Do you believe in God?

No. To me the natural world is wonderful and amazing enough.

Yes, the world is too complex to be an accident

You can find my answer here.

Not at all. I think that it is possible that there may be a god, but not probable. Contrary to popular misconceptions, this doesn’t mean that I “hate” god or am angry. Neither is true.

@laureth, I just realized that I also answered that question. Under my old account, but I had forgotten about it. Now I want to go back and read.

I sometimes believe then sometimes I don’t. Miracles and beautiful days make me believe. War, famines, diseases, amd suffering makes he think if there is a good he is not loving like the bible says. The hyprocrisy I was indoctrinated in at southern baptist church has caused me to resent christianity. I think satanic imagery and death metal music is cool, offensive and bullshit whe it comes to believing and worshiping Satan. Basically I think we should believe in ourselves to follow the golden rule, help our fellow man, follow our conscience and you can live a happy existence knowing you try your best to be righteous. There is some good things in the bible and then a lot of it is fiction passed down to justify wars and superiority over peoplw who don’t have the same belief system as you. From what I see dead things are dead and cease to exist. I have a problem believing a so called loving god would let wars happen and babies be raped snd send people to an eternal hell. Just be a good person and don’t worry about gods and devils who will torture you and send plagues which sounds sinful to me in a bullying way. God and Satan are a hard concept to believe in an why doesn’t god part seas or raise the dead anymore. It could help his cause immensely. Either those stories are bullshit or were wrote to manipulate illiterate people before readign was common. I believe in evil people but not a fallen angel who has made everyone sin except jesus.

I grew up Catholic and my mother is very Catholic so it’s hard for me to say that I don’t believe in God but the truth is I do have a lot of questions that have never been answered. I think there are a lot things that don’t really make sense when it comes to God and the bible so I am a bit of a skeptic. So I guess, I don’t completely rule out the possibility of God but I wouldn’t consider myself a believer either.

I think humans try to fabricate connections in the world that are truly just coincidences.
When it comes to god, I was told that god is love. I try to take that literally. I believe in love, therefore I believe in god. Nothing more, nothing less.

@kheredia
I know what you mean, but if God wanted us to understand everything about him, we would. I mean, we are not supposed to understand Him. I don’t know why that is and I don’t think anyone does, but I think that in heaven we will understand. But even if we don’t, we dont have to worry because we will have eternal happiness in heaven.

I think it’s possible that there is a God, but I also believe that if there is one, it’s not going to be like the one described in the Bible…

Strictly speaking, no I do not. I believe many gods exist, but they are only as real as the concepts in the minds of the believers. I have many reasons for this, of which I will only list a few:

- Any god, presumably who had an interest in humans, would make it perfectly obvious that he/she/it existed, and then would leave us choice only as to whether or not we agreed with its decrees. The very ambiguity of the existence of gods leads me to believe that they either don’t exist or don’t want to be found.
– Gods have no role to play. The universe can largely be explained by scientific laws and/or theories. Any gods would therefore be relegated to a metaphysical/spiritual/philosophical realm. Every theory of gods that I am acquainted with teaches abhorrent morality though, which means that either gods that exist are perverse, or that gods were created by humans with less developed moral sensibilities than those we enjoy today.
– I have not come across any compelling evidence for the supernatural. If gods existed, they would need to operate by a mechanism either operating under laws we understand or some greater laws that we do not. They clearly don’t under the laws we do understand, because there would be a hole in the conservation laws. To propose a whole set of laws by which a god might physically exist is absurd though, as it introduces a whole new level of complexity to explain a being who is supposed to be an answer within themselves.
– Humans have a lengthy history of creating gods, and then modifying their theory of gods to fit what they discover after the invention. Yet most religions insist that their god is changeless. There is no particular reason to suppose that one of these gods is more likely to exist than another, and since many are mutually exclusive, choosing one leads to rejection of thousands of others. Without cause to accept one over another, the only logical conclusions are to give up and say it cannot be known, or to reject them all as a class of delusion stemming from a psychological need to personify natural phenomena.

@leopardgecko123 Perhaps you are right.. but perhaps you are not.. that is just an idea held by faith that some people chose to believe.. that’s the thing, there is no solid proof of a God.. it’s all based on an idea and some people just need more than that.

Yes, I do. My concept of God and my relationship to God are intensely personal, has nothing to do with anyone else’s belief system. You’re not going to convert me, and I know I am not going to convert you.

@leopardgecko123 “I mean, we are not supposed to understand Him.”

How are we supposed to follow someone we cannot understand? I would not vote for a politician without understanding their policies and probable future directions for my country, so why should I follow a being who won’t allow themselves to be understood even to the point of demonstrating their existence?

@FireMadeFlesh No, you are not supposed to understand him. And if you question him, he picks you out of the 7 billion other people on earth and puts you in hell. Right?

answer to question – No, never. God is a baby fairytale for those too afraid to live with the truth that life has no value. You live and then you die. Nothing after that except the atoms that once made up your body, but now have found other homes in the universe. But they also need to be assured that if they are an asshole and dick people over, they can simply pay the priests and be forgiven.

I do not believe in god and I encourage others to stop the idea of god from hampering the dreams and aspirations of future humans.

@Afos22 Depends which god you are talking about. Some would single out a person like that, some wouldn’t care too much what people believed and would do the right thing by them anyway. Either way, it doesn’t make them any more real.

No. The concept seems to have a hard time avoiding irrelevance, silliness, or both.

No I don’t believe in God. I do believe all the elements in the universe are connected and perhaps in ways that are still mysterious to us, but I don’t believe in an omnipresent power that has any control over life, creation or me. I believe in time, science will explain many of the mysteries that still exist and some we may never wholly understand but this does not mean that some mystical being has any involvement.

Yes. I don’t know why, it’s just something I have always felt. My family aren’t particularly religious (apart from one Grandmother) and I don’t go to church often or read the Bible on regular basis, I have evn tried not to believe in God as I don’t usually go against the logic of science but, for some reason, I have never been able to stop believing. It’s a heart over head thing for me.

I believe in dog. Also dyslexia.

I believe in God, but not like what it’s said in the bible.

I’m Catholic, but whatever religion you are, there is only one God.

It’s so funny that every religion describes God in different pictures, symbols, stories.

A bible is just a bible, it could be wrong, the story could have changed because it has been passed for hundreds of years.

One thing which is still a mystery is how could this world exist? Who made all the universe? There might be only one answer to that.. it would be “God”, something more greater and natural.

No because it just does not make a difference. Saying that things happen due to the will of God is equivalent to saying that things happen because they happen. If something happens one way, it is the will of God, and if you find out that it actually happened another way, that too is the will of God. It makes things simpler to eliminate the inconsequential middle man.

No. I have seen little evidence of the existence of any gods. Something does not require evidence that it doesn’t exist, since that would mean every imaginary creature has a stake in the game. If any religion’s god was correct, it would be very noticeable, and every person on the planet would flock to that religion. As far as Christianity’s god, a being willing to send any person to endure unimaginable agony for an infinite amount of time, to pay for a finite amount of sinning is just silly. For any benevolent god(s) to have purposely made the world the way it is, is depressing in itself.

I could say yes and I could say no. It depends what is meant by ‘God’.

I believe in fiddleplayingcreolebastard.

i guess so, God seemingly offers a tenuous rope bridge over the yawning abyss that the rational mind seems ill equipped to fill, difficult and precarious to negotiate, but better than nothing.

lol…ya…The “GOD” idea was solely the worst idea in history…

I believe in myself.

No I don’t. I was raised by atheist parents, I’m still atheist and have no evidence with which to believe otherwise.

Were a person not aware of his physical needs he would soon die from hunger, thirst, exhaustion or exposure, or land in a mental institution. Thus the lonely traveler in the dead of winter will freeze to death because the numbing power of cold makes him unconscious of his danger, some People take drugs in order not to be conscious of their need of rest. Scientists have discovered that it is because the walls of the stomach come together when it is empty that one feels the pain of hunger and thus becomes conscious of his need of food. Obviously it is our senses and nerves that make us conscious of our physical needs so that we will do something about supplying those needs that we may stay alive and enjoy life’s blessings. The fact is that by far the majority of mankind are not conscious of their spiritual need, any more than the antediluvians were aware of their danger when Noah preached to them. Because this being conscious of one’s spiritual need is so rare and at the same time the first requirement Jesus began his “sermon on the mount” with the words: “Happy are those who are conscious of their spiritual need.( Matt. 5:3 )
Why are those who are conscious of their spiritual need happy? Because only when we are aware of our true condition is there any hope for improvement. Only if we appreciate how soiled we are, in a spiritual sense, that “there is not a righteous man, not even one,” will we look for spiritual power of God’s Word and the merit of Christ’s sacrifice, to wash us clean. Only when we appreciate that we have strayed like sheep, and are lost, will we look to the Right Shepherd, Jesus Christ, to guide us in the right way. Only if we are conscious that ‘it is not in mere man to direct his own steps’ will we look to God’s Word. (Jer. 10:23)
If you are among those “conscious of their spiritual need,” You may wonder questions, such as: ‘If God cares about us, why has he allowed so much evil and suffering throughout history? How can I improve the quality of my family life?’ What happens to us when we die?Is there any hope for the dead? How can I pray and be heard by God? How can I find happiness in life?
The Bible gives full and satisfying answers to these and many more questions.

I’m an agnostic with atheistic leanings. That is, I don’t think there is a god, but I can’t be positive about that. If there is one, I’m certain he/it is nothing like the God of Christianity (or any other religion.) Whether there is one or not, I reject all organized religion. They are clearly man-made, and weren’t made for very good reasons, either (at least to my mind).

My answer is similar to @augustlan.‘s

I don’t believe in god, but I wouldn’t mind if I were wrong.

This answers it once and for all: http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

And for me, exactly what @downtide said. I’m lucky I didn’t have to discover my atheism on my own, but rather I saved some trouble by being born into it.

If you insist.

I never needed that hypothesis.

I’ve always had the ambition only to believe things that are true. That leaves no room for whimsical fancies and arbitrary benefits of doubt. If you find objective support for a notion, you believe in it, otherwise you do not.
It would be an understatement to say there is no support for the existence of cosmic superintelligences. Simultaneously we know – from the sheer number of contradictory pantheons worshipped – that humans will believe in gods whether they exist or not.
That makes agnostic atheism the best bet. We’re not absolutely sure, but the probability is vanishingly small. And we know the religions are full of crap either way.
You can cling to an error margin like that if you want to believe, but not if your goal is to actually know the truth.

Further reading: Privileging the hypothesis, the Celestial Teapot argument,

Which one?
Also, no. There is no reason to.

I don’t really spend much time thinking about it.

If there is one, I don’t think he/she/it has much input into my life.

But I do believe in insurance, so when something good happens, I always try to remember to roll my eyes skyward and say thank you. Just in case!

‘The way that can be told
Is not the constant way;
The name that can be named
Is not the constant name.’ Lau Tzu, Tao Te Ching

I believe that science has enormous merit; its failings are human and have to do with labeling, discernment and a need to finalise meaning. Even physicists are confounded when infinity rears its awkwardness and mathematics becomes a kind of abstract expression – beautiful, yes, but ultimately still a mystery.

There is no finality to meaning. Infinity, eternity, the essence of life, is now and we are all present in it. The universe is huge, energetic, dynamic, constantly changing and totally forgiving. It is big enough for all or any gods to exist, (they probably do) and for us and all of our beliefs. If we humans can sort ourselves out with respect, regard and even love of our own kind, no matter what shape, size or colour we come in, there is hope for us to evolve towards a better understanding.

It’s fab.

@elhaha1001 “Who made all the universe?”
It doesn’t have to be a ‘who’. Some hypothesise that the universe must exist. The universe as we see it is entirely the result of natural physical processes.

@Spreader “The fact is that by far the majority of mankind are not conscious of their spiritual need”
What is spiritual need? I live a perfectly successful, satisfying life, and I honestly don’t know what spirituality or religion would add to it – in fact I am convinced that I am in a far better position morally, intellectually and psychologically than what I was as a Christian. What more do I need?

I was raised Catholic, taught Sunday school as an adult, and have spent a lot of time thinking about religion, looking at it from a historical perspective, and have reached the conclusion that I am agnostic. I understand the human need for the community of organized religion, but I find most are based on man-made artifice, and many Christians don’t actually practice the core teachings of Jesus. In my experience, many atheists are more moral, ethical and actually follow the teachings of Jesus than Christians actually do. I believe fear of dying is a great motivator for faith; people use religion as a bodyguard. If god does exist, men are incapable of comprehending what god actually is.

@FireMadeFlesh i know it’s a natural process. But somehow the spirits said that God do really exist. (I live in Indonesia and there are so many ghosts and spirits here)

A video was shown by my mother about an exorcism (happened to a friend in Pontianak, Indonesia).
So a man was really obsessed to spirits (ghosts, etc, something like voodoo). He even tried to make his own wife suffer (I don’t know how, rituals or something)

One day the man passed away (so sudden).
A priest tried to put the man’s soul into the wife’s body, hoping to find some answers.

He (in the wife’s body) said that he was punished by God and he couldn’t lay his feet on the ground as it was burning (is this the description of hell? Just erase what you used to think about hell) and he kept on jumping (because it’s burning). What he really regretted what he had done and he said that please worship God as It does exist.

Then the spirits he followed were also possessed into the wife’s body one by one. There was an alligator, a kuntilanak (this is a very common ghost in Asia, especially in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore), and I forgot the other one. They also said that God does really exist, so do not try to worship others.

Since then, I started to believe that God does really exist. Even though I don’t really believe in any religion, I believe in God, or maybe a god.

Maybe God is just the strongest spirit or ghost that ever lived that all other ghost are afraid? who knows..

“There are so many ghosts and spirits here” – empirical evidence you can count on!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMPTquSgmc0

Yes I do. Why I beleive is something no atheist or agnostic could completely understand. Some of them may understand to some degree but none will fully understand.

@Mikewlf337 – they can only understand why you shouldn’t!

I think that the idea of God in every religion is meant to educate human beings about the proper values of life. Therefore I believe the God is imaginary and created in the minds of human to remind ourselves about these life values. In my opinion, the historical events in the bible or any other religions scriptures that describe God has very little meaning. We can keep arguing the validity of such events but will not find any true answer unless we ever able to go back to the pass to witness them. Only the values that are presented in the scriptures are worth to be taken in. As humans, we are imperfect in many sense, therefore the idea of God is presented and that He acts as an imaginary authority to make sure we live our life with these good values.

@bolwerk are you an atheist or agnostic?

“Faith is a torment. It is like loving someone who is out there in the darkness but never appears, no matter how loudly you call.” -The Seventh Seal

@Mikewlf337: atheist

It depends on what your definition of God is.

I believe that I believe in the unknown powers that be. None of which can be can be explained in any book of holy scriptures.

If someone ever wrote a comprehensive book about the history of all the various religions of humans it would present a vary clear picture to someone with an open mind. Which religion is correct? None of them of course.

I absolutely believe in God.

I believe in the God of the Old Testament, and in Jesus.

I believe in God fully. It is not a childs fairy tale, or a refuge for the addle brained. It is a faith and a calling. It is the Way, the Truth and the Light.

I don’t push my religious views on people, like many do, and I don’t let people of other religions, or absence thereof, push their beliefs on me. You want to know if I believe? I do. It is a source of great joy in my life.

Yes.
I never feel the need to explain why or convince anyone to hold my beliefs. ;)

@Mikewlf337
Do you understand why you believe, though?

@bolwerk Then you proved my point. That’s why I didn’t explain why I believe in full detail. There is no point to explain something to someone who doesn’t understand. Some atheist laugh at my reasons and think I am stupid. I have actually had a few atheists get extremely angry to the fact that I do believe in God. I have never shoved my beliefs down another’s throat and I would expect the same from others. What I personally believe is of no concern to others. Some may try to make it appear that it is a concern but it isnt. The modern tensions between people of different faiths and people who don’t have any faiths is still going on because of one groups inability to respect the views of others. I have always repected the views of others. I can’t say the same about some religious people and some atheists.

@Fyrius Yes I understand why I believe. Despite what non-believers may think. Religious people do think for themselves.

Without a doubt I believe! Religion is dangerous but Faith in Christ is amazing!

No, there are no gods in my mind, there’s only room for common sense….. I’ve been an atheist for most of my years, raised church of England but not convinced, too many contradictions…. :-/ we are but sheep enough as it is to governments….... we have little or no choice there…...

@Mikewlf337
I wasn’t implying you don’t think for yourself.
Why you believe what you believe is no trivial question. It’s not a shameful thing not to know. Your mind is a complex system, and it’s all too easy to overestimate your understanding of how it behaves.

No.

I’ve never seen any convincing evidence, and my parents raised me with no specific belief system in mind.

Nope. God is Santa Claus for grown-ups.

Yes. Do you think the world is a coincidence? Have scientists discovered any other inhabitable planets for lightyears upon lightyears away?

I believe in God.

If you do, what religion are you?
Christian. Think Joel Osteen, not the Westboro Baptist “Church.”

Is there any particular reason why or why not?
I was brought up in church, and both my parents are Christians. Everyone I knew was of the Christian faith until I went to high school. So I guess you could say my whole upbringing lead me toward truly believing in God and Jesus.

Has something happened to you that convinced you to believe or not believe in God?
The thing which has the greatest impact on my beliefs is the fact that I’m here. My mother miscarried twins before she had me. Along with that, the doctors told her she was barren. Along with that, I almost died at birth. But, I’m here. There are also things that have happened and that are happening in my life which, I believe, have only turned out the way they did by the grace of God.

@Mikewlf337: When did I say I care if you believe in God? I don’t. However, since you don’t know what I do or don’t understand, and you entered a conversation advertising that you’re not going to explain yourself, I would appreciate you not try talking down to me about what I can and cannot understand or project your subjective neuroses about big, mean atheists onto me, k thx. Except that you asked, I never even would have mentioned it because, as you said, it’s not really anyone else’s concern.

(Of course, if what you “personally believe is of no concern to others,” I don’t even see why you’re posting about it to begin with.)

@bolwerk I wasn’t talking down to you. I wasn’t even talking about you in most of what I said. I was just explaining why I feel the need not to explain my beliefs. It something atheists do not fully understand. I don’t have a subjective neuroses. Just my experience with SOME atheists. I never said all atheists. You make it seem like I am generalizing which I’m not. The reason I answered on this thread is because he the asker asked.

I don’t personally believe in God. However, I believe that the notion of a god played a very important role in the development of society. Gods are also usually the embodiment of morality, and belief in the god serves as an ultimate pushiment and reward system. Following a god’s rules of morality creates the reward of a better afterlife. This helps to keep people following the rules of society. A god also used as a mechanism to explain unexplained forces at work, which seem to control aspects of nature. The belief in a greater good/morality with some sort of moderator, and the belief in unseen forces controlling nature easily joined together to become the same God, or multiple gods.

