What are your beliefs?

Post Reply New Topic

Just about everything with the exception of a bug, or a plant evolved from dinosaurs. Because they were here first. Here's my theory. Plant-starfish-reptile-pig-human. There ya go. The evolutionary chain. The meat eating vegan theory or whatever is not entirely correct either. The thing that makes our brains and stuff different from other animals, is mostly due to prepared, and cooked foods.

Anyone from antiquity who disected a pig, and a human would know that there are extremely close similarities. These religion's not only practiced not eating pigs, but cannibalism all together. Back in the day, eating a pig was construed as cannibalism. People these days forgot why they don't and just do the "thing to do because that's what we do" thing.

I remembered hearing from a jew once that it was not just a pig either. It was any animal with cleft hooves????? That was his excuse for not eating my venison.

lol you're welcome

Ah no Keet "facts" are not changed by some arbitrary means, the understanding of nature changes as more evidence is garnered. Once again I find it amusing that it is the religious who speak in terms of "facts". How you lot bandy this term around, no scientist or science minded person would ever use the term the way the religious blithely use it. But of course you use it to deliberately obfuscate and deceive, you pretend that science is unreliable because it determines facts and them simply just changes its mind and presents new facts. Your world view with regard to scientific discovery and your portrayal of its laws and theories is either woefully ignorant or deliberately misleading.

The jewish deal is a cloven hoove, kosher animal thing.

Are there any feathered lizards living today??? Birds feet look lizardy. Or lizardish.

Religion is more of a conspiracy. Science is more of a theory. They both work about the same way when it comes to the afterlife, the soul, and the god mambo jambo. Both of them pull in all the facts, which is not much of any really, and come to there own theories, conclusions, and hypothesis. I could start stuff just by having a belief that god is the sun, and the earth is the mother of life. And make more stuff up from there. I could change the meaning of god all together, and just say it means good. I could believe that my soul is used for astral projection. Whatever? Stop making sense.

We are not more closely related to pigs than we are to whales, giraffes, zebras or hippos. We are not descended from them either, we just have a common ancestor. I think one of the reasons pigs look like us on the inside is because we have a similar diet.

They eat alot of bugs, and worms. Pigs don't cook. They don't just look like us on the inside either. Surgeons transplant parts from them on to us. Like the skin, and some stuff in the eyes. That is something that cannot be done with monkeys. As far as dna goes, we are not very far off from a chicken either. Soo, you're right.

Originally humans didn't cook either, and I think our ancestors before agriculture probably ate worms and bugs too. Today humans eat a lot of potatos, carrots, onions and other root-like plants that grow underground. Pigs are always digging up food with their snouts so they'd eat those too (except potatoes are not native in places where pigs are native). In the end all mammals look pretty similar on the inside though.

And birds look a bit like dinosaurs. Their skeleton is similar too: dinosaurs have their legs below their body. Lizards and crocodiles have their legs to the side. Some of the old huge reptiles look like dinosaurs to us, but we can see from their skeleton that they are not true dinosaurs.

While I'm pretty sure our remote pre-human ancestors ate their share of bugs and worms, it's thought they had lived as scavengers, which had proved to be the precursor to hunting.

Yes. Just like I said before mr. Kraichgauer. We were pigs. Big fat calorie devouring, gluttonous eating machines. Just like now. Oink oink.

Utter BS. A scientific approach to any sort of supernatural hypothesis is very simple, is there any evidence (again I see yet another poster wantonly using the term "facts" here), there is NO evidence, so the concept is then it is put into the category of a belief system until such time as evidence is produced. Religion on the other hand makes a complete afterlife resplendent with mansions, fiery pits, brimstone and multitudinous virgins at hand for the pleasure of the righteous maes, out of thin air.

It is absurd to compare the two approaches.

I'm sorry mr. DentArthurDent. I guess I forgot that awareness is not a fact because it cannot be proven. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the basis of religion either. Science is right! There are no facts to prove awareness. Your dreams, and your imagination is not real either. There is just no proof of that. You're not real. No proof of reality. It's not a fact. You cannot do anything else with this stuff that cannot be proven because it supposedly is not a fact either. There is nothing else there either. Even though you are aware, and if you and I were not bantering back and forth, reality would not exist.

