Rayman Pirate-Community

Mister Dark wrote: The Bible has long lists of geneologies...

Yeah, like the two completely different family trees of Jesus.

Joshua822 wrote:Immigration is important in Western Europa though. Since an already large part of the society in these countries are over 50 years old and this share is only growing.

The huge unemployment rate amongst immigrants in France shows clearly enough that more of them isn't the solution. Population ageing is inevitable at the end of a demographic transition and trying to get more fertility from other countries is just postponing the problem as those countries will eventually reach the same demographic state.

My idea is the only solution.

The huge unemployment rate amongst immigrants in France shows clearly enough that more of them isn't the solution. Population ageing is inevitable at the end of a demographic transition and trying to get more fertility from other countries is just postponing the problem as those countries will eventually reach the same demographic state.

Let me explain why immigration is so important for Europe :

Let's start with the ageing of the population shall we. This is causing the economy to * shrink *. Because these people are retired and get money to live. This money comes from working tax payers. The problem is though, since the population is ageing and the percentage of retired population is only growing while the active population is shrinking. The government needs to give these retired people money to live, since they physically can't work any more. But since the active population is shrinking, the government can't pay for a decent living to the retired. How to solve this ? More active population, more active population, how more money for the country, and for the retired.

And we're not just moving the problem. The problem is that there isn't any work in those country's where immigrants came from. And thanks to the shrinking active population, work was freeing here.

Although thanks to the financial crisis these statements are currently not grounded anymore. Since there isn't much work left here either.

And no, this isn't out of my well of endless wisdom, it's simple economy.

Why can't the inhabitants just, like, reproduce?

They can, but for some reason the inhabitants don't to that so much.

spiraldoor wrote:Why can't the inhabitants just, like, reproduce?

Because raising a child is a pain in the arse.

I know a thirteen-year-old girl who got raped by a paedophile but decided against aborting the child, for some reason.

What is she going to tell her child when it asks her "Where's my daddy?" ?

That its daddy died while rescuing all the children from a burning orphanage, of course.

Well, I certainly wouldn't want to grow up being lied to, or indeed knowing that my father was a horny paedophile. Choosing against aborting that child was not only unwise but also quite cruel.

It seems like our new house Creationist, Mister Dark, left. What a shame...

Tobbe wrote:I simply stated that it is ridicolous to use god as an explanation for things we do not yet know, such as the origin of the Universe. People have done this for centuries to natural phenomena such as lightning, lunar eclipses and disease, and have been proven wrong every time. No atm detectable evidence for a natural cause does not equal positive evidence for the existance of god, and I hope you understand this.

What I'm stating is that it's ridiculous to deny God when there isn't any other logical beginning of the universe- as I demonstrated every possibility we could have come into existence and God is the only answer- not just the only answer, but supported by evidence throughout history.

Tobbe wrote:Contrary to what I might have given you the impression of, I actually have no problem with you believing in god. That is, as long as you realise that your beliefs are faith-based, not rational and scientific. When you so matter-of-factly state that god is the only logical reason for the Universe to exist, a red warning light goes off in my head (I call it the 'Bullshit-o-meter').

So long as I realise they're "faith-based"? As in, blind faith without evidence? You want me to confess that there was never any real evidence to my beliefs all along, because belief in God is not allowed to be rational? Don't you think that is incredibly biassed? However my belief in God is perfectly rational and scientific, not based on blind faith. If you have a problem with this or feel belief in God cannot be rational and scientific, please disprove or at least weaken my points positing God's existence. Otherwise, no: my belief is NOT based on blind faith, but on evidence.

Christianity is never about assuming, but about knowing. Even faith must have grounds in evidence- such as when Jesus said "... believe *on account of these things*".

Tobbe wrote: Now to the thing I've actually tried to disprove all along: Your view that Evolution is false.

Tobbe wrote:You say you've dismissed Evolution as false because of lack of evidence. What I ask you to do is to present to me exactly why you find it false. I will then try to explain as best I can.

*Sigh*... my main purpose in a thread entitled "Religion- your views" was to prove God's existence, not disprove evolution. But if my beliefs as to why evolution is false are really that important, then I'll explain very briefly. It is for two reasons: 1. a lack of evidence, 2. being disproven constantly.

1: A: most or all evidence on evolution is based on similarities between fossils, cells, dna and so on. However, similarites do NOT prove that one creature EVOLVED into the other; these evidences can just as easily be used to evidence similarity in design. Positing similarites to evolution is what I call the "evolution of the gaps". I'm not talking here about a mere missing link here and there, but entire missing chains that would be needed before evolution could even be plausible.

B: Evolution is said to have taken billions of years, but the world is not nearly that old. For an example, recently some trees were found in the middle of Australia which were meant to be extinct for millions/billions of years. The main evidence posited for the age of the world is in the rocks based on the fossils therein. Eg. If there is a fish fossil, this creature obvioulsy came from the time before creatures evolved to walk on land, such and such billions years ago.However, this evidence is made with the assumption that evolution is true- in other words, one assumes evolution to *prove* evolution!

