How can you honestly believe in God.

WoW ... Many good answers and here I was thinking that the world was/is godless. Well the world I knwo for a fact is Godless as is was given to someone else for a period of time. Anyways, there are many chemicals that produce a certain feeling. Feelings, are produced from your body the body that you are gonig to die and leave behind. There are chemicals in the body that we cannot even find a way to measure or even know exists for that matter .... (THIS I AM SURE OF)

Originally posted by jakyll

just a lil something to clear up the whole male nipple thing

Well, I know that, and YOU know that, but if men don't nurse why would a perfect being create nipples on males? It's superfluous, seemingly a design flaw.

My point was that evolution is littered with mistakes and dead ends that a perfect being with a perfect plan would not have made.

And also, the eye -- creationists like to use it as "evidence" of irreducible complexity.

The eye is built upside down and backwards and is prone to all sorts of problems because of it. If the maker is so perfect, why make eyes in such a bass-ackwards way?

The only possible answer that fits is that eyes evolved over billions of years from primitive light-sensing spots, through fits and starts and dead ends, until we get to the upside-down and backwards squishy lenses we have today.

reply to post by MajorMalfunction


I totally agree mate!

And its not just humans who have design flaws,many creatures of the animal kingdom do too!
I honestly don't know what created the universe,but i believe in evolution.and i've argued with ppl on ATS that,just because evidence of evolution exists,does not mean a god or gods are false! but you know what kind've replies you get to that! lol.

When you point out all the flaws and imperfections in god and creation you get the usual answers of."its god's plan." "god works in mysterious ways." etc etc.to me creationism and evolutionism are both faiths with one difference.there is evidence of evolution.evidence that can be proved.not so with creationism.

Christianity is a faith that wants you to live in fear.it thrives on wealth and taking money from the innocent and the believers.if they cannot answer a question it is ignored,condemned or put down to a god no one has ever seen!they want you to believe in a glorious afterlife.but if god loves then,why don't they have a glorious life in this world?? the various faiths of christianity=power,wealth,control.in this day and age it has become so far removed from religion and spirituality,its unbelievable! cardinals and bishops would rather debate if a gay man can become a bishop rather than tackle the increasing problem of priests who abuse children! in fact they protect them but moving them to other parishes! (as has happened in britain.)is it only me who thinks thats messed up??


"""I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.""" (Albert Einstein, The World as I See It)

"""I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."""
(Albert Einstein, Obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955)


"""If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.""" (Albert Einstein)

And also, the eye -- creationists like to use it as "evidence" of irreducible complexity.

Interesting,,so if it's backwards we should what?

Be looking into our own skulls?

It's upside down?

If I gave my eye a 90 degree rotation, everything I would see would look upside down.

Well, I know that, and YOU know that, but if men don't nurse why would a perfect being create nipples on males? It's superfluous, seemingly a design flaw.

Mens areola's are not for nursing. I'm sorry nobody has ever told you that. Must have been embarrasing to say the least.

If you see them as a flaw, have yours removed then. I want to know why evolution is taking so long to remove them for us.

The only possible answer that fits is that eyes evolved over billions of years from primitive light-sensing spots, through fits and starts and dead ends, until we get to the upside-down and backwards squishy lenses we have today.

I take it you have had a better pair?







[edit on 29-8-2007 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by jakyll


Yeah,, obviously Einstien wasn't into the God of Christianity

His biggest regret since the day he died

Originally posted by melatonin

OK, each to their own. I disagree, but that's cool, no?

Of course it is Melatonin, I'm sure we will have discussions in other threads where we will be in complete agreement too. Happens all the time here.

Thanks for posting

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
If there was an "intelligent" designer, it is either a madman or an incompetent. Trying to fit an omnipotent being into the gaps to make evolution fit in with religion reduces the god to a tinkering buffoon.

Why do I say this? What "perfect" god would have created (in people) the appendix? Male nipples? The occasional person born with a 13th set of ribs (humans usually have 12 but an occasional throwback is born with 13 - the same number as chimps have)? Knees that give out because bipedalism is hard on a body system?

