What is the purpose of life?

[Duff McGee]

All man made purposes will fail us. For those who do not believe in God, I am curious on why? There is historical legitimacy to the Bible so I am assuming those who reject God also deny the historical account of the Bible? We Can't reject parts of history we want to believe and only choose to believe parts of history we want. Jesus was an actual man who walked the Earth. The most important question life is who we say Jesus is. See Matthew 16:16. For purpose, see Romans 8:28. "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose."

Actually the bible is a pathetic accounting of "history." Lee Strobel presented the very best case he could for its claims and it was horrible. Believers want to believe so they view facts subjectively through the cognitive dissonance of a believer.

[9wood]

For your information, evolution is not highly debated. It is simply denied by people who think that talking snakes, arks with billions of creatures and virgin mothers are not fantasy.There are not two "sides to the story".

The complexity in the world is not merely explained by saying "God made it. Prove he didn't." Ignoring the "Who made God?' question, why do you think religion is such a regional thing?

There is plenty of scientific observation of the forces that created life. If you are going down the "Intelligent design" path, it can be disputed every step of the way.

Dogmatic Christianity relies on adults being childlike and unquestioning.

If a hundred million people in  a certain country "believe" in a story they were told as children and are required to keep on doing so to maintain their position in society, that's fine.

Why are Muslims incorrect? Why are Buddhists or Taoists incorrect?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The fact that billions (of all faiths) persist in believing things for which there has NEVER been any evidence does not make them right. Just look at the relaibility eyewitnesses to current events - even with cameras - let alone two thousand years ago.

Millions of people believe things about golf that are incorrect (old ball flight "laws", for example). It doesn't add any weigh to their (non) argument.

It should be very simple to provide us with ONE piece of information that would make someone believe in something that defies all logic and human experience.

As for worshipping someone who demands obedience and threatens you with eternal torture - that's another mystery.

You are uniformed. There are plenty of scientist who possess PhD's who disagree with many of the evolutionary claims

Now I challenge you to tell me how the very first single cell life form came to exist since, life coming from non-living matter (abiogenesis) has never been observed by science to occur. How did it all begin. In other words how could something come from nothing?

What has been observed however by the scientific community is what I believe, and that is that life came from pre-existing life. I have proof for my view, whereas you have nothing but blind faith in something coming from nothing. Your view requires a whole lot more faith than my view.

Lastly, if an all-powerful God created everything, then why would you consider it such a difficult task for Him to get a snake or a donkey to talk? Seems to me that it would be such a minor task for such a being who is able to create everything to begin with.

I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist

[9wood]

Actually the bible is a pathetic accounting of "history." Lee Strobel presented the very best case he could for its claims and it was horrible. Believers want to believe so they view facts subjectively through the cognitive dissonance of a believer.

Secular historians believe that the Bible receives historical support. Secular archaeologist find that archaeology like wise supports the Bible. Then you have all those eye-witness accounts from real people who were historical figures who lived in real time.

The Bible receives more support and has more manuscript evidence than any work from antiquity.

Enough said

[9wood]

If your God exists, it should easily be able to defend itself.

Oh He has, and He will

[Duff McGee]

You are uniformed. There are plenty of scientist who possess PhD's who disagree with many of the evolutionary claims Now I challenge you to tell me how the very first single cell life form came to exist since, life coming from non-living matter (abiogenesis) has never been observed by science to occur. How did it all begin. In other words how could something come from nothing? What has been observed however by the scientific community is what I believe, and that is that life came from pre-existing life. I have proof for my view, whereas you have nothing but blind faith in something coming from nothing. Your view requires a whole lot more faith than my view. Lastly, if an all-powerful God created everything, then why would you consider it such a difficult task for Him to get a snake or a donkey to talk? Seems to me that it would be such a minor task for such a being who is able to create everything to begin with.  I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist

You are ignorant, plain and simple. Admins please note that I am not insulting this poster by calling him stupid or something like that. He is simply ignorant of the science. Evolution is a scientific fact and anyone that disagrees is a denier without actual science to back up their assertions. 9wood would not perform an operation on a family member and would put his trust in a doctor to perform the surgery. Yet he will turn around and blindly follow fake creation scientists' opinions just because what 93% of the best scientists in the country say he doesn't want to believe. 9wood has a bias against information that points against the bible. If he was faced with a decision where 93% of elite scientists agreed on a course of action, he would not take the advice of the 7% that have a stake in tricking people to believe them. But usually when someone has been brainwashed since birth, the cognitive dissonance is just too strong. People that state these things are also suffering from the Dunning/Kruger where, even though they are not highly educated in a topic, they think their opinions are better than the experts.

