December 21st, 2012. The end of days?

[commonyoshi]

The same molecule is easily extracted from many plants and will give anybody consuming it the same effects recalled by people having NDE. This is a natural occurance, no godly properties are giving to DPH nor is it specific to human beings.

Did you not understand the point? I'll make it simple. (I'm not trying to sound condescending here as you obviously know your stuff)

For all you know, God creates (whatever it's called) drug in our heads as a way of reaching out to people when they need Him. Of course, not all people who have seen things have been chosen by divine intervention. Knowing how this works doesn't disprove that there might be a higher power behind it. Honestly, if you looked outside your window after reading this message and the clouds in the sky form, "Listen to commonyoshi. He's right" would that not be divine intervention? Scientist can research what just happened and say it was a result of freak winds or something, but that doesn't mean it wasn't miraculous. If we cant agree on this "clouds form words=miracle" subject then there's no point in arguing about this any further.

Another thing that bothers me: Cain. Cain killed Abel, Adam and Eve's only noted children. Then Cain stumbles to a town. How did it get there? That also means that we are no all decedents of Adam and Eve, and even if we were at some point, they were killed in this flood, leaving only Noah's family left. Again, Incest.

Cain, Abel, and Seth were not the only children Adam and Eve had. They were just the most important ones that are noted. Look at Genesis 5. It's a geneology, and it does not list every single person born, but the ones who carried the line from one important Biblical figure to the next.

Also, Cain built the city.

And yes, if you believe what the Bible says literally, we are products of incest.

 

[Zink]

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You can't pick and choose here, arbtrarily pointing out what is literal and what isn't to force it to fit. If you want to try and do that you have to be prepared to admit the entire thing is metaphorical, with the possibility of no real truth about Jesus's divinity, God's existance and intervention, and other such important details.

EDIT: D'oh, meant to edit this into previous post, so not to double post. But forgot about it while I was busy typing.

Arbitrarily? I think it's pretty obvious what can be interpreted metaphorically and what can be taken literally. Even if you wanted to go all one way or the other, the basic message won't change.

 

[cF=)]

Did you not understand the point? I'll make it simple. (I'm not trying to sound condescending here as you obviously know your stuff)

For all you know, God creates (whatever it's called) drug in our heads as a way of reaching out to people when they need Him. Of course, not all people who have seen things have been chosen by divine intervention. Knowing how this works doesn't disprove that there might be a higher power behind it. Honestly, if you looked outside your window after reading this message and the clouds in the sky form, "Listen to commonyoshi. He's right" would that not be divine intervention? Scientist can research what just happened and say it was a result of freak winds or something, but that doesn't mean it wasn't miraculous. If we cant agree on this "clouds form words=miracle" subject then there's no point in arguing about this any further.

I understand what you mean, but I just don't buy your argument for several reasons. You somehow said the knowledge Humanity gained over decades is simply an understanding of God's divine creation, yet the Bible contradicts science in many ways and on many different levels.

If you take in account what's written in the Bible is completely right, you'll need to deny science and such reasoning also goes the other way. If you discover how something works (ie: the drug we are talking about), you're disapproving divine intervention as the cause for, let's say, tunnels and magical beings during NDE. It's possible to explain why it's happening, but I won't get into this since this is complicated biology.

Bottom line: Science and God do not come along because they are opposite ways of thinking. Creationists tend to use this method to prove their point, but it fails because they're using the product of researches to convince science is wrong. This, I believe, can be applied to your argument as well for the simple fact you wouldn't be able to explain NDE's visions otherwise if I wouldn't have spoke about DPH.

tl;dr God is the product of faith, and if you explain something through logical reasoning, there is no place for him.

 

[Eor]

Believing that the world is only 35,000 years old, and that we only came from two people causes problems. Mainly, that by using that date and the current human population, means that on average we'd have had to have 18,571,429 children over the amount of humans that died in a given year. However, we only had a recent population explosion. In 1750, we had around an estimated 791 million humans alive (less then the population of china!). So, subtracting it and dividing gives us over 22,000 extra humans a year.

Plus this causes other problems. If we only have two people, where did the differences in humans come from? How come there are arabs, blacks, whites, and asians? And how/why would they spread so far across the world so quickly? In biblical times, we had full civilizations in Asia, Europe, and Africa. This would mean that a single family managed to make the trek all the way across the world, with no food except for what they found, create civilization, and then populate it equally quick, all without the offspring having any genetic malfunctions, and with the vast majority not being told about God and the Garden of Eden. Now, why would that happen?