Either god is perfect, or he is not. If he created all the creatures and other life seen today, he made a whole lotta mistakes.

You can't have it both ways. The way creationists try to fit god into science, he either does not exist, or he is a buffoon. Either there is a god behind evolution, making god a buffoon, or there is not, which means life started on its own and needs no god to create or sustain it.

I AGREE !

You get out there and show GOD how it's done!

( I just gotta see this hehe)

Let me know when you are done with the new version

Oh and by the way,, if life, the human body is desgned so terrible,,

what are you still in it for?

You hate the way life was made and the body it's in,, don't be a hipocrit

Quit.

Some of us are just Glad to be here



[edit on 29-8-2007 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by AncientVoid

Originally posted by Valhall
What I don't enjoy are people who are militantly active in attacking me, and other believers, because they just can't seem to tolerate the opposing choice to the one they made.
[edit on 8-28-2007 by Valhall]

Ha you guys can talk. 'if you don't do this' etc...'You're going to hell' etc etc...
I'm not the one trying to print out pamphlet and converting everyone. Jezz, i just got one today, 'try Jesus'. Umm yes Mr pamphlet...

Oh Pffft Read his post, jeez as assaults go,, I should BE so roughed up when Attacked.

Originally posted by jakyll
reply to post by Conspiriology

 

I noticed you've been busy,lol.
Its easy to get carried away on here! I do it all the time,so no worries mate!

I just rambled off a lot of quotes for ya,bout the bibles attitude to women.some of the quotes came from paul and his view of women was very different than jesus' though it still doesn't excuse some of the other messages in the bible.and i agree alot of it is down to man's interpretation of what he reads,but you have to admit,the bible hasn't been that great for women.you mentioned about women being payed a lower wage etc.well,that was because they were and,in some cases still are,seen as being inferior to men.lots of stuff about that in the bible.
they way i look at it,there is only one difference between man and woman.and thats body strength.men are built to have upper body strength,for women its lower body.but in the mind and in the capacity for learning,understanding etc.we are the same.that is how we were designed....

First let me apologise for missing this, and also I see we got off on the wrong foot out of the gate. (err or I did)

This is a gut feeling I have about you.
You were once involved in the scriptures very seriously at one time and perhaps in the Church?

I agree completely with your sentiments about woman moreover I don't know many that have argued for them more then I have.

I also agree with, well,, "Issues" regarding Paul.
I laughed when I read that part of your post because I used to think he had something against them too and had wondered about that thorn he keeps talking about in his flesh. I wondered if that wasn't some spiritual battle he was having with his Homosexual Proclivities. I don't mean to mock him and he never really discloses much to explain his almost disdain for woman. I have read more about Paul and have a much better understanding of his position on full time service to the lord and celebacy but that again makes me very curious. Paul as you know was the most industrious of all of them and he was one impressive guy in what he accomplished.

The reason I have avoided the Bible having only used quotes from it as a referance here and there is because I have seen these debates get pretty ugly when you try to use Faith and Atheists Use Science. For me anyway, I think going into the Gospel is premature with people that don't even believe in a GOD let alone who he is etc. I am sure you understand.

You seem sincere however and I would be more then happy to hash some dialogue over with you regarding the Bible and woman. I think I have a pretty good angle on something I don't think you are considering.

My messenger "exetronics" yahoo.

Again, sorry I missed you

OK, completely off the wall, but related to something I'm writing at the moment, and can be brought into the 'why are things like this if god designed us'.

Some might find it interesting anyway, even as an OT aside...

We all know we are told that we shouldn't 'judge a book by its cover'. I wouldn't be surprised that the 'good books' tell us something similar about being so superficial in our judgments of other people.

Well, why do we seem to process the superficial attractiveness of other people rapidly, automatically, and, perhaps, unconsciously?

Babies prefer to look at attractive faces (Langlois et al., 1991), they also interact more positively with attractive people (Langlois et al., 1990). Which suggests this is an innate process, present in babies. From the other perspective, mothers are more affectionate and playful with attractive babies than unattractive babies (Langlois et al., 1995). Consistent with this, people rate the bad behaviour of attractive children as less negative than that of unattractive children (Dion, 1972).