[Duff McGee]

Secular historians believe that the Bible receives historical support. Secular archaeologist find that archaeology like wise supports the Bible. Then you have all those eye-witness accounts from real people who were historical figures who lived in real time.  The Bible receives more support and has more manuscript evidence than any work from antiquity.  Enough said

Myths. Just because the bible accurately named certain cities does not mean that a human being was God and rose from the dead. Do you believe in Spider-Man because they mention New York?

[Duff McGee]

Oh He has, and He will

When and when? Evidence?

[Lihu]

One of the biggest myths is that "we should respect people's beliefs."

1) Beliefs do not automatically deserve respect. Belief is not a race, a gender, or a sexual orientation. It is subject to scrutiny.

2) Never once has any God (or anything supernatural at all for that matter) ever defended itself.....it's only ever the followers. If your God exists, it should easily be able to defend itself.

This is absolutely true, whatever a person believes in does not necessarily deserve respect. However, the person should be treated with respect and dignity.

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duff McGee

One of the biggest myths is that "we should respect people's beliefs."

1) Beliefs do not automatically deserve respect. Belief is not a race, a gender, or a sexual orientation. It is subject to scrutiny.

This is absolutely true, whatever a person believes in does not necessarily deserve respect. However, the person should be treated with respect and dignity.

Even for ISIS members?   I have no respect for believers who do evil things in the name of God.   And throughout history of mankind, there have been too many crimes against humanity in the name of God and/or religion.   ISIS (and many others) is just the latest.   We know what their purpose of life is (back to OT) and it isn't too far from @Abu3baid 's.   And don't get me started with all the Catholic priests who sexually abused boys.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duff McGee

One of the biggest myths is that "we should respect people's beliefs."

1) Beliefs do not automatically deserve respect. Belief is not a race, a gender, or a sexual orientation. It is subject to scrutiny.

This is absolutely true, whatever a person believes in does not necessarily deserve respect. However, the person should be treated with respect and dignity.

Even for ISIS members?   I have no respect for believers who do evil things in the name of God.   And throughout history of mankind, there have been too many crimes against humanity in the name of God and/or religion.   ISIS (and many others) is just the latest.   We know what their purpose of life is (back to OT) and it isn't too far from @Abu3baid's.   And don't get me started with all the Catholic priests who sexually abused boys.

I'm sure you know how to answers to these. . .

[Vinsk]

Still sounds like adaptation. We have a lot of common ancestors but it doesn't mean we came from them. I don't think there is evolution. I don't claim to know how we came about though... but I feel like humans as we are now were just here... I don't have any proof of anything or science behind it.

Well maybe semantics here....but anyway, as far as not having science to back you're thinking...creationist have zero evidence of their beliefs other than faith. The fossil record has provided invaluable evidence which certainly supports the theory of evolution far beyond anything the creation fairy tale provides. The earth is not 7 million years old. There is no mention of dinosaurs in the bible. Why not? A chimpanzee's DNA is 99.9% same as Homo Sapien. The coccyx is the reminiscence of a tail. Whales have limb structure of once having legs. These are evolutionary changes. Adaptation is the changing of BEHAVIOR to fit a certain environmental situation such as penguins cuddling together in tight groups to survive the lethal winters of Antarctica. Fossil records show clear physical changes in morphology of species as the years went by with drastic environmental changes. Fossil records show a very convincing change from sea creatures to land. That is evolutionary not just adaptation. Let me give an example: The peppered moth. (True Story) there were a species of beautiful white moths, bright white. Just a simple mutation (albinism). However, once a migration of sparrows occurred in the area...the moths were being eaten quite easily due their lack of camouflage. Along comes the industrial revolution and the air became polluted with soot. Moths were being tainted with the dark soot color and thus more camouflaged. Then another mutation occurred and a moth was mutated to have black spots. In this new environment, that mutation allowed better camouflage so that it had a better chance of mating and passing it's mutation to its offspring. Over time the white moth became extinct and now all there is is the peppered moth. The moths didn't change their behavior. An evolutionary process occurred which promoted existence. That is only one small example. There are dozens and dozens of solid scientific examples if you study the fossil record.