A belief in gods may have played an important role in keeping the first civilizations together, and some historians consider the belief in gods to be a criteria for the beginning of civilization. In the modern world, god is completely outdated as a method to explain nature, but the belief in morality is still very important to this day. I do not think that a belief in god is needed for someone to have morality, but it may help maintain it throughout society over time.

Define “God”.

I believe that there is some form of higher intelligence out there, but I do not believe in humanity’s ability to obtain accurate knowledge of/about said entity/entities.

In other words, Mu

@Mikewlf337
“It something atheists do not fully understand. (...) I never said all atheists. You make it seem like I am generalizing which I’m not.”
So… do you suppose there are atheists who might understand, or do you think it’s impossible for any atheist to?
You’re kind of saying both.

@Fyrius I was talking about some of the negative experience I had with some atheist when I said “never said all atheists”

I think this whole “just don’t understand” argument goes both ways. I’ve met many religious people who are completely dumbfounded when they come across someone who doesn’t believe. “How can you not believe? How can you live without God? You’re just denying God!” they say. It’s the same thing. The two “sides” often don’t understand each other at all.

@Mikewlf337
I see…
So I suppose your answer is then that you think it’s impossible for any atheist to understand why you believe. That is a kind of condescending thing to say.

In my experience, the people who are the most competent when it comes to understanding things are all atheists.

@Fyrius
Of course we atheists don’t understand it. If we did, we would be Christians, duh.

@Mikewlf337: you generalized, stating that atheists could never understand something that you seem to claim to have esoteric knowledge of. If the bulk of believers can understand, I would guess the bulk of atheists could. Anyway, I would never demand anyone explain his religious beliefs. If you feel like telling me, publicly or privately, I wouldn’t make fun of you for it (but if it’s mind-blowingly stupid, I might make fun of the belief), but I certainly don’t feel obligated to know. However, I don’t see how you can be expected not to explain why someone wouldn’t understand something when you’re bandying this assumption that they wouldn’t understand on a public forum.

@DominicX yeah, I know what you mean.
I don’t think there’s a right or wrong side either.
I mean believers always think the non believers are wrong for not believing,,, and the other
’ non believers’ think the believers are stupid for believing.
I think that’s wrong… there’s always a chance that you are wrong.
I think it doesn’t matter if you believe in god or not,,,

The idea of a single, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent entity is not only philosophically improbable, but given the state of the world, impossible. Much more likely is a number of limited entities with various amounts of influence and interest in our goings on, considering that the experiential evidence over thousands of years points to the existence of something besides the physical and the circumstances of observable reality.

Nope. Why? I don’t have a need to believe in a god, any sort of meaning to life, or any sort of afterlife.

@incendiary_dan
“considering that the experiential evidence over thousands of years points to the existence of something besides the physical and the circumstances of observable reality.”
Evidence, you say? Do elaborate.

@Fyrius I should have put “evidence” in quotes like that. What I really mean is that with so many supposed encounters with non-physical entities (deities, spirits, etc.) recorded throughout the ages, it seems unwise to say they don’t exist and reasonable to say that something is out there. Might not be exactly what people always think, but the frequency and relative consistency of experiences suggests it’s not just in peoples heads.

@Fyrius I did not mean to condescend. They don’t understand because they don’t believe.

No. There are too many contradictions. The story of the flood about Jesus’ birth are repeated in various ways in several religions years and years apart, especially Jesus’ birth.

@incendiary_dan
You might be underestimating the power of what’s just in people’s heads.

But very well, agnosticism is good. I’d recommend taking a more probabilistic approach for this sort of thing, though, dividing your confidence over the possibilities proportional to their evidence rather than taking a side. You don’t have to either say they don’t exist or they do, you can also say it’s plausible that they don’t but somewhat more likely that they do.

There are some additional questions you’ll need answers to, though.
What do you suppose it means for an entity to be “non-physical”?
Do you suppose the people who wrote those records you mention would have been able to tell the difference between an encounter with a “non-physical” being, versus one with an equally baffling and also hitherto undiscovered being that’s physical nonetheless?
If there are things that operate on laws that are different from the laws of physics as we know them, doesn’t that just mean our knowledge of physics is incomplete (duh)? Would such laws not be laws of physics too?

I don’t get into these debates on this subject. I will answer this part of your question: Yes, I believe in God and am associated with the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA).

There is a higher power than we are but there are so many different ideas and thoughts about what God is. From the writings of history there are also thousands of different view points. It has been given to man to understand and know the mysteries of God. By seeking, asking, knocking and just plain searching we all can know these mysteries. There are groups all over this world that have found them. This world is governed by the Natural and Universal Laws that have always been. There are NO beings that control these laws and all are subject to them including the higher beings. Those that find these mysteries as they are called understand and have been shown and given revealation, vision, insights and actual knowledge of this world and the principles on which it is governed. We as a three dimensional world are about to change into a higher dimension and those who are prepared will evolve with it and become higher beings. It is about to take place and mankind will progress beyond the three dimensional/physical world we now know.

No, I do not. The reason is simple: I didn’t start my life believing in God, I’ve never been given any good reason to believe since then, and I’ve been given plenty of reasons not to believe. Those who appeal to a God of the gaps keep seeing those gaps filled by thoroughly non-divine things. There is simply nothing we need God—and specifically God—to explain.

His fan club doesn’t help much, either.

I have never found a reason to believe in a god – no evidence and no advantage.

After watching this brilliant documentary this evening (Sunday 6th March) Wonders of the Universe on the BBC, I believe in Professor Brian Cox and the second Law of Thermodynamics.

I hope he remembers to remind us about the third, that’s where the big money is on everlasting life

Yes I do believe in God. I believe in God because no matter how many ways I slice it, no matter how much I dissect it and try to reason it out nothing + nothing = nothing. Even all the way back to the big bang something had to set things in motion and I believe that something is God.

I’ve read through all 88 of the previous responses, and I am quite intrigued. I’ve lived my entire life believing in the God of the Bible, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Does this make me some close-minded individual following in the steps of his parents? Maybe. Even so, my parents are amazing people. My dad is one of the greatest men I will ever know and I believe it is because of his faith. He believes in something far greater than himself and that drives him to love others unconditionally.

For me, I actually have a degree in Theology from a fairly respected Christian university. I have studied the Bible as well as the history after the Church that isn’t recorded in the Bible. Nonetheless, I believe in the narrative of the Bible. There is a story to be found that expresses God’s interaction with man and how he has always loved the world. This story has continued beyond the leather binding of the Bible into today as God continues to interact with humans in love.

I know a lot of people have a very difficult time believing in an all powerful Deity who is supposed to be supremely good but let’s bad things happen in this world. I agree. I wonder how a good God can allow pain and suffering to happen. But, the God is believe in is supremely good and I don’t have to defend Him. Things happen and I am in no position to respond to any questions about why God would allow something bad to happen. They just do. They happen to good and bad people, believers and non-believers. It’s just the world we live in. But, I place my hope (hope in this case in not a wish like I hope I get this for Christmas, but is actual belief and trust) in the narrative of the Bible. That when the story has ended, the God that I believe in, know, and love will have worked out all things for good.

Yes I do. The following is from an answer I gave in another question.

…“Prayer is effective, there is wisdom that comes to me that both circumvents time and is understanding that is outside what is available to me. I knew my wife’s name two days before I met her or knew she existed and on and on and on, consistently as you say. There is a congruity to my life when I walk what I believe. If I were to describe it, it is like the love of a perfect parent.

It is not as evident as the reaction of any simple science experiment but there is enough for me to acknowledge. There is enough for me to know it’s not foolishness.

None of this is said to try to convince you but maybe to help you respect that I am not grabbing a feather floating in the air and calling it an ostrich.

Why would a good God only give enough to have to accept him through faith? Why are there some lessons children must learn on their own rather than just be given the answer?

Brings me back to your qualities of God question, the ones you say are more suspect than evident. I won’t answer this for you, but I will tell you when you are closest to the answer. What we learn in our hearts is not learned by simple words alone. The lessons of the heart are learned through stories and experiences. When you are holding your first child and are blown away by the love you feel, then you will be close. I don’t think I can argue the absolute completeness of Gods knowing or perfection of his benevolence, or completeness of his capabilities, but as you raise your children you will see the parallels of relative hierarchies of wisdom, hierarchies of love without condition, hierarchies of forgiveness that seems endless and willingness to lay down your life for your children.

These matters of the heart are as real as the breath we breathe and all else we experience from the objective to the subjective.”

I do; however, I don’t believe in him that way that is written in the Bible. That was an interpretation of what someone experienced or felt. It’s been written and re-written countless times…in fact, there is a new version coming out where the word virgin is not appearing the the Bible. I think it’s something like young woman or something along those lines. This is where I have a problem with the Bible.

I was raised Roman Catholic, can’t say that I am actively practicing that right now; but I do have my beliefs.

@cak: I think the distinction is between “young woman” (segues into “virgin,” or at least “unlikely to have ever had a penis in her”) and technical virginity. It’s probably not a very important distinction, theologically. At least I guess it was not until later in the church’s development. (I guess the trouble with theology is anything could be made important if you want it to be.)

@bolwerk: I understand. To me, the distinction is important. After many classes and going to Mass a million times and hearing the importance of the Virgin Mary (in those classes), it drives me batty that someone can’t just leave the word alone.

When I fully explain where I draw my lines, I don’t fully fit into a category. That’s part fo the reason why I don’t normally participation on this topic.

It may sound dumb, but it’s just my opinion.

@cak: I don’t think it’s dumb, but I don’t think anyone is trying to screw with the word either. It’s just that a translation may not render the original concept (and its ambiguities, as I suspect is the real issue here) properly. Picking one word might mean technical virginity was critical, whereas picking another might just mean it’s likely or incidental. English language liturgy would be radically different if the word “maiden” (1) or “wench” (2), each current in early modern English, had been used instead of “virgin” (3). (1) means a likely young girl, probably who was never laid, another means a woman of real childbearing age whether she was married or not. (3) in English really hones in on the state of the hymen, and it probably did even in James’ day.

I’m going to re-answer this question without a hint of snark or sarcasm (though my original answer is true, in a sense, since I believe myself to mostly be the master of my own destiny).

I do believe in God. Not in the invisible wish-granting sky daddy sense, or the authoritarian, paternalistic sense, or the pantheistic animist sense, but in a kind of personal interpretation.

I’m not one to appreciate dogma, but I do have a distinct spiritual side (that I got from studying Quakerism, Sufism, and Mahayana Buddhism rather extensively) and I find that my definition of God could be considered a sort of incurious intellectual cop-out, but it works for me, and it is satisfying to me, so I don’t see why I should change it.

Basically, I believe that the “spark” which inspires both human goodness, as well as creativity is God. I call it God, because no other word, for the time being, satisfies me. When someone loves someone else and writes a symphony in their honor, or when someone donates a huge sum of money to give medical care to someone across the world they’ve never met, or when someone cries because someone else is hurting, that to me is “God.” I guess you could say that God, to me, is the human brain, or hormones/emotions, or evolutionary altruism, or some relic of evolution, but the fact that human caring and emotion can run so deep and against all rationality at times is profound, and strikes me as vaguely spiritual.

So yeah. I don’t think there’s a guy in the sky with a beard that’s nicer than mine. And I don’t really think that there is a being that dictates or even cares about our actions on earth. But I do think that the deep and positive emotional connections that humans often share are worthy of being revered.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard THAT. That is something that makes sense to me.

This is when I wish we could give more than one GA to a question.

@cak, thank you kindly. I’m glad I made some sense. I felt I was being rather rambly trying to get my thoughts out there. It’s more complicated than that, but that’s the most concise Fluther sound bite I could come up with at the moment. I have a lot of views on relationships and fate that tie in with this too, but I don’t really know how to vocalize them at the moment.

@elhaha1001 Hypnotists can make people do all sorts of silly things, so I don’t find it too much of a stretch to say that the priest in your story was able to make this woman act out what she believed was happening to her husband. The human brain has neurons dedicated to copying the actions of another, which is how we learn new skills from other people. These neurons, coupled with the vivid imagination of someone brought up to believe in ghosts, could quite easily lead to such a scene.

I’m not trying to belittle what you have said, just to show that there are alternatives. As such, I find anecdotal evidence unconvincing, because it offers no link between cause and effect apart from the assumption that the reader is supposed to make.

@jellyfish3232 We have not yet found another habitable planet, but we have only investigated a few hundred stars, which is very little compared with the 100 billion in our galaxy. However, we may have found extraterrestrial life (although not intelligent).

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard Seems noncommittal and avoiding confrontation, argument, and being disproved.

What @Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard calls God, I would call spirituality. The important distinction from the usual interpretation of religion is that it is seen to come from within us rather than being something external. It is a big difference. It allows for others to have different sets of values without treating them as if they are in violation of the one true doctrine and It puts a responsibility on both the individual and on society for making things right without envisioning some externally imposed apocalypse or utopia.

@Afos22, sure is. I don’t see that as a bad thing, necessarily.

@LostInParadise, right-o. I hardly have any interest in claiming a monopoly on truth or exerting my will on others as Alfred North Whitehead said, there is no shortcut to truth. so that’s why I stick to my hippy-dippy interpretation of God. It makes me happy, it’s imperfect, it doesn’t bother anyone, and I don’t care.

There is something rather than nothing. There is an ‘I’ because cogito ergo sum. But this ‘I’, where did it come from? It didn’t create itself, yet it exists. This is a profound mystery and God is as good an explanation as any. But when we try to understand God it can lead us into all sorts of errors.

@flutherother
I beg to differ. There are much better explanations than god.
Have you ever heard of something called science?

Where humans come from has stopped being a mystery a long time ago. And if it hadn’t, then “god” would not solve the mystery, because you still know nothing about how it happened, or why it happened this particular way, or where this god person comes from, or what kind of entity he is anyway. It only stops your curiosity.

@Fyrius but what was there before science? What set it all in motion?

@SuperMouse
Before science? Well, there were philosophers and other kinds of scholars.
But I suppose you’re referring to all existence now. We have the Big Bang model for the beginning of this universe; as for what caused that, if anything had to, then I don’t know, and perhaps no one does. And the clerics certainly don’t.
Still, that does not mean “goddidit” is as good an explanation as any. In fact, even having no answer at all is preferable to having a pseudo-answer that makes a heckload of unhelpful postulations and sates your curiosity without actually feeding it anything substantial.

@Fyrius Yes, I have heard of science and it interests me profoundly but there are limits to what science can do. Science will never come to an end because it can never explain the ultimate mystery of existence. All it can do is provide a better and better description of something which is a mystery in itself. That is not to dismiss science and I hope you didn’t understand me to mean we should. When I said attempts to understand God can lead to errors I didn’t mean science which is an honest attempt but rather those who make dishonest assumptions about God that are often based on very subjective needs and desires.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard WE need more people in the world that think like you….
your answer made me proud to be a caring human.

@flutherother
“Science (...) can never explain the ultimate mystery of existence.”
How do you know that? You don’t give humankind much credit.
Maybe there are limits to what science can achieve, or maybe not. At any rate I don’t think we’ve run into any so far. It seems far too early to tell what science can’t do.

But even if there exist things science cannot explain, then religion definitely can’t. Anyone can conjure up a curiosity-stopper. That’s not the same thing as actually explaining something.
Of course, that’s not a problem if you just really want to believe notion A. But it’s not good enough if you have any interest in what actually happened.

As a side note: “mysteriousness” is not a property of things. It only describes our temporary ignorance about them. Rainbows were mysteries to our ancestors until Newton came along. Electromagnetism is still much of a mystery to me, but other people understand, and to them it’s not mysterious at all.
There’s no such thing as mystery in itself. The explanation already exists, even if no one knows it.

@Fyrius This is something you said above.

I beg to differ. There are much better explanations than god.
Have you ever heard of something called science?

Where humans come from has stopped being a mystery a long time ago. And if it hadn’t, then “god” would not solve the mystery, because you still know nothing about how it happened, or why it happened this particular way, or where this god person comes from, or what kind of entity he is anyway. It only stops your curiosity.

There are humans that know what, who, where and what kind of an entity God is. It is out there for all to find. This weekend there was some very amazing things that also happened and it has me way up on the amazed side of life. Watch the world events unfold as things become very unusual, life is about to become very interesting.

I have the distinct pleasure of being a de facto atheist. So, that’s a no. I can’t really do anything about it at this point.

@queenie, thank you dear, I’m flattered.

@SuperMouse

Because “nothing” is unstable.

Have a read of the Grand Design by Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow if you’re interested in getting some very good answers to why there is something rather than nothing.

I don’t believe god wants us to be unhappy., wherever, whatever and whoever he is.
Nope…

@Summum
“There are humans that know what, who, where and what kind of an entity God is.”
“know”
Like hell they do.
If that’s knowledge, and not just arbitrary belief decoupled from reality, then how come everyone seems to have different contradictory “knowledge” about this same being? If yours is the only right one, what sets it apart from the others, and does that difference have anything to do with reliability?

But fine, let’s go with that, you somehow know all these things about this god person. So that means that to you, the answer “god did it” actually helps you to understand the way the universe came about.
So how did he create reality? What were his methods? Would it be possible to use the same methods to create a universe of our own so we can migrate there when this universe eventually dies? Why did he create reality in this particular way? Why are the laws of nature as they are, and not different? Are there any constraints on the universe creation process that prohibit the existence of certain kinds of universes?
Where did this god person himself come from? What’s his history? How humanoid is he? Does he feel territoriality, does he have a sense of humour, does he appreciate music and food, does he make ethical judgements? Does he think in association networks? Does he have a physical brain? If not, how does it function? How does he interact with the universe? Can he be negotiated with? Could we convince him to help solve our problems?
What sorts of world events do you expect to happen, given the existence of this god? What sorts of things would never happen? What should we prepare for?

These are the kind of questions you’d never ask yourselves. These are the things a curious person would want to know. But your curiosity is doused. You’re just content not to have to deal with the initial question any more.
Am I wrong?

“God did it” I never said God did it? Did what? I never said that God created reality. I didn’t say God created the Universe. The laws of Nature and the Universe have always existed as they are. The constraints in the Universe are constraints based on our knowledge and understanding of the laws and principles of our existence. I cannot answer for the being God as far as his preferences are concerned he has his own. His history is much like our own though he would have to show you that. I maintain as I have always maintained that Christ though he is not God the father ever performed any miracles. Frankly there are no miracles. If you understand the principles of the law then you can do things with that knowledge that others who don’t have that knowledge can’t. For instance if we were to go back in time and bring with us some of our technology the people back in history would think we were Gods. Things are going to change as is always the case. This world is evolving and is going to change. To prepare would be to discover and learn all you can from this life. Some people think God is sitting out there in control of events in the world. He is not he is a being that helps mankind with insights for progression and there are many beings helping with that. The Egyptians for instance had insights and knowledge to help them progress. The laws I speak of from the Universe govern this world and the imperfections are part of this existence. There is no one that controls that. For instance I lost children years ago because of technology if they had been born in today’s knowledge they would have survived.

