Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[John]

You are trying to twist and force an answer which I have already given you,

Then tell me what scientific evidence there is for the existence of Adam and Eve as the first and only humans on earth as you seem to not want to tell the other bloke. I have read back your work and am yet to see where you have given the scientific evidence?

 

[Number37]

Nowhere have I previously used the phrase "scientifically impossible" or anything akin to that.

Just address the statement I've made and you won't get too confused.

"There's no scientific evidence for the existence of a first man and woman. Adam and Eve are no more than literary figures."

Left turn, left turn, left turn, left turn oh look we're back where we started.

You keep repeating that there is no scientific evidence... cool, but does that mean that it is scientifically impossible?

 

[Bennett.]

And that's scientific evidence, is it?

Did I suggest that it was?

 

[Bennett.]

Then tell me what scientific evidence there is for the existence of Adam and Eve as the first and only humans on earth as you seem to not want to tell the other bloke. I have read back your work and am yet to see where you have given the scientific evidence?

Keep reading champ, you'll find my response

 

[John]

Keep reading champ, you'll find my response

No. I have asked you a question now you answer that question instead of acting like an arrogant toss pot CHAMP.

 

[Roylion]

You keep repeating that there is no scientific evidence... cool, but does that mean that it is scientifically impossible?

According to the nuclear DNA studies it appears that one original homo sapiens sapiens male and one original homo sapiens sapiens female that co-existed as the ONLY homo sapiens sapiens on the planet could not have happened. So according to the DNA evidence, 'Adam' and 'Eve' as the first and only humans on earth (as described in Genesis/Quran) did not happen. If you want to equate that with 'impossibility" so be it.

The multiplicity of traced DNA descents suggest there were no less than 10,000 humans on earth at any one time, possibly at late as 70,000 years ago.

 

[Bennett.]

No. I have asked you a question now you answer that question instead of acting like an arrogant toss pot CHAMP.

I never said I claimed to have or know proof, in fact all I did was question Roy's absolute statements.
Now, cut the tired angry atheist act. It's boring.

 

[Roylion]

Did I suggest that it was?

No, but you seem to be suggesting by your statement "Well the very thing you disparage has remained pretty consistent" as if the claimed "Word of God" was some sort of valid evidence because of its consistency. Clearly I value the available scientific evidence far more than the contents of an unchanging "holy" text put together 1,400-3,000 years ago.

 

[John]

I never said I claimed to have or know proof, in fact all I did was question Roy's absolute statements.
Now, cut the tired angry atheist act. It's boring.

I am not angry. This is the internet. And for what it's worth you started the patronising "Champ" s**t when asked a question that was asked without rancour (or are you just another angry god botherer?)

 

[Roylion]

I never said I claimed to have or know proof, in fact all I did was question Roy's absolute statements.

Not very successfully. I still haven't seen any evidence from you refuting "There's no scientific evidence for the existence of a first man and woman. Adam and Eve are no more than literary figures."

 

[Bennett.]

No, but you seem to be suggesting by your statement "Well the very thing you disparage has remained pretty consistent" as if the claimed "Word of God" was some sort of valid evidence because of its consistency. Clearly I value the available scientific evidence far more than the contents of an unchanging "holy" text put together 1,400-3,000 years ago.

No, once again you are misreading and misrepresenting.

I remarked that the things you put your trust in are constantly changing and being superseded. You then tried to make a dismissive comment about the unchanging scripture, which is one of its strengths! The things I put my trust in are consistent and add value to my life.

 

[Bennett.]

I am not angry. This is the internet. And for what it's worth you started the patronising "Champ" s**t when asked a question that was asked without rancour (or are you just another angry god botherer?)

