REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[inked]

JD wrote: "Yes - but then again. A lot of what is being argued here is not proveable - nor is it even supported historically - such as genesis. Just because there are geneaologies - doesn't make it true."



Yes. And lots of what is reported about Einstein is partaking of the same problems. It is reliability. Some of the stories about Einstein may be of such poor fit to what is known that they are described as apocryphal or legend in the common language usage of those terms. Some seem more apropos. It is in the assessment of the relliability of the data that we come to the personal encounter. If the reliability is high, then we must assess the claims made per the report. If the reliability is poor, we say we do not accept the account of the incident and therefor not the claims.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Whatever new vision of spirituality that emerges will quickly be set upon by those of you who have security isues and needs. It will be codified, dogmatized, and turned into religion. And then the process will start all over, with the inevitable bloodshed, ignorance, acceptence, and finally complaceny and degeneration.

I personally think it will be more of an individual spiritualism - without the "church" hierarchies we have today. I think many people will go back to nature or in the modern sense - science. I also think that things will be less determined by books, such as the bible - but your own personal beliefs. Same as how many people define heaven to be different than sitting on white fluffy clouds with angels surrounding you with harps.

I do think we are in a time of spiritual evolution, not just with chirstianity - but with all religions around the world.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

how is atheism comforting?

some animist religions, especially from central africa, can be construed as disturbing, not comforting, and they are atheistic

i hate being the last on a page

but to expound further, i think it is the sacrificial elements of some ancient atheistic religions which can be construed by westerners as disturbing

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

including atheism and agnosticism, of course (two VERY "comforting" world views, IMHO )

I have to agree with LCoU and repeat the question - how is atheism and agnostocism comforting?

You seem to have to try to show how they are no different than your belief when you are backed into a rather uncomfortable corner. The thing is - agnostocism is someone not making a claim for or against god and says that either one is possible, ahteism is saying that there is no god. I lean more atheist - because I think god is no more real than the gods of greek and rome, but god is a comfort to many people. However I am probably bit agnostic too - because there is no way to know or not know. To me it would be far more logical to be agnostic than either religious or an athiest - wouldn't you agree?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

theism is comforting to some, as it makes them believe that there is something out there, it removes justifiability, IMO, oh yeh, that car was meant to run over your cat, small child, as god said so, and go willed it to happen, but that means you are not allowed to be sad then, because it was destined to happen.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

So what does that have to do with anything?

It answers your question about how you have genetic diversity with Adam and Eve.

The problem with inbreeding is because of genetic mutations - pure and simple.

Exactly. And with the assumption of Adam and Eve having no mutations, and their children having very few if any, and by the third generation you could marry cousins, and the fourth generation marry further than first cousins, etc. etc., one could see how the prohibition against incest wouldn't need to be around for at least a few generations. And frankly, only the first generation had to marry a sibling. I think after that, those of us with siblings know it is more natural to NOT marry a sibling if you had a choice!

I was showing that there was an assumption one could make that made logical sense as to why there was no prohibition against incest until later on.

We aren't talking about identical twins here.

Right - I wasn't, either. I was showing the great amount of genetic diversity in just ONE couple.

As I said - that still doesn't explain the diverse genepool.

My example showed it very well, IMO. I mean, how much more diverse do you want? We're talking 10 to the 2000+.

I understand geneticas - buyt albinos is a genetic DEFECT. it's not really a good example on your part.

You said you can't get skin colors from white to black with two medium-skinned people. I showed that you can. Yes, albanism is a genetic defect, but that had nothing to do with your question.

You can't get a white from two 100% asians - can you?

What does that have to do with your question? I was showing how Adam and Eve, with medium skin color, could produce ALL types of skin colors in their offspring. After this, if people with asian characteristics migrated to the same place, then they would produce offspring like themselves as they LOST variability.

My opinion. You have no say in my opinion.

I agree

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

well, if the 'adam & eve' refers to two individual people, then the human race has an extremely limited genepool, and i am surprised that i don't have four arms growing out of the side of my head and suchlike

Why would you assume it has to be limited? Please see my post immediately following your post.

Now down the line, if people migrate and isolate, then the gene pool would become more limited, but that doesn't mean it was originally so. In fact, our ancestors would HAVE to have a more diverse genepool than we have today, wouldn't they? We can't lose characteristics that weren't there to begin with!

And how would Adam and Eve have any less genetic variability than what evolution proposes?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Every Civilization must re-discover and re-invent spirituality for itself.

Did I miss where that requirement was written?

Reminds me of those nightmares I have occasionally where I'm at uni and I lost my class list on the first day of classes!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Why would you assume it has to be limited? Please see my post immediately following your post.

Now down the line, if people migrate and isolate, then the gene pool would become more limited, but that doesn't mean it was originally so. In fact, our ancestors would HAVE to have a more diverse genepool than we have today, wouldn't they? We can't lose characteristics that weren't there to begin with!

And how would Adam and Eve have any less genetic variability than what evolution proposes?

i dont 'assume', if i assume, it makes an ass out of u and me
but two people = limited genepool (this is a biological given), unless they were superhumans of course

and you can lose characterisitics that weren't there, a mutation occurs, characteristic wasn't there, the mutant has a normal child, charactyeristic is lost

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It answers your question about how you have genetic diversity with Adam and Eve.

Exactly. And with the assumption of Adam and Eve having no mutations, and their children having very few if any, and by the third generation you could marry cousins, and the fourth generation marry further than first cousins, etc. etc., one could see how the prohibition against incest wouldn't need to be around for at least a few generations. And frankly, only the first generation had to marry a sibling. I think after that, those of us with siblings know it is more natural to NOT marry a sibling if you had a choice!

I was showing that there was an assumption one could make that made logical sense as to why there was no prohibition against incest until later on.

Right - I wasn't, either. I was showing the great amount of genetic diversity in just ONE couple.

Actually you didn't - because genetics wouldn't work like that. That[s why scientists are very concerned with this small pod of whales. They have studied them and they are all descended from ONLY FOUR females. They said the biodiversity is terrible and that the inbreeding is now killing them. So your arguemnt doesn't hold water based on science.

My example showed it very well, IMO. I mean, how much more diverse do you want? We're talking 10 to the 1000+.

That might be your opinion - but that doesn't reflect how genetics actually works.

You said you can't get skin colors from white to black with two medium-skinned people. I showed that you can. Yes, albanism is a genetic defect, but that had nothing to do with your question.

So tell me - when was the last time you saw a 100% asian couple give birth to a white baby. Now that would be one for the science books - because it doesn't happen. It happens only when you seem to try to fit science to account for things in the bible that make no sense.

What does that have to do with your question? I was showing how Adam and Eve, with medium skin color, could produce ALL types of skin colors in their offspring. After this, if people with asian characteristics migrated to the same place, then they would produce offspring like themselves as they LOST variability.

Sorry your argument still makes no sense. You throw in all these conditions and so forth. Don't you think that the people would have MOVED to the various areas as MIXED races? See your argument fits very well into evolution - because SCIENCE shows that skin color is an evolutionary change. Tha the people living close the equator, developed dark skin to protect themselves from the sun. As people moved away - into Europe and so forth, skin color changed because the dark skin was no longer needed.

I agree

Then don't act like I did anything wrong by stating what I said in the manner I said it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Why would you assume it has to be limited? Please see my post immediately following your post.

Now down the line, if people migrate and isolate, then the gene pool would become more limited, but that doesn't mean it was originally so. In fact, our ancestors would HAVE to have a more diverse genepool than we have today, wouldn't they? We can't lose characteristics that weren't there to begin with!

And how is that? How would they have been more genetically diverse? That makes no sense when you are talking about two people versus billions today.

And how would Adam and Eve have any less genetic variability than what evolution proposes?

Because evolution is based on MANY animals changing over time. Not based on ONLY TWO people. There is much more of a gene pool with evolution than with creationism

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

how is atheism comforting?

I'll explain - and I'll start by quoting you:

Originally Posted by LCOU

theism is comforting to some, as it makes them believe that there is something out there, it removes justifiability, IMO, oh yeh, that car was meant to run over your cat, small child, as god said so, and go willed it to happen, but that means you are not allowed to be sad then, because it was destined to happen.

Just as you shared your opinion about how theism can be comforting to some, I'll share my opinion about how atheism can be comforting to some.

IMO, the species of atheism that goes "I don't believe that God/god/gods exist" is VERY comforting in some very important ways - it removes any idea of a judgement by a holy and righteous and powerful God who cares about how we treat our fellow human beings. Whatever you can get away with here, you've gotten away with! congratulations! - NO ONE will hold you to account for your bad acts that aren't caught, least of all a God that doesn't exist. You can steal with impunity, if you're skilled enough, and there will be no consequences. You can even kill someone with impunity if you're skilled and lucky enough - no consequences! You can lie, cheat, whatever you want, as long as you can cover it up, and you've gotten away with it. IMO, that is a very comforting thought.

