How did life begin?

[Willd]

Before I start the main part of this post I'd just like to say a little something about where I'm coming from. I have been lurking this forum for a little while now and have made a couple of posts but this is my first post of any significant content.

I am a Christian and am currently an engineering student in Sheffield, England. I would like to think that in general I'm a logical person and up to now I have had no major problems with accepting Christianity as logical. There are certain aspects that I'm unsure of but there have been other things I have experienced/seen happen that have made it seem illogical not to believe.

Anyway, enough about me and onto what I wanted to post about. I'm obviously familiar with the theory of evolution and how it postures that life evolved from single celled organisms and eventually led to what we have now (this is an area I am actually slightly unsure of what I think/believe but for now I'd rather it wasn't too involved in this thread). What I don't know so much about is an atheist viewpoint on how the very first life form was created.

From what I have read (admittedly a lot of biased material, but all with seemingly strong references) it seems that the chance of life occuring spontaneously is all but zero. There is the overused analogy of it being as likely as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a boeing 747 but from what I know that doesn't seem absurd. Life is immensely complex, far more so than a 747, requiring as many as 200 proteins each made up of a string of 100+ amino acids for even the simplest form of life.

What then is the atheist explanation for life on Earth? The only theory I've ever heard is panspermia which frankly seems slightly off the wall and in any case just shifts the problem to somewhere else in the universe. If you could give me any further insight as to current theories and any evidence for them that would be greatly appreciated.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Before I start the main part of this post I'd just like to say a little something about where I'm coming from. I have been lurking this forum for a little while now and have made a couple of posts but this is my first post of any significant content.

I am a Christian and am currently an engineering student in Sheffield, England. I would like to think that in general I'm a logical person and up to now I have had no major problems with accepting Christianity as logical. There are certain aspects that I'm unsure of but there have been other things I have experienced/seen happen that have made it seem illogical not to believe.

Anyway, enough about me and onto what I wanted to post about. I'm obviously familiar with the theory of evolution and how it postures that life evolved from single celled organisms and eventually led to what we have now (this is an area I am actually slightly unsure of what I think/believe but for now I'd rather it wasn't too involved in this thread). What I don't know so much about is an atheist viewpoint on how the very first life form was created.

From what I have read (admittedly a lot of biased material, but all with seemingly strong references) it seems that the chance of life occuring spontaneously is all but zero. There is the overused analogy of it being as likely as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a boeing 747 but from what I know that doesn't seem absurd. Life is immensely complex, far more so than a 747, requiring as many as 200 proteins each made up of a string of 100+ amino acids for even the simplest form of life.

What then is the atheist explanation for life on Earth? The only theory I've ever heard is panspermia which frankly seems slightly off the wall and in any case just shifts the problem to somewhere else in the universe. If you could give me any further insight as to current theories and any evidence for them that would be greatly appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a terrible analogy, first off, although its not your fault for using it. Its very popular. Honestly, I don't think anyone, currently, is in a good position to postulate what the odds of the first life coming together randomly were. A few majors reasons for this: We don't REALLY know what conditions on Earth were like, then, and we don't really know what the first life form was. If the first life-form was an extremely simple version of RNA, or even simpler, some sort of silicon or inorganic replicator, then obviously the odds of this randomly occurring increase greatly. If the world just happened to be in a state that facilitated exactly this sort of random occurrence, our odds go way up again. I don't know very much about the actual science or data of abiogenesis (although I am under the assumption that there isn't much of it to know about) but, strictly logically speaking, the metaphor of a tornado in a junkyard is about as arbitrary as me saying the odds were about the same as flipping a coin and getting heads. The mathematics used to support the tornado metaphor are based on a whole host of assertions that have no support.

If the history of evolutionary discovery has taught us anything, the likely right answer is that some extremely gradual, slow process guided the development of the first life, in many stages that were themselves not extremely unlikely, possibly over millions of trials in which the failures were excluded. All of this is, of course, conjecture on my part.

[Prodigy54321]

I only want to make a couple comments..since I don't know much about this specifically..and I don't think that a whole lot is known about it anyway.

There is no "atheist viewpoint"...there may be a viewpoint that is what most atheists believe..probably because it logically follows when you don't shove a god in there, but atheism does not demand that you hold any "alternative" beliefs..alternative to religious beliefs that is.

I believe that the only thing that is necessary as a "first life form" is a replicator..from there, it seems that the evolution that we know is inevitable...

I don't know about the specific estimations of likelihood that something like this would be formed...but there are a couple things that I think should be considered...1) the nature of the situation we are talking about...for instance, conditions that this occurrence is dependent on may have been more ideal at other times..and 2) whether there are even "smaller" steps that replicators..prehaps there are other, more easily formed, things that would help to bring about a replicator..but again, I don't know enough about the subject to be confident that what I am saying is true...just some random thoughts

[Alex-db]

isn't this a good example of where agnosticism is perfectly correct, unlike over-polite fence sitting atheists talking about the Holy Trilogy.

I'm agnostic on this issue, I don't know the answer. That doesn't in any way suggest one of the popular religious mythologies might have as good a chance of being correct as anything else, btw (just common sense needed for that)

I think I'd be right in assuming most (all?) of the scientific community is currently agnostic on this, which is a hugely significant aspect if you have ever heard anyone suggest science is as faith based as religion.

[Piers]

Gradually developed over millions of years though trillions of random chemical reactions.

My guess is that given the initial starting conditions of the earth, the development of life in some form was either very likely or a virtual certainty. The basic building blocks might have need a lot of luck to get created by chance, but over many billions of years it becomes a virtual certainty. Roll the dice enough times and eventually they will all come up sixes.

Of course I might be misjudging this, but we are here and that has to count for something.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
isn't this a good example of where agnosticism is perfectly correct, unlike over-polite fence sitting atheists talking about the Holy Trilogy.

I'm agnostic on this issue, I don't know the answer. That doesn't in any way suggest one of the popular religious mythologies might have as good a chance of being correct as anything else, btw (just common sense needed for that)

I think I'd be right in assuming most (all?) of the scientific community is currently agnostic on this, which is a hugely significant aspect if you have ever heard anyone suggest science is as faith based as religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post.

[madnak]

What vhawk and Alex said.

The plain and simple fact is that we don't know how life originated, and we don't know how likely it was. Some people have manipulated what limited data we have in an attempt to describe some "likelihood" of life occurring spontaneously, but it's all based on hot air. Not only have there been no mathematically and scientifically consistent conjectures, but it's not even possible to formulate such a conjecture yet.

What I'll say is that the main argument of the scientists is careful analysis and reasoned speculation, while the main argument of the creationists is that it doesn't seem intuitive. In these kinds of debates, the scientists almost always win - the workings of our universe are simply counterintuitive sometimes, especially when based on incomplete information.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
What vhawk and Alex said.

The plain and simple fact is that we don't know how life originated, and we don't know how likely it was. Some people have manipulated what limited data we have in an attempt to describe some "likelihood" of life occurring spontaneously, but it's all based on hot air. Not only have there been no mathematically and scientifically consistent conjectures, but it's not even possible to formulate such a conjecture yet.

What I'll say is that the main argument of the scientists is careful analysis and reasoned speculation, while the main argument of the creationists is that it doesn't seem intuitive. In these kinds of debates, the scientists almost always win - the workings of our universe are simply counterintuitive sometimes, especially when based on incomplete information.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is really amazing to me that people still consider 'counterintuitive' to be a valid criticism of any sort of explanation. Haven't the last hundred years or so of evolutionary biology given us a pretty decent understanding of exactly how counterintuitive reality can be, and exactly WHY so many things are counterintuitive? Is this just a harkening back to the good old days of mathematical discovery, where the best proofs were always intuitive and elegant and beautiful?

And it also sort of exposes peoples misunderstanding of what 'intuitive' really means. There are probably hundreds of papers that instantly make intuitive sense to Boro or Rduke about their respective subjects that seem counterintuitive to me. Once fully explained, this disappears. Counterintuitive is really just another way of saying "I am currently pretty ignorant about this." It probably works as a general, practical rule for getting through your day, but it has a dodgy track record in sussing out truth.

[Pauwl]

I think there was a couple possible scenarios listed in The Blind Watchmaker that were really basic replicators. I think crystals was one of them.

btw, the primordial ooze theory was proven to be false, wasn't it?

[SitNHit]

Your a Christian? How stupid are you, don't you know thats impossible and the existance of God hasnt been proven.

I for one and smart enough to know that cause its not be proven its not possible.

Of course the universe just started out of nowhere and there was nothing before it, thats the only logical explanation. Lots of randoms and monkeys, etc.