C: There was even a series of books about evolution once, and whenever proper evidence was meant to be posited, there was a reference to another book in the series. "Unfortunately this piece of evidence won't be explained here: for evidence, here is the reference". The books the references led to also had references instead of evidence, so that the whole thing went around in an empty circle. This is what I mean when I say there is literally no evidence for evolution.

These are the simplest, shortest, most minimal amount of reasons I could come up with. I have many more but as I said: I'm not so much interested in disproving evolution as proving God.

2 A: Originally evolutionists stated that, since creatures evolved from each other over millions of years, there should be in the fossil record, a string of skeletons with very slight changes, such as a lizard gradually becoming a bird, or an ape gradually becoming a man. The Christians came along and said "well, where are they?" There weren't any. Shortly afterwards there was an amazing "scientific breakathrough" in evolution called the "evolutionary jump", in which one creature suddenly becomes another. Eg. a bird hatches from the egg of a lizard! As for apes and men, they didn't evolve from each other anymore, they now shared a "common anscestor". This phenomenon has been repeated throughout the history of the "theory of evolution"; it's had to "adapt" itself (excuse the pun) to suit the arguments of Christians.

B: There are two genuine pieces of evidence for evolution I came across. One was a snake with the beginnings of legs, (which actually proves the Bible), and the other is natural adaption, or "micro-evolution" as some like to call it. Oh, adaption is true all right, an example of it is the whole white rabbits/black rabbits thing, but adaption is seen the changes tend to be rather sudden compared to the slow scheme of evolution which is meant to take millions of years, as though information data was stored in the dna of the creature in question for such a time as when it would be needed to emerge- as if by a Designer who knew what was to come, and designed a being capable of flexible adaption accordingly. However, no changes are seen to the extent that a creature becomes something else entirely, so this also proves the Bible: the creatures must follow "after their kind".

Despite all this, as I said, evolution is largely used in propaganda. Proof of this comes from the fact that there is no course in universities or schools that specificaly outlines evolution. Rather, in biology, chemistry and all the sciences in all the schools the students are taught that "evolution did it" without any evidence, because evolution is pparently "to broad a topic" to cover in one course. That is a very bad excuse.

In reality, "studying science is studying the works of God", as the evangelical Charles Finney once said. Charles Finney, in his life, was a confident atheist with a degree in law. Due to this degree in law he had been taught to weigh evidence logically, since this, of course, is an important skill in that field. It was for this reason that he, a rational, educated young man, was able to see the logic and evidence in Christianity, weigh it against atheism, and was so converted. Since then he saw God, not evolution, in everything, such as in the design of the human body and the wonders of science. The same can be said for many other converted atheists.

Tobbe wrote:The complete evolution of humans from simple vertebrates is very well documented

You're welcome to show me if you like.

Tobbe wrote: About the insults; that's the way I roll.

Typical atheist.

Tobbe wrote: To summarize: It is unfair that you critisise me for not answering your "proof" of gods existance, because I have never tried to do this (I believe Hunch pointed out some logical fallacies in your post, though, a few pages back).

Well, if you don't like being critisised for it, I could say it's unfair of you to say that belief in God can only ever be based on blind faith. Basically my demand for disproof was because of that. It seems that as an atheist, you can't bring yourself to admit I have rational, scientific and valid reasons for believing in God, yet at the same time you can't disprove my reasoning. Of course you never tried to- because you can't deny it. No matter how you think about it or go over it, unless you brush it aside then, logically, you're forced to meet God face to face. You want to remain in atheism though. As for Hunchman's points, I did see them. I believe they were that we can't understand the laws of time and space, therefore how can I say the First Cause overrides them? However, I think that's a bad excuse. Space is all around us, and time is merely the flow of things; they're not that hard to comprehend.

Tobbe wrote: I have no problem with you believing in god

"So long as understand it's not allowed to be rational", I might add, as you said before.

Tobbe wrote: (I will never respect you for it, though), but I react in a negative manner when you claim that its existance is the only logical possibility. What I have actually tried to answer is your ludicrous claims that Evolution is a big lie, when it is one of the most supported scientific theories there is, based on mountains of supportive evidence. It is one of the pillars of science and the foundation on which modern biology is built. I don't know why you have a problem with it, as there is absolutely no reason why it and god can't co-exist either.

But it *is* the only logical possibility. My argument shows it; if you want to react to this, react by disproving the argument please, or at least positing a logical alternate that isn't disproven already. As for you trying to answer my claims about evolution: the fact is I'm not really trying to disprove it right now at all- all I wanted to do was show how God exists. Finally, as to the last point, you say "God and evolution can co-exist" as though God is a made up story that religious people can believe if they want to while getting along with evolution just as well. It sounds almost as if you view reality as mere *perceptions* of truth that humans can put in or take out just as they please. But reality isn't like that at all: the fact is God and evolution can *not* co-exist because one's true and one isn't!

Tobbe wrote:

Mister Dark wrote:

Tobbe wrote: you're too brainwashed by religious dogma to listen to reason.

Again, quote mine. Here is the full sentence:

Tobbe wrote:Sadly, I suspect you're too brainwashed by religious dogma to listen to reason.

