Whether or not there is God(s)

[Altai]

I started this topic not to derail another topic. So atheist posters claim anything is occurred by chance and I challenge their claim.

So they claim "we eat because of there are somethings to eat" and I claim "we eat because of we need to eat and there are somethings created to eat".


I said the sky is blue and blue is a beautiful color which has various benefits on human and God especially chose this color to design sky.

Another poster said it has benefits because human adapted to it to have benefits. He meant if it was green or red, we would adapted to have the same benefits from these colors. (correct me if I am wrong)

ok.

No, it's the way the human body uses it for its own need.

Because the earth is rotating. The humans living in poles are using artificial lights to help them live like if they were to what they are used to live. It takes several thousands of year for species to adapt to a new environment. Some can't and they extinct. Humanids exist for over several hundred of thousand years. The people living in poles are there for just few thousands.

So you say that people who live in poles were actually living more closer to the equator and they were adapted to sleep in nights and stay awake during the day and they still dont sleep for 6 months because they didnt stay long enough to adapt 6 months of days and 6 months of nights. Beucase several thousands years are needed and they are just there for a few thousands years. (I really cant believe how science been abused, okay I wont laugh) Then why they dont gradually get used to stay awake longer and sleep longer than the people who live much closer to the equator line ? Maybe they are still not able to sleep for 6 months but they should at least sleep a few weeks uninterrupted, is not it ? This is your theory.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Altai

[drummindiver]

sigh

You've already been told why the sky is blue. This is science.

It's not to give you a comfy cozy feeling. Like dinosaurs. The earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6000. Nothing to do with your feelings. Sunsets aren't magical, and the eye is not a perfect example of god's creation.

And now you are equating ppl with bears, that we should hibernate?

Oye vei.

[Altai]

sigh

You've already been told why the sky is blue. This is science.

It's not to give you a comfy cozy feeling. Like dinosaurs. The earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6000. Nothing to do with your feelings. Sunsets aren't magical, and the eye is not a perfect example of god's creation.

And now you are equating ppl with bears, that we should hibernate?

Oye vei.

I am going to ignore you too if you keep trolling my topics.

[drummindiver]

I am going to ignore you too if you keep trolling my topics.

????

You posted this as a topic to be discussed, which is what I'm doing.

Please, ignore me, because clearly you don't understand how this whole thing works.

[Altai]

How mathematically posdible is it that there is an omniscient god as described in the Bible, the Torah and the Qu'ran?

I think we need to decide first whether or not there is God. Then we could discuss about which religion or belief is the true one, as a second step.

[Altai]

????

You posted this as a topic to be discussed, which is what I'm doing.

Please, ignore me, because clearly you don't understand how this whole thing works.

You still dont even understand what I mean. I am not asking for how come the sky scientifically appears in blue color. I am asking "why". It was first explained by a Muslim scientist that how sky appears in blue color. Okay !!! Please.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Altai

[drummindiver]

You still dont even understand what I mean. I am not asking for how come the sky scientifically appears in blue color. I am asking "why". It was first explained by a Muslim scientist that why sky appears in blue color. Okay !!! Please.

Again, ?????

It explains why. What aren't you understanding?

Science explains what they used religion for years ago, which is to explain things they didn't understand. Because there is no God.

And please, ignore or don't, but don't yell or be condescending.

Thanks

[msj]

I don't know about your claims, whether they are scientific or otherwise, and I don't really know if there is/are God(s) but if you want to try to understand why many atheists don't believe in any Gods then I can give you a quick reading list for what led me (and I suspect many atheists) to our none belief:

1) Read about "mythology" like Norse and Greek.

2) Read the Old Testament (at least the first five books).

3) Read the New Testament.

4) Read the Koran.

<conclude that the Greek/Norse stuff is not the only "mythology">

5) Read Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion."

6) Then read whatever the hell you want.

Preferably with as little religious content as possible because you have already read some significant "primary sources" and likely have found them absurd, stupid, poorly written, outright lacking in common sense and decency and morality, scientifically illiterate etc etc.

The point is to read beyond one book; especially a book that makes ridiculous claims as to its importance to humanity and how we are supposed to live etc etc....

[Guest]

I think we need to decide first whether or not there is God. Then we could discuss about which religion or belief is the true one, as a second step.

Why would you think we are capable of deciding whether or not there is a God, when the entire Human race hasn't been capable of settling the question up to now?

As for me - no God.

[?Impact]

I started this topic not to derail another topic.

Yes, just saw Argus's post that this should be separate. My immediate reaction is how long before this topic will degrade into a bash Islam one.

