Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?
- Thread starter Johnnytoxic
- Start date
Read the thread then you will know
Eternal pain and suffering, for doubting God's endless love for me?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Well, you see.. Theists often ask an Athiest, what is the meaning of life.
It is a bad question. Ask a Thiest, what is the meaning of life. The bible seems to tell us that the meaning of life is to worship our creator in the grand hope of joining him in heaven.
My question is, why bother living then and not just cut to the chase of populating heaven without the earth bit first. Unless you just need the adoration of billions of people to satisfy your need to be worshipped. Or sacrificed to in the case of the OT and many many animal sacrifices.
And in Islam the prayer requirements are huge! Not just a sunday down the church and a few prayers.
What is the meaning then of a life where you have to pray (religiously) or be sent to hell?
It is a bad question. Ask a Thiest, what is the meaning of life. The bible seems to tell us that the meaning of life is to worship our creator in the grand hope of joining him in heaven.
My question is, why bother living then and not just cut to the chase of populating heaven without the earth bit first. Unless you just need the adoration of billions of people to satisfy your need to be worshipped. Or sacrificed to in the case of the OT and many many animal sacrifices.
And in Islam the prayer requirements are huge! Not just a sunday down the church and a few prayers.
What is the meaning then of a life where you have to pray (religiously) or be sent to hell?
That question has been answered so many times that it's wildly implausible that you have never seen the answer, but I'll answer it anyway.
There is no "desirable". In order for something to be considered desirable, there has to be a mind involved. Only a mind can desire. All that counts in evolution is breeding. There's no purpose. There's no desire. There's no goal. There's no evaluation of the comparative benefits of traits. It's just a matter of how many offspring survive to have offspring of their own.
If enhanced speed confers an advantage to particular animals in particular circumstances, then it is possible that enhanced speed will over enough generations become normal in that particular group of animals. Only possible, not definite. The animal that is a little faster might still still be killed before having offspring or it might still be considered a less desirable mate by the other animals for some reason.
The same is true of enhanced hearing, or anything else.
If a mutation does cause both advantages and disadvantages, the same thing still applies as always applies - success in breeding. It's always success in breeding. You can even see examples in humanity, with sickle cell trait being the most famous.
Are you aware that every time you write the phrase "just a theory" when referring to a scientific theory, you are making a fool of yourself? Nobody who has even the most superficial understanding could dismiss science in that way except as lying propaganda. "Theory" has a radically different meaning in science. It's not at all like the corrupted meaning of "theory" used in day to day language. The standard for a scientific theory to remain in use is higher than the day to day standard for something to be considered a fact.
For example, do you dismiss the idea that some diseases can be caused by bacteria and viruses and suchlike? Do you think that idea is only faith, no different to thinking that the diseases are caused by the displeasure of the gods and can be cured by sacrificing a goat? That idea is a theory. Look it up - it's the germ theory of disease, arguably the most important scientific theory ever devised.
Last edited:
No, I infer that it is extremely improbable that they will do so, based on the available evidence (e.g. the extremely small number of murders carried out that way).
You don't understand the meaning of the words you are using - faith, theory, assumption, etc.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 3,779
- Location
- Wales
Oh FFS. It's called an explosion because it's a *relatively* rapid appearance. Key word here is relative!!!!!!!! That means in comparison to the timescale as a whole.
That doesn't make it impossible, nor is it evidence of God putting "fully formed" creatures on the Earth, maybe using an intergalactic Noah's Ark. It took millions of years.
Last edited:
Maybe this praying thing is not one big chore afterall. Say like talking to the headmaster of a school maybe hell for the rebelious pupil, with him maybe being in fear or simply apathetic to anything the headmaster may have to say or show him, though for the headboy it is a truly heavenly experience for which he is bettered no end.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 3,779
- Location
- Wales
Except that the headmaster is invisible to one pupil and a delusion of the other. But hey there's no denying that some delusions have the potential to be useful.
The question is why wait for the experience of being in heaven when you could be there in seconds?
Last edited:
He is invisible to all, delusional or not. Poking your own eyes out may benefit in certain situations too.
Oh and I know which question I replied to thank you, I don't have an answer to that one. i.e. Why didn't God create a perfect heavenly place in the first place.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 3,779
- Location
- Wales
Would you demand an explanation from him before entering into his Kingdom? I would, and if his answer doesn't satisfy me I'd tell him to go to hell.
Me and another member was having a debate not you. Please read the thread were I have put links. I thank you.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2005
- Posts
- 1,890
- Location
- On the road
Oh, but he did, but just because some talking snake convinced a woman to get an apple from a tree, just because of that silly thing, we all, that is ~70B human beings born to date are born in sing. Even though the catholic church admits that Adam is a fable, still we cannot get rid of the original sin tale.
As said before, it is perfectly understandable to believe in god, but to follow some scriptures, over 2.500 years old, with a vision of the world and universe from someone who had little knowledge of the first and certainly almost none of the last, shows the level of reasoning and education of some people. So educate yourselves, or carry on being sheep ... that is why indoctrination works so well.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
I'd assume that you'd need lots of related mutations in order to cause this type of change over a long period. Isn't the probability of getting related mutations pretty small?
If one generation has a mutation that at the time has no observable benefit isn't that just going to get lost instead of passed on? What are the odds of beneficial v harmful mutations?
I agree with pretty much all of what you said there.
I see that I can add public forums to the growing list of things you have no understanding of.
In order to have a debate, you need to understand the terms used. You do not, therefore you cannot have a debate on the subject. If you want to be wrong privately, don't do it on a public forum.
YESYESYESYES. It's millions of individuals over millions of generations over millions of years. Just like if you buy enough lottery tickets you WILL win. Perhaps one ticket will do, but that's hugely unlikely. Maybe 1000, still a massive outside shot. 13,983,816 tickets and you will win. If you bought 12 million there's more than a fair chance you'll scoop something, even if the jackpot is still unlikely. This is one draw, let alone hundreds of millions of draws.
/sillyanalogy
How do you know it was an Apple?
Because it's in a badly translated text written a long time after the said event, which no other person can independently verify? Seems legit
Some significant changes can occur from a single mutation, e.g. CCR5 delta 32 is a single mutation that confers resistance or immunity to a variety of viruses. A single mutation in the MSTN gene causes a very large increase in muscularity. There are many possible major changes from single mutations.
Even if lots of related mutations are required and the probability is very small, that just means it would take more generations.
Why would it? If it has no effect then there's no evolutionary pressure either way.
I've no idea. Why does it matter? Also, what is beneficial and what is harmful varies according to circumstances. For example, that mutation in the MSTN gene results in increased strength but also increased size, weight and food requirements. Which is beneficial and which is harmful? It depends on the animal and the circumstances.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Provided those tickets cover every combination of numbers of course
No it aint, it just says 'forbidden fruit', nowhere does it say it's an apple. Don't worry, it's just my Qi fanaticism kicking in....
Last edited: