The Religion Discussion

[rocknrolla]

Have these scientists created synthetic life?
They are calling this a synthetic living cell. But they did use an existing cell as a template and as a recipient for their home-made DNA. Strictly speaking, it is only the genome - the DNA in the cell - that is entirely synthetic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10134341 (the next tab of the page)

Stop using God's design and His matter, create it out of nothing and then we will entertain the idea of natural abiogenesis.

this^^

could not have said it better myself.

[Habit7]

We know

[Bizzare]

Have these scientists created synthetic life?
They are calling this a synthetic living cell. But they did use an existing cell as a template and as a recipient for their home-made DNA. Strictly speaking, it is only the genome - the DNA in the cell - that is entirely synthetic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10134341 (the next tab of the page)

Stop using God's design and His matter, create it out of nothing and then we will entertain the idea of natural abiogenesis.

Now you'll have to prove that the "design & matter" actually belongs to a supreme being - God.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

We know

how you roughing up the man so

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Because non-religious people believe that science trumps God. If they cant prove it, it doesnt exist to them. Yet reference of God is found right in our own anthem and the US dollar bills because deep down inside, most people believe in something greater than us.

God is on the dollar bill and anthem because church and state were indiscernible at one point.

the secular notions of many governments today is proof that they would like to move away from that union.

the transition from the dark ages when church and state were one.

u see science is based on alot of things and if there isn't a simple or complex explanation then it's foolish ...........when science can CREATE life out of molecules or from scratch I'll lead an athestic crusade.

Take a read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

[Habit7]

Now you'll have to prove that the "design & matter" actually belongs to a supreme being - God.

The design that we see in this universe must have come from an intelligent being because we observe that design, comes from intelligent beings.

We know that matter cannot be created or destroyed, so it must be eternal. But that violates the law of causality which basically states that everything in nature must have a preceding cause. So it must be that all matter came into existence at some point and no more is being produced. The cause of matter therefore must be a-material (not of matter) and as matter assembles according to pre-existing natural laws (design) the cause is also intelligent (see reasoning above).

Now who/what is this God...

*exits realm of science and enters theology*

[Habit7]

We know

how you roughing up the man so

Me boss? Check out MGman and maj.tom for that. I just didn't see why we were going down the road of unstructured thought.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ your reply was funny though!

[Sacchetto Boutique]

Because non-religious people believe that science trumps God. If they cant prove it, it doesnt exist to them. Yet reference of God is found right in our own anthem and the US dollar bills because deep down inside, most people believe in something greater than us.

God is on the dollar bill and anthem because church and state were indiscernible at one point.

the secular notions of many governments today is proof that they would like to move away from that union.

the transition from the dark ages when church and state were one.

u see science is based on alot of things and if there isn't a simple or complex explanation then it's foolish ...........when science can CREATE life out of molecules or from scratch I'll lead an athestic crusade.

Take a read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

curious to see if this will happen in the near future ie removing all reference to "God"

[krisjoseph_2000]

Because non-religious people believe that science trumps God. If they cant prove it, it doesnt exist to them. Yet reference of God is found right in our own anthem and the US dollar bills because deep down inside, most people believe in something greater than us.

God is on the dollar bill and anthem because church and state were indiscernible at one point.

the secular notions of many governments today is proof that they would like to move away from that union.

the transition from the dark ages when church and state were one.

u see science is based on alot of things and if there isn't a simple or complex explanation then it's foolish ...........when science can CREATE life out of molecules or from scratch I'll lead an athestic crusade.

Take a read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

first off info on Wikipedia is not always 100 percent correct the owners themselves admit that. Secondly it's not fact it's scientific fact. The difference is in the scientific community it is accepted but not otherwise hence the term "scientific fact" it is still disputable outside that circle. I rely on science every day without it I would not have a job. Science cannot create life and the explanations derived for the creation of life are based on speculation because if it was that simple the conditions would have been recreated in a lab somewhere.

Sent from my A1_07 using TriniTuner mobile app

[Sacchetto Boutique]

Duno how much longer its gona take these scientists to figure the big bang theory and replicate creation already! Both the bIble and The Quran contains information about creation. The quran includes rotation, orbiting, how babies are formed etc etc. It can be considered recently that scientists can explain such details. To me, this is also proof of a "God"

[krisjoseph_2000]

The "God" comes up automatically on my device which means even the foolish people who made android software to some extent respect the "notion"

[rocknrolla]

padna hear what i sayin.. science.. will never.. i repeat.. NEVER create LIFE...

