What is the purpose of religion...?

[Annie]

Oh. wow. The half dozen people who actually post on this board are fanatics.

and you base this on what? I'm not a fanatic of any religous perspective.

 

[popefumanchu]

You're right. I am a fanatic rationalist. That does not mean I can't be a Christian. Having faith doesn't make me a fanatic. I don't bomb abortion clinics. I don't hate those who do not believe the way I do.

 

[5stringJeff]

First impermanence does negate the reality of anything as such in any time reference other than the Absolute Present and the Deffinite Past.

Second give me an example of an absolute truth. "We can never be absolutely certain of anything" is paradoxical because it uses two mutualy exclucive absolutes paradoxical. Omnipotent entities like the Chistian God are paradoxical be cause unlimited power cannot surpass its self and is therefore limited, so if paradoxical situations cannot be true, as you stipulate in your second point, than the existence of and omnipotent being cannot be true.

Third the probability of any one religion being absolutely correct is infintessimal.

I am so far behind in this thread...

An example of an absolute truth? How about Love Your Neighbor? How about Do To Others How You Would Have Them Do To You? How about Thou Shalt Not Rape Children? Is that absolute enough for you?
Now that we have established that there is absolute truth, how would we figure out what truths are absolute? My claim (and that of millions before me) is that Jesus Christ, through His death and subsequent resurrection, proved His Deity, and is therefore authorized to "lay down the law" when it comes to absolute truth.
As far as your claim about one religion being right... again, I refer to the resurrection of Christ. If someone predicted His own death and resurrection, then actually rose again from the dead, claiming to be God, I would be very apt to follow that person's teachings regarding religion, the existence and nature of God, death, and the afterlife.

 

[5stringJeff]

First, No argument there, although the Buddha's statement , "All this is empty..." is often miscronstrued to mean such.

I'll confess my ignorance. What exactly did Buddha mean when he said that?

Second, to state a thing with absolute certainty implies omniscience...something, I think I can say with reasonable certainty, none of us is possessed of.

To state an absolute truth does not imply omniscience. For example, I can say that it is wrong for a rich man to steal from a poor man without cause, or that it is wrong for anyone to rape a woman or child. That doesn't mean I know everything; it means that I know for certain that those things are never morally correct.
And if God is omniscient, as the Bible and Torah claim, then by your logic He would certainly be able to pass out absolute truths.

Third, If one's favorite deity is that petty, is he/she/it truly worthy of adoration? Sounds far too human to be divine.

If God is loving (as the Bible claims), then of course He doesn't want to harm or hurt anyone. But if God is just (as the Bible claims) then He must pass judgment on those who fail to meet His standards. To call it 'petty' shows a lack of understanding. God is absolutely holy; He cannot tolerate sin. But at the same time, He is absolutely loving; He desires for all people to be saved. How can He fulfill both judgment and love? Through the death of Jesus Christ. His death satisfies God's judgment, in that the penalty for sin is death. But Jesus had no sins of His own, so He had no reason to die; therefore, He was resurrected from the dead, proving His deity and providing the promise that all who accept His sacrificial death can look forward to enjoying God's love.

 

[5stringJeff]

Oh. wow. The half dozen people who actually post on this board are fanatics.

Fanatics, huh? By labeling all of us with such a strong name, you reveal your 'fanatical' disdian for those with strongly held religious views.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[nakedemperor]

I was talking about the self-defeating proposition that "environmentalism is anti-human", and the fanatical defense of that statement.


Anti-environmentalism is anti-humans-having-a-livable-habitat-to-be-humans-in.

Talk about ignorance. Think of all the other species that humans have eliminated from existance. Think of the disappearing ozone layer. Think of deforestation. All these things have real, adverse effects on humanity, and to KNOW (not believe) that human technology can keep up with population growth and provide the energy, oxygen, food, etc. for the world population to sustain itself is a concept which I can only describe as fanatical.

Does ANYONE ELSE with any common sense want to critique the statement "environmentalism is anti-human"?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I support basic environmental protections, but the wacko core of the environmentalist movement are really just socialists, looking for excuses to attack capitalism and economic growth. They are willing to pass laws restricting land devlopment for use by humans simply because some arbitrary species deemed an indicator species is inconvenienced. This is anti human.

