jump to last post 1-50 of 91 discussions (516 posts)

Atheism Debate

  1. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    As requested from another forum post.

    I would like to open the thread to all of those who do not believe in God or a creator. I would like to have a logical debate of ideas. I will not relay bible versus as I am not religious. If you do not believe in a creator, what is your reason for thinking we are just coincidence or chance?

    1. Precious Pearl profile image81
      Precious Pearlposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      God's existence is proven by the very fact that we exist.  You can't have a creation without a creator.  Art does't become art without an artist.  You want to find out if He exists... ask Him.  I am sure that He will give you an answer.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image59
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The very fact that we exist proves we exist - no more. lol

      2. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        This is a good point as well however the physical evidence is missing or there would be no debate.

    2. usmanali81 profile image60
      usmanali81posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It's not the matter of chance or evolution. These are just rubbish doctrines imposed on us by Freemasons. 200 years have passed, yet Theory of Rubbish is not proved.

    3. GeneralHowitzer profile image61
      GeneralHowitzerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Okay, here's my point of view. I will base my belief on proofs that exists.
      1. Proofs that God exists is our conscience... Why when we do good there is some inner joy we feel inside otherwise our conscience bothers us or even feel guilty about our wrongdoings. Some if not most ,hehehe, criminals feel guilty too and will testify against themselves during trials.
      2. If we use genetics as our basis, we all came from one ancestors these could be adam and eve.
      3. The theory of evolution has'nt yet proven that we evolved from apes, the missing link between man and apes has'nt been found yet until now. If we all came from apes then all apes have had turned or evolved into man already.
      4. Our thumbs will also prove that God exists, because no one is created alike.
      5. Our body is a wonderful creation ever, why, it will take billions of dollars just to create a single muscle tissue from scratch.
      6. Not all scientists believe that there is no God. Isaac Newton considered by most as the best scientist ever is a religous man.

      I will not accept the idea that i exists because of chance, I will just do wrong things from now on if my life is useless afterall.

      1. GeneralHowitzer profile image61
        GeneralHowitzerposted 7 years ago in reply to this
      2. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for adding. I don't agree with Adam and Eve. I do like the conscious idea. Then again, someone can have the conscious altered to anothers idea of right and wrong.

    4. 59
      dtpetersposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      i think that belief in a god isnt necessarily arbitrary, according to jung , these things are archetypes in our psychological make-up, and we believe in what we are culturally and genetically pre-disposed to believe(e.g. christianity in "the west" and buddhism and hinduism in "the east")

      your belief system could theoretically have no more to do with "you" as a person than your hair color or accent in speech, as it is all just part of your bio-chemical make-up and not really a "choice"

      "to believe, or not to believe" may be moot, the real important issue is "what you do", which in most cases is in direct opposition to what you "think"

  2. Inspirepub profile image87
    Inspirepubposted 7 years ago

    Hmmm, are there really only two options?

    Either there is a creator, or we are just co-incidence?

    I am not entirely sure that either of these options match my beliefs.

    Jenny

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Could you go more in depth please? What would be an alternative belief?

      1. 0
        sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I concur with Jenny. 

        To my knowledge as well, you prolly wont find an atheist willing to divulge the concept of reality for a few different reasons mostly being that is is undefinable.

        I believe that the theistic understanding is a shared concept which all must conform to one spiritual likeness while presuming that an atheist has no understanding whatsoever about life for choosing not to define what is most personal and can only be attributed to "something" that is souly understood yet cannot really be summed up because the "understanding" of the 'god' concept has been mangled beyond recognition that the only thing a person could do who knows this is to leave it unsaid.

        I do take into account that some monotheistic believers do grasp it very well and fully understand what is not being said but by nature of mans oppression are to fearful to come to the dark side lol for fear of something that I assume many of them already understand but will not admit.   

        So atheism at it's core is not really about 'god' it's about the definition of the concept and most importantly it is about the theistic approach that is "actually" displacing people from what cannot but is the "absolute truth". 

        Make sense?   

        But this is my take that in all likely hood other atheist would disagree with assertion yet for an understood reason. 

        Try to make sense of it. big_smile

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          How do you believe we were created?

          1. 0
            sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            It's not a question about belief. big_smile

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Please explain.

              1. 0
                sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                You are trying to give me the run around to assert that what you believe is without a doubt the truth. 

                I already stated that "what is" "is" undefinable.  Why not start with telling me what you believe.

                1. marinealways24 profile image60
                  marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm not trying to give you any sort of test, I'm just asking to hear your perspective. I do not want to fill the page with my belief, if you want to read, it is my hub titled, "GOD LOGIC"
                  Thank You

                  1. 0
                    sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Literally I am just a genetic make up of the Universe.  I don't know how it all happened with absolute certainty.  I really don't care to try to define it.

                    I don't feel apart from it and I don't feel there is an end to it.  I don't know that it was an "accident" and I don't know if it has a purpose.

                    When I die I literally believe at some point I will be what I was before.  In essence I quite possibly will be a star.  However ridiculous it sounds is just as ridiculous as any other but it is what makes me happy.

                    I believe in a heaven yet I believe it quite literally as whatever is out there in the Universe and that the Universe exist inside as well as out which only leaves me with the question about consciousness.

                    I don't know why we think or feel I just know that we do.  I don't know why I care or why I esteem life as something I don't want to loose.

                    I don't know the answers but feel what is absolute and yet I know it goes beyond any "real" human understanding.

                    Spiritually speaking, I feel that in "lifes" continual and perpetual motions that what I love here on earth will not be as it is now but the attraction that I feel to the people that I love will exist in a sense in the same way that a star most usually has a companion star. 

                    I don't know how they chose or if they chose at all so  all that is left is something that I like to call "soul power".  So laugh away at my ridiculous notions about what is and what comes next etc... just know that because this is the best way I can describe what it is I feel without defining a source leaves me to question an existence of any god at all. 

                    In which case I can say that god does not and never did exist outside of us and on a physical reality plain the "creation" idea cannot and will never be define so I am aware of it but addressing what I already know cannot be understood just leaves room to ignore or distort what is into something that is not and that is why our ancestors used personified figures to depict the notion of god.

  3. quicksand profile image85
    quicksandposted 7 years ago

    Believers cannot participate, right?

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Sure you can, what do you have?

      1. quicksand profile image85
        quicksandposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I believe in GOD, that's all. The fact is I cannot prove his existence.

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I agree partly because I believe in a God or Gods or Creators.

  4. quicksand profile image85
    quicksandposted 7 years ago

    @ marinealways
    The pattern followed in all these religion forums is that the second person who walks in always comes along armed with a quotation or two and some reference stuff. Then the battle of quotations begins ... verses from scriptures, phrases from Wikipedia ...

    Atheists cling on to Darwyns ba... (oops sorry! I did not mean to rude) and they swing to and fro screaming "viva evolution."

    "Science cannot prove that GOD exists" they say, "therefore he does not exist!"

    ... er ... lets have some fun ... ?

    1. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That is not true.

    2. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this
  5. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    If an atheist looks to other atheist for guidance of belief, is this not the same as a religious person looking for guidance of a preacher?

    1. Jewels profile image82
      Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      A preferable approach is not have belief at all.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Why do you say this? You always try to make me guess something. lol

      2. quicksand profile image85
        quicksandposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        @marinealways :
        An atheist looking for guidance? Well, atheism is the simplest "ism" in the universe. They orbit around just one statement "there ain't no GAWD." That's all there is to atheism. In order to become an atheist, all you need to do is confirm your subscription to that statement and that's it! No ceremonious welcome, no general announcement to the public. Atheists do not have an unholy book either. No scriptures to cause debates over possible traces of ambiguity. No priesthood, no "headquarters," no monthly periodicals ... wow! cool isn't it? smile

        No offense meant to any individual or organization either. smile

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I don't have a set belief. All ideas and belief are open to debate. I don't look to others for answers, just perspectives. I find the answers myself.

