It's nothing about getting turned on from your hand, it's because little boys are horny as ****.

Jesus, not another sex thread.

lol, yeah, lets get off this topic.
for the religious people, what are your views on the 6 days of creation?
atheists and scientific people, don't touch this cause everyone knows most of you guys believe in...evolution. So don't touch this...


HAMMAH TIME!!!

Abeguy, it's not just evolution. Evolution does not explain how life started. The more you learn science the more you see it's agnostic. It doesn't rule out God completely.

I remember hearing that "7 days" was too literal a translation. If it is interpreted as "7 phases/periods" then it is strange that biologists have theorised 7 main stages in evolution.

...okay, it's probably just a coincidence. But with the whole of Everything, it's hard to be sure if it's not something less-than-random.

I'll admit, I believe in evolution... although I don't know why. I was just brought up with the idea of evolution being around and seemed to make more sence {or was just more convincing} than my Catholic teachings of God making everything.

well God did once say, "too me, a day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is a day" or something like that, which could make it 6 thousand years he made the earth, and 1000 years he rested.

We actually had that dicussion at my family's bible study. with the "periods" and "ages" and all that. But I guess we'll never know. Until the end. or "until" the scientists build that giant magellan telescope or later

^.-.^ Other religions and belief systems would just say "That means God's on the astral plane, where time doesn't count".

What is the purpose of the telescope? Viewing things now means you can only predict the past. You can't properly "see" it.

If zgod does exist, I am sure that with the whole creation of the universe in 7 days doesn't not mean 7 human days. God does not exist entirely in this world so his form of time is not the same as ours. 7 days probably means millions of years, with phases like the dinosaurs and ancient empires. I am guessing that human are just another stage in the process.

I don't extremely agree with that, but oh well. I can't say anything that'll make all of us agree, and if we did all agree, it would suck

Well, we should all agree that we don't actualy know for certain how the universe started. I've studied physics, and "the big bang" is actualy "The Big Bang Theory". Science is seldom certain about things. Religion... well, it says "this is why" after science says "this is how".

Has anyone ever considered that the universe never started, and was just always there?

I blame drugs for all the theories like 'The Big Bang' and such.

I always find it funny that whenever I discuss creationism with pseudo-scientists the one question they ask is "If god created the universe, where did god come from?". Then I ask them what there was before the big bang and what caused it* and their heads explode in confusion. Try it sometime, it's highly entertaining.

*I think the current theory has been summed up by Terry Pratchett as "In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded"

lol, thats funny. I say god always was and will be. It hurts my brain as much as the next person but there are some things that we weren't supposed to know...atleast not yet. Just think of it why your parents don't tell you what sex is and where babies come from till your older.

That is if you learned it from your parents.

I'm sure today's youth learned about sex from the internet, Outlaw King especially.

Super Munch, the problem with the tought of the universe always being there is that the sun hasn't burned out. It was created by something (a nebula) which would have been created by something (a supernova) ewhich would have been created by something...

...you get the idea. The universe is also seen to be expanding (it might end with "the big pop").

Thinking on a more "I'm human, my mind can grasp this" scale, take any chemical reaction. It eventualy reaches equilibrium (nothing really happens anymore. It's quite boring). It takes an outside stress to make something happen, and even then it reaches a new equilibium pretty quickly. Give any system the time of... say... a few million years and it should be nicely boring and not teeming with explosions, compresions, life, and everything else going on.

Also, if the universe has ALWAYS been here, why haven't back holes consumed all matter? Given infinite time, they should have done it by now.


These are all just ways I use to try to get people to think a bit and realise what they don't know (and what I don't know).

Exactly. It's complex enough as it is, without some 2000 year old fairy story telling us the unalterable truth. I say leave it to scientists, they'll probably never know, but at least their theories sound nice and more realistic.

Rich, not really.

Have you ever seen a string, or a gravaton?
How can we tell the universe is actualy as big as it appears to be?
Isn't the universe just a hologram anyway? (http://www.crystalinks.com/holograph...ee what I mean)

Science only looks at things and says (or theorises) how they happen/what causes it to happen. It will not make religion redundant, since it doesn't say "why?" all that much.

Also, only Chirstians belive the new testement (about 1900 years old in written form). Most of the other big religions go with the Bible in one form or another that's about 3500 years old.

That sums up my opinions on ghosts, the supernatural and the existance of God(s). I can't bring myself to believe in religion, I'd sooner think nothing and ignore the scientists too.

It's stuff we aren't meant to know and likely never will.