 

[commonyoshi]

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure of some of the stuff you're talking about in this post, and I'll hold off until I understand the whole picture. First of all, explain what DPH stands for. I understand that NDE is "near death experience", correct?

If you take in account what's written in the Bible is completely right, you'll need to deny science and such reasoning also goes the other way. If you discover how something works (ie: the drug we are talking about), you're disapproving divine intervention as the cause for, let's say, tunnels and magical beings during NDE. It's possible to explain why it's happening, but I won't get into this since this is complicated biology.

Bottom line: Science and God do not come along because they are opposite ways of thinking. Creationists tend to use this method to prove their point, but it fails because they're using the product of researches to convince science is wrong. This, I believe, can be applied to your argument as well for the simple fact you wouldn't be able to explain NDE's visions otherwise if I wouldn't have spoke about DPH.

And I dont think I've ever known a Christian who has tried to convince me that science is wrong. They might argue that certain scientific theories are incorrect, or that people might missuse science to deny God, but no one's ever disproved of science as a whole.

 

[cF=)]

My bad, I wrongly said it was DPH when it's in reality DMT. And yes, NDE is an acronym for "near death experience(s)".

As for DMT, it stands for N,N-dimethyltryptamine, a strong psychedelic naturally produced by the human brains and many plants. Here's a quick description of the effects from erowid.org:

"The smoked DMT experience is short, but generally incredibly intense. Onset is fast and furious, sometimes compared to being launched from a cannon. It is a fully engaging and enveloping experience of visions and visuals which varies greatly from one individual to the next. Users report visiting other worlds, talking with alien entities, profound changes in ontological perspective, fanciful dreamscapes, frightening and overwhelming forces, complete shifts in perception and identity followed by an abrupt return to baseline. Because of the nature and intensity of the experience, users are almost always seated or lying down with someone nearby to take the pipe as the experience begins. Intense and varied visuals are common."

--

About disaproving science, I meant believing either science or religion on a specific issue. If we talk here about NDE, you prove whatever you feel like using your Bible while I'll take science and offer my opinion for the same problem. If the Bible states the Universe was created in seven days, you can't apply God's omniscience to the big-bang afterwards. That's what you're wrongly trying to do by implying God is under all our biological knowledge.

 

[Xsyven]

No one knows the End of the world, no one ever will. Its not something you can be like, "LOL WORLDS GOING TO END 6/6/06!!" That year happens every 100 years. 1906 is 6/6/06. See? Exactly. Why would it suddenly end.. On this hundred and sixth year all of the sudden..? Ill get back to this later.

666 comes from the book of Revelations, in the Bible, and has nothing to do with a date that the world will end. >>

 

[estion11]

As for the bible being taken literally, I agree with Zink in that its obvious what is meant to be taken literally and what is metaphorical. Most of the stories in the bible are obviously just preaching messages, and values, and not to be taken literally such as Adam and Eve as previously brought up (arguing that everything in the bible is true is just ignorant and almost insulting to whoever you believe created the bible in that they cannot see the flaws in their stories).

and @ shadenexus earlier on in this thread you were offended by people questioning your faith, but you called that upon yourself when you began preaching it... ill find the quote if you want to argue.

 

[Haruno Kotetsu]

Xsyven: I know. It stands for the number of man, which not very many people know. They think it stands for Satan.

 

[estion11]

^ I know. It stands for the number of man, which not very many people know. They think it stands for Satan.

i though that 555 was man and 666 was satan and 777 was god, however you good be right as most of my knowledge was based on a pixies song. Can someone confirm this because 666 is very commonly accepted as being the devil.

 

[Xsyven]

666 is the mark of the beast. I think it's in Revelations 13. There has to be an online bible somewhere.

*checks*

Yeah, I was right. Revelations is the only book in the bible that I actually remember anything from. xD Anyway, the mark of the beast is explained in Revelations 13:16-18.

16: He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead

17: So that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.

18: This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.

 

[Tryptomine]

Arbitrarily? I think it's pretty obvious what can be interpreted metaphorically and what can be taken literally. Even if you wanted to go all one way or the other, the basic message won't change.

Really? Because it sounds to me anything thats disproved gets agrued "well, thats all just metaphorical anyways..." whereas anything that hasn't/cannot be disproved, well that's proof of God's existance right there, ain't it? Go team! **** Ganesha!

