Lsrcr Forum

Ducati. wrote:

The first person in world doesn't came if there is no existence of god and I read that some saying one day all will be proved by science and there is no god . First of all there are some topics that science even can't explain. Like How the first person in world born who made mountains, clouds etc. So there is existence of someone that created this universe.
And If you believe in god for you god exists and if we don't beleive in their existence there is no god for us.
From my pont of view those who have written that they don't beleive in god is just for sake of any reason . Those who keep saying that god "do not exist " themselves beleive in god. Because at any point in your life you get a unexpected Happiness in your life and you are very much thankful to god.
For those who don't believe in existnce of god lemme ask you that did you never worship god ever?

Things you mentioned are already explained by science. And yes, there are some things that science hasn't proved yet. However that doesn't mean that a creator exists. I said that I don't believe in God and I mean it. Things happening in my life has got nothing to do with God. I don't understand his role in things happening with my life.

Ducati. wrote:

[Lsrcr]Oggy wrote:

I don't believe that god exists. Everything in the universe can be explained rationally explained by science. There's nothing out there that science won't be able to explain one day. It's true that there are some things which science can't explain right now because of the lack of technologies. But our technologies are improving at a fast rate so soon there will be nothing left to be explained. So what is the need for believing that god exists?

Basically i have read this thread today.
Oggy I must ask you that saying god doesn't exist is not a simple thing that at one time you said god doesn't exists and other you will say that god doesn't exists. So basically you accepted that some things that science cannot explain but reason you gave is Due to lack of technology Are you srs? However advance our technology is it can't explain all the facts of nature who born first human being , When is your death coming, Who made water , mountains?
Even anyone can't explain this.
And as you said that i don't beleive in god's existence I would like to ask you some questions.
Q1. Did you never worshipped god?
Q2. Have you ever been thankful for god for an unexpected event?
Q3. In difficult times, hope that never comes in your life,You never begged anything from god?
Even i don't have facts that god exists but saying that god doesn't exists for jus a reason that science is everything isn't a proper fact.

Spoiler: show

I would like to read your next reply quoting my lines.

The burden of proof always lies in the hands of the believer. And yes, lack of technology is the reason for all the unexplained things. As I replied to your previous post, these things you mentioned have already been explained by science. Anyway,

1) I used to worship God when I was a kid because everyone told me that there's a God but I grew up and realized that there isn't as there's no proof of his existence.
2) Luck is a game of odds and probability. God is not responsible for luck.
3) When I was a believer, I would pray for God during my difficult times but since I became an atheist now, I don't.

As I said, the burden of proof lies in the hands of the believer. Science is all about facts and evidences while belief is blindly led by faith alone.

i just cant believe that this topic got over 40 pages of replies.
We'd have to agree that god has common logic if he exists and if he does then why won't he make it clear for everyone?
"You must believe it for him to show up" and its the same as saying "you must smoke crack to see a unicorn".
In life, we always do what we believe. We eat food, because we believe that it keeps us alive. We, personally have no idea that if we don't eat food we die, never experienced it. But, food and water are consumed by all of us, because not using it, kills you. We also believe stuff like the 5 seconds rule when food drops in ground, which is not true by the way. But, how can out imagination believe such a powerful creatures, which has only appeared on holy books. How do we know that it gives good to us? Yeah, you may say, i almost died that time, but god saved me. What about Thousands of people dying every day? Why isn't god saving them as well? "Because they didn't respect their creator". So, you are pretty much saying that god only saves the people who support him. That's not nice of him, is it?
But, all of these theories, basically prove the nonsense i just talked about. I don't know if there is any god or no, but he never showed up to me and while logically thinking, i see a way more chances for it to be luck and for no one to be watching us over the sky/galaxy/universe, since its a creature which almost none of us can imagine. How can we believe something that we can't imagine?
Many people believe as kids because their parents forced them to. They are blind to what they say and do till adults. That's a mistake from the parents. Even though my parents are both religious, they never actually forced it for me to learn. They explained the religion to me and also how to behave on people which were religious for me not to ask why they were doing this.
I am not the kind of person which has the curiosity to know who created everything, but i am the kind of person to just not care at all and live out life as i like to. That is getting born, enjoying as much as i can, then dying. And i think everyone should live the life like this, without thinking much about the creator or wasting time to something they have never seen before.