I said the sky is blue and blue is a beautiful color which has various benefits on human and God especially chose this color to design sky.

Another poster said it has benefits because human adapted to it to have benefits. He meant if it was green or red, we would adapted to have the same benefits from these colors. (correct me if I am wrong)

Yes, evolution is about life adapting for its own survival (of the fittest). I'm not sure however the colour of the sky is that important, because the light that reaches us both directly on our skin and reflected in the world around is white (i.e. composed of many wavelengths). While some of the light that reaches us is the refracted light in the sky, the vast majority is the direct light from the sun. Depending on where on earth you are (forest, ocean, desert, arctic tundra, etc.) the majority of reflected light you see may be a different colour (green, turquoise, yellow, white, etc.). In the dense jungle, you might receive very little direct light.

Yes, blue is a beautiful colour. The green we see around us is as well, and nothing beats the orange/red of a sunset except of course the elusive green flash (still waiting to see it myself). Your perception of colour is a personal preference, but yes many of us love a clear blue sky. I think that has more to do with the warmth of the sun we associate with it, something I am missing on this slightly overcast afternoon (with storm clouds predicted).

Humanids exist for over several hundred of thousand years. The people living in poles are there for just few thousands.

So you say that people who live in poles were actually living more closer to the equator and they were adapted to sleep in nights and stay awake during the day and they still dont sleep for 6 months because they didnt stay long enough to adapt 6 months of days and 6 months of nights. Beucase several thousands years are needed and they are just there for a few thousands years. (I really cant believe how science been abused, okay I wont laugh) Then why they dont gradually get used to stay awake longer and sleep longer than the people who live much closer to the equator line ? Maybe they are still not able to sleep for 6 months but they should at least sleep a few weeks uninterrupted, is not it ? This is your theory.

Not sure who you are attributing those absurd claims to.

• Humans are only part of an evolutionary tree, and you have to look at the full tree to see how they adapted over hundreds of millions or billions of years.
• Humans have evolved to be able to adapt their environment to suit their need. We create artificial light where no natural light exists. Is there any record of long term human habitation in polar regions prior to the invention* of fire?
• Far more relevant is to look at the animals that are native to arctic regions like the arctic fox, hare, wolf, or the polar bear, harp seal, etc. and understand how they are better suited to the region.

*invention, yes poor choice of words but just trying to use conventional phrases. The real issue is being able to harness fire for their own purposes. Either the ability to carry it around, and maintain it over a long period of time or ignite it using a spark from flint, heat from friction, etc. Note I left out refraction of sunlight because it wouldn't apply in the arctic night.

[Altai]

Yes, just saw Argus's post that this should be separate. My immediate reaction is how long before this topic will degrade into a bash Islam one.

Yes, evolution is about life adapting for its own survival (of the fittest). I'm not sure however the colour of the sky is that important, because the light that reaches us both directly on our skin and reflected in the world around is white (i.e. composed of many wavelengths). While some of the light that reaches us is the refracted light in the sky, the vast majority is the direct light from the sun. Depending on where on earth you are (forest, ocean, desert, arctic tundra, etc.) the majority of reflected light you see may be a different colour (green, turquoise, yellow, white, etc.). In the dense jungle, you might receive very little direct light.

Yes, blue is a beautiful colour. The green we see around us is as well, and nothing beats the orange/red of a sunset except of course the elusive green flash (still waiting to see it myself). Your perception of colour is a personal preference, but yes many of us love a clear blue sky. I think that has more to do with the warmth of the sun we associate with it, something I am missing on this slightly overcast afternoon (with storm clouds predicted).

Not sure who you are attributing those absurd claims to.

• Humans are only part of an evolutionary tree, and you have to look at the full tree to see how they adapted over hundreds of millions or billions of years.
• Humans have evolved to be able to adapt their environment to suit their need. We create artificial light where no natural light exists. Is there any record of long term human habitation in polar regions prior to the invention* of fire?
• Far more relevant is to look at the animals that are native to arctic regions like the arctic fox, hare, wolf, or the polar bear, harp seal, etc. and understand how they are better suited to the region.

*invention, yes poor choice of words but just trying to use conventional phrases. The real issue is being able to harness fire for their own purposes. Either the ability to carry it around, and maintain it over a long period of time or ignite it using a spark from flint, heat from friction, etc. Note I left out refraction of sunlight because it wouldn't apply in the arctic night.

Are you aware of it how you have a closed mind to think about the existence of a creature power.

