Going Crazy

That actually indicates that most of our DNA was rendered useless in the random mutations during evolution. The junk DNA contains some old genes that are no longer functional, such as the gene to synthesize Vitamin C.

A note on that:

- The Urey-Miller Experiment originally aimed to recreate the assumed state of a young Earth.
- How matter exists, how the Universe started etc. are currently being looked into by Quantum Physics. Fun stuff. (They are currently looking into M-Theory -a theory in development-, which I do not have much knowledge on)
- I don't really disapprove of your choice to believe in a deity. Just do not claim discovered science is nonsense because of your faith, and I'll be fine.

 

Why must this God character always be magical and spiritual? What about a mundane creator? Maybe we were created in an enormous alien laboratory, or maybe we're actually a simulation. AI.

Or maybe, maybe, all of this talk about a creator is bullshit and absolutely pointless.

 

Imagine for a moment that were bona fide magician able to tap into a powerful source of magical energy and cast spells, but that the spells you cast were subtle, undetectable to the people around you, and their effects were always explained away as random chance or strange phenomena that surely have some logical explanation.
You would probably have a hard time convincing people that there was such a thing as magic, that you have seen it powerfully affect the world, and that the book of magic you learned from is proven true by the results of the magic spells contained in it. Because people don't want to look for the magic. They look for random chance and that's what they see.

 

The sizes of the smallest known genome is about 1,6x10^5 base pairs (Carsonella ruddi) - or about 3,5x10^3 base pairs if we count viruses (Bacteriophage MS2) - while the size of the biggest known genome is about 6,9x10^11 base pairs (Amoeba dubia). A human genome is about 3x10^9 base pair long. I still say calling a genome, which is about 230 times smaller than the largest ones but, at the same time, about 18'750 times larger than the smallest one (875'000 times larger if we count viruses) "one of the smallest genomes on the planet" is an exaggeration.

Which - as I recall - in fact consists of insane numbers of repetitions of the same genes, so it isn't really that special.

Do not make the mistake of underestimating the meaning of noncoding DNA. It is "junk" only by name and has very important functions in an organism.

So, when you can't answer the question "where did the universe come from?", you are willing to believe the answer "it came from God". Don't you have the feeling that you are simply replacing one unknown with another? Your mind's curiosity may feel comforted, but it only lasts until it encounters the next question in line, namely "where did God come from?". If "I don't know" or "He was always there" are viable answers for you when it comes to God, why are they not viable answers when it comes to the universe?

That is true and by using that type of argumentation, someone - anyone in fact - in the world can claim that he has magical powers and the arguments he would use to prove it would be precisely as strong as arguments you use to prove the existence of spirit. If arguments proving the existence of pretty much any intangible force one's imagination can come up with (magic, body thetans, Flying Spaghetti Monster's influence, you name it) would be as strong as arguments supporting my belief in something, it would make me think I made a mistake somewhere.

Indeed, completely forgetting about the indistinguishable influence of magic. And spirit. And body thetans. And the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And so on. I can see how one can either believe in all of them at once or reject the existence of all of them, but what I can't see is how one can believe in one of these forces while rejecting all of the other and not feel hypocritical about it the slightest, even if he perfectly knows they are as rational as his own belief.

 

I'm not worried about strength of argument, because that's not the point. The point is this: my beliefs are based on what I have seen, heard and felt just as surely as yours are. I walk by faith, you walk by sight. Even if you were right and there was no creator and the end of life was the end of existence, I have still been better off. My beliefs have brought me peace, joy, comfort, strength, friendship and love. What have yours brought you?

 

A close friend of mine has recently adopted a policy on conversations that is most appropriately applied to discussions of religion: if neither person involved is open to changing his position on the matter, then debate is useless. This policy is easily extended to debates that stem from ordinary people expressing their political views.

"Much?" As much as humanly possible, dear.

I tend to think so, for reasons mentioned above, however it probably serves no higher purpose than the last topic of this thread.

Having been reared Catholic, I have a fondness for this denomination as well, and although I am no expert among the faiths of the world, I expect you'll find that promoting virtues such as kindness and friendliness is not a feature unique to Catholicism. My preference for Catholicism is due to its focus on Mary, the mother of Jesus. I view the Catholics' use of her as a go-between among men and Jesus and God; I just like the idea that God has a secretary.


