Do you believe in God?

[cookiemo]

There are so many gods that people believe in. So why would for example the christian god real and the others not.
Come on just accept the bible is a fairy tail.

And no i dont believe ;)

[library]

There are so many gods that people believe in. So why would for example the christian god real and the others not.
Come on just accept the bible is a fairy tail.

And no i dont believe ;)

To me, simply 'Christian God' does not exist. What people perceive to be God is different in a lot of people. In a way, there are many 'Christian Gods' that people believe in, but the monotheist God (ie, only one God) isn't exclusive to Christianity. For example, Islam and Judaism both believe in a monotheist God, and so do many other religions including some that are now extinct.

One thing I've noticed, is that as time has progressed and people have become 'smarter,' people increasingly regard religion as false belief. Is it a sign that it is wise to not believe in God(s)?

There is also a lot of corroboration with today's religions and religions from past civilisations. This corroboration can be seen to support religion, surely they must be on to something. But it can also suggest that religions are stealing ideas from others.

[raidproxy]

It's kind of sad, religion, but I guess we should let them go their way. However if they ban evolution on schools like in Kansas, screw them.

[malden]

One of the most vexed questions to face modern man - but only a few hundred years ago the question would have been unthinkable. Every believed a one god or another. My solution was to search. I found my answers and wrote a book - it's about human evolution and why we are they way we are. I believe it's a useful resource for anyone who wants an informed base for their opinions and beliefs. It's not written from a religious or a scientific perspective. Though science, in fact comes off pretty badly. Here's a kind of summary , but you can find out more on the Amazon. com website. Look for 'Dangerous Mind', ISBN 1438242637. or go to the US publisher CreateSpace.com - title
id #3345456.

Let me know what you think. It's a great subject for rational (and polite)debate.



Beyond Darwin

Science puts a date on the Fall of Man?

A startling new theory of human evolution gives a dramatic twist to the story of our early ancestors; did mankind suffer a mutation that gave rise to the man’s extraordinary ability to recall events?

Unsuspected consequences of Darwin’s evolutionary theories are explored in Christopher Malden’s book, Dangerous Mind.

Because Darwin never seriously tackled the problem of human evolution, a serious anomaly has gone unanswered; if we’re so physically akin to primates (genetic science says unequivocally that this is so), why are humans so different? Why do apes munch vegetation and not drive cars and/or use a mobile phone?

Recall is the key it seems. Without it there would be no language, no time, and no maths. The author of Dangerous Mind sets out a compelling hypothesis – that recall is the key differentiator between primates and humans. Humans departed from a common ancestor around 7.5 to 5 million years ago, a very recent date given the earth’s 4.5 billion- year-old history. Was the point of departure was due to single step-change in mental ability? The author points to beta radiation as a likely cause. A single beta particle strike can change crucial genetic structures that in this case caused our genes to begin to express for recall.

Why is recall so critical? It doesn’t take much to realise that without it there is no sense of ‘before’ or ‘after’, no conscious sense of ‘now’, either. Without this crucial ‘aide memoire’, no mechanism exists for complex tool production. True, some animals create tools, but these are what the author terms ‘extemporary tools’, created in response to a stimulus and not thought out; a gorilla may employ a stick to test the depth of a pond, but he or she doesn’t keep one at home behind the kitchen door in case it’s needed.




The extensive research carried out to identify ‘tool use’ and ‘intelligence’ in animals, the author claims, says more about the humans than the animals they study. All the while they’ve been missing something.

The glaring omission in evolutionary theory becomes startlingly apparent once the vast difference in behaviour between man and other primates comes, as it does here, under serious scrutiny. It’s the science equivalent of ‘the elephant in the room’; a huge and obvious gap between humans and our nearest relatives that biologists have failed to address. Recall, the author claims, is the only viable explanation for the vastly different way in which humans use the environment, exploiting it to a degree of complexity far beyond that which is necessary simply for ‘survival’ .

Only recall gives the necessary plasticity to memory that defines us as human, giving rise to quintessentially human characteristics: tool use, number, language, notions of time, science, logic, the concept of order and sequence, as well as a sense of history and an idea of future.

The author therefore argues that before the appearance of modern humans, past and present did not exist. There was no time. After all, there is no place where the future exists, nor the past. Quantum mechanics bears out the idea that there is no finite state of order, position, identity, perhaps even no set of rules in nature ‘waiting to be revealed’.

Dangerous Mind offers another curious insight; how does human belief fit in with the new theory. Is the biblical account of the Fall of Man, Eve’s apple and Adam’s temptation, an allegorical account from folk memory of a time when man changed from innocent primate into an entirely different beast?

The detail of this new evolutionary theory may offer a profound insight into why humans have progressed so far and at such extraordinary speed.
‘Dangerous Mind’ describes how early man made tools that mimic those of far larger animals. Shaped flints copied the teeth of bears or the claws tigers, hides of one animal provided tougher protection for the fragile skin of another – an entirely new breed of primates.




