I absolutely love this arguement for religion, it's brilliant in it's stupidity.?

Question

"All you have to do is look around: Check out the trees and all the flowers you might pass by everyday without a thought as to where they came from. Or maybe, check out a new baby...for sure you'll realize that someone far greater than any of us is responsible for our world and everything in it." (and now my thoughts and question) Ok, I see a lot of trees, trees come from seeds which come from other trees which come from smaller trees which come from organic reactions in the soil hundreds of thousands of years ago, not that hard minus the scientific details. Flowers are pretty similar. Babies come from sex because again there is a biological reaction occuring. If god put adam and eve here why don't babies just "POOF" appear in our garden. They say "the mountain is beautiful so god must have made it but mountains don't . That's bloody ridiculous and excruciating to hear. How can people attend school and then still continue to think this way. Can anybody answer me these things?

KJ Long I would like to say to you, yes it makes a lot of sense. Even if it made no sense at all that would only make the theory exactly equal to the god shat us upon the void of space and crafted us out of mud and the world rejoiced theory.

Earth born out of reproduction... Nobody said that. I don't know why I even argue their only comeback is equal to "I know you are but what am I" My invisible sky diety done said so, so ya'lls just stoooopid!"

wb warnerb very good answer. You rejected the opportunity to huff and puff and give some ridiculous answer like "I'll pray for you" You read the questions and answered rationally despite that I attempted to be and rude and nasty as I could. You still didn't fight for religion and and you actually did point out that I used the term very broadly. It's mainly christianity I point a finger at but islam has it's share of nutbags as well. The others tend to be less irritating and not as harmful over all. Point was that you actually made a point that was farily articulate and reasonably rational.

And you parcifiquat or whatever your name is. I didn't even make the slightest attempt at proper grammar. I couldn't care less if I put a period in the right place on yahoo answers. Leave it to an English Nazi to completely disregard the question asked and pick grammar discrepancies to attempt to discredit the point.

Answer 1

Religion and the relative intelligence of those who see aside, your calling people stupid would pull more weight if you knew:

*the correct spelling of "argument"
*what makes a sentence a run-on
*the proper use of the semicolon as opposed to the comma
*capitalization convention when using the colon
*the difference between "its" and "it's"
*that "everyday" as you used it is not one word but rather two: "every day"
*how to avoid split infinitives
*how to properly close quotations
*when to use question marks (your penultimate sentence could use one)

It's "bloody ridiculous and excruciating" to read a "question" (essentially a rant) categorizing people as "stupid" which, due to basic misuse of the language, makes the author look like s/he needs to "attend school" more than the persons of faith who ascribe to the argument with which s/he takes such issue.

Answer 2

I'm not a Christian (although I used to be)... I've been a member many different religions through various times in my life, including Bhuddism.

But to talk about the premise you raise, rationally... the quote you provide is 1) a statement relating to a single point creation. 2) a statement relating to the complexity of life, being entirely too complex to appear from "nothing."

As to my point #1 above, this explains your resposne, "why don't babies jsut 'POOF' appear in our garden." Because the believer doesn't believe that God is constantly creating. But in most cases (i.e. Western Religion) the idea is that God created at a singular point in time. After that, the Universe rolled out to what we see today. Conversely to this type of religious person, a "non-God evolution theory" (as opposed to evolutionists who believe in a single point of creation/God) would seem odd because a) something from nothing (which they would seem to think is improbable) and b) at any given moment in history we should see new species forming.

My one concern here is you use the term "religion" to be a rather large umbrella. Not all religions believe in a creation deity. Buddhism in fact is one which does not believe in an all powerful deity. Nor do they believe in the old "something from nothing" evolution theory. But rather, the Mahayana Buddhists that I have been part of, saw our universe as "always was" and all an illusion based around our karma.

I'm not suggesting that any one belief is above another - just that perhaps you've gone too far to hostility to realize you've lumped all "religion" into one comment about creation.

As to point #2 above, how plausible is it that something comes from nothing? Further, something complex comes from nothing more then an explosion? So even though I don't fall into the relgion you're probably attacking, I find it difficult to believe that "something" came from "nothing" at least from a "non sentient being" of some sort. The old addage of taking the atomic components used to make a printed US dollar bill... and randomly jumbling the components together for billions of years, it seems improbable that a dollar bill would result. It seems to me that a single celled organism is far more complex then a dollar bill. Let alone the variety of life in this universe. So in the least, I keep an open mind on the matter.

Answer 3

I cannot answer your question but I do agree with your opinion.

Another argument of theirs is the watchmaker analogy. If one were to find a watch on a beach you would know that there was a maker because of its complexity. Same goes for the things around you, like those trees, people and mountains. The flaw is we know that the watch was MADE, like paintings, cars and buildings. We can physically see who or what made them. Nature wasn't designed nor made. We know through biology and evolution that these things gradually evolved into what they are over millions of years.