          1. quicksand profile image85
            quicksandposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Congratulations! You belong to a unique set of people. Some of the others I know who did likewise are Johannes Kepler, Thomas Edison, Isaac Newton, Herr Doktor Albert Einstein ... long list you see!

            Well that's exactly what GOD wanted us all to do. Investigate and find out for ourselves, instead of quarreling over who's right and who's wrong.

            I believe we are given some intelligence for that very purpose, and what we are able to discover is exactly proportional to our requirements.

            However I have not discovered much, LOL!  smile

          2. Jewels profile image82
            Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            This is why it doesn't pay to have beliefs.  Beliefs change, or your understanding does, your knowledge changes.  The more your consciousness expands, the more you see, the more your beliefs are irrelevant, (that last statement may be relevant further down the track!)

            1. onthewriteside profile image73
              onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I think of beliefs in this day and age, much like I think of the politics or fashion of the young people.  Eventually we all wake up, mature, and see the error in our ways.

              Youth and Agility:

              Socialist (or at least Democrats)
              Probably believe in "a God" of some sort
              Think they know it all


              Age and Wisdom:

              Very anti-big governemnt (or at the least Republican)
              At least seriously "doubt" the existence of a "higher being"
              Know they don't know the half of it...

        2. Jewels profile image82
          Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You misunderstand the human condition quicksand to make a statement like that.  Isms are divisive.  Even if a atheist does not adore an icon (Jesus/god) does not mean his/her life is any easier or harder than Joe Blow next door.  It's quite irrelevant when you participate in life itself.  Atheists use reason, their brains, they use compassion, and empathy the same as the next person.  There is a major misunderstanding that because an atheist does not buy into the iconic God/Jesus/whomever, he/she is not a beautiful person who gives to the human race.

          1. quicksand profile image85
            quicksandposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Some of us believers, the ones who are not extremists, also use reason, compassion, and all the other cool tools that you say are used ONLY by atheists, elevating them to a pedestal above believers.

            I believe that we are all equal. I never made reference to atheists not adoring icons. I do not state that atheists have any shortcomings because they do not adore anything.

            I am not attempting to prove anything either. I am a mere participant in a discussion! I hope that clears YOUR misunderstanding. smile smile smile

            1. Jewels profile image82
              Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I didn't say they were only used by atheists, they are used by people in general and has nothing to do with what ism they are categorized in.  You can see how being put in a box sucks?  I agree there is a simplicity to atheism - no rules except your own ethics and the law.

              1. earnestshub profile image87
                earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                ...Not true. I know many atheists who have more than a little knowledge and experience with religions and scripture, they arrived at different conclusions with the same information. That is humans for you!

                1. Jewels profile image82
                  Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  So do I.  Those categorized as atheists are usually well read in not only the christian bible but many esoteric texts which is why they make the decision to be atheist.

                  Just because you have knowledge of religious teachings doesn't mean you are religious.

                  1. onthewriteside profile image73
                    onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I agree completely.  I have studied all sorts of ancient religions for the past 25 years.  I probably know the OT as well as many Jews, and most certainly better than 90% of the so-called Christians out there.  I don't deal with the NT because if the OT is false, then the NT has no legs to stand on.

  6. Pete Maida profile image60
    Pete Maidaposted 7 years ago

    People have listened to what other people say is the word of God for centuries and century after century these bold and definite statements are found to be wrong.  From the earliest time when Thor was supposed to be the cause of thunder though the definite holy fact that the flat world was the center of the universe the men of God speak with absolute certainty.  The demand that this be the only truth and they put the fellow humans to death in the most horrible ways when someone was to think for themselves.  In the name of God we destroyed the Library of Alexandria and we suppressed the scientific method created by the Ioians.
    These forums speak of God in the western style and ignore the religions of the east.  Do they not have an equal reason to claim theirs is the true way?
    Everyone believes the way they like but you must admit to people who do not find themselves to be devout that there are a lot of questions to be answered.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I agree that there are many things that no one knows. This is why I believe all belief should be left open to debate.

    2. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed so much of all of the unknowns. Maybe both atheist and religions will learn more when they realize they know nothing.

      One can only debate or guess.

  7. Inspirepub profile image87
    Inspirepubposted 7 years ago

    Well, marinealways24, there are a range of possible alternatives to the creator vs coincidence dichotomy.

    Off the top of my head:

    1. I was not created - I have always existed. (Opens a discussion of how we define "ourselves" in the first place.)

    2. There is an order inherent in the universe, which shapes the development of life just as it shapes the movement of the planets. It does not create; it does not destroy. It just channels the existing, constant pool of Universal energy into ever-changing shapes, including from time to time human beings.

    3. I don't actually exist in the first place. I am an illusion.

    I don't have time to think of more just now, but give me a day or two and I could probably generate 20 or more alternatives, any of which would be a closer match to my beliefs that either of the first two you mentioned.

    Jenny

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thank You for adding, I would like to focus on 1 thought at a time if possible.

      3. "I don't actually exist in the first place. I am an illusion."

      Please explain this one in more detail. Do you believe in reason or purpose for an individual existence? Lets keep it simple as possible please.

      1. Inspirepub profile image87
        Inspirepubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I don't actually believe in individual existence at all.

        Jenny

  8. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    In the thought of not having a creator, how did existance become to exist?

  9. quicksand profile image85
    quicksandposted 7 years ago

    Belief has several causes. One of them is indoctrination. This is what atheists despise, quite rightly though. Indoctrination is submission without any form of justification. This form is easy and does not require any brainwork.

    To a great extent indoctrination is good. This is because in certain cases it triggers off the thinking process and belief in a GOD becomes the result.

    1. Jewels profile image82
      Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      But it can also close off the thinking process and can be the end of free thought. Belief without experience is an unawakened sheep. You become the puppet of an authority figure.

      1. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The belief in god thing is the part that I see as dodgy. Each one of these gods seem to have an agenda I would not embrace..

        1. quicksand profile image85
          quicksandposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          The way I see it, belief in, or accepting the existence of a GOD is viewed by some as a threat to one's freedom. smile

          1. Inspirepub profile image87
            Inspirepubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            And kinda risky.

            There are so many gods, and most of them claim to be the One True God (or One True Pantheon).

            Your chances of picking the right God to believe in are pretty slim ...

            Jenny

            1. quicksand profile image85
              quicksandposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              "There are so many gods," ... where? where? show me! lol

              1. Inspirepub profile image87
                Inspirepubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                When the lightning strikes, and the thunder rolls, tremble in awe at the mighty Thor ...

                I am not sure of the Sumerian name for it, but garlic is a god.

                And if you fast and meditate for 17 days, you will meet several, including your totem or spirit guide.

                Jenny

            2. quicksand profile image85
              quicksandposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Independent of the "so many gods" in your catalogue, when one ponders over the marvels of nature, over the mystery of life, over space, time, matter ... regularly, over a prolonged period of time, the awe that sets in creates some kind of a suspicion that nature is not just "nature." This "suspicion" then evolves. smile

              Well, that's MY story. Yours may be different. That does not mean that one of us is wrong.

          2. earnestshub profile image87
            earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            It should be seen as a threat to ones freedom, as the accompanying dotrine will be restrictive of anything outside the belief.

            1. quicksand profile image85
              quicksandposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Well as for me, and me alone, I am only discussing the existence of a GOD without associating any doctrines or agendas. First things first. I believe in the existence of a GOD. This is the result of my thinking. My very own free thinking! Exploring doctrines are only secondary.

              1. marinealways24 profile image60
                marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I highly agree with your last statement. Excellent words and thoughts. Also excellent tact.

      2. quicksand profile image85
        quicksandposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I said "triggers off" the thinking process. When the thinking process is triggered off, it acts on its own without any links to, or compulsion of any sort to be guided by the indoctrination that preceded it. Then, a belief in the existence of GOD is one possible result.

        The other result of course is ... you've guessed it! Subscribing to atheism.

