I was defining man as homo sapiens like us and dinosaurs as big reptiles that we probably think of when we think of dinosaurs.
And yes, there is evidence in favor of men walking with dinosaurs. Look at the Utah cave art. Also the Cambodia dinosaur engraving. And I forget the other artwork on a a King's tomb where there are obvious known animals such as birds, deer, etc.. and then a very obvious depiction of dinosaurs.
Also, the preservation of dinosaur flesh being found, that isn't completely fossilized, that still has elasticity, that still has blood cells is becoming more frequent and the dates labeled to these specimens in the 70 million range for example are becoming less believable.
Anyways, my point with this was to show that within science there are disagreements just as there is in religion, and obviously, in the case of history, only one set path has been fulfilled and is correct in terms of what actually happened in history, and with Christianity there is only one right way to follow God, the way he wanted to be followed according to the Bible.
Dude. If you go kill someone who's fault is that? God's? Yeah-no. You made the choice. If I give you a knife and you kill my mom, is it my fault my mom died?
What was that example supposed to illustrate?
No sarcasm.
So many religions out there... Well, if you're gonna argue against a religion, argue against it, not just argue that since there are so many religions this one is very unlikely to be right. I can do the same with science theories...
I believe i can argue the way I feel like it. Nor am I arguing in favor of any scientific theory here. I believe in god, btw.
He'll let you do whatever you want, but, if after knowing what he wants and expects from you and you don't do it, it's your own fault you wind up burning.
Sounds a lot like "If you wear skimpy clothing/drink at parties, it's your own fault you got raped."
The perpetrator always has the final responsibility. While the victim can aggravate the perpetrator more or less, that doesn't mean the perpetrator is any less of a dick, or that the victim would somehow get raped or burned without the perpetrator existing.
I really feel sorry for you people who are totally fine with following a power-tripping maniac who likes to burn and torture you.
Yes, obligation. If God exists (the christian God) then you have an obligation. Because if God exists, then you're a sinner who had someone die for your sins.
"Sinner" is a term defined by god. Which means I have the full right to ignore it. Just because someone out there made up a term doesn't mean I should care about it. The thing defined by "sinner" is pure human nature. Do you know who created this nature? God did. God created sinners. So what the fuck is he complaining about?
You have an obligation to follow God and not reject his son he gave for you.
I never asked for a son to be given for me.
Never do anything for anyone expecting a return unless you have people sign a contract.
And I never signed any contract nor saw this son. At least, not this conscience and this is the only one I care about.
And, Jesus. Jesus came back to life, please. Death with resurrection is a joke if you compare it to human history. Joan of Arc > Jesus. She burned at a fucking state and SHE DID NOT COME BACK TO LIFE. She had no Father-the-cool-bad-God behind her, either. She has no omnipotent power and knowledge. She had fucking nothing compared to what Jesus had. If you really think Jesus's sacrifice was that great you're mistaken. The only reason it has any significance is because, you see, oooh, it's God's son and not just anybody's son. E.g., god/jesus > rest of us. Him dying for us is a bigger deal than some lousy human dying for us. I see how it is.
Dude. If you go kill someone who's fault is that? God's? Yeah-no. You made the choice. If I give you a knife and you kill my mom, is it my fault my mom died?
I just want to mention if your son wants to kill you you are probably a really shitty mom, unless he has mental disorders, in which case we get to blame either evolution or, indeed, god.
Wow, no. You willingly sin, not automatically. The bible teaches that 'original sin' is not right and that sin is not passed on, for example, your dad's sins are not passed to you. You only sin when you make the choice to. God knows at some point everyone will sin, not that he forces us, just that we will give in to our selfish desires.
Okay so the Christian God is omnipotent, and if he caring and loving why doesn't he help guide us not to sin, unless he is malevolent? Or is it plain ignorance thus making him caring and loving mute? Or is it because he can't making him un-omnipotent?
Actually you did have a say in Jesus' death since he died for your sins. Jesus wouldn't have had to had died for humanity if mankind would have never sinned out of their own free will. So Jesus died for you, you had a say in it, you just refuse to think that your sin should be connected to his death.