Big Bang Boom = Universe

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Your a Christian? How stupid are you, don't you know thats impossible and the existance of God hasnt been proven.

I for one and smart enough to know that cause its not be proven its not possible.

Of course the universe just started out of nowhere and there was nothing before it, thats the only logical explanation. Lots of randoms and monkeys, etc.

Big Bang Boom = Universe

[/ QUOTE ]

Were you abused by atheists or scientists as a kid? Show me where anyone has said the things you claim to have been told.

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your a Christian? How stupid are you, don't you know thats impossible and the existance of God hasnt been proven.

I for one and smart enough to know that cause its not be proven its not possible.

Of course the universe just started out of nowhere and there was nothing before it, thats the only logical explanation. Lots of randoms and monkeys, etc.

Big Bang Boom = Universe

[/ QUOTE ]

Were you abused by atheists or scientists as a kid? Show me where anyone has said the things you claim to have been told.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, just the last 24 hours, lol.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your a Christian? How stupid are you, don't you know thats impossible and the existance of God hasnt been proven.

I for one and smart enough to know that cause its not be proven its not possible.

Of course the universe just started out of nowhere and there was nothing before it, thats the only logical explanation. Lots of randoms and monkeys, etc.

Big Bang Boom = Universe

[/ QUOTE ]

Were you abused by atheists or scientists as a kid? Show me where anyone has said the things you claim to have been told.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, just the last 24 hours, lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

And again, dodging the question. I am nearly certain that no one on this forum has told you that your religious beliefs are impossible.

The fact that you discriminate between your set of beliefs with no support whatsoever and some other set of beliefs with no support whatsoever is entirely up to you. Its just when you present them as if they had any validity whatsoever that you run into dissention.

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your a Christian? How stupid are you, don't you know thats impossible and the existance of God hasnt been proven.

I for one and smart enough to know that cause its not be proven its not possible.

Of course the universe just started out of nowhere and there was nothing before it, thats the only logical explanation. Lots of randoms and monkeys, etc.

Big Bang Boom = Universe

[/ QUOTE ]

Were you abused by atheists or scientists as a kid? Show me where anyone has said the things you claim to have been told.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, just the last 24 hours, lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

And again, dodging the question. I am nearly certain that no one on this forum has told you that your religious beliefs are impossible.

The fact that you discriminate between your set of beliefs with no support whatsoever and some other set of beliefs with no support whatsoever is entirely up to you. Its just when you present them as if they had any validity whatsoever that you run into dissention.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know the difference between an agnostic and an athiest sir? And what type of Athiest do you consider yourself to be?

As far as your question, thats the impression I get, tell me where it says anybody here says its possible(who is an athiest). I must of skipped that part or forgot it, im not gonna reread all the posts, ha..

[SitNHit]

I should ask are you a gnostic athiest? An agnostic athiest? a gnostic theist?, etc.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Your a Christian? How stupid are you, don't you know thats impossible and the existance of God hasnt been proven.

I for one and smart enough to know that cause its not be proven its not possible.

Of course the universe just started out of nowhere and there was nothing before it, thats the only logical explanation. Lots of randoms and monkeys, etc.

Big Bang Boom = Universe

[/ QUOTE ]

SitNHit..a friendly suggestion..

you really need to take your time when writing..it's very hard to understand your english..I have close to no clue what any of this post is supposed to mean..

that's not a hate on you..just a warning that people may (and I think already are) misunderstanding your points because it is not worded correctly.

[SitNHit]

Believe me I know, sometimes I read what I type and am mystified. I dont know what it is but I will be more careful and run in grammer and spell check on word. I appreciate the critique.

I agree that lots of things are being misunderstood cause of it.

Thanks again.

[Phil153]

There's no currently satisfying explanation of the origin of the first cells. I can imagine how it could happen, though. From my limited understanding, I think it would be sufficient if the first cells had a lipid wall (easy), with working ion pumps (possible) embedded in the wall to automatically maintain cell pressure/integrity. These "cells" could have been produced in a number of microsites, such as the microscopic spaces in a porous structure. Introduce replicating molecules into the cell (easy) that can produce protein-like substances to automatically perform various functions (pre-RNA type molecules such as simple self replicating polymers could easily be formed in the early earth), and you have the beginnings of life.

That's not to say any of this proven, or even plausible. But you can roughly sketch how it could work.

Most of evolution requires a strong imagination to intuitively join the dots and grasp the way events occur. For example, I can propose a credible path as to how an eye could evolve from a flat patch of light sensitive cells. Those who can't see the eye as impossible or irreducibly complex, which is amusing.

[ QUOTE ]
Life is immensely complex, far more so than a 747, requiring as many as 200 proteins each made up of a string of 100+ amino acids for even the simplest form of life.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not exactly. Don't forget there are a large number of ways to make a cell - what you see today is just a handful at the end of 3 billion years of evolution. What you're doing is analagous to looking at a computer today, and wondering how they could ever have made a computer with the technology they had in 1950. Obviously they couldn't, so the first computers must have been made by aliens/God!

Things can start from very simple beginnings and accumulate changes over a long period of time. If you can visualize a blob of liquid surround by a lipid wall (very doable) with ion pumps in the cell wall made from simple proteins, you're on your way to imagining the first cells.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your a Christian? How stupid are you, don't you know thats impossible and the existance of God hasnt been proven.

I for one and smart enough to know that cause its not be proven its not possible.

Of course the universe just started out of nowhere and there was nothing before it, thats the only logical explanation. Lots of randoms and monkeys, etc.

Big Bang Boom = Universe

[/ QUOTE ]

Were you abused by atheists or scientists as a kid? Show me where anyone has said the things you claim to have been told.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, just the last 24 hours, lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

And again, dodging the question. I am nearly certain that no one on this forum has told you that your religious beliefs are impossible.

The fact that you discriminate between your set of beliefs with no support whatsoever and some other set of beliefs with no support whatsoever is entirely up to you. Its just when you present them as if they had any validity whatsoever that you run into dissention.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know the difference between an agnostic and an athiest sir? And what type of Athiest do you consider yourself to be?

As far as your question, thats the impression I get, tell me where it says anybody here says its possible(who is an athiest). I must of skipped that part or forgot it, im not gonna reread all the posts, ha..

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, there is a difference? We have about a thread/week about the difference, so if I said I was crystal clear on it I'd be lying. I don't consider myself an atheist, really, except when the situation calls for it. The terms mean different things in different contexts. I am an atheist in the same sense I am an a-unicornist, but I am not an atheist in the sense that I am 100% and have faith in the idea that no type of God can possibly exist.

What type of atheist are you talking about? Do you find that the type who claims 'it is 100% impossible that any type of God can exist' actually exists? I've never met such an atheist, although I'm not surprised to find thats what your religious elders have conditioned you to expect. Its a useful strawman when your position is vulnerable.

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
although I'm not surprised to find thats what your religious elders have conditioned you to expect. Its a useful strawman when your position is vulnerable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a gnostic or agnostic point of view? Cause I can tell you for sure that never in church have we ever discussed what an athiest is, at least to what I can remember.

Yes there is a difference,
The Gnostic Athiest knows there is or isnt a God.

The Agnostic athiest has a belief there is no God but admitting they just don't know.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
although I'm not surprised to find thats what your religious elders have conditioned you to expect. Its a useful strawman when your position is vulnerable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a gnostic or agnostic point of view? Cause I can tell you for sure that never in church have we ever discussed what an athiest is, at least to what I can remember.

Yes there is a difference,
The Gnostic Athiest knows there is or isnt a God.

The Agnostic athiest has a belief there is no God but admitting they just don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

And, importantly, the gnostic atheist doesn't exist.

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
although I'm not surprised to find thats what your religious elders have conditioned you to expect. Its a useful strawman when your position is vulnerable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a gnostic or agnostic point of view? Cause I can tell you for sure that never in church have we ever discussed what an athiest is, at least to what I can remember.

Yes there is a difference,
The Gnostic Athiest knows there is or isnt a God.

The Agnostic athiest has a belief there is no God but admitting they just don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

And, importantly, the gnostic atheist doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a gnostic thing to say, are you sure about that?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
although I'm not surprised to find thats what your religious elders have conditioned you to expect. Its a useful strawman when your position is vulnerable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a gnostic or agnostic point of view? Cause I can tell you for sure that never in church have we ever discussed what an athiest is, at least to what I can remember.

Yes there is a difference,
The Gnostic Athiest knows there is or isnt a God.

The Agnostic athiest has a belief there is no God but admitting they just don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

And, importantly, the gnostic atheist doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a gnostic thing to say, are you sure about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I am gnostic about many things. Atheism isn't one of them. Have you ever met a so-called gnostic atheist? Someone is 100% that no type of God could exist? I'm going to guess the answer is an obvious no. Until you have, don't you think it is incredibly dishonest to prop up this strawman?