Back to the subject-of-the-moment, debating religion is a foolish pursuit and like it or not, no matter what stance you take, that stance is rooted in faith. By nature, faith is an unreasonable and illogical process and as we have abandoned our savage ways for more noble ones, there is a certain and immediate shame in being the owner of a process that is unreasonable or illogical. Perhaps it is this shame that motivates the pious to defend, explain, or prove his beliefs to those that immediately attack them. Perhaps these attackers just as immediately move from skeptical to hostile because they do so under the righteous banner of logic and reason, the same logic and reason by which they can deny the possibility of higher powers. Each side is as falsely motivated as the other because--speaking generally--something that cannot be proven, likely cannot be disproved. Each side is accepting on faith that what he believes is the truth. As faith and belief are each personal experiences, they cannot be effectively attacked or defended and should be practiced at the least and presented at the most. Problems arise when anything further is done with beliefs.
For my piece, I can only continue to hope for the day when you all discover your Humeots and as a matter of consequence are too consumed with self-reflection to continue attacking each other on a personal level.

 

No. Atheism is not faith in the lack of gods. It is the lack of faith in gods.

I heard that argument before, though. I once discussed with a fellow which claimed that I, too, am a believer, but instead of gods, I believe in science. For a moment there I even thought he might have a point, but eventually I saw how it really is - I do not *believe* in science, I *trust* it, and I do so, because it is the only method of perceiving reality which doesn't stand still but actually makes progress in describing reality, revealing more and more aspects which were once thought to be inexplicable, paranormal, explainable only by having a supernatural origin. It shows that more and more of such things can be explained with nothing more than more or less complicated physics or chemistry, making me expect it to explain every single aspect of the nature of the universe one day, leaving no blank spots. This trust is not the same as belief, because belief is by definition unquestioning, while this trust is demanding and dynamic.

My lack of belief gives me the satisfaction of perceiving the world as it is as clearly as possible, but at the same time it made me quite nihilistic and at a time in my life it brought me into a state which from my today's point of view I recognize as depression. However, I got over it and discovered that I can be happy and fulfilled without a higher being watching over me and an eternal life waiting for me after my current one.

Did you want to point out that my outlook brought me suffering and misery? Than you were correct, it is not an easy ride. Since when should we believe something only because it is easy, though? I myself strongly detest living by illusions and prefer suffering because of that which I perceive as truth over being happy because of delusions. If it were not so, I would be doing drugs.

 

Don't misinterpret what I'm saying. Yes, I'm willing to accept and believe the hypothesis that gods created the elements simply because science doesn't have an answer yet. That doesn't mean I'm not curious as to how pre-life and even pre-organic compounds began, or that my curiosity is actually satisfied. Yes it's a bunk answer, but it's the only 'answer' that I have at the moment. And, unfortunately, it's the only 'answer' I'm likely to have in my lifetime unless the sciences and quantum sciences make extraordinary leaps and bounds into getting a real answer for us.

 

By this logic, what I believe is no more or less true than what you believe because it is what I perceive to be true and it's all subjective.

 

A standard response now would be saying that truth subjectively perceived on the base of science is truer than truth subjectively perceived on the base of religion, because science does its best to be as objective as possible, whereas religion is pretty much by definition subjective towards a certain belief.

 

So how are you coming along gross? I hope its all going well for you, just hang in there bro!

 

Not if everything is subjective; all perceived truth is equally true to those who perceive it to be true. But that's only if everything is subjective, which it isn't because there is an absolute truth. You and I just have differing opinions over what that is, and one of us may be right and one of us is definitely wrong. We'll only know for sure when we die or Jesus comes back, and something tells me nobody here is going to budge from any opinions pertaining to the origins of the universe until then. Though, I still don't quite understand why some people are so militantly against even considering the possibility of intelligent design, biblical or otherwise.

 

A feminist is a person who believes in equal rights and treatments of genders.

You're probably thinking of a post-feminist. Nobody likes them.

 

Wait, you're a Swede?

I thought you were a good Norwegian boy.

 

You're thinking Xz.

Japes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onthology

Also, science is objective assuming existance and matter is real.

 

http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-appare ... 5/?i=front

Which, unless you're a Christian Scientist, it is.

 

It's all shite really isn't it.