I'd say that's a quite significant difference.

Both are biassed, so not really.

Xenon wrote:@ Mister Dark: I too wasn't trying to undermine you in any way, in case you thought otherwise. Many members of this community repeatedly misconstrue my comments as stubborn, cruel and thoughtless, when in fact I have no such intentions when composing messages. Apologies if you found my posts insulting or disturbing in any way.

None needed- if I had a problem with the way you spoke to me I would have told you then and there, so don't worry about it.

Xenon wrote: You've actually presented a clear argument, but I would still like to outline some points that maybe you should take into consideration before deeming the religious approach to be far more reliable than the opposing scientific approach.

Sounds reasonable- but I don't like the stereotype that religion is not allowed to be scientific, especially when there was a great deal of scientific progress in England while Christianity was still strong.

Xenon wrote:Firstly, the world's technological advance had allowed us to explore alternative means of creation, whilst in biblical times (and indeed times of first creation and so on) this science and technology did not exist. Do you not think this lack of human intelligence could promote suspicions of something "out-of-the-ordinary" being the creation? If people weren't educated enough to understand the world, its history and its functioning would they not turn to a more supernatural approach?

True- science wasn't as developed today as it was then, therefore it's only natural that human imagination comes up with solutions to apparent unknown answers. However, God is not any such hypothesis. The phenomenon here is very different to what you say- actually it's the opposite. It's not that God weakened because people became too intelligent for Him, as evolutionists like to state, but the phenomenon is more like a genuine historical record or story being contorted throughout the long, steady years of history. In other words, people merely forgot their Creator. Furthermore, as you can see from the arguments I've presented, I don't posit God as some hypothesis: God is a real, living Being, alive here and now, to be found for whoever searches for Him.

Xenon wrote:The other point I'd like to get across to you is the insignificance of this First Cause business. If you believe what you say, and that the First Cause was in fact the foundation of time and space itself, then why do you not believe in a far more plausible, backed up theory?

Such as? As I showed, God is the only logical solution, unless flaw can be found in the logic I presented.

Xenon wrote:Why should there be some supervisor being?

My argument is less about the "why" and more about the "how", but, if it's a "why" you want, for so many reasons. For the need of absolute justice in a reuful world: who can starving orphans put in cruel homes turn to if not God, when the entire world turns its back on them? What about victims of terrible crimes, such as rape or slander, whose story no-one wants to hear or believe? Who will stand up on Judgement Day as a witness to defend their case, if not God?

Also for the need of purpose, lest people lose all morality and turn to the path of whoredom: "since life is fleeting and temporary, the only thing left is for each one to try and gain as much happiness for him or herself as they can", and where does this lead to? Greed, stealing, drugs, playing the whore...

However, this isn't what my main argument was based on. My argument is grounded in nothing more than cold, hard logic: the above points simply show that it's necessary in the scheme of morality and so forth to have what you call the "Supervisor Being".

Xenon wrote:Again, I'm not attempting to undermine you here on any level. I am myself suspicious of God being existent, yet this doesn't mean I believe he created the Universe and all its inhabitants. As I said somewhere waaay back, science still does not allow us to draw conclusions for everything, so there are always windows for a theory that does not accord to science, at least not as we know it.

And nor would I ever try to undermine yourself. Science literally translates as "knowledge", therefore, a more suitable word for how the world could have been created might be "speculation". However, I've seen so much evidence for God's existence He cannot be logically denied, nor has anyone ever managed to logically refute my reasoning for God's existence. Therefore, I would go so far as to call my "speculations", so-to-speak, proof.

PS. my post was rushed so sorry bout any spelling errors.

PPS. also sorry for the late reply. My internet was down for a long time- actually I'm posting from my Uni right now coz my internets *still* down.

PPPS. excuse the double post (again)

From what I can see, you haven't really produced any evidence for god, just a whole lot of "This is unexplained, so it must be god" and "Only a god could've done this" and "science made an error here, so god must be real".

You're still doing the typical religious thing of filling gaps in knowledge with the supernatural.

However, no changes are seen to the extent that a creature becomes something else entirely, so this also proves the Bible: the creatures must follow "after their kind".

Not instantly. That's part of the idea of evolution - through many generations, the small changes add up and you end up with something completely different.

You know, I used to believe in god when I was a kid. You know why? Because my scripture teacher in school told me he existed.

But by now, I've comprehended what is clear evidence as opposed to bullshit. There are too many flaws is Christianity. Yes, there are gaps in science. We don't know everything. Amazing, isn't it? But again, it's useless to fill these gaps with god.

Besides, if god is so perfect, then why is his work so fucked up?

Mister Dark wrote:

Tobbe wrote:About the insults; that's the way I roll.

Typical atheist.

Mister Dark wrote:

Tobbe wrote:About the insults; that's the way I roll.

Typical atheist.

Mister Dark wrote:

Tobbe wrote:About the insults; that's the way I roll.

Typical atheist.

Mister Dark wrote:

Tobbe wrote:About the insults; that's the way I roll.

Typical atheist.

Mister Dark wrote:

Tobbe wrote:About the insults; that's the way I roll.

Typical atheist.