What is the purpose of life?

[Ernest Jones]

I don't understand the first sentence in bold. The human genome has been mapped. Geneticists can point to a certain gene sequence that causes us to have certain trait (four limbs for example) and point to the same sequence in cats, dogs, etc... Isn't that enough evidence? I also don't understand the point of the second sentence. The point of science is that some theories can be backed up with evidence and others cannot. "Descent of Man" was written at a time when the definition of species was still being debated and people were wondering [COLOR=252525]whether the different races of human beings were of the same species or not. Is your counter argument to evolution really "well look this guy didn't know everything 150 years ago"?[/COLOR] [COLOR=252525]I guess I also missed the posts where people were arguing for the unification of science and religion. The joining of religion and politics is what worries me. [/COLOR]

Agree with the bold, that NEVER ends well!

[newtogolf]

I think he gets it just fine, but I think you're only looking at half of the story.  Wouldn't it also be accurate to say:

"Science could be 100% right and it would hurt a theists claims ZERO PERCENT?"**

I don't really like to label myself, but if you put a gun to my head I guess I'd call myself agnostic.  That said, I've always pondered some goofy philosophical questions, one of which is something like: At some point in time there was nothing and then there was something; who or what put it there and how?

**I'm speaking generally about the possibility of a God, not specifically about the Old Testament stories.

Thanks Drew, maybe reading it from you will help it sink into his closed mind.

[newtogolf]

But you aren't getting it.

Science is not against anything. It just observe facts so if something is later disproven it changes according to new data.

I don't know why this is washing over everybody like this. It's like the world'slargest red herring.

Science could be 100% wrong and it would help a theist's claims ZERO PERCENT.

A god claim requires evidence. A claim of not believing in God does not. Science never sets out to disprove religion. Science is science.

You and @Shorty were the ones that tried to use science to disprove religion.  You both asked for proof on Jesus rising from the dead, I gave you scientific fact that some people have been clinically dead and come back to life.  Given the times and lack of medical equipment isn't it possible that Jesus was thought to be dead (but really wasn't), thrown in a cave and recovered?   Given the times and the beliefs the story got exaggerated, but the overall basis is possible.

As for the Virgin Mary, it's possible a female with an intact hymen can get pregnant, so based on science a woman who is a virgin could get pregnant and still be a "virgin".

We can do this all day, but what's the point?

49% of scientists believe in the potential for a God, so why is it that almost half of those that deal with "science" and "fact" for a living still believe in the potential for something that is far superior than us?

If someone chooses to believe in a God then they should be given as much latitude to practice their beliefs as a woman who identifies themself as a man or vice versa and wants the world to recognize them as such despite scientific evidence that indicates otherwise.

[phillyk]

How do you know DNA wasn't a creation?

Wait I thought you said,

Getting back to evolution, even with over a century of technological breakthroughs we can't prove there are absolute links between completely different species. We have proven there are adaptations, and compelling evidence of inter-special adaptations. Quite possibly the connections could be found. Even so, it still does not disprove the existence of God.

DNA is your link to every species of plants and animals. The patterns in morphologies and comes from DNA.  DNA helps build the grid to the evolutionary tree (not to say its 100% accurate of the branching).  Its well documented that our DNA is 50% identical to bananas, you can find both sequences online if you choose to look and compare.  That's a true link from humans to bananas.  The other 50%, you can read the sequence and find just why they are different. I won't go into genetics and biochem here, but we can read the DNA and find how each species are similar and different by the proteins created, etc.

Fun fact: Technology in medical science is getting to the point where we'll, in the next 10yrs, start to have millions of people carry their DNA sequence on a flash drive when they go to the doctors office, because of the speed at which we can decode a person's DNA.

I won't, however, claim to know specifically how DNA came to be what it is now, but it took a couple million years for nature to perfect.

it seems like our beliefs are very similar.

I am also agnostic but I don't like using that word because the lay understanding of that term is that an agnostic is undecided, like 50/50, that that person's God exists.

Agnosticism is the default position for most atheists because, like we all talked about earlier, you cannot prove a negative.

I'm different in beliefs.  I don't care to know too much about religion anymore as it was forced upon me in childhood.  If there is a God, great, I still don't care. I do believe churches can make very positive impacts on a community and I love it and will support them.  But I have no reason to go around looking for a deity to talk to.

