jaephoenix:

I'm not interested in what the Bible has to say about creation, or any topic, for that matter. Why? It contains debatable issues, condones misogyny, slaving, incest etc. Plus it lies and an unscientific . Worse still, its not backed by any shred of historical or archaeological data. So its not reliable.

Ok your opinion

Aemmyjah:


Apes cannot use the internet

Lol. Is that all you can say? After your ignorance is exposed?

tctrills:

Ok your opinion

Its not my opinion but facts. That is why scientists ignore the bible or other Holy books.
If you're so obliged I can drop the verses here. Or better still, open a thread about it so more theists can critique it.

HellVictorinho6:


Intelligence happens by chance

We are not intelligent we are only unhappy

Only an unhappy species seek happiness and thereby create complex technology in it futile pursuit for happiness

Kayouzka:


We are not intelligent we are only unhappy

Only an unhappy species seek happiness and thereby create complex technology in it futile pursuit for happiness

How can everyone be seeking joy?


I mean certain people are already happy as we speak.


Not everyone creates complex tech to become happy...... search for joy is not always futile..

HellVictorinho6:






How can everyone be seeking joy?


I mean certain people are already happy as we speak.


Not everyone creates complex tech to become happy...... search for joy is not always futile..

I am talking about mankind has a whole

jaephoenix:

Its not my opinion but facts. That is why scientists ignore the bible or other Holy books.
If you're so obliged I can drop the verses here. Or better still, open a thread about it so more theists can critique it.

No scientist do not need toix science with religion. Saying scientist ignore the bible is just like saying economist ignore the bible. The bible is neither a science or economic textbook. Each has its place.

Kayouzka:



I am talking about mankind has a whole

Mankind refers to all humans and all humans include the sad, happy or people that are neither happy nor sad.

tctrills:

No scientist do not need toix science with religion. Saying scientist ignore the bible is just like saying economist ignore the bible. The bible is neither a science or economic textbook. Each has its place.

Lemme break it down.
All branches of science ignore the input of the Bible. Examples…
Anthropology. It doesn't believe we were created from dust by a Supreme being. It accepts we evolved from other species.
Biology. It believes man is evolving from a different specie, and is still evolving(thus my topic)
Paleontology is studying the prehistoric life that existed prior to, and sometimes including, the start of the Holocene epoch. It includes the study of fossils to classify organisms and study their interactions with each other and their environments.
Etc etc
None of them is chasing after the Bible stories to study how he came about. None of them is going to check where the garden of Eden was. And definitely none of them would insert the Bible stories (or any religious stories) into the origin of man. Why? They have all been found to be lies and don't add up. The great flood don't add up. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has no historical backup. Some of the stories have been found to be lies.
I can go on, but unless this is a new thread, I'll have to stop

jaephoenix:

Lemme break it down.
All branches of science ignore the input of the Bible. Examples…
Anthropology. It doesn't believe we were created from dust by a Supreme being. It accepts we evolved from other species.
Biology. It believes man is evolving from a different specie, and is still evolving(thus my topic)
Paleontology is studying the prehistoric life that existed prior to, and sometimes including, the start of the Holocene epoch. It includes the study of fossils to classify organisms and study their interactions with each other and their environments.
Etc etc
None of them is chasing after the Bible stories to study how he came about. None of them is going to check where the garden of Eden was. And definitely none of them would insert the Bible stories (or any religious stories) into the origin of man. Why? They have all been found to be lies and don't add up. The great flood don't add up. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has no historical backup. Some of the stories have been found to be lies.
I can go on, but unless this is a new thread, I'll have to stop

Religion does not fit into any branch of science that should not be too complicated to accept or understand. We should not be teaching science and religion. That's not a problem.

HellVictorinho6:


Mankind refers to all humans and all humans include the sad, happy or people that are neither happy nor sad.

Happiness is not real it an illusion, it does not last.

Kayouzka:


Happiness is not real it an illusion, it does not last.

That something is not permanent doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Kayouzka:


We are not intelligent we are only unhappy

Only an unhappy species seek happiness and thereby create complex technology in it futile pursuit for happiness

I would instead put like this: our capacity for internal conversation makes it so that we can be dissatisfied with our external circumstances and there is a biofeedback loop that accentuates that dissatisfaction.

HellVictorinho6:



That something is not permanent doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

No, that is wrong the impermanence of things ascertain the fact that existence is an illusion.
Can you have your baby you back? Can you go back to the past?

Kayouzka:


No, that is wrong the impermanence of things ascertain the fact that existence is an illusion.
Can you have your baby you back? Can you go back to the past?

The existence of something is independent of what you're saying.

LordReed:


I would instead put like this: our capacity for internal conversation makes it so that we can be dissatisfied with our external circumstances and there is a biofeedback loop that accentuates that dissatisfaction.

Because every thought are imagination express through words or conversation but imagination are dreams and dreams are illusion. So therefore we pursue illusion in the name of happiness. which is a projection away from peace until futility or so-called happiness that is brim

HellVictorinho6:



The existence of something is independent of what you're saying.

Existence of what?
Is there a thing that never change in this world?

Kayouzka:


Existence of what?
Is there a thing that never change in this world?

How does change mean nothing ever exists?

Kayouzka:


Because every thought are imagination express through words or conversation but imagination are dreams and dreams are illusion. So therefore we pursue illusion in the name of happiness. which is a projection away from peace until futility or so-called happiness that is brim

There's no evidence for all of this.

HellVictorinho6:



How does change mean nothing ever exists?

Change refers to the appearance and disappearance of things, event places , everything appears and disappear, exist means to stand out, nothing meaning no thing or not a thing, not a thing is that which is permanent and fundamental anything that change is an illusion pretending to standout

Kayouzka:


Change refers to the appearance and disappearance of things, event places , everything appears and disappear, exist means to stand out, nothing meaning no thing or not a thing, not a thing is that which is permanent and fundamental anything that change is an illusion pretending to standout

Where's the evidence of all of this?

HellVictorinho6:



There's no evidence for all of this.

There is

Where is your past, can you return to the past when you are a baby, they are only memories and memories are imaginations.

Kayouzka:


There is

Where is your past, can you return to the past when you are a baby, they are only memories and memories are imaginations.

There's more to existence than my past.


Are you saying I don't exist because I have a past?


Are you calling me an illusion?

HellVictorinho6:


There's more to existence than my past.


Are you saying I don't exist because I have a past?


Are you calling me an illusion?

Not necessarily

But if you are referring to your ;

Body,
Thought
Feeling
And every attachments of life
Then yes we are all illusions passing away

Kayouzka:



Not necessarily

But if you are referring to your ;

Body,
Thought
Feeling
And every attachments of life
Then yes we are all illusions passing away

Stop this.... seriously?


What remains of me without all attachments of life

HellVictorinho6:


Stop this.... seriously?


What remains of me without all attachments of life

Pure consciousness or pure awareness

Kayouzka:



Pure consciousness or pure awareness

Define

HellVictorinho6:


Define

I cant give a definite answer

But I can explain

If you can understand what you felt like when you was first born, your eye never seen light and your ears never heard sounds but you where just pure awareness. That is that which knows all things

Kayouzka:


I cant give a definite answer

But I can explain

If you can understand what you felt like when you was first born, your eye never seen light and your ears never heard sounds but you where just pure awareness. That is that which knows all things

Crap.

From birth...,all aspects of life are displayed.

tctrills:

Religion does not fit into any branch of science that should not be too complicated to accept or understand. We should not be teaching science and religion. That's not a problem.

Exactly. Religion isn't science. I didn't say its a branch of science.
My point is science depends on verifiable and reproducible facts, which is the opposite of religion. So they are parallel.
Though science is still not certain how we came here, it has established how we evolved through species.
Religion doesn't require proof by it's members or practitioners to believe

jaephoenix:

Exactly. Religion isn't science. I didn't say its a branch of science.
My point is science depends on verifiable and reproducible facts, which is the opposite of religion. So they are parallel.
Though science is still not certain how we came here, it has established how we evolved through species.
Religion doesn't require proof by it's members or practitioners to believe

Yes religion does not require proof Science does. Both have their place.

tctrills:

Yes religion does not require proof Science does. Both have their place.

What is the place of religions? What is its import to the society?