The Faith Poll

[Skyceman]

Wow fascinating stuff, Kybosh. I had never even heard of Chirality.

I also found this upon searching a little deeper:

As nucleotide molecules come together to form the structure of DNA, they develop a twist that forms the double helix structure of DNA. DNA develops a twist in the chain because each component contains chirality or handedness. It is this handedness that gives DNA the spiral shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the wrong chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would not function properly. The entire replication process would be derailed like a train on bad railroad tracks. In order for DNA evolution to work, billions of molecules within our body would have to be generated with the "R" configuration all at the same time, without error. If it is impossible for one nucleotide to be formed with chirality, how much less likely would it be for billions of nucleotides to come together exactly at the same time, and all of them be formed with the same chirality? If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with chirality, how can it explain the formation of two products of opposite chirality?

Chirality is not just a major problem for evolution; it is a dilemma. According to evolution, natural processes must explain everything over long periods of time. However, the process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science in any amount of time. That is the dilemma, either natural processes cannot explain everything, or chirality doesn't exist.

If you're in doubt as to which is correct, you are a living example of the reality of chirality. Without chirality, proteins and enzymes could not do their job; DNA could not function at all. Without properly functioning proteins and DNA, there would be no life on this earth.

[photon]

It is interesting, though we can't assume because we don't yet understand it that it means it's a sign of an outside influence.

An example is how the physical constants of the universe are so finely tuned to support the existance of everything. Points to the influence of a designer no? But if the parallel universe model is true then our universe having all the right parameters to support stars, galaxies, and life is perfectly reasonable from a natrual point of view.

I don't think we can look to science to explain matters of Faith, just as I don't use faith to explain anything scientific.

[albertGQ]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

I'm an atheist and have been for a very long time. If people weren't "taught" to be religious, I don't think religion would even exist.

Thats me too. I think religion was a man made phenomenon so that we all live wholesome and moral lives.

Just like Santa was created so kids will be good in november and december

[Winsor_Pilates]

Had to go with other.
I think I'm someone a combination of (2)middle of the road and (4)athiest, but I'm not (3)agnostic by the definitions of the poll.

I do believe in god, but my god is nothing like most and I have no idea what it actually is. God to me is whatever started the unniverse and life in the first place. This is likely just some scientific phenomenon or some sort of force. I prefer to think of god as an event, rather than the creator of an event.
I find the idea of thinking about god in human terms to be quite insulting to god itself. Whatever god is, it was around long before humans, the earth, our galaxy etc. and to think of it an a way that's convenient to us belittles the true power of something that is really beyond everything.
I also believe in evolution, which I guess puts me into the athiest catagory, however i don't see god and evolution as exclusive from each other.
I think God happened and evolution took it from there.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I also believe in evolution, which I guess puts me into the athiest catagory, however i don't see god and evolution as exclusive from each other.
I think God happened and evolution took it from there.

I don't think believing in evolution makes you an atheist. Evolution can play a role in religion. . .just not necessarily hard line Christianity. See my divine clockmaker argument.

Originally Posted by photon

I don't think we can look to science to explain matters of Faith, just as I don't use faith to explain anything scientific.

Agreed, I was simply extending the scientific fact of chirality using my faith. In a matter such as this faith is just as good an explanation as anything else at the moment.

As an aside, I don't see why Science must be segregated from the arts and religion. The dynamic between these topics continually pushes civilization forward towards (I hope) a better future. This is just my opinion however, it would be very difficult to quantitatively prove this relationship. That being said I'm not overly keen on the Vatican denouncing certain sciences yet embracing others.

Another interesting tidbit is that an incredibly large number of reknowned scientists were/are strongly religious. For example Sir Isaac Newton in his Principia (the laws of gravitation and planetary movement) proved the mathematics behind the movements but could not conclusively prove the reasoning for these observations. He essentially attributed this to God. . . among other things. There is also that quote from Einstein that "God does not play dice with the universe". I guess what I'm trying to say with this is that a person can be as inquisitive as they like and also be religious.