I tried to be as clear as possible and i don't mean to offend anybody. This goes to all the religions out there.

[Lsrcr]Oggy wrote:

...

They aren't our ancestor. If you think you came from a monkey, so be it. I don't believe I came from a "common ancestor" that once was a monkey. I mentioned evolution because it's the only thing on the other side of the spectrum. It's definitely not the only explanation.

We've found the fossils of the transition species from simple to complex beings like humans.

Really? Where? When?

Sharing a common DNA means that both organisms came from the same ancestor.

Following this logic, I could also say that god decided to create us "alike", as in us having some "common DNA". This in no way 100% proves the existence of a common ancestor. Your statement is as logically flawed as mine is.

Science is all about facts and evidences while belief is blindly led by faith alone.

Ah, the irony. The theory of evolution is nothing short of blind faith itself.

Jaker wrote:

[Lsrcr]Oggy wrote:

...

They aren't our ancestor. If you think you came from a monkey, so be it. I don't believe I came from a "common ancestor" that once was a monkey. I mentioned evolution because it's the only thing on the other side of the spectrum. It's definitely not the only explanation.

You're making a claim without any evidence to back up where as I have tons of evidence to back up my claim. If you don't believe something that has already been proved with proofs, facts and evidences, then you are not only uneducated but stupid.

Jaker wrote:

We've found the fossils of the transition species from simple to complex beings like humans.

Really? Where? When?

Ever heard of a place called museum?

Jaker wrote:

Sharing a common DNA means that both organisms came from the same ancestor.

Following this logic, I could also say that god decided to create us "alike", as in us having some "common DNA". This in no way 100% proves the existence of a common ancestor. Your statement is as logically flawed as mine is.

Our DNA has many information that is completely useless but accumulated due to years of evolution. It doesn't make any sense as to why God would do that. If you believe creation is true, then how would you explain that we've found many fossils that date to millions of years ago. Also, why haven't we found a single human skeleton that looks exactly like the humans we have today and dates back to those years?

Jaker wrote:

Science is all about facts and evidences while belief is blindly led by faith alone.

Ah, the irony. The theory of evolution is nothing short of blind faith itself.

Evolution is not based on any faith. It's based on actual evidences and facts. Even Darwin himself came up with the idea of natural selection largely based on observational data. If you want to disprove something that has already been proved correct, then show us what's wrong with it and bring forward your new theory and the evidences that show it. The same science that lets you use the internet you're using right now shows that evolution is true. If you don't believe in evolution, then you shouldn't be believing in internet either. You must think that internet is a hoax and that the person on the other side of your chat is simply God.

[Lsrcr]Oggy wrote:

Jaker wrote:

[Lsrcr]Oggy wrote:

...

They aren't our ancestor. If you think you came from a monkey, so be it. I don't believe I came from a "common ancestor" that once was a monkey. I mentioned evolution because it's the only thing on the other side of the spectrum. It's definitely not the only explanation.

You're making a claim without any evidence to back up where as I have tons of evidence to back up my claim. If you don't believe something that has already been proved with proofs, facts and evidences, then you are not only uneducated but stupid.

Jaker wrote:

We've found the fossils of the transition species from simple to complex beings like humans.

Really? Where? When?

Ever heard of a place called museum?

Jaker wrote:

Sharing a common DNA means that both organisms came from the same ancestor.

Following this logic, I could also say that god decided to create us "alike", as in us having some "common DNA". This in no way 100% proves the existence of a common ancestor. Your statement is as logically flawed as mine is.

Our DNA has many information that is completely useless but accumulated due to years of evolution. It doesn't make any sense as to why God would do that. If you believe creation is true, then how would you explain that we've found many fossils that date to millions of years ago. Also, why haven't we found a single human skeleton that looks exactly like the humans we have today and dates back to those years?