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
although I'm not surprised to find thats what your religious elders have conditioned you to expect. Its a useful strawman when your position is vulnerable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a gnostic or agnostic point of view? Cause I can tell you for sure that never in church have we ever discussed what an athiest is, at least to what I can remember.

Yes there is a difference,
The Gnostic Athiest knows there is or isnt a God.

The Agnostic athiest has a belief there is no God but admitting they just don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

And, importantly, the gnostic atheist doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a gnostic thing to say, are you sure about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I am gnostic about many things. Atheism isn't one of them. Have you ever met a so-called gnostic atheist? Someone is 100% that no type of God could exist? I'm going to guess the answer is an obvious no. Until you have, don't you think it is incredibly dishonest to prop up this strawman?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ive met those who have said such, whether or not I truly know if they know is up for debate.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
although I'm not surprised to find thats what your religious elders have conditioned you to expect. Its a useful strawman when your position is vulnerable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a gnostic or agnostic point of view? Cause I can tell you for sure that never in church have we ever discussed what an athiest is, at least to what I can remember.

Yes there is a difference,
The Gnostic Athiest knows there is or isnt a God.

The Agnostic athiest has a belief there is no God but admitting they just don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

And, importantly, the gnostic atheist doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a gnostic thing to say, are you sure about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I am gnostic about many things. Atheism isn't one of them. Have you ever met a so-called gnostic atheist? Someone is 100% that no type of God could exist? I'm going to guess the answer is an obvious no. Until you have, don't you think it is incredibly dishonest to prop up this strawman?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ive met those who have said such, whether or not I truly know if they know is up for debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then make fun of them I guess. I am suspicious of this, since I am positive I encounter more atheists than you on a monthly or yearly basis and I've never met one. Even the more assertive atheists on this board do not come close to such a statement.

[m_the0ry]

An impossibility is defined as having a probability of zero.

Is the probability of molecules being in exactly the right spot at the right time to start a self-replicating chain reaction greater than zero? Yes. Absolutely. Without a doubt. This means it is possible.

500 million years is the most conservative time window for the creation of life. Many people have trouble conceptualizing the amount of time that is. A molecule in liquid or gas phase has about 10^10 collisions per second. Scale that for years and the time window in question and each molecule makes something on the order of 10^27 collisions during that period. Each molecule also moves about 10^17 meters, which is the same as traversing the earths orbital circumference 1000 times. Now consider how many hydrogen, carbon, orxygen and nitrogen atoms there are on the earth. The number of permutations of chemical arrangements in 500 million years in a baryonic soup is magnitudal orders greater than astronomical, it is just inconcievable.

If you sent 10^500 tornadoes at piles of scrap metal, You would end up with a fleet of 747s, a few M1 Abrams tanks, a few bentleys and most certainly a few cellular organisms.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I should ask are you a gnostic athiest? An agnostic athiest? a gnostic theist?, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the term "Gnostic" was effectively hijacked hundreds of years ago. There is relevant terminology for atheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) and agnostics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism). Those on this forum are primarily weak atheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism) - as are the majority of atheists. There are strong atheists out there (sorry vhawk), but they're relatively rare, typically young and rebellious and bright but emotional. Agnostics of various types exist on this forum. Personally I'm a strong agnostic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism), but I often present as an agnostic atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism) due to intricacy (that's another way to say "convolution") of my beliefs.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I should ask are you a gnostic athiest? An agnostic athiest? a gnostic theist?, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the term "Gnostic" was effectively hijacked hundreds of years ago. There is relevant terminology for atheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) and agnostics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism). Those on this forum are primarily weak atheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism) - as are the majority of atheists. There are strong atheists out there (sorry vhawk), but they're relatively rare, typically young and rebellious and bright but emotional. Agnostics of various types exist on this forum. Personally I'm a strong agnostic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism), but I often present as an agnostic atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism) due to intricacy (that's another way to say "convolution") of my beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, I will concede that there may be these strong atheists out there. I still maintain I've never met one, and I feel confident that in the event I do, a quick 5 minute discussion, including a definition of terms, would cure them of their problem. Same can't be said for the strong theists. It is really almost inconceivable to me that someone could be certain that no form of God could exist, just like its absurd to think that no invisible unicorns could possibly be hiding under my bed. Logically, being a strong theist is just as absurd, but it doesn't seem nearly as unlikely to me. I have a sneaking suspicion that the strong atheists are exactly as you have described, willful, ignorant young kids who like the idea of sticking it to their parents more than thinking about what they call themselves.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Fine, I will concede that there may be these strong atheists out there. I still maintain I've never met one, and I feel confident that in the event I do, a quick 5 minute discussion, including a definition of terms, would cure them of their problem. Same can't be said for the strong theists. It is really almost inconceivable to me that someone could be certain that no form of God could exist, just like its absurd to think that no invisible unicorns could possibly be hiding under my bed. Logically, being a strong theist is just as absurd, but it doesn't seem nearly as unlikely to me. I have a sneaking suspicion that the strong atheists are exactly as you have described, willful, ignorant young kids who like the idea of sticking it to their parents more than thinking about what they call themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, being fair to them, most that I met (primarily in Salt Lake City) had been raised in a religious environment (and all were young). When a young person decides to abandon a religion that basically posits invisible unicorns, it's natural for their first beliefs to coalesce into a similar mode.

I think they grow out of it consistently.

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]

It is really almost inconceivable to me that someone could be certain that no form of God could exist, just like its absurd to think that no invisible unicorns could possibly be hiding under my bed.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the statement were, that someone is certain that God does exist, just like someone is certain that invisble unicorns exist under their bed.

You feel the same way? I assume you do which is why its a bad analogy. To relate unicorns with God is not reasonable, and lets keep the discussion reasonble please.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It is really almost inconceivable to me that someone could be certain that no form of God could exist, just like its absurd to think that no invisible unicorns could possibly be hiding under my bed.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the statement were, that someone is certain that God does exist, just like someone is certain that invisble unicorns exist under their bed.

You feel the same way? I assume you do which is why its a bad analogy. To relate unicorns with God is not reasonable, and lets keep the discussion reasonble please.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think its entirely reasonable. Explain to me why it isn't and I will refrain from using the analogy.

[SitNHit]

Anything is possible, but a God is different then a Unicorn. One is a Godly person, another a Godly animal. Billions dont worship a unicorn, they do worship a God. So if your goal is to discuss with others that dont share your opinion, you might want to use a better analogy, one that might make some sense to one who thinks of a God with a bit more importance and affection then a unicorn.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Anything is possible, but a God is different then a Unicorn. One is a Godly person, another a Godly animal. Billions dont worship a unicorn, they do worship a God. So if your goal is to discuss with others that dont share your opinion, you might want to use a better analogy, one that might make some sense to one who thinks of a God with a bit more importance and affection then a unicorn.

[/ QUOTE ]

The amount of people who worship the unicorn is irrelevant. Its the unprovable and unverifiable nature of the invisible unicorn that makes the analogy appropriate. The absurdity of the unicorn is just what makes the analogy poignant.

And billions of people don't worship the vast majority of possible Gods either...do you want to dismiss all of them? Do you have any basis for doing so?

[SitNHit]

I will dismiss the importance of all of them accept the Biblical God and his son Jesus Christ. I will do that, and the basis is that there is no written consequence that I know of for not believing in the others. Not that personally it would matter to me if there were, just saying objectivley. So I can dismiss them cause it doesnt matter if they existed or not for us, but it does matter if the Bible is real.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Anything is possible, but a God is different then a Unicorn. One is a Godly person, another a Godly animal. Billions dont worship a unicorn, they do worship a God. So if your goal is to discuss with others that dont share your opinion, you might want to use a better analogy, one that might make some sense to one who thinks of a God with a bit more importance and affection then a unicorn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa. What's your problem with unicorns, dude?

(Of course no real gods have ever been animals, right?)

[SitNHit]

of course Gods evolved from animals, DA!

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I will dismiss the importance of all of them accept the Biblical God and his son Jesus Christ. I will do that, and the basis is that there is no written consequence that I know of for not believing in the others. Not that personally it would matter to me if there were, just saying objectivley. So I can dismiss them cause it doesnt matter if they existed or not for us, but it does matter if the Bible is real.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong you are sir. I wrote a book just the other day, inspired by Kwahv, the one true God, that wearing pants is guaranteed to send you to hell for eternity.

After all, being written down in a book is all we need to seperate the obviously bogus unverifiable beliefs from the legitimate ones, right? I can ship you a copy, if you'd like, $7.99 S&H.