That's basically saying that if I lived in North America and somebody in the Middle East sacrificed himself because humanity in the Middle East was bad, I should care for him? I don't even know the guy, and some how every future bad deed I did from that moment was connected to his death? I refuse to think said guy's death is connected to my moral actions when he and I live on opposite sides of the world.
DOn't know much about Catholicism and am not going to argue in it's favor because they hare hypocritical and wrong in their doctrines. And God and Satan never made a bet, lol that's an absurd thing to say. When Jesus was tempted he refuted Satan with doctrine and by saying you don't tempt God (because he was God in the flesh). This bet things... seriously, why do you make up stuff that you don't even know is true then role with it?
I made an error here in confusing the fall of Lucifer with Job scriptures, but let's go on the Job scriptures a bit. Starting from Job 1:6, God and Satan do indeed make a bet on testing Job's faith. Now wait a moment, why would God do such an absurd thing to his follower? And since this bet was made casually then couldn't this bet be one of many made between God and Satan?
If so, then many people who commit sin or "lose their faith/path in God" are the effect of God losing a bet with Satan. If not and this bet was just a one-time-thing, then what's the purpose of putting a faithful servant through such trials?
Science:
–noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
Synonyms:
7. art, technique, method, discipline.
Religion:
–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8.
Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
Dear Irrational,
Please take note to the definition of religion #3, the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices, hmm.. it would seem that you and Azriel qualify as a body of persons and both of you are adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices, as you stated that everyone uses science throughout their daily lives in a previous post. Wouldn't this qualify scientific naturalist a religion?
Clearly it is your "beliefs" because if it wasn't this poll and thread would never exist.
Dear Azriel,
Stop with the science is perfect please. To be perfect is an opinion, what is perfect for me may not be perfect for you. I'll use this topic for example; Many people believe that religion is perfect for them, you believe that it is faulty. You believe science is perfect, I believe science is full of faults and mistakes. That is why experiments are called experiments and not certainties.
As to your previous post that science created man, man created god - Man created science, man created god, man creates what he see's fit to answer questions that he does not have the answer to. It's basic problem solving - an innate ability that most humans are gifted enough to have.
- Irrational,
You posted 2 reasons of why religions are in power; 1) It is to explain things that human cannot understand. 2) It is to comfort their idea of dying, creating an afterlife. In fact, religions are in power because people believe in them, without peoples belief they would not exist and would not hold any power. As to why people believe in the religions could be for a myriad of personal reasons that go far beyond explaining things and comforting the thought of death.
- Azriel,
I am sorry but I fail to understand your post on the side effect of the drug use.
--------------------------------------
Not perfect that it can't be misused. It's misuse is the fault of human practice. If a scientist worked hard enough, really put all their mettle into it, they could create a drug that could cure anything.
Side effects are more of just the body responding to the drug as it sees fit. It doesn't mean that the drug is flawed; if person A responds positively to the drug and person B gets a rash, who's to say whether the drug works or not? They can't really say either because everybody's bodies are different as a result of genetics.
Science is perfect because it's laws can't be argued against. We're trying to understand science, but that doesn't mean that it's laws aren't absolute because we don't know everything yet.
---------------------------------------
If the drug was intended to cure a sickness in both patient A and B and cured A but left B with sickness and rash then I will say the drug does not work. It failed at fulfilling its intended effect. Therefor, that science was not perfect - not because of mans misuse but because the drug failed at curing patient B, it's as simple as that.
I am baffled on this perfection because of mathematical use. Man created math - man is subject to error - math is subject to error - science is subject to error. We as creatures on earth are an ever evolving organism, physically, mentally and emotionally. Just because the math or scientific techniques that are used today are going unchallenged doesn't mean that it is 100% perfect. Science and math cannot create - man creates using science and math - science and math can only go as far as man can mentally go. Science cannot think, man uses science and math to argue science and math but in the end when a scientific law is disproved and replaced by a new law it is man arguing it and disproving it.
---------------------------------------
However, science is the ultimate judge. It slowly uncovers what the truth really is, which is why public schools deny the teachings of religion in it (unless it is for educational purposes). It is a slow process, but it is why more people are converting to scientific naturalism than any other time period in history.