The fact is. Science can only go so far. The rest is left up to your imagination.

It would appear that you are confusing evidence, probaility and fact. That we cannot necessarily prove something beyond absolute doubt does not mean the evidence cannot present a very high almost definite probaility of its existence.regarding human existence It's only in the nonsense fields of some philosophical thought bubbles where we get into existential crisis regarding am I really human or am I a tree. And as for imagination the bible goes a long way to demonstrate its existence, and evidence of dreams can be garenered using brain imaging and correlating these results with memories from the subject

My contention is that to call some thing a fact requires absolute proof and this is very hard to come by. Yet it is often called into play by people who have no other evidence than their own beliefs.

Essentially, your beliefs are all you have. A brain scan may tell you that something is going on. But it is not telling you what. You may go on to tell me that a tree has no brain, so it is not aware, but there is no proof of that either. This whole sherlock holmes evidence, probability, and fact thing belongs to a murder investigation or something. It is soo three dimensional.

The goof troop made some screwed up religion that makes no sence at all to a rational individual. I get that. Some peoples minds only go so far, and it is good enough for them. You should accept it. It may even be you. There may be other things going on that we may be able to learn, that we may not understand, or actually prove whith solid facts. There may be keys, and hidden ideas all around us. Waiting for us to find. The knowable. If you want to denounce everything that may be real, and unknown to you, and tell me you are sherlock holmes, it is science, it's not a fact, and there is no proof, than so be it. Unless you do it alone, it may be lowering the rest of us who choose to believe something in order to attain knowledge. And yes, sometimes there is a difference between what you know, and what is a fact. There are soo many unexplainable things all around us, it is hard, if not impossible for me to believe that science is all there is. Things that can be real, but if explained, can make you sound like a complete lunatic to others. Experiences I have had that I do not dare to talk about with a rational individual such as yourself. I'm pritty good at deciphering things. I like picking up pieces to puzzles everywhere I go. Those idiots in those books have something to say. Right or wrong, let them say it.

Yes, and in a way we still are because we let our meat sit there and bleed out for a while before we eat it. And most predators eat the entire animal, bones and all.But I think it's likely early humans did some hunting: even chimps do some hunting sometimes. A piece of meat is worth more in chimp society than vegetables or fruits. Chimps also catch ants with a stick, and I think it is likely the early humans did similar things. Also, humans are the masters of endurance hunting. A human can run down a deer or similar animal by just taking time. Most prey species can run away in bursts of speed, which humans cannot emulate, but humans can walk/trot for an entire day if they are in good condition. Those prey species need to spend most of their day eating or drinking and cannot walk for hours on end. A fit human could hunt quite a few species by just walking after them until they collapse from exhaustion or heat, using no tools. Of course with hand-axes and spears it became easier to hunt and butcher animals.

I do believe that there are things we do not even know exist, ie we do not even know we don't know about them. The whole point of my post was to point out that it is often the religious who state FACTS. Now you may believe that you have experienced some kind of supernatural occurrence, many people claim this, but they do this without acknowledging all the potential co factors e.g , all the environmental inputs, all the potential naturalistic causes , the knowledge of how our brain works and its capacity for hallucination etc.

As for the trope that people like me are to closed to experience mysticism and we are holding back the advancement of human knowledge that is a very tired argument, and one that should be immediately understood as a logical fallacy. Without the move away from mysticism and folklore we would not have the modern technological age.

As I said at the start, I believe there are things we do not even know exist. But given the ever increasing understanding of our universe, and the ever decreasing evidence for the supernatural, I suspect these 'things' will be entirely naturalistic. As for occurrences that are presently explained by some as supernatural, I expect in time we will come to understand them from a naturalistic perspective, For example I don't doubt people have encountered what they describe as 'ghosts' what I do doubt is that these are the ethereal souls of the dead., But I do expect that one day we will be able to explain what they are. I also dont doubt that once we can explain what 'ghosts' are and even predict patterns in their appearances, people will still demand as a Fact that they are the souls of the dead.