Quag

I voted agnostic without god, though i think there should have just been agnostic period. I voyed no god not because im more athiestic but im more non christian god than pro christian version of god. As to the existence of some sort of creator of the universe im completely ambivilent on it. I dont believe it makes one bit of difference one way or the other.

perhaps i have experiences this but i honestly cant remember a time that it happened. but thanx nash ill be on the lookout for it in the future

This is a silly debate. In the words of one of our ex Prime Ministers, Pierre Trudeau. "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."

Chuck Norris kicks... well everything actually hmm more thoughts on the experiment. what if afterwards we just expose the subject to 1 religion. try it several times with different religions. or inverse it expose religion only then bring in science. or bring them up with all religions and see what happens (I think i heard Bradd Pitt and Angelina Joli were doing this with theirs but the celebrity factor i think will be a stonger influence on their kids lives)

Ok Izzy i see where your coming from but i think my idea is significantly different enough. People who believe in or refuse to believe in a religion have come at that conclusion usually through a long slow process over their life. If we remove even the idea of religion from the growth and development of a person then at a later stage introduce a large number of them i think the results would be interesting. One of the problems i think a lot of people have is when they think of religion they only think of three, Judaism Christianity and Islam. they are 3 similar religions (go ahead flamers attack that, but they are) but if you add Hinduism, Budhism, Wicca, Taosim they begin to be much more dissimilar, also cover a wider range of the human population. We can even have fun and add dead religions such as the greek or norse mythos. BTW back onto what this topic was originally about seems the idiot suspended the burning. Unfortunately i doubt it had anything to do with him becoming less of a jerk.

WOW EDM i know IZZY can be caustic but really you too? and yes fairy tales and religion are intermingled despite what you believe. Choosing to believe that the earth is flat does not make it so. I am not trying to insult your belief in god, that is your personal choice but facts are facts myths and fairy tales are what the original religions were. Christianity is only 2k years old. Judaism on which it is based is about another 2-3k older. IZZY, you said the experiment has been done, where? when? Id love to know as it seems to me it would be impossible to actually do it.

i was giving you the benefit of the doubt, my statement stands fairy tales and myths are the original religions therefore religion could not have been there before them they are the same thing. i think my previous question about the experiment is an interesting question though give it a shot. but izzy you cannot do that with mice

not sure what you mean by this fairy tales and myths were the original religions. the idea of 1 god is incredibly new in human history.

Why do Christians believe in christianity? why do muslims believe in Islam? why do hindus beleive in hinduism? For 99% of them they were brought up in their religion and that is all they knew. Their entire society revolves around the predominat religion in their community. (holdays and what not) i would hardly expect a jew who had lost something he desperately needs to go "oh allah please help" me any more than a muslim to pray to shiva for anything. it is so part of their culture that the expressions even become routine. EG "god help us", by saying that it doesnt mean you believe in god necessarily but it does indicate that you are from a judeo-christian background. Darwin sat on his work for years because of the trouble he had reconciling his beliefs with what he had deduced (also fro fear of persecution from others who would try to destroy anything/anyone who disputed their view of the universe) In the end he had to publish because his conviction in his work forced him to modify his view of god, it was too ingrained in him to abandon it though. If an experiment could be possible where someone was brought up in complete isolation from any hint of religion then when as an adult after studying science extensively he/she was given the texts of all the major religions what do you think would happen? would they believe in one or any of the religions? or synthesize a new one by amalgamating them all? Or possibly say they are all ridiculous and cannot be believed?

actually fairy tales were taken seriuously originally so was mythology, just later on people became wiser and relized it was all bogus. someday hopefully humanity will realize the same thing about religion.

strange isnt it how all the interesting threads eventually turn into a debate between science and religion. EDM im not sure what you mean by religion isnt fairy tales. it is in fact a very good description for what religion is. just because you happen to believe certain fairy tales does not make them either true or not true, it just means you believe in fairy tales or a certain religion. (yes im sayng there is no basically difference between an angel and a fairy if your asking. Both have wings are magical, etc. perhaps they just differ on shape and size is all)

pontless perhaps but it can be amusing (or is that confusing?)