And also, the poll is very rational. You cannot believe in both, as they are opposite in every way. Believe in both would mean that you crossing out what you don't like in both and make it suit what you like the most. Being undecided is what you really are.
---------------------------------------
Public schools deny the teachings of religion because of the controversy it would cause, if public schools started teaching Christianity it would cause a ridiculous amount of unnecessary conflict between all other religions and state.
All religion is is a collective amount of people that share the same belief in an attempt to live a happier life. Whichever religion or religions you are referring to I am unsure because I would assume that the vast majority of the educated populace would agree that 1 + 1 = 2, therefore they are not opposites in every way.
I am terribly sorry if this comes off as trolling but I had a lot to say based off of my readings and was not here during the beginning of this debate. It is not meant to be trolling/flaming/derogatory but I do see how it might be misconstrued due to the fact that it was all at one time.
I do not intent to bash any beliefs. I am just attempting to join in late on this debate and point out a few logical fallacies that I had noticed.
I cannot vote on this topic because there is no option that suits me. I am neither religious, scientific naturalist or undecided. I simply feel that I should treat others as I would wish to be treated. That is enough to get me through my days :):)
Again I sincerely apologize if any of this was taken to heart it was not meant to be spiteful in any way shape or form just some input on my thoughts of the matter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have forgotten more then you will ever remember. Do you have change for a nickel? I need three pennies.
Man walking with dinosaurs theory vs. Man didn't walk with dinosaur theory... There is evidence for both of those, backed with science, and are completely opposites of each other.
Oh noes, Sarah Palin!!!
RRUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnn.
Let's just all agree to disagree here. Because, lets face it, nobody is gonna change anybodies opinion and no matter how long this debate goes on one side is always gonna think the other side is wrong.
Let's just all agree to disagree here. Because, lets face it, nobody is gonna change anybodies opinion and no matter how long this debate goes on one side is always gonna think the other side is wrong.
/2cents
There's 2 consequences of a debate
A ) You change your opinion
B ) You defend your opinion properly.
So far it is not A and looking towards B but most people going for B are failing at it.
Let's just all agree to disagree here. Because, lets face it, nobody is gonna change anybodies opinion and no matter how long this debate goes on one side is always gonna think the other side is wrong.
/2cents
There's 2 consequences of a debate
A ) You change your opinion
B ) You defend your opinion properly.
So far it is not A and looking towards B but most people going for B are failing at it.
the hardest thing to change is someone else's opinion.
briefly looking over what has been said it sounds more like philosophy and religion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
I'm just going to throw down my belief. Feel free to go at my throat all you like.
I believe that, if there was a god, he wouldn't judge me by my belief in him, but rather the result of my actions. As long as I was a good person until the day I died, stuck with a good moral code, and tried my best to right wrongs I may have caused, I should have a ticket to "Heaven" after the end of it all.
But, if I don't believe in a divine being and end up going to hell, even though I did all those good things and never aspired to hurt anybody, is that really fair? I don't think it is. In my opinion, believing in the god has little to do with the actions you commit. You may attach those actions to a religion, but that doesn't make the religion more real. I know religion is a concept that is very real, but the mythology behind the religion won't become true just because you stick to a moral code.
I mean, these ever-shifting scientific findings, it's just mankind's search for knowledge. A religion can take those findings as the work of their deity, but those of us who don't have a deity to pray to just take those findings as "facts" (because you can never be too sure, a lot of this is just theory).
Science and religion, in my opinion, are just two different theories trying to answer the same question. I choose science because, hey, at least it won't condemn me to hellfire if I don't believe in it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
It's a nice medium with today's science and technological observations mixed in with passed religious beliefs. If your bored or curious id suggest watching all of them with an open mind of course. If your not open then I wouldn't bother
I grew up like most kids in this generation it seems leaning towards science because that is what we could understand because there was an explanation and/or theory to go off of. I always kept an open mind and even attended church, my family didn't but I proclaimed myself christian... as I grew up I stopped going kinda got more into school and therefore, all the bibal talk and stories became gray to me... I still believed that there was something greater out there as a higher entity but didn't quite go into it thinking angels and all these things were actually real documented stuff...