Okay then, that could work. But then what about everyone else? See, if God is allowed to take liberties with the unknown to 'prove' his existance, why can't Allah? Or Zues? Or Ganesha? Or (because someone has to say it) Flying Spaghetti Monster?

All religions are setting a double standard, capitallizing on people's beleifs and ignorance to create answers where there are none and attempts to drown everyone else out by yelling really loud (and killing them if no ones looking). You see, people try to turn arguements (such as this thread) into Christianity vesus Science. The problem is Christianity inherently loses before it even comes to the table. It can't even stand up against other religions.

What makes any beleif more valid then the other? If you profess Christiany as the truth, you must be equally ready to accept any religion as the truth also, because they all start out with the same base.

And then if they're all true, the staggering contradictions in them alone would reduce the entire population into nothing more then a gaggle of jabbering nitwits who can't differenciate their *** from Raptor Jesus.

In the end, no religion wins because none of them are any better then the other. To promote any one of them over the other is only displaying your own naïveté.

The only reason "Science" wins is because it is nothing more then recordings of real, emperical observations. It may not always be right (and is probably more wrong more often then not), but it never claims annything without reason. The one thing all religions lack.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

(And if you think science is bull****, that's fine, but you better get the **** off the internet and everything else it produced.)

 

[GoldShadow]

One of the most ****ing things against global warming, over the last century (1906 - 2006) the Earth's temperature has only risen a degree.

One degree change in average temperature is a significant amount in a time period as short as 100 years.

Global warming is such a joke. If you really want to get into a battle about it, fine, but it's no more valid than a little kid thinking the world is ending because winter is turning to spring.

I bet you don't know any of the science behind the idea of 'global warming'. Do some research before you speak; I fail to see how anyone who has truly researched the idea can conclude that it does not exist or that humans are not responsible.

 

[Zink]

okay hold on guys I can only do one thing at a time. Since it's late, global warming tonight and Christianity tomorrow. sorry trypto

I bet you don't know any of the science behind the idea of 'global warming'. Do some research before you speak; I fail to see how anyone who has truly researched the idea can conclude that it does not exist or that humans are not responsible.

heh, assumptions on the internet always fail. I've been doing research on global warming off and on or years. it's a pet argument of mine cuz I live in a liberal state. I know the theory inside and out, I can list flaws in the reasoning, I can show errors in extrapolation, I can demonstate skewed evidence. But even before all of that, just looking at it objectively, even ignoring the issue itself... one side, the pro global warming "team", falsifies evidence and actively attempts to silence proponents of the other side. That is obviously not good science. I am obligated to oppose such a side.

OK, Trypto, just as a warmup, give an example of a situation where you believe Christianity contradicts a scientific law or theory (don't worry, I'm not going to pull that dumb "but it's only a theory!" argument. I know full well the differences between the definition of a regular theory and a scientific one). I will reply tomorrow.

 

[Eor]

Just saying "no it's wrong because they lie/aren't right" isn't an argument. Provide examples.

I don't know enough about Global Warming in order to qualify to debate it, but go ahead and post it.

 

[Tryptomine]

OK, Trypto, just as a warmup, give an example of a situation where you believe Christianity contradicts a scientific law or theory (don't worry, I'm not going to pull that dumb "but it's only a theory!" argument. I know full well the differences between the definition of a regular theory and a scientific one). I will reply tomorrow.

I don't see what it really has to do with my previous post, but whatever. Of course I am by no means a bible scholar, but obviously the first issue that pops into mind is the whole Earth is 35,000 years old/created in days problem, and the defiance of evolution.

Now I am well aware everything can be twisted, contorted, skewed and just forced to fit pretty much any argument one wished. That doesn't matter, because it no more proves or disproves a single thing.

Not to mention that not everyone does the same. The vast majority of (at least Republican, unsure about Democrat) current Presidential candidates don't even beleive in evolution, let alone the general populace.

 

[shadenexus18]

Not important ? Choosing either sides result in an additional crazy amount of animals you need to carry in your boat, plus, they need to be in aquariums. Fresh water would mean you need to carry WHALES, while salty water would require Noah's to build specific vivarium for every animals living 'in' or on the coast of a fresh water spot. Even if his boat was huge (because we don't know, maybe Noah had lots of free time), it would be impossible afterward to re-insert the fish and mammals he carried into their specific habitat.