Supporting the innateness of a preference for attractiveness, we process facial beauty at a subliminal level. For example, attractive faces presented for only 13 milliseconds can bias subsequent cognitive processing (i.e., it primes the processing of emotional stimuli; Olsen & Marshuetz, 2005). Reliable judgments of facial attractiveness can be made at only 100 milliseconds, that is, people make very similar judgments of the attractiveness of other people from very brief glances of faces (Willis & Todorov, 2006).

This has real-world effects. Attractive people are more succesful in employment, earning higher wages and attaining higher positions (Frieze, Ison, & Russel, 1991; Hammermesh & Biddle, 1994).

So, why are we equipped to judge people so superficially? If we were designed, then this is a feature of the design. Why would an intelligent designer want us to judge people by their appearance?

Evolution can explain this pretty easily. Essentially, attractiveness is a signal of good genes, and possibly good health (i.e. lacking disease and parasites). But, it's a bit more complicated than that, as women's preferences change with ovulation (i.e. they prefer more attractive 'masculine' men when ovulating, these are deemed poor long-term partners, but more attractive 'feminine' men when not).

Anyway, yeah, I think god might actually want us to judge people by their looks...



[edit on 29-8-2007 by melatonin]

Conspiriology, your ignorance of evolution and how it works is astounding. The only thing I find more astounding is that you insist on arguing points you don't understand.

As I said before, I find your contribution to the discussion to be negligible. This last series of spam posts has reminded me not to read your posts. Thanks for the reminder. Sometimes my poorly-designed middle-aged brain breaks down.

If god is the "cosmic watchmaker" he's an idiot. He should have measured twice and created once.

The phrase "very likely" again makes my point. Not only does symbiotic relationships require they be (cover your ears) INTACT and FULLY FUNCTIONING, secondly, the words "very likely" indicate as much proof as "potentially" or could have been, maybe, etc

Does it? That's science, always tentative, lacking in 100% certainty and hubris. Do you think that's a bad thing? I guess you prefer dogmatic absolute truth...

Yeah I think it's a bad thing to imply hubris for a belief that by it's instruction and faith is something we have no need to substantiate anything tentative. You said I'm not doing so well.

Perhaps not, but that would be measured by my own expectations. You see, when you say Science is always tentative, lacking 100% certainty then to imply I prefer Dogmatic proof,, Well,, that gets hard to listen to that kind of ad hominem. You know me,, I don't sugar coat Jack and would appreciate you just tell me like it is.

I get this from what you are saying.

1) After Science finally gets it right and is no longer a game of tentative notions and percentages,, you will discard it because you don't like dogmatic 100% absolute truth.

2) If what you are saying is true that it is tentative, not 100% certain, then on this topic, what percent is speculation (going back to my original post about that)

3 ) For something as tentative and less then certain about any topic of Science, why is the postulate of Absolutely 100% certain that NO GOD exists? Sounds a little like that dogmatic hubris lol (couldn't resist lol )

I think I've already told you that plants didn't originally evolve photosynthesis, which is what you suggested. They acquired it from a symbiotic bacteria.

They did? when? and what kept them alive while they were without it.
It was darn lucky for them plants to have accidentally found a bridge to that phase of their transition to full blown photosynthesis.

Umm God has a microwave?
tsk tsk and you wonder why I start using Caps lol .
C'mon mel,, I am trying to be civil here with you.

Like most biochemical systems, it likely evolved from more simple biochemical systems. Lots of papers on the evolution of photosynthesis if you that interested, sure you're not though.

Now now I am an avid reader of both Spiritual and Secular Science It is just that I have never (with the exception of domestic Dogs) Seen any evolutionary transition from one function to another that had taken Billions of years. Especially now that we know you can make a chihuahua out of a a Wolf just by manipulating different temperament. This happens in a relatively short time.




[edit on 29-8-2007 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Conspiriology, your ignorance of evolution and how it works is astounding. The only thing I find more astounding is that you insist on arguing points you don't understand.

As I said before, I find your contribution to the discussion to be negligible. This last series of spam posts has reminded me not to read your posts. Thanks for the reminder. Sometimes my poorly-designed middle-aged brain breaks down.

