There are lines between, lines which are crossed only over considerable lengths of time by the very definition of evolution. There was no first human, there was no Adam, science has taught us this. God got it wrong.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
There are lines between, lines which are crossed only over considerable lengths of time by the very definition of evolution. There was no first human, there was no Adam, science has taught us this. God got it wrong.
So you're basically saying all babies that die are guaranteed heaven?
Read my previous post.
Do you mean by "appear" win out and rule a nation? You seem to be mixing up religion with "nation" or "empire".. It's this exact reason why I asked about how Abraham was a Muslim. Because you seem to have the impression that a Muslim is the follower of Mohammad as a person, which can only begin when Mohammad appeared. It's not like that. Religions are not defined by "who wins", and what people are going to call their nation.. Religion is a belief, a personal belief. Even if you haven't heard of them, but there are many people who believed in God, the one God that Abraham called for, before Abraham..
Not to mention how stupid an anology that is, Swedish people and Chinese people can have offspring together, they're not different species. They just happen to live in different parts of the world, where, by way, they've evolved different traits in different ways. If you keep those two separate from the rest of the world for millions of years, they will eventually become different species.
Basically.
What do you call the first creature formed after crossing the last line before what we call now (and classify as) humans existed?
Also don't forget, religious people also believe in "souls".. Which is something other than the physical body..
Which proves that not every "evolution" means a different species. There are lines that separates species from each other, you can't call every difference (even though it might actually lead to some dying and others surviving) a different "species".
The first creatures who had the genetic mutations that have become widespread in humans today were also able to have offspring with things which had none of those mutations.
Eh, the only arguing that every mutation is a different species is you, unless you're backtracking on this mysterious Adam fella.
Oh take your time...
What are you talking about ? I was telling you that we have no records of solid monotheistic religions before the Abrahamic religions and Zoroatrianism. The earliest religion you could consider to be monotheistic appears to be Akenaten's religion in Ancient Egypt (1367 BCE). The earliest forms of religious manifestations date back to somewhere between 223,000 BCE and 100,000 BCE. Do you see how many generations there are of humans who were supposedly born with a tendency to believe in one God (the way you intend it, being a Muslim) but that did not develop any kind of monotheistic belief ?
As for the bold part, again another one of your claims out of thin air. We don't even have any evidence that Abraham existed and more than likely he is just a myth.
It's not more than likely, it's absolutely a myth.
My grandparents always talked about a person that committed suicide would be judged and spend eternity in hell. Their tune changed after a very close friend offed himself. Then it became god will judge a person's overall positive actions on earth and weigh them against negative actions. Like a scorecard I guess. I had no response - I was speechless.
Ain't it peculiar how beliefs alter when something touches a person/family very close?
If there was a true universal god, there wouldn't be some 500 religions (some no longer practiced).
So the logical conclusion is that we should be killing as many babies as possible as soon as they're born. Life in this world transitory anyway and given how many temptations and possibilities the cnut god has created to send people to hell, isn't it better to give them the guaranteed path to eternal happiness? It's a good way to cheat god. Sure he can punish you by sending you to hell but he can't blame the baby for dying. Plus the technicality that what you're doing is selfless anyway i.e. for the good of others so it's possible you might get to heaven as well as long as you avoid masturbating and all the other shit that he's kinky about like avoiding bacon.
Basically yes. There are traces of various Abrahams in the region throughout history but none matches the descriptions present in the scriptures.
If that's your logic, you are a sick man. GTFO.
Nope, you were trying to say that evolution is 100% gradual with no noticeable steps in between. I told you that the smallest building piece of evolution is a mutation, and even that can't be 100% gradual..
You haven't proved to me yet how it can be 100% gradual, with no lines in between species.. And you haven't answered my question about how you classify species, and name them (based on what?)..
What is one person in hell compared to the whole of humanity in heaven?
You hold the combination of genes your parents hold, and that goes back to the point where we were a single cell. There is no step so big that a species breaks off from another spontaneously.
When individual successful mutations appear, the bearer of those mutations doesn't lose the ability to reproduce with others of the same species. After vast periods of time though, distinct species begin to break off from one another. It doesn't happen overnight. There was no first human. There was no single genetic mutation that created us. There was no Adam.
Of course religious followers claim babies will go to heaven. Imagine the backlash religion would suffer if it was known that all babies went to hell because they never did as instructed in religious texts. Religious people would question god and denounce god for the cruel, twisted, sick feck he actually is presented as in those religious texts. Thus enters the religious apologist with "babies don't know yadda yadda."
What about poisonous snakes, man-eating animals, insects, and dinosaurs - will they too be in heaven?
Will we talk, sing songs, and have a cold beer with them in heaven?
Beer surely must be in heaven. If not, feck that place.
Will we talk, sing songs, and have a cold beer with them in heaven?
Beer surely must be in heaven. If not, feck that place.
Beer would be so much better in hell, imagine the refreshment you feel at the beach, only better.
You tell me doctor. Do those creatures have a moral component?
It's going to be awfully crowded.
What makes you believe in all this malarkey? I did because I was indoctrinated (what a neat, less scary word for brainwashed). Fortunately, I broke free of those mind shackles.
So you can't answer the question and come here bashing. GTFO.
First of all, those discovered/thought to be "religious manifestations" are by no means an evidence.. It's absurd to think that out of a few fossils you know how people were thinking more than a 100,000 years ago. It's a theory at best, so don't try to pass it "evidence" here.