(preemptive note - I am NOT saying atheists are immoral creeps! Far from it! IMO, many atheists are kinder people than many Christians!! My only point here is that IMO, it can be COMFORTING to believe that God/god/gods who are righteous and holy and powerful and who care how we treat others don't exist when one considers the wrong things one has done. And I certainly hope we all acknowledge that we have done wrong things!)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

i dont 'assume', if i assume, it makes an ass out of u and me
but two people = limited genepool (this is a biological given), unless they were superhumans of course

How is 10 to the 2017 limited?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

IMO, the species of atheism that goes "I don't believe that God/god/gods exist" is VERY comforting in some very important ways - it removes any idea of a judgement by a holy and righteous and powerful God who cares about how we treat our fellow human beings. Whatever you can get away with here, you've gotten away with! congratulations! - NO ONE will hold you to account for your bad acts that aren't caught, least of all a God that doesn't exist. You can steal with impunity, if you're skilled enough, and there will be no consequences. You can even kill someone with impunity if you're skilled and lucky enough - no consequences! You can lie, cheat, whatever you want, as long as you can cover it up, and you've gotten away with it. IMO, that is a very comforting thought.

I have to say thagt I haven't laughed so hard in a long time until I read this. I'm sorry - this is so ridiculous that the only thing I think of of is that you really have no understanding of atheism. But hey - you're entitled to your opinion - just like I'm entitled to think that this was the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time.

BTW - I'll brb - I need to go find my daily victim and kill someone. Being as I have no way to judge right or wrong or anything and I basically feel free to do whatever I want. hey - isn't atheism great - that's the whole reason why I'm atheist.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

How is 1 to the 2017 limited?

that isn't genetic diversity, that isthe probability of two people having two exactly identical offspring, not twins

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

How is 1 to the 2017 limited?

That is only how much it would take until you got an identicle twin (As LCoU says - identical offsrping who are NOT biological twins, ie conceived at the same time). Not the same thing. The majority of the genes would be identical from brother to sister and would continue to be passed on as such.

And since you say there are no beneficial mutations when arguing aginst evolution - I suppose for the sake of argument - we can throw that theory out.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

theism is comforting to some, as it makes them believe that there is something out there, it removes justifiability, IMO, oh yeh, that car was meant to run over your cat, small child, as god said so, and go willed it to happen, but that means you are not allowed to be sad then, because it was destined to happen.

And I really disagree with you here, Chrys, at least as far as the God described in the Bible. I don't see why this should stop anyone from being sad. God Himself is described as being sad (and mad) at tragedies and injustices over and over. I think it is right and good to be sad at tragedies and mad at injustices, and try to do something to fix them.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And I really disagree with you here, Chrys, at least as far as the God described in the Bible. I don't see why this should stop anyone from being sad. God Himself is described as being sad (and mad) at tragedies and injustices over and over. I think it is right and good to be sad at tragedies and mad at injustices, and try to do something to fix them.

yes but surely, if he is all powerful as (some) christians would have me believe, how did he not destine for sdaid cat to get run over?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I have to say thagt I haven't laughed so hard in a long time until I read this. I'm sorry - this is so ridiculous that the only thing I think of of is that you really have no understanding of atheism. But hey - you're entitled to your opinion - just like I'm entitled to think that this was the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time.

BTW - I'll brb - I need to go find my daily victim and kill someone. Being as I have no way to judge right or wrong or anything and I basically feel free to do whatever I want. hey - isn't atheism great - that's the whole reason why I'm atheist.

Did you even read the next paragraph? Why do you misrepresent me?

I'll quote it here, and bold it:

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(preemptive note - I am NOT saying atheists are immoral creeps! Far from it! IMO, many atheists are kinder people than many Christians!! My only point here is that IMO, it can be COMFORTING to believe that God/god/gods who are righteous and holy and powerful and who care how we treat others don't exist when one considers the wrong things one has done. And I certainly hope we all acknowledge that we have done wrong things!)

I repeat- why do you misrepresent me?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

that isn't genetic diversity, that isthe probability of two people having two exactly identical offspring, not twins

It is genetic diversity, since more than one gene is involved in many characteristics, and there's recessive genes and things like that. If you can get that many different people, than surely you would admit there's genetic diversity present.