No you are not wrong but you are not right either.

@Summum Funny how certain you sound while simultaneously not providing the faintest shadow of evidence for all these claims.

God is a giant bowl of pudding. This statement has exactly as much value, as far as reality is concerned, as the entirety of your post.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard Oh, ok. That’s where we have a difference in opinion. But, it’s not worth delving into, I guess.

@Thammuz and your point is? I’ve never claimed that I am right just that it is my experience and my reality. I know it to be so but each has to find things for themselves. When asked a question I answer with my understanding and knowledge. There is no proof what so ever that God exists or doesn’t. And I am very certain as to my knowledge on the matter.

@Fyrius How do I know that science will never explain the ultimate mystery of existence? Because the explanation would of necessity be so much less than the thing explained. It is possible to imagine that there might be a final explanation but it is impossible to imagine one that satisfies.

‘Mysteriousness’ may not be a property of things but it is a property of our relationship to things. Rainbows are lovely and they are mysterious like everything else in the world and science can’t take that away, even if this were the purpose of science, which it is not. The explanation science gives for rainbows depends heavily on the properties of photons which are more mysterious than the rainbows themselves.

@flutherother
“the explanation would of necessity be so much less than the thing explained.”
I don’t follow. Less what than the thing explained?

I’m pretty sure the scientists would be satisfied to know the answer, if it’s the truth. As would I. What else is there to be desired of an explanation?

“Rainbows are lovely and they are mysterious like everything else in the world and science can’t take that away”
You may be using a different definition of “mysterious” than the usual one. If by “mysterious” you mean “amazing” as opposed to “poorly understood”, then okay.

@Fyrius Look at magnets, how do they work?

@Afos22
Moving electric charge, apparently.

@Fyrius Well it’s a bit like A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy where the answer to the ultimate question turned out to be 42. Fair enough, but not very satisfying.

When things stop being mysterious it will be the end of science, but I don’t think that will ever happen. Everything remains mysterious, every answer leads to further questions.

@flutherother
Um. The reason why “42” is not a satisfying answer is because it’s not actually an answer. In the books, that’s because there was no real question to begin with. And of course, Douglas Adams isn’t exactly in the business of making sense.
An understanding couldn’t be unsatisfying in the same way that a useless non-answer like “42” is.

@flutherother @Fyrius I’m seriously puzzled at this particular point you’re debating. Since when does something have to be satisfying to be true?

It may well be true that, once we find out everything there is to know about everything, we could end up with no real objective and probably become incredibly bored and dissatisfied with the human condition, but that has absolutely no bearing on the validity of any of our discoveries.

Let’s keep in play the “42” example and go with that: the whole premise of that answer from an “intended meaning” position is that there is no point in finding an answer to an unknown question, but the books later make it perfectly clear that that is the actual answer, as meaningless as it may seem. Does the fact that the answer did not satisfy the questioners make it any less valid?

@Thammuz
It’s not accuracy that we’re talking about at this point. Although to you and me that would be the only thing that matters much.

I take it that @flutherother has already implicitly conceded the main point that science may one day be able to explain the origin of the universe.

@Fyrius My main point is that science will never satisfactorily explain the origins of the Universe. It may come up with some unified mathematical equation based on string theory or some such which purports to explain how everything works but such an equation wouldn’t be much more satisfying than the answer 42. As to how everything got started – I don’t think we will never know.

@flutherother Why would the answer need to be satisfactory, to you or to anyone else, to any degree? Does the universe exist only to please you, in your mind?

@flutherother
And I’m saying your criteria for satisfaction are different from mine, and those of the scientists.
I see you’re imagining the answer as something complicated and sciency that you wouldn’t understand anyway, so that it’s no more meaningful to you than the number 42. But try to imagine what it would be like from the perspective of a specialist researcher who has all the expertise they need to understand what this final answer means.

The answer should be capable of being explained. The theories of Newton, James Clerk Maxwell and Einstein are satisfactory because although they were worked out mathematically they can be expressed in ways that anyone can understand and accept as true.

@Thammuz anyone can understand and accept as true.

Tell that to creationists. Science is not accessible to anyone. It never will be because humanity is 80% idiots.

I thought humans were 80% water actually…

perhaps God resides in the solids?

@flutherother Even if science cannot answer the ultimate questions of the universe, and I am by no means ruling that out at this early stage, it is not the only secular mode of inquiry. Lack of success in scientific explanations is also not a reason to jump to conclusions about gods. There may be any number of non-scientific explanations for these ultimate questions, but whichever way you look at it invoking god(s) only defers the problem. If you invoke god(s), then they too require explanation if we are going to form a true theory of everything. It adds another layer of complexity that, at this stage of our knowledge, is entirely unnecessary.

Another important concept to consider is that some questions don’t have an answer. Consider the classic question of the unstoppable force vs. the immovable object. The question itself is nonsense, and hence it cannot have an answer. The same is true of some metaphysical questions, for example ‘why’ the universe exists. ‘Why’ is a term that infers forethought and intention, and if intention is assumed to be a part of the origins of the universe then gods are the only answer. However it is false to assume that intention was involved in the formation of the universe, because we haven’t fully discounted the simpler hypothesis, namely that natural causes can give rise to the universe we see.

@auntydeb you might be on to something there, let’s see if dehydrating the morons works…

@Fyrius http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs

@flutherother
But you expect this final explanation to be different?
The theories of Newton and Einstein too are only understandable if you first put effort into figuring out what they mean. It’s all complicated stuff. At face value, to a layperson, most of science is incomprehensible jargon gibberish. You’ve got to read up to understand it.
It’s science, after all, not Sesame Street.

And of course, those formulae are about something, which you can also talk about in regular English. Again, would you expect the explanation of the origin of existence to be different?

Are you going to continue to use the word “satisfactory” as if it describes a property of the explanation itself?

@Afos22
Yeah, I know.

@FireMadeFlesh
Good for you,But, Bible has faced bitter opposition over the centuries, and fearless translators and others have risked their lives to preserve it. Yet, their efforts alone do not explain why it has survived. All credit for its survival must go to God, “the living and enduring God” and the Preserver of his Word. (1 Peter 1:23–25)

@Fyrius A final explanation would be of a different kind to those scientific theories which attempt to explain what we can observe. We can describe what we can see with increasing accuracy and consistency but this does not begin to explain why what we are observing is there in the first place. My personal belief is that a final explanation of the Universe is not possible.

I can just about imagine some super computer armed with all the laws of nature and with limitless processing power telling us that it understands how the Universe began but if no human being could follow its thinking this would hardly be satisfactory.

@Thammuz – love the idea of dehydrating morons; the result would be pretty close to the original matter of the universe, ‘space-dust’ or similar, it is of course said ‘we are stardust’...! Whether God would then be apparent is as yet difficult to ascertain. Not sure if dehydrating morons would be legal, or, sadly moral, but the question still stands.

The problem with belief is that the word describes something of choice. We have no choice in our own existence, I know I exist, inasmuch as I am conscious of my self (I think therefore I am et al), and through empirical interaction, I find that others know I do too. Existence, life, is made up from our perceptions – physical and sensory feedback – and our relationship to what we experience. The thing I find I cannot accept is a separate entity called ‘God’. The consciousness we experience, the energy that apparently forms the universe is it. We are it. There can be nothing outside, it is eternal and infinite.

I’m off to invent a moron dessicating machine

@Spreader That does not answer my question. What is spiritual need?

@flutherother
I think we need to stop talking.
You’re nice and everything, but this is getting us nowhere.

@Fyrius ,@flutherother There can never be an ultimate explanation for anything, because there will always be lingering questions. This applies to both science and religion. Giving God as the ultimate explanation does not explain where God came from. If you are going to say that God has been around forever then the same can be said about the laws of science. There is no escape from mystery.

@LostInParadise
So then there is an infinite amount of information in the multiverse?
If it’s not infinite, and we keep learning new stuff (at a non-asymptotic rate), then eventually we’re going to run out of things to discover.

I love it. Grin There was never a beginning of the Universe it has always been. It is our mortal existence that has a beginning and an end.

@LostInParadise I would agree with your comments above.

@fyrius, The point is that at any moment, there will always be things that are not explained. It is always possible to ask why. It is not so much running out of things to discover as running out of explanations. If, like an annoying 4 year old, you keep asking why, there will eventually be a point at which you just have to say “because that’s the way it is.”

@LostInParadise Why is not always a question that makes sense. it’s like asking what’s the colour of envy. Or what does red smell like. The capability of asking a question doesn’t necessarily imply the question has any worth.

@auntydeb you know, i think there is something to gain regardless of what we find out about god

@elhaha1001 Clearly, people differ greatly in their ideas about spirituality. Thousands of books claim to show the way to a spiritual life, yet all too often people are left feeling unfulfilled and confused. There is one book, however, that does contain reliable guidance on spiritual matters. It is the book that shows evidence of being inspired of God. (2 Timothy 3:16)

i have not inspired any books

@LostInParadise
What @Thammuz said.
Imagine playing the “why” game with an omniscient person. Could she answer every question? If not, those questions must be invalid questions. If yes, then there’s a definite right answer that we could probably figure out too, sooner or later.

@Spreader
“It is the book that shows evidence of being inspired of God. (2 Timothy 3:16)”
Oh wow, there is evidence in the bible that it’s divinely inspired? What, is there a description of general relativity in there or something? Does it explain DNA two millennia before Watson and Crick? Does it contain anything that bronze age humans could not have written?
I’ve got to look that up. Let’s see, 2 Timothy 3:16…

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”

Oh. Hm.
It’s just an assertion. That’s a bit of a disappointment.

And it never occurred to the writers of all those other spirituality books just to add a verse saying “this book is the real one, seriously, don’t listen to the others”?

@Spreader I can’t read Leviticus and keep a straight face, let alone pretend any of the bible isn’t well within the range of silliness and insights expected from blokes who lived at that time and place.

@Spreader Do you accept everything the bible contains as absolutely true?

I don’t believe in God.
I stopped believing in him because of something that happened to me in my life. I grew up.

@Faiblesse Did you learn about logic?

@Afos22
A thing or two. But religion went out the window as soon as I got a basic grasp of common sense.
For starters, animals have to kill each other for food or starve to death. Does that look like the sort of world an all-powerful benevolent God would create? Or even allow to exist?
And who would design rabbits to be quick if they could achieve the same thing by making the wolves a little slower? Who would design wolves to be quick if they could just make the rabbits a little slower? Gazelles and cheetahs are both built for speed, but only because the other is also built for speed and they need to outrun the other. What’s the point of any of that?
And then there’s the whole Santa Claus precedent.
I think I could go on for a while, but I think you get the picture.

@Thammuz Yes, If we start with an open mind, ready to believe or not believe according to the evidence, it is quite probable that you discover that it is easier to believe in God than to decide that plants, animals and man himself, body and mind, had their origin as the product of blind, purposeless chance. It is perhaps fitting to add that many persons do not wish to believe in God. They realize that it would rebuke their past and change their future to an unpleasant degree if they did.”
That is a matter for your personal decision. But to help you decide wisely, consider these timely questions: Has the religion with which you are now associated educated you in a knowledge of the Bible? Has it given you a strong faith in God’s kingdom, a faith that provides you with a positive, optimistic view of the future? Does it preach, as the Bible does, that the only hope for man is the kingdom of God? Does it teach that Bible prophecy indicates that the blessings of God’s kingdom are to be realized on earth soon?(Matt 6:33)

@Spreader Animals, plants, and man arose via the process of evolution. It’s a blind process yes (hence the circuitous path of your own recurrent laryngeal nerve), and the end results are not predetermined. It hinges on natural selection, and thus does not work by “chance”.

I do agree with you though; it is “easier” to believe in certain gods. Especially if one is indoctrinated by religious parents, lives in a society with limited access to adequate scientific education or resources, or is intellectually predisposed towards wishful thinking, leading the evidence, following rules, and in some cases, perhaps just really liking the idea of other people being tortured for an eternity.

@Spreader
“Soon” here meaning “two thousand years ago”.

Typically enough, you’re talking about “strong faith” as if it’s a good thing, and then demonstrate its ability to make you look right past the bleeding obvious.

@ AdamF @ Faiblesse Many who believe in evolution assert either that God does not exist or that he will not intervene in human affairs. In either case, our future would rest in the hands of political, academic, and religious leaders. Judging from their past record, the chaos, conflict, and corruption that blight human society would continue. If, indeed, evolution were true, there would seem to be ample reason to live by the fatalistic motto: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die.”—1 Corinthians 15:32., British philosopher Antony Flew, once a leading champion of atheism for more than fifty years, stated: “The almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), [show] that intelligence must have been involved.” Flew believes in “following the argument no matter where it leads.” In his case it led to a complete change in thinking, so that he now believes in God.
What you believe up to you, for it can have a bearing not only on your present happiness but also on your future life. The choice is yours. Will you believe a theory that has failed to explain away the increasing evidence for design in the natural world? Or will you accept what the Bible says, namely that the earth and life on it are the product of a marvelous Designer, God who “created all things”?—Revelation 4:11.

@Spreader
“Will you believe a theory that has failed to explain away the increasing evidence for design in the natural world?”
There is no evidence for design in the natural world, so there is nothing to exlain away. On the contrary. All the evidence supports evolution.

”Or will you accept what the Bible says, namely that the earth and life on it are the product of a marvelous Designer, God who “created all things”?”
Or that says that the earth is flat, that the sky is a solid dome, that earth is the centre of the universe, that bats are birds?
A designer that, if it exists, is as incompetent as they come?
Eyes that project images upside down, that by their very “design” are prone to degeneration and errors.
Breathing and eating all done through the same hole, setting the organism up to choking to death on its own food..
The sewage system right next to the reproductive system. In men it uses the same organ even. That is disgusting.

So do I believe a book that claims of itself to be of divine origin, yet gets so many essential and basic things incredibly wrong?
Or do I accept scientific theories (theory of gravity, theory of relativity, quantum theory, theory of electromagnetism, germ theory, atomic theory, and last but not least, the theory of evolution), that consistenly match and explain available evidence and facts?

Verily, it is not a hard choice to make.

From one extreme to another. This world is governed by natural and Universal law and all things are subject to that.

@Spreader I think you need to re-install your fact checker
1. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Evolutionary theory is a product of science. Atheists predominantly accept evolution because they lack the ideological blinkers that many fundamentalist theists have. That said, many theists also accept evolution. Read works by Ken Miller if you want a theistic perspective of evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller In the meantime, to deny that species evolve and share a common ancestor, is to deny reality. We know this because the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence tells us this. The only objections to the fact that species evolve, are ideological, not scientific.
2. It doesn’t matter what Flew asserted at the end of his life. What matters is the evidence he could provide for his assertions. Nada.
3. “If, indeed, evolution were true, there would seem to be ample reason to live by the fatalistic motto: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die.””— Evolution is true, but the mottos (worldviews) by which we live depend a great deal on the ideologies which permeate our societies (as well as our being a product of social-primate evolutionary heritage). In short, there is zero evidence to suggest that individuals or societies need belief in god to be good.
See Zuckerman’s work for instance. http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf
And this article… which if you click on the figures, you’ll see indicates that acceptance of evolution is correlated with decreasing societal problems, rather than vice versa.
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Once you convince yourself that it is a virtue to retain fervent belief in that which has no evidence, or contradicts available evidence….that’s honestly a tough intellectual cul-de-sac to get out of.

@Spreader So you believe everything the bible says? Everything?

Good. Then please go drink a bottle of cyanide. Mark 16:18 clearly states that you will not die, and I’m willing to arrange a meeting, a video feed and all the cyanide you feel you can take.

You’ll be the first actually coherent Christian i ever met. You’ll be short lived, though.

Oh and by the way when was the last time that you laying hand on a cancer patient cured him?

I’m not even going to touch on what steaming pile of ignorant bullshit the whole creationist “debate” is, but i find it only fair to reply to your less bullshitty points.

Yes, If we start with an open mind, ready to believe or not believe according to the evidence, it is quite probable that you discover that it is easier to believe in God than to decide that plants, animals and man himself, body and mind, had their origin as the product of blind, purposeless chance.
Bullshit. I was raised catholic and i started disbelieving the absolute bullshit i was read every Wednesday in church at the age of 6. I didn’t know jack about science, evolution, whatever the fuck else you care to name, and i still found it ludicrous. FYI 6 is the age i also stopped believing in Santa for much the same reasons.

It is perhaps fitting to add that many persons do not wish to believe in God.
I would believe in any god, provided i had actual proof of its existence. Whether i would worship it is another matter entirely, especially if we’re talking about the Christian god, who is an absolute scumbag.

They realize that it would rebuke their past and change their future to an unpleasant degree if they did.
Mine? not so much. I have no regrets, i feel that i’ve done no wrong that i’ve not paid in full. And those i will do i will pay.

Has the religion with which you are now associated educated you in a knowledge of the Bible?
Raised Catholic, i probably know more about the bible than you do since you admitted you believe everything it contains.

Has it given you a strong faith in God’s kingdom, a faith that provides you with a positive, optimistic view of the future?
I need no faith. I don’t believe anything that can be determined. My beliefs limit themselves to matters of opinion, which the existence of something is, quite clearly, not.
For instance: i believe that Star Trek: The Next Generation is better than the original series.
I know that CD readers use a laser to read CDs.
I will never believe in god. I’ll either find actual proof (as in empirical, demonstrable and incontrovertible proof) or i will die an atheist and i will not regret it an instant. A god that rewards belief rather than rational inquiry is a god i wouldn’t worship anyway.

Does it preach, as the Bible does, that the only hope for man is the kingdom of God?
I have no religion, so no. And again, you can say whatever you want, i could not care less. I wan evidence. Something no religion is very keen on.

Does it teach that Bible prophecy indicates that the blessings of God’s kingdom are to be realized on earth soon?(Matt 6:33)
So soon in fact that they should have before the end of the generation of jesus himself? (Mark 13:30)

You can quote me all the bible you want. My bullshit detector is weapons-grade and i have plenty of time to find each and any passage that can debunk your position with your own weapon.

“Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die.”
Actually what the bible suggests: Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (Matt 6:31)
It’s not fatalistic, granted, but it’s not a very promising endeavor either. What purpose do working, struggling and, you know, actually growing up as a human being, in life if sitting on your ass believing is good enough?

On a side note: why don’t you do so? it seems better than actually doing shit, and yet i never see people that do not work and yet manage to live well without outside help from actual people.

“There is no evidence for design in the natural world”

I’d like to see you read the anthropic principle in depth and give your opinion on it.

@Season_of_Fall
Is this a book titled “The Anthropic Principle” that you’re talking about, or do you just refer to the philosophical argument?
Because the philosophical argument actually debunks the most commonly dragged-along argument for design in the natural world¹, thus only solidifying @ragingloli‘s point.

I’m talking about physicist and cosmologist propositions as referenced in Patrick Glynn’s (atheist turned believer) book, God The Evidence. The Anthropic Principle emerged as “observations that all the myriad laws of physics were fine tuned from the very beginning of the universe for” life to be possible

Tell me @Fyrius why are the basic constants of physics what they are, has our random universe lined up the perfect potion for life by accident, answer that question?