I grew up with a very open mind and outlook on life, I loved to read and learn new things, my curiousness drove me to learn as much as I could. I stumbled upon that video and just started watching/reading/learning/thinking about all sorts of things. Do I believe 100% of what I read absolutely not, the media taught me that quick lesson... but thats another story. As it stands now, I am in a nice medium in between..which completely makes this poll silly..and your argument of you are all or nothing...
I read up on the old stories, myths, legends what have you of the religions of the passed, and apply todays knowledge/science technology to what they might of experienced... there's all sort of advancements in physics and laws that were simply not known by the earlier people. For example, "random town in old times see's a ET/alien or whatever and it's ship is flying accross the sky... the people literally have no way of explaining it.. so they use their only way of explaining it.. it must be a god or angel and the ship must be a chariot ..but how is a chariot flying well it must be being pulled by flying horses..." something of that nature.... just food for thought ... depending on your views you could completely say omfg aliens come on,... well they are saying that there are over a 100 million planets with an atmosphere that can support life in our galaxy alone... and our galaxy is merely a spec in the infinite universe.
This thread is still up? Lol I thought this thread has banned more members than the thread that banned more members. Whatevs. I'm staying out of this thread this time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Respectful is a strong word...
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And yes, there is evidence in favor of men walking with dinosaurs. Look at the Utah cave art. Also the Cambodia dinosaur engraving. And I forget the other artwork on a a King's tomb where there are obvious known animals such as birds, deer, etc.. and then a very obvious depiction of dinosaurs.
Also, the preservation of dinosaur flesh being found, that isn't completely fossilized, that still has elasticity, that still has blood cells is becoming more frequent and the dates labeled to these specimens in the 70 million range for example are becoming less believable.
Anyways, my point with this was to show that within science there are disagreements just as there is in religion, and obviously, in the case of history, only one set path has been fulfilled and is correct in terms of what actually happened in history, and with Christianity there is only one right way to follow God, the way he wanted to be followed according to the Bible.
Basing on facts you say? Riiiiight.
unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes, fsck, fsck, fsck, umount, sleep
What was that example supposed to illustrate?
No sarcasm.
...because?
Sounds a lot like "If you wear skimpy clothing/drink at parties, it's your own fault you got raped."
The perpetrator always has the final responsibility. While the victim can aggravate the perpetrator more or less, that doesn't mean the perpetrator is any less of a dick, or that the victim would somehow get raped or burned without the perpetrator existing.
I really feel sorry for you people who are totally fine with following a power-tripping maniac who likes to burn and torture you.
"Sinner" is a term defined by god. Which means I have the full right to ignore it. Just because someone out there made up a term doesn't mean I should care about it. The thing defined by "sinner" is pure human nature. Do you know who created this nature? God did. God created sinners. So what the fuck is he complaining about?
I never asked for a son to be given for me.
Never do anything for anyone expecting a return unless you have people sign a contract.
And I never signed any contract nor saw this son. At least, not this conscience and this is the only one I care about.
And, Jesus. Jesus came back to life, please. Death with resurrection is a joke if you compare it to human history. Joan of Arc > Jesus. She burned at a fucking state and SHE DID NOT COME BACK TO LIFE. She had no Father-the-cool-bad-God behind her, either. She has no omnipotent power and knowledge. She had fucking nothing compared to what Jesus had. If you really think Jesus's sacrifice was that great you're mistaken. The only reason it has any significance is because, you see, oooh, it's God's son and not just anybody's son. E.g., god/jesus > rest of us. Him dying for us is a bigger deal than some lousy human dying for us. I see how it is.
I just want to mention if your son wants to kill you you are probably a really shitty mom, unless he has mental disorders, in which case we get to blame either evolution or, indeed, god.
That's basically saying that if I lived in North America and somebody in the Middle East sacrificed himself because humanity in the Middle East was bad, I should care for him? I don't even know the guy, and some how every future bad deed I did from that moment was connected to his death? I refuse to think said guy's death is connected to my moral actions when he and I live on opposite sides of the world.