NEVER!

regarding intelligence and thought.. they will NEVER create that either. they could make artificial intelligence using complex, layered algorithms, but will never truly replicate the response that u see from intelligent creatures.. the reaction of a dog when ye see u blazing a piece of chicken.. the passion in his eyes.. nah.. those things can never be faked..

inferior magic.

i not sayin science bad eh. nothing good or bad is how it is used. but is the intention the driving force of the scientific community want to come with that is the problem.

"i will exhalt myself above God"

sound familiar??

the lil tech trinkets nice and ting eh, but they will never hold an iota to the creator of the heavens. that said.. we can look forward to a future where science and religion merges.. it will at first be a very impure merger. but when ppl start to wake up to dogma and see the truth.. spirituality will cut thru all religions as a universal truth. it dont matter what country u from, who ur ancestors are, what name u call ur Gods.. we all have a soul, which is the essence of intelligence.. true intelligent life. a similarity that breaks all divisive borders and unites everyone.

[DFC]

Duno how much longer its gona take these scientists to figure the big bang theory and replicate creation already! Both the bIble and The Quran contains information about creation. The quran includes rotation, orbiting, how babies are formed etc etc. It can be considered recently that scientists can explain such details. To me, this is also proof of a "God"

you cant be serious.

Explain to me how Muhammed split the moon please.

[rocknrolla]

Because non-religious people believe that science trumps God. If they cant prove it, it doesnt exist to them. Yet reference of God is found right in our own anthem and the US dollar bills because deep down inside, most people believe in something greater than us.

God is on the dollar bill and anthem because church and state were indiscernible at one point.

the secular notions of many governments today is proof that they would like to move away from that union.

the transition from the dark ages when church and state were one.

u see science is based on alot of things and if there isn't a simple or complex explanation then it's foolish ...........when science can CREATE life out of molecules or from scratch I'll lead an athestic crusade.

Take a read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

first off info on Wikipedia is not always 100 percent correct the owners themselves admit that. Secondly it's not fact it's scientific fact. The difference is in the scientific community it is accepted but not otherwise hence the term "scientific fact" it is still disputable outside that circle. I rely on science every day without it I would not have a job. Science cannot create life and the explanations derived for the creation of life are based on speculation because if it was that simple the conditions would have been recreated in a lab somewhere.

Sent from my A1_07 using TriniTuner mobile app

example of scientific fact:

i and many others pass exams with the answer " there are 9 planets in our solar system"

10 years later... "pluto is not a planet there are only 8 planets."

i never knew facts does change.

[DFC]

turbotusty, you on real heights fadda.

hahahaahhaahahahaha

[megadoc1]

I guess its my turn to say LOL.....

[Daran]

turbotusty, you are mentally challenged or just trolling? (srs)

[rocknrolla]

turbotusty, you are mentally challenged or just trolling? (srs)

im a mentally challenged troll.

are u trying to demonstrate what a waste of break looks like?

[megadoc1]

hey hey! turbotusty take yuh time or go someplace else ...no need for disrespect

[rocknrolla]

hey hey! turbotusty take yuh time or go someplace else ...no need for disrespect

i dont understand.. he ask me a question.. i answer him and ask him a question too. no disrespect intended (srs)

[Habit7]

APRIL 2, 2013 12:00 AM
The Bible vs. the Heart
The human heart alone is a terribly flawed guide to social policy.
By Dennis Prager


I offer the single most politically incorrect statement a modern American — indeed a modern Westerner, period — can make: I look first to the Bible for moral guidance and for wisdom.

I say this even though I am not a Christian (I am a Jew, and a non-Orthodox one at that). And I say this even though I attended an Ivy League graduate school (Colombia), where I learned nothing about the Bible except that it was irrelevant, outdated, and frequently immoral.

I say this because there is nothing — not any other work, religious or secular, or body of work — that comes close to having played a role like the Bible’s in forming the moral basis of Western civilization and therefore the basis of nearly all moral progress in the world.

It was this book that guided every one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, including those described as “deists.” It is the book that formed the foundational values of every major American university. It is the book from which every morally great American from George Washington to Abraham Lincoln to the Reverend (yes, “the Reverend,” almost always omitted today in favor of his secular credential, “Dr.”) Martin Luther King Jr. got his values.

