


DNA, bones, fossils, tools. That is four different fields of science that come to the same general conclusions that evolution has occured.



In conclusion, those fools have divided the biology community and criticized and rediculed those people who opposed Darwin's theory as being creationist. This is no different than the intolerance of during the scientific revolutions of the renaissance and the catholic inquisition!!!


Yes I saw on the news last night Stephen Hawking and Dawkins demanding that Churches teach evolution at Sunday schools. They also demand that will burn at the stake anyone who attempts to prove them wrong. Also a splinter group has been setup to blow up right to life clinics.

bmolsson
05-31-2005, 02:45
Why can't robots have souls?


Because the Japanese made them inferior...... ~;)

TheWingedVictory
05-31-2005, 07:15
Being interdependent does not disprove evolution.
Being interdependent means they could never have evolved in very gradual stages as natural selection upholds.

Why don't Sunday Schools teach evolution?
Is biology a religion to you? If you haven't been to a sunday school, Church and sunday schools only exists to expand christian student's knowledge on bibles and how to be a good christian because ur in a church not school. It's not about human knowledge and science.

Those codes can quite easily be formed given a long enough time line. I suggest you read some popular science books to get the basics.
oh hoho? how, could you explain for me how they could be formed given a long enough time? What chemicals under what conditions?

Harsh enviroments does not preclude life. Also life may have started beneath the surface of the earth in far more steady conditions.
No, the best explanation from your evolutionists is that life started in a small pond somewhere. How is a chance that there might be a little pond protecting life under extreme conditions for thousands of years? A slim chance indeed. Also, plz the miller urey experiment was the condition under earth's primitice oceans. Moreover, your evolution theorists say that the earliest of all life dwelled in ocean, not land dweller. But since you believe it began beneath the surface, could you explain for me how it did?
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/Pmilurey.gif

The early earth did not have much oxygen in the atmosphere... it was created later by life . Not all chemical reactions are easily reversibile... otherwise life as we do now know it would desolve into its elements. Optical isomers does not disprove evolution anymore then a mirror does.
Miller-Urey experiment during the 50s proved that they could create some of the basic ingredients of life, amino acids. With the help of earth's early atmosphere, including oxygen. But now we know that abundance of oxygen can also destroy. Chirality is a chemical term that means handedness. Although two chemical molecules may appear to have the same elements and similar properties, they can still have different structures. When two molecules appear identical and their structures differ only by being mirror images of each other, those molecules are said to have chirality. Your left and right hands illustrate chirality. Your hands may appear to be identical, but in reality, they are only mirror images of each other, hence the term handedness. For this reason, chirality can exist as a right-handed or a left-handed molecule, and each individual molecule is called an optical isomer. What is the problem of chirality? In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions. Chirality is a property that only a few scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality was missing in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to a catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes. Let's look at chirality in proteins and DNA. Proteins are polymers of amino acids and each one of the component amino acids exists as the "L" or left-handed optical isomer. Even though the "R" or right-handed optical isomers can be synthesized in the lab, this isomer does not exist in natural proteins. The DNA molecule is made up of billions of complicated chemical molecules called nucleotides, and these nucleotide molecules exist as the "R" or right-handed optical isomer. The "L" isomer of nucleotides can be prepared in the lab, but they do not exist in natural DNA. There is no way that a random chance process could have formed these proteins and DNA with their unique chirality. If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the components would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what we see in natural proteins or in natural DNA. How can a random chance natural process create proteins with thousands of "L" molecules, and then also create DNA with billions of "R" molecules? Does this sound like random chance or a product of design? Even if there were a magic process to introduce chirality, it would only create one isomer. If such a process existed, we do not know anything about it or how it would work. If it did exist, how were compounds with the other chirality ever formed? Even if there were two magical processes, one for each isomer, what determined which process was used and when it was used, if this was a random chance natural process? The idea of two processes requires a controlling mechanism, and this kind of control is not possible in a random chance natural process. However, the problem with chirality goes even deeper. As nucleotide molecules come together to form the structure of DNA, they develop a twist that forms the double helix structure of DNA. DNA develops a twist in the chain because each component contains chirality or handedness. It is this handedness that gives DNA the spiral shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the wrong chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would not function properly. The entire replication process would be derailed like a train on bad railroad tracks. In order for DNA evolution to work, billions of molecules within our body would have to be generated with the "R" configuration all at the same time, without error. If it is impossible for one nucleotide to be formed with chirality, how much less likely would it be for billions of nucleotides to come together exactly at the same time, and all of them be formed with the same chirality? If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with chirality, how can it explain the formation of two products of opposite chirality? Chirality is not just a major problem for evolution; it is a dilemma. According to evolution, natural processes must explain everything over long periods of time. However, the process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science in any amount of time. That is the dilemma, either natural processes cannot explain everything, or chirality doesn't exist. If you're in doubt as to which is correct, you are a living example of the reality of chirality. Without chirality, proteins and enzymes could not do their job; DNA could not function at all. Without properly functioning proteins and DNA, there would be no life on this earth. The reality of chirality, more than any other evidence, did more to convince me of the reality of an all-powerful Creator. I hope it will do the same for you.