If god is the "cosmic watchmaker" he's an idiot. He should have measured twice and created once.

And what are you Major??

The alternative?


Will the jealousy ever end lol

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Conspiriology, your ignorance of evolution and how it works is astounding. The only thing I find more astounding is that you insist on arguing points you don't understand.

As I said before, I find your contribution to the discussion to be negligible. This last series of spam posts has reminded me not to read your posts. Thanks for the reminder. Sometimes my poorly-designed middle-aged brain breaks down.

If god is the "cosmic watchmaker" he's an idiot. He should have measured twice and created once.

MajorMalfunction ( good name for ya, fits) Do you realize that all you have done to "contribute" to this discussion is criticize everything whether it was done by natural selection or intelligent design you post away your opinions of how shoddy it is how dumb this is. You say I am ignorant!

Gee Major,, how hard can it be to play armchair quarterback of the way life turned out? Must take a lot of academic study in critical thinking when the only thing you think is how to be a critic.

Yeah I think you look hilarious talking like you know so much. You even criticize me about my grasp of evolution yet I fail to see one example of your staggering intellect. NOT ONE.

It's easy to be a critic but until I DO know all there is to know about how to make a better universe,,

Ill leave that up to you,, obviously,,

you've earned it



[edit on 29-8-2007 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Perhaps not, but that would be measured by my own expectations. You see, when you say Science is always tentative, lacking 100% certainty then to imply I prefer Dogmatic proof,, Well,, that gets hard to listen to that kind of ad hominem. You know me,, I don't sugar coat Jack and would appreciate you just tell me like it is.

What I'm saying is that you are criticising science for not dealing in absolutes. It is a work in progress, I doubt we'll ever reach a stage where we can deal in absolutes.

2) If what you are saying is true that it is tentative, not 100% certain, then on this topic, what percent is speculation (going back to my original post about that)

Even what can be called scientific laws are not 100% certainties. When dealing with real-world nature, we can't deal in absolutes.

Percentages speculation? Depends on the finding I suppose. The statistics related to the data give a good guide. Thus, a lot of my own results can be relied on to about p = .001, which is about 1/1000 probability of being due to chance.

Some findings are less suitable for stats though. Thus the evidence for endosymbiosis can't be given a statistical status. We can just look at the lines of evidence and see if it fits the theory.

ABE: Thus, theories make specific predictions, the more data collects that supports them, the better chance they are correct.

3 ) For something as tentative and less then certain about any topic of Science, why is the postulate of Absolutely 100% certain that NO GOD exists? Sounds a little like that dogmatic hubris lol (couldn't resist lol )

But, as I said earlier, I think anyone who holds a 100% position on gods do or do not exist is going beyond their capabilities.

They did? when? and what kept them alive while they were without it. It was darn lucky for them plants to have accidentally found a bridge to that phase of their transition to full blown photosynthesis.

They didn't need it before taking on the capability of photosynthesis. The plants didn't need to evolve it, they acquired it from another lifeform. There are species alive today who can do a similar thing (e.g., Hatena).

The first plants seem to be a form of algae from about 1500 million years ago. But photosynthesis appears to have been around since 3 billion years ago in cyanobacteria.

So, what likely happened is that a free living organism took on a photosynthetic bacteria, like cyanobacteria, they both gained from this relationship. But they have now evolved to the extent that they are dependent on each other. Some of the most basic plants, such as the glaucophytes, have organelles which are highly related to cyanobacteria.

There's various lines of evidence that support this claim. As I said, if you really want to understand where these ideas come from, read one of Lynn Margulis' books. Symbiosis seems a common occurance in nature.

Now now I am an avid reader of both Spiritual and Secular Science It is just that I have never (with the exception of domestic Dogs) Seen any evolutionary transition from one function to another that had taken Billions of years. Especially now that we know you can make a chihuahua out of a a Wolf just by manipulating different temperament. This happens in a relatively short time.

Depends what you mean by seen. If you mean observed it in the lab, then I'm not surprised, heh.