It is this book that gave humanity the Ten Commandments, the greatest moral code ever devised. It not only codified the essential moral rules for society, it announced that the Creator of the universe stands behind them, demands them, and judges humans’ compliance with them.

It gave humanity the great moral rule, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

It taught humanity the unprecedented and unparalleled concept that all human beings are created equal because all human beings — of every race, ethnicity, nationality, and both male and female — are created in God’s image.

It taught people not to trust the human heart, but to be guided by moral law even when the heart pulled in a different direction.

This is the book that taught humanity that human sacrifice is an abomination.

This is the book that de-sexualized God — a first in human history.

This is the book that alone launched humanity on the long road to abolishing slavery. It was not only Bible-believers (what we would today call “religious fundamentalists”) who led the only crusade in the world against slavery, it was the Bible itself thousands of years before that taught that God abhors slavery, that legislated that one cannot return a slave to his owner, and that banned kidnapping for slaves in the Ten Commandments. Stealing people — kidnapping — was the most widespread source of slaves, and “Thou shall not steal” was first a ban on stealing humans, and then on stealing property.

It was this book that taught people the wisdom of Job and of Ecclesiastes, unparalleled masterpieces of world wisdom literature.

Without this book there would not have been Western civilization, or Western science, or Western human rights, or the abolitionist movement, or the United States of America, the freest, most prosperous, most opportunity-giving society ever formed.

For well over a generation, we have been living on “cut-flower ethics.” We have removed ethics from the Bible-based soil that gave them life, and we think they can survive removed from that soil. Fools and those possessing an arrogance bordering on self-deification think we can long survive as a decent society without teaching the Bible, and without consulting it for moral guidance and wisdom.

If not from the Bible, from where should people get their values and morals? The university? The New York Times editorial page? Those institutions have been wrong on virtually every great issue of good and evil in our generation. They mocked Ronald Reagan for calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” More than any other group in the world, Western intellectuals supported Stalin, Mao, and other Communist monsters. They are utterly morally confused concerning one of the most morally clear conflicts of our time — the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and other Arabs. The universities and their media supporters have taught a generation of Americans the idiocy that men and women are basically the same. And they are the institutions that teach that America’s founders were essentially moral reprobates — sexist and racist rich white men.

When the current executive editor of the New York Times, Jill Abramson, was appointed to that position, she announced that “in my house growing up, the Times substituted for religion.” The quote spoke volumes about the substitution of elite media for religion and the Bible in shaping contemporary America.

The other modern substitute for the Bible is the heart. We live in the Age of Feelings, and an entire generation of Americans has been raised to consult their heart to determine right and wrong.

If you trust the human heart, you should be delighted with this development. But those of us raised with Biblical wisdom do not trust the heart. So when we are told by almost every university, by almost every news source, by almost every entertainment medium that the heart demands what is probably the most radical social transformation since Western civilization began — redefining marriage, society’s most basic institution, in terms of gender — it may be wiser to trust the Biblical understanding of marriage than the heart’s.

My heart, too, supports same-sex marriage. But the heart alone is a terribly flawed guide to social policy. And it is the Bible that has produced all of the world’s most compassionate societies.

This, then, is the great modern battle: the Bible and the heart vs. the heart alone.

— Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His most recent book is Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... nis-prager

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ why is he a non-orthodox jew if he feels so strongly about the Bible?

Because non-religious people believe that science trumps God. If they cant prove it, it doesnt exist to them. Yet reference of God is found right in our own anthem and the US dollar bills because deep down inside, most people believe in something greater than us.

God is on the dollar bill and anthem because church and state were indiscernible at one point.

the secular notions of many governments today is proof that they would like to move away from that union.

the transition from the dark ages when church and state were one.

u see science is based on alot of things and if there isn't a simple or complex explanation then it's foolish ...........when science can CREATE life out of molecules or from scratch I'll lead an athestic crusade.

Take a read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

first off info on Wikipedia is not always 100 percent correct the owners themselves admit that. Secondly it's not fact it's scientific fact. The difference is in the scientific community it is accepted but not otherwise hence the term "scientific fact" it is still disputable outside that circle.

Wikipedia is crowd sourced but that does not change issue of what abiogenesis is and the scientific data around the theory

scientific fact is based on observation and testing.

if it cannot be observed and tested then it cannot be a fact.
Same reason why the existence of the Tooth Fairy is not a fact.

