Centifolia's Waterfall
Funny thing is that you show all the signs of it.
By the way, what happened to the other arguments? Are you fleeing from them again?
The theory of evolution works with out a god.
And that brought us back to square 1. Evolution works by adapting to the ever changing environment. The rules of nature dictates that he who is most adaptable will win. But in a humorous feat, the one who sits on the top of the food chain are humans who are unrivaled in their intelligence.
We are the only animals who can create a philosophy, record history and the only species with a sense of responsibility to protect the weak, no matter who or what.
Like what I said before: you can dismiss it as random chance but I will not ignore the elephant in the room
I have not been shown that there be a need for a deity.
This would be a big twist in our argument but we created religion for a reason.
It is a place of haven for the troubled minds, a tool to mend chaos and keep a society united no matter how dim the situation is. Religion is a powerful weapon that when used for good, it can create harmony and peace.
But of course, just like any weapons, it can be used for evil as well.
The polls you have shown have much different wording when compared.
I cant see much differences. There are still more religious scientists today than there were a few decades years ago
What we don't see here is the differentiation between those that believe in God and those that believe in a higher power.
The only thing that conflicts them are the forms of worship. Other than that, I see nothing else that would divide their definition.
In your example of prayer and meditation the Dr doesn't declare one is better
To be fair, both of them serves different purpose.
Prayer is for the one who bears too much, Meditation is for the one who wanted to listen.
Your claim of religious people living the most fulfilling lives is highly subjective.
It's not subjective at all. It is common knowledge
My point was god is not needed to explain how we evolved, adding a creator to design is supurflous.
How can you say he is not needed when you cannot direct the laws of nature into your liking?
If it is impossible to disprove God, then it is impossible to say that he is not required.
More religious scientists now than Darwins time? Not by the link you gave...it stated the percentage is roughly the same.
>In 1914, 11 years before the Scopes "monkey" trial and four decades before the discovery of the structure of DNA, psychologist James Leuba asked 1,000 U.S. scientists about their views on God. He found the scientific community evenly divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not.
>According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not
Religious having advantages over non believers when they are in trouble?
I was simply referring to the psychological benefits that religion can bring. All psychologists agree that religion is a drug that can alleviate a person's pain but addiction can result into insanity and ruthlessness. (e.g Westboro Chruch, Old Earth Creationists and Muslim Extremists)
Prayer and meditation are lumped together all the time, and prayer has no advantages over meditation.
As experts put it; Mediation is an enhanced form of listening, prayer is an enhanced for of talking.
When a person is troubled, he seeks someone whom he can open his thoughts to. Similarly, prayer is the act of opening yourself and letting it go. Which explains why religious people lead the most fulfilling life.
Your link simply stated their benefits, none tried to differ one from the other. But I can understand. They are both extremely alike.
Lovely argument from ignorance..."Science supports God therefore it's flawed"
And did you bother to read it? And the rest of the arguments?
Never tested material.
Your favourite fake NASA scientist.
LOL :D
Its amusing how the more evidence you find, the more of an idiotic you become.
Using a deity to fill in blanks is not circular reasoning it is non sequitur.
Considering the fact that it is an argument born out of ignorance, i must say that it makes sense.
A deity just isnt needed to explain how we got here, the system works without it.
And that simply brings us to the topic of human arrogance and narcissism. The ability to explain something does not refute the existence of a celestial being.
First rule of religious debates: "God cannot be proven, nor disproven"
Darwin struggled greatly over his findings and his religion and he had far less evidence and scientific advances at his disposal than we do now.
And yet there is more religious scientists than Darwin's time
Religious people are happier because ignorace is bliss
Thats a disappointing argument coming from you.
A religious person and an atheist can be as intelligent as anyone.
Now about happiness and religion; no, you cant compare praying with meditation. Meditation is simply the art of slowing down your mind so you can focus more attentively. Prayer on the other hand is to leave all your worries behind and have faith in the diety you worship.