    2. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thank You, I will check this out

  10. quicksand profile image85
    quicksandposted 7 years ago

    I too subscribe to the view that we are just an illusion. I do not remember if the Bible has any statement supporting this view, but, I do faintly recall the Islamic scriptures and Buddhist scriptures suggest that we, along with everything else are an illusion. It does make sense.

    1. earnestshub profile image87
      earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You may be right, perhaps we are an illusion.A way to be a legend in our own lunchtime so to speak. One thing I do know is that people are dillusional, and it is interesting what happens to us when we take a drug like MMDA or any of a number of chemicals that alter conciousness. It seems that the experiences are still of the self and as valid as any other experience.? Apart from the belief that all drugs are satan's work, I say opinion, ideals, morals and beliefs change with brain chemistry and that we are often better for it.

      1. quicksand profile image85
        quicksandposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Er ... well ... Earnest, I did not actually mean that ... smile

  11. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    Mark, this was another thoughtful excellent question you posed to me, Thank You.


    And you are not the only link in the chain. I guess you could say that the chain connecting you to your son has been broken, but there will be other chains that remain. Your sister for example (if you have a sister) would be another, separate chain that would remain - despite you being gone from both chains.


    I would like to explore this a little more. Instead of using a sister for my example, lets use my mom. My mom is a manager in her work. I am her only son. If she lost my life, she and everyone she worked/interacted with on a daily basis would be affected. My death could affect her entire outlook on life affecting how she interacts with others. She could take my death "personally" and hate life and everyone in life. Would this not be a constant effect in the chain?

    Lets say she keeps her job and tries to continue to live this fuqd up life at times. I can assure you that she would not be in good spirits at work. If she was a bitch to her employees from being upset about personal problems, "my death", this could have the employees going home pissed off everyday. I am just trying to throw another idea out of how this energy could continue. Thank You

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I very much doubt it. Most people go through these sort of feelings after losing a loved one. I did when my first wife died at a young age. Most people seem to eventually "get over it," and realize that they still have their own life to live and should not let life (and death is a big part of life) get in the way of that.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Again, another solid point. What if you committed suicide as a result of your loss? Would this not 100% be considered a effect of your wife's energy? Very Sorry for your loss.

        I would like to explore another idea in the "energy chain" as I will refer to it. lol You undoubtedly learned a life lesson from your wife's death, correct? Whether it was a lesson learned about yourself or how to deal with life. What if the lesson you learned was part of your loss? If you would never experienced the loss, would you understand the loss? Maybe you learned how strong your will is to survive without your wife? Again, just throwing ideas out.

        On another note, I believe life is a true test of will and sanity or lack of. Possibly death is a test of this? Could we not simply be a test of life and will?

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I think you are reading too much into this life business. Yes, I learned things. As I have tried to do my whole life - learn from my experiences. Some do, some don't. Some kill themselves, some die in a plane crash some never seem to get it, but live happily anyway. 

          Most of these tests you are describing are an internal battle, rather than an external one. Yes, you dying would be a challenge to your mother. She will either cope or not. Change or not. As far as I am concerned, women are far stronger than men in this respect (hence the need for religion and male priests) and I would think she would jump into the fray and do her best to maintain your son's links and chances of surviving.

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            What if she did the best she could to raise my son, yet my son was still pissed off at the world because he grew up without a father for his entire life. Would this not be a continuing energy in the chain with my influence or lack of never ending? I grew up 30 years without a dad, however I was pissed off at him most of my life. I never knew him, but his "energy"/influence or lack of has effected the better part of my life. He is unknown to me, yet his lack of humanity effected me, could this not be an example of the chain?

  12. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    Mark, another idea on this "energy chain" lol

    I would like to compare an animal death to a human death. I would say that an animal death has maybe a small percentage in the chain compared to a human death. Why is this? Are humans favored over animals in this chain of energy? If we were favored over animal life, would this be divine?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Why would you say this? Have you never seen a dove waste away after it's partner died? Have you never had a friend die and watch his dog do the same, howling into the night, never to be quite the same animal? Have you never seen anyone lose a pet?

      I am not any more important than any animal. We all have our part in the way our ecosystem works. The very idea that we are more favored than other animals is part of our problem, and I believe will end in our ultimate destruction.

      If I was starving and I had to choose between a human and a cow as company, guess which one I would favor? big_smile

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        If I was starving and I had to choose between a human and a cow as company, guess which one I would favor? What if you was raised to worship cows? lol

      2. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        One thought to add, would that pets death have a continuous effect as much as the human death? The animal does not have as many acquaintances as the human, so how would the chain have the same impact of the animal loss compared to the human? Again, thanks for your thoughts.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I would think it would depend on who suffered the loss. I have know quite a few people who would be more upset over the loss of their cat than a family member. wink  In fact.........

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I can surely agree with that as I would probably take a few day's from work to recover when my St. Bernard dies. On another thought, my dog has only me an my wife. My dog does not have the rest of my family, friends, co-workers, new encounters I will meet in my following days. While the energy could be said to effect me and people around me to come, I can honestly say this energy would not effect me as much as losing my wife or child. Would you agree to the contrast in emotional difference between me losing my dog and losing my wife? Thank You


            My dog would surely not give me thoughts of suicide as the loss of my wife or child may.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image59
              Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Can you say the same for all dog owners?

              Of course, I would expect a human's death to have a lot more effect in general, because we are social animals and tend to make many "energy chains," so of which are stronger than others. Does it make any difference in the great scheme? If there is a great scheme? I don't know. We all have to die. Some have more impact than others.

              1. marinealways24 profile image60
                marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Excellent thought again, Thank You

                Maybe there could be a divine favoritism on the human side of the chain compared to the animal side? If it were divine favoritism, this would make me believe there was a creator/creators. Maybe if there is divine favoritism in the human chain, possibly there could still not be favoritism on the human end as I believe all of us could possibly have an equal purpose or role in the chain.

                1. marinealways24 profile image60
                  marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  This is an excellent question to determine whether or not there is favoritism in the human chain. I don't know my thoughts on that one yet but you can assure I will get back to it.

  13. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    I still don't have my thought on the favoritism but would like to add another thought.


    Mine and your energy can be displayed in the simplest forms as to say our individual energy is in the words we think and type. Afterall, if we use our words to spread hatefull messages, is this not casting off a hatefull energy? I know when I personally write something to offend someone, they will relay an emotional statement back in most cases. So in theory, my energy would connected with theirs. Could this be another link in the chain?

    1. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      There aren't any "links" or "breaks" in this chain you are trying to describe.  Energy is perpetual motions, something that keeps flowing without regards to anything at all. 

      In the micro-evolutionary (or whatever you want to call it) elements (energy of some form) attract to another without purpose.  They attract because they can, if they can't they do not. 

      I know you are talking about energy created in the human, the production of chemicals (such as pheromones) that can transmit through what seems like empty space and that you know that when you put some "soul power" into it, it often achieves the desired outcome. 

      You are thinking that humans are particularity special because of it but we are not really, we are much the same as other animals.  Don't sell an animal short because it doesn't speak like we do.

      Other animals such as dogs also understand this process.  I have a dog, she barks at other dogs but rarely barks at people.  One day she went crazy and tried to bite some random man passing by. 

      There was no logical explanation for this at the time as far as I could tell.  However, what came out of the guys mouth was despicable and yet my dog knew it before I did.

      You could say he reacted negatively to my dog and that is why he said what he did.  But it seems the other way around.  He put out a negative energy, maybe he doesn't like dogs and my dog could feel it.

      My dog has a positive connection to me and feels she needs to protect me.  She shows me favoritism and to her I am not a "human" per se, I am just another animal.  I favor her because I love her and I while I see her as a dog that needs to be taken care of because I have the capacity to do so.  I also rely on her to take care of me as well.

      Plus people who have animals, dogs and cats tend to live happier lives. big_smile  No broken links in the chain, just redirection of energy.

  14. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    "There aren't any "links" or "breaks" in this chain you are trying to describe.  Energy is perpetual motions, something that keeps flowing without regards to anything at all."


