This is not a test

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Apparently the americans who believe more in angels than in evolution prefer REAL fact to "as near to fact as we can get".

Carbon dating is innacurate, this is proven, there aren't the abundance of fossils that should be found if evolution was true, and as it stands today, every statistician and scientist will tell you that the world as it is, in perfect balance in it's natural systems of life, has about a 1% chance of "Just happening, just evolving out of empty space."

You know these things Shaky, and when somebody else who knows them THEN sees an angel is it really hard to believe that they believe in angels and not evolution?

More to the point, wouldn't that constitute "real-world evidence" at least to them personally in thier own lives, that angels are real and evolution is still a THEORY.

Yes, of course it would.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
For real though, you are really that surprised that more American's believe in angels than evolution?

But then apparently a significant portion of Americans believe Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11. The fact a lot of Americans believe in Angels more then evolution is not really a big selling point.

Like trying to sell the intellectual gymnastics of Medieval thinkings:

"Why Mr. Scientist - to your claims I will point out more of the peasantry believe the world is a 2,000 year old flat thing. Otherwise we would fall off."

When evolution is a theory.

Like gravity is a theory.

When they see real angels.

I haven't seen any photographs of angels, or physical evidence of them, and I've never seen one in the flesh (or whatever they are made of), and I don't know anyone who has.

However I know there are people who claim to have - just like people have seen Saints and Mary (thus if we accepts claims it seems the Catholics are correct) God and Jesus (thus if we accept claims it seems the Mormons are correct) Jesus, Angels and ancestors (thus if we accept claims any number of pseudo Christian cults are also correct) and so on.

Angels claims more convincing then evolutionary theory? I think not.

It seems pretty simple to me, and not so terribly "funny".

It seems simply funny to me.

umm , if the life is not a test then what is the purpose of our life ..

I went to the zoo the other day (ok, I'm doing a bit of casual work in their human resources department.) And if I didn't see animals living. Animals are undoubtably alive... are they being tested? I would say not.

We are sentient, is not living a good enough purpose for life? How is it somehow so much more deeper to consider this life merely a test before the next? The next being a removal of all purpose. After all, the afterlife is said to be an eternal paradise or torture - what exact purpose does it serve but for us to just sit around and be eternally happy? I am yet to see a life plan for the afterlife. People here, in the mortal world, say how immortality would be terrible eventually... to be honest I don't know how any afterlife can claim to be different:

Me: "So... I die, get judged and go to heaven... what happens then?"
Somebody: "Well, you are in paradise. Joy and contentment beyond imagining."
Me: "What... forever? What can I achieve in heaven? What is my purpose there other then appreciating how great it is forever and ever?"
Somebody: "Um"

Can't we pursue happiness here? Love? Success? Pleasure? Achievement and respect? Understanding? Contentment? Peace? Legacy? Creation (as in children?) Seems to me there is plenty to do with life without seeing it as a test but rather... a life.

Every person is an individual. Different aims, different needs and wants, different criteria for "having a good life" - to view life as a test implies a success/failure system. It implies a standardisation of "answers" - the need to present that which is correct to "pass" the test. A test by necessity limits individuality.

Originally posted by Regret
Fact, we are aware of an enormous number of planets. Fact, so far there are a minuscule number of these planets have the possibility of containing life. Any percentage chance we give the possibility of life occurring spontaneously is larger than the fact that we currently have.

Thus, any persons you may encounter--including me--are merely a figment of a "deranged imagination."

To call life a test takes purpose away from it, not give it purpose. It just makes this life meaningless, putting emphasis on an existence that no one truly knows is there. The purpose of life is to enjoy it.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Actually, since the universe is infinitely vast and in this infinite vastness there are--relatively speaking--an infinite number of planets, and on any of these planets there are a finite number of living beings--as not all the planets are populated--so the population of the universe is zero (as any finite number over infinite is zero, more or less).

Thus, any persons you may encounter--including me--are merely a figment of a "deranged imagination."

Ahhh, that quote never grows old. How can one man be so quotable?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

However I know there are people who claim to have - just like people have seen Saints and Mary (thus if we accepts claims it seems the Catholics are correct) God and Jesus (thus if we accept claims it seems the Mormons are correct) Jesus, Angels and ancestors (thus if we accept claims any number of pseudo Christian cults are also correct) and so on.