Jaker wrote:

Science is all about facts and evidences while belief is blindly led by faith alone.

Ah, the irony. The theory of evolution is nothing short of blind faith itself.

Evolution is not based on any faith. It's based on actual evidences and facts. Even Darwin himself came up with the idea of natural selection largely based on observational data. If you want to disprove something that has already been proved correct, then show us what's wrong with it and bring forward your new theory and the evidences that show it. The same science that lets you use the internet you're using right now shows that evolution is true. If you don't believe in evolution, then you shouldn't be believing in internet either. You must think that internet is a hoax and that the person on the other side of your chat is simply God.

Then what would you say about Mahabharata and Ramayana ?
You think these are just beliefs?
There are evidences of these on museums written by the ancient people.
Basically,I don't want to post here but I can't control myself..

jilla123 wrote:

[Lsrcr]Oggy wrote:

Jaker wrote:

They aren't our ancestor. If you think you came from a monkey, so be it. I don't believe I came from a "common ancestor" that once was a monkey. I mentioned evolution because it's the only thing on the other side of the spectrum. It's definitely not the only explanation.

You're making a claim without any evidence to back up where as I have tons of evidence to back up my claim. If you don't believe something that has already been proved with proofs, facts and evidences, then you are not only uneducated but stupid.

Jaker wrote:

Really? Where? When?

Ever heard of a place called museum?

Jaker wrote:

Following this logic, I could also say that god decided to create us "alike", as in us having some "common DNA". This in no way 100% proves the existence of a common ancestor. Your statement is as logically flawed as mine is.

Our DNA has many information that is completely useless but accumulated due to years of evolution. It doesn't make any sense as to why God would do that. If you believe creation is true, then how would you explain that we've found many fossils that date to millions of years ago. Also, why haven't we found a single human skeleton that looks exactly like the humans we have today and dates back to those years?

Jaker wrote:

Ah, the irony. The theory of evolution is nothing short of blind faith itself.

Evolution is not based on any faith. It's based on actual evidences and facts. Even Darwin himself came up with the idea of natural selection largely based on observational data. If you want to disprove something that has already been proved correct, then show us what's wrong with it and bring forward your new theory and the evidences that show it. The same science that lets you use the internet you're using right now shows that evolution is true. If you don't believe in evolution, then you shouldn't be believing in internet either. You must think that internet is a hoax and that the person on the other side of your chat is simply God.

Then what would you say about Mahabharata and Ramayana ?
You think these are just beliefs?
There are evidences of these on museums written by the ancient people.
Basically,I don't want to post here but I can't control myself..

The cities might be real and some of the characters might be real too. But they're all just ordinary humans with no superpowers.

[Lsrcr]Oggy wrote:

Spoiler: show

Jaker wrote:

[Lsrcr]Oggy wrote:

...

They aren't our ancestor. If you think you came from a monkey, so be it. I don't believe I came from a "common ancestor" that once was a monkey. I mentioned evolution because it's the only thing on the other side of the spectrum. It's definitely not the only explanation.

You're making a claim without any evidence to back up where as I have tons of evidence to back up my claim. If you don't believe something that has already been proved with proofs, facts and evidences, then you are not only uneducated but stupid.

Jaker wrote:

We've found the fossils of the transition species from simple to complex beings like humans.

Really? Where? When?

Ever heard of a place called museum?

Jaker wrote:

Sharing a common DNA means that both organisms came from the same ancestor.

Following this logic, I could also say that god decided to create us "alike", as in us having some "common DNA". This in no way 100% proves the existence of a common ancestor. Your statement is as logically flawed as mine is.

Our DNA has many information that is completely useless but accumulated due to years of evolution. It doesn't make any sense as to why God would do that. If you believe creation is true, then how would you explain that we've found many fossils that date to millions of years ago. Also, why haven't we found a single human skeleton that looks exactly like the humans we have today and dates back to those years?

Jaker wrote:

Science is all about facts and evidences while belief is blindly led by faith alone.

Ah, the irony. The theory of evolution is nothing short of blind faith itself.