Go figure which one has a better effect.
A non believer can be just as happy if not more than some believers and vice versa.
Except when trouble arise, a nonbeliever will not have same advantages as the one who believes
Also humans have been around waaay more than 10k years.
I was referring to the birth of civilization, not the appearance of Homo Erectus
I didn't answer that one, I showed where beliefs used to hold a god accountable for an action but when science found out why that action happens the idea of god had to move to be in charge of the new finding or just cede the idea.
Using a diety to fill in the blanks makes sense if you ask me.
This is not circular thinking, it is just impossible to make progress in an argument that cannot be tested.
By using criteria that is favorable you can claim anything whether others will think it is right or not, all this shows is subjectivity of the speaker.
I am not using a personal criteria. I am pointing out the fact that differs humans from an ordinary animal.We all had the same beginnings but only humans has managed to take over the whole ecosystem of the planet, conquer our predators and travel through space. In less than 10,000 years of existence
Admit it, we are special
And correct me if I am wrong...he is not the majority either.
He is a scientist who made major contributions in the field of biology. Hence I am implying that if biology can cause someone to loose faith, he would be the first one to be.
A 2009 study showed that the population of scientists who believes in a god ranks at 51% while atheists are at 41%, the rest are undecided.
Furthermore, scientists today are no less likely to believe in God than they were almost 100 years ago, when the scientific community was first polled on this issue. In 1914, 11 years before the Scopes "monkey" trial and four decades before the discovery of the structure of DNA, psychologist James Leuba asked 1,000 U.S. scientists about their views on God. He found the scientific community evenly divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not. Scientists have unearthed many important fossils since then, but they are, if anything, more likely to believe in God today.
Of course we all have the same basic needs, beyond that though is personal discrete reasons.
It is a matter of being recognized and valued, my friend.
No matter how many people you allow yourself to be surrounded with, only you can understand who you really are and it is a sad thing to hear no voice other than your own. Here is the part where a believer gains all the advantages and as to why religious people tend to live happier.
Community or a sense of it is not dependent on intelligence but a specific kind of intelligence.
I have a poor research here, so i will just skip this. If you dont mind, that is.
Right, and I showed where some answered 'eroded' because we answered them.
uhh...what? It is impossible to answer the question of afterlife unless you came back from the dead. Hence, as long as we do not have any evidence of what lies out there, religion will never disappear.
We are not the only unique creatures, here is that centric thinking again of the sun revolving around us.
But we are, arent we?
In a physical sense; yes, every animal has their own uniqueness. But over all, have you seen any other types of animals who can study science, invent literature and managed to leave the planet?
The majority of biologists for example are not theists.
Correct me if im wrong, but arent Charles Darwin a theologist?
I would also point out there are many ways to get meaning out of life. A deity is not the only path.
Every person in the world desires to live for a purpose than to be born and die as a meaningless substance. But I agree, you dont need religion to believe in a god.
You haven't explained how it logically follows, in fact no one has.
Simple: By knowing that you were born for a reason, lives with a purpose and die as someone valued gives everyone a sense of joy. Its the basics of philosophy
We have more metal capacity to understand or develop the complexity.
And thats my point. Its weird how every animal species has another species that can rival their intelligence and strength, except humans.
We are the only animal who does not recognize any lesser race and protects animals that does not benefits us in anyway
For instance I would argue that our intellect is also a weapon, perhaps the deadliest weapon.
Just my 2 cents: No, intelligence is not the deadliest weapon. There has been a species that is much smarter than humans. But they got extinct for being too smart. They were so intelligent, they abandoned the need for community and since they are their brains are at highspeed, the stress must have taken its toll on them.
I cant be sure of what is mankind's true uniqueness. But just ignore this. This is nothing more than a minor dispute.
There doesn't need to be a 'why' for us forming religion.
And up until know, it exists because of the need for answers
What happens after we die?
How can something come from nothing?
Does miracle exists?
What am I here for?