I am still not sure why the sky is blue ? Yes its because of some optical events, but why "blue", are there a special reason for it ? What would happen if it was another color ? Would we be adapted it too ? Or would it harm us ?

I dont want to start another point of discuss but you are forcing me to do it by giving me some trump cards in your post, on purpose or unconsciously. For example you said "fire". Why we need to cook many of our dishes ? Why we didnt adapt to eat them without cooking ? Why it tastes better when we cook it ? By coincidence ?

[dialamah]

I am still not sure why the sky is blue ? Yes its because of some optical events, but why "blue", are there a special reason for it ? What would happen if it was another color ? Would we be adapted it too ? Or would it harm us ?

We don't know what color the sky really is. What we see is blue, because of the way we see light. People with certain kinds of color blindness will see different skies than people with normal vision. People with monochromatic vision do not see any color at all; for them, the sky is various shades of grey.

[?Impact]

Are you aware of it how you have a closed mind to think about the existence of a creature power.

Not sure what you are getting at. Who says I have (or have not) thought about the existence of a creature (I assume you mean creator) power? I don't live in a black and white world, I look at al possibilities. I also look at probabilities, and that is where the creator power fails miserably. We strive to understand the physics of our universe, as that is what opens up the possibilities and probabilities. We are able to see great diversity, and imagine that even greater diversity is possible.

but why "blue", are there a special reason for it ? What would happen if it was another color ? Would we be adapted it too ? Or would it harm us ?

I already pointed out that the colour of the sky is of minor significance to our evolution. What if the vegetation was blue, would that harm us?

Why it tastes better when we cook it ?

Again you bring up preference, which has absolutely nothing to do with physical evolution. Blue is beautiful, and cooked is better. Others may like purple and raw sushi. Yes, cooking may change some of the physical attributes, but not always for the better. Cooking can make some thing more tender and easier to chew, others it can make them tougher. Cooking may destroy some harmful bacteria, but it can also create carcinogenic heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; both of which are overrated.

Edited September 17, 2016 by ?Impact

[Altai]

We don't know what color the sky really is. What we see is blue, because of the way we see light. People with certain kinds of color blindness will see different skies than people with normal vision. People with monochromatic vision do not see any color at all; for them, the sky is various shades of grey.

Why we didnt "adapt" to see other colors ?

[Altai]

Not sure what you are getting at. Who says I have (or have not) thought about the existence of a creature (I assume you mean creator) power? I don't live in a black and white world, I look at al possibilities. I also look at probabilities, and that is where the creator power fails miserably. We strive to understand the physics of our universe, as that is what opens up the possibilities and probabilities. We are able to see great diversity, and imagine that even greater diversity is possible.

I already pointed out that the colour of the sky is of minor significance to our evolution. What if the vegetation was blue, would that harm us?

Again you bring up preference, which has absolutely nothing to do with physical evolution. Blue is beautiful, and cooked is better. Others may like purple and raw sushi. Yes, cooking may change some of the physical attributes, but not always for the better. Cooking can make some thing more tender and easier to chew, others it can make them tougher. Cooking may destroy some harmful bacteria, but it can also create carcinogenic heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; both of which are overrated.

Atheists are ignoring the facts that there are billions maybe more of benefits for humankind and other living beings to survive and resume their lives. I just give simple examples trying to think like as a person who is living in ancient times with least scientific discoveries. If I start to think according to today, it will be much clearer that there is God. If I was living in the stone age, how could I see the evidences around me about the perfect order in the nature ? Fire was a good example for it. We didnt adapt to eat things raw, we need to cook them and there is fire and there are many auxiliary elements in the nature for us to have fire. This is the point where atheist logic fails but you dont accept your mistake, you insist on your mistake. This is sad.

[?Impact]

This is the point where atheist logic fails but you dont accept your mistake, you insist on your mistake. This is sad.

What is sad, is insisting something based on zero logic. You are providing examples that are clearly wrong, and then pretending there are billions of other unexplained examples which are also no doubt clearly wrong as well. You don't win an argument by being loudest, unless your last name is Trump and you are trying to convince deplorables.

We are the only animal that cooks our food, and there is zero biological reason for it. Yes, we have developed preferences for it, but that is nothing to do with biology. Cooking, and other tools, have allowed us to overpopulate but as we have seen that has many other problems associated with that.

[Moonlight Graham]

We don't know how or what created the universe. Somehow a whole bunch of matter and some rules of physics came to be to form the universe. Maybe something created that matter and physics rules initially, but all evidence so far shows that everything in the universe and on earth follows very mathematically logical, testable, repeatable processes based on how physics interacts with matter.