Evolution is not based on any faith. It's based on actual evidences and facts. Even Darwin himself came up with the idea of natural selection largely based on observational data. If you want to disprove something that has already been proved correct, then show us what's wrong with it and bring forward your new theory and the evidences that show it. The same science that lets you use the internet you're using right now shows that evolution is true. If you don't believe in evolution, then you shouldn't be believing in internet either. You must think that internet is a hoax and that the person on the other side of your chat is simply God.

You're making a claim without any evidence to back up where as I have tons of evidence to back up my claim.

Oh yeah? Can you please provide me with observable evidence of a change of kinds, i.e. a monkey changing into a human, I guess? Any, please. Something I can observe, that demonstrates one kind changing into another.

Ever heard of a place called museum?

Do you really think the fossils of the "transition species" work in favor of evolution?

from simple to complex beings like humans.

Wow, that's quite a jump. There has to be a LOT of specific fossils that would convince me.

Our DNA has many information that is completely useless but accumulated due to years of evolution.

So, what you're saying, once upon a time, there was information that once was useless, but during a fortunate (for us) turn of events, "new information" came together with this "older information" to a place, accumulated and came to be the most complex and coherent phenemenon of biology in the world, that enables the entire human race to exist? Am I wrong?

Also, what parts of our DNA are useless?

If you believe creation is true, then how would you explain that we've found many fossils that date to millions of years ago.

I don't trust the method of radioactive carbon dating. Why? Simply put, there are examples of e.g. the shell of a living snail being dated as being 2000 years old. There are numerous other examples. Therefore, I don't take into account any claims that mention "millions and billions of years".

Also, why haven't we found a single human skeleton that looks exactly like the humans we have today and dates back to those years?

I guess because we changed slightly over the course of time. I mean, the human kind varies to a great extent in physical properties from continent to continent. Or maybe imo because god created people on each continent with physical characteristics that are the most optimal for the area they live in. I believe in microevolution ( changes within the same kind) because I can observe it, but I definitely do not believe in macroevolution.

[Lsrcr]Oggy wrote:

Ducati. wrote:

[Lsrcr]Oggy wrote:

I don't believe that god exists. Everything in the universe can be explained rationally explained by science. There's nothing out there that science won't be able to explain one day. It's true that there are some things which science can't explain right now because of the lack of technologies. But our technologies are improving at a fast rate so soon there will be nothing left to be explained. So what is the need for believing that god exists?

Basically i have read this thread today.
Oggy I must ask you that saying god doesn't exist is not a simple thing that at one time you said god doesn't exists and other you will say that god doesn't exists. So basically you accepted that some things that science cannot explain but reason you gave is Due to lack of technology Are you srs? However advance our technology is it can't explain all the facts of nature who born first human being , When is your death coming, Who made water , mountains?
Even anyone can't explain this.
And as you said that i don't beleive in god's existence I would like to ask you some questions.
Q1. Did you never worshipped god?
Q2. Have you ever been thankful for god for an unexpected event?
Q3. In difficult times, hope that never comes in your life,You never begged anything from god?
Even i don't have facts that god exists but saying that god doesn't exists for jus a reason that science is everything isn't a proper fact.

Spoiler: show

I would like to read your next reply quoting my lines.

The burden of proof always lies in the hands of the believer. And yes, lack of technology is the reason for all the unexplained things. As I replied to your previous post, these things you mentioned have already been explained by science. Anyway,

1) I used to worship God when I was a kid because everyone told me that there's a God but I grew up and realized that there isn't as there's no proof of his existence.
2) Luck is a game of odds and probability. God is not responsible for luck.
3) When I was a believer, I would pray for God during my difficult times but since I became an atheist now, I don't.

As I said, the burden of proof lies in the hands of the believer. Science is all about facts and evidences while belief is blindly led by faith alone.