@Season_of_Fall
The universe is not fine tuned for life.
Most of the universe is vacuum. It will kill you instantly.
So do stars, black holes and their gamma ray bursts.
Most of the planets formed are either gas giants, which will kill you instantly, or barren rocks, which are either too cold or too hot, which will kill you instantly.
Only a tiny fraction of planets support life, and then only a tiny fraction of such a planet is habitable.
The inner core will kill you instantly, as will most of the planets interior.
The pressure at the depths of the oceans will crush you, volcanoes will burn you to a crisp, deserts will make you dehydrate to death, artic areas and mountains’ peaks will make you freeze to death, the upper atmosphere will make you suffocate.
Even of those handful of habitable planets, only a fraction of such a planet will not be hostile to life.
In fact, when life first formed on Earth, the planet was very hostile to life. Any life form as we know them today would have perished at that time. Instantly.
It is life itself which fine tuned itself to a universe that is unimaginably hostile to life.
Claiming that the universe is fine tuned to life is akin to claiming that a crane, spanning 5 lightyears from bottom to top, and that can only lift one hydrogen atom, is fine tuned to lifting.
I find such a claim so ridiculous, that there is not even a word for it.

(now, you may argue that such a universe is the most optimal universe possible. But if that were the case, the creator would have to be incredibly incompetent.)

@ragingloli Well put.

@ragingloli, but life exist, here we are. I asked you to address the basic constants of physics, what natural force brings them to be?

@Season_of_Fall The anthropic principle is a tool on the atheist’s side. It says that we cannot take anything meaningful from the fact that the universe is such that life is possible because we would not be here to contemplate that fact were it otherwise. In other words, the fact of our existence makes it entirely unsurprising that the necessary conditions for our existence obtain. The universe doesn’t fit us. We fit the universe.

@Season_of_Fall Calling the reason “god” doesn’t advance the question, especially in light of ragingloli’s masterful display of ownage of the fine-tuned universe argument, so your point is completely moot. Thanks for trying, better luck next time (or more likely not).

Why do these facts matter? Think of the challenge facing researchers who feel that life arose by chance. They have found some amino acids that also appear in living cells. In their laboratories, they have, by means of carefully designed and directed experiments, manufactured other more complex molecules. Ultimately, they hope to build all the parts needed to construct a “simple” cell. Their situation could be likened to that of a scientist who takes naturally occurring elements; transforms them into steel, plastic, silicone, and wire; and constructs a robot. He then programs the robot to be able to build copies of itself. By doing so, what will he prove? At best, that an intelligent entity can create an impressive machine.
Similarly, if scientists ever did construct a cell, they would accomplish something truly amazing—but would they prove that the cell could be made by accident? If anything, they would prove the very opposite, would they not?All scientific evidence to date indicates that life can come only from previously existing life. To believe that even a “simple” living cell arose by chance from nonliving chemicals requires a huge leap of faith.
Given the facts, are you willing to make such a leap? Before answering that question, take a closer look at the way a cell is made. Doing so will help you discern whether the theories some scientists propound about where life came from are sound or are as fanciful as the tales some parents tell about where babies come from. The probability of DNA forming by chance, “Where Did the Instructions Come From?”
Professor Shapiro does not believe that life was created. He believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood. In 2009, scientists at the University of Manchester, England, reported making some nucleotides in their lab. However, Shapiro states that their recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.”
Dr. Cleland is not a creationist. She believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood.

Fact: All scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from nonliving matter.
Question: What is the scientific basis for saying that the first cell sprang from nonliving chemicals?
▪ Fact: Researchers have recreated in the laboratory the environmental conditions that they believe existed early in the earth’s history. In these experiments, a few scientists have manufactured some of the molecules found in living things.
Question: If the chemicals in the experiment represent the earth’s early environment and the molecules produced represent the building blocks of life, whom or what does the scientist who performed the experiment represent? Does he or she represent blind chance or an intelligent entity?
▪ Fact: Protein and RNA molecules must work together for a cell to survive. Scientists admit that it is highly unlikely that RNA formed by chance. The odds against even one protein forming by chance are astronomical. It is exceedingly improbable that RNA and proteins should form by chance in the same place at the same time and be able to work together.
Question: What takes greater faith—to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?
So If it takes an intelligent entity to create and program a lifeless robot, what would it take to create a living cell, let alone a human? Fact It is a lie that is also a fraud because it is “an act of deceiving or misrepresenting,” an “intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value. “exchanged the truth of God for the lie.” By this lie, they induce many to part with something of great value—their faith in God as their Creator.—Romans 1:25.
This fraud does terrible damage. Its victims feel freed from the Creator’s laws, and they become a law to themselves: ‘No right or wrong. Fulfill all fleshly desires. Do your own thing. No need for any guilt trips.’ Enter the moral breakdown, unrestrained and full-blown. Parted from their Creator and the true values of the Bible, they become spiritually impoverished and end up “like unreasoning animals born naturally to be caught and destroyed.”—2 Peter 2:12.

@Spreader I see you’re not going to address my points. Fair enough, then i will just point you to why you’re wrong and be on my way.

@Thammuz
Do not forget this one.

@Season_of_Fall
Why are bananas bent? Does it matter?
The universe could have been different, and then maybe there wouldn’t have been life in it. There would have been all sorts of other things in it instead. Why is it so amazing that it turned out this particular way? What’s the big deal about life, anyway?
You should be able to distance yourself from life form chauvinism before you start pondering the universe.

The anthropic principle furthermore states that it is only possible for anyone to ask questions about the universe in universes that are suitable for life. If the universe weren’t suitable for life, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

If a million people roll five dice, and all the people who rolled five sixes – there will be about 128 of them on average – google “I got five sixes, OMG” and end up talking on omg-five-sixes-forum dot com, someone seeing only them might be surprised that something that unlikely happened. Everyone got five sixes! That’s, like, completely impossible with fair dice. There must be a magic man who always makes all dice land on six. Or destiny, or something.
But if you got anything else, you wouldn’t even be there to talk about it.
I think that’s the idea in a nutshell, though I’m not sure I got it quite right.

Also, everything @ragingloli said.
If the world were created by a nice person who wants living things to be happy, why does it never rain candy? Where are my lemonade fountains and my chocolate trees? Why can’t we duplicate food by sharing it? Why do we age and die?
How come a human six year old can imagine more pleasant worlds than a god can?

Funny how threads about whether God exists always end up being about the creation of the universe, God’s only feat that science hasn’t been able to explain away yet.
Can anyone say “god of the gaps”?

@Spreader
“Its victims feel freed from the Creator’s laws, and they become a law to themselves: ‘No right or wrong. Fulfill all fleshly desires. Do your own thing. No need for any guilt trips.’ Enter the moral breakdown, unrestrained and full-blown. Parted from their Creator and the true values of the Bible, they become spiritually impoverished and end up “like unreasoning animals born naturally to be caught and destroyed.”—2 Peter 2:12”
Speak for yourself.
Did you even read my earlier post? (The one the mods took away because I didn’t go easy enough on you?)
Sane adults can deal with being in charge of their own lives. Responsible people do not throw ethics to the wind the moment they can get away with it.
In fact, truly responsible people do not take orders in the first place from someone who thought it would be fun to fill a planet with life and then force everything to kill everything else, but leave some alive so they can do it again and again. I’m amazed that you can tell us with a straight face that such a cosmic psychopath could teach us anything about moral behavior.

Did you know by the way that there actually exist people in the real world who don’t follow the bible? Did you realise you could, oh, I don’t know, look at them to see if it’s made them gone crazy? Did it occur to you that you could actually check for yourself if what you’re saying is actually true?
Did you know that most of them are well-adapted citizens who lead happy and fulfilled lives?

Of course you didn’t.

The most amazing fact to me is that something exists rather than nothing. What form that something takes, what size it is or what properties it has is subsidiary. Even the question ‘does God exist’ comes second. The first question is ‘why does anything at all exist?”

@flutherother
What kind of answer would you expect to a question like that?
Are you sure it’s a meaningful question?

Imagine you have an opportunity to talk to an omniscient but annoyingly literal-minded robot guy. He has access to a database describing all of reality. He’ll look up the answer to any meaningful question he’s asked, but he won’t understand the question unless you’re completely specific about what exactly you want him to look up. He can’t guess what you really mean. He can’t fill in the blanks. He’s a robot.
Would you be able to get an answer from him?

@Spreader It seems as if you are rehashing old Christian arguments, and not attempting to address the differences of opinion other people have brought up. I would greatly appreciate it if you would follow at least one line of reasoning to its logical conclusion.

I think you have misinterpreted experiments such as the Miller-Urey experiment. It was carefully designed, but not to create amino acids. It was a carefully designed experiment intended to mimic the early atmosphere of Earth according to the scientific hypotheses of the time. It was expected, but NOT designed, to produce the amino acids.

I also find your assertion “No right or wrong. Fulfill all fleshly desires. Do your own thing. No need for any guilt trips” very offensive. Christianity teaches that morality/ethical behaviour is imposed on inherently evil humans. Secular ethical theories such as that implied by the work of Frans de Waal show that ethics/morality have a proud evolutionary history. Humans, like every other intelligent animal, are naturally moral. People living a secular/atheistic lifestyle realise that you don’t need imposed rules to be good, we are just good because that is who we are.

Very interesting again science and creation are not at odds with each other. It is simple and it has always been this way and always will be.

@Season_of_Fall The “strong anthropic” argument (ie why are the physical laws such that we exist, when subtle changes mean that we couldn’t?) has multiple problems. Units being a common one (they have to be dimensionless number like ratios, otherwise the scale chosen can be used to imply “fine-tuning” when it isnt). Furthermore, several physicists have independently examined such claims for fine tuning, including Anthony Aguire, and Craig Hogan. They have each modeled universes with cosmological parameters which vary by orders of magnitude, and still find plausible cosmologies in which life could arise. And if you think none of that is convincing, it doesn’t have to be. All this becomes unnecessary with our realization that many theories in cosmology point to the existence of multiverses. From this point, we’re back to the end point that even if only those “fine-tuned universes” can support life, then inevitably, contemplative creatures can only ever find themselves in fine-tuned universes. Which means there is no reason to see purposeful fine tuning for life; just the inevitable existence of life, only where life can exist. Read Hawkings latest book for details.

But, regardless of all of this, to get to theism from such “fine tuning” arguments is mere hand waving, because lack of evidence for one thing is not the same as providing supportive evidence for another. Even if no scientist could ever figure out the explanation of X, this does not justify concluding that therefore Y must have done it…unless we have actual evidence for Y. In effect what we have is people on one side of the equation trying to understand why the physical laws are the way they are, while concurrently having no evidence to indicate that what we see around us is anything other than the product of physical laws. From here, a theist claims “Aha, it’s all fine tuned”….and therefore, a supernatural being that breaks all known physical laws must exist, and that supernatural being is the most plausible/likely explanation for the existence of physical laws. Such arguments make a parody of logic. The combination of no supportive evidence, and breaking all known physical laws, is not the starting block for obtaining a plausible answer to anything. Slapping the word “god” onto it, doesn’t make those problems go away.

@Spreader You are presented with evidence that being without god does not in any way lead to sociopathic behavior, but you persist in the accusation that it does. That makes you intellectually dishonest. A characteristic which pretty much destroys any chance for fruitful conversation.

@Faiblesse Moral reference point. They are adrift like a ship without a rudder. Many, for example, ride the popular current of moral relativism,the view that “ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them.” According to this philosophy, there are no moral absolutes—everything is relative. ‘What’s wrong for you may be right for somebody else,’ relativists assert. Because their moral compass points in just about any direction, they are quick to validate virtually any sort behavior as acceptable,Thus, an act that formerly would have been described as “sinful” or “wrong” is now simply “stupid.” The action may be excused as being “sick” but not condemned as “immoral.” One is reminded of the days of the ancient prophet Isaiah when there were those “saying that good is bad and bad is good, . . . putting darkness for light and light for darkness.”—Isaiah 5:20. Another big challenge facing the world today is, not scientific, but moral in nature. British historian Arnold Toynbee notes: “It is tragic to think that we have been so successful in the technological field, whereas our record of moral failures is almost immeasurable.” Evolution has actually contributed to this problem. , It has discouraged faith in God and the Bible. In turn, many persons have abandoned the Biblical moral code forbidding adultery and stealing. But is that not to be expected? For, according to evolutionary teaching, is not man really an animal? Why should he not be expected to behave accordingly?
That would be a logical conclusion. But evolutionists object, saying, ‘No! Man is more than an animal.’ Prominent evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson observes: “He has essential attributes other than those of animals . . . The essence of his unique nature lies precisely in those characteristics that are not shared with any other animal . . . Man is a moral animal.”

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iRDzy3rYepQ/TK2RyDKyJHI/AAAAAAAAAqw/Z221zk8qkwg/s1600/facepalm2.jpg

@Spreader
Do you think slavery is wrong? If so, you disagree with the bible, which endorses it.
Do you think stoning disobedient children, witches, adulterers, to death is wrong? If so, you disagree with the bible, which commands it.
Do you think committing genocide against people, including women and children, who worship different gods than you is wrong? If so, you disagree with God, who commanded it.

So do not talk to us about moral relativism.

@Spreader
I like how you’re talking about ME as if you’re telling me about some monkeys you saw in a zoo one day. I am an atheist. I know the way we think. And that way is not that.
There comes a point where cluelessness becomes insulting. And you’re looking at it in the rearview mirror.

You’re like the submissive spouse of a wife beater. You’ve let your husband’s depreciation get to you so much that you won’t even let yourself imagine how you could live without him. And then you’re faced with a woman who’s been single all her life, and telling her she can’t possibly survive that situation.

By the way, I tell you to grow up, my reply gets modded for not playing nice. You tell me that I and most of my friends and a significant part of the world’s population are unable to be good people.
I don’t approve of censorship, but I’m not the one of us who’s being most offensive.

@Spreader
Here’s a thought.
Imagine for a moment that it turns out eating children is not against the word of god. In fact, there’s one passage that says “children are yum-yum, thou canst eat children, try barbecue sauce” (made-up-verse 12:15). Your Christian bible literalist friend and his wife point out this verse to you, and tell you they plan to kill and eat their six year old daughter, and you’re invited. Would you happily join in the merriment, or would you freak out and do anything in your power to stop them?

If you’re not okay with doing horrible things even when the bible says they’re not wrong, then your morality does not come from the bible, it comes from somewhere else.

It’s true that theoretically, our moral intuitions are subjective, but in practise we get by just fine. Most people agree on what’s right and wrong even without the bible.
I’m bible-free and I still think adultery is a jerk move that betrays the trust of someone you love. I don’t steal things, either, because those things belong to someone else. It’s really not all that complicated.

Something that the churches don’t teach you, As you know, the Bible is a book that at one time was widely respected. In these days, unfortunately, fewer and fewer people read it. or dont’under stand it.
@ragingloli God does not command murder or killing of any one regardless of whatgod a person worships.Judgement is reserved ontil the end-Armaggeddion (Rev 16:16)

@Fyrius The bible does not authorise anyone to kill, stone,hang, burnor eat people (child or adult).the mosuic Law if someone killed another then the penalty was death.We are no longer under the mosaic Law,so true christians do not/should not kill, including war, Judgement for any atrocities against human kind will be dealt with God in his due time. (Thess 1:8)

@Faiblesse I am not pointing finger at any individial here, If you feel I am picking on you, then would that not show your connscience is coming into play here!

@Spreader
I am an atheist. You point the finger at atheists. That includes me. Because I am an atheist.

You can bet your behind that I’m going to get defensive if you accuse us of patently ridiculous things.

@Spreader
You’re missing the point.
I’m speaking hypothetically. Just imagine it.
If yadda yadda yadda, would you do it?

And I trust @ragingloli is about to point out that you’re wrong about the bible never endorsing murder.

@Spreader “God does not command murder or killing of any one regardless of whatgod a person worships.”
Oh yes it does.
Deuteronomy 2, 3, 20 , Numbers 3
And don’t forget the flood, where it committed genocide on a global scale itself.
Or the plagues it sent on Egypt.
Sodom and Gomorrah.

“The bible does not authorise anyone to kill, stone,hang, burnor eat people”

Deuteronomy 21: 18–21, 22 exodus 22:18,19,20
Those are all death penalties for offences other than murder.

“We are no longer under the mosaic Law,so true christians do not/should not kill, including war, ”
First of all, many scholars agree that Jesus only fulfilled sacrificial law, leaving all the others in place and valid.
But that is irrelevant, because the mere fact that those laws were in place in the old testament, means that those penalties were considered moral by your god, and since god’s morality does not change, they are still moral today.
You may not be required to follow them anymore, but it would be morally right to follow them nonetheless.

The question is do you believe in “God”
we are discussing religion, we cannot do so in a satisfying way if I fail to refer to the Bible, God laws and regulations can be summed up in a single word: love. That has always been and will always be an essential part of pure worship. When asked which was the greatest commandment in the Law, Jesus answered: “Love God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.” The second was: “Love your neighbour as yourself.” He then said: “On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:35–40) Jesus thus indicated that, not just the Law with the Ten Commandments, but the entire Hebrew Scriptures were based on love. How can we love God, whom we cannot see? The crucial first step is to get to know him. We cannot truly love or trust a stranger? No written law code identifies God’s people today. Instead, we see the fulfilment of what is written at Hebrews 8:10: “‘This is the covenant that I shall covenant with the house of Israel after those days,’ ‘I will put my laws in their mind, and in their hearts I shall write them. And I will become their God, and they themselves will become my people.’
Jesus startled people by saying something that millions of people are still saying: “Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” (Matt. 6:9, 10, King James Version) Were you taught that prayer and have you prayed it once in your life? But how many persons know about god kingdom or ( government ) and really want God’s kingdom to come to take over the rulership of this earth? Jesus Christ, the Son of God, did! And true Christians do.

@Spreader
No one’s asking you not to refer to the bible. They’re just asking you to remember the uncomfortable parts too, not just the ones that suit you.

Also, since you choose not to reply to several valid points that have been raised by other users and by me, can we assume you have conceded them?

@Spreader
“Love” is not the word I would use to sum up gods laws.
The word I would use is Obey.

@Spreader
“God does not command murder or killing of any one regardless of whatgod a person worships.”
“The bible does not authorise anyone to kill, stone,hang, burnor eat people (child or adult).”
Someone is in denial.

“If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.” – Leviticus 20:9

“If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.” – Leviticus 20:10

“A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.” – Leviticus 20:27

“A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.” – Leviticus 21:9

“If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house.” – Deuteronomy 22:20–1

“When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations . . . then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.” – Deuteronomy 7:1–2

“Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.” – Deuteronomy 17:12

“If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, “You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord.” When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through.” – Zechariah 13:3

“For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.” – Exodus 35:2

“You should not let a sorceress live.” – Exodus 22:17

“Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.” – Exodus 21:15

“Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood.” – Jeremiah 48:10

This repulsive, barbaric, evil horse crap is all from the book you have sold your soul to.
And you’re the one who can’t believe people can be moral if they DON’T let this archaic death propaganda dictate their actions?