Second, as I said before, intended is one thing, and the outcome is another thing. How you were born is one thing, and how you turn out is something you decide.. Most people who steal know and say that stealing is wrong, but they do it. Most people who cheat on their partners know that cheating is wrong, but they still do it.. I feel we're going in circles here.
Is Mohammad and Jesus also a myth?
No, but they were no more divinely inspired than the lunatics in town centers who claim to be the prophets of god. They were just two of the lucky ones.
If Mohammad and Jesus are not a myth, what makes you absolutely sure that Abraham is a myth even though he isn't that different from them?
You do realize that Jesus and Mohammad would have had some access/teaching of previously existing religions, right?
fecking hell
So now archaeology, anthropology, history and such are bullshit. I am amazed.
You have problems with logic, this is the only explanation I can find.
We told you that out of thousands years of human development we have no signs of a monotheistic religion despite Islam claiming that it is in one's nature to believe so. You cannot explain generations and generations of people no believing in one God by saying that they all turned out different. And I already asked you to tell me what are the "evil desires" that influence one's nature so that he becomes a polytheist.
This is your theory, but let's get back to the point..
You said Abraham is absolutely a myth, but Mohammad and Jesus aren't.. Why? What's different about Abraham that makes him absolutely a myth but not the others?
That's not disputed. Mohammed and Jesus didn't bring anything original to the table, they just continued existing myths.
Abraham is a myth because no such person existed, there is however a little bit of evidence for Jesus having been a real person and there is evidence of Mohammed being a real person. There is however, nothing to suggest they knew anything more than your average deluded lunatic claiming to have divine revelation. The only difference between them and other deluded lunatics is that substantial amounts of people have been indoctrinated not to question them.
First off, get a thicker skin if you felt I was bashing. I've also been in this thread for quite some time.
Secondly, I took your post as a rhetorical, and heaven obviously will be crowded if other animals and whatnot will be in this mythical heaven. I then asked you a personal question but you apparently chose not to respond, saddening but not unexpected.
I don't buy that moral component as the only reason why humans can go to hell, furthermore, based on my limited understanding, there are plenty of debates as to animals possessing moral components. I am not a subject matter expert in animal/human studies and will not attempt to defeat or belittle another by coming off as if I know a subject area I clearly do not. I will argue against religion as it has shown to be full of opinions, interpretations, inadequacies, and blatant lies, and having been religious through indoctrination turned atheist, I am somewhat of a SME in this field.
Humans go to hell because man wrote that to control masses of society. Believing "a loving god" would punish "his children" for eternity is laughable and illustrates a sadistic god. Parents do not punish a child for his/her entire life. A loving god would go one step further? Yeah right. What an asshole god. Probably kicked out of the circle of gods and formed his own universe to play his sadistic games.
fecking hell
So now archaeology, anthropology, history and such are bullshit. I am amazed.
You have problems with logic, this is the only explanation I can find.
We told you that out of thousands years of human development we have no signs of a monotheistic religion despite Islam claiming that it is in one's nature to believe so. You cannot explain generations and generations of people no believing in one God by saying that they all turned out different. And I already asked you to tell me what are the "evil desires" that influences one's nature so that he becomes a polytheist.
Yes, because they buried the dead, or drawn something on the wall, then you have practically met with them and know exactly what they thought..
You're struggling to differentiate between the words "evidence" and "theory".How are you "sure" that there are "no signs" that some people monotheistic religion? Is it this the same bullsh*t that "I don't have an evidence to prove it so it doesn't exist" again?
Besides, you have to pick a position: nobody believed in a single God, or the majority didn't believe in a single God? You seem to be hopping from one position to another between your posts, and there is a big difference between the two.
Look at a recent example then, the aborigines believed in spirits rather than a single god. There's nothing to suggest that monotheism is natural. What happened is that some people decided one god was better than the others, started killing, raping and pillaging people under the guise that their god was behind them and that, over time, became monotheism due to people being taught that this god was the best, which eventually changed to 'the one true god'.
Please, if you don't know something, refrain from making comments. You are coming off as a complete ignorant.Yes, because they buried the dead, or drawn something on the wall, then you have practically met with them and know exactly what they thought..
Read about the scientific methods used in social sciences. However, if you don't accept scientific evidence then say it loud and stop waisting my time.
Given the assumption that all humans' nature is to believe in one single God, we should expect an overwhelming evidence in religion's history. However, it appears from evidence gathered that this is not the case. The assumption that humans fundamentally believe in one God is very very strong and should be backed with undisputable evidence. This is hardly the case.
I certainly can't say that nobody believed in a single God. But there were no major monotheistic religions which is inconsistent with the assumption of "Fitrah". Again, you seem to have problems with logical thinking.
So first, you again repeat what I said how you think before: no evidence that he exists = doesn't exist. Cool. I don't know why you keep trying to deny that you believe in this.
And second, not only that, but, you insist that he did not exist, even though there is no logical reason why he can't exist while Jesus and Mohammad who are similar can! How is it not possible that he did exist but you simply haven't found the "evidence" yet?!
And stole, oops... borrowed, from Paganism much of the dates and ceremonies. Son God = Son of God. Winter Solstice became the birth of the Son of God, and so forth.
So first, you again repeat what I said how you think before: no evidence that he exists = doesn't exist. Cool. I don't know why you keep trying to deny that you believe in this.
And second, not only that, but, you insist that he did not exist, even though there is no logical reason why he can't exist while Jesus and Mohammad who are similar can! How is it not possible that he did exist but you simply haven't found the "evidence" yet?!
Have you found the evidence?
There is evidence that Jesus and Mohammed were lunatics who spread their message, there's nothing similar for Abraham.