    I changed my idea on this to suggest the chain is only altered and not broken. Energy can be altered by emotions. If I die, my mom would obviously have emotions and changes due to my death, so the chain would be altered. I am not stating anything as fact. I am just throwing ideas out.   



    It is not logical to me to say an animals death would have the same impact as a human death.

    1. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Good, now with that said.  Some people are more attached to their pets then they are to other human beings.

      All in all, the sentiment of "loss" doesn't change because it is a dog or human.  It's the "loss" of not being able to recreate the same bonds that one would have with a dog or a child.

      If I lost my kid, I would be devastated.  I would hang on to my memories of her to fulfill the physical loss of her but what I  am really missing is the production of new memories that I took for granted.  Meaning I have given the benefit of the doubt that she would live longer than me and I would be with her in all her creating memories. 

      For the most part, and don't take this for a lack of love for life, "loss" or "death" in itself isn't really about the actual death of the one who died.  It's a selfish emotion, the loss of not being able to create more experiences... something like this.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Do you think an animal mind could explain something like this?

        1. 0
          sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I think they are well aware enough to communicate with out English. 

          Dogs become depressed.  Currently my dog is without her "alpha dog" her human father because he is away at the moment.  She has become sad.  She is less active then normal.  She is expressing her loss by a lack of appetite and a lot of sleep.  Which is something that humans also do... depression.

          Elephants grieve the same when they lose a baby.  They do actually express their emotions in much the same way as humans express emotions by way of facial expressions and such. 

          Like the example of birds that Mark put out for you.  I have seen this occur with "love birds".  One of them died and the other got depressed and died because it didn't eat... quite literally it died from starvation but what really killed it was "heart break".

          -so could an animal explain something like this?-

          Yes, they have their own ways of communicating and they do pass this on to their offspring, if they didn't they wouldn't know why it is just as important to them to protect their offspring. 

          Survival wouldn't have any importance to them yet we know that their will to survive is just as important to them as us. 

          Not sure if this answered you question.  If not can you restate your question so that it is direct. big_smile

        2. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Do you think you are not an animal?

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Sandra, this question is for you and Mark. I understand the common similarities that we share with animals without human mind. I do not understand why our minds are so different than the animal mind. I would like to know the exact link in the mind that seperates us. If a lion chases a man to eat the man, the lion will not rationalize to think "I don't want to eat the man, that would be mean, I would take the man away from his family". The lion will act on natures instinct and dine most likely. Why do animals not have the ability to rationalize thoughts instead of acting on instinct?

            1. 0
              sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              But the catch is (no pun intended) is that a lion will not chase a man for breakfast unless it feels threatened by it for some reason or has a lack of food.

              By observation alone we know that a lion unless provoked by means of starvation or threat wont do any such thing.

              Just because we seem to rationalize by saying, it is immoral to kill that person because he/she has a family and we know the importance of family.  Yet, it does happen that a man will kill another man for no apparent reason with or without being provoked. 

              Which one seems "less" moral?

              1. marinealways24 profile image60
                marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                lol
                By observation alone we know that a lion unless provoked by means of starvation or threat wont do any such thing.

                Would you be one to test this theory out by standing 10 yards from a lion simply to observe without feeling threatened? Would you go up to the lion and pet it as you would a person and shake hands? Why not?

                I am not contesting that some individuals do not still think or act like animals. However, I believe humans have the upper hand. Any thoughts welcome.

                1. 0
                  sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  lol ever been to a zoo!
                  upper hand?  Looks like humans are more fearful of the lion then the lion is of the human. wink

                  1. marinealways24 profile image60
                    marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    lol good stuff.

              2. onthewriteside profile image73
                onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Hey if I find myself starving and with no other food source around, somebody is coming for dinner, and I don't mean as a guest!

                1. 0
                  sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Hannibal... is that you? lol

  15. onthewriteside profile image73
    onthewritesideposted 7 years ago

    Scientific announcement, mid-February, 2001...

    “Humbling” was the prevalent adjective used by the scientific teams and the media to describe the principal finding – that the human genome contains not the anticipated 100,000 - 140,000 genes (the stretches of DNA that direct the production of amino-acids and proteins) but only some 30,000+ -- little more than double the 13,601 genes of a fruit fly and barely fifty percent more than the roundworm’s 19,098. What a comedown from the pinnacle of the genomic Tree of Life!

    Moreover, there was hardly any uniqueness to the human genes. They are comparative to not the presumed 95 percent but to almost 99 percent of the chimpanzees, and 70 percent of the mouse. Human genes, with the same functions, were found to be identical to genes of other vertebrates, as well as invertebrates, plants, fungi, even yeast. The findings not only confirmed that there was one source of DNA for all life on Earth, but also enabled the scientists to trace the evolutionary process – how more complex organisms evolved, genetically, from simpler ones, adopting at each stage the genes of a lower life form to create a more complex higher life form – culminating with Homo Sapiens.

    The “Head-scratching” Discovery...

    It was here, in tracing the "vertical" evolutionary record contained in the human and the other analyzed genomes, that the scientists ran into an enigma. The “head-scratching discovery by the public consortium,” as Science termed it, was that the human genome contains 223 genes that do not have the required predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree.

    How did Man acquire such a bunch of enigmatic genes?

    In the evolutionary progression from bacteria to invertebrates (such as the lineages of yeast, worms, flies or mustard weed – which have been deciphered) to vertebrates (mice, chimpanzees) and finally modern humans, these 223 genes are completely missing in the invertebrate phase. Therefore, the scientists can explain their presence in the human genome by a “rather recent” (in evolutionary time scales) “probable horizontal transfer from bacteria.”

    In other words: At a relatively recent time as Evolution goes, modern humans acquired an extra 223 genes not through gradual evolution, not vertically on the Tree of Life, but horizontally, as a "sideways" insertion of genetic material from bacteria.

    Now, at first glance it would seem that 223 genes is no big deal. In fact, while every single gene makes a great difference to every individual, 223 genes make an immense difference to a species such as ours.

    The human genome is made up of about three billion neucleotides (the “letters” A-C-G-T which stand for the initials of the four nucleic acids that spell out all life on Earth); of them, just a little more than one percent are grouped into functioning genes (each gene consists of thousands of "letters"). The difference between one individual person and another amounts to about one “letter” in a thousand in the DNA “alphabet.” The difference between Man and Chimpanzee is less than one percent as genes go; and one percent of 30,000 genes is 300.

    So, 223 genes is more than two thirds of the difference between me, you and a chimpanzee!

    An analysis of the functions of these genes through the proteins that they spell out, conducted by the Public Consortium team and published in the journal Nature, shows that they include not only proteins involved in important physiological but also psychiatric functions. Moreover, they are responsible for important neurological enzymes that stem only from the mitochondrial portion of the DNA – the so-called “Eve” DNA that humankind inherited only through the mother-line, all the way back to a single “Eve.” That finding alone raises doubt regarding that the "bacterial insertion" explanation.

    How sure are the scientists that such important and complex genes, such an immense human advantage, was obtained by us --“rather recently”-- through the courtesy of infecting bacteria?

    “It is a jump that does not follow current evolutionary theories,” said Steven Scherer, director of mapping of the Human Genome Sequencing Center, Baylor College of Medicine.

    “We did not identify a strongly preferred bacterial source for the putative horizontally transferred genes,” states the report in Nature. The Public Consortium team, conducting a detailed search, found that some 113 genes (out of the 223) “are widespread among bacteria” – though they are entirely absent even in invertebrates. An analysis of the proteins which the enigmatic genes express showed that out of 35 identified, only ten had counterparts in vertebrates (ranging from cows to rodents to fish); 25 of the 35 were unique to humans.

    “It is not clear whether the transfer was from bacteria to human or from human to bacteria,” Science quoted Robert Waterson, co-director of Washington University’s Genome Sequencing Center, as saying.

    But if Man gave those genes to bacteria, where did Man acquire those genes to begin with?