The questions that created religion are the same questions that we still cannot answer.
I don't find it odd at all.
My point is, if every single animal came from a single parent gene, how come only humans can be so unique?
We all had the same start, followed the same timeline, lived in the same planet, and yet, humans are the only ones who can create technology, write history, and probably appreciate the beauty of Earth.
You can reject it as mere coincidence in the gene pool, but I wont ignore the elephant in the room.
I told you how it would start. The reason it is there is because it was a bunch of beneficial things that started to accumulate over time.
Consider this a clarification: You simply explained the process of empathy, community and social hierarchy.But in the end, we went back to square 1; You failed to explain how it happened that only humans can do such a feat.
You dont see animals selling their children, killing homosexuals and giving rights to an inferior species. Admit it, the uniqueness of humans is what makes the concept of a heartless evolution seem a little bit weird and inexplicable
sigh
Notice how the wisest scientists have an open mind towards spirituality? It is not a jump in logic, but an idea that gives your life a meaning.
As a species though we put a high value on our type of intelligence.We are different than other animals in 'X' way.
I agree that every animal is different from the other. Each one has their own uniqueness and such. My point is; why is it that the one who sits on the top of the food chain is the one who has the least weapons and the only one who can formulate a religion?
Dont you find it odd that only humans has the ability of reasoning and keeps track of time?
It is impossible to prove nor disprove the existence of God using the scientific formula. But believing in one does not change anything.
There is plenty written about how social behaviors are selected.
You failed to explain the reason for having a belief system, philosophical rule. Our History is also ridden with dark tales such as slavery, genocide and slaughter homosexuals. It does not contribute to our survival rate, and yet it exists.
Sorry for the late reply. Ill try to keep up with my messy schedules
I do not think anything you wrote promotes intelligent design as it seems to show we are still deeply flawed is all
It does actually. Together with other animals, we all had a single common parent gene but we humans are the only ones who has the ability to question our belief. In fact, it appears like we are the only ones who can even create a belief system
Believing in the existence of a creator does not change anything in the equation of how the universe came to be. It simply adds purpose to being alive
I don't see this, we are highly social mammals. Social creatures have an intelligence we can relate to.
You dont see dolphins (2nd smartest animals) making their own religion, formulating a government, not even have a concept of time.
Same goes to apes, wolves, elephants and other social animals.
Extreme intelligence is something unique only to humans. And if Evolution happens in order to adapt to the environment, then how does having a belief system, moral code and philosophical learning improves our survival?
Just passing by to say that I am too busy right now.
I will reply tomorrow (i hope)
Humans used to hunt by wearing out our prey, we are long distance runners.
Indeed. Then came the time when humans has learned how to farm. Ever since then, being "persistence hunters" has contradicted our way of life.
We discovered the art of settling down and forming communities. We invented agriculture and selective breeding. But considering how we were built, none of those should have ever been.
My only point there is that man is adaptable via intellect.
Surviving through the use of intelligence is one thing. But wont you agree that mankind has become way too intelligent?
Every living creature fears death, but only mankind was able to create religion and formulate philosophies to cope up with those fears
Self sacrifice is not rare in the animal world. But only humans will kill another human in sadistic ways for an illogical reason. E.g, burying people alive to assist the Pharoah, sacrifice for the gods, and so on
All creatures fear what they do not understand but why would humans slaughter homosexuals, commit genocide, and discriminate other religions or ethnic groups when they do not cause any harm to our society
The more you look at it, the more illogical it looks. I vote for intelligent design. How bout you? Will you really consider this as mere coincidence in the gene pool?
Sorry if I was unable to reply yesterday-too much work
Evolution favors those who are best suited to the environment they are in
As far as I can see...mankind was never made to adapt to anything. Our long legs made us unable to live in the swamps, slow and easy to tire made living in the plains too hard, and slow birthrate should have doomed us to extinction. But we didn't
Intelligence was our only weapon. We used shoes against mud, bow and arrows in the plains and medicine made our life longer.