[Inferno]

I dont believe in god. Call me bitter but the reason I dont believe is because of what I was born with(Spina Bifida).

I dont have a problem with people who do though. Just dont try and push me into believing.

[evman150]

Ok, first, that chirality things sounds really interesting. Unfortunately I know nothing about it. I will have to look into it though.

Second, to deal with a couple of the things posted earlier in the thread. Cheese posted a link to some guy's theory on the world. He seems to base all his postulates on the whole "empty space" problem. Well it's not really a problem. The early universe was not the same size as it is today. The Big Bang has not "filled up" empty space with matter. The big bang has created the universe itself. The matter is space. It's not like I'm at the top of the hill and dump a bucket of balls so they fall in all directions into the surrounding field. What it is is like a balloon with dots on it. Flaccid, the dots on the baloon are all close to each other and the balloon's "universe" is defined by the extent of the rubber, or whatever material it is. Blowing up the balloon is like the big bang. Blowing up the balloon is creating (expanding) the universe itself, while all the dots get further and further away from each other.

But if the parallel universe model is true then our universe having all the right parameters to support stars, galaxies, and life is perfectly reasonable from a natrual point of view.

"Our" universe does not have the "right parameters". There are no "right parameters". You are thinking far too narrow. I suppose the parameters are right for stars to form between 1E32 and 1E35 grams. I suppose the parameters are right for galaxies that form into spirals or blobs with between 1E6 and 1E13 stars. I suppose the parameters are right for life that exists at 290K and a g of 10 N/kg.

But who is to say that with different parameters, everything would be the same, just "phase" shifted? The life argument is particularily narrow because those parameters could be different within our stellar neighbourhood, let alone the whole universe. Who is to say that there is no (intelligent) life out there that exists at 200K with a g value of 80 N/kg? Why do we think we are so special? Why are we so conceited? Because of religion, that is why.

Centre of the solar system, centre of the galaxy, centre of the universe, and the only intelligent life form.

It boggles my mind to think that there are some people who still believe all these myths.

As for the causation problem, it is a problem for both sides of the coin. Bible thumpers argue we couldn't have come out of nothing and that there must have been an original designer. The free thinkers then retort that if somebody designed it all, who designed the designer?

So really, arguing over original causation is an exercise in futility.

[Vulcan]

Strange, I disagree with Tranny on just about everything on this Off Topic form but in this most important of topics I find Tranny's outlook, or should I say inlook, simple and well said. Kind of shows that my god and his transcends any personel opinions.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by evman150

Ok, first, that chirality things sounds really interesting. Unfortunately I know nothing about it. I will have to look into it though.

Second, to deal with a couple of the things posted earlier in the thread. Cheese posted a link to some guy's theory on the world. He seems to base all his postulates on the whole "empty space" problem. Well it's not really a problem. The early universe was not the same size as it is today. The Big Bang has not "filled up" empty space with matter. The big bang has created the universe itself. The matter is space. It's not like I'm at the top of the hill and dump a bucket of balls so they fall in all directions into the surrounding field. What it is is like a balloon with dots on it. Flaccid, the dots on the baloon are all close to each other and the balloon's "universe" is defined by the extent of the rubber, or whatever material it is. Blowing up the balloon is like the big bang. Blowing up the balloon is creating (expanding) the universe itself, while all the dots get further and further away from each other.

But if the parallel universe model is true then our universe having all the right parameters to support stars, galaxies, and life is perfectly reasonable from a natrual point of view.

"Our" universe does not have the "right parameters". There are no "right parameters". You are thinking far too narrow. I suppose the parameters are right for stars to form between 1E32 and 1E35 grams. I suppose the parameters are right for galaxies that form into spirals or blobs with between 1E6 and 1E13 stars. I suppose the parameters are right for life that exists at 290K and a g of 10 N/kg.

