Religion Debates and Discussions

I was here long ago, but stopped cuz I needed a break from Brawl. Gets to be a little much, you know? But I'm buddhist, so don't expect too much from me, sadly.

 

While I have spoken with you before on your beliefs (this was in a discord dm, I doubt you remember), I am going to A. take you up on the offer to question you, and B. follow suit of this thread attempting to poke a hole in your beliefs, for philosophical reasons. I do not mean disrespect in any way.

Humans require energy to run. They are like cars; cars need gas, humans need stored energy in the form of meat, grain, dairy, etc.

So let's say God created humans, and your beliefs are right. This would mean that God is capable of producing energy. You can't just make a corpse and expect it to start moving, it needs potential. That's why we can apply electricity to frog legs and make them "dance"; we're just giving them energy.

So if you are right, let's say such a time comes in our existence before the Sun explodes where we can "steal" God's energy, or just harness it.

Is that right for us to do, and if not, why?

 

The circle is the sphere/orb. Only an orb is perfectly circular. And why don't you read the 2nd link? Is it too much evidence for you? And if the Bible taught a flat earth, I wouldn't believe in the Bible, because the earth is a sphere. Do you really expect me to place my faith in you who has no understanding of ancient languages?

Those "in between fossils" were the pre-flood humans which I have been telling you 3 times by now. They had bigger brains and were stronger. Ironically you're speaking about evolution since if you look at the west today, it's filled with weak men and society is accepting SJW-crap. Does that sound like evolution to you? Also, the burden of proof is on you to prove that species can change.

And how do you know that they are all related?

The shape of the earth is testable and observable, thus not an assumption. As for your kiwi bird, people could have taken them with them. Some also speak about there being land bridges just after the flood.

Once again, the burden of proof is on you here. And it's not because of my faith, it's because it simply has never been observed. Also, the reason why so many atheists embrace evolution eventhough it has no evidence is because they hate God.

Globalistcuck, I'm in complete agreement with your examples, but that's what I've always believed. Except for your conclusion though: they are still leopards! I don't believe Noah had Lions, tigers, etc. On the arc; I believe he had two Feline creatures of which came all the bigger cats we have today. Since lions and tigers can mate, so can your different leopards. If they don't want to mate due their "brainchanges" then perhaps they're racist?

 

yeah, irl, reddit, steam, a different forums. there are many but you decide to argue about religion on a MC forums, like get over yourself.

 

Like dude, piss off if you dont like this thread. You can simply ignore it and take no part in it if it's not where you think it should be. There's plenty of other threads where you can have riveting conversations about Minecraft if you please.

 

^ he also knows wassup

 

I told you, I spent some time learning Hebrew at synagogue. Not a lot, not very useful, but how much Hebrew do you know?

This point is moronic, I'm dropping it.

They don't have to be related for my point. They are, but that's not my point. My point is - how do you explain that there used to be so many different species that have now died out and there are so many species today that didn't use to exist?

People didn't take kiwi birds with them, the indigenous Maori didn't arrive until ~1300 AD. Also I love this "some also speak" of land bridges. This is what passes for evidence when you want it to. "Some also speak". Show me evidence of a land bridge between New Zealand and the rest of the world that fits everything else you're saying. It is so fking impossible for such an immense land bridge to have been created and destroyed within 6,000 years, this is absolutely ridiculous.

And the shape of the Earth is not perfectly testable and observable, that's why it was unknown for centuries. Have you ever seen the shape of the Earth? No, you haven't been to space. You've only seen photos that can be manipulated, you're ASSUMING.

Yeah build that straw man why don't you. I'm an atheist because I hate God? Well I say you're anti-evolution because you hate all life! It doesn't make it true, but it's fun to say, yeah?

Lions and tigers can mate but they're different species because they cannot have grandchildren. Same goes for donkeys and horses. I explained this earlier which makes me think you're either kind of stupid or just not reading my explanations.

I imagine my leopards would be similar in that they might be able to mate but their children would be sterile. Can you give evidence to back up this bold claim that no matter how many times each leopard changes, they'll always be the same species? This is a large claim you've made many times that you've never backed up with evidence but it seems to me it's just based on a misunderstanding of how biology works. "Species" are not this set in stone that can never change. "Species" is just a way of classifying different groups of animals and it's FLEXIBLE. There is no set in stone "this animal is this species and it can never change". A species is simply a population of animals that can all breed with each other and have grandchildren. If for some reason part of that population is no longer able to have grandchildren with the rest, then the species has CHANGED.

To conclude, please provide evidence of this sht. Give me evidence of the Earth's shape that doesn't rely on assumptions and other humans (which you seem to be allergic to) and give me evidence of this claim that animals cannot change species. I've shown you that the PROCESS of evolution works (natural selection, etc.) now it's your job to show me why this process DOESN'T work in certain situations.

Yeah I probably wasn't specific enough, my bad.