    ---------------------------------------

    This all sounds like the Sumerian creation tales to me.  However that takes a leap of faith of a different kind...the belief that advanced alien life exists.

    Evolution happened to a point, but then the "Anunnaki" took the highest form of hominid at the time and "bound" it with the "image of themselves" through some sort of "sideways" genetic manipulation.  This jumped the gun on the natural evolution (that would have eventually occurred, but probably not for millions of more years).

    I find this idea much more plausible than the Invisible Sky Fairy concept.  If evolution had begun on another planet a mere 1% sooner than that on Earth, it would be 40 million years more advanced than we are now.  If we can already create new species of creatures, such as the "Geep" now, imagine what we will be able to do in 40 million years!

    So is it possible that we exist due to some alien intervention?

    1. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It's sorta where I came to believe that I will return to what was before... a star, in short... star dust.

      It's pretty much known now that the origins of life didn't start on Earth but were brought here, not necessarily by a slimy green alien with huge eyes but extraterrestrial in essence.

      Though I could also imagine a solar flair being the reason for the fast mutation.  For reasons I wouldn't know, it seems possible that this didn't occur in plants because it's likely they would have been immediately destroyed so I am not sure that it "would" have had the same effect on them as it would on us...

      I love the stars!

    2. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Onthewriteside, some may call you a freaking kook but I am a kook as well so I commend you for being brave to throw some ideas out. Very Informational Post, Thank You, Much Appreciated.

  16. onthewriteside profile image73
    onthewritesideposted 7 years ago

    Sorry for the long post, but I thought given you all the pertinent info was necessary.

    1. Jewels profile image82
      Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Great information.  It's amazing what happens in a compost heap. Maybe we were bacteria. I can live with that.  I can see an evolution from fish and a graduation to land. I don't have a problem with it.  I like when science can separate our physiology and place possibilities in front of us.

  17. Inspirepub profile image87
    Inspirepubposted 7 years ago

    Sandy, honey, you gotta learn how to CUT when you quote!

    You could have deleted everything but that last question and it would have meant the same ... with a lot less scrolling!

    Jenny

    1. onthewriteside profile image73
      onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      LOL Jenny!  It's my fault for posting a book....

      1. 0
        sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Na, she is right, my bad.  I shall do better. I solemnly promise. big_smile

  18. onthewriteside profile image73
    onthewritesideposted 7 years ago

    Sandra,

    Yea I merely threw this out here because I think it is an interesting possibility.  As for where we probably came from, I would have to rank the theories thusly:

    1)  Evolution...plain and simple.
    2)  Evolution with some sort of "help".
    3)  A giant dinosaur took a crap, and out of this humongous terd crawled the first man and woman.
    4)  Some Sky Fairy waved his magic wand and, POOF!, we were here!

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I would agree the most with number 2.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image59
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Why? What evidence do you have for this?

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          None! lol I just figured out of the 4 he listed, I agreed with number 2 as the most logical to me. I have no idea or explanation of how or when the human mind individualized. I am open to all suggestions. lol

          1. Mark Knowles profile image59
            Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Ah I see. In that case:

            1. Actually happened
            2. Happened if you cannot reconcile the facts with your belief system
            3. Didn't happen
            4. Not even a slight chance.

            big_smile

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              5. Possibility it happened.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                6. Desperate for some meaning in a meaningless existence.

                1. marinealways24 profile image60
                  marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  7. Still open to all posibilities, even the one that suggest we have reason and purpose.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    What suggests that exactly?

      2. 0
        sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I sorta took a liking to number 3. big_smile

  19. Sufidreamer profile image80
    Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago

    I like that one, too, but it could be problematic. What type of dinosaur was it?

    Pretty soon, we will have a schism between Stegosaurists and the Diplodocusians. Could get messy neutral

    1. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      lol, let's make on up since I have nothing better to do for the next hour. big_smile

      I will call it a Turdasaurus-hume-rous-projectus. lol

    2. onthewriteside profile image73
      onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      LOL!  And the Stegosaurists will wage war upon the Diplodocusians, for they had set up, for worship, false idols of Dino Dung  in every corner of the forest.

      1. 0
        sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        lol all dung is real! big_smile cept for the ghosts dung.  I have been witness to this great mystery. lol

        1. onthewriteside profile image73
          onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          LOL!  All Hail Dino DooDoo!

  20. 0
    sandra rinckposted 7 years ago

    Oh, I guess we would have to know for sure if dinosaurs pooped. big_smile
    We need evidence of dinosaur poop.

  21. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    and we claim evolution. lol

  22. 0
    sandra rinckposted 7 years ago

    oh I got another one... ribosaurus. lol

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I think I ate one of those at applebees.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        or maybe it was a woodchuck or jakelope. They all look the same.

  23. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    Can anyone prove that there is no God or creator/creators?

    1. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Doesn't that depend on what you think it is? 

      How about you tell me what god is and then we can go from there. big_smile

    2. quicksand profile image85
      quicksandposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I guess nobody can prove that GOD exists. Nobody can prove otherwise either.

      All we can do is discuss, and compare notes, and have fun in the process. smile

    3. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It is logically impossible to prove a negative. But evolution proves we were not created. A logical deduction from this is that there is not a creator.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for posting. I still do not see where the missing link is if you would throw an idea out about it. With evolution, how did our human minds evolve to what they are today? Is this possible without divine intervention? If so, it is not logical to me that "no" other life that we know of can compare to our minds capability. Why would our human mind be the only one to evolve? Our minds have "favoritism" over all other life that we currently know of. "Favoritism" is certainly not logical in my idea, yet I leave all ideas open.

  24. 0
    jaynap01posted 7 years ago

    Here is just a few logical, or maybe philisophical, arguement that proves of His existance.-In my opinion

    An example of our "post-modern society" thinking:

    Everyone knows this following FAIRYTALE STORY, right? This is what little children believe.
    "The princess who found a frog and discovered if she kissed IT. Then IT would magically and INSTANTLY turn into a prince."

    This what "Post-Modern scientist" would call evolutionary facts and logic:
    "The princess who found a frog and "scientifically concluded" that if she kissed IT. Then IT would (Insert billions of years inplace of INSTANTLY) and it would turn into a prince."

    These arent logical, but merely an example of todays thinking.



    Another,

    From nothing- nothing comes................Common sense and logic 101.


    Another,
    Cell Theory- Look that up.

    Another, for those who subscribe to an explosion that brought fourth some microorganism that evolved into what we see today. Which is logic, order, and life.

    This is itself a scientific fallacy, to say that an explosion could create a "state of matter" that would evolved into the world we see today.
    1st. Noone has ever seen an explosion bring fourth life.
    2nd Ever looked at a place after an explosion? OHC? WTC? The military doesnt drop bombes because it produces logic and life. It destroys, explosions have the exact opposite effect than that was BELIEVED to start this universe.

    -J

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      lol , good stuff, Thank You for adding your thoughts. I also believe in a creator/creators. It is not my logic that nothing can create something or nothing can create nothing as some like to believe. I would like to believe that someone created someone.

  25. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    Want to see both sides of zeitgeist? Here is a debate, for religionists, please watch till the end. I will know if you didn't!
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 7846104780

  26. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    I will watch those links after work. Someone please throw a theory out of when and how the human mind seperated from the animal mind. What is the link that seperates our minds from the rest of the food chain?

    1. onthewriteside profile image73
      onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It's probably impossible to say for certain.  But based on what science knows to date, the first jump in brain-case size occurred between 1.5 and 2 million years ago with Homo Habilis, having a brain 30% larger than that of Australopithecus.  Homo Erectus lived from 2 million to 500,000 years ago and had a brain 50% larger than that of Habilis, although these earlier brains were still configured differently than our own.

      The first Homo Sapiens arrived on the scene between 200 and 400 thousand years ago, with Homo Sapiens Neandertalensis and Homo Sapiens Sapiens (modern man) differentiating sometime around 250,000 years ago.  Although the earliest archeological evidence for Modern Man only dates back to around 120,000 years ago, tests done on Mitochondrial DNA have traced the origins back to a primordial "Eve" who probably lived around 250,000 years ago based on the accepted rate of genetic mutation.