Well, most of the other religions have their own texts, all of which are different ages. The koran is 1300 years old. The old testament is more like 2500 years old. And I'm not too sure about eastern religions but I'm sure they're pretty damnably old.

Either way, I fail to see what your point is.

My point was that while believing the bible is beliveing in something unproven and man-made, believing in science is the SAME THING. One is just more accepted by the general population than the other.

Science is agnostic. It doesn't rule out God. It correct some forced ideas of the church (like "the sun goes around the earth, and we're not letting you say otherwise Galleleo"), but allows for things like a Creator/Designer.

I wouldn't consider science agnostic considering it's based on fact and not personel belief.

Well, yes it does. I think you're confusing scientists with philosophers.

No it doesn't. I've met plenty of religious scientists, even meta-physicists. Any half-educated religious person can find ways of interpreting their religion to coexists with science.

Yes, but those are religious scientists, chap. An entirely different kettle of anus.

Rephrase: scientists who happen to be religious.

This is where it becomes obvious people are being biased with science.

Science will only say "No" if something can be completely disproven. You cannot prove God exists. However, you can't prove there is absolutly nothing beyond the physical. You can't prove the big bang started everything, or that life decided to start by itself. These are things that just can't be proven scientificly.
While there might be tonnes of evidence for some theory to be accepted, it will always be theory until proven or disproven. In this way, you need to either accept a theory as Truth (i.e. have scientific beliefs) or accept it as theory and remain agnostic.

Take out the human bias and you're left with a system that says "God may exist, but we can't prove he does... but we can't prove he doesn't." (which is basicly an agnostic point of view)

---

People use science and religion in the same way.
I can believe in religion, but trust/accept science. (people I like)
I can believe in science and use it to replace religion. (people who don't know science)
I can believe in religion and use it to replace science. (people who don't know science)

Religion has had to cave to science. Remember when it was against the bible to say "The world goes around the sun"? I'm not saying having a belief is a bad/wrong thing. All I'm saying is that science is mostly about belief.

Science is sometimes agnostic, some science doesn't believe in god whatsoever. On the other hand, some does, like you said. The goal of Science is to find out where we came from, not especially why we are, but how, and if there's god, that cancels eachother out and the universe implodes. Science with god is what we learn in school.

There is only one science. There are seveal Theories within Science that different people believe. It is these beliefs that rule out God. Science itself does not.

Trust me: the more you study science, the more you see the "fine print" which says 'we don't know if this is truely true'

Which is why atheism and science are different. Atheists don't neccesarily agree with or believe scientific theories to be truth, they just think the idea of God is ludicrous.

Ummm... I hope you meant 'science' instead of 'scientology'. Otherwise we should all go out and read Battlefield Earth.

Actualy, does anyone know where I could get unbiased info on Scientology?

I've heard... well, what I hope is media spin, and would like to actualy find out what it's all about.

Wikipedia it. The truth is, it really is the ridiculous, far fetched religion portrayed on television.

Actualy, this clears up a lot.

It's just another religion.

...okay, it's a modern one. But if you just realise what the words mean (and think of Xenu as a metaphor/parable) it doesn't appear to be so bad.

Woops... :lol: Yeah Nate, I'll change it.

Isn't agnostism (spelling?) basically having your own belief?

...not really.

anyway

FOR RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ONLY!!!
what do you find is the thing that keeps you in religion? For me, its seeing the kids at my school who are without it, and that sobers me right up. Sure, the non religious may say "Not all kids are like that" And I'll agree, but alot of the kids at my school are without religion and they are lost. Not from my point of view but they do drugs at a premature age, drink, and have sex at premature ages, even before 16 (for you brits.)
Yeah, that keeps me there.

How can you "see" religious/unreligious kids?

Can you "see" into their soul and their beliefs? If you're walking down the hall can you "see" the diffrerence between a catholic, protestant and atheist?

I know that society is breaking apart, and I dislike it, but I can't see religion (or lack of it) being the problem.

no, its just that I can tell whether or not they are religious by A: the way they act, and B: they say so

You just listed the best things about being a teenager.

Abeguy, how can you tell when a satanist is being religious? And I don't mean a "THE DARK LORD IS MY MASTER" freak, I mean someone who reads the satanic bible and supports it.

When you say "religious" you must mean every religion... which I'm pretty sure you can't "see" people doing. There are moral people without religion, and bad people who still follow religion.

And yes Every religion can fall into criteria, but the people at my school that I spoke of said that they have no religion and don't believe in god. WTFF I never said that all kids like that are bad. I know many atheists that are the nicest people I know. You mixing your messages.