 

[Annie]

I support basic environmental protections, but the wacko core of the environmentalist movement are really just socialists, looking for excuses to attack capitalism and economic growth. They are willing to pass laws restricting land devlopment for use by humans simply because some arbitrary species deemed an indicator species is inconvenienced. This is anti human.

RWA, what makes you think YOU have common sense? :shocked: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :shocked:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

RWA, what makes you think YOU have common sense? :shocked: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :shocked:

Are you saying I don't have common sense? The kyoto agreement preferred by the U.N. ecomaniacs is eugenics through economic restriction on first world(western) nations. You know it's true.

 

[Annie]

Are you saying I don't have common sense? The kyoto agreement preferred by the U.N. ecomaniacs is eugenics through economic restriction on first world(western) nations. You know it's true.

Well I believe he, meaning the neked one, proclaimed the rest of us deficient in common sense.

 

[nakedemperor]

Naw, you and RWA have shown your common sense, mostly =) just the people who were under the impression that protecting the environment is in some way undermining the human potential by misallocating funds and man hours. Basic environmental protections, like RWA was talking about, are essential.. I personally got a little paranoid after that huge state-of-the-environment report, and after the EPA wouldn't print the Bush-edited environmental report because it was so misleading and manipulated. I'm not so hard on Bush's lack of environmental protection record, but I guess more so on his protection of pollution practices.

 

[ajwps]

ENVIRONMENTALISM IS ANTI-HUMAN.

....Rejecting evolution requires him to repudiate the core tenets** of entire fields of study... Such as biochemistry, genetics,ecology, paleontology, anatomy, physics, astronomy, geology, cosmology, history, and archaeology.....

Nakedemperor unfortunately entire fields such as biochemistry, genetics, ecology, paleontology, anatomy, physics, astronomy, geology, cosmology, history, and archaeology have never proved EVOLUTION to this very day.

Evolution remains as much a theory as does creationism.

There is no smoking gun. SORRY

 

[ajwps]

...... I'm not so hard on Bush's lack of environmental protection record, but I guess more so on his protection of pollution practices.

It is unfortunate but pollution is now a part of human existence and the absence of pollution will only come with the elimination of mankind. The nature of the earth itself functions to eliminate pollution. More pollution is created by the forests of the earth than all of mankinds activities which also pollute the world's environment.

There is nothing to protect.

 

[ajwps]

I was talking about the self-defeating proposition that "environmentalism is anti-human", and the fanatical defense of that statement.


Anti-environmentalism is anti-humans-having-a-livable-habitat-to-be-humans-in.

Talk about ignorance. Think of all the other species that humans have eliminated from existance. Think of the disappearing ozone layer. Think of deforestation. All these things have real, adverse effects on humanity, and to KNOW (not believe) that human technology can keep up with population growth and provide the energy, oxygen, food, etc. for the world population to sustain itself is a concept which I can only describe as fanatical.

Does ANYONE ELSE with any common sense want to critique the statement "environmentalism is anti-human"?

http://www.riverdeep.net/current/2000/09/091300ozonehole.jhtml

Ozone is constantly produced and destroyed in a natural cycle, with the overall level remaining roughly the same. Generally, the ozone layer is thinnest around the equator and densest towards the poles.

Ergo, not due to human pollution of the earth's atmosphere.

 

[deaddude]

It is the ultimate hubris to think that we could possibly be powerful and evil enough to destroy the planet.

We (the United States) have enough Nuclear weapons to turn the entire planet into a charred, blackened orb of radioactive glass.

Is that destroyed enough for you?

"Evolution remains as much a theory as does creationism."

Originally posted by ajwps

The fact that creatures evolve is not a theory, small incomplex organisms, with short life cycles evolve very quickly, and have evolved under laboratory conditions. This is a result of adaptation.

Evolution becomes theoretical only when it is used to explain the development of life on earth. Could a higher power have said let there be life? Absolutely. Is it possible that lightning hit a bunch of proteins and a single celled organism sprang forth? You bet. Is it possible that a higher power said let there be life and so struck a bunch of proteins with lightning creating a single celled organism? Sure why not.

