Why you don't need God to be good!

  • 89 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for duncancameron23
#1 Posted by duncancameron23 (771 posts) -
Einstien said "If people are good only because they fear punishment and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed"

Micheal Shermer, in "The Science of Good and Evil" calls it a debate stopper. If you agree that, in the absence of God, you would "commit robbery, rape and murder", you reveal yourself as an immoral person. If on the other hand, you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not under devine surveillance, you have fatally undermined your claim that God is necessary for us to be good.

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too" Douglas Adam
Avatar image for DJ_Novakain
#2 Posted by DJ_Novakain (2147 posts) -
I love how that a quote is treated as an indisputable fact or something.
Avatar image for Kamekazi_69
#3 Posted by Kamekazi_69 (4704 posts) -
.
Avatar image for duncancameron23
#4 Posted by duncancameron23 (771 posts) -

I love how that a quote is treated as an indisputable fact or something. DJ_Novakain

I love how you guys treat God as a fact, different strokes for different folks i guess.

Avatar image for duncancameron23
#6 Posted by duncancameron23 (771 posts) -
[QUOTE="duncancameron23"]

[QUOTE="DJ_Novakain"]I love how that a quote is treated as an indisputable fact or something. DJ_Novakain

I love how you guys treat God as a fact, different strokes for different folks i guess.

HURRR DURRR, Im agnostic... :|

I thought it was a convincing argument rather than fact, and if you're agnostic whats the point of your post ?(It makes you sound either A religious or B just annoying)

Avatar image for mysterylobster
#7 Posted by mysterylobster (1931 posts) -

Einstien said "If people are good only because they fear punishment and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed"

Micheal Shermer, in "The Science of Good and Evil" calls it a debate stopper. If you agree that, in the absence of God, you would "commit robbery, rape and murder", you reveal yourself as an immoral person. If on the other hand, you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not under devine surveillance, you have fatally undermined your claim that God is necessary for us to be good.
duncancameron23

Quoting Shermer should be a debate stopper, too. Isn't that the book where he argues 9/11 terrorists were brave men? Sickening.

Anyway, it's possible for an individual to be moral without God, but only in a society where God isn't completely ignored. If I rejected God today, my actions would still be affected by our Judeo-Christian laws. The question, then, isn't whether one person can be moral without a belief on God, but whether a whole society can do so. That's why it's essential that we don't cast out God from public life. Allow prayer in schools. Display those Ten Commandments in courthouses. Our survival depends on it.

Avatar image for DJ_Novakain
#8 Posted by DJ_Novakain (2147 posts) -
[QUOTE="DJ_Novakain"][QUOTE="duncancameron23"]

[QUOTE="DJ_Novakain"]I love how that a quote is treated as an indisputable fact or something. duncancameron23

I love how you guys treat God as a fact, different strokes for different folks i guess.

HURRR DURRR, Im agnostic... :|

I thought it was a convincing argument rather than fact, and if you're agnostic whats the point of your post ?(It makes you sound either A religious or B just annoying)

Because im tired of the mentality of , its in quotes and has a old, smart guy by it, so it HAS to be right, or deep and intellectual, which is a very bad way of thinking.
Avatar image for daftdog
#9 Posted by daftdog (910 posts) -

I hate these religious threads. :( God dont exist end of! Next thread please!

Avatar image for redfield_137
#10 Posted by redfield_137 (2269 posts) -
I agree that you don't need God to be a good person but I don't agree that what you presented is the reason why. Throwing quotes around is really irrelevant since, in this case, they are just some opinions from some people. People just like the rest of us. Also, I don't think it does entail that you are an immoral person if you didn't believe in God you would do...blah blah blah. But I'm tired of all these religious threads anyway so I won't go any further.
Avatar image for AnubisCraig
#11 Posted by AnubisCraig (8627 posts) -
I do agree. I am a moral person, I try my best to be a good person (though good and evil is in the eye of the beholder), and yet I am quite anti-religious. I definately aren't a follower of any deity. I don't believe you need to be, to be a good person.
Avatar image for duncancameron23
#12 Posted by duncancameron23 (771 posts) -

[QUOTE="duncancameron23"]Einstien said "If people are good only because they fear punishment and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed"

Micheal Shermer, in "The Science of Good and Evil" calls it a debate stopper. If you agree that, in the absence of God, you would "commit robbery, rape and murder", you reveal yourself as an immoral person. If on the other hand, you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not under devine surveillance, you have fatally undermined your claim that God is necessary for us to be good.
mysterylobster

Quoting Shermer should be a debate stopper, too. Isn't that the book where he argues 9/11 terrorists were brave men? Sickening.