[Vinsk]

No, it doesn't "state" anything. There is evidence that what you state might be true. However, like all decent theories, it has holes in it. Science is about the process of finding answers and not declaring that they have all the answers. People declare that they have all the answers, science doesn't.

You wanna compare holes between Creationism and Evolution? Evolution is fact. There is no debating it intelligently. There is only denial. The flat earth society have no scientific evidence of their belief, it's pure nonsense.

[Valleygolfer]

Well maybe semantics here....but anyway, as far as not having science to back you're thinking...creationist have zero evidence of their beliefs other than faith. The fossil record has provided invaluable evidence which certainly supports the theory of evolution far beyond anything the creation fairy tale provides. The earth is not 7 million years old. There is no mention of dinosaurs in the bible. Why not? A chimpanzee's DNA is 99.9% same as Homo Sapien. The coccyx is the reminiscence of a tail. Whales have limb structure of once having legs. These are evolutionary changes. Adaptation is the changing of BEHAVIOR to fit a certain environmental situation such as penguins cuddling together in tight groups to survive the lethal winters of Antarctica. Fossil records show clear physical changes in morphology of species as the years went by with drastic environmental changes. Fossil records show a very convincing change from sea creatures to land. That is evolutionary not just adaptation. Let me give an example: The peppered moth. (True Story) there were a species of beautiful white moths, bright white. Just a simple mutation (albinism). However, once a migration of sparrows occurred in the area...the moths were being eaten quite easily due their lack of camouflage. Along comes the industrial revolution and the air became polluted with soot. Moths were being tainted with the dark soot color and thus more camouflaged. Then another mutation occurred and a moth was mutated to have black spots. In this new environment, that mutation allowed better camouflage so that it had a better chance of mating and passing it's mutation to its offspring. Over time the white moth became extinct and now all there is is the peppered moth. The moths didn't change their behavior. An evolutionary process occurred which promoted existence. That is only one small example. There are dozens and dozens of solid scientific examples if you study the fossil record.

Still sounds like adaptation but could it be pollution effects on the moths? I just don't know that this could happen as evolution in this short span. Like I said I don't know how things came to be but I just don't think evolution is the answer nor creationism being exactly right either.

[JazzFatCat]

Still sounds like adaptation. We have a lot of common ancestors but it doesn't mean we came from them. I don't think there is evolution. I don't claim to know how we came about though... but I feel like humans as we are now were just here... I don't have any proof of anything or science behind it.

Wow. Probably one way to define ancestor is "who you came from" so good work with that nonsensical second sentence.

Try reading "Your Inner Fish" or any other good book on evolution. Or don't and just keep believing whatever you want and arguing from a stance of ignorance.

[phillyk]

Still sounds like adaptation but could it be pollution effects on the moths? I just don't know that this could happen as evolution in this short span.

Like I said I don't know how things came to be but I just don't think evolution is the answer nor creationism being exactly right either.

A single mutation isn't evolution.  Evolution is how the population changes over time. It can take thousands of years or a hundred years based on environmental pressures and other changes.  There is a fish species that lived in a lake (true story), but as a volcano erupted and split the lake in two.  The fishes and lake were separated in two. Eventually both populations of fish developed new features, enough new features that they couldn't reproduce with each other which is a sign of evolutionary change and the formation of 2 separate species.  So yes evolution can be adaptation but over a long time so that certain criteria are met to form 2 new speices.

[Valleygolfer]

Wow. Probably one way to define ancestor is "who you came from" so good work with that nonsensical second sentence.  Try reading "Your Inner Fish" or any other good book on evolution. Or don't and just keep believing whatever you want and arguing from a stance of ignorance.

I'll stick with my own ration. You may call it ignorance but I call it a theory. It doesn't matter either way to me...it won't change my golf game.

[rkim291968]

I golf, therefore, I exist.   Or, how about  "I live to golf."

[RGoosen]

My best friend is an atheist/agnostic and I am religious. Both of us are well educated and have graduate degrees. He and I have numerous conversations about many subjects related to creation, evolution, and the bible. I would like to point out that religion relies on faith. Science relies on theories. For those that appear to be getting defensive or arguing for either side, you are wasting time and energy on something you will never be able to prove. Life is too short to be arguing about this. (Hopefully this is OT)