The conditions essential for creating man or animal. - The way how God creates man and animal (Sep/15/2007 )
I'm so glad i dont take part in these disscusions any more
keep it up tho as its an interesting read
dom
Do what ever you want. Its a free world.
When did I say that you can not do this or that, by the way?
However, if you want to sell you stuff to the rest of the world, you have crossed the line.
If you want a debate, do it scientifically. Show your proves, dont give us selected scripts with YOUR interpretation. This works well for people who share the same view points with you, but will it work for the others?
"My religion is the correct one, yours is not." Isn't this is a unique feature of vertually all religion forms?
Call us "infidels", "non-believers" and you expect any respect from us?
We believe in our data, not some fairy tales.
Don’t make stabs in the dark genehunter…I used the word “infidels” so call me out..leave beccaff and merlav out of this. Was there anyone here trying to convert you to their faith? When have we ever misrepresented the existence of God and the reason for our faith as a scientific fact? When did we mention that our God/religion is better than others’ or having none at all? Did you actually read and comprehend what beccaff was saying. And respect, I don’t expect that from you? Have you ever really paid attention to what you callously write..to quote you (and just in this thread alone):
"All forms of religions are among the most wasteful human activities in human history….”
“In my view, religions of all forms are as bad as smoking and chemical abuse…”
“….you guys can scare off someone who is weak and be willing to believe that crap…”
“Your backward thinking, primitive religious teaching led the Arabs to this point from once the peak of the human civilization…”
“If your Quran has all the answer, you Arabs would not be in this shape…”
“Yes, brianwashed will be the right terminology to describe this…”
So where are these scientific data that you’re bragging you have to refute eanassir’s claims (how nice to always have pernese to provide all your scientific arguments)…all I could read are your personal attacks on the man, his religion, his race and all religions and followers in general but you’re up in arms when I used the word “infidel”…so please don’t throw respect to my face.
Why don’t you stick to the technical forums where I would recognise your authority but certainly not on matters of faith, especially not on mine nor on human understanding and mutual respect (for these just keep your narrow-minded judgment to yourself)? And if these discussions were such a waste of time for you why are you even posting in this thread ..it’s not really to add anything to it but just to demean it. 4 posts and you have to rudely interrupt!
I would’ve welcomed comments or an exchange of witty, creative even deranged friendly “insults” (like what I usually do with hobglobin who gives as good as he gets) but I think coming from you they are meant either to shut us up or put us down…tell me I’m mistaken.
Gosh, you just needed an excuse to jump in and that’s my use of the word “infidels”…it’s actually what I teasingly call my atheist friends and aren’t you one (not my friend but rather an atheist), bec they’re proud to wear it like a badge…and me… I’ve been there, done that, realized it wasn’t for me so I circled back. Do you think that choice is f*cking easy to make? With the same token that it’s so easy for you to presume arrogantly that you know everything about us believers and that you have the right to judge us? You set this tone so you decide where you wanna take this…
Merlav: lo siento mucho por esta locura..
Beccaff: I’m sorry…I guess I need to take another time out (you know for reflection, reconciliation esp for this holiday season) but if he/she makes another post much nastier than mine…I’ll be back with the poison darts..oh no..maybe just a tranquilizer gun (less barbaric)…but if he/she apologises, I’d apologise more. Didn't I just predict all of this?
Dominic: I'm so glad someone's amused (wish I could feel the same)..
not turning the other cheek,
casandra
I know you were half jorking, but frankly I dont care about how you religious people really think about athiest/non-belivers/disbelievers.
As far as my exchanges with eanassir’s posts, the guy obviously knows little about biology and chemistry, yet he acted like an authority solely based on whatever scripts he could find, added little bit of his own interpretation.
There was a very nice rebattle after his post, he decided not to response directly, and of course, all he did was add more scripts and fancy terms.
I felt at that moment that this is nothing but nonsense. From the hindside, I agree there should be better ways to express myself.
[quote name='beccaf22' date='Dec 5 2007, 05:16 AM' post='118976']
Unfortunately this can never be a scientific debate, at least at its core... we can debate things like mechanisms for evolution etc. but, (and I think this is a point that alot of people somehow miss especially non-scientists) science will NEVER be able to prove or disprove the existence of God, therefore it literally cannot be discussed in scientific terms, as I mentioned previously, don't forget that it takes faith, NOT SCIENCE, to believe that there is not a God just as much as it takes faith, NOT SCIENCE, to believe that there is one... Science has no position either way...
Care to explain why this powerful God who is believed the creator of this material world, himself can not exist without your faith, and his existance can not be materialized?
