The primary flaw in intelligent design

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Well we pretty much know that everything that exists involved energy, correct? Thunder, life, whatever you want to come up with... it all had to start somewhere and something had to fuel it, and whatever that spark was, I'm pretty sure we're attributing that to God.

I once heard this put another way by a Muslim. "Because every movement requires a prior action, there must have been an original, eternal, unmoveable mover". I think that's a fine hypothesis. But that's where I find it illogical, assuming it's correct, to attribute this "unmovable mover" to God. God is this being of whom we attribute human characteristics; consciousness, compassion, jealousy, angry, love. These are all products of biological beings that exist as a result of DNA and a complex asortment of minerals and chemical reactions. Why should they suddenly occure independently of these so-far-necessary factors?

If god doesn't have these attributes, why call it God? Or, why not call it God, but maybe then "God" isn't a being to be worshipped, only a unique singularity that caused a chain reaction of events.

Whatever God is, he/she/it has the power to create. Making something from nothing has to have an explanation behind it, and intelligent design seems legitimate to me.

It is legitimate; a legitimate hypothesis. "How'd this happen? Here's an idea...." To me it takes the mystery out of life when you stop at the first idea we can think of, when there could be incredibly ideas out there so amazing our brains cannot yet formulate them! To me it hinders this process of discovery to stop at the simple answer, even though we're far from any conclusive evidence.
Try deep introspective meditation some time, maybe even with Salvia as I do once in a while. Sometimes answer can come to you that you wouldn't have even considered. Even if they don't, it is rewarding merely to strive for them.

Also, is it better to believe in something in this life or to believe that you'll never know what that something is? I'd rather live with faith, personally.

I'd rather not jump to assumptions just to satsify my need to know. The Universe is an incredible and complex place full of mystery, I wouldn't dare be so arrogant as to claim to understand it all.

Let's say, hypothetically, that there wasn't a God. Don't you think that the norms and morals associated with faith are beneficial to society anyway? Not the extremists, but those that try to have reasonably good intentions?

Look at the 10 Commandments. "Thou shalt not kill", "Don't steal", "honor your parents". These are good morals, but they are not inventions of religion, only morals that religion adopted. The bible and such are a start, but there's a long way to go. The moral code held therein isn't perfect, I want to see a humanity that strives to seek knowledge and discover how we can transform this species of ours into something beautiful and free of suffering.
And just because there's no belief in God, doesn't mean there's nothing to be had. The Buddhist philosophy is entirely independant of dieties of any sort. It is a philosophy of purifying ones mind, liberating ones self from ignorance and suffering, and bringing peace and compassion to all life you come in contact with. This is why I follow the philosophy personally.

Without any faith, I think like a lot more people would feel like they've got nothing to lose.

I think you're right. Unfortunately a lot of people live trapped in ignorant mindsets, controlled by their impulses, perpetuating their own suffering and the suffering they impose upon others. For some, religion can help hugely with this, for others like myself we seek out philosophies that help us understand the world and our own nature, and for others still (myself included) we must find our own path. Religion, belief in God, undoubtedly helps millions of people and I'm glad for it. But when it comes right down to it, I'm most concerned with reality, not desire. It's a deeply held belief of mine that we need to understand reality to the deepest degree to master it and liberate ourselves from suffering, end harm to others.



BathingApes, please keep it more respectful. I understand that it can be frustrating debating these issues, it can be for both sides. Whether or not you, me, or the Christians are right is beside the point. We need a world of compassion for our fellow lifeforms, we need to end the cycle that causes humans to harm each other.

[snowblind]

The Bible is a load of shit. Seriously, Christians are diabolical. They openly accept SOME sections that their moral subconscious agrees with as "holy", but then fail to fuckin mention the obviously racist and draconian stories and prophecies that other parts are littered with.

What the fuck. Leviticus anyone? Read THAT shit, and then tell me if you think the Bible is all good and proper. Its a fucking bazillion page book with so much shit in it that you could justify ANYTHING. Christians will never ever mention Mark 7: 24-30. Seriously look it up.