Ok what, though, about the present old order? We do not have to point out its faults. That is done for us by its newspaper reports, its magazine articles, its police records, the general insecurity due to a rising crime rate, terrorism, mental ailments as well as dread social diseases, the political tensions along with the mounting threat of a global nuclear war. This old order will never help people to “inherit God’s kingdom.” It has no connection with God’s kingdom. It is not pervaded, motivated or backed up by holy spirit from God. It is by no means holy, not even that part of it that is called Christendom.

Do excuse my persistence, but I’m just going to keep asking this until you stop ignoring me.

Since you choose not to reply to several valid points that have been raised by other users and by me, can we assume you have conceded them?

@Spreader I second what @Fyrius says. I’m still waiting for you to tell me when and where we will meet so that you can drink a bottle of cyanide and survive.

It has no connection with God’s kingdom.
Nor does every fucking thing else, since there is no such thing.

@Spreader The point of questions like “would you do eat babies if the Bible said to do it” is that giving a “no” answer means there are moral standards independent of God by which we can judge Biblical endorsements. That means we do not need to have God to be moral beings, so your whole “adrift like a ship without a rudder” line is rhetorical nonsense. And if you give a “yes” answer, then your own morality is as arbitrary and whimsical as can be.

Come on people, Christians always cherry pick which Bible verses they want to use. And you know there is that one passage that allows them to do that. Sadly, no one can ever remember which verse that is. I think it may be somewhere towards the back, but someone in the Bible clearly said: “Thou shalt pick whatever words you would like so that you may suit your own petty goals.” Or something like that.~

To many Christians rely on the Bible for their beliefs.

@Uberwench Neat!

@Spreader
So since the world is not a paradise right now, we should all join your death cult, is that it? Because if everyone becomes as closed-minded and out of touch with reality as you, the world will be a better place for it?
Yeah, no thanks. I’ll take my chances with the “being an adult” thing.

@Spreader Has Tim Minchin ever met you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr1I3mBojc0

@AdamF Thanks to you i now have a new favourite song.

@Fyrius I am a bit reluctant to ask this omniscient being anything as it looks like something brought back from the dead and not too happy about it either, but I can see your point. If a question isn’t phrased in a precise, logical and unambiguous way it cannot expect a clear cut answer. This means the questioner should be extremely specific almost to the point of answering his own question.

I am curious however, are questions only valid if they have answers?

@flutherother Data is not omniscient. That’s Q you’re thinking about.

I am curious however, are questions only valid if they have answers?
Obviously yes.

Would you call a question that has no sense “a question” or “gibberish”? “What is the colour of envy?” does not have an answer, because envy has no colour by its own definition, but the question implies otherwise and thus it’s a question in form but it’s invalid, logically speaking, which means it might as well be not a question at all.

@Thammuz Well you could say green is the colour of envy but I take your point, there are plenty of meaningless questions. But isn’t science all about asking questions and finding answers?

@flutherother Provided the questions can be answered, yes.

There are, however, people all over the world who, like me, believe that God will soon bring the solution to our problems. We base our hope on predictions written down long ago in the Bible. These convince us that a world change is very near, and we do all we can to share this good news It is of interest to note that Jesus Christ compared the responses of our day to those of the days of Noah and of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Matthew 24:37–39; Luke 17:26–30) Immorality and violence were prevalent both in the days of Noah and in the days of Lot. Indeed, the righteous man Lot was tormented and distressed when observing the lawlessness and the indulgence in loose conduct by the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah.—2 Peter 2:6–8.But is seems your not

@Spreader This world is about to change and evolve into its next phase.

@Spreader
Yeah, so distressed that he offered his daughters to the inhabitants to do with them what they wanted (sex included).
Really righteous man there,eh?

When we look at it according to what the Bible says about it, the Millennium is a thing very much to be desired for all mankind, the living and the dead. That is why the announcement that it has approached is most welcome news for all who understand it. We ought to be excitedly interested in knowing what valid reasons we have for being convinced.

Yes the next 1000 years will be the last dispensation of time. The Earth will rest during this time and we will rebuild in preparation for the Gog and Maygog. The Earth will revert back to how it was in the days of peleg.

@Spreader Are you going to acknowledge the points we brought up or are you just going to go on with your bullshit that nobody’s fucking buying here?

Seriously, i have nothing but time. Put your money where your mouth is and drink up or admit that you don’t actually believe what you preach.

No not quite what I believe but yes a 1000 years of peace, but not for Gog and Magog.and not all describe here (Thess 1:8 )

Gog and Maygog is the final battle before total peace.

@flutherother
@Thammuz
I’m the one who postulated the omniscient Data. Another thought experiment up there.
Rest assured, Data is a stoic android, not an angry zombie. He’s a nice guy. His manners are impeccable.

“This means the questioner should be extremely specific almost to the point of answering his own question.”
Well… no. That is to say, yes, if you can answer your own question just by phrasing it more specifically, then obviously you should do so. But for most questions that won’t be enough.
Is there a god? Using the definition of “god” as “sentient being that’s been around forever, knows everything and can do anything”, is there anything in this universe that fits that description? Can you look that up for me, Data?
You have to be specific about the question to even begin to think about an answer – you can’t leave open whether god is that, or just the human emotion of love, or some mortal who writes very good music – but you still need to do something more to get an answer. In this case, without Data, the best we can do is estimating the probability, using the arguments for and against and some advanced universal rules of reasoning.

“I am curious however, are questions only valid if they have answers?”
I would think so. Is that not the whole point of asking something?
What would a logically consistent question with no answer look like?

@Spreader
Do excuse my persistence, but I’m just going to keep asking this until you stop ignoring me.

Since you choose not to reply to several valid points that have been raised by other users and by me, can we assume you have conceded them?

Also, why do you think this world change is “very near”? Does the bible mention a date?

Coincidentally I’m in a bit of the same situation as you. I’m waiting for the Singularity to happen, when humankind manages to build a smarter-than-human general artificial intelligence that can figure out the problems we can’t handle. Including the problem of aging, which may yield at least potential immortality.
But this will be humankind’s achievement, not god’s.

Ooh, clash of the raptures.

Actually the Bible does mention a date where is says blessed is he who comes to this time. It talks about the Abomination of Desolation and refers to dates for this period of time. But @Spreader should talk with you about that.

Yes (Ezekiel 39:1–4)

@Fyrius You’re missing the point.
I’m speaking hypothetically. Just imagine it.
If yadda yadda yadda, would you do it?

@Fyrius The point in asking a question is to get an answer, but if you don’t know the answer how can you be sure there is one?

My original question seems valid to me though I don’t think it can be answered, that is ‘why is there something rather than nothing’. But there again I could be wrong; perhaps science will answer this question one day.

@Spreader
You mean like what the bible says in Matthew 24:29–34?

…the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Or Matthew 16:24–28?

[Then Jesus said to his disciples:] ”...For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Got some bad news for you, buddy. This world change of yours was scheduled TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO.

Boy, those stars sure look not-fallen-from-the-sky, don’t they?

@Spreader I’m seriously starting to think you’re a BOT.

Answer the fucking question: Are you conceding the points that you have not addressed? Y/N

If Not: Rebut
If Yes: You’ve already lost all ground you may have had at the beginning, and then some. Congratulations.

Seriously, this is not even funny anymore.

Jesus Christ made a similar point even more dramatically when confronted by his enemies. Concerning that encounter the Gospel writer Luke reported: “Then he went on to say also to the crowds: ‘When you see a cloud rising in western parts, at once you say, “A storm is coming,” and it turns out so. And when you see that a south wind is blowing, you say, “There will be a heat wave,” and it occurs. Hypocrites, you know how to examine the outward appearance of earth and sky, but how is it you do not know how to examine this particular time?’”—Luke 12:54–56.

Good night

This is reminding me of something my friend Tim said once on Facebook:

“I used to waste my time trying to argue with Christians, but it really is just a waste of time: you will never get through to any of them. If you try to have an intelligent discussion, they will just throw Bible verses at you all day like a machine until you don’t even know what they are saying anymore. If you want to be prepared, memorize enough verses so you can throw verses back at them that contradict the verses they used on you (there are plenty of those, don’t worry) until one of you runs out of verses. That’s how you argue with a Christian.”

Obviously, he was mad when he wrote this, but the responses in this thread are really making me think of this type of “argument”.

That is not the date I was reffering to but that is okay. @flutherother There was never a time when there was nothing there has always been something.

Ok guys, i have better things to do than arguing with someone who doesn’t accept he’s been bested.

I’m off.

@Spreader
Rather than repeating my question back to me, I’d really rather you answer it, if you would be so decent.

@flutherother
“The point in asking a question is to get an answer, but if you don’t know the answer how can you be sure there is one?”
Well, that’s more or less what my thought experiment was for. Just imagining asking Data should be enough to tell whether you’re asking the kind of question that has a definite answer. Usually, anyway.
Of course, sometimes you’re asking wrong questions without realising; you’ll be an ancient philosopher asking “what is the primary substance of the universe”, expecting an answer like “fire” or “water” or “change”, and instead getting “I am sorry sir, I do not comprehend.” Or, if Data is in a forthcoming mood, “there is no such thing.”
That sort of thing happens sometimes in science and philosophy, people making the wrong assumptions.
It’s difficult to tell when you’re doing that. I can’t tell you how to avoid it, besides learning to notice when you’re assuming something and then questioning that assumption, as a check-up of sorts. Some assumptions are in plain sight, and some assumptions are sneakily hidden away in an implication of a word you’re using, or even coded into the way the human brain thinks.
If I knew how to avoid making this mistake in 100% of the cases, I think I’d be a master rationalist. But I’m just an advanced student, so my expertise is limited. :)

@Summum
You keep saying that. Haven’t you ever heard of the Big Bang theory?
The universe we live in certainly hasn’t existed forever; it’s about 14 billion years old. If it had been around forever, we would be able to see starlight from stars that are further than 14 billion light years away.
Maybe there was something before that, maybe not. But with respect, I certainly don’t see how you could know.

Later, Thammuz.

Yes I know about the big bang but the Universe has always existed.

We see such a very tiny fragment of the Universe that one could make that kind of claim.

I don’t follow. You can tell the universe (or something else) has always existed… because we get to see only a tiny bit of it?

What has seeing a tiny bit of anything have to do with always existed? No what I tried to say is we can’t come to conclusions (big bang) based on our tiny view of the whole picture.

This is all just a big reminder: Atheists will always disprove theist beliefs with facts, logic, and reasoning. Theists will continue to dismiss these facts and use words from their texts to convince themselves that the atheists are wrong. The theists will continue to answer the scary questions with “faith” and hope that they will be right. They also give quotes that were probably never originally stated by who the theists claim stated them. And they will continue to give claim that things will happen in the future, using dates that no one living now will experience to prove wrong.
Atheists use logic and reasoning to prove facts about the universe

Theists use what they call “faith” to try and convey the ideas that they hope are true, because they are afraid to accept that life is utterly pointless in this universe, and that death is final.

This is just the way things are. It is simply that theists do not accept death. So, they will continue to use nonsensical claims to help themselves feel better.

Our science is so limited in the scope of this Universe and it can only measure that which is physical and part of the 3 dimensional world we live in. We are much more than just a physical body and many experience that with actual experience. The books will not give you answers they only point you in the direction to seek including the Bible.

@DominicX Is it wrong to hope? I was a Christian, and discussion with atheists in a forum not unlike this one were an important part of the process by which I became an atheist. My hope is that other Christians I bump into are in the same position, and that I am able to give them what I was given.

About two thousand years ago, a most wonderful event occurred in the Middle East. The only-begotten Son of God was sent from his heavenly dwelling place to live for a short while in the world of mankind. How did most of mankind respond? The apostle John replies: “He [Jesus] was in the world, and the world came into existence through him, but the world did not know him. He came to his own home [Israel], but his own people did not take him in.”—John 1:10, 11.
The world just did not accept Jesus, the Son of God. Why not? Jesus explained one reason when he said: “The world . . . hates me, because I bear witness concerning it that its works are wicked.” (John 7:7) Eventually, this same world—represented by some Jewish religious leaders, an Edomite king, and a Roman politician—had Jesus put to death. (Luke 22:66–23:25) What about Jesus’ followers? True Christians Would the world be more ready to accept them? No. Shortly before his death, Jesus warned them: “If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, on this account the world hates you.”—John 15:19.
Why do the theologians interpret these words of Jesus incorrectly? Is it not because they are Christian? Is the error not that they believe that the churches of Christendom and all their members are true Christians? Some of these theologians can see that there has been a turning away from true Christianity, but apparently they do not draw the full consequence of this knowledge.

@Summum
“what I tried to say is we can’t come to conclusions (big bang) based on our tiny view of the whole picture.”
But isn’t that exactly what you’re doing?
Here you are, saying we can’t know about the age of the universe, and simultaneously insisting that the universe has always existed. How can you know that? Shouldn’t you be telling us we can’t know how old the universe is?
Why does this limited knowledge problem only apply to the (adequately substantiated) Big Bang theory and not to what you keep saying?

Even if there were no evidence for the Big Bang model whatsoever, even if there were no evidence that humans are physical beings, what makes you think what you believe is more reliable?
Where science falls short, who could surpass it? And how?
If expert specialists around the world dedicate their lives to the question 40 hours a week and their combined efforts still can’t find the right answer… how can you?

Furthermore, the astronomers who say this universe is about 14 billion years old say so because they have evidence showing that. Like I said, there’s the starlight, for starters. We’d be able to see more of the universe if it were older than 14 billion years. But the light from stars that are further than 14 billion light years away hasn’t had enough time yet to reach us.

@Spreader
Do excuse my persistence, but I’m just going to keep asking this until you stop ignoring me.

Since you choose not to reply to several valid points that have been raised by other users and by me, can we assume you have conceded them?

Strange to think how many people we share this Earth with who may as well live in an entirely different universe for all the overlap in our perceived realities.

I understand the state that the world has come too. It will be resolved but unfortunely it will catch most as the thief in the night. Anyone that wants to understand and know the mysteries of God can it is there for all to see and find. The information tells us all how to find and how to seek. It is shown in a picture where you are brought to a door on the side you are on is a door knob but on the one with the information there is no knob. It is demonstrating that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. One has to step in and open the door for himself what else can I say. There is no other sure source than that and it is offered to all.

Oh dear, did I break @Spreader?

You’re being kind of rude.

Do excuse my persistence, but I’m just going to keep asking this until you stop ignoring me.

Since you choose not to reply to several valid points that have been raised by other users and by me, can we assume you have conceded them?

Blink once for yes, twice for no.

@Summum
I don’t know what you’re talking about any more.
Is that how you know the universe is infinitely old, through some source that “is there for all to see and find”? You’ll have to be a bit more specific.

If that brings anything to mind – a not immediately visible truth that anyone anywhere could find out; it teaches us how to seek; there is no other source than that and it’s offered to all; you can only give people access to its knowledge and encourage them to study it, and if they don’t want to they’ll never see the light – that’s a fairly good description of science. But science disagrees with you.

Science in no way disagrees with me nor my understanding of the Universe. There is no conflict of creation or science at all.

How about the 14 billion year old universe thing?

That is what science thinks from our view of the Universe so what?

So science disagrees with you.
And it’s not just what science “thinks”, it’s what science has discovered.

For the record, yes, there is a conflict between creation and science. This is because creation is not true, and science will sooner or later conflict with anything that’s not true.

We know beyond reasonable doubt that at least the earth and everything on it were not deliberately created; if it were, it must have been created by a drooling retard who somehow builds exactly the same kinds of clumsy, impractical, insane constructions that you would expect if the inanimate processes of physics and natural selection had done it. We know physics and natural selection exist, we don’t know anything about drooling retard superbeings, so that kind of gives it away.
Yes, there’s still a chance. But do you want to believe, or do you want to know what happened?

On a larger scale, the universe is a disorderly place. There is no indication anywhere of any superbeings, drooling and retarded or otherwise. Everything works out perfectly fine with just the laws of nature. There is no need for that hypothesis.
@ragingloli furthermore gave a good summary of how deadly the universe is. If the universe was created, it was created for some reason that had nothing to do with us. Life is the mould on the left-over sandwich of the universe.

It’s a general rule of reasoning that things people just make up, without first finding proper evidence to narrow the possibilities down to that particular guess, are practically never the right answer. Creationism fits that description pretty well.

I appreciate your view on the matter but it doesn’t make it so. My idea of the creation is not what most of the Christians state and to say it was exactly how the Bible tells it is not my view of the matter. There is no conflict with what I have discovered and what science says. Universal law is how it is governed and all are subject to those laws.

I’m glad to hear it.
But again, you do believe in an infinitely old universe, which science indicates not to be right. Maybe whatever came before this universe, if there’s any such thing, existed forever, but not this universe.
These are not my opinions. This is not open to personal interpretation. This is reality. No ifs and buts about it.

Also, I can accept it if you just want to keep believing what you already believe, rather than learn how things actually are, but if that’s your outlook, please stop presenting your arbitrary beliefs as facts. Don’t go around telling people “hey, FYI, the universe has always existed, it’s true.”
The least you can do is append “I believe that” to it.

Frankly science doesn’t know based on what we can view in our perspective they say that the big bang is the best theory they can come up with. I will state my understanding anytime I am asked about it and for me it is very true.

YOU just did it again. Yesterday you did it about 15,000 times. Most likely you were never aware of doing it, but you kept at it and thereby protected two of your most precious possessions. In the process, you may also have offered some unwitting indicators as to how your brain works. How did you do all of this? You blinked.
If your eyes are functional, they are the most delicate and sensitive sensory equipment you have. Widely regarded as a miracle of design, the human eye has been compared to a fully automatic, three-dimensional, self-focusing, continuously filming, full color, motion-picture camera. When not in use, a camera’s delicate lens is covered with a lens cap. But the eye does better than that. Most of the orb of the eye lies protected within the socket. But the remaining 10 percent of the eye’s surface area is exposed naked to the atmosphere, with all its whirling dust and hazardous debris. To protect the eye against this constant threat of assault, the body is designed with a sophisticated, retractable “lens cap”—the eyelid. Made up of the body’s thinnest skin, reinforced with tiny, fibrous strands, the eyelid slips smoothly down and up over the eye. The blink lasts only about a tenth of a second and occurs some 15 times every minute.
But that tiny, barely noticeable action accomplishes a lot. In snapping shut and then retracting, the eyelid draws a thin film of fluid across the surface of the eye, effectively rinsing it off. It also polishes the eye’s outer surface. So the eyelid might be likened to a combination lens cap, lens cleaner, and lens polisher. Quite a design, isn’t it? But scientists have long puzzled over an odd point: At the rate that watery tears on the eye’s surface dissolve, one or two blinks per minute should suffice to do the job of rinsing and polishing. Why, then, all the extra blinks? The answer, it seems, is in the mind.
Researchers have drawn connections between blinking and thinking. For instance, anxiety makes you blink more. If you are trying your hand at flying a helicopter, or you are being cross-examined by a hostile lawyer, or you are suffering from an anxiety disorder, you are likely blinking more than usual.
It was nearly three thousand years ago that a wise man was inspired to write: “In a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made.” (Psalm 139:14) The advances of medical science in our day have only bolstered that viewpoint. Just imagine: polishing and lubricating a sophisticated lens, registering the degree of the brain’s concentration or anxiety, and punctuating the inflow of visual information—all of that in the blink of an eye!