The scientific community will only accept something if it can be proven.
The number of people who accept something is irrelevant. If 6 billion people accept something without proof, it does not make it fact or true.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

example of scientific fact:

i and many others pass exams with the answer " there are 9 planets in our solar system"

10 years later... "pluto is not a planet there are only 8 planets."

i never knew facts does change.

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.

unlike religion, when new evidence is found, science will change its view. Just as when man thought the world was flat, or that the sun and moon went around the earth. When these were proven to be wrong, the view was changed.

Pluto was found to be too small to be classed as a planet and so Pluto was recategorized as a dwarf planet / plutoid owing to the discovery that it is only one of several large bodies within the Kuiper belt. i.e. there are other similar plutoids in the Kuiper Belt.

[rocknrolla]

all fine and good.. except one thing..

the religious books are not wrong and thus dont need to change.

again.. it is the interpretations of the pastors and the church and their influence on their flock taking their same interpretations that end up needing to change when they realise they interpretted something wrong.


either way i dont see how God is to blame for that? and why we should hold contempt for the magnificent creator of all that is.

[Habit7]

^ why is he a non-orthodox jew if he feels so strongly about the Bible?

Jews , orthodox or not, dont adher to the Bible, they adher to the Torah. He is saying in spite of this the Bible is a moral standard for us all.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

all fine and good.. except one thing..

the religious books are not wrong and thus dont need to change.

ALL religious books are correct?

if not then how do we determine which ones are right and which ones are wrong?

again.. it is the interpretations of the pastors and the church and their influence on their flock taking their same interpretations that end up needing to change when they realise they interpretted something wrong.

how do you determine which pieces of scripture are literal and which ones are not?

either way i dont see how God is to blame for that? and why we should hold contempt for the magnificent creator of all that is.

no one is blaming God here. Which creator should be worship though? The Christian creator who sent his only begotten Son? The Creator of Islam who did not have a son but revealed the word of God to the last Messenger? The Creator described in Hinduism who is the great grand"father" of all humans.

which one?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ why is he a non-orthodox jew if he feels so strongly about the Bible?

Jews , orthodox or not, dont adher to the Bible, they adher to the Torah. He is saying in spite of this the Bible is a moral standard for us all.

I understand that.

what I'm asking is if he thinks "the Bible is a moral standard for us all", why not then follow it's word and become a Christian?

[rocknrolla]

all fine and good.. except one thing..

the religious books are not wrong and thus dont need to change.

ALL religious books are correct?

if not then how do we determine which ones are right and which ones are wrong?

again.. it is the interpretations of the pastors and the church and their influence on their flock taking their same interpretations that end up needing to change when they realise they interpretted something wrong.

how do you determine which pieces of scripture are literal and which ones are not?

either way i dont see how God is to blame for that? and why we should hold contempt for the magnificent creator of all that is.

no one is blaming God here. Which creator should be worship though? The Christian creator who sent his only begotten Son? The Creator of Islam who did not have a son but revealed the word of God to the last Messenger? The Creator described in Hinduism who is the great grand"father" of all humans.

which one?

they are all the same God.

different cultures have different ways of experiencing life and interpretting their environment, the way their brain works everything is different. that's what separates cultures from one another. i personally believe that they are all referring to the same "path", but structured in ways that would in some way relate better to their region on earth at the time.

in that same way.. that in english the word for water is 'water'.. but in spanish it is 'agua'. the names of the God of each region is referring to the same entity but different names which have symbolic meaning in the way the language of that region is structured. the way i see it all the religions are in this pointless arguement for the name of the clear liquid. one calls it water, the other calls it agua and they all go to war over the name. but it's the same clear liquid.

the main problem is that ppl take things too literal and dont understand the metaphoric concept behind it all. it's symbolic, the deities themselves are symbolic. for example:

i was doing some research on the alphabet and came across some information that the letter 'j' was only added to the alphabet relatively recently. take a look for urself.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J

can anyone explain the ramifications of this?

[rocknrolla]

^ why is he a non-orthodox jew if he feels so strongly about the Bible?

Jews , orthodox or not, dont adher to the Bible, they adher to the Torah. He is saying in spite of this the Bible is a moral standard for us all.

I understand that.

what I'm asking is if he thinks "the Bible is a moral standard for us all", why not then follow it's word and become a Christian?

because changing religions is something advised against. because to change a religion means to reject the truth of God held within that religion along with those things u find to be lacking.

since we're searching for God, rejecting any little piece of it is a bad move.

i jumped the whole mile and simply merged the truth of them all into my way of life.