But the Mormons are correct, Don't you watch South Park?

this is antichrist thinking

Imagine
John Lennon

[] Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one[/i]

Originally posted by debbiejo
this is antichrist thinking

[B]Imagine
John Lennon

[] Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one[/i] [/B]

John Lennon can be my Antichrist anyday, if that is his message. Seems a lot nicer then most religious ones.

So why do so many people find this offensive in this Christian world? 🙁

And I don' even want to get into the song "Jeremiah was a bullfrog song"......God's honest truth this was evil.......

Originally posted by debbiejo
So why do so many people find this offensive in this Christian world? 🙁

And I don' even want to get into the song "Jeremiah was a bullfrog song"......God's honest truth this was evil.......

I imagine since it seems, initially, to be saying that Atheists can be happy and good and make a world just as good as those people who do believe there is a heaven above us and one below us.

I mean really - believing people can make the world better for people by themselves? Outrageous. Only a God can do that!

John Lennon's 'God' is just as anti-Christian. Weirdly I like both songs. However, John Lennon, was an idealist, not a realist. Humans are scum by nature. The few good ones cannot cover for all the bad ones.

Originally posted by Nellinator
John Lennon's 'God' is just as anti-Christian. Weirdly I like both songs. However, John Lennon, was an idealist, not a realist. Humans are scum by nature. The few good ones cannot cover for all the bad ones.

I rest my case.

And why should it be seen as "anti-Christian" - it can be anti-all religion. And I find it somewhat... humorous, I must admit - the "idealist not realist" aspect in this context. Would you say you average Theist is more a realist because in opposition they think "Humans are scum by nature"?

'God' is more anti-Christian. 'Imagine' is anti-society, very pro-anarchy actually.

Depends on what you see as an average Theist. I think when people realize that we are generally bad by nature far more progress can take place. When we believe that we are good by nature, we become self-centered and lose grip on the effects of our actions.

Hooray for baseless generalisation.

Since when is John Lennon the anti-christ?

Originally posted by dirkdirden
is this a test

..Of the emergency Broadcast system. This is only a test. *Sharp intake of breath*

...BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP.

( It was too easy.. )

Originally posted by Nellinator
John Lennon's 'God' is just as anti-Christian. Weirdly I like both songs. However, John Lennon, was an idealist, not a realist. Humans are scum by nature. The few good ones cannot cover for all the bad ones.

Then you suck.

I'm not sure John Lennon was an athiest. Wasn't he just more eastern like beliefs...Well he was married to Yoko.........Hmmmm

But he realized that religion does not bring world peace or people together.

Originally posted by Nellinator
'God' is more anti-Christian. 'Imagine' is anti-society, very pro-anarchy actually.

Depends on what you see as an average Theist. I think when people realize that we are generally bad by nature far more progress can take place. When we believe that we are good by nature, we become self-centered and lose grip on the effects of our actions.

Dude, you truly need to open your eyes

Originally posted by Nellinator
'God' is more anti-Christian. 'Imagine' is anti-society, very pro-anarchy actually.

God is a word - it has come to denote a particular deity, but it is a word that can be used for the Islamic deity or the Jewish one.

Imagine seems more to me not to be so much anti-soceity, but anti-all those liquid, contentious things that make people fight and draw them away from unity. Which is more a Buddhist ideal - religion, nations, wealth - striving and fighting for things. Wouldn't it be better to just live as one, in peace? Etc.

Depends on what you see as an average Theist. I think when people realize that we are generally bad by nature far more progress can take place. When we believe that we are good by nature, we become self-centered and lose grip on the effects of our actions.

Then God is a piece of work. He creates man, gives man free will. BUT WE ARE BAD BY NATURE! We resist our nature to be good people! Logically that seems to suggest... that badness is a fundamental part of us.

But let me guess... despite the fact God is our maker, he isn't responsible for the core of evil that runs our scummy species. Hell, that is like me building a computer that is assured to break down but claiming it is the computers fault.

Me - I don't think humans are either inherently good or bad. I contribute such things to the choices they make in life, things derived from society and so on rather then "we all start out scum and have the option of turning good." We start out raw potential, and either, through actions or intent are good or bad through life. Most people are forever just this side of good, never doing anything that would make me qualify them as "bad by nature" - but some are more one way then another. Some people spend their lives firmly in the "bad" region, while other firmly in the good. I have never seen any reason to think people are scum by nature.

But then again you could say I am a dreamer...

But then again you could say I am a dreamer...

But then youre not only one............ 😄