I have had the flu through most of this so haven’t been able to participate as much as normally would have. Sorry Spreader, you have done well. Awww, how do we handle arrogance, some of the debaters here have no give, and believe they have the only pure perspective on truth, and in doing so discredit themselfs. @Fyrius if I am wrong what are the ramifications? A delusional life lived in joy. If you are wrong, what are the ramifications? Your screwed! Sorry just coming off the flu and really don’t have my delicated debating skills back yet.

@Summum
Do I have to mention the starlight thing again? The astronomers and the physicists might not be done with explaining the origin of the universe, but we do know the universe is around fourteen billion years old.

“I will state my understanding anytime I am asked about it and for me it is very true.”
Is the universe older “for you” than it is “for me”? Don’t we live in the same universe, doesn’t that universe have only one age?

@Spreader
Tasty copypasta you have there.
I have some more fun facts about the eye for you.

As an organ developed via the opportunistic twists and turns of evolutionary processes, the human eye is explainable. As an organ designed and created by an infinitely wise deity, the human eye is inexcusable. For unlike the invertebrate eyes…, the human eye is constructed upon the foundation of an almost incredible error: The retina has been put together backwards! Unlike the retinas of octopuses and squids, in which the light-gathering cells are aimed forward, toward the source of incoming light, the photoreceptor cells (the so called rods and cones) of the human retina are aimed backward, away from the light source. Worse yet, the nerve fibers which must carry signals from the retina to the brain must pass in front of the receptor cells, partially impeding the penetration of light to the receptors. Only a blasphemer would attribute such a situation to divine design!

Or:

…not all features of the human eye make functional sense. Some are arbitrary. To begin at the grossest level, is there a good functional reason for having two eyes? Why not one or three or some other number? Yes, there is a reason: two is better than one because they permit stereoscopic vision and the gathering of three-dimensional information about the environment. But three would be better still. We could have our stereoscopic view of what lies ahead plus another eye to warn us of what might be sneaking up behind. (...) When we examine each eye from behind, we find that there are six tiny muscles that move it so that it can point in different directions. Why six? Properly spaced and coordinated, three would suffice, just as three is an adequate number of legs for a photographer’s tripod. The paucity of eyes and excess of their muscles seem to have no functional explanation.

(Source)

By the way, since you choose not to reply to several valid points that have been raised by other users and by me, can we assume you have conceded them?

@Fyrius , show us you back up your arguments, show us your real face rather then that dog, or do you just think these thoughts in private or in anonymity.

@Season_of_Fall

“if I am wrong what are the ramifications? A delusional life lived in joy. If you are wrong, what are the ramifications? Your screwed!”

Ah, Pascal’s Wager. That hasn’t been proposed and discredited 100,000,000,000 times…~

This part of the Universe might have been organized 14 billions years ago so what that doesn’t mean that the Universe is 14 billion years old and that that is absolute truth.

@Season_of_Fall
Oh dear. I hope you get well soon.
You still sound a bit feverish.

“if I am wrong what are the ramifications? A delusional life lived in joy. If you are wrong, what are the ramifications? Your screwed!”
You’re disregarding the fact that you are at much greater risk of being wrong than I am. I’m the guy who puts effort into finding out what is true.

I suggest you go back to bed and recover, lest you end up writing more things like this:
“show us you back up your arguments, show us your real face rather then that dog, or do you just think these thoughts in private or in anonymity.”
I do believe I’ve backed up everything I said; if I haven’t, you’re welcome to point out what parts could do with more elaboration.
I do not believe what my face looks like has any bearing on the subject. I also do not believe it is any of your stinkin’ business.

Your 23 years old and know it all, that speaks for itself.

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

@Fyrius You honestly think you have absolutely truth through science?

lol, I’m not embarrassed, not being a good debater, but not embarrassed. I see the thickness of your credible fortitude, that’s what I wanted I’m done.

@Summum
Well, no, but I do honestly think there exists absolute truth, and I honestly think science is the best way to learn what it is.
There certainly doesn’t seem to be any other way to find out.

It comes down to this, credibility of argument doesn’t go to those that say they know, it goes to those that say they don’t know and consider the possibilities. I believe the only rational reaction to the God question without being a reaction from some other motive or pain is agnostic. The jellies I have enjoyed debating with are the ones that can sometimes concede agreement where common reasonableness converges or offer a transparent proclamation that most is unknown. When someone says they know so clearly as yourself, your eloquent arguments begin to fall in on themselves.

@Season_of_Fall
I think you’ll be interested to know that I am an agnostic. An agnostic atheist, to be precise.
I’ve been considering the possibility that god exists for about six years. But now I’m done.
I don’t think I’ve claimed to know for a fact that there are no gods dwelling this universe. My position is just that it’s so unlikely that the difference hardly matters. The probability is vanishingly small.
You can go on believing in gods if really you want to; there’s still a tiny chance, so you still have an excuse. But if you just want to know the truth, I don’t recommend it.

Like I said, it’s a general rule of reasoning that things people believe without first finding proper evidence to narrow the possibilities down to that particular guess are practically never the right answer. It’s like being sent to find one particular, special grain of sand in the Sahara, so you pick up one grain at random and assume that since it’s possible that it’s the right one, you can stop looking.

And to continue quoting myself some more, since there are so many different religions that contradict each other, at least most people who believe in gods must necessarily be wrong – proving that humans will believe in gods whether they exist or not. We’re clearly biased towards believing in gods.
Compensating for that bias reduces that tiny smidgeon of possibility to such an infinitesimal crumb that it’s really not worth bothering with any more.

“credibility of argument doesn’t go to those that say they know, it goes to those that say they don’t know and consider the possibilities.”
...but what if you’re talking about things you actually do know?
Is it really a priori irrational to think you know things?
If we were talking about a more practical subject I doubt you’d take the same position. Technically no one can be infinitely certain that doing push-ups will make your chest and arms stronger, either – maybe you have a hitherto unknown birth defect that keeps you from developing muscle, for example – but we’re so close to certain that the difference hardly matters, and in practise you can pretend there isn’t any.
Would it be more reasonable to talk about push-ups as if you don’t know if they’ll have an effect, but you’re willing to consider all possibilities?

True, science has made some remarkable advances. Nevertheless, in spite of its often sincere attempts to prevent it, hunger gnaws at more bellies than ever. “Scientific” crime-fighting equipment has not cut down lawlessness; rather, it has continued to mushroom and spread from urban ghettos into once-quiet rural areas. Air and water are befouled with pollutants. Science also gets the blame from some for arming missiles with ghastly power and aiming these at the major cities of the world, but true Wisdom, the ability to use in a right way what science has discovered, must come from outside science itself. Do the efforts of scientists to solve man’s problems give evidence that they have found such wisdom? Look at the record and see. For one thing, is it not logical to believe that if problems are to be solved, then personal viewpoints and prejudices must be put in a secondary position? Surely. But this requires humility.
It is as the Bible says at Proverbs 11:2: “Has presumptuousness come? Then dishonor will come; but wisdom is with the modest ones.” The Hebrew word here translated “modest ones” carries the idea of ‘hiding oneself,’ that is, in the sense of putting oneself in the background. This does not mean that a modest person ignores problems. No, but he digs out what are real problems. Such a one is not seeking his own prominence or wealth nor is he selfishly trying to cling to some position.

@Fyrius Oh there is more than one way other than science but that is okay. I know what I have stated to be so and I have studied science all my life. I had straight A’s all through physics in college and it has always been very easy. All the sciences have been easy. I also helped with an independent study of the 911 material so science is in my back ground. There are so many possibilities in life and I have discovered some of them and create many more for myself. Life is such a great thing and we are here to learn and grow so I take every opportunity to do so.

Our science is very limited to just the physical 3 dimentional world we live in and there is so much more out there. Think of all the possibilities in the Universe.

Thanks, what you say is more palatable for consideration. I believe in the beauty and profound possibilities of that one grain of sand. Hope in its smallest form is still hope and hope is almost as profound as love. I don’t know, but I chose to hope and to believe.

This is such a wonderful life and it is full of mystery, amazment, wonder and so many possibilities. We should always strive to find answers and search everywhere for them. One cannot take just one way of doing things or they miss out on such wonder and excitement.

@Summum
Is that so? How nice. I’m a bit envious, studying science has always been hard work for me.

But I’m going to ask again. How do you know? You’re talking about things “outside” the physical, three-dimensional world as if you know for a fact that “there is so much more out there.” How do you know that?

Science is the collective intellectual horsepower of the greatest minds humanity has to offer, with at least 8 years of specialised education each and many more years of working experience too for most, working together 40 hours a week for decades on end to find the right answers. If science doesn’t know, how can you?

I just got a reproach from @Season_of_Fall for precisely that kind of cocksureness. And I didn’t even actually practise it.

When I want other ways to look at the world than science, and enjoy the feelings and insights they provide, I read poetry. I listen to music. I watch films. I read novels. I play video games. I write stories or draw pictures.

@Season_of_Fall
Then suit yourself.

I do hope you wouldn’t consider our situation hopeless from the atheist perspective, though. Have some faith in humankind, too. The future is going to be sweet. :)

Oh, I almost forgot.
@Spreader
Since you choose not to reply to several valid points that have been raised by other users and by me, can we assume you have conceded them?

Yes ,the magnificent universe in which we live. Consider our earth and the great variety and complexity of living organisms on it. Could chance or any known natural laws have built them up from inorganic matter? According to Bryant, Lecomte du Nouy, the first scientist to apply mathematical formulae successfully to the statement of biological laws, shows that “the laws of inorganic evolution contradict those of the evolution of life. He gives mathematical formulae to show that inorganic matter acting in accordance with its laws could not have created even a single molecule of protein—let alone a living organism with powers of reproduction. He maintains that only through the intervention of God could the gap have been bridged between the inorganic and the organic.” Nothing can be more true than that God is, as both the Bible and nature so eloquently testify. Therefore, in God’s own Word unbelievers are justly judged inexcusable (Rom. 1:20)

@Fyrius I have personally seen, touched, felt, communicated etc.. With things that are not of the 3 dimensional world. It is my experience that I understand these things and have come to the conclusions that I have.

Here is a place that I go sometimes to study and learn information. Sorry it is long but that shows the topics they are going to cover.

UPCOMING EVENT
Navigating the Dream Space
March 18
6pm to 9pm Class 55 dollars per person. Everybody is fascinated by dreams and the sensations produced while in the dreamspace. After years of study, practice, and reverse engineering of the dream space, Master Teacher Phoenix Aurelius has developed a class that provides extreme depth, insight, and mastery in the Art and Science of Dream Navigation. In This extremely popular class, you will discover how to Stay Conscious During the Dream Space and how to use dreams to Actualize your External Reality. Dreams are the fundamental basis of all Existence and it is through the Dream Space that all things spring forth into creation. In this class, the aspiring practitioner will discover how to harness this power, both in Sleeping and Waking Realities to begin Consciously Creating the Life you want for yourself. In this class, we will discover The Science of the Dream Space and understanding how our Physiology responds to dreams; The dimensions that dreams take place in; How to access other Dimensional Realities through the Dream Space; Understanding the Difference between Astral Travel and Dreaming; Distinguishing Between the Astral and The Etheric Planes; Speaking about the Nature of Dreams; Becoming Aware that Dreaming is not exclusive to Sleeping and that Waking Dreams are just as powerful and as important; Learning the difference between being the Effect of a Dream and Consciously Creating your Dreams And Learning How To Use Various Energy Tools and Psychic Techniques to Begin Actively Dreaming. This Class is Guaranteed to Provide The Tools, Understanding, and The Know-How to Assist you in Practical Dream Navigation. This information has been inspired by Eastern Dream Yoga, Kabbalah, Psychic Development, Astral Travel, Alchemy, Lucid Dreaming, Neuro-Science, Jungian Psychology, and Energy Healing. As a result, aspects of each of these concepts will be covered in class. If You Want to Learn How to Be A Dreamer and Begin Consciously Creating Your Reality instead of Being the Effect of your subconscious, then this Class is For You. There is not One Person who can not benefit from these classes. By Performing this Work, you will further your Remembrance of Who You Are, allowing all the false aspects of yourself to simply fall away. This is tremendously Powerful Work, but the information is both digestible and practical. Everybody will walk away with a practical, working knowledge about the Dream Space and how to effectively Navigate it!

I see you are a person who likes to seek out knowledge,but If someone told you to dig a deep hole in the ground, but that you definitely would not find anything of value, would you enjoy the digging? But what if you were guaranteed to find all the gold and silver needed to assure you financial security? Your digging would be much more enjoyable because you would know it would be rewarding. You would have real motivation for digging Such riches are far greater than anything that gold or silver can buy. No effort you could exert would bring such great rewards as does a study of the Creator in his own Word, the Holy Bible. As Jesus said: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.”—John 17:3.as I have found, so Instead of picking up Bible publications at random, have in mind what it is you need to study. Then the time spent will be more productive. Without such a plan, it would be like a carpenter hammering nails at random with no objective in mind.

@Summum
I’ve read that summary. To say this is a bit of a culture shock is putting it mildly. And to say I’m sceptical is putting it mildly, too.
Putting it somewhat less mildly, I think it’s very likely that these people are frauds, barking mad, or all of the above.
So I must replace the question “how do you know” with the question “how do they know, and how do you know they’re not ripping you off?”

“the Art and Science of Dream Navigation”
“The Science of the Dream Space”
Hold on there for a moment. Is this outside the reach of science, or is it a science?
I very much doubt this would pass any criterion for valid scientific practise, so I suppose it has to be the former, but I’d say the fact that they’re posing as science is not a good omen. It means they’re trying to trick people into granting them credibility they’ve done nothing to deserve.
If they do contend this actually is science, I want to see PhD certificates, and I’m going to be damned careful to make sure they’re not forged, and that they were issued by legally recognised institutions.

“Dreams are the fundamental basis of all Existence and it is through the Dream Space that all things spring forth into creation.”
“The dimensions that dreams take place in; How to access other Dimensional Realities through the Dream Space”
What?
Do they bother to show you what makes them believe any of these things? With all the open-mindedness I can muster, I’d really, really want to see some evidence that this is anywhere near reliable information, before I accept a single thing these people are saying.
Or, since they think of themselves as scientists: what do their colleagues in the neurology department think of their findings? They’re contradicting pretty much everything the neuroscientists have established about what dreams are.
I bet they get a lot of flak when their publications reporting on their research have to be peer-reviewed. You know, when they submit them to scientific magazines.

“In this class, the aspiring practitioner will discover how to harness this power, both in Sleeping and Waking Realities to begin Consciously Creating the Life you want for yourself.”
How has this worked out for you so far? Have these techniques actually helped you unambiguously accomplish anything that can’t be ascribed to placebo effects? Or anyone else who verifiably isn’t lying about it or fooling themselves?
The main advantage that believers of the truth have over believers of falsehoods is that when they apply their knowledge in practise, it works.

“55 dollars per person.”
Sounds lucrative, too. I know I don’t make 55 bucks in three hours. Let alone 55 bucks times the number of people who attend these things.

It’s important to pay attention to your epistemic hygiene, especially when dealing with people who don’t. If you neglect it, you expose yourself to all sorts of infectious mind pollution.

@Spreader
Since you choose not to reply to several valid points that have been raised by other users and by me, can we assume you have conceded them?

Yume, ka?
Well, I once dreamt about SG1 visiting a planet full of intelligent and selfaware plants. One of them believed it would be reincarnated after death.
Then it died, and it was indeed reincarnated.
As a vegetable on a field.

Since I dreamt it, it means it is real, doesn’t it?

I have studied and taught this information for years now and it is not phony at all. I understand you being sceptical as I was years ago. I have studied the Bible throughout and have read it many times over. It holds some good information but it is very limited in its teaching. One of the problems with the BIble is that is is figurative in most all its teachings. There are hidden mysteries all through it and it takes other things to find it. There are so many different religions and ideas that come for the Bible and so many interpretations.

@ragingloli you can make fun of things all you want but it doesn’t make what you do right or wrong. But have respect for all others ideas.

@Summum
Dreams are arbitary concoctions your brain creates while you are unconscious. How can you use these as basis for reality?

There is the clue to the win-at-all-costs syndrome—PRIDE. No one likes being shown up in front of others or being made to feel inferior because they lost. The truth of the matter is that if you brag about winning or despair about losing, you ARE a lesser person. Why so? Because as a winner you fail to respect the dignity and self-esteem of the loser. The Bible highlights this danger saying: “But now you take pride in your self-assuming brags. All such taking of pride is wicked.” As a devastated loser, you attribute too much importance to an illusion—the illusion that are real life when, in fact, they are a short-lived “vanity.” Wise King Solomon wrote: “I myself have seen all the hard work and all the proficiency in work, that it means the rivalry of one toward another; this also is vanity and a striving after the wind.” Remember, your true value as a person does not depend on a few seconds or minutes of win activity!—James 4:16; Ecclesiastes 4:4.

By doing exactly as the class states.

@Summum
“I have studied and taught this information for years now and it is not phony at all.”
I feel like a broken record, but: how do you know?
People can study things for years and never realise it’s just another load of bollocks. I’ve practised Tai Chi for four years before it occurred to me that I could only make excuses when people asked me if it actually works in a fight.

“Oh, we never spar. But I’m pretty sure my teacher could defeat a karate person. I’ve never seen it, but I’m pretty sure he could. Probably.”
“Our techniques are so difficult, it takes thirty or forty years to master just the basics, that’s why you can’t judge Tai Chi by the fact that its students suck at fighting. But someone who’s mastered it is invincible. Seriously.”
“I know it’s based on literally medieval ideas about medicine that have been thoroughly debunked, but in practise it still works. Really.”

With respect, how do I know you’re not making this mistake? How do you?

For the record, I still love Tai Chi, and I still think it’s an awesome tradition, aesthetically speaking. But if you want to learn to fight, go learn Krav Maga or something. Anything that doesn’t take a commitment of decades of constant practise before you can see how well it actually works.

@Spreader
Since you choose not to reply to several valid points that have been raised by other users and by me, can we assume you have conceded them?

I don’t win or lose anything not sure what that is about? Not bragging either things are just what they are they are not right/wrong good/evil they just are.