      If we consider the appearance of Modern Humans as being the time when we achieved "sentience", then the date of around 250,000 years ago would probably be the best guess, since the first Homo Sapiens, including the Neandertals, still exhibited some brain traits of Erectus whereas Sapiens Sapiens did not.

      Interestingly, the Sumerians stated that their Gods, the Anunnaki, arrived on Earth 120 Sars ago.  A Sar is equivalent to 3600 Earth years.  As incredible as this sounds, that would put their arrival here at 432,000 years before the time of that writing.  They also state that the Anunnaki "created" Man after they had been here for 40 Sars.  40 Sars equals 144,000 years.  432,000-144,000=288,000 years ago.  That falls perfectly within the range that science gives for the appearance of the first "Modern Humans".  It's also interesting to note that the Bible mentions the numbers 432,000 and 144,000 several times throughout.

      Is it possible that modern man was "created" by genetically combining the genes of a hominid with the genes of the Anunnaki, thus jumping the gun on evolution?  Hell I don't know.  I certainly think the coincidences are entertaining if nothing else.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        All thoughts count when you have the balls to write them. Thank You

        1. quicksand profile image85
          quicksandposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          marinealways24 wrote:



          Talking of balls ... er no, I'll save it for a later time. smile

          What I wanted to say is, Darwyn's theory never really did convince me. As a child I used to amuse my sister by saying that Darwyn used the same logic that Aristotle did!

          Leaving Darwyn aside, have you heard of the Raelians? These guys have a less convincing but more amusing theory. They have representatives in every major capital! Some of those guys conducted a seminar in my city in the year 2001 AD!

          Check out their web site pls.

          http://www.rael.org/rael_content/index.php

        2. Make  Money profile image72
          Make Moneyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah big balls. smile

          "gave sentience to slugs and newts"- Richard Eberhart

          Advocates of animal rights argue that many animals are sentient in that they can feel pleasure and pain, and that this entails being entitled to some moral or legal rights.

          In eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires our respect and care.

          Many cultures pray to their creator before killing animals for food.  Native Americans come to mind where they lament on taking the animal's life.  This would lead me to believe that they think animals are aware of the sense of pleasure and pain.

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks for the thoughts. Lets compare extinct animals to humans. Has the world changed since the animals have become extinct? Could you say the same if all humans were extinct?

          2. onthewriteside profile image73
            onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            MM,

            We've been referring to the kind of "sentience" that separates Men from other animals.  Of course other animals experience pleasure and pain...any animal with a central nervous system probably does.  If a dog gets hit by a car, does it not yelp in agony?  If you rub his belly, does he not enjoy it?  But does a dog "ritualistically bury his companions" when they die?  Does he perform ritual sacrifices before mealtime?  It is the advent of those higher brain functions that we are trying to establish.

      2. Jewels profile image82
        Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know either, no-one does.  Which means this hypothesis is as valid as any other and is best not dismissed but put in the realms of the possible.

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Agreed. I also believe every idea counts in the unknown.

  27. onthewriteside profile image73
    onthewritesideposted 7 years ago

    Sorry....I'll get back on topic now...just had to throw that out there...

  28. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    I may have missed this when reading, but if an explosion started evolution, who or what started the explosion? If you say the universe started the explosion, who or what started the universe? How can something come from nothing? If we did all evolve, why didn't other animal minds evolve as the human mind has evolved?


    Quicksand, I do not rule out the possibility of us being created from another intelligence. This still does not explain who created the other intelligence. lol

    1 problem when I saw when reading a brief on the site. They claim the intelligent life forms spoke to prophets of the bible. I do not believe this. I do not believe any intelligent life form would associate with anything in the bible. It highly makes me question their integrity of wanting to bring people to religion by making new biblical theories. However I still enjoy reading all ideas. Thanks

  29. quicksand profile image85
    quicksandposted 7 years ago

    I wonder what Mark Knowles thinks about scientology. Would be interesting to know his opinion.

    1. Misha profile image75
      Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this
      1. quicksand profile image85
        quicksandposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks, I've been in the dark!

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Lol I didn't know that it was scientology.

  30. onthewriteside profile image73
    onthewritesideposted 7 years ago

    Another curiosity I forgot to mention...the ancient Mesoamerican culture also reveres the number 144,000.

    1. Make  Money profile image72
      Make Moneyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      But it's not 144,000 people, it's 144,000 days in the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoameric … t_calendar

  31. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    LOL You missed that there is a harder part of being an atheist: to use your brains and heart to make decisions, including moral ones - instead of using ancient mistranslated and misinterpreted texts. Don't know why you forgot it... wink

    1. quicksand profile image85
      quicksandposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Who, me? smile

      1. Misha profile image75
        Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, I sort of did not see it in your post smile

        1. quicksand profile image85
          quicksandposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Well sometimes we believers use our brains too, although it hurts like hell! lol

          1. Misha profile image75
            Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Well, some of you definitely do, but the majority? To be fair there are atheists that don't use that stuff either. But at the second glance they appear to be believers in atheism wink

            1. quicksand profile image85
              quicksandposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Cool! The only way one could disprove atheists is by using the versatility of language! That would be totally unfair! smile

              The atheists could use the same "weapon" to prove their point. lol

  32. Make  Money profile image72
    Make Moneyposted 7 years ago

    I realize that onthewriteside.  So don't you think there needs to be a different term besides "sentient" to describe it?

    Here's a tip.

    "And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth."

    1. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, this isn't talking about sentience.  Of course I know you are trying to push the Jebus agenda.

      Besides, having dominion over the other animals would prolly have meant, "take care of them."  Not slaughter them for some unseen god and then kill each other.

      Your twisted.  Your god is the root of all evil.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        They did sacrifice a lot of animals in the bible if they weren't retarded, unclean or off color. An "aroma" pleasing to the lord. lol

      2. Jewels profile image82
        Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I agree Sandra re having dominion could also mean taking responsibility because we have the ability to reason.  I see Buddhists take this to the extreme by not harming a single creature, even an ant and the worms.

      3. onthewriteside profile image73
        onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        LOL!

  33. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    How does an atheist believe we got here?

    1. quicksand profile image85
      quicksandposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      They keep rewinding up to the point when Darwyn's monkeys reached progress point. From there they hit the start button. lol

      When asked what happened before that, they don't bother to explain. They point to various "scientific" scriptures, and then begin to lose their cool. smile smile smile

      1. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Rubbish, there is plenty of proof and more arriving daily.

        It only takes an open mind and a google search.

        1. quicksand profile image85
          quicksandposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          LOL! You've already begun to lose your cool! lol

          My mind is wide open. smile

      2. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I think both religionist and atheist are wrong. Religion claims to know existence of God, atheism claims there is no God. Neither has proof. Both are egotistical grouped assumptions of the unknown.

        1. earnestshub profile image87
          earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          When proof of god is sourced from the bible, then there is no god is accurate enough.
          The Bible old and new, describe the human condition, nothing else.
          The God of the Bible and Quoran, like all the gods displays serious neurosis, is despotic and vengeful. Many humans have overcome this condition, but god has not. What a lot of ninth rate tripe!

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Is not believing the bible reason for not believing in a creator?

            1. quicksand profile image85
              quicksandposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Well, indoctrination in the initial stages certainly is useful. That is because we were given a clue as to what to look for.

              1. marinealways24 profile image60
                marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                What was our clue?

            2. quicksand profile image85
              quicksandposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Well the GOD that we believers believe in, existed before the scriptures and before religion.

              1. earnestshub profile image87
                earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Yet you only have these writings to support that.

                1. quicksand profile image85
                  quicksandposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, Earnest, I never ever made any reference to any writings at all! I never did! I onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnly spoke about GOD!