How does Creationism explain lucy? How does Intelligent design explain lucy? Was it a case of poor project management and a rush to get the product out without proper testing? The best evidence for human evolution is having large segements of our DNA found in other lifeforms on this planet. This disproves both Alien intervention and creationism.

Best evidence is only DNA? Is is not possible that a supreme being or an Alien would have designed those DNA of ours and replicated some of it for every creature? Also, it is not possible for us and other creatures to have the identical large segment of DNA. It's simply all the physical traits and genetic codes. I'm sure we don't have a reptile skin, do we?And about the creationism, there is no SCIENTIFIC explanation for lucy. Simply because creationism is, almight god created all living matter. We don't know God's knowledge and how he did it, so you can't disapprove us because there could be thousands of possibilities. What I'm really pointing out is that johanson made a completely false evidence. I told you, Lucy, is actually collection of several other ape species. He didn't even answer a question regarding this matter at a college visit here in Washington state, and just skipped it. Why don't you make him explain Lucy.

Are you stating that fossils are all from the same time period? Not according to isotopic dating schemes.
If earth layers and fossil records are inspected, it will be seen that all living organisms have been created instantaneously. The oldest layer of the earth, where fossils of living creatures have been found, is the Cambrian layer which has an estimated age of 500 million years. There are no animal fossils deeper than this layer. Animals belonging to this Cambrian layer have appeared suddenly in the fossil records with no pre-existing ancestors. These animals within the layers possess irreducibly complex organs like eyes, or systems like blood circulation and gills that only emerge in higher organisms.. Also there is no sign in the fossil records that these animals had progenitors. An editor of Earth Sciences, tells the following about sudden appearance of these living creatures: "Researchers have since uncovered thousands of exquisitely preserved fossils that offer a glimpse back to a pivotal event in the history of life. This moment, right at the start of Earth’s Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world’s first complex creatures. In a blink of geological time a planet dominated by simple spongelike animals gave way to one ruled by a vast variety of sophisticated beasts, animals whose relatives still inhabit the world today." The existence of infinite variety of animals within living creatures and the fact that there are different species with no common ancestors, have been an unsolvable problem for evolutionists. That is why evolutionary resources include an imaginary time interval of 20 million years before the Cambrian Period where they state that "the unknown" and beginning of life started. This period can be named as the "evolutionary cavity". Yet, nobody has been able to explain this evolutionary cavity until now.

How is it going in circles?
According to the contemporary definition, a homology is something like a “family resemblance.” It’s a similarity that indicates two or more organisms are related to each otherm that they share a common ancestor. The authors of Science and Creationism:A View from the National Academy of Sciences explain it like this: “The skeletons of humans, mice, and bats are strikingly similar, despite the different ways of life of these animals and the diversity of environments in which they flourish. The correspondence of these animals, bone by bone, can be observed in every part of the body, including the limbs; yet a person writes, a mouse runs, and a bat flies with structures built of bones that are different in detail but similar in general structure and relation to each other.” Scientists, they add, have concluded that such structures “are best explained by common descent.” Homologies differ from similarities that are not acquired from a common ancestor. Thus, the eyes of humans and octopi are very similar, but scientists do not think their common ancestor had such an eye. Such similarities are called analogies. But using the contemporary definition of homology as evidence for common ancestry is circular reasoning. How do you know that two organisms share a common ancestor? Because they have features that are homologous. But how do you know the structures are homologous? Because the two organisms share a common ancestor. Leaving aside the problem of circularity, it is far from clear that similarities, as such, are best explained by common descent. If we knew there were a mechanism that could produce humans, mice and bats from a common ancestor, that claim would be plausible. But the mechanism is the very thing in question. In the absence of a mechanism, the fact of similarity does not compel a Darwinian explanation. After all, we see similarities between different kinds of cars, but we don’t conclude that one descended from another. Moreover, biologists knew about homologous similarities well before Darwin published his theory, yet the great majority concluded that they resulted from a common design rather than common descent.

The colour frequency change as the environment changed was very good evidence of evolutionary adapatation to enviromental stress.
What I'm saying is that the whole experiment was an artificial blunder in a massive scale. Because scientists are now beginning to concede that the white variety of peppered moths flourished again well before the return of pollution-free trees, while the black type continued to thrive in areas unaffected by industry. Experiments have also shown that neither moth chooses resting places best suited to its camouflage. Most damning of all, despite 40 years of effort, scientists have seen only two moths resting on tree trunks, the key element of the standard story and the experiment. According to Michael Majerus, a Cambridge University expert on the moth, Dr Kettlewell tried to confirm the standard story simply by pinning dead moths on to parts of the trees where they could be seen easily by birds.
Also, scientists are now beginning to doubt even the basic presumption that birds were responsible for the changing fortunes of the different types of Biston.