Mankind was never gifted with any skill to even survive in the wild, and yet, here we are controlling the food chain and restricting ourselves from destroying too much.
Dont you find that weird?
I know that evolution is real, but I vote for intelligence design over random mutations
Does it cite the research, give links to the studies and what not on the painting?
Oh so thats what you are asking. Try this then
It is complete with enough researches done by Harvard University and Oxford. And it is approved by scientists
What is your definition of a miracle?
event not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature and consequently attributed to a supernatural, especially divine, agency
Stop running in circles, already. It hurts me more than it does to you
If you want to convince me of these things, then show me your research.
How do you know thier isn't a valid hypothesis on it?
Easy. Because you dont see any scientist standing up against it. All who dares to are poorly made articles with limited views and laughable contents
Sorry I missed this one.
I am saying that not understanding something scientifically, does not mean that it was supernatural
It is actually. Modern science is not the same as primitive speculation.
The Guadalupe is too mysterious to even allow any scientist to make a valid hypothesis about it.
That's not research, that is an article
It is a researched article that provides enough references to suit your every needs.
How does it follow that a painting that had been well preserved for a long time, to a point where we don't understand how lead to the conclusion that their is a god
Simple:
1. It has a background story
2. The painting itself is an icon of a religious figure
3. It is inexplanable
It all matches the requirements that every single atheist demands in a miracle. You know that any further arguments will not last. Why struggle to keep up?
Where did you get this from?
Research mate.
Ive made alot of research in Guadalupe. All those who claim to debunk it are limited to 2. They condemn the science as flawed or the scientists as bribed.
I don't know if the research on it was valid, you didn't provide me any research to investigate.
Could you elaborate? I get the feeling, you are not understanding what I am telling you.
Its easy. The moment that science start to recognize the existence of the paranormal is the moment that the definition of logic will change.
Notice how NASA tested the Guadalupe but they never wrote the reports on their homepage. But when asked for its credibility, they would rather stay quiet.
Alot of the scientists who failed in explaining the Guadalupe has converted. And all of them were rejected in the scientific community. And why is that?
Admit it. It's all a matter of denial.
He isnt a "being". He is God
Stop forcing the argument when you already know the answer
Because it doesn't matter whether or not what is being claimed it true
So you recognize the research as valid but you still deny the existence of God?
How would one supernatural claim being true, prove every supernatural claim? It doesn't follow.
One undebunkable proof is enough to change everything, apparently.
No it's not, science is fallible, science doesn't know everything because science is a means of investigating things.
So you are claiming that the research done is wrong?
Science has already abandoned you. Ignorance is a choice, my friend.
I read the article if that is what you are asking.
I can see that you did not raise any argument about the research done and the credibility of the scientists. Gee, I wonder why
Why didn't they put that knowledge out there to begin with?
Simple: no one's asking.
And how does it follow a god exists from this? Why not fairies? why not spirits?
Because if fairies and spirits exist, then so does the rest of the paranormal world. And that includes God.
How do you know that this was caused by the supernatural though?
Anything that cannot be explained through science is considered supernatural. Simple
How do you know it isn't following the laws of nature, but we just don't understand how it was able be well preserved?
Preservation is easy. The painting itself is impossible.
Because the definition of miracle is an event not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature and consequently attributed to a supernatural, especially divine, agency.
And here we have the miracle that proves God.
How long will your denial last?
What makes you think that the laws of the universe apply to the maker of the universe?
God is eternal. The universe is not.
You would be able to explain, the reasoning within the article that shows a god existing, no? Or the reasoning on why to believe a god exists, no?
You did not read the research, have you?
So they weren't directly lying, they were being misleading, by leaving out key information. either way, it's dishonest isn't it?
A persons inability to ask questions is his own fault.
The answer is readily available. You just have to ask, it's that simple.