See how ludicrous it can get ? And creationists still agree everything written in the bible is true and debate, every day, with evolutionists about this issue. Do you believe in creationism Shade ?

Aquariums? Whoa man! I think you're reading way way way too deeply into this. I honestly do. And who is to say at that specifc moment in time that whales even existed. Mind you bro, these are biblical times. And the bible wasn't intended to record every single detail that occured that wasn't considered important to a tee.

Although I will admit you do bring a strong argument to the table. And I honestly can say I believe in creationism. It's better than that evolution mumbo jumbo, or certain dumb parts to it. Like how some scientist strongly believe in the Big Bang Theory. Pfft....what a load of bull!

 

[Tryptomine]

Aquariums? Whoa man! I think you're reading way way way too deeply into this. I honestly do. And who is to say at that specifc moment in time that whales even existed. Mind you bro, these are biblical times. And the bible wasn't intended to record every single detail that occured that wasn't considered important to a tee.

Story of Jonah, perhaps?

 

[dbz22]

Hold on I was always thought evolution is just something the devil created and sent a another devil [charles darwin] down to make people bealive in that. Big bang theory? what nonsense looks like satan strikes agian. [I am getting taght this in school =[ I dislike it really]

 

[Tryptomine]

Hold on I was always thought evolution is just something the devil created and sent a another devil [charles darwin] down to make people bealive in that. Big bang theory? what nonsense looks like satan strikes agian. [I am getting taght this in school =[ I dislike it really]

This is a joke, right? Please?

I just got done dealing with college scheduling issues and I really don't think my brain can handle this much stupid at this point in time.

 

[dbz22]

This is a joke, right? Please?

I just got done dealing with college scheduling issues and I really don't think my brain can handle this much stupid at this point in time.

bwhat joke? you think this stuff happened?!?! you really think we came from those monkeys and the space goes up then down? like a yo-yo? come on even that is just plain stupid

 

[Wikipedia]

First of all, they were apes, not monkeys. Secondly, how old are you?

 

[fluffy]

First of all, they were apes, not monkeys. Secondly, how old are you?

It says in his profile that he's 13 : /

 

[dbz22]

First of all, they were apes, not monkeys. Secondly, how old are you?

what apes? does not matter to me tho bc It never happened to me wiki. HOW IS the guy how got to the site I was on???

 

[GoldShadow]

I can't tell which "anti-evolutionists" are joking and which ones are serious; but for their own sakes, I hope they're all joking about being anti-evolution. As for a 13-year old's beliefs, I don't really care; even I didn't really believe in evolution as a 13 year old, but that's because I had no clue what it was. I now realize how stupid I was then, heh.


Also, I'm concocting a global warming argument slowly but surely; I'll hopefully get around to posting about it at some point.

 

[dbz22]

I can't tell which "anti-evolutionists" are joking and which ones are serious; but for their own sakes, I hope they're all joking about being anti-evolution. As for a 13-year old's beliefs, I don't really care; even I didn't really believe in evolution as a 13 year old, but that's because I had no clue what it was. I now realize how stupid I was then, heh.


Also, I'm concocting a global warming argument slowly but surely; I'll hopefully get around to posting about it at some point.

O great a global warming argument.... Why do I need to repeat myself? "I think devoluioton is fake" "I think evolution is fake" I think evolution is fake" got it now?!?!? I am not joking there is not enough evidence to stat it is true.

 

[Zink]

I don't see what it really has to do with my previous post, but whatever. Of course I am by no means a bible scholar, but obviously the first issue that pops into mind is the whole Earth is 35,000 years old/created in days problem, and the defiance of evolution.

Now I am well aware everything can be twisted, contorted, skewed and just forced to fit pretty much any argument one wished. That doesn't matter, because it no more proves or disproves a single thing.

Not to mention that not everyone does the same. The vast majority of (at least Republican, unsure about Democrat) current Presidential candidates don't even beleive in evolution, let alone the general populace.

I was referring to this:

And then if they're all true, the staggering contradictions in them alone would reduce the entire population into nothing more then a gaggle of jabbering nitwits who can't differenciate their *** from Raptor Jesus.

oh yea, and I'de be careful asserting about things like those candidates. If you want to say "I believe many Christians do not believe in evolution" go ahead. There's no reason to generalize to politicians.

ps- if you care, I'm an evolutionist, although I really don't think it makes a difference AT ALL. if you want the logic, look at it this way- God could have done either one, and either way, the result is exactly the same. So it matters not at all, but I call myself an evolutionist because it makes more sense to me, and because if I don't I get flamed to the sky and back. It's probably the most pointless debate regarding religion, period. Neither side has anything to gain.

pps- if you guys are actually going to fight evolution, try to come up with holes in the theory instead of silly assertions, cuz you make us look bad lol.