But who is to say that with different parameters, everything would be the same, just "phase" shifted? The life argument is particularily narrow because those parameters could be different within our stellar neighbourhood, let alone the whole universe. Who is to say that there is no (intelligent) life out there that exists at 200K with a g value of 80 N/kg? Why do we think we are so special? Why are we so conceited? Because of religion, that is why.

Centre of the solar system, centre of the galaxy, centre of the universe, and the only intelligent life form.

It boggles my mind to think that there are some people who still believe all these myths.

As for the causation problem, it is a problem for both sides of the coin. Bible thumpers argue we couldn't have come out of nothing and that there must have been an original designer. The free thinkers then retort that if somebody designed it all, who designed the designer?

So really, arguing over original causation is an exercise in futility.

I posted that link to another persons idea...I never suggested it was an idea I support. It was in response to the ideas of others and suggested that there are many theories out there.
The idea of Chirality is even brought to doubt as I posted below Kybosh's theories....because there is no truth! But science is getting close to an explanation.

Still...none of this proves the main question...Did Jesus exist? There hasnt been one link, idea, quote from anyone that prroves his existence, nothing, yet Cow, troutman and myself have provided many links that suggest its impossible he was a man...or the son of God. God is simply another topic.

[Vulcan]

Cheese, as for your question, "Did Jesus exist?" My thoughts are, I or no one will ever be able to prove one way or the other , until a time machine is invented. I'm willing to believe he did. In the story we are told, Jesus came and taught the people how to reach heaven. The Jews at the time figured heaven would be getting rid of the Romans and since he didn't do this, they crucified him. Today many Christians believe the end of times have come and Jesus is going to come and solve their problems. He'd dissapoint them again and probably get killed for his troubles again. This seems about right for human nature, so I find the basis of the story plausible. Having said this, my experience of what I consider god doesn't require Jesus or any other object of adoration.

[Vulcan]

Further, as to whether Jesus was the son of god. In my world god is everwhere so he is also inside me and everyone. Some people just don't know it. In this sense, saying someone is the son of god is just acknowledging his experience of this joy or peace or fulfillment.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Sorry to hear that Molson, same sort of thing happened to my Grandpa, was outcast from his family because he did beleive in becoming a Jehovah's Witness.

It included not talking to his Brothers for almost 20 years. Pretty bad stuff.

It's not that bad to deal with really, since I no longer look for their acceptance or approval. I can show up to the family reunions with a flat of beer in my cooler, smoke Backwoods cigars around the fire, get up in the morning and have a coffee and Bailey's, and not have the least bit of guilt or apprehension that I am further from salvation than my judgemental relatives. I also find it hilarious that a family with such high morals and strict definition of marriage has a 60% divorce rate. It would seem vows before god aren't as eternal as originally thought. I actually am able to have fun with it now. It certainly is fuel for my resentment of organised religion though.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

It's not that bad to deal with really, since I no longer look for their acceptance or approval. I can show up to the family reunions with a flat of beer in my cooler, smoke Backwoods cigars around the fire, get up in the morning and have a coffee and Bailey's, and not have the least bit of guilt or apprehension that I am further from salvation than my judgemental relatives. I also find it hilarious that a family with such high morals and strict definition of marriage has a 60% divorce rate. It would seem vows before god aren't as eternal as originally thought. I actually am able to have fun with it now. It certainly is fuel for my resentment of organised religion though.

Heres a link to some ex Mormons and what they have gone through trying to leave the Morman Church.

http://www.exmormon.org/stories.htm

[Hakan]

I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[photon]

Originally Posted by evman150

But if the parallel universe model is true then our universe having all the right parameters to support stars, galaxies, and life is perfectly reasonable from a natrual point of view.

"Our" universe does not have the "right parameters". There are no "right parameters". You are thinking far too narrow. I suppose the parameters are right for stars to form between 1E32 and 1E35 grams. I suppose the parameters are right for galaxies that form into spirals or blobs with between 1E6 and 1E13 stars. I suppose the parameters are right for life that exists at 290K and a g of 10 N/kg.