Anyway, it's possible for an individual to be moral without God, but only in a society where God isn't completely ignored. If I rejected God today, my actions would still be affected by our Judeo-Christian laws. The question, then, isn't whether one person can be moral without a belief on God, but whether a whole society can do so. That's why it's essential that we don't cast out God from public life. Allow prayer in schools. Display those Ten Commandments in courthouses. Our survival depends on it.

No it doesn't, as for Shermer i was unaware he said that but i'm not interested in him (and completely disagree with him on the terrorists views if that's what he said) i'm interested more in the argument.

As for the bible being a moral code i just don't believe it, you have stuff like "Lot" being saved by God from the destruction of Sodom only then to be got drunk by his daughters so they could have sex with him because of not getting enough man action! (Genesis 19: 31-6)

Compassion and morals would and have evolved without the need of God by trade, community, and education etc

Avatar image for Garforth
#13 Posted by Garforth (330 posts) -

I don't think it does entail that you are an immoral person if you didn't believe in God you would do...blah blah blah. But I'm tired of all these religious threads anyway so I won't go any further. redfield_137

You might have misunderstood. I think what the quote was about was that if there was no God to judge our actions and thoughts, then the people who choose to do things like rape and kill etc. would be shown to be evil/immoral because there would be no post-life consequence. It's not about whether believeing in God or not decides whether you're good or evil, that makes no sense.

And those terrorists were probably seen as brave by their own people, not that i'm condoning it but you get it. I dunno anything about the guy quoted.

Avatar image for AnubisCraig
#14 Posted by AnubisCraig (8627 posts) -

[QUOTE="duncancameron23"]Einstien said "If people are good only because they fear punishment and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed"

Micheal Shermer, in "The Science of Good and Evil" calls it a debate stopper. If you agree that, in the absence of God, you would "commit robbery, rape and murder", you reveal yourself as an immoral person. If on the other hand, you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not under devine surveillance, you have fatally undermined your claim that God is necessary for us to be good.
mysterylobster

Quoting Shermer should be a debate stopper, too. Isn't that the book where he argues 9/11 terrorists were brave men? Sickening.

Anyway, it's possible for an individual to be moral without God, but only in a society where God isn't completely ignored. If I rejected God today, my actions would still be affected by our Judeo-Christian laws. The question, then, isn't whether one person can be moral without a belief on God, but whether a whole society can do so. That's why it's essential that we don't cast out God from public life. Allow prayer in schools. Display those Ten Commandments in courthouses. Our survival depends on it.

Avatar image for _Tobli_
#15 Posted by _Tobli_ (5733 posts) -

Anyway, it's possible for an individual to be moral without God, but only in a society where God isn't completely ignored. If I rejected God today, my actions would still be affected by our Judeo-Christian laws. The question, then, isn't whether one person can be moral without a belief on God, but whether a whole society can do so. That's why it's essential that we don't cast out God from public life. Allow prayer in schools. Display those Ten Commandments in courthouses. Our survival depends on it. mysterylobster

I would suggest that you should try to aquire some knowledge in the field of population biology.

Avatar image for epic_pets
#16 Posted by epic_pets (5598 posts) -

I hate these religious threads. :( God dont exist end of! Next thread please!

daftdog

Too bad I saw him yesterday at 5 in the mourning,the ultimate proof for me.That was my second time seeing him.

Avatar image for felixlynch777
#18 Posted by felixlynch777 (1787 posts) -
Whilst I agree with you your point of view your arguement is very flawed. Quoting these wise old guys is not an arguement. Come up with some points and argue out yourself. Don't let Einstein do it for you.
Avatar image for duncancameron23
#19 Posted by duncancameron23 (771 posts) -

Whilst I agree with you your point of view your arguement is very flawed. Quoting these wise old guys is not an arguement. Come up with some points and argue out yourself. Don't let Einstein do it for you.felixlynch777

Why? they said it better than me and the argument still stands.

Avatar image for FamiBox
#20 Posted by FamiBox (5481 posts) -

It is a good argument.

Avatar image for DJ_Novakain
#21 Posted by DJ_Novakain (2147 posts) -

[QUOTE="felixlynch777"]Whilst I agree with you your point of view your arguement is very flawed. Quoting these wise old guys is not an arguement. Come up with some points and argue out yourself. Don't let Einstein do it for you.duncancameron23

Why? they said it better than me and the argument still stands.