Well in fact you alluded to the belief that I was avoiding the question when in fact I'd answered the question. I didn't wish to go through the whole argument with someone else who had said they read everything.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

No need to get narky!
The best explanation proferred by the know-it-alls is that God doesn't exist because science can explain everything to a comfortable satisfaction. Science can explain the whys and hows of many things it just can't explain why humans are profoundly influenced by religion. Calling religion stupid, fairy tale, myth does not explain why humans are so profoudly influenced by it.

the church of "you can't explain" that seems very popular these days.

you would have some semblance of a point if people weren't also profoundly influenced by many other things.
the writings of Solon's laws for example have helped shape and define the entire worlds political sphere, written over 500 years before the tales of jesus started too emerge.
Plato and Aristotle are what has led to entire fields of which people dedicate their life to from philosophy to science.
hell medicine has been the greatest impact on human life no matter the region or culture every single religion concerns itself with healing on some degree.
the influence of astronomy on pre-historic man is what has led to most modern religions from summerians to the babylons every ancient cultures first depictions are of the skies above long before there was any writing, sure many draw men, many draw animals, many draw imaginary creatures, many draw even the abstract. but they ALL drew the nights sky. and that influence is still retained as the society evolves.
people are profoundly influenced by everything from a rainstorm to a leaf falling off a tree dedicating their entire lives to whatever they found themselves moved by from that point on, humans are influenced by everything around them. especially abstract ideas which they can contribute to and in turn influence. all religions have been influenced adopted and adapted by MAN.

a "know it all" (first time i've seen it used to describe people who freely admit they don't know everything) merely uses the fact that for all the wars, attempted genocides, forced conversions and attempts to control both speech and thought itself. points out the fundamental flaws in religious propaganda. the simple there is no evidence for god. no religion is more right or more correct then any other. proponents of "god" like to think there pathetic religion is "true and correct" and dismiss all others, based on what? oh other religions don't make sense, other religions can't be true because they got X wrong, oh X has proven it is false.

in the absence of evidence of a god existing (and no your books aren't evidence of a god, they are evidence of belief in a god) then there's only two logical stances to take, either A all gods are real or B no god's are real. because you have no way to discern the "true" god you have no way to know its impossible. you show me one single religious person on earth who doesn't dismiss other gods and cultural beliefs as mere superstition and i'll show you the worlds most blatant liar. the only people who don't think that X religion's followers are being misled are the ones following it.

Science however does not care for what you think is right. it care only for evidence and so far the evidence has said numerous times your all wrong.
Its not about explaining everything there's trillions of things science doesn't know and that's kind of the point, unlike religion Science doesn't provide answers. it gives you the tools to ask Questions. So far when we've asked questions, the evidence keeps showing that thousand year old books are riddled with errors and with so many errors in the books, why should anyone believe the claims about gods?

so now that you've skimmed read most of that let me ask you a question? what happens if people ever figure out why people are profoundly influenced by religion? what happens if its merely a function of the human brain for evolutionary purposes, that is no longer needed? functionally no more important then the appendix?

and to save you the time what happens if we found out that its because god really exists?................ quite simple, i'll believe in god there will be evidence we'll actually know! but right know WE don't know, you DON'T KNOW. You're choosing a positive claim based on nothing.

let me ask you a better question, what happens if we never know? that's what this is really about isn't it?

 

[John]

Well in fact you alluded to the belief that I was avoiding the question when in fact I'd answered the question. I didn't wish to go through the whole argument with someone else who had said they read everything.

I "alluded" to nothing. I have not read this thread in its entirety so have no idea as to you answering the question. But after the 3 or 4 pages/posts that I have read it was not a good look for you as you seemed more keen on not answering the question.

 

[Bennett.]

I "alluded" to nothing. I have not read this thread in its entirety so have no idea as to you answering the question. But after the 3 or 4 pages/posts that I have read it was not a good look for you as you seemed more keen on not answering the question.

That was probably not the correct assumption then

 

[Roylion]

I remarked that the things you put your trust in are constantly changing and being superseded.

You did. One of science's strengths. Each new discovery / technological advance (such as the ability to sequence DNA) hopefully brings us closer to the truth.

You then tried to make a dismissive comment about the unchanging scripture, which is one of its strengths!

And your statement that what I put my "trust" in wasn't dismissive? In terms of evidence to support a premise, I don't see an ancient unchanging text as a strength at all. If an unchanging scripture gives you some sort of security and comfort, so be it. That doesn't mean I'm going to accept the contents of said text in preference to the available scientific evidence - changing or not.

The things I put my trust in are consistent and add value to my life.

That's your world view. So be it. It isn't mine and on a public discussion board, if I have the inclination, I'll continue to question claims made by adherents of said texts. Especially if what they say, flies in the face of the available scientific evidence supported by the consensus of scientists in their various fields of expertise.

 

[Bennett.]