I made an error here in confusing the fall of Lucifer with Job scriptures, but let's go on the Job scriptures a bit. Starting from Job 1:6, God and Satan do indeed make a bet on testing Job's faith. Now wait a moment, why would God do such an absurd thing to his follower? And since this bet was made casually then couldn't this bet be one of many made between God and Satan?
If so, then many people who commit sin or "lose their faith/path in God" are the effect of God losing a bet with Satan. If not and this bet was just a one-time-thing, then what's the purpose of putting a faithful servant through such trials?
–noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
Synonyms:
7. art, technique, method, discipline.
Religion:
–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8.
Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
Dear Irrational,
Please take note to the definition of religion #3, the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices, hmm.. it would seem that you and Azriel qualify as a body of persons and both of you are adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices, as you stated that everyone uses science throughout their daily lives in a previous post. Wouldn't this qualify scientific naturalist a religion?
Clearly it is your "beliefs" because if it wasn't this poll and thread would never exist.
Dear Azriel,
Stop with the science is perfect please. To be perfect is an opinion, what is perfect for me may not be perfect for you. I'll use this topic for example; Many people believe that religion is perfect for them, you believe that it is faulty. You believe science is perfect, I believe science is full of faults and mistakes. That is why experiments are called experiments and not certainties.
As to your previous post that science created man, man created god - Man created science, man created god, man creates what he see's fit to answer questions that he does not have the answer to. It's basic problem solving - an innate ability that most humans are gifted enough to have.
- Irrational,
You posted 2 reasons of why religions are in power; 1) It is to explain things that human cannot understand. 2) It is to comfort their idea of dying, creating an afterlife. In fact, religions are in power because people believe in them, without peoples belief they would not exist and would not hold any power. As to why people believe in the religions could be for a myriad of personal reasons that go far beyond explaining things and comforting the thought of death.
- Azriel,
I am sorry but I fail to understand your post on the side effect of the drug use.
--------------------------------------
Not perfect that it can't be misused. It's misuse is the fault of human practice. If a scientist worked hard enough, really put all their mettle into it, they could create a drug that could cure anything.
Side effects are more of just the body responding to the drug as it sees fit. It doesn't mean that the drug is flawed; if person A responds positively to the drug and person B gets a rash, who's to say whether the drug works or not? They can't really say either because everybody's bodies are different as a result of genetics.
Science is perfect because it's laws can't be argued against. We're trying to understand science, but that doesn't mean that it's laws aren't absolute because we don't know everything yet.
---------------------------------------
If the drug was intended to cure a sickness in both patient A and B and cured A but left B with sickness and rash then I will say the drug does not work. It failed at fulfilling its intended effect. Therefor, that science was not perfect - not because of mans misuse but because the drug failed at curing patient B, it's as simple as that.
I am baffled on this perfection because of mathematical use. Man created math - man is subject to error - math is subject to error - science is subject to error. We as creatures on earth are an ever evolving organism, physically, mentally and emotionally. Just because the math or scientific techniques that are used today are going unchallenged doesn't mean that it is 100% perfect. Science and math cannot create - man creates using science and math - science and math can only go as far as man can mentally go. Science cannot think, man uses science and math to argue science and math but in the end when a scientific law is disproved and replaced by a new law it is man arguing it and disproving it.
---------------------------------------
However, science is the ultimate judge. It slowly uncovers what the truth really is, which is why public schools deny the teachings of religion in it (unless it is for educational purposes). It is a slow process, but it is why more people are converting to scientific naturalism than any other time period in history.
And also, the poll is very rational. You cannot believe in both, as they are opposite in every way. Believe in both would mean that you crossing out what you don't like in both and make it suit what you like the most. Being undecided is what you really are.
---------------------------------------
Public schools deny the teachings of religion because of the controversy it would cause, if public schools started teaching Christianity it would cause a ridiculous amount of unnecessary conflict between all other religions and state.
