Religion Debates and Discussions

Welcome to Abiogenesis, a topic completely removed from evolution.

We have no idea. Thankfully, however, science isn't just going 'goddidit' and giving up. It's... you know... doing science.

 

Does this Gorilla have a soul?

Watch these videos and tell me that your views on how intelligent and emotional animals can be haven't changed.

Through teaching this Gorilla sign language, she is able to convey her thoughts and emotions to us. I for one didn't think they were capable

 

I'm not gonna lie, I was expecting a Harambe reference.

 

the church vouching for evolution when it was just an idea without proof doesnt make it scientific or intelligent, i dont understand your point.

 

Are you denying the emotion /empathizing when she's watching the sad movie? She turns around because she can't even watch it. Why can't we program an AI to function like you then?

If Koko doesn't have a soul than I'm not convinced I do

 

what are you saying... of course i believe dna is real. where did i ever say it wasnt real? you are making absolutely no sense.

christ, youre a walking strawman argument.

i said dna is not OBVIOUS. when you look at a persons blood, you dont SEE their dna, it isnt OBVIOUS to humans. you, instead, have to trust the scientists that have put time and effort in modelling and understanding dna to hold it as a reliable source in its various uses (proving criminals guilty, etc).

gehenna, why do you believe in dna and not radiometric dating?

 

Because if he believes in radiometric dating then his logic and critical thinking skills tell him that his closely held beliefs are false.

Instead of spitting facts making statements, ask questions that lead others to think critically.

 

aight, coming in late again, but I just want to do so now even if I have to get up to work in like 5 hours (when starting this post, when finishing it, well heck maybe I'll have 4.5 hours, also nice)
Yes I'm an agnostic atheist as well.
I have some religious friends and respect them and absolutely don't mind them believing in god (or allah, yes, yes, actually I know some muslims too), them not 'interpreting' the bible literally may help me get along with them.

You over-simplified this. Quite a lot actually. You have to take into account the history of many islamic countries and the average educational and cultural background they have. Anyway, many religious people are more attached to their religion or the 'laws' of their religion by cultural or social background.
Although according to you, the number of people being religious is over 80%, most of these people are just religious because of their cultural and/or social background and have no real connection to god, respectively only go to church once or twice in a year, but you still consider them religious. Heck, even I as an agnostic atheist went to church twice a year only a few years ago.
Anyway, the religion itself isn't really spreading, only the beliefs needed to have a 'common cultural background', which the IS as an example needs to somehow survive.

You BELIEVE they once existed? Ohwell, I'm quite sure I had some great great grandparents, because else I wouldn't be here. Why do I know that? Because if my parents weren't here I wouldn't be as well. If my mother's parents weren't here she wouldn't be either, thus me not existing as well. I don't need to have seen my great great grandparents, because I can make logical points wheter they existed or not. Points I can actually see and verify.
It's a terrible comparison you brought up tbh.

If you told people 1000 years ago that there are stars of which one cubic cm weighs as much as all the stones they needed to build their castle, they'd have said that it's incomprehensible and supernatural. Today we know that neutron stars exist.

Hey we actually agree on something!

Placebo. Ever heard of it? Doesn't necessarily require you to be religious.
But yeah, I got it, people can be saved from drug problems or similar stuff, and I could actually go on about this for quite a bit because I had an interesting talk with someone who was born into a very strict religious family (yes, probably far more strict than any of yours) but when he turned about 20 he escaped. The first opportunity he had to be independent he took it. After about a decade, he met a priest who he knew from his life with his parents and got the opportunity to work with him (this worked out because the priest wasn't as strict as his parents), helping drug addicted people (those who really live on the streets). He's still doing that now, quite succesfully. He's raising his kids the way he'd have wanted to be raised, with a choice to believe what they want. You could feel his charisma and influence when you talked to him, he was incredibly good at persuading people, he probably saved quite a few lifes as well, not by forcing them into a therapy or anything, but by talking to them, without any of the religious stuff. He's a agnostic atheist iirc, so no, I don't think that atheism can't do things that religion can.