[Lihu]

[QUOTE name="Lihu" url="/t/84340/what-is-the-purpose-of-life/288#post_1200423"] How do you know DNA wasn't a creation?  [/QUOTE] Wait I thought you said,  [QUOTE name="Lihu" url="/t/84340/what-is-the-purpose-of-life/288#post_1200381"] Getting back to evolution, even with over a century of technological breakthroughs we can't prove there are absolute links between completely different species . We have proven there are adaptations, and compelling evidence of inter-special adaptations. Quite possibly the connections could be found. Even so, it still does not disprove the existence of God. [/QUOTE] DNA is your link to every species of plants and animals. The patterns in morphologies and comes from DNA.  DNA helps build the grid to the evolutionary tree (not to say its 100% accurate of the branching).  Its well documented that our DNA is 50% identical to bananas, you can find both sequences online if you choose to look and compare.  That's a true link from humans to bananas.  The other 50%, you can read the sequence and find just why they are different. I won't go into genetics and biochem here, but we can read the DNA and find how each species are similar and different by the proteins created, etc. Fun fact: Technology in medical science is getting to the point where we'll, in the next 10yrs, start to have millions of people carry their DNA sequence on a flash drive when they go to the doctors office, because of the speed at which we can decode a person's DNA. I won't, however, claim to know specifically how DNA came to be what it is now, but it took a couple million years for nature to perfect.   [CONTENTEMBED=/t/84340/what-is-the-purpose-of-life/288#post_1200429 layout=inline] [/CONTENTEMBED] [SPOILER=Warning: Off Topic] [QUOTE name="Duff McGee" url="/t/84340/what-is-the-purpose-of-life/288#post_1200429"] it seems like our beliefs are very similar. I am also agnostic but I don't like using that word because the lay understanding of that term is that an agnostic is undecided, like 50/50, that that person's God exists. Agnosticism is the default position for most atheists because, like we all talked about earlier, you cannot prove a negative.[/QUOTE] I'm different in beliefs.  I don't care to know too much about religion anymore as it was forced upon me in childhood.  If there is a God, great, I still don't care. I do believe churches can make very positive impacts on a community and I love it and will support them.  But I have no reason to go around looking for a deity to talk to. [/SPOILER]

I don't see the statements I made as being opposites, maybe my delivery was not all that great? The structure of DNA is really amazing, it's like the ultimate processing engine where every part is perfect. It's almost as if someone used an AFM (atomic force microscope) to manipulate molecules into place. My friend was attempting to induce chemical reactions by manipulating atoms while teaching at Cal Tech. Didn't work yet. Technology wasn't there yet. . .

[Duff McGee]

Thanks Drew, maybe reading it from you will help it sink into his closed mind.

That is an ad hominem attack. I may be a lot of things, but closed minded is the last thing you could justify calling me. I am willing to learn ANYTHING. Back your statements up with evidence is all that I'm asking. You still haven't shown how any belief system that exists without evidence is superior to any other belief system. The "beliefs" that you claim atheists have are backed up by thousands of peer reviewed research. It's not a belief, just knowledge. I fully admit that we can't disprove God. I've said that about 1,000 times. It is not fair when theists accuse atheists of being closed minded. Are you closed minded when you don't think the Hindu gods are real? If you really want to understand and you still think I am closed minded, watch this video and tell me what you think about it. http://youtu.be/T69TOuqaqXI

[newtogolf]

That is an ad hominem attack. I may be a lot of things, but closed minded is the last thing you could justify calling me.

I am willing to learn ANYTHING. Back your statements up with evidence is all that I'm asking.

You still haven't shown how any belief system that exists without evidence is superior to any other belief system.

The "beliefs" that you claim atheists have are backed up by thousands of peer reviewed research. It's not a belief, just knowledge.

I fully admit that we can't disprove God. I've said that about 1,000 times.

It is not fair when theists accuse atheists of being closed minded. Are you closed minded when you don't think the Hindu gods are real? If you really want to understand and you still think I am closed minded, watch this video and tell me what you think about it.

http://youtu.be/T69TOuqaqXI

You and @Shorty were the ones that tried to use science to disprove religion.  You both asked for proof on Jesus rising from the dead, I gave you scientific fact that some people have been clinically dead and come back to life.  Given the times and lack of medical equipment isn't it possible that Jesus was thought to be dead (but really wasn't), thrown in a cave and recovered?   Given the times and the beliefs the story got exaggerated, but the overall basis is possible.