                  1. onthewriteside profile image73
                    onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I must say that this true.  You have never shoved your beliefs down anyone's throats with Babble quotes...and I personally appreciate that.  I fully respect your entitlement to your own beliefs and opinions, and I greatly appreciate your respect for mine.

  34. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    I agree Misha, taking resonsibility for one's own problems and joys is not easy. Self knowledge and being prepared to be wrong is part of it.Deciding to accept that the so called devil is part of self, and then with that understanding comes emotional pain, and dealing with it requires more self examination, eg. more pain. Not the easy path at all is it?
    Religion is a cop out.

  35. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    I don't agree with religion at all, however I do believe in a creator.

    Lets speak of a man and a woman. They have to have sex or the woman has to get an "artificial insemenation" to become pregnant. It takes "both" of them without an "artificial insemination" in which it would still take 2 of them because it would be using the mans sperm.

    My point is, how can life come from nothing? The human birth shows that it takes at least 1 if not 2 for creation of human life. If it takes one - two of us to reproduce, how could we have came from "nothing"?

  36. BrianFanslau profile image62
    BrianFanslauposted 7 years ago

    Just to Poke in---
    I'm a Christian/believer and I have experienced healing first hand as well as seen things completely unexplainable. I'm a very logistical guy and I know there could only be a creator for all of this incredibly complex and designed world. Plus if I believe in God at least I have something to look forward to like heaven and peace instead of dust an no eternal presence. My glass is half full with that kind of a life smile

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I don't see anything wrong with being happy with your belief. To each their own. Thanks for commenting.

    2. quicksand profile image85
      quicksandposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "completely unexplainable" - Exactly. That is the reason why believers believe.

      I've experienced these things too, and have proven to myself that these are not questions of "mind over matter." smile

      1. Jewels profile image82
        Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Perhaps learning physiology and meridians and subtle bodies could explain many of these miracles.  The unexplainable is explainable when you have the means to see how.  And mind over matter - Hmmmm, our minds are powerful tools, we can convince ourselves of anything if given the right environment.

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Fear is often a good convincing tool.

        2. quicksand profile image85
          quicksandposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          The mind IS a powerful tool indeed!

  37. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    "Grabs popcorn"

  38. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    I "highly" question divine intervention.

  39. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    How about an over simplication of one fact. We can not prove that there is a God any more than I can scientifically prove that All of this isn't simply a figmant of my or your imagination. Last night I dreamed that I was an eagle or in fact am I realy an eagle who is dreaming I am a man.  Maybe we are just a figmant of Gods imagination? He imagined us, His synapisis fired off in his brain  ,,,Bang..   We were created.  we are here. If there was a Bang comething caused it.  Gods imagination created us. And the Word of God was with him  (Jesus confirmed it)

    1. Jewels profile image82
      Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Well regardless whether you think it's a figment of your imagination, you still had the experience of it and are writing about it on this thread.

      1. Jerami profile image79
        Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                                                I did not say that I believed that this is any sort of figment of my imagination , only mentioned the possibility. Ya just don't know what ya dont know, YA know

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Some really think they know while never recognizing they don't know, you know?

          1. Jewels profile image82
            Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Is funny, often it's the pot smokers who make that statement. lol  They say they don't know, and don't know where they are when they say they don't know. So get confused whether where they are is an illusion or reality, and so figure reality and illusion are the same and musn't be where they think they are!

            1. marinealways24 profile image60
              marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I know where I am, just not why i'm here. It has to be reality because it's too harsh to be an illusion.

              1. Jewels profile image82
                Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Not having a go!  I often hear the illusion statement pulled out as if it's the answer to all, same as Christians use God as the answer to all.  Doesn't really satisfy a great deal of anything at the end of the day.

        2. Jewels profile image82
          Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I know. lol

    2. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Jesus is a prophet of the bible. Prophets are not real. The bible is not God.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I think if we are an imagination, we wouldn't have laws of physics. We could possibly fly like superman. We have laws of capability. Limited compared to those of an imagination.

  40. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    I don't know what I know but I sure do believe what you just said.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know what I know either, if "anything".


      Could knowing what you don't know be considered knowing something?

  41. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    Oops, lost me here. Sorry, different cultural background...

    1. onthewriteside profile image73
      onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      LOL...Sorry!  It's a hillbilly thing.  Here's a synopsis:

      Daddy is a moon-shiner.  He has sex with his 13 year old daughter up on the mountain.  Junior is born out of their union, and they name him Bubba.  When Bubba gets old enough to start running shine, Daddy gives him a souped-up 1972 Camaro to drive.  Bubba gets tired of Daddy, because Daddy is now sexing up his 12 year old grand-babies.  So Bubba hops in his car, leaves the mountain and joins the Neo-Nazi's.  Bubba has finally found a home and a family he can call his own.  The End.

  42. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    LOL Now you puzzled me even more. What is a moon-shiner? And do they mean exactly this when they call Clinton Bubba?

    1. onthewriteside profile image73
      onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      LOL!  A moon-shiner is a back-hills guy who brews his own booze without a license and then sells it.  They cal it "White-Lightning", and it became big during Prohibition.  And as far as Clinton goes, I would consider him a "Bubba", although he wasn't poor like most of these hill-jacks are.  lol

  43. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    LOL Gotcha. Thanks for the lesson smile

    No, I don't think Mike is from this company. He just got so scared of atheists and commies, that they sorta became a one big face to him, so every atheist is necessarily a commie, and every commie is atheist smile

    1. onthewriteside profile image73
      onthewritesideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Gotcha!  wink  I just got tired of him continuously trying to prove the Bible by quoting the NT after we had agreed that wasn't allowed.  (I'm referring to Enderwiggins' thread)

    2. Make  Money profile image72
      Make Moneyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks Misha.  I truly do not think that all the atheists that come in to this forum are commies.  Although like so many others that come to this forum I am wondering why people that do not believe in God have to proselytize their ideas as if everyone has to believe what they believe.  Atheists in this forum keep saying "religionists" keep trying to push their beliefs on everyone that comes to this Religion forum.  But atheists in here do the same thing.  Some atheists that come to this forum give the impression that people that follow an organized religion should not post in this Religion forum.  It just makes a person wonder why someone that does not believe in God has to keep talking about God.  That and the fact that Marxist/atheists governments did away with just about 100 million of their citizens in the 20th century, as well as the odd comment in here mentioning they'll be glad when religion is dead is what leads me to compare some atheists to commies.  I'll leave this thread alone now and let you guys continue to hate on "religionists".

  44. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    Will someone kindly explain creation without a creator/creators.

    1. earnestshub profile image87
      earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      According to a recent article in the Guardian, the earth was formed from gas and dust that came from a star that exploded in our Galaxy about 4.5 Billion years ago.The moon was formed the same way, an explosion tore a piece off earth which is now our moon.Complex life began about 2.5 Billion years ago when oxygen built up in earth's atmosphere.
      As for religion and a belief in god. As the sun was the giver of life it became a god, and variations of god belief followed.
      I agree, something must have created the super nova and the universe, as well as other universes, but to personalize a creator or that which created in the way that religion does makes no sense to me, so until science learns more about all the Billions of planets, and their inhabitants it is foolish to think of a personal earth god of creation. As for the idea of an all seeing all powerful live god who induces fear as motivation, that is a lot of rubbish that will not stand psychological scrutiny.

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for explaining Earnest.

        I agree with all you say of religion. The one thing I don't understand is why do so many discount a creator just because the bible or religion is false? If sole basis for someone discounting a creator because of disagreement with the bible or religion, I don't understand this.

  45. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    In response of there being a creator,


    Why would a creator/inventor invent something that had/has no purpose?

    If you consider us a creation of divinity or evolution, does not every creation not have to have a creator?

    1. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Who cares?  Do you really believe you will get an answer to that question here? Lest a evangelist stop by and tell you how it all happened.  Gimme a break.

      Why does it always have to be about a purpose.  Here's a purpose if you need one; learn to live together in harmony and maybe the world can come together right now. big_smile

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        lol What do you mean who cares? Who doesn't? I'm not expecting to get a clear answer because no one knows. I'm only asking for ideas. I don't see people coming together anytime soon. Whats not about purpose? What is the purpose to live life if you don't think life has a purpose?