@Summum
That entire “class” presumes that there actually is something other than the dream while you sleep.
How do you know that the “extradimensional experience” you have while sleeping is not part of the dream itself?
How can you be sure?
The answer is, you can not. In fact, it is highly unlikely that anything you experience is not part of the dream.

Well if you see with your eyes, touch with your hands, communicate with your mouth, be there with your body and mind. What conclusions would you come too? Even in science that is what they do. What else makes something real for you?

I go into places while not sleeping I guess that is how I know what other criteria would I look at?

There are places on Earth that are doors into the other dimension or at least the 4th dimension. I have been there and experienced it not sure what else I can tell you.

@Fyrius No, for
I’m speaking hypothetically. Just imagine it.
If yadda yadda yadda, would you do it?

@Summum
The 4th dimension is time and everyone experiences it. All the time.
“What else makes something real for you?”
Confirmation by my peers, for example?
If I see, hear, smell, and touch a pink unicorn dancing on the street, but everyone else in that place tells me that there is nothing there, then I can safely assume that what I experience is not real.
The same with dreams or any “experiences” I have while sleeping. No one can confirm what I see while I sleep.

No there is no time in the 4th dimension not in the physical place. I would agree with you about dreaming while you are asleep.

@Summum
No, the 4th dimension IS time.
There are 3 spatial dimensions (up-down, left-right, forward-backward) and 1 dimension of time. All together make up spacetime.

I should call it the 4th/5th dimension. You are thinking of what science calls the 4th dimension but there is a physical place for the 4/5 dimension and it is right here on Earth with us. Those that pass away are in it and you dream in it.

I should say this instead of 4th dimension. Astral and The Etheric Planes

@Summum
And you know that, how exactly?
How do you know that dreams are not just the brain, which is basically nothing more than an organic computer, simulating a completely random scenario (the most likely possibility)?

@Summum
“Well if you see with your eyes, touch with your hands, communicate with your mouth, be there with your body and mind. What conclusions would you come too? Even in science that is what they do. What else makes something real for you?”

A human can know reality through the causal chain of events by which reality influences your eyes, ears, hands and the works in such a way that stimuli travel to your brain, the brain reconstructs how reality caused those sensations, and then it incorporates that into its model of the world.
But all sorts of things can go wrong along the way.
I’m sure you already know about optical illusions. You can also hear voices in the random noise the wind makes – especially someone calling your name – or you can see faces in randomly placed stains, or in dunes on Mars. They’re not there, but you’ll perceive them anyway.
If you go without sleep for a few days on end, or if you take hallucinogenic drugs, your brain can convince itself that your room is full of spiders and your room mate wants to kill you and all sorts of other hallucinations.

The human brain is a very flawed piece of equipment. By nature it has all sorts of biases and irrational tendencies. The only way to really get the right answers is to compensate for those things.
Science does that, with the scientific philosophy but also by taking the task of defining reality out of the hands of one person, so people can compensate for each other’s biases.

Indeed, Darwin’s finches are not becoming “anything new.” They are still finches. And the fact that they are interbreeding casts doubt on the methods some evolutionists use to define a species. In addition, information about these birds exposes the fact that even prestigious scientific academies are not above reporting evidence in a biased manner.

Is such an attitude really scientific? Is it fair? Does it promote true education to saturate students with only one idea as to man’s origin when many scientists admit that the evidence is not conclusive at all, but is primarily conjectural? Why not let students hear scientific evidence for the creation of man as being separate and distinct from animals? Investigation of the facts on both sides is true education on such a subject.

@Spreader
Since you choose not to reply to several valid points that have been raised by other users and by me, can we assume you are completely batshit insane?

Yes you choose that life ? By raising your hand, by shouting ‘Aye’, by saying ‘Lord, I would like to live then’? No; you choose that life in the same way that you choose the present one. And how do you choose to live now? By breathing, drinking, eating, sleeping and working, yes; but stated more broadly, it is by the course of action that you take. And it is action, please note, that is not dictated or determined by you, but rather it is action according to the dictates of the body. The body sets its terms, forces you to meet its requirements. So it is in choosing life in the new world. It is not by merely saying you would like to live then, but the choice is made by the course of action you take. And here again the action is not determined by the individual. God is the one who establishes that new world and gives persons life in it. He gives it on his own terms, and we must meet his requirements. Refusal to act in accord with his requirements now is choosing death instead of everlasting life, just as surely as refusal to breathe in response to the body’s demands would mean death to our physical organism now.

@Spreader
Since you choose not to show us any sign whatsoever that your brains are still properly located in your skull, can we assume you have conceded them?

@Spreader
The whole point of the finches was to show the adaptation those birds underwent via natural selection to survive in their new environment, specifically by evolving larger beaks to crack open the nuts they eat. In fact, they were so different from ordinary finches that Darwin did not even know that they were finches until he consulted an ornithologist back home.

“Does it promote true education to saturate students with only one idea as to man’s origin when many scientists admit that the evidence is not conclusive at all, but is primarily conjectural?”
Which scientists would that be? Obviously, incompetent or dishonest ones, because the evidence for evolition is very much conclusive.
The fact is, that we have more evidence for evolution than for any other field of science.

“Why not let students hear scientific evidence for the creation of man as being separate and distinct from animals?”
What evidence would that be?
The evidence that shows that humans share 98% of their DNA with chimpanzees?
The evidence that shows that our body plans are very much congruent with other apes?
The evidence that shows that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of separate chromosomes in other primates?
The evidence that shows that we share many sequences of viral dna with most other apes? That means identical sequences in identical positions on identical chromosomes.
The evidence that shows that caucasian dna actually contains Neanderthal DNA?

I do not know in what kind of reality you live, but in this one, the evidence universally supports evolution, and none of the evidence supports creation.

@ragingloli
“Which scientists would that be? Obviously, incompetent or dishonest ones”
But my dear loli, it seems you’re completely unaware of a considerable group of scientists who are neither the incompetent ones, nor the dishonest ones, but still don’t buy into evolution theory.
The imaginary ones.

What does the Bible say? The Bible states that life on earth is the product of an intelligent mind. Note the Bible’s clear logic: “Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.” (Hebrews 3:4)
Advances in microbiology have made it possible to peer into the awe-inspiring interior of the simplest living prokaryotic cells known. Evolutionary scientists theorize that the first living cells must have looked something like these cells.10
If the theory of evolution is true, it should offer a plausible explanation of how the first “simple” cell formed by chance. On the other hand, if life was created, there should be evidence of ingenious design even in the smallest of creatures. Why not take a tour of a prokaryotic cell? As you do so, ask yourself whether such a cell could arise by chance.

@Spreader
Can I assume that you ignored the link I posted earlier in this thread?

From the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange. Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?

@Spreader
Evolution is not about climbing an imaginary ladder of progress.
It is about adapting to the environment to survive.

Unlike the human lineage, who saw its environment change drastically, other apes did not have to deal with that. They were doing just fine as they were and are.

Also, your argument is the old and debunked “if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys” argument.
Here is one for you:
If dogs evolved from wolves, why are there still wolves?

And Life is simply too complicated to have arisen by chance. For example, consider the vast amount of information contained in the DNA molecule. The mathematical probability of the random generation of a single chromosome is less than 1 in 9 trillion, an event so unlikely that it can be considered impossible. I think it is nonsense to believe that unintelligent forces could create not just a single chromosome but all the amazing complexity present in living beings.

@Spreader
Since you choose not to I know you’re not reading this part anymore but I’ll be damned if I let you get away, can we assume you have conceded them?

@Spreader
http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Schrum_et_al_CSH_2010.pdf

Is evolution a scientific fact? No.
Is it a testable scientific theory? No.
Does it adhere to the scientific method? No.
Really, then, just what is the theory of evolution, and why do so many believe it?
with the ‘construction’ of man. We were not around when man first appeared. If evolutionists ask you to believe that man came into existence without a Maker, does that seem consistent to you? We know that everything made has a maker; experience has taught all of us that.

Good nigth.

@Spreader
Since you choose to keep telling the same bullshit that’s already been thoroughly debunked several times, can we assume you’re not listening to a word anyone says?

@Spreader
“Is evolution a scientific fact?” Yes. As demonstrated by the fossil record, genetics, observation in nature and laboratory experiments.

“Is it a testable scientific theory?” Yes. Example: Humans have 23 basepairs, apes have 24. Evolution predicts that one of the chromosomes of humans has to be a fusion of 2 others for evolution to be true. Guess what, It is chromosome number 2.

“Does it adhere to the scientific method?” Yes. Making hypotheses, testing, revising, testing again. And so forth. Perfectly following the scientific method.

“We know that everything made has a maker; experience has taught all of us that.”
Absolutely false. We only know that of things that humans created. And that is not a lot.

Totally off topic, but have you all done anything else today besides go back and forth on this thread?

I will ask those a question that I feel is exactly what you are asking me. How do you know that you are at the computer reading this and posting an answer. How do you know that your mind is not just making it up and that you are not there responding to a question on fluther? It is exactly the same when you ask me how do I know those things I told you were real. I’m in no way asleep when I have many of the experiences. I have sat right next to a friend that had been shot in the mountains just a hour before and he died on the mountain side. We talked for hours and he left me a message for his wife. It was no different than if I had you over and you sat on a chair next to me and we talked.

@Season_of_Fall Probably not.

@Summum I’m sorry, man, “personal experience” is not something you can accept as proof of anything, that’s why experiments are verified by peer review.

Some time ago a hypothesis was proposed, and supported by some data, that mystical and religious experiences were indeed caused by electromagnetic interference with the brain, this alone would be enough to cast an interesting shadow on your assertion that your experiences were real, just because you experienced them.

And this was my original point, BUT, look at what i found out next!

Now, why would i post an article that directly disproves my previous point? Well, for starters, I’m honest, but, that aside, it’s because it’s even better.

I don’t know whether all those who are reading know what a double blind experiment is, so I’ll explain before i make my point: A double blind experiment is when you create 2, or optionally 3 groups of test subjects and, in the case of the 3 groups, keep one under observation without doing anything to them (control group) to verify the frequency of the phenomenon (recovering from an illness or, in this case, mystical and religious experiences) under normal circumstances, to balance your data. Then you take another group and tell them you’re going to test whatever you’re testing on them, and you do. Then, finally, you take the last group and you tell them you’re going to test on them, you make them think you are, but you’re actually not. If the last group shows the same results (or reasonably small differences) as the previous group you have successfully proved that the therapy/medicine/procedure relies only on the placebo effect. This has been, among other things, used on intercessory prayer, which failed miserably, finding the groups that thought someone was praying for them have an even lower recovery rate than the groups who weren’t aware of that (which had similar results with or without prayer).

Now, back to my point: this same procedure has been applied to that experiment with electro magnetic fields causing religious and mystical experiences and guess what? It’s a placebo. People who were told they should’ve expected religious or mystical experiences did experience them regardless of the machine. They did because a man in a labcoat told them they would have.

And this, until hard evidence of the contrary is provided, I’m sorry, is what’s happening to you. You’ve been taught that, by doing this task and that thing and whatever-the-fuck-i-don’t-know-or-care-else, you will experience this ethereal planes, and you do. Because an authoritative man with a “Dr.” or a “Prof.” or both in front of his name on his business card told you you were going to, and you bought into it (and spare me the “no i didn’t, i was skeptical, i was the most skepticallest man ever!” routine. You might honestly have been, consciously, but, if the thought of that possibility being true didn’t entice you, you wouldn’t have attended the course, meaning that subconsciously you wanted it to be true, and i don’t fucking blame you).

Now, if you were coherent, you would put this to the test. You would go to a neurological research center and ask them to verify what areas of the brain are active during these experiences, to see if it’s dreams, hallucinations, whatever else or it’s actually something different. I assume you’re not going to because i think you’d probably have to pay for it, assuming you’re an American, but maybe the Randi foundation would give it a shot without having you pay, and there’s a million dollars, plus years worth of interests, in it if you’re actually right.

The ball is in your court.

@Spreader
“Is evolution a scientific fact? No.
Is it a testable scientific theory? No.
Does it adhere to the scientific method? No.
Really, then, just what is the theory of evolution, and why do so many believe it?”
I’ve seen this trick before, but still I can hardly even believe the nerve you bastards have.
I’m starting to believe you literally take notes when the sane people tell you about everything that’s wrong with creationism, then cross out “creationism” everywhere and write “evolution” instead, and then use that to defend yourselves without even knowing what it all means. Confusing the hell out of everyone who doesn’t know science, and pissing off everyone who does.

@Faiblesse Stop paying attention to him. It’s not like he payed attention to any of us so why the fuck shouldn’t we return the favour.

@Season_of_Fall
Haha, not much.

@Summum
“How do you know that you are at the computer reading this and posting an answer. How do you know that your mind is not just making it up and that you are not there responding to a question on fluther?”
This is a valid question, and you deserve an answer. So here goes.
It’s a long story, but you wanted to know. :)

First of all, it’s flattering that you expect me to have what it takes to single-handedly make up all these replies. But I know I don’t. I have a strong imagination, but not that strong.
I know what it’s like to imagine things. I imagine things all the time. I write stories, I daydream. I’m not very good at writing characters. They’re all flat stereotypes whose personalities are all based on some aspect of my own.
The people of Fluther aren’t. They’re way more diverse and way deeper than any people I could dream up.
At least it would be very weird if I could dream up characters as complex as you guys when I don’t know I’m imagining things, but not when I do. It’s easier to believe you’re not from my brain, you’re from somewhere else.
That’s one thing.

Another thing is that the people on Fluther sometimes tell me things that are demonstrably true, and that I didn’t know yet. Imaginary characters could never do that; they can only use information that’s either already somewhere in your memory, or that you make up on the spot. Because the information has to come from somewhere.

I also know I’m not having a dream right now, because when I hold my nose, I can’t breathe. When I count my fingers, there’s five of them. When I read something, then look away, then read it again, the text hasn’t changed. When I look into a mirror, I see myself. Those are all things that would be different in a dream.

As for whether all reality is something that exists outside my brain at all, I’m fairly sure it is, because it’s consistent. In fact, sometimes reality is consistent in ways I don’t comprehend at first, but that I can understand later on. If things follow rules even when I don’t know they follow rules or what rules they follow, I think that proves I’m not just making them up.
Even if all of existence consists of just one idiot savant unconsciously dreaming up this incredibly complex but completely consistent universe, and simultaneously exploring it and thinking it’s a real world, then the part that does the imagining is clearly separate from the part that thinks it’s a person in a world (me). So reality, even if it isn’t really a giant space filled with matter and movement and radiation and people and chocolate and music and jokes and paperclips, at least has to be the result of some kind of supercomputer (biological or otherwise) feeding me stimuli that behave according to patterns. Which is to say, stimuli synchronised with an artificial giant space filled with matter and movement and radiation and people and chocolate and music and jokes and paperclips, that runs inside the supercomputer.
The only concrete difference would be that the “dreamer” is fundamentally different from everyone else, but if everyone else simulates the same kind of mind as the dreamer – which they do – then the difference is only between a sentient physical person and several sentient simulated persons.
The difference would be moot. By any meaningful criterion, you might as well be living in a real universe.

And even that is only if we have already accepted a very big “if”.
So yeah.

“I have sat right next to a friend that had been shot in the mountains just a hour before and he died on the mountain side. We talked for hours and he left me a message for his wife. It was no different than if I had you over and you sat on a chair next to me and we talked.”
Did he tell you anything you didn’t know that was demonstrably true?
Like I said, imaginary characters can’t give you new information unless you make it up. You should be able to use that to tell the difference between a visitation by a genuine person and just a dream about them.

@Summum A pre-lecture primer for “Navigating the Dream Scape”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU&feature=youtube_gdata

I have said all I need to or will and hope that you can open your minds and find your answers they are not all found in science. Good luck all.

Michael Shermer I respect his opinion but it doesn’t make what he says an more valid than what I say. He is no more intellegent than anyone else he believes how he believes and that is wonderful.

I can assure you we all have open minds.
But we are not gullible.

That is great to not be gullible and I have always maintained that everyone should find out for themselves and not believe what others say including me. I don’t have your truth nor your view of life and I have never asked anyone to believe me. I live for me and in my reality that is all anyone can do. Blessings

@Summum
“Michael Shermer I respect his opinion but it doesn’t make what he says an more valid than what I say.”
I read this as:
“Screw Michael Shermer, I wouldn’t be rude to his face but I’m not going to listen to him, and even though he provides solid arguments for what he says and I can’t seem to back up what I believe at all, it’s still okay for me to believe he’s wrong and I’m right.”
Is that a gross misinterpretation of what you meant, or does that sound about right?

It seems you’ve come to practise a kind of doublethink. Whenever you’re talking about your beliefs, you present them as if they’re facts about the real world that you just know.

“There was never a beginning of the Universe it has always been.”
“Yes the next 1000 years will be the last dispensation of time. The Earth will rest during this time and we will rebuild in preparation for the Gog and Maygog. The Earth will revert back to how it was in the days of peleg.”
” @flutherother There was never a time when there was nothing there has always been something.”
“Yes I know about the big bang but the Universe has always existed.”
“We are much more than just a physical body”
“There are places on Earth that are doors into the other dimension or at least the 4th dimension.”
“No there is no time in the 4th dimension not in the physical place.”
“there is a physical place for the 4/5 dimension and it is right here on Earth with us. Those that pass away are in it and you dream in it.”

No “I believe” or “my opinion” about it. You say it like it’s 100% factually accurate, with complete certainty.
But then when you run into someone who shows that what you believe is not true, you say we can’t know, and what they say is just their personal opinions, and you accuse them of thinking they know the “absolute truth”, as if that’s some kind of foolish mistake.
(As if there’s such a thing as “relative truth”.)

“We see such a very tiny fragment of the Universe that one could make that kind of claim.”
“we can’t come to conclusions (big bang) based on our tiny view of the whole picture.”
“I appreciate your view on the matter but it doesn’t make it so.”
“I will state my understanding anytime I am asked about it and for me it is very true.”
“This part of the Universe might have been organized 14 billions years ago so what that doesn’t mean that the Universe is 14 billion years old and that that is absolute truth.”
” @Fyrius You honestly think you have absolutely truth through science?”
“Michael Shermer I respect his opinion but it doesn’t make what he says an more valid than what I say. He is no more intellegent than anyone else he believes how he believes and that is wonderful.”

Did you notice this, too? Did you notice that when you have to defend your beliefs, you suddenly drop your otherwise rock-solid position that what you believe are facts about the real world, and turn into a reality post-modernist?

You’re not being honest with yourself.

You can either go around telling people that your beliefs are true facts about the real world – and then you better be able to back them up, in case you run into people like us – or you can just humbly share your personal beliefs about things no one can really know, and then you should indicate they’re just your personal beliefs, and respect the personal beliefs of other people as equally uncertain as your own, even when they contradict yours.

And it wouldn’t hurt either to listen to the arguments of people who claim they know things for a fact that contradict your beliefs, before concluding it’s just their arbitrary opinions that you can safely ignore.
It might just happen that you’re wrong about something. And someone else notices before you do.