You do understand that this is proof of evolution.
That is just a tiny minor adaptation to the environment. Note that the beak size returned to normal. It never under took a major evolutionary change. Also the variation in the beaks also influences the finches' musical sound, which may play a role in how a female selects a mate. We humans really have not seen observation of the bird for centuries. We can't conclude that it is evolution in work.

DNA, bones, fossils, tools. That is four different fields of science that come to the same general conclusions that evolution has occured.
Apparently I'd like to see the fossils of those various cavemen.

Yes I saw on the news last night Stephen Hawking and Dawkins demanding that Churches teach evolution at Sunday schools. They also demand that will burn at the stake anyone who attempts to prove them wrong. Also a splinter group has been setup to blow up right to life clinics.
No, I haven't seen your bsed news last night.

Plz prove why text books are using the world wide known fault Haeckel embryo drawings.

Big_John
05-31-2005, 07:26
thewingedvictory

if you wish to clear your head of those outmoded creationist ideas, take a trip over to talkorigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/). this site will inform you on current evolutionary science and it will help you dismiss all of that creationism nonsense you're struggling against, in detail. have fun.

:2thumbsup:

TheWingedVictory
05-31-2005, 07:37
Are all ppl in this forum atheist?!! No one is reinforcing me!!!! What have happened to this world??!!

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. - Genesis 1:1

TheWingedVictory
05-31-2005, 07:40
@big john
I have been to that site and convinces me nothing. I wasn't struggling either. There are alot of links to pro-creationists but I will make an armistice with you atheists, because it seems you will never give up your will. Perhaps someday you will know the truth. :bow:

Big_John
05-31-2005, 07:53
Are all ppl in this forum atheist?!! No one is reinforcing me!!!! What have happened to this world??!!well, looking at the vote, "christian" respondents are the plurality.


In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. - Genesis 1:1i shoudn't expect you to have evidence to support this claim, should i? :shifty:


@big john
I have been to that site and convinces me nothing. I wasn't struggling either. There are alot of links to pro-creationists but I will make an armistice with you atheists, because it seems you will never give up your will.oh well, you know what they say, "you can lead a horse to water, you can force his mouth open, and you can pour the water down his throat... but you can't make him believe he drank it." that is what they say, right?


Perhaps someday you will know the truth. :bow:i doubt it. i have a feeling that objective "truth", if such a thing exists, would be much too profound for me to comprehend. thanks for the sentiment though, and same to you. a little advice: first step in your search for knowledge would be to get rid of that creationist nonsense, though, i think it's holding you back. :bow:

Phatose
05-31-2005, 09:32
Well, I've read a few of those there arguements. After seeing the first claim about interdependencies, which assume any mutation must have a benefit for it to remain in the gene pool, I got a little annoyed. Interdependencies don't really mean anything to practical evolution, as it's perfectly acceptable for mutations with no benefit to continue to exist in the gene pool. Add in the complete lack of discussion of subtractive methods to reach that setup, and I'm gonna say it's meant to promote a religious agenda, not to perform any actual science.


Then I got to the chirality arguement, which doesn't so much as include a mention of self-catalysis - and which was incidentally, directly cut and paste from a website - and I'm deciding it's not worth really arguing, since I've encountered the old 'bury em in quotes from creationist websites' tactic before.

Duke Malcolm
05-31-2005, 17:24
Now, I am an agnostic, with a Christian background. But, why oh why is it whenever a debate about the possibility of the existence of God comes around, evolution always comes up. I used to attend a sort of Sunday school called the Wednesday Club, except it wasn't after church, and it was on a Wednesday, and most of the time we played about...
Anyhoo... The people who ran it told me that one can interpret the Book of Genesis to mean something more like evolution (it was some time ago now, and I can't quite remember what it was exactly, but it certainlly made me not an athiest). The point is that evolution is not a way to disprove God. It may disprove a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, but there have been wars over the interpretation of the Bible, so it is obviously a shady matter...

mercian billman
05-31-2005, 21:44
I'm really not sure whether I'm an agnostic or a deist ~:confused:

Ldvs
06-01-2005, 08:01
Atheist and grateful I was not forced to follow a religion when I was young and gullible, because it obviously blinds most of the people who follow one...

Uesugi Kenshin
06-02-2005, 22:15
An agnostic is inbetween deist and atheist. Doesn't really believe there is a god or that there is no god.

Dâriûsh
06-03-2005, 14:02
Muslim.