As for the Virgin Mary, it's possible a female with an intact hymen can get pregnant, so based on science a woman who is a virgin could get pregnant and still be a "virgin".

We can do this all day, but what's the point?

49% of scientists believe in the potential for a God, so why is it that almost half of those that deal with "science" and "fact" for a living still believe in the potential for something that is far superior than us?

If someone chooses to believe in a God then they should be given as much latitude to practice their beliefs as a woman who identifies themself as a man or vice versa and wants the world to recognize them as such despite scientific evidence that indicates otherwise.

[Golfingdad]

You and @Shorty were the ones that tried to use science to disprove religion.  You both asked for proof on Jesus rising from the dead, I gave you scientific fact that some people have been clinically dead and come back to life.  Given the times and lack of medical equipment isn't it possible that Jesus was thought to be dead (but really wasn't), thrown in a cave and recovered?   Given the times and the beliefs the story got exaggerated, but the overall basis is possible.

As for the Virgin Mary, it's possible a female with an intact hymen can get pregnant, so based on science a woman who is a virgin could get pregnant and still be a "virgin".

We can do this all day, but what's the point?

49% of scientists believe in the potential for a God, so why is it that almost half of those that deal with "science" and "fact" for a living still believe in the potential for something that is far superior than us?

If someone chooses to believe in a God then they should be given as much latitude to practice their beliefs as a woman who identifies themself as a man or vice versa and wants the world to recognize them as such despite scientific evidence that indicates otherwise.

Whoa, deja vu!!

[Valleygolfer]

You and @Shorty were the ones that tried to use science to disprove religion.  You both asked for proof on Jesus rising from the dead, I gave you scientific fact that some people have been clinically dead and come back to life.  Given the times and lack of medical equipment isn't it possible that Jesus was thought to be dead (but really wasn't), thrown in a cave and recovered?   Given the times and the beliefs the story got exaggerated, but the overall basis is possible. As for the Virgin Mary, it's possible a female with an intact hymen can get pregnant, so based on science a woman who is a virgin could get pregnant and still be a "virgin". We can do this all day, but what's the point? 49% of scientists believe in the potential for a God, so why is it that almost half of those that deal with "science" and "fact" for a living still believe in the potential for something that is far superior than us? If someone chooses to believe in a God then they should be given as much latitude to practice their beliefs as a woman who identifies themself as a man or vice versa and wants the world to recognize them as such despite scientific evidence that indicates otherwise.

So Jesus was just sleeping and Mary got preggos from sitting on a public toilet seat...? Christians are going to have egg on their faces now...

[Lihu]

[quote name="newtogolf" url="/t/84340/what-is-the-purpose-of-life/300_20#post_1200667"]You and @Shorty were the ones that tried to use science to disprove religion.  You both asked for proof on Jesus rising from the dead, I gave you scientific fact that some people have been clinically dead and come back to life.  Given the times and lack of medical equipment isn't it possible that Jesus was thought to be dead (but really wasn't), thrown in a cave and recovered?   Given the times and the beliefs the story got exaggerated, but the overall basis is possible. As for the Virgin Mary, it's possible a female with an intact hymen can get pregnant, so based on science a woman who is a virgin could get pregnant and still be a "virgin". We can do this all day, but what's the point? 49% of scientists believe in the potential for a God, so why is it that almost half of those that deal with "science" and "fact" for a living still believe in the potential for something that is far superior than us? If someone chooses to believe in a God then they should be given as much latitude to practice their beliefs as a woman who identifies themself as a man or vice versa and wants the world to recognize them as such despite scientific evidence that indicates otherwise.

So Jesus was just sleeping and Mary got preggos from sitting on a public toilet seat...? Christians are going to have egg on their faces now...[/quote] Did you mean Joseph?

[Valleygolfer]

Did you mean Joseph?

Nope.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

Did you mean Joseph?

Nope.

[turtleback]

When I was a Christian I met very few atheists that I considered nice people. Most were arrogant, disrespectful jerks.