If everything in it was true, that just means a painting was really well preserved beyond our understanding, that just means we need a better understanding, not that a god had anything to do with it
If its just age, i wouldn't find a problem in your argument. But the thing is, the test results show that not only was the painting impossible to be done by human hands, but also practically inexplainable due to how intricate it is, to the point that not even modern technology can imitate it.
Only denial can get you out of here.
im too tired right now.
Just passing by to say that I read your argument and I might reply tomorrow. :)
I have a low research in sociology. But in my opinion, I would answer that civilization has made us monogamous
In prehistoric times, it is recommended that the superior/riches male should have as much wives as he can support. This will allow him to have alot of descendants and considering that the survival rate is low, reproduction is vital.
However, as our population grew and life-span increased, the need for reproduction was replaced with the need for loyal mates. We no longer need the rich to bear more children but we do need children whom will raised properly and will be efficient members of the society.
Cheating is an act of disloyalty and it proves that he/she wouldn't be a good parent. It is frowned upon by the civilized world.
Thats my scientific opinion without using any moral arguments. But I cannot be so sure. My research here is weak
The content of the two articles is not the same.
One is unreviewed, the other is compressed.
Yes, it means they lied about it not fading, so they can't be trusted.
Theres a difference between lying and not speaking. They are ready to answer any questions but it is not their loss if you wont ask.
They lied about it not having any paint on it. They lied about NASA testing it.
sigh
Technically speaking, it was the crowds who caused the misinformation not the Church. You cannot just lie about a persons report as it can get you arrested for Defamation.
All the reports are readily available online. All are approved by scientific agencies and all you can do now is to deny the findings. Not that it concerns me, though.
Read the top of your source "http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4201"
It was made by the same author. And I believe that the skeptoid link is the compressed one as it was published just 3 years ago.
My source already addresses that. See the paragraph with a large font.
sigh
Your link did not work. But dont worry, I know where it came from.
Indeed, it has been admitted by the church that the painting has undergone several restorations but does that changed anything?
It has survived 500 years of exposure to candles, weather, human hands and insects. Survived a bomb and acid exposure. Dont tell me you are going to force a simple argument and deny the bigger picture?
P.S
Dr. Callahan is a devote Catholic and a supporter of the Guadalupe.
The documentation is irrelevant since the painting is a fake.
Suit yourself.
The reason why we rule than land, sea and sky is because of our superior intelligence
Precisely. If evolution seeks adaptability, it would have improved the body of small rodents but instead, evolution decided to create humans who can not only create weapons but also test everything he knows.
Philosophy never improved our survival rate. And yet, it exists. Would you still believe that evolution is a random chance?
I vote for intelligent design.
sigh
I have read much of those so called "debunked". All of them ended up as laughing stock in Christian forums. Hell, did you even read the comments below your source?
All of them are mocking the writer primarily because:
1. It ignored the fact that the tilma lasted for 500 years when it should have decayed in 5.
2. It avoids the topics that NASA tested it and came to the conclusion that it was not painted with human hands nor made up of any known material.
3. They forces the argument on lack of documentation or contradicting records. But seriously, do you really expect a 500 year old aztect tribe to write accurately?
we are the most adaptable to change
No were not. The most adaptable to change are ants, rats, cockroaches, grass and phytoplanktons.By the way, ever heard of carnivorous plants?
If evolution seeks to create the most flexible species, then it shouldnt have created humans who focuses on intelligence. Humans are one of the weakest predators in the planet, we have no body weapon to use and yet, we now rule the land, sea and sky. Gee, I wonder why
Using theism, all of those equates to the same thing.
God, Heaven, Hell and Prophets.
Perhaps as ridiculous as the purpose of evolution and existence of life, isnt it?
Evolution is real, but why does it happen? If it seeks survival of the fittest, cockroaches has already won. If it seeks long life, trees has made it to the top. But no, the one who sits on the top of the food chain is the one who has no claws, no fangs, not even a good birthrate.
And to add insult to injury, this animals are the only ones who question his beliefs.
I choose intelligent design over nihilistic denials