Because blindly letting others think for you is bad? maybe, just maybe...

Avatar image for Ultimator777
#23 Posted by Ultimator777 (633 posts) -
You don't need God to do anything actually because he's as real as the Tooth Fairy and Santa.
Avatar image for Junkie_man
#24 Posted by Junkie_man (1219 posts) -
[QUOTE="duncancameron23"]

[QUOTE="felixlynch777"]Whilst I agree with you your point of view your arguement is very flawed. Quoting these wise old guys is not an arguement. Come up with some points and argue out yourself. Don't let Einstein do it for you.DJ_Novakain

Why? they said it better than me and the argument still stands.

Because blindly letting others think for you is bad? maybe, just maybe...

I don't think he's letting Einstein speak for him. He merely agrees strong;y with Einstein's argument, and feels that Einstgein presented this more eloquently than he could himself. I don't think there's anything wrong with quoting Einstein in this context.

Avatar image for duncancameron23
#25 Posted by duncancameron23 (771 posts) -
[QUOTE="duncancameron23"]

[QUOTE="felixlynch777"]Whilst I agree with you your point of view your arguement is very flawed. Quoting these wise old guys is not an arguement. Come up with some points and argue out yourself. Don't let Einstein do it for you.DJ_Novakain

Why? they said it better than me and the argument still stands.

Because blindly letting others think for you is bad? maybe, just maybe...

Are you sure your not religious? i smell a rat!

Avatar image for Theokhoth
#26 Posted by Theokhoth (36799 posts) -

Fact: If I did not believe in God, I would still believe in doing the right thing.

Fact: What I consider to be "the right thing" would change if I did not believe in God.

Therefore: My morals would change and some people would find me immoral.

It's quite simple.

Avatar image for Apollo5000
#27 Posted by Apollo5000 (18782 posts) -

To save from childish taunting along the lines of "Nah, your theory falls apart cause there is no God" crap. Maybe they should update it to Police.

No doubt the kind of people that come in here to state God doesn't exist would happily contribute to a completely impossible hypothetical situtation but the thought of a God? Gotta point out the flaws in other peoples beliefs to make yourself feel better!

Avatar image for Theokhoth
#28 Posted by Theokhoth (36799 posts) -

To save from childish taunting along the lines of "Nah, your theory falls apart cause there is no God" crap. Maybe they should update it to Police.

No doubt the kind of people that come in here to state God doesn't exist would happily contribute to a completely impossible hypothetical situtation but the thought of a God? Gotta point out the flaws in other peoples beliefs to make yourself feel better!

Apollo5000

People who go "God doesn't exist" in topics like this are the most ironic people in the universe.

Avatar image for dave123321
#29 Posted by dave123321 (35400 posts) -

Hmm...

While I think that you do not need to believe in God to be a moral person , I do not agree with your reasoning.

Avatar image for dsgeeno1
#30 Posted by dsgeeno1 (216 posts) -

why did jesus answer many questions from obvious non beleivers in questions?

Because you can only make someone beleive when they are ready to beleive/want to beleive.

In other words they have to convince themselves, simply telling them wont cut it.

Yes you can be good without "beleiving" in god. not "without god". Who really defines good?

why do people find it absurd to beleive in god, and fine to beleive in science, cos lets face it were not all scientists that have tested and "proved" these "THEORIES

Avatar image for Greatgone12
#31 Posted by Greatgone12 (25469 posts) -

why did jesus answer many questions from obvious non beleivers in questions?

Because you can only make someone beleive when they are ready to beleive/want to beleive.

In other words they have to convince themselves, simply telling them wont cut it.

Yes you can be good without "beleiving" in god. not "without god". Who really defines good?

why do people find it absurd to beleive in god, and fine to beleive in science, cos lets face it were not all scientists that have tested and "proved" these "THEORIES

dsgeeno1

:|

Scientific theories have inherently been tested and "proved."

Avatar image for daftdog
#32 Posted by daftdog (910 posts) -
[QUOTE="Apollo5000"]

To save from childish taunting along the lines of "Nah, your theory falls apart cause there is no God" crap. Maybe they should update it to Police.

No doubt the kind of people that come in here to state God doesn't exist would happily contribute to a completely impossible hypothetical situtation but the thought of a God? Gotta point out the flaws in other peoples beliefs to make yourself feel better!