But, we have seen speciation occur, we can see it happening now in species (such as Ensatina), we can see new functions evolving (such as the mosquito resistance from earlier). We even have the new APO-milano genes that protect from heart disease that evolved very recently in humans.

For the larger scale evolutionary changes, we have to rely on molecular and fossil evidence, but it all seems to fit what we would expect. Thus, we can use fossils for various insights, but go further by using molecular evidence such as endogenous retroviri, chromosomal evidence (e.g., chromosome 2 in humans), pseudogenes etc etc.

One recent study has just shown how a particular functional protein evolved millions of years ago by simple mutations. Something which Behe believes just can't happen.

[edit on 29-8-2007 by melatonin]

I can feel the spirit of who we call god. I have myself have asked direction of him in what to do, and in short while god has answered. In the bible there is a story of god taking a prophet to a mountain, and while he was there the prophit, an earthquake happened., God told the prophit that he was not the earth quake but in it. The a lightning storm passed over and he said I am not the storm, but I am in it., Again , fire came down in fron of the prophit and god said I am not the fire , but I am in it. So tell me how can you see god?, you can not , because only energy or spirit can be the answer. Follow your spirit and ask, thats all I can tell you. You have to find out for yourself. I believe free will was listed by someone here.

[edit on 8/29/2007 by zman]

reply to post by Conspiriology


No worries at all

I was baptized catholic,and was made to go to church every wednesday and sunday by school.but i never ever got into it,i never felt an affinity with the faith.and i used to annoy RE teachers by asking too many questions,lol.but thats how i was raised.question everything,and if you believe in something or enjoy something(like ancient history)then read all about it from those who have views same as yours and especially those that don't!

I enjoy reading about different faiths and discussing them.but,as you say,it can get waaaaay out of hand,usually by those too stubborn and blind to see another point of view.which i have been guilty of some times,lol.i'm also guilty of playing devils advocate just to cause trouble

I upset a few ppl on here a while ago when i said being taught one religion as a child is like brainwashing.everyone kind've missed my points that if,for most of your life you've been given one view,its hard to see another.same goes for those who are brought up to believe in science.
The division between science and reigion exists because,for many years,ppl were victims of violence and persecution for saying that god did not create all etc,etc.unfortunatly it still exists today,without the violence,obviously.christianity is a faith with a head,science is a faith without one.both can actually be a great help to the other!

How to outrage a catholic in one easy step,say Paul was gay or even better,say jesus was!! just kidding folks,chill out
although,that could be an answer to paul's attitude to women.maybe his mum didn't hold him enough either,lol.it seems a shame that such an impressive figure should have such a bad attitude!



oh,and whats the thing i'm not considering??

When the Atheist has to defend his position on what God tells us to believe by faith, it is because Any discussion on science is better then anything those "dumb bible bimbos" have to say.

As for Atheists,,

"they believe anything "as long as it's not in the Bible.-Napoleon"

The Bible calls those who deny a Creator, "foolish" Only people who major in the mindless pursuit to disprove GOD can look this silly this deaf dumb and blind. To deny the creator they would have us believe that a painting didn't have a painter, that a building didn't have a builder, and that creation had no Creator or that evolution didn't have it's Darwin.

They believe a theory but explain as fact. While they laugh at our use of the Bible as our standard of truth often criticizing us for how old it is or that there is no credible witness to say exactly what happened when Christ walked the earth etc,

They see no problem with this at all when it comes to saying this or that happened or was likely to happened 70 billion years ago.

70 BILLION.

It takes approximately 65 years JUST to count to a billion but an Atheist knows JUST what happened that millennium down to the day or days the transition took place evolving. I hope it didn't take long anyway. One thing I like about OUR God's way of doing things,,

He gets the job done so that at least man will live to see it done


They don't believe the Bible simply because they consider themselves too "intelligent

I submit that all Darwin has done is come up with a "theory" that after all these years,, is no closer to figuring out where we came from WHY we are hear and where we are going then when it was first published.

What is the purpose of our existence? Where is the missing link? And what came first, the chicken or the egg?

The Bible says that the wisdom of this world is "foolishness" Greek moros: "stupidity" with God. It also says that when men profess themselves to be wise, they become fools (stupid).