In this way, the author argues, mankind ‘sidesteps’ evolution of the kind described by Darwin. Dangerous Mind contains the first mention of an entirely novel and startling concept: with the appearance of modern man, has evolution itself ‘evolved’?

Having begun new a kind of evolution (using recall to boost mental development thereby outstripping competitors), humans became a ‘pseudo species’, that is, capable of rapid development and assured survival outside the confines of the slow and discrete progress typical of ‘Evolution by Means of Natural Selection’. Recall puts man beyond the prosaic physical constraints of weather, food supplies, or the threat from the Earth’s other inhabitants. Instead, humans – we – became a major threat to all other species. Most of them are directly in jeopardy because of human activity. Some are already extinct, or are on the endangered list. Even harmless coral is dying.

We all know the disaster story. Now, at last, there’s a convincing and highly compelling theory that explains, for the first time it seems, just why other creatures seem to live within a ‘balance of nature’ whereas we humans seem bent upon its destruction; why an odd, seemingly random mutation afflicted us and well be the hidden cause of so many of our ills.

Dangerous Mind by Christopher Malden

ISBN 978-1438242637

Published by: Createspace https://www.createspace.com/3345456

[truthguild]

i am not going to quote that whole post above this and have my post buried by it, but this is addressed to you malden...
just because a book is published gives me no reason to think it's true - so, is there any articles supporting those claims in any peer-reviewed scientific journals? If so, which issue of which journal? (please include a link if possible.)

[zen-r]

I hope malden's book has less typos & errors than his 2 posts, above! ;)

[truthguild]

I hope malden's book has less typos & errors than his 2 posts, above! ;)

that's what editors are for ;)

however, i seriously have to question his research - the claim "Darwin never seriously tackled human evolution" is demonstrably false - Darwin's second book, "The Descent of Man" seriously tackles human evolution.

[punkonater]

This debate is about wheter you believe in God or not...

you can't really debate on whether or not someone believes in a god. It's either yes or no. And we can't really debate on whether or not there IS a god.
Here's why:
it is HIGHLY HIGHLY unprobable that there is a god. However, because of the nature of this being, we cannot disprove it. To quote Dawkins, its just like how we can't disprove the tooth fairy.

I personally believe in science, and get no satisfaction out of believing in fairy tales. However, I realize that some people do. Whatever

As long as people keep their beliefs out of my face, and don't try to go around forcing it down other people's throats (and that includes their own children), then they should believe whatever they want.

phew
Edit:

thus the objective evidence and bible disagree. this isn't a good case for the bible.


and here begin the logical fallacies. argument ad hoc. any evidence to support this claim that god exists and gives off light - but only at certain times?




Firmament

from the Vulgate firmamentum, which is used as the translation of the Hebrew _raki'a_. This word means simply "expansion." It denotes the space or expanse like an arch appearing immediately above us. They who rendered _raki'a_ by firmamentum regarded it as a solid body. The language of Scripture is not scientific but popular, and hence we read of the sun rising and setting, and also here the use of this particular word. It is plain that it was used to denote solidity as well as expansion. It formed a division between the waters above and the waters below (Gen. 1:7). The _raki'a_ supported the upper reservoir (Ps. 148:4). It was the support also of the heavenly bodies (Gen. 1:14), and is spoken of as having "windows" and "doors" (Gen. 7:11; Isa. 24:18; Mal. 3:10) through which the rain and snow might descend.

the fossil record and the genetic record give rather clear indications of the order that life developed. you're also misrepresenting my argument, as i specified [/i]land[/i] plants come after marine life. regarding the fossilized bee hive - source please?


wrong, speed of light is used to determine the distance of a star, along with other methods to independantly cross-confirm that distance. the main method for determining age is composition.
and yes, i would love to see that research, since last time i checked, no evidence existed for c-decay. if c-decay is true, however, it provides a much bigger problem for a young universe than it could ever solve.

because 1) it is an ad hoc argument
2) no evidence suggests it
3) it would mean your god is a liar


such as Archaeopteryx lithographica and Ambulocetus natans?

only if by "speculation" you mean multiple lines of objective evidence that converge and cross-confirm each other

quite simply, that genesis does not provide any evidence for the existance of a god.

wow, you just owned the whole thread. grats (^_^)

[wazza6]

Well it depends on who is God...
Yes , I do believe that God existed , but the whole "creation" thing is bull**** , we have proofs that dinosaurs were before us , Australopithecus muted from little mammals (like rats) and went all the way to the Homo Sapiens (us).
So I think God exists , but not the way everyone does.

[fguy64]

I consider myself to be agnostic, meaning I think there may or may not be a god, but my life is not in the least bit guided by His existence or lack thereof.

Now we could talk about those who believe that the earth is approximately 6,000+ years old, and that man shared the earth with dinosaurs, which pretty much debunks all scientific archelogy and geology. I think a rigid view of the Old Testament more or less forces you to believe all of this. Myself, well with all do respect to those who do believe it, well I think its, uh, well, ... you get my drift I'm sure.