Theokhoth

People who go "God doesn't exist" in topics like this are the most ironic people in the universe.

How so?

Avatar image for Theokhoth
#33 Posted by Theokhoth (36799 posts) -

How so?

daftdog

Omniscience is a divine quality. ;)

Avatar image for daftdog
#34 Posted by daftdog (910 posts) -
[QUOTE="daftdog"]

How so?

Theokhoth

Omniscience is a divine quality. ;)

How does that make us ironic?

Avatar image for dsgeeno1
#35 Posted by dsgeeno1 (216 posts) -
[QUOTE="dsgeeno1"]

why did jesus answer many questions from obvious non beleivers in questions?

Because you can only make someone beleive when they are ready to beleive/want to beleive.

In other words they have to convince themselves, simply telling them wont cut it.

Yes you can be good without "beleiving" in god. not "without god". Who really defines good?

why do people find it absurd to beleive in god, and fine to beleive in science, cos lets face it were not all scientists that have tested and "proved" these "THEORIES

Greatgone12

:|

Scientific theories have inherently been tested and "proved."

My point exactly, you beleive they have been proved (keep in mind i'm not saying science is fake)

But you havent seen the results, you never designed the tests, you havent seen the proof, and in many cases you do not extensively understand the implications. How many times has scieonce called something true only until its been proven otherwise ( for instance it was beleived the world was flat and that flying was impossible nevermind space exploration)). You in other words beleive what your told without feeling the need to question or check for yourself ( This is faith)

so why is faith in relegion so obsurd?

Avatar image for Megadeth425
#36 Posted by Megadeth425 (221 posts) -
If I rejected God today, my actions would still be affected by our Judeo-Christian laws. [...] Display those Ten Commandments in courthouses.mysterylobster
Which laws are those? The only commandments that have actual laws of them are stealing and killing, and lying in the context of being under oath. Keeping holy the Sabbath, coveting your neighbor's wife...7-8, depending on how you look at it, commandments have nothing to do with the legal system. In fact, the bible gives thumbs up to many things the legal system disapproves of, like slavery. They aren't Judeo-Christian laws, there's just some overlap because whoever wrote the bible and the people who wrote the laws both shared the common sense that killing and stealing are bad.
Avatar image for daftdog
#37 Posted by daftdog (910 posts) -
[QUOTE="Greatgone12"][QUOTE="dsgeeno1"]

why did jesus answer many questions from obvious non beleivers in questions?

Because you can only make someone beleive when they are ready to beleive/want to beleive.

In other words they have to convince themselves, simply telling them wont cut it.

Yes you can be good without "beleiving" in god. not "without god". Who really defines good?

why do people find it absurd to beleive in god, and fine to beleive in science, cos lets face it were not all scientists that have tested and "proved" these "THEORIES

dsgeeno1

:|

Scientific theories have inherently been tested and "proved."

My point exactly, you beleive they have been proved (keep in mind i'm not saying science is fake)

But you havent seen the results, you never designed the tests, you havent seen the proof, and in many cases you do not extensively understand the implications. How many times has scieonce called something true only until its been proven otherwise ( for instance it was beleived the world was flat and that flying was impossible nevermind space exploration)). You in other words beleive what your told without feeling the need to question or check for yourself ( This is faith)

so why is faith in relegion so obsurd?

We do question and check the results hence why we constantly discover new theories that dont match other peoples theories. Why do you put science down so much it has revolutionsed this planet, if it wasn't for science we would all be still living in mud huts hunting for wild animals. What has religion done?

Avatar image for Jandurin
#38 Posted by Jandurin (95574 posts) -
You don't even need God for religion, why would you need God to "be good"?
Avatar image for Bio_Spark
#39 Posted by Bio_Spark (4591 posts) -

The very suggestion that religion has a monopoly on morality is absurd.

We are far more shaped by familial, cultural, and contemporary values than anything else.
Avatar image for Megadeth425
#40 Posted by Megadeth425 (221 posts) -

But you havent seen the results, you never designed the tests, you havent seen the proof, and in many cases you do not extensively understand the implications. How many times has scieonce called something true only until its been proven otherwise ( for instance it was beleived the world was flat and that flying was impossible nevermind space exploration)). You in other words beleive what your told without feeling the need to question or check for yourself ( This is faith) so why is faith in relegion so obsurd?