That's your world view. So be it. It isn't mine and on a public discussion board, if I have the inclination, I'll continue to question claims made by adherents of said texts. Especially if what they say, flies in the face of the available scientific evidence supported by the consensus of scientists in their various fields of expertise.

Until new experts and new evidence appear which has the potential to render all previous claims so strongly adhered to invalid.

 

[Roylion]

Until new experts and new evidence appear which has the potential to render all previous claims so strongly adhered to invalid.

But so what. No scientific view is unchangeable. Any scientific proposition is falsifiable. There are numerous pieces of empirical evidence that could falsify evolution for example, but none of those have been found. When they find that rabbit in the Pre-cambrian era, then we may question the package of evolutionary theory, including possibiliy that of humans. Until then, every piece of evidence that has been found merely adds to the weight of evidence that evolutionary theory, including that of humans, is correct. Hence my statement on 'Adam' and 'Eve', which on the basis of all the available scientific evidence across a number of fields, I see no valid reason to doubt, irrespective of what various "holy" texts might claim to the contrary.

 

[Boston tiger]

Maybe Adam and Eve or as I like to call them Ug and Erk where the first humans that had through evolutionary process able to pass on the notion of the God concept and before that the humans where basically glorified apes without intuitive thought.

 

[clogged]

Until new experts and new evidence appear which has the potential to render all previous claims so strongly adhered to invalid.

What are you implying here? That because science makes itself contestable, all findings by it are contestable, and therefore invalid?

By contrast your religion asserts that nothing in it is contestable, it is all the truth. Of course, many elements of it have been disproven, which kind of invalidates its original assertion and its demand for literal interpretation, don't you think?

Why do you have issue with science's ability to be falsified and no problem with the basic rigid assumptions of your belief system being falsified from the ground up?

 

[Bennett.]

What are you implying here? That because science makes itself contestable, all findings by it are contestable, and therefore invalid?

By contrast your religion asserts that nothing in it is contestable, it is all the truth. Of course, many elements of it have been disproven, which kind of invalidates its original assertion and its demand for literal interpretation, don't you think?

Why do you have issue with science's ability to be falsified and no problem with the basic rigid assumptions of your belief system being falsified from the ground up?

Firstly, I LOVE that science is continually changing and updating itself and improving itself. The issue I am getting to is that people who are usually vehemently anti religious trumpet science as a God of sorts, and use it as the foundation to attack religion, but when the science changes, the parameters change, the foundation for the attacking changes. This is an extremely wishy washy basis to create a foundation to do anything from.

As far as religion is concerned, it's survived 2000 years of scrutiny from much more intelligent people than you or I, yet has survived and grown. There is yet to be anything that has completely discredited or disproved the bible for example, and there are answers to every question that you can ask, the problem is if you are willing to accept the answers. Sometimes they are admittedly difficult to deal with.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Firstly, I LOVE that science is continually changing and updating itself and improving itself. The issue I am getting to is that people who are usually vehemently anti religious trumpet science as a God of sorts, and use it as the foundation to attack religion, but when the science changes, the parameters change, the foundation for the attacking changes. This is an extremely wishy washy basis to create a foundation to do anything from.

As far as religion is concerned, it's survived 2000 years of scrutiny from much more intelligent people than you or I, yet has survived and grown. There is yet to be anything that has completely discredited or disproved the bible for example, and there are answers to every question that you can ask, the problem is if you are willing to accept the answers. Sometimes they are admittedly difficult to deal with.

that's pure Bullshit. religion spread across the world through blood, nothing to do with scrutiny or intelligence. it was spread by the sword and policed by fire.
its complete bullshit, there is no firmament, the stars aren't fixed points in the sky. there's dozens of examples where the books are flat out wrong. what you've written isn't just incorrect, its a flat out lie. 2000 years 1800 of which was spent slaughtering anyone who questioned it.

this is the legacy of your faith.

your own jesus would be disgusted with you if any of his teachings are true.

 

[CountryRace]

Why was Christianity adopted in rome

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Why was Christianity adopted in rome

long story short? in this sign, conquer! a man biding for the throne see's a "sign from god", he adorns his troops in the Christian cross declares himself emperor of the west, picks up several thousand Christian militia men to replenish his depleted forces, then marches on the imperial city.

 

[CountryRace]

Were there other reasons outside of " it was spread by the sword and policed by fire."?