Don't even get me started on "if you put a bunch of computer parts in a box, will it become a computer in a million years?" That's just stupidity talking.

(The answer is NO, btw. They'll become dust as that's the natural progression of things)

Answer 4

Like everyone else, I have my own explanation for why humanity seems to have two opposing and contradictory views of reality.

Five hundred years before Christ, Plato invented Idealism and Aristotle invented Solipsism. These were important philosophical concepts (not supported by physical evidence) which defined how all of western civilization conceptualized the nature of reality. Jesus Christ and all his early followers were solipsists. They imagined that their own subjective experience was actually reality and that the physical realm was an illusion created by human consciousness.

About 390 AD, St. Augustine used Idealism and Solipsism to invent the concept of a human soul. The idea was that God loans each new human being a tiny bit of His own immortal essence. God's essence is transformed into a human soul by the experience of having lived and is returned to God in Heaven when the person dies. By plagiarizing Idealism and Solipsism, St. Augustine was able to explain the mechanism of human conscious awareness and explain how Christ's promise of eternal life was possible. The trilogy of Idealism, Solipsism, and the human Soul dominated western thinking, unchallenged for 1200 years. Any who thought otherwise were quickly accused of either the heresy of denying Idealism or of denying Solipsism, were examined under torture and then burned at the stake.

Galileo Galilei, around 1590, conducted a series of physics experiments which directly contridicted Aristotle's Solipsism and began the scientific revolution. The reason there had been little or no technological progress during the Dark Ages was that Aristotle was completely mistaken. The scientific truth is that the physical realm is absolutely real and subjective experience is an illusion created by our living brains, based on sensory input and modulated by our expectations. The Church did not give up easily and executed countless thousands for the grevious sin of Materialism. Materialists knew that the external objective (physical) realm is absolutely real and speculated that conscious awareness was a natural consequence of being alive. Meanwhile, science was making astounding technological progress and repeatedly proved in countless ways that Aristotle's unsubstantiated philosophy was completely invalid. The physical is unquestionably real.

The electronic vacuum tube was invented at the beginning of the twentieth century and the high impedance differential amplifier was quickly developed. This allowed the construction of the first electroencephelographs (EEG's) which proved conclusively that all perception, thoughts, emotions, and memories originate in a living human brain. Plato's Idealism and St. Augustine's human soul, each an unsubstantiated philosophy, were effectively proved to be completely invalid. The entire foundation of Christian theology was found to have no actual basis in reality, a reality which is completely physical and where souls do not exist.

We live in a time when anyone who cares to search for the truth can easily discover that religion is nothing more than unsubstantiated superstitious mysticism. Those who insist that God is real are invariably unsophisticated solipsists who imagine their own subjective experience is real. The reason religious fundamentalists despise science is because science, with its absolute requirement of physical evidence to support its findings, has finally and completely revealed that religion has absolutely no basis in objective (physical) reality.

Personally, I am happy to conceed that God continues to exist where He always has, in the subjective experience of those who believe in Him. What has actually happened is that humanity has completely redefined the nature of reality. We now know reality is physical and there is no evidence for God's existence there. Unfortunately, when the God of Abraham was originally defined, the physical realm was believed to be imaginary. Now we know our ancestors got it very, very wrong. In our times, most people switch between the ancient Solipsistic and the modern Scientific reference frames at will and thus unconsciously redefine reality as best suits each particular agenda. As you correctly point out, most don't even realize they do this.

Answer 5

People are ignorant. As children, they are taught about religion (like brainwashing) from parents and church and stuff. They grow up being fed this nonsense, and because they are taught this at a young age, nothing changes their opinion. No amount of science classes are going to change their mind. ( Of course, there is the very rare child who is smart enough to not believe a word from the start). I totally agree with you.

Answer 6

How can someone believe that all matter in the universe was once contained in a small area, then suddenly exploded outwards. Eventually, a star was formed, and the third planet away from that sun was the the perfect temperature, density, and composition to start an atmosphere. Then one of the nonliving particles floating around just happenned to come alive. It started to asexually reproduce and eventually developed into the trillions of species of living things that surround us. Does that make a whole lot of sense? Really?

Answer 7

God initially created the world with everything in pairs. From there they reproduced.
Mountains are part of the earth - how can the earth be born out of reproduction

Answer 8

when I look at a baby born with severe birth defects, or a person's pock-marked face, a festering wound or a gangrenous leg of a diabetic, I know it's the work of god.

Answer 9

I agree with your opinon.

Answer 10

as the scripture Say's...as long as the earth remains...there will be seed time and harvest..