Science revises and goes back because new facts come into things or we know something new. It's willing to say you were wrong. Nobody's claiming that anything is an absolute, hence the 'theory' of evolution, not the 'true meaning behind our existence' of evolution. And I would rather believe something that is looked over, debated, and revised than something rigid that hasn't been changed in millenia and written by people who thought that evil came out of you when you sneezed.
Avatar image for dsgeeno1
#41 Posted by dsgeeno1 (216 posts) -
[QUOTE="dsgeeno1"][QUOTE="Greatgone12"][QUOTE="dsgeeno1"]

why did jesus answer many questions from obvious non beleivers in questions?

Because you can only make someone beleive when they are ready to beleive/want to beleive.

In other words they have to convince themselves, simply telling them wont cut it.

Yes you can be good without "beleiving" in god. not "without god". Who really defines good?

why do people find it absurd to beleive in god, and fine to beleive in science, cos lets face it were not all scientists that have tested and "proved" these "THEORIES

daftdog

:|

Scientific theories have inherently been tested and "proved."

My point exactly, you beleive they have been proved (keep in mind i'm not saying science is fake)

But you havent seen the results, you never designed the tests, you havent seen the proof, and in many cases you do not extensively understand the implications. How many times has scieonce called something true only until its been proven otherwise ( for instance it was beleived the world was flat and that flying was impossible nevermind space exploration)). You in other words beleive what your told without feeling the need to question or check for yourself ( This is faith)

so why is faith in relegion so obsurd?

We do question and check the results hence why we constantly discover new theories that dont match other peoples theories. Why do you put science down so much it has revolutionsed this planet, if it wasn't for science we would all be still living in mud huts hunting for wild animals. What has religion done?

daftdog how do you beleive you came to be?

Avatar image for Jandurin
#42 Posted by Jandurin (95574 posts) -

daftdog how do you beleive you came to be?

dsgeeno1
Oooh ooh. I bet his daddy did naughty things with his mommy.
Avatar image for dsgeeno1
#43 Posted by dsgeeno1 (216 posts) -
[QUOTE="dsgeeno1"]

daftdog how do you beleive you came to be?

Jandurin

Oooh ooh. I bet his daddy did naughty things with his mommy.

funny.. ok i'l rephrase that, how do you think life came to be and why?

Avatar image for daftdog
#44 Posted by daftdog (910 posts) -
[QUOTE="daftdog"][QUOTE="dsgeeno1"][QUOTE="Greatgone12"][QUOTE="dsgeeno1"]

why did jesus answer many questions from obvious non beleivers in questions?

Because you can only make someone beleive when they are ready to beleive/want to beleive.

In other words they have to convince themselves, simply telling them wont cut it.

Yes you can be good without "beleiving" in god. not "without god". Who really defines good?

why do people find it absurd to beleive in god, and fine to beleive in science, cos lets face it were not all scientists that have tested and "proved" these "THEORIES

dsgeeno1

:|

Scientific theories have inherently been tested and "proved."

My point exactly, you beleive they have been proved (keep in mind i'm not saying science is fake)

But you havent seen the results, you never designed the tests, you havent seen the proof, and in many cases you do not extensively understand the implications. How many times has scieonce called something true only until its been proven otherwise ( for instance it was beleived the world was flat and that flying was impossible nevermind space exploration)). You in other words beleive what your told without feeling the need to question or check for yourself ( This is faith)

so why is faith in relegion so obsurd?

We do question and check the results hence why we constantly discover new theories that dont match other peoples theories. Why do you put science down so much it has revolutionsed this planet, if it wasn't for science we would all be still living in mud huts hunting for wild animals. What has religion done?

daftdog how do you beleive you came to be?

I don't think you realise what a big question that is, you want me to narrate 4.5 billion years of history through to you? It could take me like 3 days just to give you the short story LOL!

Avatar image for dsgeeno1
#45 Posted by dsgeeno1 (216 posts) -
[QUOTE="dsgeeno1"][QUOTE="daftdog"][QUOTE="dsgeeno1"][QUOTE="Greatgone12"][QUOTE="dsgeeno1"]

why did jesus answer many questions from obvious non beleivers in questions?

Because you can only make someone beleive when they are ready to beleive/want to beleive.

In other words they have to convince themselves, simply telling them wont cut it.

Yes you can be good without "beleiving" in god. not "without god". Who really defines good?

why do people find it absurd to beleive in god, and fine to beleive in science, cos lets face it were not all scientists that have tested and "proved" these "THEORIES

daftdog

:|

Scientific theories have inherently been tested and "proved."