[SitNHit]

I finally stumped ya. Yippi. You have no answer to that. Your human after all. Lol.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Before I start the main part of this post I'd just like to say a little something about where I'm coming from. I have been lurking this forum for a little while now and have made a couple of posts but this is my first post of any significant content.

I am a Christian and am currently an engineering student in Sheffield, England. I would like to think that in general I'm a logical person and up to now I have had no major problems with accepting Christianity as logical. There are certain aspects that I'm unsure of but there have been other things I have experienced/seen happen that have made it seem illogical not to believe.

Anyway, enough about me and onto what I wanted to post about. I'm obviously familiar with the theory of evolution and how it postures that life evolved from single celled organisms and eventually led to what we have now (this is an area I am actually slightly unsure of what I think/believe but for now I'd rather it wasn't too involved in this thread). What I don't know so much about is an atheist viewpoint on how the very first life form was created.

From what I have read (admittedly a lot of biased material, but all with seemingly strong references) it seems that the chance of life occuring spontaneously is all but zero. There is the overused analogy of it being as likely as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a boeing 747 but from what I know that doesn't seem absurd. Life is immensely complex, far more so than a 747, requiring as many as 200 proteins each made up of a string of 100+ amino acids for even the simplest form of life.

What then is the atheist explanation for life on Earth? The only theory I've ever heard is panspermia which frankly seems slightly off the wall and in any case just shifts the problem to somewhere else in the universe. If you could give me any further insight as to current theories and any evidence for them that would be greatly appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]Life begining is simple compared to matter/time/space begining. Life began when matter formed into structures that replicated, simple, right? Why is there matter to form into replicating structures, no idea. Why did matter form into structures that replicated, because it was possible for matter to do so.

If you are a non literalist xtian you probably want to cheer on the carins-smith(sp) model. Silicon was the replication model that life arrived from. Silicon is founf heavily in dirt.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I finally stumped ya. Yippi. You have no answer to that. Your human after all. Lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

To what? Did I miss something? Restate your question and I will take a crack at what is bound to be a real stumper.

[SitNHit]

I stated what I stated, is this all some sort of game to you, this is serious, lol..... Please notice my sacrasm sir. I like you man.

[Bad Beat Bill]

This is silly. People have a reason for believing in God (it offers insight into how the universe started, why we have consciousness, how life started, why the laws of physics are the way they are, and so on). The unicorn analogy, teapot analogy, spagehtti analogy or whatever is stupid. People who say MAN WHY DON'T U BELIEVE IN THE EASTER BUNNY...GET IT!?? THEY'RE EXACTLY THE SAME! I WROTE A BOOK ABOUT IT...GET IT?? ITS JUST LIKE THE BIBLE!! HA~! need to read up a little. God can be defined as many things and there are a lot of things that prove that he exists, although none of it is hard science. It can't be. If God were 100% proven, this life would be meaningless.

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
God can be defined as many things and there are a lot of things that prove that he exists, although none of it is hard science. It can't be. If God were 100% proven, this life would be meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said, if you believe in the War in Heaven, God had 2 sons, Lucifer and Jesus. Lucifer wanted to have a world where people knew the truth and had not free agency and were made to choose right and Jesus wanted a world where people had free agency and they could make decisions based on there free will. God chose Jesus' plan and lucifer rebelled and was cast out to hell.

What would the purpose of life be if he was 100% proven fact. You wouldnt have a choice. Do you see how its better to believe when your not forced? It means your making a sacrafice which proves you have strength and that you take this life seriously and wants badly to return to live with him again.

What I just said would mean nothing to Athiest but thought Id say it since I was thinking it.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
This is silly. People have a reason for believing in God (it offers insight into how the universe started, why we have consciousness, how life started, why the laws of physics are the way they are, and so on). The unicorn analogy, teapot analogy, spagehtti analogy or whatever is stupid. People who say MAN WHY DON'T U BELIEVE IN THE EASTER BUNNY...GET IT!?? THEY'RE EXACTLY THE SAME! I WROTE A BOOK ABOUT IT...GET IT?? ITS JUST LIKE THE BIBLE!! HA~! need to read up a little. God can be defined as many things and there are a lot of things that prove that he exists, although none of it is hard science. It can't be. If God were 100% proven, this life would be meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]


You make a whole bunch of assertions, and make no effort to back them up. An easy question: What method can I use to determine which unverifiable beliefs are legitimate (Christianity?) and which ones are absurd (unicorns?) and is this method universally applicable? Explain the criteria to me.

EDIT: I'm also curious as to what this insight is. Which of these great cosmic questions does a belief in the Christian God answer? Why we are here? Of course not, it merely pushes the question back a step.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
This is silly. People have a reason for believing in God (it offers insight into how the universe started, why we have consciousness, how life started, why the laws of physics are the way they are, and so on).

[/ QUOTE ]
...or they were indoctrinated as children. People have reasons for believing in Scientology and killing infidels too....do you think that should be beyond the realm of inquiry?

[ QUOTE ]
there are a lot of things that prove that he exists, although none of it is hard science.

[/ QUOTE ]
Post these proofs, either here or in a new thread. Otherwise, you're acting just as retarded as easter bunny people you deride above.

[ QUOTE ]
If God were 100% proven, this life would be meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]
What?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is silly. People have a reason for believing in God (it offers insight into how the universe started, why we have consciousness, how life started, why the laws of physics are the way they are, and so on).

[/ QUOTE ]
...or they were indoctrinated as children. People have reasons for believing in Scientology and killing infidels too....do you think that should be beyond the realm of inquiry?

[ QUOTE ]
there are a lot of things that prove that he exists, although none of it is hard science.

[/ QUOTE ]
Post these proofs, either here or in a new thread. Otherwise, you're acting just as retarded as easter bunny people you deride above.

[ QUOTE ]
If God were 100% proven, this life would be meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]
What?

[/ QUOTE ]

We seem to be flush with 'people who grossly underestimate their opposition' lately.

[Bad Beat Bill]

"Which of these great cosmic questions does a belief in the Christian God answer? Why we are here? Of course not, it merely pushes the question back a step."

Of course not? If you say, "God created man but only he knows why" I think that offers a good answer to people looking for the truth. Can something arrive from nothing? Not according to any science I've ever heard. Saying there is a God explains why things exist.

I'm not saying we shouldn't question it. I'm saying that comparing it to something we know is just a myth or made up like the Easter Bunny or Santa is ridiculous. As for proofs I'm not going to post them, you can google them easily. Accounts of verdical NDE's (where the dead patient sees/hears things later verified to be true) or out of body experiences raise eyebrows, as well as a bunch of other things that I can't remember a whole lot about. The common "science" explanation for a lot of supernatural phenomena is severely lacking - however, they don't need to be considered as nothing supernatural holds up as scientific evidence, so believing it or not is your choice.

As for life being meaningless, well...if we KNEW that we'd die and go to heaven, wouldn't life be so much different? If you were ever a Christian you wondered why people didn't look forward to death more or try to basically live out there lives as fast as possible. I mean, eternal paradise is a hell of a lot better than what we have here isn't it? If there is a God I can logically assume two things - BECAUSE of this he probably wouldn't (or even couldn't) make his existance 100% known, and also that he wouldn't make a universe that's not scientifically explainable. Science is just a collection of assumptions made from repeated observations and testing. How could a universe NOT be scientifically explainable? Which is why I doubt science, even evolutionary science is going to disprove God at all.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Which is why I doubt science, even evolutionary science is going to disprove God at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

or unicorns, or ....

luckyme

[Bad Beat Bill]

I said that God would make a universe that is scientifically explainable, and as such the fact that we can explain things with science doesn't disprove God. Unicorns have nothing to do with this...they don't create the universe!

It's true that you could never disprove the *existance* of unicorns somewhere, but I think it's fundimentally different than the argument we're having here. Of course I know I'm gonna get a lot of disagreement on this but I cannot logically compare the two.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
If you say, "God created man but only he knows why" I think that offers a good answer to people looking for the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Well, that doesn't seem debatable....

[ QUOTE ]

Can something arrive from nothing? Not according to any science I've ever heard. Saying there is a God explains why things exist.


[/ QUOTE ]
It comforts me to know that you've thought this through in a rigorous metaphysical manner...

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"Which of these great cosmic questions does a belief in the Christian God answer? Why we are here? Of course not, it merely pushes the question back a step."

Of course not? If you say, "God created man but only he knows why" I think that offers a good answer to people looking for the truth. Can something arrive from nothing? Not according to any science I've ever heard. Saying there is a God explains why things exist.

I'm not saying we shouldn't question it. I'm saying that comparing it to something we know is just a myth or made up like the Easter Bunny or Santa is ridiculous. As for proofs I'm not going to post them, you can google them easily. Accounts of verdical NDE's (where the dead patient sees/hears things later verified to be true) or out of body experiences raise eyebrows, as well as a bunch of other things that I can't remember a whole lot about. The common "science" explanation for a lot of supernatural phenomena is severely lacking - however, they don't need to be considered as nothing supernatural holds up as scientific evidence, so believing it or not is your choice.

As for life being meaningless, well...if we KNEW that we'd die and go to heaven, wouldn't life be so much different? If you were ever a Christian you wondered why people didn't look forward to death more or try to basically live out there lives as fast as possible. I mean, eternal paradise is a hell of a lot better than what we have here isn't it? If there is a God I can logically assume two things - BECAUSE of this he probably wouldn't (or even couldn't) make his existance 100% known, and also that he wouldn't make a universe that's not scientifically explainable. Science is just a collection of assumptions made from repeated observations and testing. How could a universe NOT be scientifically explainable? Which is why I doubt science, even evolutionary science is going to disprove God at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can something come from nothing? You say no. Ok...where did God come from?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I said that God would make a universe that is scientifically explainable, and as such the fact that we can explain things with science doesn't disprove God. Unicorns have nothing to do with this...they don't create the universe!

It's true that you could never disprove the *existance* of unicorns somewhere, but I think it's fundimentally different than the argument we're having here. Of course I know I'm gonna get a lot of disagreement on this but I cannot logically compare the two.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean you can't EMOTIONALLY compare the two. A logical comparison is extremely simple, and I've shown you exactly how its done in this very thread.

[Justin A]

Wow this thread got really derailed. It's too bad because I think the OP could have lent to an interesting discussion rather than the debate between vhawk and sitnhit.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
The only theory I've ever heard is panspermia which frankly seems slightly off the wall and in any case just shifts the problem to somewhere else in the universe. If you could give me any further insight as to current theories and any evidence for them that would be greatly appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think one of the problems is thinking about the whole process from a strictly materialistic standpoint, rather than patterns or structure of energy.

When we look at how the human species is currently evolving, it has very little to do with the physical composition of our brains or bodies. What seems to be more influential to our development is the intangible, non-material aspect of our being. Going back to when language first began, then through abstract concept formation and things like logic, mathematics, philosophy, and scientific theory, we're really just looking at the evolution of thought patterns.

I guess it had to start with us thinking, but in a fairly short period of time, it became how we thought, or the structure of thought. If we put a group of babies on an island without teaching them language or anything else, their lifestyle probably wouldn't differentiate much from a tribe of monkeys. Even though they have the physical capacity for language and higher thought, it would probably take hundreds if not thousands of years to even come close to what we call civilization. Or to evolve to a point where their behavior was distinguishable from primates.

Aside from those intangible non-materialistic patterns of thought, which we call knowledge, there's nothing else that separates us from a tribe of feral-monkey people. Those patterns of thought or knowledge - what to think and how to think - is the thing being replicated, and it's really a non-thing. Even though we pass along and communicate knowledge and thought patterns through physical means, what we're communicating is not physical - it's just a structure. And ultimately a structure or pattern of energy.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I think one of the problems is thinking about the whole process from a strictly materialistic standpoint, rather than patterns or structure of energy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's not confuse the issue. The OP is 100% a materialistic question. The question is:

How did we get from lava to the first functioning cells?

[MidGe]

Let stay to the point, the question is how did life start.


In the universe the size it is, and chaotic as it is, life is highly probable. I am sure as technological means improve, and we are just at the very beginning of these discoveries, we will find life in many places. I think it is more amazing that we haven't find more of it yet, although considering that we are not even scratching the surface when it comes to other planets it is understandable.

I mean really the only thing needed is a replicating molecule to occur anywhere amongst the billions and billions of collisions, between molecules and atoms, following the laws of chemistry, that would occur anywhere, billions and billions of places, billions and billions of such collisions in the period of time considered, even on earth alone. The first replicator thus accidentally formed is most likely to win and is by all definitions alive.


My bet is that there are many such replicators existing throughout the universe. The overall winner is not yet likely to be known today. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

it seems that the chance of life occuring spontaneously is all but zero.


[/ QUOTE ]

A fairly old book you might be interested in can be found in part at Coppedge (http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_tp.htm)

[MidGe]

Sorry, you mean the James F Coppedge, founder of the Rangers and Christian Commandos and the Valley Cathedral Youth Center (Northridge, CA)?


LOL

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I mean really the only thing needed is a replicating molecule to occur anywhere amongst the billions and billions of collisions, between molecules and atoms, following the laws of chemistry, that would occur anywhere, billions and billions of places, billions and billions of such collisions in the period of time considered, even on earth alone. The first replicator thus accidentally formed is most likely to win and is by all definitions alive.

[/ QUOTE ]
Midge,

I think you're trivializing the enormity of the problem. Abiogenesis is far from a solved problem, and you require a lot more steps than just a replicator. The are huge number of intermediate steps needed, and the best experts in the world currently have no clue how they occured and no credible pathway through that maze. A simple molecule soup of trillions to the nth power, in the absence of other factors, is not enough to generate life.

Obviously, people who believe God started it are pitiful clowns, but you're making an error here too. To state that abiogenesis is almost certain requires placing faith in materialism and the current model of natural history. It is not science.

Who knows what weird result we will find (maybe something as unlikely as Panspermia?). Curious minds have certainly been surprised in the past.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow this thread got really derailed. It's too bad because I think the OP could have lent to an interesting discussion rather than the debate between vhawk and sitnhit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did my best to answer the question in the OP, and I think there were several useful posts on the matter. But I apologize for my part in the thread hijack.

[MidGe]

Phil153,

It is only my understanding of numbers and, in this particular instance, the sheer size of them and the reality of fat tails unsettling normal distribution.

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]

Obviously, people who believe God started it are pitiful clowns

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, dont you love it when things are made obvious cause they are undeniable. Im a pitiful clown, it all makes sense now. TYVM

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, dont you love it when things are made obvious cause they are undeniable. Im a pitiful clown, it all makes sense now. TYVM


[/ QUOTE ]

Phil gave a great little answer to how life may have begun, from lava to simple cells. How was your invisible God created? Really there is no answer at all to that. You can’t just say, well, I don’t understand how the sun keeps shining so it must be God. The God idea simply doesn’t answer anything. It’s just an idea that is completely untestable and so is without merit in the OP’s discussion. Phil may have been a bit harsh, but he at least is trying to logically address the OP.

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, dont you love it when things are made obvious cause they are undeniable. Im a pitiful clown, it all makes sense now. TYVM


[/ QUOTE ]

Phil gave a great little answer to how life may have begun, from lava to simple cells. How was your invisible God created? Really there is no answer at all to that. You can’t just say, well, I don’t understand how the sun keeps shining so it must be God. The God idea simply doesn’t answer anything. It’s just an idea that is completely untestable and so is without merit in the OP’s discussion. Phil may have been a bit harsh, but he at least is trying to logically address the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

You treat this like science class, thats the problem

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, dont you love it when things are made obvious cause they are undeniable. Im a pitiful clown, it all makes sense now. TYVM


[/ QUOTE ]

Phil gave a great little answer to how life may have begun, from lava to simple cells. How was your invisible God created? Really there is no answer at all to that. You can’t just say, well, I don’t understand how the sun keeps shining so it must be God. The God idea simply doesn’t answer anything. It’s just an idea that is completely untestable and so is without merit in the OP’s discussion. Phil may have been a bit harsh, but he at least is trying to logically address the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

You treat this like science class, thats the problem

[/ QUOTE ]

The tools they tried to teach you in science class have far-reaching application in every aspect of your life. Critical thinking, parsimony, evaluating hypotheses, these are all fundamentally important to a scholarly approach to the world around you.

[dknightx]

can we just ignore SitNHit please? i feel like this forum has taken a large step back since he started posting.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I will dismiss the importance of all of them accept the Biblical God and his son Jesus Christ. I will do that, and the basis is that there is no written consequence that I know of for not believing in the others. Not that personally it would matter to me if there were, just saying objectivley. So I can dismiss them cause it doesnt matter if they existed or not for us, but it does matter if the Bible is real.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there is a consequence for not believing in the others if they are real.

You will suffer if you don't follow the God of Islam. I guess you better believe in that one too. By your logic, you kind of have to.

BTW- since you haven't studied all the other Gods, its kind of naive of you to assume there's no consequences for not obeying the other Gods. You're being inconsistant with your logic. (though that inconsistancy is pretty 'consistant' with Christians!)

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, dont you love it when things are made obvious cause they are undeniable. Im a pitiful clown, it all makes sense now. TYVM


[/ QUOTE ]

Phil gave a great little answer to how life may have begun, from lava to simple cells. How was your invisible God created? Really there is no answer at all to that. You can’t just say, well, I don’t understand how the sun keeps shining so it must be God. The God idea simply doesn’t answer anything. It’s just an idea that is completely untestable and so is without merit in the OP’s discussion. Phil may have been a bit harsh, but he at least is trying to logically address the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

You treat this like science class, thats the problem

[/ QUOTE ]

"Science" isn't a wierd esoteric methodology, it just means finding out about the world.

If you are asking questions you are starting a scientifc process, from there you can either take steps which are logically correct or logically incorrect.

If you take correct steps you will arrive at conclusions like the posters above, but you will criticize it as being to "sciencey".

You seem to imply some credibility or importantness to being able to take intellectual steps which philosophically do not make sense. If that is true then your initial questions are fairly pointless.

There is a great quote in Derren Browns new book from a kinesiology (an holistic 'healthcare') practitioner

"well, thats why we never do double-blind testing any more; it doesn't work"

If your criticism is that the method is too scientific, you may as well give up discussing it or even thinking about it.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
can we just ignore SitNHit please? i feel like this forum has taken a large step back since he started posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I give up.

[Bad Beat Bill]

[ QUOTE ]
can we just ignore SitNHit please? i feel like this forum has taken a large step back since he started posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

you prefer the atheist circlejerking that happened before this?

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
can we just ignore SitNHit please? i feel like this forum has taken a large step back since he started posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

you prefer the atheist circlejerking that happened before this?

[/ QUOTE ]

if you thought it wouldn't get worse....

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
can we just ignore SitNHit please? i feel like this forum has taken a large step back since he started posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

you prefer the atheist circlejerking that happened before this?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the option is to deal with tangible nonsense every 4 words, well, I'll have to say "yes."

[kurto]

Hmmm.... atheist circle jerks or this goodness...

[ QUOTE ]
Your admitting that you really don't know if you love someone if you can't feel sure about the bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

tough choices.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's not confuse the issue. The OP is 100% a materialistic question. The question is:

How did we get from lava to the first functioning cells?

[/ QUOTE ]


I know you define it as a completely materialistic question, but I don't know if it encompasses the whole story. We could say that if we took 100,000 grunting Neanderthals, and given enough time they would produce, "Phantom of the Opera". And in a materialistic sense, that's what did happen, but it seems like we're missing part of the story trying to describe it that way.

I understand your point, but matter is essentially patterns and structures of energy. We're really not talking about two different things here (e=mc^2). Thoughts are basically intangible patterns of energy, and it was the interaction of billions and billions and billions of these patterns that took man from grunts to an opera, with an almost imperceptible change in the physical or materialistic properties of the brain.

[bdypdx]

[ QUOTE ]
God can be defined as many things and there are a lot of things that prove that he exists

[/ QUOTE ]

Please send Shakti a note, cuz she ain't liking this one bit. She exists for millions of us.

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
can we just ignore SitNHit please? i feel like this forum has taken a large step back since he started posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

If im so ludacris, stupid, so beneath all of your in intelligence, etc. Why even bother aknowledging my posts since they are so obviously false and painfully stupid?

You have proved one thing and one thing only which you guys thrive on, is proving that Christians don't have any clear cut evidence that a scientist would accept that God exists.

I gotta say, some pretty smart and intelligent people went into devising a plan to accomplish that. What a victory.

Does the same argument ever get old? Are you that robotic and lack of Depth?

I guess so......

Why would such smart and intelligent people waste their super minds on stupid me. There is a reason, cause there is confusion. The fact that both of us can't prove anything we say when it comes to Christianity but one obviously have a belief in something and one doesnt and that makes you frustrated.

Alright, go ahead and tell me how what I just said proves that I am even more stupid and brainless then even before.

And don't worry, I just chose to indulge and do something I never do is chat in a forum with a bunch of Athiest about God.

It would be the same as walking into a room full of Athiest and lone me discussing God. It's so hilarious , you guys truly gave me good chuckles over my few days hear. I will look in from time to time and contribute my pointless , non-intellectual dribble.

Your Friend
Mike.

[dknightx]

Mike I respect your opinion, but please don't call Mormonism "Christianity". If you want to defend your faith, please defend Mormonism, and call it that.

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
Mike I respect your opinion, but please don't call Mormonism "Christianity". If you want to defend your faith, please defend Mormonism, and call it that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then surely no-one should use the word "Christianity", since you all have different variations and all the others are wrong.

Do you have a benchmark number of alternative fictional claims that a sect has to make before it is no longer Christianity?

"Please don't call your predictions based on stars 'astrology', you have rediculous and unverifiable beliefs that dispute known facts" /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ilya]

I have no idea how life began but neither does Christianity or any other religion. None of them can explain how their Gods came to exist. So unless you exclude God from the definition of life, you're no closer to understanding than any atheist. You've just passed the buck. But arbitrarily excuding God from the definition of life is just a form of begging the question.

Right now I think the most likely and convincing explanation for the existence of our particular universe is that we are a virtual simulation created by our descendants.

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mike I respect your opinion, but please don't call Mormonism "Christianity". If you want to defend your faith, please defend Mormonism, and call it that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then surely no-one should use the word "Christianity", since you all have different variations and all the others are wrong.

Do you have a benchmark number of alternative fictional claims that a sect has to make before it is no longer Christianity?

"Please don't call your predictions based on stars 'astrology', you have rediculous and unverifiable beliefs that dispute known facts" /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

no major christian sect/demonination considers mormonism "christianity". Many christian sects/demoninations consider other sects/demoninations as under "christianity".

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
Mike I respect your opinion, but please don't call Mormonism "Christianity". If you want to defend your faith, please defend Mormonism, and call it that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will call Mormons Christians, I used Christianity cause they believe in the Bible and I thought Mormons did too but maybe Im wrong.

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea how life began but neither does Christianity or any other religion. None of them can explain how their Gods came to exist. So unless you exclude God from the definition of life, you're no closer to understanding than any atheist. You've just passed the buck. But arbitrarily excuding God from the definition of life is just a form of begging the question.

Right now I think the most likely and convincing explanation for the existence of our particular universe is that we are a virtual simulation created by our descendants.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats fair, and intersting. I applaud your use of free agency

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mike I respect your opinion, but please don't call Mormonism "Christianity". If you want to defend your faith, please defend Mormonism, and call it that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then surely no-one should use the word "Christianity", since you all have different variations and all the others are wrong.

Do you have a benchmark number of alternative fictional claims that a sect has to make before it is no longer Christianity?

"Please don't call your predictions based on stars 'astrology', you have rediculous and unverifiable beliefs that dispute known facts" /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

no major christian sect/demonination considers mormonism "christianity". Many christian sects/demoninations consider other sects/demoninations as under "christianity".

[/ QUOTE ]

link? LOL.....

Well to be told your wrong sucks, thats not the position of the Mormon church though, its that your partly right and confused on other things.

Pass the Sugah! <----- why would i say that

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
no major christian sect/demonination considers mormonism "christianity". Many christian sects/demoninations consider other sects/demoninations as under "christianity".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that's not true. What do you have to support it? I definitely know that many Christians present a definition like "I believe that Jesus came to earth and died for my sins," among other definitions that encompass the LDS faith.

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no major christian sect/demonination considers mormonism "christianity". Many christian sects/demoninations consider other sects/demoninations as under "christianity".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that's not true. What do you have to support it? I definitely know that many Christians present a definition like "I believe that Jesus came to earth and died for my sins," among other definitions that encompass the LDS faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

this has nothing to do with the "definition" of Christianity as you have heard it or understand it. Regardless, just because LDS has certain beliefs that may coincide with Christian beliefs doesn't mean that we should ignore their many many beliefs that do not.

Anyways, you are free to ask any person at the head of any christian denomination (i'm non-denominational btw) whether they consider mormonism as under the "christian" faith, i am under the impression they do not (but wouldn't mind being proven wrong) ... however mormons do believe they are under the "christian" faith.

this thread is probably not appropriate for this discussion though.

[madnak]

Sounds like you don't personally like the belief that Jesus visited the Americas, and based on that you're making a unilateral emotional decision not to consider them Christians.

Who is the "leader" of a denomination? If you're only talking about denominations with a single leader, then that's Catholicism and maybe some orthodox churches, but certainly not the Protestants. As for the Unitarians, well, I think you're way off the mark...

(This thread isn't useful for much else any more, and this topic isn't worth another thread - especially since it's been discussed.)

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like you don't personally like the belief that Jesus visited the Americas, and based on that you're making a unilateral emotional decision not to consider them Christians.

Who is the "leader" of a denomination? If you're only talking about denominations with a single leader, then that's Catholicism and maybe some orthodox churches, but certainly not the Protestants. As for the Unitarians, well, I think you're way off the mark...

(This thread isn't useful for much else any more, and this topic isn't worth another thread - especially since it's been discussed.)

[/ QUOTE ]

by head of the religion, i meant anyone in that demonination who is in a position of leadership, be it a bishop, a deacon, a pastor, etc, etc. like i said, feel free to ask them, in my experience (ive talked to quite a few) most have said they do not consider mormonism as christianity.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
can we just ignore SitNHit please? i feel like this forum has taken a large step back since he started posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

you prefer the atheist circlejerking that happened before this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this you volunteering to take his place? Can you at least spell and use proper English words? What do you think about Pascal's Wager?

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
can we just ignore SitNHit please? i feel like this forum has taken a large step back since he started posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

you prefer the atheist circlejerking that happened before this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this you volunteering to take his place? Can you at least spell and use proper English words? What do you think about Pascal's Wager?

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO , haha laughing so hard....

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like you don't personally like the belief that Jesus visited the Americas, and based on that you're making a unilateral emotional decision not to consider them Christians.

Who is the "leader" of a denomination? If you're only talking about denominations with a single leader, then that's Catholicism and maybe some orthodox churches, but certainly not the Protestants. As for the Unitarians, well, I think you're way off the mark...

(This thread isn't useful for much else any more, and this topic isn't worth another thread - especially since it's been discussed.)

[/ QUOTE ]

by head of the religion, i meant anyone in that demonination who is in a position of leadership, be it a bishop, a deacon, a pastor, etc, etc. like i said, feel free to ask them, in my experience (ive talked to quite a few) most have said they do not consider mormonism as christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are definitely plenty who accept Mormons as Christians. But you're being wiggly anyhow. You refused a definition of Christian, which is a strong indication of irrationality. So what did you mean? Do you mean that only people who meet certain criteria that can't be described are Christian? If so, then do you think all Baptists and Methodists and Catholics meet these criteria, and that no Mormons do?

[MidGe]

Phil,

Just found today.

I still think that whatever the number of steps and the difficulty of Abiogenesis, the sheers number of experiments (ie collision of molecules with molecules) makes it a really high probability if not a virtual certainty. Also I do not assume that life on earth is how it would evolve anywhere else. By definition of Evolution that is much less likely if not impossible.

Still the thing is the first replicator only...

Those are my understanding of the numbers involved. You may not grasp them the way I do.

Link to Telegraph (UK) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/22/nalien22.xml)

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like you don't personally like the belief that Jesus visited the Americas, and based on that you're making a unilateral emotional decision not to consider them Christians.

Who is the "leader" of a denomination? If you're only talking about denominations with a single leader, then that's Catholicism and maybe some orthodox churches, but certainly not the Protestants. As for the Unitarians, well, I think you're way off the mark...

(This thread isn't useful for much else any more, and this topic isn't worth another thread - especially since it's been discussed.)

[/ QUOTE ]

by head of the religion, i meant anyone in that demonination who is in a position of leadership, be it a bishop, a deacon, a pastor, etc, etc. like i said, feel free to ask them, in my experience (ive talked to quite a few) most have said they do not consider mormonism as christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are definitely plenty who accept Mormons as Christians. But you're being wiggly anyhow. You refused a definition of Christian, which is a strong indication of irrationality. So what did you mean? Do you mean that only people who meet certain criteria that can't be described are Christian? If so, then do you think all Baptists and Methodists and Catholics meet these criteria, and that no Mormons do?

[/ QUOTE ]

please point me to which demoniation considers mormonism christianity (honestly, i'd like to know which ones). And i didn't "refuse" a definition of christian, i just refused YOUR definition, because in your definition somehow mormons fall under the "christianity" umbrella. Its definitely arguable whether it does or not ... i'm not saying its impossible under some definitions of the word "christianity", but the leaders of most (if not all) major denominations do not consider mormonism as christianity. As for your last question, as i stated early, most major denominations consider other major denomiations as "christian" (except some do not consider catholics christians, but thats definitely a better debate than mormonism). Anyways, like i said, i don't mind being proven wrong, so if you know of a major denomination that approves of mormonism, i'd like to know what that is!

[almostbusto]

-dknightx

latter day saints believe Jesus Christ is their lord and savior. they believe in the bible. they are definitely christian by any reasonable definition of christianity. definitely not mainstream but the religion is based on the KJB (and other stuff).

whether or not other religions recognize them as such is irrelevant, but i am sure there are some that do. since there are thousands of flavors out there.

it sounds like you want to hear a major denomination endorse mormonism. thats like asking pepsi to endorse coke. they are both colas but very different varieties (at least in their minds).

mormons basically believe all religions are basically wrong, or only partially right in their beliefs. so to endorse them you have essentially claim that your own religion is faulty.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
latter day saints believe Jesus Christ is their lord and savior. they believe in the bible. they are definitely christian by any reasonable definition of christianity. definitely not mainstream but the religion is based on the KJB (and other stuff).

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed they are, and some of the nicer ones too. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[siegfriedandroy]

none of them have any legitimate explanations for why life as we feel it currently exists. they will try to make u feel dumb, intollerantly criticize you in every possible manner, yet still fail to explain why all these 'prelife' elements existed. not even a crazy, foolish, nonsensical explanation. nothing. least nothing ive seen. and ive read everything presented. why is negran better than sklansk? maybe he's not, but sklanks still cant explain anything about why we exist.

[madnak]

Here's a good start. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn.htm)

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a good start. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn.htm)

[/ QUOTE ]

So for mormonism, sure, they may believe A, B, and C (whatever those are), but because they totally disregard D, and added E, F, and G (which are completely non-biblical) its really hard to argue whether or not they are christian, wouldnt you say? People keep bringing up the division between other denominations. The problem is, other denominations STILL CONSIDER the other denominations christian! they just disagree on certain details of interpretation (on usually less trivial matters). Mormonism, on the other hand, is not accepted by mainstream christianity. If you want to go by some definition of christianity that makes you comfortable, and then use that to say Mormons = Christians, then go for it, but who should decide what falls under christianity and what doesnt? hm i dont know, maybe christians?

Yes, even I can admit that in some definitions of the WORD christianity, Mormons may meet JUST THE CRITERIA in that definition, however like i have ask kindly in previous posts, please just ask the leaders of mainstream christianity what they think, not some group that consists of one Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist. thanks

[dknightx]

madnak, from that same website, they ask the question as to whether Mormons are considered Christian or not. Here are they, and my comments point by point.

[ QUOTE ]


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) certainly regards itself as Christian. The Church leadership and membership believe that they represent the true Christian church which lost its way in the second century CE and was restored by Joseph Smith in 1830.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think calling yourself A means that you actually are A, i could be wrong though.

[ QUOTE ]

Many dozens of other Restorationist denominations also regard themselves as the true descendents of the original Mormon church, the Church of Christ. They regard the LDS and other Mormon denominations as schismatic groups who have departed from the true faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

dont really have much to say on this one.

[ QUOTE ]

Many conservative Christians consider most denominations in the Restorationist movement to be non-Christian. That is because the latter's beliefs in the nature of God, the Trinity, salvation, Heaven, Hell, the early Christian movement, etc. deviate so greatly from traditional conservative Protestant theology.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is more my point, but that you can probably add "Moderate Christians" to the beginning as well.

[ QUOTE ]
Some liberal and mainline Christians consider the Mormon movement and its many dozens of denominations to be a legitimate part of Christianity, in spite of their many unique beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and I never said NO ONE considers mormons christians, just that most do not, and most christian leaders do not (but i'm sure there are a few)

[ QUOTE ]
The Roman Catholic Church considers those Christian denominations other than themselves and Eastern Orthodoxy to be not "churches in the proper sense." However, their members are "incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the [Roman Catholic] Church." More details.

[/ QUOTE ]

So this one is a little bit trickier. The thing is, Catholics do not consider non-catholics as in the "correct" faith. So they basically group all Christian denominations + mormonism + jehovah witnesses, etc into the same group. So its not really fair to use this argument that say that Catholics consider Mormons Christians, because they do not, however, they regonize that there may be some mormons who "incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church." but im not catholic so i cant really speak too much about this point. What is interesting to note is that a lot of the main denominations argue whether or not Catholicism should even be considered Christianity ... but lets not go there.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, and I never said NO ONE considers mormons christians, just that most do not, and most christian leaders do not (but i'm sure there are a few)

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa. Did you just delete your post asking me to find one Christian leader (pastor, bishop, etc) who agrees that the LDS Church is a Christian church?

[ QUOTE ]
So this one is a little bit trickier. The thing is, Catholics do not consider non-catholics as in the "correct" faith. So they basically group all Christian denominations + mormonism + jehovah witnesses, etc into the same group. So its not really fair to use this argument that say that Catholics consider Mormons Christians, because they do not, however, they regonize that there may be some mormons who "incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church." but im not catholic so i cant really speak too much about this point. What is interesting to note is that a lot of the main denominations argue whether or not Catholicism should even be considered Christianity ... but lets not go there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotta love semantics, huh? It's funny how you're immune to semantic arguments, but I'm supposed to accept yours.

Let's get semantic, though - the Catholic Church puts Mormonism into the same category as Baptism, Methodism, and orthodox churches. Roman Catholicism is the largest and most authoritative group that believe in Jesus Christ - drop them and Christianity is suddenly third place to Islam and Catholicism. But I guess since they don't dispute the LDS claim, they must not be Christians either. And I assume neither are Unitarians, or other demoninations that consistently consider Mormons to be Christians? It sounds like your definition of Christianity is "any group that hates Mormons."

I guess that makes me a Christian too...

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
madnak, from that same website, they ask the question as to whether Mormons are considered Christian or not. Here are they, and my comments point by point.

[ QUOTE ]


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) certainly regards itself as Christian. The Church leadership and membership believe that they represent the true Christian church which lost its way in the second century CE and was restored by Joseph Smith in 1830.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think calling yourself A means that you actually are A, i could be wrong though.

[ QUOTE ]

Many dozens of other Restorationist denominations also regard themselves as the true descendents of the original Mormon church, the Church of Christ. They regard the LDS and other Mormon denominations as schismatic groups who have departed from the true faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

dont really have much to say on this one.

[ QUOTE ]

Many conservative Christians consider most denominations in the Restorationist movement to be non-Christian. That is because the latter's beliefs in the nature of God, the Trinity, salvation, Heaven, Hell, the early Christian movement, etc. deviate so greatly from traditional conservative Protestant theology.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is more my point, but that you can probably add "Moderate Christians" to the beginning as well.

[ QUOTE ]
Some liberal and mainline Christians consider the Mormon movement and its many dozens of denominations to be a legitimate part of Christianity, in spite of their many unique beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and I never said NO ONE considers mormons christians, just that most do not, and most christian leaders do not (but i'm sure there are a few)

[ QUOTE ]
The Roman Catholic Church considers those Christian denominations other than themselves and Eastern Orthodoxy to be not "churches in the proper sense." However, their members are "incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the [Roman Catholic] Church." More details.

[/ QUOTE ]

So this one is a little bit trickier. The thing is, Catholics do not consider non-catholics as in the "correct" faith. So they basically group all Christian denominations + mormonism + jehovah witnesses, etc into the same group. So its not really fair to use this argument that say that Catholics consider Mormons Christians, because they do not, however, they regonize that there may be some mormons who "incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church." but im not catholic so i cant really speak too much about this point. What is interesting to note is that a lot of the main denominations argue whether or not Catholicism should even be considered Christianity ... but lets not go there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love how you guys spend your time, cant imagine spending my existance trying to disprove, discredit, demean things that I don't believe in the first place.

If you spend all your time doing that then thats the type of person you will become, if church going people are brainwashed, so are those who believe in scienece and math only , based on the theory that you are what spend most of your time doing or believing.

If I were to hang around porno stars all day, read about porn, watch porn all the time, try to prove why porn is a good thing for society, I bet ill eventually come up with some kind of reasons cause thats all ive been spending my time doing and probably become obsessed etc and have such clouted judgement cause of my obsession and because of my obsession and choosing to explore that I would then alter my beliefs to allow me to feel good about doing that, like you guys.

Remember, its not good to be fanatical which I think alot of you obviously are.

I don't consider writing this wasting much time cause I am currently taking a [censored], just to show how I will be spending my time on this forum, i let you know that. Ill make my posts only when I [censored].

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
If I were to hang around porno stars all day, read about porn, watch porn all the time, try to prove why porn is a good thing for society, I bet ill eventually come up with some kind of reasons cause thats all ive been spending my time doing and probably become obsessed etc and have such clouted judgement cause of my obsession and because of my obsession and choosing to explore that I would then alter my beliefs to allow me to feel good about doing that, like you guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say that like it's a bad thing...

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right, and I never said NO ONE considers mormons christians, just that most do not, and most christian leaders do not (but i'm sure there are a few)

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa. Did you just delete your post asking me to find one Christian leader (pastor, bishop, etc) who agrees that the LDS Church is a Christian church?


[/ QUOTE ]

so you figure finding a single person who is on your side proves your point. i thought you were better than this ... i guess i was wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
So this one is a little bit trickier. The thing is, Catholics do not consider non-catholics as in the "correct" faith. So they basically group all Christian denominations + mormonism + jehovah witnesses, etc into the same group. So its not really fair to use this argument that say that Catholics consider Mormons Christians, because they do not, however, they regonize that there may be some mormons who "incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church." but im not catholic so i cant really speak too much about this point. What is interesting to note is that a lot of the main denominations argue whether or not Catholicism should even be considered Christianity ... but lets not go there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotta love semantics, huh? It's funny how you're immune to semantic arguments, but I'm supposed to accept yours.

Let's get semantic, though - the Catholic Church puts Mormonism into the same category as Baptism, Methodism, and orthodox churches. Roman Catholicism is the largest and most authoritative group that believe in Jesus Christ - drop them and Christianity is suddenly third place to Islam and Catholicism. But I guess since they don't dispute the LDS claim, they must not be Christians either. And I assume neither are Unitarians, or other demoninations that consistently consider Mormons to be Christians? It sounds like your definition of Christianity is "any group that hates Mormons."

I guess that makes me a Christian too...

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
um no, but nice try.

[dknightx]

oh btw:

"Unitarianism believed in the oneness of God and not the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in one God) proclaimed at the Council of Nicaea in 325. Historic Unitarians believed in the moral authority, but not the deity, of Jesus ... Today, many Unitarian Universalists do not consider themselves Christians, even if they share some beliefs quite similar to those of mainstream Christians."

yeah, guess that would make them non-christian?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
If you sent 10^500 tornadoes at piles of scrap metal, You would end up with a fleet of 747s, a few M1 Abrams tanks, a few bentleys and most certainly a few cellular organisms.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so wrong. All you would end up with is piles of scrap metal. Google the infinite monkey theorem.

Stu

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right, and I never said NO ONE considers mormons christians, just that most do not, and most christian leaders do not (but i'm sure there are a few)

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa. Did you just delete your post asking me to find one Christian leader (pastor, bishop, etc) who agrees that the LDS Church is a Christian church?


[/ QUOTE ]

so you figure finding a single person who is on your side proves your point. i thought you were better than this ... i guess i was wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to the post that you made, then deleted, saying just that.

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right, and I never said NO ONE considers mormons christians, just that most do not, and most christian leaders do not (but i'm sure there are a few)

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa. Did you just delete your post asking me to find one Christian leader (pastor, bishop, etc) who agrees that the LDS Church is a Christian church?


[/ QUOTE ]

so you figure finding a single person who is on your side proves your point. i thought you were better than this ... i guess i was wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to the post that you made, then deleted, saying just that.

[/ QUOTE ]

i haven't deleted any posts ... and if you are going to interpret what i said as NONE OF THE LEADERS, then go for it.

[The Don]

My best estimate for 'where' would be somewhere else in the universe. 'How' is a question nobody can answer at the moment.

[MaxWeiss]

Why exactly <u>is</u> porn a bad thing??

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Why exactly <u>is</u> porn a bad thing??

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not porn, is sex for pleasure. Pleasure for the sake of pleasure = hedonism = idol worship = hording in on God's territory. Lots of the principles of religion are geared towards stamping out hedonism.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
I am ... an engineering student in Sheffield, England. I would like to think that in general I'm a logical person and up to now I have had no major problems with accepting Christianity as logical. There are certain aspects that I'm unsure of but there have been other things I have experienced/seen happen that have made it seem illogical not to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like a good opportunity to re-introduce and recommend Jacques Monod's classic "Chance and Necessity" : A biologist and philosopher discusses soup.

No home should be without it.

[ed8383]

how did life begin?
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/

http://www.mt.net/~watcher/martianpentagon.jpg

[iggymcfly]

A Christian is anyone who worships Jesus Christ. That's pretty simple, isn't it? Just because someone doesn't agree with your beliefs doesn't make them not Christian. The idea that Catholics aren't Christian is particularly ludicrous since they accounted for &gt; 95% of Christians for over a millenium.