But who is to say that with different parameters, everything would be the same, just "phase" shifted? The life argument is particularily narrow because those parameters could be different within our stellar neighbourhood, let alone the whole universe. Who is to say that there is no (intelligent) life out there that exists at 200K with a g value of 80 N/kg? Why do we think we are so special? Why are we so conceited? Because of religion, that is why.

Centre of the solar system, centre of the galaxy, centre of the universe, and the only intelligent life form.

It boggles my mind to think that there are some people who still believe all these myths.

As for the causation problem, it is a problem for both sides of the coin. Bible thumpers argue we couldn't have come out of nothing and that there must have been an original designer. The free thinkers then retort that if somebody designed it all, who designed the designer?

So really, arguing over original causation is an exercise in futility.

You misunderstand me here. I'm not saying that our universe is a unique snowflake of improbability that proves a Creator.

I'm saying that in our universe, if the charge on an electron was different, or if the spin of a top quark was different then things would be very different; there might not be enough black holes to form galaxies or particles might be too massive to allow supernovae or stars might not form at all. No stars, no heavy elements, no life. And that's fine, because in another universe the parameters would be right and things would take place there rather than here.

"Our" universe has the right parameters for our universe's existence.

So if there are finite or infinite parallel universes then there will be others that have all kinds of conditions that are condusive to some sort of life, similar or completely different than our own. There will also be universes where nothing ever forms, universes that last only billionths of a second, and universes that die an early heat death.

What I meant is if this was the case, then the fact that we can observe the universe and think these thoughts isn't special at all.

That's one facet of M-theory; universes are created by collisions between membranes in 11 dimensional space and each universe can have completely different laws of physics.

Other interpretations of quantum mechanics have parallel universes that all have the same physical laws but exist in a state of quantum superposition, they effect each other (one way to explain dark matter) but are seperate.

EDIT: Lol, I was wondering how long it would take to see a reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster...

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Heres a link to some ex Mormons and what they have gone through trying to leave the Morman Church.

http://www.exmormon.org/stories.htm

Yeah, I have read some of these stories before. For me personally, I don't give a rat's ass if I were excommunicated from the church or not. It's not like I am going to have to put it on my religious resume and explanation it at an interview at my next religious stop. I am also too lazy or apathetic right now to go through Mormon red tape to have my name "stricken from the records". I wish Mormon records would get the virus circulating through porn sites right now, then I could truly know there is a god. I just want them to quit calling me, and to quit coming to my door. To date, I have been very polite and tolerant with them, but this lawyer (home teacher) who has been more persistent and more judgemental than normal has got me stewing and ready for a fight.

The family is fine though, they know better than to preach to me, now. They're just good for a laugh.

[Resolute 14]

Other. Believe that a god or gods exist, but find organized religion (or in the case of humanism, oganized non-religion) to be a complete waste of time, and more often than not, a fraud.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

I'm an atheist and have been for a very long time. If people weren't "taught" to be religious, I don't think religion would even exist.

I'm not sure about that Frank.

Religion is a coping mechanism in many societies, infact through many anthropological studies, every one of them has some form of religion/magic.

Basically, people turn to religion in order to explain the unexplainable. Magic is also used to explain the unexplainable, but in slightly different ways. Getting Sick is an example, many societies in the world think that it was an evil omen or Magic which caused the sickness, now we know it is bacteria/viruses.

Whether it is belief in spirits, divination, supernatural, etc. All societies have this 'form' of beliefs, which manifests it self in different ways. In a world of science, dependance on religion is declining because we are starting to find out more of the answers to lifes questions. Somehow I think that we will never have all the answers, and religion will still exist.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Other. Believe that a god or gods exist, but find organized religion (or in the case of humanism, oganized non-religion) to be a complete waste of time, and more often than not, a fraud.

Why would you consider not believing in Jesus a fraud? I find that parallel hard to understand?

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Hakan

I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Finally a religion that makes sense to me!

Does anyone have a video clip from the Family Guy movie when Stewie goes back in time to see the 'over-rated' Jesus? Just about the funniest thing I have EVER seen.
________
Bliss