Oh right, but were the other wars all made in the name of Atheism? Or even done for atheistic purposes? Which war was ever done for atheistic purposes? I really don't know, nothing comes to my mind atm.

I could go on but honestly less than 4 hours of sleep aren't really enough (yes I needed this long because I'm tired and I'm typing kinda slowly on my laptop), so that's why I'll let everything past page 5 unanswered, at least for now.

 

Never did I say that the Church vouched for the existence of Evolution, but they did consider it a possibility.

You completely missed the context of this statement. Someone said something along the lines that the U.S.A is a Christian state and therefore all the wars that it caused was somehow indirectly linked to God and religion. I was simply saying that the wars that the U.S has been part of had nothing to do with religion, so he couldn't claim that the U.S was causing religious wars. Besides, do you know when the last war for Christianity was? Not recent I will tell you. Atheism wasn't even considered a logical view until the mid-1800's and by that time Christian wars were done being waged. It wasn't until the mid to late 1900's that Atheism started to gain momentum, and even now if Atheists were to "wage war" on religion they would undoubtedly fail.

 

I like how the ones denying/criticizing modern science and people's beliefs act like they have a degree in the field.

 

The science part maybe, but this entire thread is centered around the criticizing and the ideas behind people's beliefs. If you are looking for a degree in that, then I think every single person is at fault here unless they have a degree in Philosophy or something along those lines.

 

Exactly. I myself am a strong Christian but the only times I like to debate is when I'm trying to convince people to accept Christ into their hearts. Some people here...that'd be a challenge.

 

This is actually really important to recognize, good point.

The issues are, however:

'Philosophy' is not a proof. You can wax philosophic all you want about the meaning of your God, but it does nothing to show to others that they exist. It's also very easy to counter this philosophy argument, especially when your own Bible provides more actual factual evidence against the nature of your God than you care to admit.

'Faith' is not a proof. You can have faith in anything, with the strongest conviction you are correct, and still be 100% factually wrong. For example, you could have faith (complete trust and confidence in something) that when you throw a ball up in the air, it will not come back down. It would still fall back down, because the facts of gravity supercede human trust. It works whether you believe in it or not.

'Visual proof' is just about the only thing that IS a legitimate proof. Repeatable and testable visual confirmation can form a basis for the development of facts. For example, it was believed (as taught by the members of the clergy, by the way) that the earth was the centre of the solar system. However, visual observation of the movements of the stars and planets in the sky allowed scientists to calculate their motion and show that the earth was itself moving around the Sun.

Scientific proof (not atheistic, there are scientists who put their religion aside for science) relies on the testable, the repeatable, the observable. It relies on logical conclusions to predicaments, but does not take those conclusions as fact until they are shown to be correct.

 

For the record this is difficult to quantify since there's no evidence souls exist. That's just a belief that you've mentioned will be broken once cloning occurs.

There's signs of animal intelligence, and that directly relates to levels of empathy and sympathy, however. Which, religion or not, I find amazing.

–---------------–

I'd also like to thank everyone in this thread for proving that not all arguments are flame wars.

This has been amazing mental exercise.

 

Well nobody does, souls are just a belief of yours.

 

soul
sōl/
noun

1. the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

 

Also stop making baseless claims. Gorillas like humans learn from experience, Koko lived with humans and picked up sign language. Other gorillas are capable of such.

uhhh what's your point? I know the definition

 

drag·on
ˈdraɡən/
noun

1. 1.
   a mythical monster like a giant reptile. In European tradition the dragon is typically fire-breathing and tends to symbolize chaos or evil, whereas in East Asia it is usually a beneficent symbol of fertility, associated with water and the heavens

Just posting the definition of something does not an argument make.

-------

Also apparently animals would then have souls. Sorry Gehenna_Beam, the dictionary has spoken.