Religion, idiots and lack of sensibilities!! WTF?

reply to post by Annee


This user already has the answers he wants; he'll find any argument and ignore any counter-arguments. Don't waste your time, Annee.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
If energy and matter always existed then wouldn't that make it a supreme being?

Why would that make it a supreme being?

Isn't the argument for god "design" - - not Stuff Happens?

I'm just saying that whatever brought all things into existence would have to have some form of intelligence. If we accept that all things came from energy and matter then I think it is fair to say that energy and matter is intelligent. Wouldn't you agree that it would take a powerful mind to produce such a stunning universe? The idea that everything just popped up and put itself in perfect order is just a little hard to swallow.

And just for the record, I'm not trying to convert anyone to anything, but I will challenge your mind and frame of thinking, I expect others to do the same to me. I know you didn't say that, I'm just putting it out there because some seem to think that's what I'm trying to do. We can't learn if we don't ask the tough questions.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
I'm just saying that whatever brought all things into existence would have to have some form of intelligence. If we accept that all things came from energy and matter then I think it is fair to say that energy and matter is intelligent. Wouldn't you agree that it would take a powerful mind to produce such a stunning universe? The idea that everything just popped up and put itself in perfect order is just a little hard to swallow.

Depends on what you define God as. When I use the term God - - I am specifically referring to the omnipotent being(s) of organized religions.

My belief is that consciousness evolved from energy - - not that consciousness came first. I do not consider that God.

I do not agree a powerful mind was needed to expand energy and matter - - nor continue natural actions/reactions.

I think its kind of desperate reaching to claim any spark of possible consciousness/intelligence proves there is a God.

Originally posted by Annee
Depends on what you define God as. When I use the term God - - I am specifically referring to the omnipotent being(s) of organized religions.

I can accept this. In other words your saying you just don't agree with man's interpretation of God. I can see why that would be tough, man has added alot of twist to the idea.

For me God simply means the Creator of All Things. To be honest I would prefer to use the term Creator rather then God. I just think that the idea that we were created by a Supreme Being makes the most sense, simply because everything around us is just to perfectly designed (personal lives not included).

IMO the idea that everything happened in perfect harmony all by chance is just to illogical. I mean how could such a thing be possible without having some form of intelligence to be able to put everything in the perfect position.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
For me God simply means the Creator of All Things. To be honest I would prefer to use the term Creator rather then God. I just think that the idea that we were created by a Supreme Being makes the most sense, simply because everything around us is just to perfectly designed (personal lives not included).

IMO the idea that everything happened in perfect harmony all by chance is just to illogical. I mean how could such a thing be possible without having some form of intelligence to be able to put everything in the perfect position.

Who says everything is in perfect harmony? To me that is illogical.

Much of the universe is extremely violent in its actions and reactions. What harmony?

You've created an image you like - - and say it has to be by design - - then say it has to have an intelligence to create the design - - then label that intelligence god.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
For me God simply means the Creator of All Things. To be honest I would prefer to use the term Creator rather then God. I just think that the idea that we were created by a Supreme Being makes the most sense, simply because everything around us is just to perfectly designed (personal lives not included).

IMO the idea that everything happened in perfect harmony all by chance is just to illogical. I mean how could such a thing be possible without having some form of intelligence to be able to put everything in the perfect position.

Who says everything is in perfect harmony? To me that is illogical.

Much of the universe is extremely violent in its actions and reactions. What harmony?

You've created an image you like - - and say it has to be by design - - then say it has to have an intelligence to create the design - - then label that intelligence god.

Well I can't name all of the things that are in perfect harmony otherwise I would be here for ever. But in short things such as how perfect the earth is from the sun, the human body itself, things like that.

All I'm saying is that we know that nothing can create itself and since that is a fact it only leaves one possibility, and that is that someone or something is out there creating things. It takes intelligence in order to create or design anything, otherwise those things can never come into existence.

I don't understand why this is so hard for people to accept, it's not like doing so means you have to join a church.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
Well I can't name all of the things that are in perfect harmony otherwise I would be here for ever. But in short things such as how perfect the earth is from the sun, the human body itself, things like that.

I understand we are a Goldilock planet. But the rest are not. Chance not design - for that one planet of our solar system.

The human body? Is seriously badly designed.

You are trying to make something fit - - so you can claim intelligent design. In reality - it does not fit.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
Well I can't name all of the things that are in perfect harmony otherwise I would be here for ever. But in short things such as how perfect the earth is from the sun, the human body itself, things like that.

I understand we are a Goldilock planet. But the rest are not. Chance not design - for that one planet of our solar system.

The human body? Is seriously badly designed.

You are trying to make something fit - - so you can claim intelligent design. In reality - it does not fit.

It's fits, you just don't want to wear it. I'm baffled you would say a thing about the human body, you should give yourself more credit than that.

Originally posted by User8911
Faith doesn't require proof, that's exactly what the word stands for.
To believe without proof

To me God is like the wind....I can't see the wind...but I can feel the wind....I know it is there. When I am on a sail boat I have faith that the wind will carry me to my destination...so it is with God.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

It's fits, you just don't want to wear it. I'm baffled you would say a thing about the human body, you should give yourself more credit than that.

What fits? Harmony - - because one planet out of 9 in a solar system is in the Goldilock zone?

Why are you baffled about the human body? What does credit have to do with anything? Are you saying because of ego - - I should give my self more credit then deserved?

Scholar deems human body as ‘unintelligent design’

By Kim Halpin

Published: Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Tuesday afternoon Dr. Abby Hafer, a zoologist and anatomy and physiology professor from Curry College, presented a lecture countering the idea that Intelligent Design is scientific.

Hafer describes the Intelligent Design debate as purely a political issue, and one that has no place in science. The objective of her talk, she stated, was to show how the human body is quite an unintelligent design, and therefore evolution is the only substantial scientific theory.

To grab the audience's attention, Hafer began with the issue of why males' testicles are outside of their body; because normal body temperature is not conducive to sperm production.

"This is a very bad design," Hafer says with emphasis.

Using the diagram of a frog, she pointed out that other animals have reproductive necessities inside their bodies, a much more intelligent place to have them.

Next, she brought up the simple fact that babies' heads are too large to fit through the narrow biped pelvis bones during birth. Prior to modern medicine, this resulted in many deaths of babies and mothers, and is clearly a poor design. Hafer offered that it would have been smarter to be like kangaroos and develop outside of our mothers.

www.dailycampus.com...

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

It's fits, you just don't want to wear it. I'm baffled you would say a thing about the human body, you should give yourself more credit than that.

What fits? Harmony - - because one planet out of 9 in a solar system is in the Goldilock zone?

Why are you baffled about the human body? What does credit have to do with anything? Are you saying because of ego - - I should give my self more credit then deserved?

Scholar deems human body as ‘unintelligent design’

By Kim Halpin

Published: Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Tuesday afternoon Dr. Abby Hafer, a zoologist and anatomy and physiology professor from Curry College, presented a lecture countering the idea that Intelligent Design is scientific.

Hafer describes the Intelligent Design debate as purely a political issue, and one that has no place in science. The objective of her talk, she stated, was to show how the human body is quite an unintelligent design, and therefore evolution is the only substantial scientific theory.

To grab the audience's attention, Hafer began with the issue of why males' testicles are outside of their body; because normal body temperature is not conducive to sperm production.

"This is a very bad design," Hafer says with emphasis.

Using the diagram of a frog, she pointed out that other animals have reproductive necessities inside their bodies, a much more intelligent place to have them.

Next, she brought up the simple fact that babies' heads are too large to fit through the narrow biped pelvis bones during birth. Prior to modern medicine, this resulted in many deaths of babies and mothers, and is clearly a poor design. Hafer offered that it would have been smarter to be like kangaroos and develop outside of our mothers.

www.dailycampus.com...

Come on Annee, that's an opinion and can't be backed by anything other than theory. Do you really expect anyone to believe this? Moreover, what other great scientist today supports her theory?

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
Come on Annee, that's an opinion and can't be backed by anything other than theory. Do you really expect anyone to believe this? Moreover, what other great scientist today supports her theory?

An opinion? A theory?

By a - zoologist and anatomy and physiology professor.

You refuse to accept fact - - when its right in front of you.

Done.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
Come on Annee, that's an opinion and can't be backed by anything other than theory. Do you really expect anyone to believe this? Moreover, what other great scientist today supports her theory?

An opinion? A theory?

By a - zoologist and anatomy and physiology professor.

You refuse to accept fact - - when its right in front of you.

Done.

It's an opinion, where is her evidence to support such a claim? And again, who else supports her theory, if there are enough supports to such a claim then I might be inclined to believe it. Moreover, who is to say what an unintelligent design is unless they created it themselves? How could anyone make such a claim without proof?

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

How could anyone make such a claim without proof?

Exactly my thoughts.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

 

How could anyone make such a claim without proof?

Exactly my thoughts.

I suppose you have some of your own that you would like to share. Either you believe or you don't, which is it?

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker


I suspend belief where i don't have any evidence; and i don't trust those who claim to reveal the unknown without demonstrating how they attained their revelations.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

 

I suspend belief where i don't have any evidence; and i don't trust those who claim to reveal the unknown without demonstrating how they attained their revelations.

I agree with you 100%.

double.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker


Brilliant, so you'd be inherently skeptical or cautious when considering man-made belief systems, or studying a certain hypothesis (i.e. a deity exists, he designed universe with humans in mind, there are objective "rules" that we can be understood from observing nature)