That is a damn fine statue.

But their are other gods in Buddhism or celestial deities

---

(May 12, 2018 at 11:18 pm)Quick Wrote: That is a damn fine statue.

I know it's epic 

Did you guys know there was an asian guy who killed over 5,000 people with his bare hands by strangling them? He killed everyone he came across this way. Crazy shit.

(May 12, 2018 at 11:19 pm)Quick Wrote: Did you guys know there was an asian guy who killed over 5,000 people with his bare hands by strangling them? He killed everyone he came across this way. Crazy shit.

Crazy 

(May 12, 2018 at 9:45 pm)Huggy7 Wrote: . . .
You may as well add abiogenesis to that list of beliefs that have no proof, which put you in the same boat.
. . .
Oh, and speaking of woo.



I believe life had a creator, I have no idea of the process.

You believe live created itself, you have no idea of the process.

If one is woo then they are both woo.

Looks like were in the same woo boat buddy.

The term created is a loaded one. It implies that there is a creator. A better expression is to say that 'life arose by natural processes', which we do not yet have worked out, but it seems likely that we one day may. If that happens - if abiogenesis is worked out as a perfectly possible and reasonable explanation, with good evidence, then where would that leave religions which insist on divine creation?

So I don't believe that life created itself - that's circular. The word 'created' is a loaded one, and life creating itself implies life from the get-go. It's not 'created itself', and it is 'arose from non-life'. It's not woo, since the honest person has to admit that we don't know. So I don't say that life arose from non-life, I just say that that is what the word and concept of abiogenesis means. Abiogenesis is not a belief, (in my thinking) - I don't believe it, but I do view it as a possibility. What makes something woo, is that it relies on something which cannot be demonstrated, or shown by evidence to be possible in the real universe - it's just something that you have to accept. So take care that abiogenesis may one day be upheld as a valid way for life to have arisen. If it does achieve that status, then Occam's Razor will make it more likely, than divine supernatural 'creation'.

Q. Has abiogenesis been proven or even demonstrated? A. No.
The answer is we don't know.

(May 12, 2018 at 10:35 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: "Scientists are working on it" is only a valid answer if its from a position of "I don't know"

Abiogenesis is an unproven claim that that has basically ruled out any other possibility, based on what?

And try to get this through your thick fucking skull. 

"WE DON'T KNOW YET."

But we admit we don't know and keep searching for the answer.  We do not jump on fairy tales and say "I want to believe this horseshit."

Someday, maybe you will grow up.

Ingersoll was on to you clowns a century ago.

Quote: “The agnostic does not simply say, "l do not know." He goes another step, and he says, with great emphasis, that you do not know. He insists that you are trading on the ignorance of others, and on the fear of others. He is not satisfied with saying that you do not know, -- he demonstrates that you do not know, and he drives you from the field of fact -- he drives you from the realm of reason -- he drives you from the light, into the darkness of conjecture -- into the world of dreams and shadows, and he compels you to say, at last, that your faith has no foundation in fact.”

― Robert G. Ingersoll

You obviously don't get my point.

If you claim that life began through abiogenesis, THEN YOU ARE CLEARLY NOT SAYING YOU DONT KNOW HOW LIFE BEGAN.

My point is how can you even claim abiogenesis in the first place when there is not one shred of evidence?

THIEST: Life began therefore God

ATHEIST: Life exists so therefore abiogenesis

Again how are you any different from a so-called fundie?

(May 13, 2018 at 4:32 am)Huggy74 Wrote: You obviously don't get my point.

If you claim that life began through abiogenesis, THEN YOU ARE CLEARLY NOT SAYING YOU DONT KNOW HOW LIFE BEGAN.

My point is how can you even claim abiogenesis in the first place when there is not one shred of evidence?

Life exists so therefore abiogenesis?

Again how are you any different from a so-called fundie?

God creates, correct?

Why create lifeless planets?

The fact that only one planet out of "who knows how many (in so far as we know)" can support life, basically makes me doubt the existence of an almighty creator.

We know what the very first life form was it was single cell non self replicating bacteria. We know it is approximately 3.8 billion years old. We know the common ancestor of this bacteria is all life that exists
and is extinct. We do not know how it came from non life. But it is the wrong way to frame the question because life and non life are not fixed states but rather points upon a spectrum and so it is better to
think of it as transition from chemistry to biology. For when chemistry becomes sufficiently complex it becomes biology. The same way that when physics becomes sufficiently complex it becomes chemistry
Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago. The first life form appeared 3.8 billion years ago. So for the first 800 million years there was no life on Earth but it does not mean nothing was happening. Everything
is always in a state of transition. So for those 800 million years chemistry on Earth was going through a transition that when sufficiently complex allowed life to develop which is how life came into existence

(May 13, 2018 at 4:32 am)Huggy74 Wrote: My point is how can you even claim abiogenesis in the first place when there is not one shred of evidence?

Oh pullease. Don't be fucking stupid. There is evidence that abiogenesis may have occurred and you know it.