 

[Tryptomine]

I was referring to this:

Oh, that, you misunderstood me there then. I wasn't referring to contradictions with Christianity and Science, but contradictions all religions have against each other.

oh yea, and I'de be careful asserting about things like those candidates. If you want to say "I believe many Christians do not believe in evolution" go ahead. There's no reason to generalize to politicians.

I wasn't generalizing, I was actually basing it on their answer to a direct question. However, I was saying it from memory and upon double checking the fact for this post I see now I did have it wrong. So I apologize for the mistake.

To be specific, Republican candidates Brownback, Tancredo and Huckabee raised their hands in response to a question asking who did not beleive in evolution. As far as I can find, the question was not posed to the Democratic candidates.

(video: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/03/who-doesnt-believe-in-evolution/)

 

[Superninjabreadman]

Nintendo goes bankrupt.
[darth vader/chipmunk voice]NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Super Smash Halo 3 releases for the Xbox Pi.
[chris tucker voice] aww.. Hell naw!

In Soviet russia, Bankrupt goes Nintendo!!!!

What the heck...

 

[Zink]

Oh, that, you misunderstood me there then. I wasn't referring to contradictions with Christianity and Science, but contradictions all religions have against each other.

oh, that's what you meant. Just to clarify, you mean the problem of finding the "true" religion?

I wasn't generalizing, I was actually basing it on their answer to a direct question. However, I was saying it from memory and upon double checking the fact for this post I see now I did have it wrong. So I apologize for the mistake.

To be specific, Republican candidates Brownback, Tancredo and Huckabee raised their hands in response to a question asking who did not beleive in evolution. As far as I can find, the question was not posed to the Democratic candidates.

(video: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/03/who-doesnt-believe-in-evolution/)

Huh, that's interesting. I look forward to seeing how far any of them makes it. tbqh I think anyone silly enough to say they're a creationist on TV like that will take care of themselves...

 

[cF=)]

Aquariums? Whoa man! I think you're reading way way way too deeply into this. I honestly do. And who is to say at that specifc moment in time that whales even existed. Mind you bro, these are biblical times. And the bible wasn't intended to record every single detail that occured that wasn't considered important to a tee.

Although I will admit you do bring a strong argument to the table. And I honestly can say I believe in creationism. It's better than that evolution mumbo jumbo, or certain dumb parts to it. Like how some scientist strongly believe in the Big Bang Theory. Pfft....what a load of bull!

See, that's the argument Christians always come up with: "You're looking way too deep into this". How can you prove the existence of God, or argue parts of the Bible if suddenly, some of it is metaphorical, while other parts make sense and need to be taken litteraly ? Like Tryptomine said, you either agree this is completely metaphorical, or everything needs to be taken litteraly. Earth's been around here sincde 35,000 years ? Adam and Eve ? The big flood ?

dbz22, Satan is not who you think. Search deeper into satanism if you want to understand his icon, because he's commonly misused has a representation of evil while truly, he represents "exaltation of hedonistic recreation and the celebration of self-interest and pleasure as rational practices". This means you are more important in this life and should listen to your instinct/feelings/needs rather than waiting for an imaginary after-life to do so.

if you care, I'm an evolutionist, although I really don't think it makes a difference AT ALL. if you want the logic, look at it this way- God could have done either one, and either way, the result is exactly the same.

It makes a difference, because it's CLEAR in the bible human beings come from Adam and Eve. That's where religion and science split up, else, God could be behind everything we discover in science. Greeks used to be like this actually, and it worked just fine.

 

[Zink]

See, that's the argument Christians always come up with: "You're looking way too deep into this". How can you prove the existence of God, or argue parts of the Bible if suddenly, some of it is metaphorical, while other parts make sense and need to be taken litteraly ? Like Tryptomine said, you either agree this is completely metaphorical, or everything needs to be taken litteraly. Earth's been around here sincde 35,000 years ? Adam and Eve ? The big flood ?

