Religious Views?

[SWAT One]

Seriously swat, you just don't get it.

What open mindedness is: ¹
Forming judgement based on a critical understanding of both sides of an argument, and then critically evaluating any new evidence that comes up

What open mindedness is not: ²
Forming a judgement based on a critical understanding of both sides of an arugment, and then locking yourself into a belief set, refusing to acknowledge any further developments

¹You just excluded my beliefs as a valid conclusion from what I have decided for myself to believe.  What?

²I am consistently viewing other sides and am still convinced in what I believe in already.

[Ad Bot]

[Böltster]

Wikipedia usually is a good source of information. But I wouldn't think so for such controversial topics, people do lie just to further their beliefs, theists and atheists.

Anything that is added to pages on popular topics is peer reviewed, and requires a source. People can't just go on there and change it to support their side of the argument, it's all peer reviewed. It's a fantastic source for that reason.

And as for what I've been linking, I remember seeing those pictures a long time ago, in a more professional and reliable setting. I didn't want to go through the effort of trying to remember what that website was (or book, or video, or whatever it was) because I didn't want to keep you waiting. So I just googled it and hit the image I remembered. But you can't say the image is fake just because it's posted on a website you don't think is reliable. It's all over the internet.

I've googled it and i'm yet to find it on any reliable website.

But aside from that, i'm interested in your logic - here's how im interpreting what you're saying
There's no evolutionary proof of giants
They have a found femur bone of a giant
Therefore god is real?

I mean correct me if i'm wrong, but saying there's no explanation for something doesn't mean it validates the existence of a god.
The video i linked to earlier describes this logic as "using a lack of explanation to explain" (which is wrong obviously)

²I am consistently viewing other sides and am still convinced in what I believe in already.

I linked you to a video on open mindedness and you refused to watch it saying "Nothing will draw me from my faith." That is close mindedness (it's also hillariously ironic)

[Fracture]

God isn't killing people, he's allowing for the possibility of death so that more people could end up in the right place than could have before. And as I said before, God was acting more just in the old testament. Once Jesus came down and fulfilled the old laws, we didn't have to go through such great measures to be considered right with God, and God didn't have to be so strict.
     And one thing I forgot to say earlier is, I don't believe God is doing nothing. It's easy to see things that way from an atheist or an agnostic point of view, but I and many other people are of the belief that God is still quite active today.

It doesnt matter when he did it. He supposedly still did it.

I think everybody should watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

[Mysteroo]

Anything that is added to pages on popular topics is peer reviewed, and requires a source. People can't just go on there and change it to support their side of the argument, it's all peer reviewed. It's a fantastic source for that reason.

I just edited the wikipedia page on pasta and added an apostrophe somewhere nobody would notice, you can try it yourself. And it needed no peer-reviewing. Only some of the Wikipedia pages are watched carefully. Anyways, the info you quoted wasn't very much anyways, it could still be valid. But I won't argue on that anymore, since either one of us could be right.

But aside from that, i'm interested in your logic - here's how im interpreting what you're saying
There's no evolutionary proof of giants
They have a found femur bone of a giant
Therefore god is real?
I mean correct me if i'm wrong, but saying there's no explanation for something doesn't mean it validates the existence of a god.
The video i linked to earlier describes this logic as "using a lack of explanation to explain" (which is wrong obviously)

I agree, that isn't good logic at all. But it's not the logic I was using. I meant that the femur proves giants used to exist, in the past. But evolution says that in the past we were small and gradually came up, and are getting stronger, bigger, better in general, we're adapting. Those two things contradict each other, the femur fit better with the Bible.
But if that doesn't work either, if you don't mind my asking, how do you think that the primordial soup came to life? To my knowledge, the theory is that lightning struck whatever it was in that soup, and it came to life. Correct me if I'm wrong on that, but if I'm not then I don't think that's a very good explanation to how life came about.

Also- I gtg to bed, I have to wake up early tomorrow, I'll try and continue this conversation once I get home tomorrow if I can. Or feel free to pm me.

It doesnt matter when he did it. He supposedly still did it.

yeah, as I said before, he was being a more just judge. According to Christianity, everyone deserves death, we all sin. But those people were more into sin than just about anybody. For pete sake, they wanted to rape the angels that visited Lot just for being new there! They were never going to turn away from that sort of thing, and it didn't do any good letting them stay on earth, so God just wiped them out.

[Fracture]

Im never changing.
If an angel came to me id tap her.

[Böltster]

I just edited the wikipedia page on pasta and added an apostrophe somewhere nobody would notice, you can try it yourself. And it needed no peer-reviewing. Only some of the Wikipedia pages are watched carefully. Anyways, the info you quoted wasn't very much anyways, it could still be valid. But I won't argue on that anymore, since either one of us could be right.

Here's the history of the page I linked to
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creation_Evidence_Museum&action=history
Peer reviewed.

I agree, that isn't good logic at all. But it's not the logic I was using. I meant that the femur proves giants used to exist, in the past. But evolution says that in the past we were small and gradually came up, and are getting stronger, bigger, better in general, we're adapting. Those two things contradict each other, the femur fit better with the Bible.

(i'm going to put aside the fact that evolution doesn't actually say that, and it could be a completely different species thus invalidating your reference to "us")
You're still using the same logic

Evolution doesn't explain the giant femur
The bible makes reference to giants
They (may) have found a giant femur
Therefore the bible is true [, god is real, and evolution is false]

If you can't blatantly see why this isn't good logic, i'll explain it to you.

But if that doesn't work either, if you don't mind my asking, how do you think that the primordial soup came to life? To my knowledge, the theory is that lightning struck whatever it was in that soup, and it came to life. Correct me if I'm wrong on that, but if I'm not then I don't think that's a very good explanation to how life came about.

What really annoys me is when religious people try to use pseudoscientific knowledge to justify something, and it's exactly what you're doing. Over simplifying something and saying "i dont think thats a good explanation" is a horrible argument. It'd be the same as me going "a man sits in the sky and has rules of what we can and can't do so we get into a really nice joint when we die? LOL WHAT stuff"

It's called abiogenesis, it's one of many models of how life could have started on earth. Try doing some reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

[SlayerZ99]

Just something interesting someone said on Yahoo answers

"As the conversations of Creation and Evolution (for some reason) often tend towards conversations concerning the proof for or against the existence of God, I have this to add (on that topic), because it is similar to my above comments. If a Creator did indeed bring the whole fabric of creation into existence, and that Creator is God (in fact some define God simply as "The Creator"), then it is laughable to talk about evidence for (or against) the existence of such a God. This proposed Creator created it all - space, time, perception, thought, logic, laws, evidence, rabbits, and even evolution. As parts of that Creation, we are bounded by its constraints (what we can perceive, reason, or dream of). The Creator is necessarily "something else" - something beyond what the universe is composed (or is composable) of. Therefore it is (again) laughable and silly to talk amongst our selves of proof for or against such a Creator. Our many possible dimensions of understanding are not the dimensions of existence of the Creator." - Chuck T

[Headcrab Zombie]

I meant that the femur proves giants used to exist, in the past. But evolution says that in the past we were small and gradually came up, and are getting stronger, bigger, better in general, we're adapting. Those two things contradict each other, the femur fit better with the Bible.

But do you have any information on it from a reliable source? Were any tested conducted on it? Do we even know it's real? After all,

people do lie just to further their beliefs, theists and atheists.

Nothing will draw me from my faith.

This statement is the epitome of close-mindedness

[Swollow]

Atheist

[Swholli]

I am disappoint that no one commented on my philosophical question.

You guys are too self centered about religion. D:

[Mega-Bear]

Im never changing.
If an angel came to me id tap her.

Swag.

I am disappoint that no one commented on my philosophical question.

You guys are too self centered about religion. D:

What was it? Must have missed it.

[Narkro555]

I can't believe people are still arguing about this.

Christians, while arguing, pretend like their religion is the only one. However, there are hundreds of other beliefs in imaginary, all-powerful being that we can't see. Some are about one god, some are about numerous gods, some are about space aliens. But what do they share?

The same exact lack of solid proof. Antithesis scientific theories have research interpretation and experiments behind them, while religious "proof" is just misinterpreting those facts, red herrings, and throwing holy book quotes at each other.

Why people in the 21st century still believe in this utter nonsense is astounding.

[Swholli]

What was it? Must have missed it.

If you've ever taken a 101 Philosophy class (and no, that does not make you deep), there's a fun little question you can ask:

Who's to say that the universe wasn't created no more than five minutes ago and that our memories and carbon dating and any indication of "age" was created along with it?

That one really likes to forget with you.

[Daedalus]

If you've ever taken a 101 Philosophy class (and no, that does not make you deep), there's a fun little question you can ask:

Who's to say that the universe wasn't created no more than five minutes ago and that our memories and carbon dating and any indication of "age" was created along with it?

That one really likes to forget with you.

just talked about that with my deist friend yesterday
and, well, I honestly wouldn't give a stuff lol, I'd keep living my life

[Mega-Bear]

Oh forget.

I refuse ... to believe ...