HelenM

I wasn't saying you sound stupid. I was only trying to ascertain what you're hoping for from IIDB. You're not wasting my time; it's up to me whether I read your posts or not. I won't ever blame you for the time I spend here

Helen

Inconnu

Religious claims demand belief from others under threat. Scientific claims do not. We require no proof of the existance of a planet, for example,or the construct of an atom from the scientific community because we can reject or believe it with absolutely no repercussions whatsoever. A claim of a supernatural being with the power and capablity to inflict pain and suffering lest ye not believe is a diffrent thing entirely.

aatayyab

Mr.Inconnu
science tells us everything's existance and its reason, but no answer to our OWN creation except that DARWIN theory which makes me vomit on such a thought that I am NOT a human being, but a monkey dressed in trouser/shirt sitting on a PC addressing you not as a usual monkey ligua such as HOO HOO HOO, but as Mr.Inconnu, How do you do.....

Amir Ali Tayyab
http://aatayyab.com

Paul2

I don't understand. What exactly about being a relative of the ape do you find uncomfortable? Besides, we are not direct descendants of the ones that exist today, but we happen to share a distant common ancestor.

Biff the unclean

However, I must ask you how much of what you see and hear in the science book has been validated by you? Its not the Hypothetical concept of " But I can " (Replicate).
There is nothing hypothetical about it at all. Before any experiment is accepted by science it must be replicated.
In religion you can pull any ridiculous story out of your butt that you please, invisible supermen seem to be your favorite. But if there is no way to check your claims then there is no reason to accept them.

Your misrepresentation of the " G-d is everywhere" is in fact tied to the primitive notion of personalize-ing the concept of G-d ...and thus embedded deeply in most societies.
Unfortunately the irony of your condemning others for being primitive while in the same sentence superstitiously not spelling out the word God has been lost on no one on this board.

You are right : The Key is really" Perception"

However, we are limited to 5 senses and have a very poor concept of Time and Space.
Unless you have more senses than the rest of us do, or a super duper anti-time and space machine then you aren't perceiving God anymore than I am. And I don't percieve any Gods at all.
Which means that you are making claims that you cannot support. Shame on you.

Thus , in theory it should be harder for you to prove the lack of existence for G-d.
It's no problem at all to show that God is a fictional character.
He has the attributes and the limitations that only fictional characters possess.
If you are going to claim this God is nonfiction then you are going to have to produce him. No ranting, no raving, no talking about yourself in the third person, no word games, no leaving out vowels. It couldn't be simpler; all you have to do is what you have to do if you claim that anything exists. You supply proof.
If you can't even do a simple thing like that then the only honest path you can take is to cease claiming that God exists.

Biff the unclean

Ali, I spend my days working with gorillas who understand English. They speak using a form of ASL--the sign language that deaf Americans use. And they can read and to a lesser extent write.
I can assure you that you are every bit as much a primate as they are.
They don't mind being related to us, and I am proud to be related to such noble beings as them.

River

These are well stated subjective rhetoric. We live in a time where people demand proof. Where is your proof?

MollyMac

aatayyab, First you say this:

… try some good reasoning instead of acting like "whatever you say, I oppose". Thanks for SWALLOWING this critic since I am also just like you, on the quest to find out the truth.

Then you say this:

science tells us everything's existance and its reason, but no answer to our OWN creation except that DARWIN theory which makes me vomit on such a thought that I am NOT a human being, but a monkey dressed in trouser/shirt sitting on a PC addressing you not as a usual monkey ligua such as HOO HOO HOO, but as Mr.Inconnu, How do you do.....

..which suggests you’re not too impressed with good reasoning – have you actually read Darwin - or any books on evolutionary theory? Is ‘vomiting’ what you’d call a ‘scholarly’ response (since you claim to be a scholar)?

To me you said:

PURPOSE is everything. Nothing exists in this world or universe without purpose. Try to come out with anything, just about anything, even shhiit got a purpose

aatayyab, this is a semantical ‘sleight of hand’ . Use a particular word that has more than one shade of meaning i.e. ‘purpose’. Make a very provocative assertion as you did earlier i.e. “I hope, I made you people feel quite ASHAMED of yourself for existing out there without any purpose.” Then, when somebody challenges that assertion, as I did earlier, use the same word – ‘purpose’ – again, but this time use it with its other meaning and behave as if the meanings are the same.

OK, let’s play it your way: You say that shit has a purpose. Personally, I’m not sure. Obviously ‘shitting’ (verb) has a purpose – but ‘shit’ (noun)? I’m not a biologist so I don’t know – I’ll keep an open mind. But if that is what you mean by ‘purpose’, then I concede I was wrong. Of course there is a purpose to our existence – and that purpose is to reproduce. In which case (to return to your earlier provocation) I have nothing to be ashamed of for I have borne and raised two healthy children and have therefore contributed to the reproduction of the species.

Now, shall we stop playing games? You said this:

However, they are not making any BIG difference in the world out there since they got no PURPOSE. I give purpose very big importance.

You certainly give the word purpose very big importance. But what do you REALLy mean by it? Your next sentence is a non sequiteur:

For example, I love my daughter, not because she is my daughter, but because I have her innocent looks and beliefs around me. I try to see God's beauty in every child.

If you really want to discuss these issues, you need to be clear about your definitions - (And let’s keep bodily FUNCTIONS out of it.)

Otherwise don't bother with the provocative statements.

River

Your statement is true.

However, I digress.

Science has its limits but is often portrayed as fact , although in the end they are theories.

For example , the fossil record you see is incomplete. We try to forge a spectrum of lineage with only minimal info. How much of what we view is truly, fragmented?

The places with the oldest fossil records are also the places where Civilization have begun....However these countries include Egypt, Iraq and Saudi Arabia....where excavation and archaelogy is generally forbidden or limited....thus we will NEVER find out our true ancestry from using Science alone. Instead we rely on remote fossils found in Mongolia, and Australia.....

and recent fossils of these so called Humanoid , Simian-Humanoid or whatever bear very close resemblance to modern humans. And this fictional cast is painted over them( their physique, their skulls) rendering them into beasts.

River

-MollyMac

Now, the REAL question is ....? Have you ever read DARWIN? Perhaps you have, but closed the book when you came upon these words......


In the sixth chapter of Origin, "Difficulties on Theory," Darwin remarked, "Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered…."

In his chapter on instinct he conceded such "simple" instincts as bees making a beehive could be "sufficient to overthrow my whole theory." For example, "nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organisms and instincts should have been perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations…." And to think that the eye could evolve "by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."[ CHARLES DARWIN ORIGIN OF SPECIES]


Darwin confessed, "But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?…Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"


(In his chapter on the imperfections in the geological record) Darwin complained that the complete lack of fossil intermediates in the geological record was perhaps "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." He further confessed that other difficulties he discussed here were "all undoubtedly of the gravest nature…."[CHARLES DARWIN: ORIGIN OF SPECIES]