Does God exist? (13 Viewers)

[moll.]

perhaps but i was talking in general, why did that have to even be raised? i didnt despute the fact, or agree.

The problem is that religion and evolution really aren't compatible, despite what some think. This is because if you accept evolution, then you accept that man evolved from the animals. However this involves many stages in between, so it raises the question of which species was the first to have a soul. Which in turn is an impossible question to answer, until you realise that there's isn't a soul, at least not in the life-after-death sense.

 

[moll.]

Is it just me, or do i end up dumbing everything down on this thread and treating everyone like an idiot?

 

[HNAKXR]

Why couldn't it be raised. It's a valid point.

If you believe there is more to life for humans than just 'existing', and that there must be something else, then does the same apply for animals.

If animals are born to just 'exist' and there is no afterlife for them, why would there be one for us?

I don't know why you're being such a defensive little girl over it, it's a fairly easy question to answer.

While animals may be regarded self-aware none are to our extent. We may be no better than animals in many aspects but you have to admit this.

 

[HNAKXR]

The problem is that religion and evolution really aren't compatible, despite what some think. This is because if you accept evolution, then you accept that man evolved from the animals. However this involves many stages in between, so it raises the question of which species was the first to have a soul. Which in turn is an impossible question to answer, until you realise that there's isn't a soul, at least not in the life-after-death sense.

Evolution is completely compatible, the origin of species however is not.
big difference.

( However there are some people who see both as compatible to religion.)

 

[Leo 100]

wow. i make a general comment about religion. and then i become 'a silly little girl' because you make a retarded comment.

i simply said that there must be something full stop!!!!!!!
dont turn it into a debate, cause it isnt.

 

[Leo 100]

Is it just me, or do i end up dumbing everything down on this thread and treating everyone like an idiot?

no, your alright (not sarcastic)

 

[katie tully]

wow. i make a general comment about religion. and then i become 'a silly little girl' because you make a retarded comment.

i simply said that there must be something full stop!!!!!!!
dont turn it into a debate, cause it isnt.

It's not a retarded comment.
It's a question, which for whatever reason you seem incapable of answering.

 

[Leo 100]

It's not a retarded comment.
It's a question, which for whatever reason you seem incapable of answering.

i dont answer to you

 

[katie tully]

i dont answer to you

lol fuck you're a dweeb

 

[HNAKXR]

this is fun to watch :rofl:

 

[Leo 100]

lol fuck you're a dweeb

why thankyou, i just tried so hard to impress you. i guess thats the biggest compliment you give.

you do realise that someone else has just created a thread about you.

 

[Leo 100]

this is fun to watch :rofl:

yeah thanks mate

who you think would win in a punch up? just joking, i tend to walk away from fights with people that are mentally challanged.

 

[katie tully]

awesome, my own thread!

 

[moll.]

awesome, my own thread!

Think again, bitch!
lol.

 

[$hiftyIceQueen]

Why couldn't it be raised. It's a valid point.

If you believe there is more to life for humans than just 'existing', and that there must be something else, then does the same apply for animals.

If animals are born to just 'exist' and there is no afterlife for them, why would there be one for us?

I don't know why you're being such a defensive little girl over it, it's a fairly easy question to answer.

Animals don't have the same sort of 'level of understaning' as humans, which is why they get a different form of an after life. Meaning, they still get one, but not the same as ours. I mean they won't get up and start talking to humans because its 'heaven' or something.

Like we have heaven and hell, and humans burn in hell for whatever sins they've made, whereas animals have a lower punishment; i think its more like, if one animal hurts another then it will be hurt or something [im not sure about this]. but they also have an after life and get to live in heaven.

Thats what i believe, i might be way off though. But i just can't see humans living and getting punished/rewarded for things and animals just dying and never returning, seems too 'wrong'?

I have no idea what the other person was on about though. Just ignore me if this isnt what you were talking about

 

[moll.]

Evolution is completely compatible, the origin of species however is not.
big difference.

( However there are some people who see both as compatible to religion.)

Is that the same as micro- and macro-evolution?

 

[moll.]

Animals don't have the same sort of 'level of understaning' as humans, which is why they get a different form of an after life. Meaning, they still get one, but not the same as ours. I mean they won't get up and start talking to humans because its 'heaven' or something.

Like we have heaven and hell, and humans burn in hell for whatever sins they've made, whereas animals have a lower punishment; i think its more like, if one animal hurts another then it will be hurt or something [im not sure about this]. but they also have an after life and get to live in heaven.

Thats what i believe, i might be way off though. But i just can't see humans living and getting punished/rewarded for things and animals just dying and never returning, seems too 'wrong'?

I have no idea what the other person was on about though. Just ignore me if this isnt what you were talking about

lol.
It's less 'wrong' for them to be punished for hunting other animals for their own survival and for following their instincts?
Yeah, that makes heaps more sense than them just dying.
Also, see my above post about the problems with this form of thinking, namely the problems in identifying the point in our evolutionary past where humans somehow became more than an animal.

 

[$hiftyIceQueen]

lol.
It's less 'wrong' for them to be punished for hunting other animals for their own survival and for following their instincts?
Yeah, that makes heaps more sense than them just dying.
Also, see my above post about the problems with this form of thinking, namely the problems in identifying the point in our evolutionary past where humans somehow became more than an animal.

No i mean, its 'wrong' when they attack animals for the heck of it, you know how some know what they're doing and they are only fighting because they want to hurt the other animal? If its for survival or because they cannot help it i dont see how thats 'wrong'.

 

[moll.]

No i mean, its 'wrong' when they attack animals for the heck of it, you know how some know what they're doing and they are only fighting because they want to hurt the other animal? If its for survival or because they cannot help it i dont see how thats 'wrong'.

How many animals do you know that attack each other for the heck of it?
Most of the time their either hunting, attracting a mate or defending territory. The only example i can think of is that certain monkeys attack and kill others for no apparent reason, but every single male monkey of that species does it, so you'd be condemning and entire species (or at least the male part of it) to animal purgatory.

 

[Kwayera]

How many animals do you know that attack each other for the heck of it?
Most of the time their either hunting, attracting a mate or defending territory. The only example i can think of is that certain monkeys attack and kill others for no apparent reason, but every single male monkey of that species does it, so you'd be condemning and entire species (or at least the male part of it) to animal purgatory.

Actually that's parochial altruism, something humans do as well.