My point exactly, you beleive they have been proved (keep in mind i'm not saying science is fake)

But you havent seen the results, you never designed the tests, you havent seen the proof, and in many cases you do not extensively understand the implications. How many times has scieonce called something true only until its been proven otherwise ( for instance it was beleived the world was flat and that flying was impossible nevermind space exploration)). You in other words beleive what your told without feeling the need to question or check for yourself ( This is faith)

so why is faith in relegion so obsurd?

We do question and check the results hence why we constantly discover new theories that dont match other peoples theories. Why do you put science down so much it has revolutionsed this planet, if it wasn't for science we would all be still living in mud huts hunting for wild animals. What has religion done?

daftdog how do you beleive you came to be?

I don't think you realise what a big question that is, you want me to narrate 4.5 billion years of history through to you? It could take me like 3 days just to give you the short story LOL!

dont tel me "4.5 billion years of history. just the beginning

Avatar image for Jandurin
#46 Posted by Jandurin (95574 posts) -

dont tel me "4.5 billion years of history. just the beginning

dsgeeno1
A small dense thing exploded into a universe.
Avatar image for Ezgam3r
#47 Posted by Ezgam3r (2308 posts) -
[QUOTE="dsgeeno1"]

dont tel me "4.5 billion years of history. just the beginning

Jandurin
A small dense thing exploded into a universe.

Dude, that didn't happen 4.5 billion years ago, unless you have some new theory you haven't told anyone about yet :P
Avatar image for daftdog
#48 Posted by daftdog (910 posts) -
[QUOTE="daftdog"][QUOTE="dsgeeno1"][QUOTE="daftdog"][QUOTE="dsgeeno1"][QUOTE="Greatgone12"][QUOTE="dsgeeno1"]

why did jesus answer many questions from obvious non beleivers in questions?

Because you can only make someone beleive when they are ready to beleive/want to beleive.

In other words they have to convince themselves, simply telling them wont cut it.

Yes you can be good without "beleiving" in god. not "without god". Who really defines good?

why do people find it absurd to beleive in god, and fine to beleive in science, cos lets face it were not all scientists that have tested and "proved" these "THEORIES

dsgeeno1

:|

Scientific theories have inherently been tested and "proved."

My point exactly, you beleive they have been proved (keep in mind i'm not saying science is fake)

But you havent seen the results, you never designed the tests, you havent seen the proof, and in many cases you do not extensively understand the implications. How many times has scieonce called something true only until its been proven otherwise ( for instance it was beleived the world was flat and that flying was impossible nevermind space exploration)). You in other words beleive what your told without feeling the need to question or check for yourself ( This is faith)

so why is faith in relegion so obsurd?

We do question and check the results hence why we constantly discover new theories that dont match other peoples theories. Why do you put science down so much it has revolutionsed this planet, if it wasn't for science we would all be still living in mud huts hunting for wild animals. What has religion done?

daftdog how do you beleive you came to be?

I don't think you realise what a big question that is, you want me to narrate 4.5 billion years of history through to you? It could take me like 3 days just to give you the short story LOL!

dont tel me "4.5 billion years of history. just the beginning

You see this is what confirms to me you have no idea about the scientific side of the story. You say beginging as if it just happened, in science the begining lasted nearly 650 million years. The planet did'nt just appear over night with water, trees and grass evrywhere it was a process of millions of years! If you knew the scientific side you would know that what you are asking is a bit broad. This is the differrence between religious and non religious people i know all about religion and its history, because i bothered to hear both sides, religious people only care about their side.

Avatar image for daftdog
#49 Posted by daftdog (910 posts) -
[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="dsgeeno1"]

dont tel me "4.5 billion years of history. just the beginning

Ezgam3r

A small dense thing exploded into a universe.

Dude, that didn't happen 4.5 billion years ago, unless you have some new theory you haven't told anyone about yet :P

Its approximately 4.5 billion years ago that we think the big bang happened

Avatar image for Jandurin
#50 Posted by Jandurin (95574 posts) -
[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="dsgeeno1"]

dont tel me "4.5 billion years of history. just the beginning

Ezgam3r
A small dense thing exploded into a universe.

Dude, that didn't happen 4.5 billion years ago, unless you have some new theory you haven't told anyone about yet :P

oh, 14 billion years ago. Well, what's he asking about. What happened 4.5 billion years ago? :o Life began 3.7 billion years ago according to wikipedia :shock: