Could you define "integrity of the texts"?

23yrold3yrold
Rules

Thanks for all the replies, I guess ultimately it's impossible to answer. From my point of view I have never believed in any kind of God, don't ask me why I just haven't ever thought it to be possible. That's interesting (maybe) because when I heard that we are all stardust I got completely freaked and have spent a lot of my time (when I would usually be playing Battlefield 2) trying to understand how. It's never been a problem for me; for 31 years I've never even questioned how and why I'm here, and now I can't the idea out of my head. I keep looking at people going about their daily lives and feel like screaming out "OH MY GOD WE ARE ALL STARDUST!!!", it's really getting at me, and my inability to understand the science completely is actually starting to affect my daily routines.

What's interesting is that not for one second have I believed in Creationism or God (I'm not having a go at faith here, I'm all for it if it helps you stay positive), but I'm prepared to believe a different theory, so much so that I would actually dedicate my life to understanding it if it was an option to me.

I'm going to play some Battlefield now, and try not too think about it too much.

I don't think anyone believes that to be true.

The process of evolution that leads to us began a very long time ago and involves an unthinkable number of iterations. That's why it's ridiculous to think of dirt or an ape suddenly spawning a human. That isn't at all what scientists theorize.

Perhaps that should make it clear to you that you've not given science the opportunity to explain, and are therefore opposing it simply because it refutes your beliefs.

See if you can grasp this (it's only 2 minutes of your time!):

You find it hard to believe, some find it incredibly easy. But thats just how it works with these kind of things and why its pointless to talk about it.

On a side note: piccolo, still waiting for that infinite energy device.

That was a very poorly thought out and constructed statement. It is entirely and wholly wrong in every manner.

<edit>
I have some things to say about that!
</edit>

Religion was created, in part, to provide answers to the unanswerable; things such as the creation of life, etc. And now, science has come along to shed light on these things, providing convincing evidence for the Big Bang and ultimately proving human evolution as undeniable fact.

As Derezo said:

Nope. It's fact. It obviously goes much deeper, but I am not about to give you a full course on Anthropology

Nope. It's fact. It obviously goes much deeper, but I am not about to give you a full course on Anthropology

Cool; we're in agreement.

Mine? I'm not editing ...

So that process indirectly spawned man? Let me clarify: I don't think life just spontaneously "happened" in any form. Chains of protein don't typically just form in puddles of organic matter; and organic matter can't just appear from nothing. A star exploding billions of years in the past explains nothing: the laws of physics and reality applied then just as much as they do now. That star had to come from somewhere.

Evolution is an unproven theory created by faulted mankind that tries to explain his existence by means that factor anything but his own understanding out of the equation. And by definition, man's understanding is flawed.

But it's not pointless! The way we understand where we came from and where we are going affects the choices we make in our everyday lives. I refuse to live a life of apathy because I know that what I do today affects my life in the future; it's no different when considering matters beyond our own lifetime.

Evolution is no more of a science than the spontaneous generation theories of the Greeks. It's a repackaged version that appeals to the tastes of the modern scientific community. I could argue with your statement further, but really; it is the Theory of Evolution, not the Law.

Let me be clear: I don't mean to be disrespectful in any way.

IIRC, the word science derives from the latin word for knowledge. That's all science really is. It's knowledge. Prior to modern day science, the world was full of unexplainable things, and naturally people did their best to explain them. Unfortunately, since they hadn't acquired the knowledge that we have today, their explanations were usually very wrong and ridiculous. Of course, to people of the time, these explanations would have been very believable. So, yes, I think you could say that religion is a sort of precursor to science. It was a way to explain things. It was more than that also. It was a way to control the population. It was a way to exploit the population.

I saw a special on Discovery or something years ago detailing contraptions that "the church" had secretly contracted inventors to build to effectively trick people (i.e., you could compare these contraptions to modern day magic tricks and illusions). The people were completely fooled and believed it was magic AKA God. In reality, it was simple science (physics, mostly) creating the illusions. Of course, the churches were kept dark and "behind the curtain" was considered off limits for common folk, so you can see how easily people would be fooled.

In any case, modern day religion is something of a different beast. It is still used to some extent to explain things, but it's no longer (edit: if it ever was...) used for the betterment of humanity and is instead used to exploit it. They had a good run, but it's time to give the people their money back.

And the cycle repeats itself

That's not my kind of religion