Gilbert an Sullivan wote light operas not plays. Oscar Wilde was best playwright ever. having said that Gilbert and Sullivan were geniuses

thos thread is getting silly, just like the dude who wants to burn books. silly is silly and shoudl be laughed at o better yet ignored. if this guy was ignored he would go away

basically i agree withthis bit. the guy is an idiot. but fortunately being an idiot is not against the law, otherwise there would be more people in prison than out of prison. America is a free country that means you are free to be a jerk if you want. shame really but the alternative where we make it illegal to be a jerk/idiot takes away everyones freedom.

exactly what mmiguel1 said. but just to play with it a bit. you can never actually put the twigs back together again. its kinda liek humpty dumpty. some things when broken in 2 can never be rejoined. so what you actually have is 2 pieces of twig stuck together they do not become 1 twig again, they remain 2 pieces just stuck together.

the men dying from heart attacks wa a joke, yes genetic defects go both ways but if a woman (or a man) keeps the same partner then there is the chance that genetic defects will be passed on so yes arguement goes both ways. what i'm saying is that genetically speaking it is better to spread the gene pool. my point on the sperm is for a woman 1-2 days is still 1-2 days. and statistically speaking it is still a factor. the point of the 20 kids (it was an arbitrary number to just show the point) was to show that as a species, not individually, polygamy genetically makes sense. Often what is good for an individual is not necessarily good for the species as a whole. why would a woman having 20 kids from same man have healthier kids than from 20 different men? you make statement as if it is fact but again genetically speaking it makes no sense. If you are talking about societal development of the kids that is another matter. You realize if you inverse the words women and men in that sentence it means exactly the same thing. ie if a woman mates for life to 1 man then that means a man mates for life with 1 woman. polygamy being illegal in north america, and only practised by an very small minority, there is ample proof of all kinds of problems with the children in these polygamous families. side. i think this is why i like this forum people always go off topic in interesting ways. not completely way out or stuff just slightly off topic

actually this is not true. though the 9 month thing is true (for humans) there are a lot of other factors. for instance the more often a male has sex the lower his sperm count. so a woman during her fertile period having sex with multiple partners greatly increases her chances of becoming pregnant. A woman having sex all the time does not affect her chances of becoming pregnant but a man who has sex constantly reduces his. Yes i know he doesnt have to have sex constantly but lets face it hes a male if he can he will (obligatory sexist remark sorry) A man who constantly has sex with the same woman increases the chance that he will have have sex during the time a woman is fertile, with multiple woman there is the chance he will miss the fertile period. unless he is having sex with them all every day, but again sperm count decreases and well eventually hed just have a heart attack and die (die happy of course but still die) There is the whole sterility problem but that goes both ways. the more diversified the gene pool for a woman's (or a man's for that matter) the lesser the possibility of all children having the same genetic defects (yes i know if it comes from the woman it changes nothing but right away you are diversifying 50% of the gene pool. If your talking about mentally stable offspring as opposed to physically healthy offspring then your statemnet could have some merit but that also works for men as well. On the whole the human race is roughly 50/50 male/female if say over her lifetime a woman can have say 20 children (arbitrary number), women having several men gives them best diversification. for men to have several women to increase the number over the 20 it means other men have to sire less than 20. so yeah 1 guy can father 200 kids but that means several others will never become fathers. good for the lucky guy, sucks for the others. if the women divesify then all can reach their potential 20 with maximum genetic mixing. which is on the whole best for all, genetic diversificationally speaking. that is why i said better for women, as it is better for the human race as a whole than just men being polygamous.

the fallign in "love" with a painting thing isnt love its more like obsession or infatuation. having said that i agree that love is hard to define. it is more than inatuation, obsession or lust, stonger but less intense, if that makes sense. About males mating for life being stupid izzy i have to partially disagree i think it is just as silly if not more so for females to mate for life. it reduces their chance of carrying on their lineage as much, if not more so than for men. As to human love being different than animal love i have to say no. many animals mate for life, is a good example. However i would like to use a more personal and emotional arguement. Ask any pet owner if they love their pets and if their pets love them the answer will almost always be yes (there are a few mean pets out there )

1. Because 2. Because 3. maybe it does 4. maybe 5. Because, we dont really know yet i know very pat answers but they are just as good as any other ones

mostly been just reading this thread, but ill make a small point now, gvg if heaven is a place where everything is provided to you, i dont see how it can, at the same time be a place of happiness that never wavers. If one does not strive for something, if there is no risk of failure, then there is no sense of accomplishment, no real reward. take any game and rig it so that you always win. you may feel great at winning at first but soon you will become very bored with it. On the Utopia bit i agree we will never ceate it ourselves, i just dont see how we can, That doesnt mean we shouldnt TRY to create utopia, we should and maybe we will get a bit closer

I dont understand the point about the bacteria and the robot. but unreality's last post pretty much sums it up. compelxity or lack thereof has nothing to do with proving the existence of god.

gvg, your still saying the same thing though, if god always existed why couldnt the universe have aways existed? If god was created just before the big bang, then who created god? if no one needed to create him than why did the universe need someone to create it? BTW when i mention the BIG BANG i am including the theory that the universe has had an unending series of big bangs as well (though for this thread it makes little difference whether there has been 1, serveral or infinite big bangs)