I'm interested in people's response to the comment on the fact that believing in data from journals (without reproducing it yourself) is similar to belieiving in scripture, you don't know that the data is true but you trust that it is and work according to those paradigms. If we, as scientists, didn't have faith in data we couldn't progress much. Is that not true? (sometimes we later find the data to be wrong/unreproducable/forged)
Because we are self-policing. Bad apples will be found and weeded out. So by large we trust published works, until found otherwise. I see nothing wrong with it. If you prove the existance of the god, I will believe it. If you can't or just making hand-waving guesture, I am sorry I can not do that.
[quote name='casandra' date='Dec 5 2007, 07:43 AM' post='118995']
Why don’t you stick to the technical forums where I would recognise your authority but certainly not on matters of faith, especially not on mine nor on human understanding and mutual respect (for these just keep your narrow-minded judgment to yourself)?
I also noticed that this seems to be the only place for you to show your linguistics talent. Dont you have anything more to offer to this community? 
Yay! I would LOVE to! I really am having fun here, I think it is important to try not to be too personal with these comments although they are very personal issues, the fact that I choose to have faith in God does not make me equivalent to the fundamentalist Christian factions that pervade Christianity today, please don't assume that I do not try to think critically about these issues.
So here is a nice long statement about the above question which I have come across during my study and am currently thinking I agree with: (from http://people.eku.edu/falkenbergs/relrole.htm) Please note that this does come from a Christian viewpoint but I still think the arguments are valid for other religions as well.
How do Science and Religion Fit Together?
Is science going to eliminate the need for God?
Every new scientific discovery seems to take another job away from God.
Christians have worried about this since the beginning of science. We used to believe that every morning, God called out the angels to hitch up the heavenly horses load the sun in the big chariot and start towing the sun across the heavens. We used to believe that God personally held each of the stars in place in the sky. Now they tell us it is all managed by gravity. A lot of things that used to be explained as acts of God are now explained by science. A lot of religious people worry that if science explains everything, people will get the idea that we don't need God at all.
This is a misunderstanding of the nature of science.
Science Can Be Used To Answer Important Questions
Science can work on providing answers to certain very important questions
How did we get here?
When did we get here?
Where did we come from?
What is life?
What does it take to sustain life?
What factors contribute to quality of life?
In what ways does culture and lifestyle affect quality of life?
What can be done to aleviate mental and physical suffering?
How can we cure a particular disease?
The Limits of Science.
Science can only deal with observable, measurable, phenomena.
Science can provide information which can be used to help make a decision but frequently cannot tell you what to decide.
Religion Deals With The Hard Questions
Science does not provide answers to the hard questions
Why are we here?
What is the meaning of life?
What is the purpose of life?
How should we live?
What kind of people should we be?
How should we act?
How should we treat each other?
Humans have spiritual needs (a need for answers to the hard questions) which, in nearly every society, culture, and era, are dealt with by their religions.
The Limits of Religion.
Religion isn't good at dealing with scientific issues. Science isn't good at dealing with religious issues. You run into trouble when people try to use religion to deal with issues best handled by science and when scientists try to use science to deal with issues best handled by religion.
Religion Impacts Science
For Example: A person whose religion leads her/him to be a pacifist is unlikely to do research designed to make missiles more effective weapons.
Science Impacts Religion
We used to believe:
earth is flat
epilepsy was caused by demon possession
being left handed indicated that satan was controlling your life
Scientific information has corrected these misunderstandings and made our religion more humane and understanding.
Good ethics strengthens science. Good science strengthens religion.
Avoiding the God of the Gaps.
Main-line Christian theologians (both Protestant and Catholic) are careful to guard against the error of looking for "proof" of God in Science. Science can't prove God and science can't disprove God. For example: currently the most widely accepted theory of the origin of the universe is the "Big Bang Theory." The big bang theory sounds like the creation story in Genesis. Christians must resist the temptation to conclude that science now supports the Genesis story. In a few years, decades, or centuries, a different theory may emerge that handles the data better than the big bang theory. A change in the scientific theory has no impact on God. God knows the real dope on the origin of the universe. Changes in our limited human understanding of such phenomena may help us make better decisions but it has no effect on God.
So I guess the short answer to your question is that I think that my faith has nothing to do with the existence of God, God will exist whether I believe it or not, and science can't be used to study God because science studies physical things and religion/belief in God is more about spiritual things, issues that will not and cannot be addressed by science...
So in your words, you are not sure, or you dont care if the God really indeed created this world or not. Am I wrong?