All religion is is a collective amount of people that share the same belief in an attempt to live a happier life. Whichever religion or religions you are referring to I am unsure because I would assume that the vast majority of the educated populace would agree that 1 + 1 = 2, therefore they are not opposites in every way.
I am terribly sorry if this comes off as trolling but I had a lot to say based off of my readings and was not here during the beginning of this debate. It is not meant to be trolling/flaming/derogatory but I do see how it might be misconstrued due to the fact that it was all at one time.
I do not intent to bash any beliefs. I am just attempting to join in late on this debate and point out a few logical fallacies that I had noticed.
I cannot vote on this topic because there is no option that suits me. I am neither religious, scientific naturalist or undecided. I simply feel that I should treat others as I would wish to be treated. That is enough to get me through my days :):)
Again I sincerely apologize if any of this was taken to heart it was not meant to be spiteful in any way shape or form just some input on my thoughts of the matter.
Do you have change for a nickel? I need three pennies.
the reason drugs might work in patient a and not b could be because of b's biology, not the drug structure.
thats all i read lol
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Oh noes, Sarah Palin!!!
RRUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnn.
Let's just all agree to disagree here. Because, lets face it, nobody is gonna change anybodies opinion and no matter how long this debate goes on one side is always gonna think the other side is wrong.
/2cents
There's 2 consequences of a debate
A ) You change your opinion
B ) You defend your opinion properly.
So far it is not A and looking towards B but most people going for B are failing at it.
briefly looking over what has been said it sounds more like philosophy and religion.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
I believe that, if there was a god, he wouldn't judge me by my belief in him, but rather the result of my actions. As long as I was a good person until the day I died, stuck with a good moral code, and tried my best to right wrongs I may have caused, I should have a ticket to "Heaven" after the end of it all.
But, if I don't believe in a divine being and end up going to hell, even though I did all those good things and never aspired to hurt anybody, is that really fair? I don't think it is. In my opinion, believing in the god has little to do with the actions you commit. You may attach those actions to a religion, but that doesn't make the religion more real. I know religion is a concept that is very real, but the mythology behind the religion won't become true just because you stick to a moral code.
I mean, these ever-shifting scientific findings, it's just mankind's search for knowledge. A religion can take those findings as the work of their deity, but those of us who don't have a deity to pray to just take those findings as "facts" (because you can never be too sure, a lot of this is just theory).
Science and religion, in my opinion, are just two different theories trying to answer the same question. I choose science because, hey, at least it won't condemn me to hellfire if I don't believe in it.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
It's a nice medium with today's science and technological observations mixed in with passed religious beliefs. If your bored or curious id suggest watching all of them with an open mind of course. If your not open then I wouldn't bother
I grew up like most kids in this generation it seems leaning towards science because that is what we could understand because there was an explanation and/or theory to go off of. I always kept an open mind and even attended church, my family didn't but I proclaimed myself christian... as I grew up I stopped going kinda got more into school and therefore, all the bibal talk and stories became gray to me... I still believed that there was something greater out there as a higher entity but didn't quite go into it thinking angels and all these things were actually real documented stuff...
I grew up with a very open mind and outlook on life, I loved to read and learn new things, my curiousness drove me to learn as much as I could. I stumbled upon that video and just started watching/reading/learning/thinking about all sorts of things. Do I believe 100% of what I read absolutely not, the media taught me that quick lesson... but thats another story. As it stands now, I am in a nice medium in between..which completely makes this poll silly..and your argument of you are all or nothing...
I read up on the old stories, myths, legends what have you of the religions of the passed, and apply todays knowledge/science technology to what they might of experienced... there's all sort of advancements in physics and laws that were simply not known by the earlier people. For example, "random town in old times see's a ET/alien or whatever and it's ship is flying accross the sky... the people literally have no way of explaining it.. so they use their only way of explaining it.. it must be a god or angel and the ship must be a chariot ..but how is a chariot flying well it must be being pulled by flying horses..." something of that nature.... just food for thought ... depending on your views you could completely say omfg aliens come on,... well they are saying that there are over a 100 million planets with an atmosphere that can support life in our galaxy alone... and our galaxy is merely a spec in the infinite universe.