Finally, proof there is no God.

[Burwood]

cymtriks, all i will say is you are out there with your ideology and maybe you should join chrisgb.

[WinstonWolf]

cymtriks said:

WinstonWolf said:

I am confused because you seem to think any of that matters...

If you are going to argue from an assumed position of intellectual superiority then, yes, it matters.

The statement regarding the OP being wrong (the theory does not disprove a creator, it could equally well be seen as evidence of a creators plan)

..and...

The statement that Noah could have a historical basis

...are not automatically wrong just because you only want to hear one side, and only then when it shouts others down and attempts to ridicule them. See my first sentence.

It can only bare a passing resemblance to anything if what is written is incorrect or fudged.

And what's wrong with Thor, why isn't he god any more?

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I didn't say that at all.

I think it is entirely possible, in theory.

I just said that if we had been created as a biotech experiment (i.e. the alien created us a finished species, which is how I interpreted your premise), there maybe evidence for that on the planet, perhaps by there being no evolutionary link to all the other life on earth. Given that we KNOW we share 50% of our DNA with bananas, the alien creator would have had to create all of life on earth from scratch to cover his tracks and make us look like we evolved. That is possible, but rather less likely than life evolving on the earth from "scratch" so to speak.

If we shared no DNA with other life on earth, that may be considered evidence that we did not evolve on our own planet.

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

I didn't say that at all.

I think it is entirely possible, in theory.

I just said that if we had been created as a biotech experiment (i.e. the alien created us a finished species, which is how I interpreted your premise), there maybe evidence for that on the planet, perhaps by there being no evolutionary link to all the other life on earth. Given that we KNOW we share 50% of our DNA with bananas, the alien creator would have had to create all of life on earth from scratch to cover his tracks and make us look like we evolved. That is possible, but rather less likely than life evolving on the earth from "scratch" so to speak.

If we shared no DNA with other life on earth, that may be considered evidence that we did not evolve on our own planet.

Ajd you misinterpret, once again! Is your continual misinterpretation a result of an issue you can't help or do you do it by choice?

[///ajd]

cymtriks said:

...the theory does not disprove a creator, it could equally well be seen as evidence of a creators plan.

"Having seen some teenagers in the middle of the night with planks and bits of string in a corn field making crop circles, you are concluding that the crop circles are still proof of aliens as some aliens made the teenagers do it."

Does this statement seem logical to you?

It is as logical as your statement about a creator.

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

For ajd, critical information in bold in order for you to reevaluate your response.

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Not really, just perhaps a misunderstanding.

When you said "original lifeform created by an advanced alien bio-scientist" I understood you meant something far more complex than say a banana.

If you just meant the very very first lifeform ever in its most basic form before any other life on earth existed, then, yes, it is possible and I also concede it might be hard to detect evidence for such a subtle 'seeding'.

[Timsta]

drainbrain said:

2 Timothy 2:23

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

[///ajd]

Timsta said:

drainbrain said:

2 Timothy 2:23

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

OMG

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deute...

"28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

So rape is OK then in the bible? WTF?

If he's not discovered, no problem, presumably?

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

OMG

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deute...

"28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

So rape is OK then in the bible? WTF?

If he's not discovered, no problem, presumably?

There is a passage that states a man who rapes a married woman should be put to death, so no, not entirely OK.
Although 'not entirely OK' isn't really acceptable, hmmmmmmm...............

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 4th March 23:21

[Timsta]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Um, both put to death actually as she was not his to rape and she is now 'spoiled goods.'

[Timsta]

///ajd said:

Timsta said:

drainbrain said:

2 Timothy 2:23

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

OMG

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deute...

"28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

So rape is OK then in the bible? WTF?

If he's not discovered, no problem, presumably?

Yep. Because rape isn't bad enough, you basically have to become your rapist's sex slave for the rest of your life. Because, you know, reasons.

[rxtx]

It goes both ways according to Genesis 19:32, but that apparently doesn't seem to be penalised.

[vanordinaire]

The only thing that differentiates science and (any)religion is the belief that 'God' is a being.
Instead, if you looked at god as a concept from which the laws of 'nature' or 'science' originate, then most of the religious texts would make sense to scientists and the science would make sense to religious people. On this basis neither would have any reason to try to disprove the other.

[Vipers]

Either way, it makes sod all difference to mankind. They will argue and debate religion till doomsday. You believe what you believe, if you went through a tunnel during an operation, and can describe goings in that operating theatre during the time you was unconscious, you would believe it.

Who can say it's all lies.

I accept evolution, but I can accept also that a being came to this earth in a space ship, performed some miricals etc, and the people worshipped them/him, and for reasons unbeknown to us called him God.

The rest in the bible I think is mainly fantasy.

Sorted, end of thread.

P.S. I am not joking, that is my belief.

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I think this sort of thing is where some atheists find the idea of intelligent people believing in religion difficult to understand - though as I've said in the past it seems there must be some kind of genetic brain function reason that the two are clearly not mutually exclusive.

How can you read a book that basically says "rape is OK if you get away with it, otherwise marry the victim", and not question what this really implies (shouts) about the underlying principles / origins of religion. The belief gene it seems puts some sort of barrier in the way of seeing through the rather obvious contradiction here. What sort of God would really promote such a moral - other than a dodgey man-made one, keen to promote a sexist dark age prejudices against women.

[anonymous-user]

Once again AJD, the book was of those times, unfortunately some things reflect the culturally and socially acceptable norms that happened to be in place then. The majority of Christians are happy to question the book and reject what they don't see as appropriate today, call that pick and choose or whatever, it seems to demonstrate possibly one reason why you are not religious - i.e. You prefer to deal in black and white, 100% or 0%, no compromise. It isn't a fault to be prepared to question and reject parts of a book.

[Moonhawk]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Doesn't matter - it will still be verifiable and falsifiable using scientific techniques of the day - that is the key point.

Besides - we know artificially seeding other worlds is possible - in fact we have likely already done it ourselves, so it is entirely consistent with current scientific knowledge.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 5th March 07:55

[jmorgan]

Moonhawk said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Doesn't matter - it will still be verifiable and falsifiable using scientific techniques of the day - that is the key point.

Even so, take a reasonable well educated person from 300 years ago and explain the working of a toaster, he/she will probably think it is a good idea but no use without sliced bread. Do we arbitrarily assume people from days gone by would be awed? That is to say the thinkers of the time. There are people today who would not be able to explain the working of a toaster but have state of the art TV hanging on the wall. I can see religious fundamentalists from ages past having an issue.

[Alpinestars]

vanordinaire said:

The only thing that differentiates science and (any)religion is the belief that 'God' is a being.
Instead, if you looked at god as a concept from which the laws of 'nature' or 'science' originate, then most of the religious texts would make sense to scientists and the science would make sense to religious people. On this basis neither would have any reason to try to disprove the other.

Deep.