To the guy above. Atheists are pissed off cause for many of us, we have had religion pushed upon us for our whole lives, from Birth, through preschool and school, and into adult society. The whole science-religion thing is stupid. Religious people should just keep their beliefs and the same goes for scientists. There's no need to try and combat eachothers' ideas because neither side will ever prove to be correct. You can have all the answers already if you like, but dont call me a sinner if I dont believe, k?

24Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre.[a] He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an evil[b] spirit came and fell at his feet. 26The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.

27"First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

28"Yes, Lord," she replied, "but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs."

29Then he told her, "For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter."

30She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

WHAT THE HELL

anyway i have a quote for all the christians out there that like to bash anythign that makes them question their faith

ahem

â??If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.â?�

sums it all up and is the perfect counter

[BathingApes]

Exactly!

Look at that quote "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

Jesus REFUSED at first to heal a girl because she was not Jewish. He compared the children of foreign non Jewish regions to be "dogs."

Some bringer of peace.

[palerider7777]

*walks in expecting to see the same, repugnant bullshit arguments that nobody can seem to agree on*


*looks around for a second*



*is not let down... walks back the fuck out in anticipated disgust*

good

[meatw4d]

Exactly!

Look at that quote "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

Jesus REFUSED at first to heal a girl because she was not Jewish. He compared the children of foreign non Jewish regions to be "dogs."

Some bringer of peace.

when you first posted the reference, i looked it up and wonder "wtf, what does that mean?"

so i'm wondering, how did you interpret it as you did? and how do you know your interpretation is correct?

[BathingApes]

I wouldn't have known about it if my old religion teacher hadn't mentioned it. It is in the context of the story. If you look at the bigger picture and read the entire thing, see how he has travelled to a non Jewish land, what else could it mean? A Gentile woman asks Jesus to heal her Gentile daughter, and he says along the lines of "why throw the childrens' food to the dogs" (the children of course being Jews and the dogs being non jews.)

The problem with the Bible is that it's worded in such a preachy way and riddled with metaphors that Christians can defend anything by saying "how do you know your interpretation is correct." Well I don't. But what I DO know is that that quote is obviously racist, I mean cmon, what else could it mean?

[meatw4d]

The problem with the Bible is that it's worded in such a preachy way and riddled with metaphors that Christians can defend anything by saying "how do you know your interpretation is correct." Well I don't. But what I DO know is that that quote is obviously racist, I mean cmon, what else could it mean?

I don't have another interpretation, but I doubt that it can only be read one way.


I don't think the Bible should ever be taken literally and you should be very skeptical of other people's interpretations because:

1. They could be wrong, and
2. The Bible has been translated, uh, how many times?

[BathingApes]

That is the entire point. I have no problem with the people that use its good teachings to make decisions or whatever, it's just you see over and over again these people justifying laws, actions, a whole load of stuff because they have been told the Bible is 100% true and 100% the word of God. There are also the people who get offended when you even entertain the idea that Jesus was racist, not just Jesus infact but any Biblical character.

I just have a problem with how much influence the Bible has. It's a book right? You said yourself it isn't meant to be taken literally. Even then, how am I supposed to take the sentence "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put
to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives"

It gets to me when people are talking about the "Holy Bible" yet fail to see how incompatible it is with our modern society. Its a pick and choose thing. The Book that we swear over in court has sections that openly support the killing of homosexuals. Yet you would have me believe that's okay cause I'm not supposed to take it literally?

[snowblind]

i took it on a literal meaning when i thought about it. that children (aka little people) need to be nourished and feed by us to be healthy. that it is not right to feed adn lavish your dog when your child goes un nourished. but it is ok to feed the dogs the crumbs as the children have had the majority of the food and so are fed. plus this saves on tiding up after the little fuckers.

the trouble with the bible is that it has been translated and reiterated so many times in the past milenia, it is hard to work it out. also time, context and social knowledge plays a great part in any literature. but becomes less relevent as time passes.

take for example the 80's

so if you then factor those 20 years difference and times that by 100 (2000 years ago) things are very distorted.

[meatw4d]

The Bible is used in court to give the people a reiterated sense that they should be telling the truth. Making an oath to God is very important to many people. This country was founded on Christian principles.