1. They weren't taken by people. People didn't get to NZ until ~1300 AD, kiwi birds were already here for a long time.
2. No land bridges. Absolutely no geological evidence and I don't think you get how isolated NZ is. This isn't a bridge from Russia to Canada. The land bridge would be like 1500 miles long and several miles high.
3. You know that vast floating log idea is just completely ridiculous and implausible right? Tell me you know this.

a) Kiwis are not migratory. Why would they travel thousands of miles on a fking log
b) Kiwis are flightless. It goes against all their animal instincts to get on a log in the ocean.
c) They would starve to death in the time it took to get to New Zealand.
d) A pretty weird boat path is necessary for them to hit NZ and not any other land masses
e) Where is the evidence for such massive logs
f) You'd need like 100 Kiwis to get on board in order to start a viable population in NZ
g) This is so fking stupid, please tell me you know that.

 

I like how he adds 'on the internet' like that's the weird part.

Why don't you go to the "#Forehead reveal2k17" thread. Sounds like it would be more up your alley.

 

Disregarding the science, I find this view to be interesting as it aligns somewhat to my current beliefs.

I so happen to believe that religion, including the morals and statures that each one is based off of respectively, were created by humans as a way of enforcing what is known as the common good.

You can look at the ten commandments as a sort of outline for what is pictured as a "good" human being. Why did we do such? People love to pick up sticks, sharpen them, and stab things with them.

I'm not saying this concept is bad, in fact I agree with striving to be an overall good willed human, after all, we're all the same species, right? Why should we not help our species as a whole instead of killing one another?

Where I begin to see cracks in religion however is money, but I still understand why such collection plates and alike are used; without donations, the church would fall into disrepair and such a place of worship would become inadequate.

I believe you don't need a church, synagogue, mosque, or book for that matter in order to be a good human being. I highly doubt Neil Degrasse Tyson has killed anyone, ever seriously meant to harm someone, or done something else seriously malicious directed at another human that could be described as bad.

I was raised in a Christian household and was mainly a palms and ashes church goer. I've been to Anglican, Roman Catholic, Baptist, and other churches, and I have enjoyed my time in all of them; I have found that the people there are incredibly good willed regardless of the sect of faith. I have met pastors from those churches in hospitals when I was alone in on a stretcher, and he didn't really bring too much religion into our talk as I saw it. He was sorry for my unfortunate situation, and hoped I would recover swiftly.

So I guess my question is as such; why must one define themselves as believing in a higher power and not merely the common good that religion seems to put forth?

 

No, Gehenna, no. There is ZERO evidence of such a land bridge. ZERO. If such a bridge existed (it would've had to be MASSIVE) there would be a ton of evidence for it. The fact that you think such a bridge could've existed shows that you don't really understand even the basics of geology. I'm not an expert on geology, in fact I know quite little, but I can tell you definitively that New Zealand has not, in the last 100,000 years, been connected to another land mass. Not even close.

You HAVE to know this. Please, I know you disagree with me on evolution but you HAVE to know that land bridges don't just randomly appear in the space of a few thousand years; not ones as huge as would be required to connect NZ to Eurasia. Yes, there are some shallow areas in the space between Thailand and NZ, but there are also some very deep areas and overall that whole seabed would've had to been about 1.5km higher relative to sea level for such a land bridge to occur (AT AN ABSOLUTE MINIMUM).

Just please tell me you know that no such land bridge could've existed. This is soooo basic. Such a land bridge would require some kind of massive geological shift that would probably have destroyed most of human civilisation. And then for it to just disappear, without a trace? You KNOW that's crazy.

So your second point, is in comparison far far more valid than the first one. I think the "1.5 km high land bridge" idea is up there with "humans hunted dinosaurs to extinction". Anyway, we know the Maori arrived in NZ around that time because that's what all the historical evidence suggests. We know when they arrived in the same way we know what was going on in Europe or the Middle East at the same time. I quickly googled theories about pre-Maori inhabitants in NZ and all historians and academics in the country have clearly said that there is no evidence for it, and it is a crackpot theory. Most of these theories are politically motivated due to disputes over Maori land. So, yeah, that's how we know.

So, any other theories as to how the kiwi got to NZ? Just to be clear, the kiwi is just one example of thousands of animals which couldn't have reached isolated locations in 6,000 years of no continental shift or evolution. If you have no idea how the kiwi and other such animals could've reached these locations, I really think you should reconsider creationism. This is yet another reason why it just doesn't make sense.

 

You need proof that higher power exists in the first place. -> rerouting back to square one.

 

Two things:

According to Google New Zealand was discovered circa ~1642, there's an exact date there as well if you look up "When did we discover New Zealand?". On a map sure, NZ is not something you would miss, but think about it like this;

If I just sailed from a port in L.A straight south, how long would it take me to find Hawaii? The ocean is HUGE, the EARTH is huge. Y'know why we have accurate maps? Not sailing, not jotting all this down, satellites. Sure, early sailors probably jotted the coordinates of NZ down somewhere so they could get back to it, but they didn't know how big it was, what it looked like, etc.

Secondly, how do you explain that the hummingbird, native to South America, can not be found ANYWHERE in Australia, Europe, etc. They're native to the Americas, north and south.

Also, if you look at the hummingbirds down south, where they originated from (apparently), why is it that they're so freaky? The spatule-tail hummingbird uses feathers to create clicks by smacking them together. Why is it that they only exist in South America, and not the North?

 

this discussion is still going on holy ****

 

ikr

 

Did we find evidence of god in those whole 72 pages. That was the point of the thread if I remember.