What can I say except, "you're wrong"? It's that simple. The Bible is not all literal or all metaphorical. There's no problem with that, seeing as it was written by a host of different authors for different audiences and purposes.

dbz22, Satan is not who you think. Search deeper into satanism if you want to understand his icon, because he's commonly misused has a representation of evil while truly, he represents "exaltation of hedonistic recreation and the celebration of self-interest and pleasure as rational practices". This means you are more important in this life and should listen to your instinct/feelings/needs rather than waiting for an imaginary after-life to do so.

Just to intercept this, this isn't quite the Catholic interpretation of Satan. He's a bad dude, for sure: opposed to God because, IIRC, he disagreed with the Incarnation idea or something. Doesn't matter. The point is, he attempts to lure people away from God.

It makes a difference, because it's CLEAR in the bible human beings come from Adam and Eve. That's where religion and science split up, else, God could be behind everything we discover in science. Greeks used to be like this actually, and it worked just fine.

See, again, you miss the point. The Adam and Eve myths are meant to show the concept of original sin. It isn't some kind of biological fact. Humans came from Adam and Eve in the sense that we are human, but not in the sense of direct descendents.
I have a question for you, Trypto- where did you get that 35,000 year figure? I've heard it before, but never the reasoning behind it.

 

[adrian Blk]

The key to endless tomorrows is the realization that you, me, all of us, are the problem. Stop running away from the seeds of every human misery. Stop making excuses for the past. Your only home in the cosmos is on fire and every one of us is equally responsible for lighting the match and looking the other way. You are the problem, and you are also the answer. The first step toward saving the world is within.

 

[Crimson King]

bwhat joke? you think this stuff happened?!?! you really think we came from those monkeys and the space goes up then down? like a yo-yo? come on even that is just plain stupid

So, you find it stupid and illogical that we descended from creatures who have similarities in our DNA and that the Universe is contracting and expanding (which can be observed) but an invisible man whom no one has ever seen is more logical?

Just wanted to clarify that's what you believe and all.

 

[commonyoshi]

Believing that the world is only 35,000 years old, and that we only came from two people causes problems. Mainly, that by using that date and the current human population, means that on average we'd have had to have 18,571,429 children over the amount of humans that died in a given year. However, we only had a recent population explosion. In 1750, we had around an estimated 791 million humans alive (less then the population of china!). So, subtracting it and dividing gives us over 22,000 extra humans a year.

Hey, Eor. Could you break down the math a little easier. This is an argument Ive never heard before, and I'd like to understand it.

And I could probably pull out something regarding your "people of different races" thing, but it'd be exactly that, something I pulled out of nowhere.

About disaproving science, I meant believing either science or religion on a specific issue. If we talk here about NDE, you prove whatever you feel like using your Bible while I'll take science and offer my opinion for the same problem. If the Bible states the Universe was created in seven days, you can't apply God's omniscience to the big-bang afterwards. That's what you're wrongly trying to do by implying God is under all our biological knowledge.

I'm still not understanding you here. There's no chosing between science and belief. In the terms of the NDE drug, I acknowledge what you said was true. Wohoo science! But I'm also arguing that God is able to use that drug, and probably created it in the beginning of time, for the purpose of divine inspiration.

And since when was the Big Bang proven?

Okay then, that could work. But then what about everyone else? See, if God is allowed to take liberties with the unknown to 'prove' his existance, why can't Allah? Or Zues? Or Ganesha? Or (because someone has to say it) Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Because there's a certain point at which it loses all substinence. See below.

In the end, no religion wins because none of them are any better then the other. To promote any one of them over the other is only displaying your own naïveté.

A religion can be defeated:
If there are no survivors who follow it then the religion, assuming there is a correct one, must be wrong.
If a being of higher power is unwillingly defeated by a bunch of mere humans.
If the god is able to be bested by something else, it must not be god.
If people made the god for enjoyment's/convienence's sake, it is not a real god.
If the god is proven to be wrong, then it is no god. (I'm regarding prophecies and such)

There are probably other ways you could logic it out that have to make sense, but that's just a what I had on my mind. Under such logic, Zeus certainly is no god, Baal has been defeated, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is nothing more than very imaginitive food which I would certainly want to taste. Now, the religion that stands above the rest, still assuming that there is a correct one, must be the "one".

(Yes, I understand the irony some of you might see in using logic to justify a diety who is outside logic)

The only reason "Science" wins is because it is nothing more then recordings of real, emperical observations. It may not always be right (and is probably more wrong more often then not), but it never claims annything without reason. The one thing all religions lack.