        1. Davinagirl3 profile image60
          Davinagirl3posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          If you believe there is a purpose, there is a purpose.  If you believe there is a God, presto chango... there he is.  The purpose is that we believe there is a purpose.  Figure that one out, and let me know what I am talking about... lol

          1. 0
            sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Nice! or maybe the purpose is to believe there is not purpose. lol

            Marine, I meant exactly what you reiterated back to me; your never gonna get a clear answer.  So like I said, just pick something and keep it for yourself as a treasure.

            1. Davinagirl3 profile image60
              Davinagirl3posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              BEAUTIFULLY said.  I love it.  I love you, both.

              1. 0
                sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Aw, I love you and Marine too!  thanks. big_smile

                1. marinealways24 profile image60
                  marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Thanks, I love you 2 back as long as wifey doesn't see. lol On that note, is there a purpose to love?

                  1. 0
                    sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    It's the religion I choose. big_smile

          2. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            What if the purpose is to find out instead of guess?

            1. Davinagirl3 profile image60
              Davinagirl3posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Every living thing has a purpose whether it knows it, or not.  I think we do what we believe is right, and what we can, and the purpose reveals itself.

              1. marinealways24 profile image60
                marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I am speaking more on purpose of creation rather than on an individual basis. Would there be a purpose of creation without a purpose for creation?

                1. Davinagirl3 profile image60
                  Davinagirl3posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Definitely not.  I am not so sure we have the capacity to know the purpose.

                  1. marinealways24 profile image60
                    marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Maybe this is because the majority of us do not look.

                  2. earnestshub profile image87
                    earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Maybe there was no purpose to creation. Perhaps purpose arose as a consequence of language and comprehension.

    2. Jewels profile image82
      Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Chicken or the Egg?  Egg or the Chicken?  Chicken or the Egg.  Egg or the Chicken?

      I wonder what would happen if we did get the answer?

      1. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The egg would never exist without the chicken, right? If there wasn't a "first" chicken, there wouldn't have been a "first" egg. Am I missing something? lol

        1. Jewels profile image82
          Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I don't think so. Is funny how so many people have asked this question, some keep asking it, others get a headache and let it go.  I wonder who is making the best choice - holding onto it or letting it go?

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            It depends on how you classify "best" choice.

          2. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Ok I am still thinking about the damn chicken and the egg. lol Thanks a lot. I have one for you.

            Which came first, you or your mother?

            1. Jewels profile image82
              Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Well it can be taken on the same principle as the chicken and the egg.  And if you buy into past lives, I could have been her mother in one of them!  The whole concept circulates and evolves.  In terms of the physical body I am an emanation of my mother and father in terms of genetics.  In terms of consciousness - chicken or the egg or egg/chick or.......?

              1. marinealways24 profile image60
                marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I am talking about logic and reality. If you want to say you came before your mother in a past life, feel free. It is my logic that my mother/father was my creator.

                1. Jewels profile image82
                  Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  And what created the, and their grandparents - follow the lineage back and back and back and back.

                  (Understanding consciousness is not of the body, I know that my link to my parents is not a constant in terms of a continuum.  But again this is not under a logic discussion.)  But you have been pondering the beginnings of creation - I (personally) can't start with my parents in this life.

                  1. marinealways24 profile image60
                    marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Because the thread is not based solely on logic does not mean a logical statement can't be made. I believe it is logical to say that I was "created" from my mother/father. To say I was my mothers creator is as irrational as the bible in my belief.

              2. 0
                dennisemattposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Ok. Im not trying to be a jerk. I swear. But as msot people, I hope, know by now, I have a hard tiem reading all the posts iof its more hten, 30. SOOOO I have to ask something here...even in past lives...something had to make the first thing. Right? so..if it wasnt chance, and it wasnt God, what was it?

                1. marinealways24 profile image60
                  marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  A creator! lol

                  1. Jewels profile image82
                    Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Seriously without jerking anyone off it's the number one philosophical question of all time and it has never been answered.  So get your thought processes into a mode where your brain doesn't completely turn in on itself and the act of nutting out rhyme and reason will not make you insane. lol

  46. marinealways24 profile image60
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    Would it be logical to not have purpose?

  47. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    Our purpose is not often visible to our concious self. We know so little about the dark side as we fear it. With conciousness of both parts of ourselves we can make heartfelt decisions from our real selves that can be lived.
    We throw the baby out with the bath water if we do not see our own evil.There is much that is good in the shadowy self, and without knowing it our decisions are likely to be just new traps set by our subconcious desires to teach us another tough lesson to get us back on track. When we ignore our dark side we may live our whole life as a series of sub-concious corrections, not always nice ones... religion and god are another way of seeing self that never explains the sub-concious, because it externalized everything.

    1. Davinagirl3 profile image60
      Davinagirl3posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      So we don't see our purpose because we refuse to even see ourselves clearly!  That would be a great thread.  If we could get people to explore their true selves, we could help them find their purpose... Perhaps, the ultimate purpose.

      1. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The only problem with self examination is the emotional pain.... Carl Jung had very little faith in mankind making this examination... he said man would rather walk on broken glass than glimpse the self.
        In the writings of many post Jungians like Hillman, Von Franz et al there is some debate about the different personality types and ways of learning about self that are useful. My limited experience with my inner self has taught me that my ego hates the painful confontations with the dark side, and everything in me screams for distractions!
        I have also learnt that you must follow your heart to learn the lessons you are not yet brave enough to learn by looking at self. In other words, self will not be denied, it will keep steering you over the cliff till you can drive!

        1. Davinagirl3 profile image60
          Davinagirl3posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I am intrigued.  Your insights are amazing to me.  I have never gone down this path with this particular subject.  This is the root of all evil, literally.  The boogeyman in the closet is the man in the mirror, so to speak.  I am looking forward to reading all of your hubs.

          1. earnestshub profile image87
            earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Thank you very much for reading, I started on psychology about 35 years ago, and am still learning. I did dream analysis for three years and need to gt back to it again. I hated waking every single night at 3pm at first, but as I found archetypal dreams and got some insight, it grew my life, and I see a need now for me to start again. You are right about the man in the mirror.... there's ya boogyman right there!

        2. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Very enlightened comment in my idea of enlightenment. I believe a "huge" step in learning self is analyzing personal history. Personal history is not always "fun" to analyze as you mentioned, yet personal history must be seen and accepted to see forward.

    2. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Very much agreed. The most knowledge we learn in life is from "multiple" experiences, thoughts, actions. Our mistakes in life are our greatest learning tools to learn self. I believe in opposites. Mistakes = Corrections, Negative = Positive, I also believe "both" sides of "every" situation must be considered to know self.

  48. 0
    sandra rinckposted 7 years ago

    Golly Ernest I think I need to deem you the God of Self

    Welcome to the hp godhood. big_smile 

    Currently

    Jenny is the Godesss of Love
    Misha is the Meta God
    Mark is the God of No God
    and I am just Goddess.

    Your awesome!

  49. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    Sandra thank you Goddess! You are awsome too! I know nothing, as the good sargent Schultz would say. I am an admirer of yours too.
    I hope mankind can just get over religion, collectively buys a mirror and takes a peek!

    1. Jewels profile image82
      Jewelsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Hear hear!

      I've said the best form of corporate punishment and one which should be mandatory in the prison system is meditation and self reflection/transformation.  It can be the most sadistic of punishments, yet the most rewarding in its outcome of transformation.

      1. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Well said Jewels that sounds like the ideal way to deal with it.

  50. GeneralHowitzer profile image61
    GeneralHowitzerposted 7 years ago

    It was just my point of view, i'm maybe right or wrong, but still this topic seems very interesting. i believe that God exists though, hehehe, and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and principles. Good day marine.

    1. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for adding and sharing your ideas. Welcome back anytime.

 
working