I hope that I have given you some more insight on christianity. I appreciate that you see what I mean by every christian being an individual and interpreting God's word on his own.

 

The way I see it, the second it technically becomes alive or in other words, the second the sperm meets the egg and creates future life. Thats what those pregnacy pills are for right. To stop the union of the sperm and egg.

 

so the second it touches the egg its a life?

Before the cells start to divide??


whats your scientific grounding for that claim?

 

I don't know the exact process of the sperm and the egg, but once it technically becomes a baby. So are you questioning my scientific knowledge of procreation or my religious beliefs.

 

no just making a point is all..

if you missed that point, that is fine by me. Maybe some other people caught it.

 

I completely got your point. You were trying to discredit me by making me look bad because I couldn't tell you when it's ok to call an egg a baby and when it's ok and not ok to use abortion on it. I don't understand why you all of a sudden start questioning my scientific knowledge of procreation as that is not the discussion at hand.

 

Um actually you just proved that you didnt get my point..

Keep looking young padwin you may see it yet..

And you did prove a point about some of the things i said (as far as religious people using religion as a crutch for lack of understanding).

 

Isn't this thread title redundant?

That's all I've got... or care to share

 

I'm not a religious fanatic, but this statement clearly illustrates that you have done minimal research on the evolution of religion. I'm not just talking about Christianity, but all religions. Let's face it religion is clearly not science. Religion is your belief in answering the never ending question of the "whys" that science can't. The history and evolution of all religions is a far longer history than the study of any scientific field. To just right it off as a crutch does not seem appropriate even to non god fearing heathens like you and me.

 

for many it is a crutch, they use it as a security blanket for those things that they either cant comprehend or care not to.

IE Why did this happen? "it was gods will" or "god has a plan no matter if i can see it or not"

sound familiar?

It should i hear that **** all the damn time..

Is this globaly applied? By no means, nothing ever is or should be globaly applied.

So care to show me how my previous statement some how proves that i lack any research or experience in the areas i mentioned?

I would love to see it.. please no really show me..

 

Well then why don't you stop playing find the clues and just tell me what your point is.

 

I hear what your saying, and as I said I am not all that religious, but the reality is there are many topics that cannot be explained by science. Those subjects can only be theorized by science which in my very, very humble opinion is no different than being theorized by religion. I agree that there are many people that I would consider fanatics that make the statements you have quoted. I do not agree with those people in any way. I just beleive that there can't be zero value in any topic that has been studied, developed and embraced over thousands of years. To merely dismiss that would be the equivelant of just writing Darwin off as the "monkey boy".

I'd love to continue the topic, but I gotta run, drink some beers and say my hail Marys

 

u suck
*****

 

 

I think the point Dre was trying to make is that if religion doesn't state at what point a life starts (because, let's face it, religion arose long before the inner workings of the human body were even remotely understood), then there's not a solid point at which life begins; leaving it open to interpretation by religious individuals as well as agnostics and atheists.

If someone says "Life begins at this point", then they can position their argument from that point forward. If you can't specifically address the place/time at which a particular point of discussion becomes relevant, how can you stand behind that argument 100%?

I was at one point in my life considered a religious person. I went to a Presbyterian church every week, went on mission trips, rebuilt communitites, served on church committees, including selecting new pastors, etc. As I matured, I decided it wasn't for me, and that I felt more secure in trying lead a life where I helped others without doing it under the auspices of a higher power. I'd consider myself an agnostic at this point, simply because I'm a scientific person who does not ascribe many traditionally Christian elements of history to an accurate scientific history, but I also have seen things in my life that keep me from ruling out entirely that there may be some other power that influences our lives, and that it takes different forms to different people. How else can you explain so many different religions that have different fundamental beliefs but some of the same tenements? I'm uncomfortable with organized religion chiefly because some of the people that come to represent it to the non-religious masses come off as bible(koran/talmud, etc)thumpers who insist that their vision is correct when everyone else is wrong. Again, not every releigious person, but the people who are seen as stereotypes. I don't want to be perceived by someone a certain way becuase I identify with a certain religion, and prefer to let my actions speak for themselves.

I have an easier time believing in some power that occasionally shapes our lives, and takes the form of fate, gods, spirits, etc) than I do in believing in any one specific God that would condemn all people who did not believe in Him.

Note that I'm not directing this at anyone here, just expressing my opinion. topnotch, you're strong in your beliefs, and find strength in them, and that's cool, because one's religious beliefs should above all else be personal. I wouldn't appreciate someone trying to convert me (and believe me, with the exception of my parents and grandmother, the rest of my surviving family, all 90 of them, are Mormon, so I've got experience with evangelicals) and I afford other people that same right; I'm not trying to convince anyone to follow my lead, just saying that it's the way I personally feel.

Dre may be a little more militant, but what I think he's really trying to do (and this goes for almost every post of his on any subject) is point out, forcefully sometimes, a gap in logic or an erroneous thought in order to provoke further discussion that actually helps everyone involved learn something, as opposed to trying to subvert someone's will. If you think about your position after reading something, and reaffirm your beleifs or opinions, or reconsider them, that's the right idea. The way to go through life is being open to new ideas and viewpoints, and that means processing questions and statements in order to achieve a higher understanding not only of yourself but of those around you.

Well, I mean, he's also an ******* who can curse up a blue streak like a mother****er