Ah, but this statement is wrong. You might argue that religions use flawed/biased reasoning to support what it is they support, but that is still reason. The same works for science. An example off the top of my head would be Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

This topic reminds me how much I have to research all this stuff.

Edit: Of course Satan is bad. >_<

 

[tmw_redcell]

So, you find it stupid and illogical that we descended from creatures who have similarities in our DNA and that the Universe is contracting and expanding (which can be observed) but an invisible man whom no one has ever seen is more logical?

Just wanted to clarify that's what you believe and all.

The universe will not contract, it violates the second law of thermodynamics. The Big Bang--> Big Crunch ad nauseum theory is seen as incorrect and outdated now because of that, and has been superceded by other theories.

EDIT: However, applying the second law of thermodynamics to evolution only proves that you don't understand either of those things.

EDIT 2: And here's a link for you so I'm not just being a cryptic jerkwad: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

 

[Tryptomine]

I have a question for you, Trypto- where did you get that 35,000 year figure? I've heard it before, but never the reasoning behind it.

I had most of an answer typed up, but then I made the mistake of wondering onto creationismwiki.org or some such thing which had seemingly been hacked by some ******* and forced my laptop to spam open browser windows until it collaposed from some sort of computer version of a brain anuerysm.

In short, the 35,000 year figure apparently stems from a man in the 1800s who determined that to be the age of Niagara Falls, and subsequently had his work promoted by the church.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i4/niagara_falls.asp

 

[Mike87]

Well, Its more possible and Real that the world ends in 50 or less by global Warming, Its stupid, if it didnt end in June 6th 2006, then why should end in 2012 ?

And the world didn't end on December 31st 1999 now did it, we're all still here.

Life on planet earth will die out once the sun burns out which won't happen for several billion years.

Bottom line: Science and God do not come along because they are opposite ways of thinking. Creationists tend to use this method to prove their point, but it fails because they're using the product of researches to convince science is wrong. This, I believe, can be applied to your argument as well for the simple fact you wouldn't be able to explain NDE's visions otherwise if I wouldn't have spoke about DPH.

tl;dr God is the product of faith, and if you explain something through logical reasoning, there is no place for him.

I disagree, you can have faith in God or you can follow any religion and still believe scientific teachings, it mostly depends on your interpretation of a religion.
The big Bang Theory is how God created the Universe, life was created over a course of millions of years, not 6 days.

I consider myself a Christian, more specifically a Catholic.
I have questioned my religion and I disagree with several facets of it yet I still keep my faith.
Unlike some people I have seen in this thread, I am pretty tolerant of other people's beliefs, I'll believe what I believe and you guys can do the same for all I care.

http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/

Now thats a crazy chick.

Also the word Rapture is never mentioned in the Bible thats a more modern idea.

The Second coming of Christ has been predicted several times and all guesses has proven to be wrong so far as the world has yet to come to an end.

 

[SirroMinus1]

its to soon to say. 21 is not a bad age for me to die at. they better hurry and find life on mars. So we can migrate

 

[Eturnus_Frost]

Believing that the world is only 35,000 years old, and that we only came from two people causes problems. Mainly, that by using that date and the current human population, means that on average we'd have had to have 18,571,429 children over the amount of humans that died in a given year. However, we only had a recent population explosion. In 1750, we had around an estimated 791 million humans alive (less then the population of china!). So, subtracting it and dividing gives us over 22,000 extra humans a year.

Plus this causes other problems.'If we only have two people, where did the differences in humans come from? How come there are arabs, blacks, whites, and asians? And how/why would they spread so far across the world so quickly? In biblical times, we had full civilizations in Asia, Europe, and Africa. This would mean that a single family managed to make the trek all the way across the world, with no food except for what they found, create civilization, and then populate it equally quick, all without the offspring having any genetic malfunctions, and with the vast majority not being told about God and the Garden of Eden. Now, why would that happen?

Ever hear of Evolution?

Or Genetic Mutation?

Dogs? Pitbulls, Cocker Spaniels, Poodles..

Monkeys, Baboons, Gorillas, etc.

Simple enough.

As far as languages go, take up Reference to the Tower Of Babel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel

a tower built to reach the heavens by a united humanity, all speaking a single language. God saw that humans would be able to do whatever they set their minds to, so he confused their unified language and scattered them. In later stories, God destroys the tower, as well. The story of the tower of Babel is set in the time after Noah's flood and before Abraham's covenant with God.