Now I now very few jerk atheists, yet I know hundreds more than I used to know. Why is that?

These are all things that my meme speaks to. It doesn't mean all theists don't understand science, it just means that they haven't thoroughly thought out what their religion means in light of what science and reason tell us.

Wow, what a collection of arrogances.  "If you don't agree with me then it mean you haven't thought it out like I have".   You complain about being called close-minded yet there you go saying that believes just aren't as smart as you are.

As to the bolded question?  Because you have become one of them.

Which have been the jerks in this thread?

Which have attacked the beliefs of others?

Which have impugned the intelligence of others?

You do not have to believe in the Bible to recognize that there is a lot of wisdom in there.  As in: "By their fruits you will know them."

I don't really like to label myself, but if you put a gun to my head I guess I'd call myself agnostic.  That said, I've always pondered some goofy philosophical questions, one of which is something like: At some point in time there was nothing and then there was something; who or what put it there and how?

**I'm speaking generally about the possibility of a God, not specifically about the Old Testament stories.

It's worse than that.  At some point in time there was no time.  Which introduces the additional question, WHEN did nothing became everything - I seem to remember that the math necessary to explain the first few instants of the most common version of the Big Bang requires the concept of an imaginary quantity of time.  Been a long time and I do not remember the details, but I remember getting a headache contemplating the notion of an imaginary amount of time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Thanks Drew, maybe reading it from you will help it sink into his closed mind.

That is an ad hominem attack.

As opposed to what you and shorty have done in this thread?

[Golfingdad]

It's worse than that.  At some point in time there was no time.  Which introduces the additional question, WHEN did nothing became everything - I seem to remember that the math necessary to explain the first few instants of the most common version of the Big Bang requires the concept of an imaginary quantity of time.  Been a long time and I do not remember the details, but I remember getting a headache contemplating the notion of an imaginary amount of time.

Yes, my head usually hurts after contemplating this as well. Then I always delve into my follow-up question/thought:

Before the beginning, regardless of when that was or how it came about, when there was NOTHING ... what color was it?

[No Mulligans]

Yes, my head usually hurts after contemplating this as well.   Then I always delve into my follow-up question/thought:

Before the beginning, regardless of when that was or how it came about, when there was NOTHING ... what color was it?

I don't know what I don't know.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

It's worse than that.  At some point in time there was no time.  Which introduces the additional question, WHEN did nothing became everything - I seem to remember that the math necessary to explain the first few instants of the most common version of the Big Bang requires the concept of an imaginary quantity of time.  Been a long time and I do not remember the details, but I remember getting a headache contemplating the notion of an imaginary amount of time.

Yes, my head usually hurts after contemplating this as well.   Then I always delve into my follow-up question/thought:

Before the beginning, regardless of when that was or how it came about, when there was NOTHING ... what color was it?

Color is only applicable in the EM range roughly from 380nm to 700nm.

If the universe was actually a singularity before "time", then the energy levels could theoretically be so high that color might not exist. Unless, there is some dimension that exists outside of the current theoretical 10 or 11 or 26 dimensions. . .???

[Pete F]

The purpose of life is to get it in the hole

What hole?

Ah Grasshopper, you have much to learn!

[Duff McGee]

Wow, what a collection of arrogances.  "If you don't agree with me then it mean you haven't thought it out like I have".   You complain about being called close-minded yet there you go saying that believes just aren't as smart as you are. As to the bolded question?  Because you have become one of them.   Which have been the jerks in this thread?   Which have attacked the beliefs of others? Which have impugned the intelligence of others? You do not have to believe in the Bible to recognize that there is a lot of wisdom in there.  As in: "By their fruits you will know them." It's worse than that.  At some point in time there was no time.  Which introduces the additional question, WHEN did nothing became everything - I seem to remember that the math necessary to explain the first few instants of the most common version of the Big Bang requires the concept of an imaginary quantity of time.  Been a long time and I do not remember the details, but I remember getting a headache contemplating the notion of an imaginary amount of time. As opposed to what you and shorty have done in this thread?

We have not been disrespectful to anyone. Critiquing religion should not be offensive, yet it sure makes you mad. I'm sure you totally agree with the outrage Muslims have when people draw Mohammed cartoons, right?