We can even explain with science why humans and animals love each other. Evolution has made love necessary for survival. Those animals that love and care for their babies at birth will feed them, protect them, shelter them so they can survive and grow up to be adults and have their own offspring. Those animals that don't love their babies won't do those things, and therefore those babies will die while the loved babies will survive and procreate.

It's feels great to believe in romantic notions of the supernatural and things like fate and God and other things that are comforting (like I did growing up), and to boil everything thing down to math and science is cold, but it seems the truth, and that doesn't mean we can't still enjoy the beauty of the perfection that is created by scientific processes. The sky and trees and birds are just as beautiful without believing some god(s) created them.

[Altai]

What is sad, is insisting something based on zero logic. You are providing examples that are clearly wrong, and then pretending there are billions of other unexplained examples which are also no doubt clearly wrong as well. You don't win an argument by being loudest, unless your last name is Trump and you are trying to convince deplorables.

We are the only animal that cooks our food, and there is zero biological reason for it. Yes, we have developed preferences for it, but that is nothing to do with biology. Cooking, and other tools, have allowed us to overpopulate but as we have seen that has many other problems associated with that.

Then why we have been adapted to cook ? Adaptation is defense mechanism which we improve in accordance with our needs. So we cook our meals because we "need" to cook it. If it was not a necessity as you claimed, we would adapt to eat them raw.

You are the one talking with zero logic. I talk based on logic, you deny the logic just because it does not fit with your interests.

[?Impact]

Then why we have been adapted to cook ? Adaptation is defense mechanism which we improve in accordance with our needs. So we cook our meals because we "need" to cook it. If it was not a necessity as you claimed, we would adapt to eat them raw.

You are the one talking with zero logic. I talk based on logic, you deny the logic just because it does not fit with your interests.

We have not been adapted to cook, we prefer to cook. We can survive very well on a diet of raw foods, some may argue we can be healthier for it. I prefer sushi to cooked fish any day, but I prefer variety above that. Your 'logic' is flawed.

[Altai]

We have not been adapted to cook, we prefer to cook. We can survive very well on a diet of raw foods, some may argue we can be healthier for it. I prefer sushi to cooked fish any day, but I prefer variety above that. Your 'logic' is flawed.

We prefer to cook because of the survival instinct. Cooking has many benefits for our healt when compared to eat somethings raw. Ofcourse you can live by eating fruits and some specific vegetables raw and after a while you will start to experience some health problems because of the lack of some foods which you "should eat" cooked. Sushi is also made with a kind of cooking method and includes so much salt which is quite harmful for your healt and its much more possible to have bacterial induced diseases through sushi, when compared to cooking.

Please stop denying the logic.

[poochy]

I am going to ignore you too if you keep trolling my topics.

There is a vast difference between being trolled and being told you are wrong about something when you absolutely are wrong about it

[Altai]

There is a vast difference between being trolled and being told you are wrong about something when you absolutely are wrong about it

He trys to explain me the scientific fact behind the color of the sky, despite I explained him that I am not seeking for it but seeking for whether or not there is a specific reason for it to be "blue". He was insistently trying to tell me about optical rules in physics LoL. There are three options; first he may have a quite low IQ, second he dont understand me because of my broken English, as third he was trolling me. I thought that the last option outweighs.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Altai

[?Impact]

. Sushi is also made with a kind of cooking method and includes so much salt which is quite harmful for your healt and its much more possible to have bacterial induced diseases through sushi, when compared to cooking.

I suggest you learn about sushi. You will find that for the most part it is very low in sodium. Barbecued eel is one exception, and yes I love it too but it represents a very small fraction of the sushi I eat.

When properly handled and prepared, there is very little chance of bacterial induced diseases through sushi. In fact the majority of problems at sushi restaurants have been the rice and/or sauces, and not the fish.

You should learn about science and not fiction.

[Altai]

I suggest you learn about sushi. You will find that for the most part it is very low in sodium. Barbecued eel is one exception, and yes I love it too but it represents a very small fraction of the sushi I eat.

When properly handled and prepared, there is very little chance of bacterial induced diseases through sushi. In fact the majority of problems at sushi restaurants have been the rice and/or sauces, and not the fish.

You should learn about science and not fiction.

So there is no God because you are able to make Sushi

Cooking something instead of making it sushi is much simpler and human will prefer to follow simplest way. This is why God gave us "fire".

Edited September 17, 2016 by Altai

[-TSS-]

If there is God I don't think he (or perhaps she) is so vain to demand the ridiculous grovelling in front of him.

Edited September 17, 2016 by -TSS-