 

[Shazbot]

We (the United States) have enough Nuclear weapons to turn the entire planet into a charred, blackened orb of radioactive glass.

While it is true that we have enough nuclear weapons to render the earth uninhabitable by humans, it is incorrect to say that we can char and blacken the entire planet. One must remember that while a large Thermonuclear Bomb can level the greater part of a city, that is nothing compared to earth's total land surface area of 57,500,000 square miles. That would take QUITE the bomb! (Sorry to be nit-picky!)

-Douglas

 

[ajwps]

"Evolution remains as much a theory as does creationism."

Originally posted by ajwps

The fact that creatures evolve is not a theory, small incomplex organisms, with short life cycles evolve very quickly, and have evolved under laboratory conditions. This is a result of adaptation.

Your statement is world shattering. No one has heard of these events to date. PLEASE give credible evidence that small incomplex organisms, with short or long life cycles evolve quickly under laboratory conditions. Other than small adaptive and morphological changes within single species like a plain moth evolving into a spotted moth or a finch changing the shape of its beak shape, can you find evidence of a moth evolving into a lizard or monkey becoming a man? Even under laboratory conditions...

Evolution becomes theoretical only when it is used to explain the development of life on earth. Could a higher power have said let there be life? Absolutely. Is it possible that lightning hit a bunch of proteins and a single celled organism sprang forth? You bet. Is it possible that a higher power said let there be life and so struck a bunch of proteins with lightning creating a single celled organism? Sure why not.

You forgot another theory. That called 'panspermia' or carbon life being spread from distant planets or comets to earth creating life forms.

The chances of lightning striking a bunch of gases and chemicals forming amino acids which evolve into life and cognition has a statistical probablity of occurring in long periods of time. Unfortunately that probablity statistic is -0 X 100000 power because of a factor known as Irreducible Complexity.

For where did those chemicals, gases and lighting come from to begin with in order for an impossible cascade of events that allow life as we know it?

 

[deaddude]

Those tiny changes you refer too are an evolution, and what I was referring to. Those tiny changes build up.

No I cannot provide evidence as to whether or not humanity evolved from monkeys. However you, ajwps, are 98.5% genetically identical to a chimp you are also 98.5% identical to your girl friend, it just seems to me to be too close of a relation for chimps and humans not to have a common ancestor.

 

[ajwps]

Those tiny changes you refer too are an evolution, and what I was referring to. Those tiny changes build up.

I admit it. Evolution on a small scale does occur within a given specie. But no evidence exists of tiny changes building up to evolve into different life forms or species.

No I cannot provide evidence as to whether or not humanity evolved from monkeys. However you, ajwps, are 98.5% genetically identical to a chimp you are also 98.5% identical to your girl friend, it just seems to me to be too close of a relation for chimps and humans not to have a common ancestor.

Actually we all are 100% identical to every particle mass in the entire universe.

But you are talking about life forms being very similar based on a CLOSE genetic relationship. But like in the game of horseshoes, close genetics molecular makeup don't count. Close but not a ringer.

Amazingly enough, all the species of animal life occurred almost suddenly during a short period of earth time called the Cambrian period. All fossil formed during a 10 million year period in all the miraculous form we find today in such a short period of time. And since that time span, not even one new specie has formed in the hundreds of millions of years since. How could a common ancestor that is so irreducibly complex form into every specie on earth in what is the equivalent of a blink of the eye? No there is no possibility of a common ancestor that ended up homosapien.

For some unknown reason, human chromosomal makeup is so close to the sea slug yet these primitive life forms do not have a free will with which to choose between good and evil. How many sea slugs choose to go out of their way to do a good deed for another sea slug?

 

[deaddude]

The sea slug has as much free will as you or I, but instead of being guided by intelligence, the sea slug is guided by instinct, and to some extent so are we. We still get hit with adrenaline in situations that our intelligence would tell us are harmless. It is this adrenaline rush that causes pleasure from roller coasters and terror films. Can the image on the screen hurt you? no, but your body reacts as if it could.

Also, geneticly you are as related to a male chimp as you are to your girl freind. That is close anough for me to consider the speicies (yours and the chimp's) related .