As a side note, the phrase “Michael Shermer (...) is no more intellegent than anyone else” is obviously not true. He’s more intelligent than a lot of people. To say he isn’t more intelligent than any single person on the face of the planet means he is the dumbest person alive. He must be less intelligent than people with Down syndrome.
I really don’t think mister Shermer deserves such a harsh insult.

What you’re really saying is of course not that Michael Shermer is dumber than the dumbest retard, but that everyone is equally intelligent. That’s obviously not true either. Be as egalitarian as you like, there is variation in human intelligence.

Your kindergarten teacher lied to you.

I didn’t say what you stated in the least. I said he has his opinion and I respect that but it doesn’t make him wrong/right. What I state is just a valid as what he states and for me what I state comes from personal experience.

One would have to define intellengence to say that. We all have areas where we shine and we all have areas that we are weak in. Someone with downs syndrome is just that but it doesn’t mean they are stupid. I wouldn’t call anyone a retard and within their minds they are just as intellegent as the rest of us though they cannot express it.

I haven’t insulted anyone and don’t have that in my heart.

I have and can back up my experiences. I told you a tiny bit of what I have experienced.

Isn’t it wonderful that you have your right to call others such names as dumb, retard and many others that you bring up. I find it amazing also that you think you can interpret what I say and write it down so others can see it and really believe that I said that. Do you see what you are doing? You are putting words in my mouth that I didn’t say or mean and you think that is valid but if I say something you disagree with it is not valid. mmmmmmmmmm Interesting.

@Summum
“I didn’t say what you stated in the least.”
Heavens no, you wouldn’t say it aloud.
But you are disregarding what he says with a polite excuse, you are disregarding the fact that he has solid arguments, you have failed again and again to back yourself up with anything more substantial than “I have these experiences, really, just believe me already”. You do use the “just his opinion” fallacy so you can still believe you are right while he is wrong, against all reason.

“Do you see what you are doing?”
Yes, I’m calling you out on mistakes I have observed you to consistently make.
Now, do you see what you are doing? I mean, really see it?
The things I say make you look bad, and probably threaten to make you feel bad about yourself, too. Now, pay close attention to what goes on in your mind. Can you notice your reflexes? Can you feel your ego’s defences coming up? Can you already hear the comforting thoughts that make the bad feelings go away?
When was the last time you swallowed the bitter pill of an uncomfortable truth, @Summum? When was the last time you bit that bullet, instead of dodging it?

“What I state is just a valid as what he states”
No, it isn’t. Not remotely.
Do you know why? Guess for me. Guess what I’m going to say. Come on, humour me.
I’ve said it often enough already. The last time I said it was just two paragraphs ago in this very post. It’s not a difficult guess.

Do you know why?

He has arguments.

And you don’t.

But then you insist:
“I have and can back up my experiences.”
Is that so? Refresh my memory, then, if you would be so kind. What arguments and what evidence have you delivered so far?

Since you mentioned having a background in science, I shouldn’t have to remind you that your “personal experiences” mean diddly squat when it comes to making your case. Since we haven’t had these experiences and have no way to confirm that you have, let alone that you weren’t making some mistake or another, how can you possibly expect us to be convinced?

So far I have not actually called anyone dumb or retarded¹. Perhaps I can resist the urge for the rest of this thread. It will depend on how much patience I can still muster.

The only “words I put into your mouth” – about dismissing Shermer’s arguments as if it’s just an opinion – were clearly indicated to be a paraphrase, and furthermore no one would mistake that for something you would actually say.

The “Michael Shermer is the dumbest person alive” thing is an implication of what you said: “he is not more intelligent than anyone else”. This is not putting words into your mouth. You got your foot in your mouth, and I didn’t put it there. I only pointed it out once it was in there.
And I even said I knew that’s not literally what you meant. I was already forthcoming enough to compensate for your ineptness.

Also, did you notice I wrote something just now about how inconsistent you have been?
What I quoted you as saying on that subject was not put in your mouth. They are all exact, copy-pasted quotes from this very thread. Ctrl+F for them if you want to see exactly where you said them.
Since you choose not to reply to this point, can I assume you have conceded it?

And for heaven’s sake, learn to write single posts. You don’t need to come back with Treppenwitz-aftertoughts four times in a row if you take some time to think about what you want to say before you hit “Answer”.
_____
¹ Notice by the way that “retard” is not a derogatory word when applied to people who actually have Down syndrome.

I never even implied that Michael Shermer is the dumbest person alive. You are really looking for reasons to put me down. LOL I don’t know why it is that you are threatened by me but I’m sorry if you are so threatened. People only react like you are if they are threatened and you sure fit the mold. I hope that life gets better for you and that you find your answers I am completely fine with what I have found and comfortable with who and what I am. Thanks for the judgements and have a good life. If you open your heart and mind you will find some answers to questions that you have. Good Luck

I had a long, eloquent and devastating storm of fury ready to post in reply to your accusations, but I’m going to once again bite my tongue and muster more patience. Please don’t provoke me again. There comes a point where I won’t be nice any more.
If I have been rude, I apologise. It was not gentlemanlike of me. I would like to return to a more friendly atmosphere now.

Looking for reasons to put you down?
I’m sorry you see it that way. But my main concern has been not to put you down, but to point out mistakes I noticed you were making. So that you could stop making them.
Everyone makes mistakes, the only ones you can blame for making them are the people who won’t try not to make them again.

People don’t react like I did when they feel threatened. I’ve seen people act on feeling threatened. They leave, or they react irrationally, with desperate angry non-sequiturs. Some people try to hide it by laughing it off.
Everything I said was meaningful and properly supported.
Don’t worry, I don’t feel threatened by you. I’ve talked to much scarier people without losing my composure. :P

The “you said Shermer is dumb” issue is an irrelevant side track. There’s no point in getting hung up on whether or not you said something wrong. Let’s not waste any more ink on it.
In the meantime, you’re ignoring all the other points I have raised.
Since you choose not to reply to these, can I assume you have conceded them?

Here they are again.

1. Have you given us any evidence and/or arguments for your beliefs apart from your personal experiences, which are of no use to us? If not, will you give us any, since you claim to have some at your disposal?
2. Michael Shermer’s points were not opinions. You can not safely dismiss them.
3. Given his arguments and your lack thereof, what you state is not remotely as valid as what he stated.
4. Since you are currently using the “just personal beliefs” stance, and you now know about the inconsistency between that and claiming you know for a fact that this and that, can I assume you won’t do the latter again?
And frankly, I think you should really consider this one, too, even if you don’t tell me your answer:
5. When was the last time you swallowed the bitter pill of an uncomfortable truth? Everyone has to do that every once in a while, when they find out they’re wrong about things.

I know what I am doing and yes I can say that Michael Shermer has his opinions and I do respect that but I have seen and know different than he does. There is no mistake on my part it is what I have experienced and there is not wrong with what I do and have done. As there is nothing wrong with what Michael Shermer thinks or has done. It is my reality and I know it to be so. I swallow a bitter pill of uncomfortable truth all the time that is one way that I progress. But on my experience I am not wrong or right it just is the way it is. If you want to know for you then you have to find out for yourself but if asked a question I will answer with my knowledge of things as they are as I always do. I have NO need what so ever that you believe anything I say or comment on. Not sure why that would matter in the least. I state what I state because I know it to be so as do others who explain their experience and their understanding.

You seem to use that statement all the time. LOL

Since you choose not to reply to these, can I assume you have conceded them?

Do you really think that is truly valid? Do you think I will care or respond to your young actions like this? I watched you use the same thing when you got threatened and upset by another and you kept using like it meant something. This is the last time I will acknowledge you because you must be really young and threatened by what you cannot understand. So I will not again respond to you and will just wish you luck on finding the answers that are there for everyone. I do not wish to threaten or upset you so I will say so long. Good Luck young man.

There is one last thing because I read your profile info and would ask that you adhere to what you said and just do it and not pronounce it.

Thanks here is what you said.

Personal announcement [12–08–10]: I want to take a debate hiatus.
I’m going to stop trying to convince anyone of anything for the time being, on Fluther and elsewhere. I think this habit is responsible for some cognitive reflexes that I want to unlearn.
So I’ll no longer represent or advocate anything. I’ll limit myself to trying to help people out and asking genuine non-rhetorical questions, and stuff like that.

@Summum
“Do you think I will care or respond to your young actions like this?”
“This is the last time I will acknowledge you because you must be really young and threatened by what you cannot understand.”
Do not provoke me again.

“There is no mistake on my part it is what I have experienced and there is not wrong with what I do and have done.”
Again.
How do you know?
In the name of sanity, how can you be so cocksure that you are not making mistakes? The whole problem with mistakes is that you don’t realise you’re making them while you’re making them.
I’ve seen mistakes you’ve made. I’ve pointed them out to you.
It’s a courtesy I’ve always wanted people to bestow upon me. I probably don’t see most of my mistakes, either. And that’s what I most need to see in order to improve.

This is bitter pill swallowing time. This is where you pause, say “oops” and get back to your feet.
Since you say you can do that, it’s time to walk the talk.

“It is my reality and I know it to be so.”
“But on my experience I am not wrong or right it just is the way it is. If you want to know for you then you have to find out for yourself but if asked a question I will answer with my knowledge of things as they are as I always do.”
“I state what I state because I know it to be so”
So, is this about how things are, or about what you personally believe? You’re going to have to choose. You can’t contend both at the same time. They can’t both be true. It’s a contradiction.

“You seem to use that statement all the time. LOL”
Indeed. You guys make me. By not replying to my points.
This is rude. If you can’t refute an argument against you, yet don’t know if you should concede it, the least you can do is acknowledge that it’s been said.

“I watched you use the same thing when you got threatened and upset by another and you kept using like it meant something.”
Not threatened. Like I said, this is not how threatened people react. If I’d felt threatened, I’d just have stayed away.
I kept saying that because I’d asked him an important question, and he refused to give me a simple “yes” or “no”. And I wasn’t going to let him get away with simply ignoring valid arguments.
Don’t make me do the same thing to you. Just say “yes” or “no”.
Will you refute the points raised, or will you yield? If you’re still deciding, that’s also an acceptable answer, for now. But every time you ignore my points, I’m going to shove them into your face again.

Here they are again.
1. Have you given us any evidence and/or arguments for your beliefs apart from your personal experiences, which are of no use to us? If not, will you give us any, since you claim to have some at your disposal?
2. Michael Shermer’s points were not opinions. You can not safely dismiss them.
3. Given his arguments and your lack thereof, what you state is not remotely as valid as what he stated.
4. Your beliefs are either factual reality or your personal arbitrary beliefs. If they are the former, you should be able to defend them. If they are the latter, you should stop pretending you know them for a fact. You should also listen to people who say they know other things for a fact, because maybe you’re wrong.
Look at that, you’re down by one already. Four left to go.

“There is one last thing because I read your profile info and would ask that you adhere to what you said and just do it and not pronounce it.”
You’re right, I forgot I’d written that there.
This is what I’d been doing most of the thread, though. I just tried to make you think, without trying to convince you of the things I believe.
Given the circumstances, I can’t go back to not debating now.

By the way…
“you seem to use that statement all the time. LOL”
“I do not wish to threaten or upset you”
“This is the last time I will acknowledge you”
Trying to laugh it off, projecting insecurities onto me, clinging onto already debunked notions that make me look weaker, announcing you’re about to go away…
Do you feel threatened by me, @Summum?
It’s okay if you do, I won’t hold it against you. But you don’t have to feel that way. If you stay on my good side – which, as you can see from the patience I’ve shown you so far, isn’t difficult – then I won’t bite.

Oh hell, you guys are still going at it?
Just give up already, @Fyrius. There’s no talking to this guy. He doesn’t have the spine to face his weaknesses.

@Spreader As far as I know, and according to the brand of Christianity I was raised under, Christians pride themselves on their morality. Do you, as a Christian, feel it is important to respect fellow humans (Romans 13:7, 1 Peter 2:17)? Do you think it is respectful to repeatedly ignore genuine questions? Please, follow the advice given by your Bible in 1 Peter 3:15, and be prepared to back up what you preach with further explanation and discussion.

@FireMadeFlesh
He can’t hear you, you’re not saying convenient enough things.

I have read all your comments. I am a Christian and I use the Bible to back up my reasons for believing as I do. I am not an athiest, I am not a scientist, but I believe the Bible backs up science. I am not an evolutionist. The Bible does not advocate evolution but Creation. I follow the advice given by the Bible, I have answered as clearly as I can with scripture the questions you have asked. If you cannot understand my answers, that is not my fault, but yours.

”I believe the Bible backs up science”
The problem is that the bible does not back up science. It contradicts it, from the basic shape of Earth and its age, to the origin of life. And we have shown that to you in this thread.
And you do not have to be a scientist to know that.

But feel free to ignore science and then claim that it supports the stuff written in the bible.

@Spreader
As a side note to what @ragingloli said: since you choose not to reply to several valid points that have been raised by other users and by me, can we assume you have conceded them?

@Spreader The problem is that you have not answered our questions, be it with scripture or otherwise. Moreover, it is your fault if we can’t understand your answers if you have not presented them in a way that is understandable. If you ask me for directions to my house and I say “zthhagrbolitzkafdhizimistasf,” I can’t complain when you don’t understand because my answer is nonsensical.

@Spreader There you go the same old, same old. This world is such an amazing wonderful place and we are here to learn, understand and progress. Just take all that there is for you and make it a better place. Do you see and understand such a childish thing about having to assume that we conceed to anything? ROFL As has always been the case you know what ASSume does for anyone correct? As a people love everyone and learn what you will with all there is. Every single person has something to offer the world and to be a part of. Just love them all and give of yourself and you will be a better person for it. Just love everyone and know that there are so many that are really searching for the truth and all things associated with that understanding. Unfortunately we are limited in what we can learn and understand because our minds won’t go in the places it has to go. May all the blessings that can come to you and those that are pushing you in a manner unbecoming of a fellow being. Blessings to all.

@Summum
Did… did you just joke that “assume” has “ass” in it?

I am going to say a few things and I hope that all will listen too. I’m having a great and wonderful experience right now and it is for everyone that will open an ear. He that hath ears let them hear and he that hath eyes let him see. I don’t know why this is being given me but here it is. The world has just responded to negative actions that have been going on and it caused a huge earthquake where many are and will be found dead. The Earth is alive and it is doing what it can to help mankind to see and change. It does not want to hurt anyone but will based on what is going on. I am going to give you another small understanding about these things. We as a nation recieved some technology that would not be here if we had not made a deal with the aliens. I cannot talk about a whole lot of what has been given us but I only hope that you as a member of life will listen. We were given the stealth technology in exchange for other things and now that has been broken and it is time for us to see many other things. This is starting now and it will spread throughout our technology and we will see things beyond our understanding. Please except what things are and how they are coming. I want to help bring this in with as few problems and death as possible. This is huge and will come faster and faster it is TIME.

@Summum I hope you can share these views with someone who cares about you, and they convince you to seek professional help. I mean that with honest concern.

My wife is atheist and I am agnostic – we can’t decide which religion not to raise our kids in.

@Faiblesse Dude, i’ve been modded for way less than that. Be careful.

@Summum Ok, That’s it! You’ve made my kook list. Hell, you’ve made me create my kook list just so i could add you to it. I hope you’re proud.

@Spreader Same goes for you.

And BTW: I am not a scientist
I would never have guessed. /sarcasm

@seazen_ can i use that one?

@Fyrius Dude you’re fighting windmills, not everyone is worth trying to help.

@AdamF I have no need for professional help and I thank you for your concern but honestly the Earth is beginning it’s change and it will continue if you can understand and begin to help then you will be part of this change. I just want as many as can be there to help as these things come about and they will continue until it is time to cleanse the Earth. I only want the best for all and as little death as possible. It is coming very fast now and it will increase in intensity. Blessings

The sad thing is science will NOT stop or help what is coming. Science will be helpless in the changes that are coming and I just hope that as many as can will open their eyes, hearts and minds and become part of the change and not in spite of the change. Just be ready when it is time to cleanse the Earth. I have seen it happen and it will be very soon. Blessings

@Summum
Question, here. Did you learn this in the fifth dimension?

“The world has just responded to negative actions that have been going on and it caused a huge earthquake where many are and will be found dead. The Earth is alive and it is doing what it can to help mankind to see and change.”
“if we had not made a deal with the aliens.”
And you’re still going to contend that science does not disagree with you?

“The sad thing is science will NOT stop or help what is coming. Science will be helpless in the changes that are coming”
I can’t help noticing that this must sound immensely gratifying to someone like you.
These changes sure are going to show those stupid old science people who’s boss, huh? Serves them right for picking on you. This time you get to be the hero and they’re the ignorant ones.
Must have been one hell of a great dream.

The greatest thing about @Summum is that she (you’re a she right?) has a direct link to god that other “believers” do not have. Her existence and the truths she has to share about reality defy the beliefs of other believers. Shouldn’t they all believe in her as a prophet or something? She claims to have otherworldly insight just like the bible (and various religions/texts) characters did. Even some new powers too.

It’s really beginning to seem that every religionist out there ought to just have faith and follow her guidance.

No gratification at all I am so worried about the things that are coming such as this great quake in Japan there is going to be more and much worse and I just want all to be as ready as possible. Blessings I love science and do not see it as something wrong or bad it has helped mankind through the history of the Earth and will continue to do so.

@Summum If I thought you were serious I would be worried.

@flutherother I wish I could express what is happening right now. I’m being given so much information that is flowing through me and it is so wonderful and such a great thing. The things that are going to take place very soon is so amazing. I am awe struck as to what is being shown. Life is about to change. Blessings Any information is not given to worry anyone just to help prepare them.

@Summum
“such as this great quake in Japan there is going to be more and much worse”
“The things that are going to take place very soon is so amazing.”

Will you do me a favour, @Summum?

Please write this down somewhere.
March 13, 2011: I know for a fact that there will be major natural disasters in the near future that are much worse than the earthquakes in Japan of March 12, 2011.
Add everything else that you are sure is going to happen soon.

Keep it somewhere safe.

Read it again five years from now.

And if it turns out that nothing of the sort has happened in the intervening time, don’t make excuses.

So many things are being shown. Blessings

You’re ignoring me again.

That reminds me of the video where AronRa (youtube atheist) reported an incident from the past where he talked with a priest and bombarded him with the evidence for evolution.
The priest/pastor/w.e. just started smiling.

It always is interesting to me that anyone doesn’t understand nor believe in evolution. There is so much evidence and we see it happen on a daily basis. Evolution is a fact of life and is fact. Smile

Even though in his kindness gives us such a clear warning of what he is going to do, the Bible states that the majority of mankind will ignore the warning. It tells us that most people will go about their daily affairs being concerned only about what they will eat and drink, who their children will marry, and other such normal things, and they will take no notice until the destruction suddenly comes upon them Yes, the Bible prophesies, will even mock and ridicule when told about the coming end of this wicked world. So it warns humble, sincere people not to be like the majority but to take this warning seriously (2 Peter 3:3, 4)