God made us for Himself, there is no missing link--because every animal brought forth after its own kind, and that the first chicken came first, and the first egg came second. Looking for any other answer is the idiocy of pseudo intellectual junk science or the religion of Atheism.

Whatever Atheists can prove as I have yet to see a single shred of unfalsifiable proof that we are a happy accident.

I have seen Atheists here criticizing creation, asking why GOD lets this happen or lets people kill other people. This assumes GOD flies around the universe rescuing people like superman. I have seen an analogy about judging a book by it's cover because ugly people get a more raw deal in life and this too proves GOD doesn't exist.

This then is a flaw attributed to natural selection and the more flaws they find the more they prove that this is a mess here. This attempt to show how stupid it actually is and how an intelligent creator could have had no part in it then.

Clever?

Not in the least.

eliminating the "intelligent" part of the design, what does the Atheist do?? How does he make his presentation?

This is the angle they use.

He gives a review or critique of Gods work picking out flaws that indicate that a GOD or the one they can disprove by finding mistakes in his work. This by the way is done without any experience as a GOD themselves.

What GOD would have his chosen circumcise themselves was one question.

Why didn't GOD just do it for them?

I think this pretty much sums up the kind of GOD an atheist would be.

First we would all be some quasi "Aryan Stepford being" having no free will and would be forced by Atheist superior craftsmanship to do no wrong. This to take that objection about why god lets bad things happen out of the equation. NOW that's a GOD we can believe in!

I mean it must be because as GOD goes,, not adding this trait raises the question, "what god would do that kind of thing"

Whats good for the goose I always say.

So already we are making a better GOD and in this illustration, we use Natural selection without intelligent design just to see what we come out with . We will even allow them the benefit to use there own ideas they approved of and won't be used against them as part of a creator red herring.

The atheists acting as GOD will create a perfect race of beautiful people with nippless males and great eyesight moreover this is all going to be proven can be done by natural selection without the benefit of intelligence. The Atheist GOD will create beings to pro-create with someone that brings out the best overall appearance in their offspring.

This is so the Atheist deity will not be held accountable for having anyone of his zombie beings, prejudiced by an ugly appearance. Or judging books by their cover.

What we have then is "MODEL MAN" !!

This albeit real VOGUE on the outside Vague on the inside prototype would then have to have a series of super complex biological biochemical systems in place to bring forth LIFE from itself.

This also must be done without the use of ANY components

that have been used before.


The next task is to breath life from nothing into this being. (How they do that I have no idea but I bet they say it will take Billions and Billions and Billions and Billions and Billions of years.

For some reason,, I kinda think it would take that long or longer lol.

Now we have to elect the Atheist among them to play God to prove this unfalsifiable theory testable.

Ah I think I have a way we can allow the Atheist being maker, to act as a BIG BANG to get the ball rolling in a way they won't be incriminating themselves or have us use any excuse that THEY MADE IT SO IT WAS INTELLIGENT DESIGN.


What we want to prove here is that evolution works by using many of there own suggestions and arguments

Now who to have as the BIG BANG to start things off

mmmmmm



While he criticizes me for my lack of knowledge in macro-evolution and science, while needing someone to explain the basic principles of fetus development. ( Makes a little more sense when you have someone who knows how to create life from whence there was NONE).

I suggest Majormalfunction as the one to expedite the intitial charge of this experiment. He will be the one to create the nippless males the pre-circumsized chosen tribe, the Aryan stepford being with no free will. Now how does he do this without us calling him a creator thereby falsifying the experiment?

I mean we want to be impartial and it does present a problem but it is also the reason I think Major is best suited for the job. He has all his ideas his we give him a ample amount of nothing with a dash of more nothingness and Ill even thrown in some of his own eyeball designs, heck Ill even allow those to have living cells in them


to take the intelligent Design part out.

We need to remove Majors brain

Obviously,thats been done.

Ready?


GO!






[edit on 29-8-2007 by Conspiriology]

It's ALIIIVE IT's ALIVE!!!! - Majormalfunction

[edit on 29-8-2007 by Conspiriology]