So basically you said that luck is the factor for all your good as well as bad events. Well anyone of us do not know about god's existence but saying that luck is the factor doesn't conclude as all things/facts cannot be discovered by science. And as you said you don't pray to god now. You had easily answered that you don't worshipped god now. Don't you visit to temples with family? You never do prayers in school/colledges ? In future you will not worship god ever before any good event going to be happened in your life (as we all Indians do). You will get to know and you will worship god in future if you will face hard situations (Nvm hopr that never come).

jilla123 wrote:

Then what would you say about Mahabharata and Ramayana ?
You think these are just beliefs?
There are evidences of these on museums written by the ancient people.
Basically,I don't want to post here but I can't control myself..

As jila said you can't regret the beliefs and evidences which are followed from years. Yes you have right to beleive in the existence and nonexistence of god . No question in that. But do accept that there are facts that science can't proove.

Jaker wrote:

You're making a claim without any evidence to back up where as I have tons of evidence to back up my claim.

Oh yeah? Can you please provide me with observable evidence of a change of kinds, i.e. a monkey changing into a human, I guess? Any, please. Something I can observe, that demonstrates one kind changing into another.

First of all, monkeys don't change into humans. Monkeys and humans share a common ancestor who lived a few million years ago. That ancestor looked more like the present day monkeys in appearance so no, monkeys don't and didn't change into humans. You can observe the evolution of RNA in retroviruses due to mutation. Elephants were hunted and killed by poachers for their tusks and now some elephants are born without tusks. They are fertile and will reproduce. Obviously, they will not be killed for their tusks so they'll survive while the others won't, making a world with elephants without tusks. This is natural selection in action. Dark and white moths is another example. There are many other examples of evolution that you can observe today.

Jaker wrote:

Ever heard of a place called museum?

Do you really think the fossils of the "transition species" work in favor of evolution?

Yeah.

Jaker wrote:

from simple to complex beings like humans.

Wow, that's quite a jump. There has to be a LOT of specific fossils that would convince me.

Of course. Whether it would convince you or not, depends on your intelligence.

Jaker wrote:

Our DNA has many information that is completely useless but accumulated due to years of evolution.

So, what you're saying, once upon a time, there was information that once was useless, but during a fortunate (for us) turn of events, "new information" came together with this "older information" to a place, accumulated and came to be the most complex and coherent phenemenon of biology in the world, that enables the entire human race to exist? Am I wrong?


Also, what parts of our DNA are useless?

It doesn't enable human race to exist. These are basically called introns. They're more like the vermiform appendix which is completely useless but exists as a side effect of evolution. It is found that 90% of human DNA is junk. Without these, transcription and translation would have been a lot easier and more efficient. You'd say that it's because God didn't want us to have too much advantage over other species, right? Well these are found in all organisms so they pose disadvantages in all organisms, so why would he even bother?

Jaker wrote:

If you believe creation is true, then how would you explain that we've found many fossils that date to millions of years ago.

I don't trust the method of radioactive carbon dating. Why? Simply put, there are examples of e.g. the shell of a living snail being dated as being 2000 years old. There are numerous other examples. Therefore, I don't take into account any claims that mention "millions and billions of years".

Yes, radiocarbon dating cannot be done accurately on freshwater mussels, but that's all about it. These mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well. Scientists are well aware of this problem. They test for it and take it into account when interpreting radiocarbon data. For instance, they could just compare the amount of C-14 left in a freshly killed snail with the data from radioactive carbon dating. In cases where corrections for presence of dead carbon cannot be made, such dates are readily recognized as erroneous and can be safely disregarded. The idea of dating a fossil by counting the amount of radioactive elements left is a brilliant invention. Also, do you know that C-14 dating can only be done on fossils younger than some thousand years and other datings are done by measuring the amount of other radioactive elements?

Jaker wrote:

Also, why haven't we found a single human skeleton that looks exactly like the humans we have today and dates back to those years?

I guess because we changed slightly over the course of time. I mean, the human kind varies to a great extent in physical properties from continent to continent. Or maybe imo because god created people on each continent with physical characteristics that are the most optimal for the area they live in. I believe in micro-evolution ( changes within the same kind) because I can observe it, but I definitely do not believe in macro-evolution.

Micro-evolution in long periods of time results in macro-evolution over long periods of time, duh.