@ 2PM EST NASA will announce alien life has been discovered

[TradeMark]

God is all-powerful. Therefore, God can do anything, and regenerating a leg is trivial.

Even if a God can do this, God doesnt have to do it, in fact, God shouldnt do it. Whats the point of helping those who lost the game God created? The whole essence of the life that God created works this way: strongest survives. If God starts helping the weak ones, then God would be working against his own creation. Thats Satan's job. Now think why does most religious people think hospitals etc are evil? They got it right. It is evil.

[zwzsg]

The whole essence of the life that God created works this way: strongest survives.

You're confusing the opposed!

[SwiftSpear]

Listen Swift, i dont think i can out-argument your feelings, but the problem of various believes is, that what starts out as a harmless crutch for the mind to get better through life, has turned so many times into the stick between humanitys legs, its damage nearly self-evident by now. Lets asume, little philius swift gets teached the believe of his parents, which also includes a rigid moral code (not mating, no bating, till after marriage dating) and one day walks down the street, horny, loaded and angry, sees old AF and his lover walking before him, takes out the knife- and god willz it, rams it into the back of both

...........

Durr hurr hurr, and atheists eat baby brains and rape animals on a regular basis! I've seen it first hand ZOMG!

Groups don't commit crimes, individuals do, religion makes people hurt eachother no more than white skin does. At the end of the day we're all human beings to. Everyone justifies things they do, regardless of weather everyone else believes what they do is right or wrong. Religious criminals justify on religious basis, atheist criminals justify usually with appeals to science. "I didn't commit a crime, my parents raised me wrong so I had no choice." "God made me do it." It's exactly the same thing. Selfish people using whatever reason they feel is strongest in their own mind to differ responsibility away from them selfs.

None of your examples are inherent to the church, none of them represent universal church law. None of them even represent large scale accepted church law.

There's something wrong with you that you legitimately believe that some group of other people out there represent an "evil empire". There are scary things in religion, I won't deny that, Muslim theology freaks me out too, but at the end of the day, there's just scary things in the world, and we all have to live with that, and I don't believe that your undefined moral code is not more impervious to abuse and manipulation than mine is.

[SwiftSpear]

God is all-powerful. Therefore, God can do anything, and regenerating a leg is trivial.

Even if a God can do this, God doesnt have to do it, in fact, God shouldnt do it. Whats the point of helping those who lost the game God created? The whole essence of the life that God created works this way: strongest survives. If God starts helping the weak ones, then God would be working against his own creation. Thats Satan's job. Now think why does most religious people think hospitals etc are evil? They got it right. It is evil.

What religion is that?

This is what I hate about atheists, this "us vs them" mentality is just so utterly retarded. Different religions have different beliefs, I don't believe Muslims are any more "Right" than atheists are. You're all "lost sheep" to quote the bible. The difference, I recognize that you can't fit a square post into a round hole. Problems arise from interactions between individuals, beliefs, and situations/settings. Treating everything as "religious or non-religious, pick one" is stupid. Where Christians will take your shit and argue with you, Muslims may just blow your shit up, and Buddhists will just clam up and avoid/shun you for the rest of forever. I belong to a group that is different from everyone else too, that doesn't justify me taking an "us vs them" mentality and treating everyone who isn't Christian like moronic godless heathens. I don't claim it's only atheists that do it, every group has people that do that, but I would expect atheists to be more observant and objective, as those are both ideologies that the atheist religion defends so heavily.

[zwzsg]

For the purpose of this discussion, the religion considered will be the christian one. Either catholic or protestant. We don't have muslim on the Spring board (or they are very quiet), and as for the buddhism and other exotic religions, I've yet to see someone into it. It wouldn't be fair to bash a religion that has no defender here.

I don't know what TradeMark was ranting about, as "survival of the fittest" is clichically Darwinism, and not part of any religion as far as I know.

You're all "lost sheep" to quote the bible.

So, it's very important to you that atheist distinguish between muslim and christian (even though they have all sacred texts but the last book in common). Yet you readily round up muslims and atheists in the same "lost sheep" bag.

Muslims may just blow your shit up

Stop watching TV, for your own sanity.

[TradeMark]

This is what I hate about atheists, this "us vs them" mentality is just so utterly retarded.

Ya, some atheists are retarded, some arent. I actually hate the word atheist for the fact that people think it means anti-religion...

Sadly, most religious guys think like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwWlAgxdCOQ

Great show btw.

--

I don't know what TradeMark was ranting about, as "survival of the fittest" is clichically Darwinism, and not part of any religion as far as I know.

Well, i just gave God the credit from creating DNA (aka life). So, thats how you end up with the logics then. And it makes more sense than bible ever did. I like the way it sounds... Maybe i will start new religion

[SinbadEV]

God is all-powerful. Therefore, God can do anything, and regenerating a leg is trivial.

Even if a God can do this, God doesnt have to do it, in fact, God shouldnt do it. Whats the point of helping those who lost the game God created? The whole essence of the life that God created works this way: strongest survives. If God starts helping the weak ones, then God would be working against his own creation. Thats Satan's job. Now think why does most religious people think hospitals etc are evil? They got it right. It is evil.

What religion is that?

This is what I hate about atheists, this "us vs them" mentality is just so utterly retarded. Different religions have different beliefs, I don't believe Muslims are any more "Right" than atheists are. You're all "lost sheep" to quote the bible. The difference, I recognize that you can't fit a square post into a round hole. Problems arise from interactions between individuals, beliefs, and situations/settings. Treating everything as "religious or non-religious, pick one" is stupid. Where Christians will take your shit and argue with you, Muslims may just blow your shit up, and Buddhists will just clam up and avoid/shun you for the rest of forever. I belong to a group that is different from everyone else too, that doesn't justify me taking an "us vs them" mentality and treating everyone who isn't Christian like moronic godless heathens. I don't claim it's only atheists that do it, every group has people that do that, but I would expect atheists to be more observant and objective, as those are both ideologies that the atheist religion defends so heavily.

I think you just attacked an attempt at irony used as an attempt to ridicule an atheistic argument.

[TradeMark]

I think you just attacked an attempt at irony used as an attempt to ridicule an atheistic argument.

Well yeah, that too kinda, but when you think about it, its kinda true

[AF]

>.< Swiftspear you totally and utterly missed what I was trying to say.

Disbelief is not a belief, that is a paradox. It seesm you are unable tot ell the difference between the militant Athiests that are prominent on TV that are preached against in sermons, and the average everyday person who doesn't believe in God, and couldn't care less.

To a lot of people here who could be considered 'athiests' they do not think of God, it does not matter to them, and they think about God as much as they think about the finer details of string theory or the economics of home cupcake bakery. Its not that they have swapped the God blip on their radar for an anti god blip stating he doesnt exist, infact they have no blip on their radar whatsoever.

So, given that God fails to register in the minds of people, and that the existence or nonexistence of God also fails to register, then what do we have? We have a swiftspear and sinbad who think everybody has a hard held viewpoint on the existence of God. This is not true, as demonstrated by an increasingly secular europe, one whose opposition to religion is not about the existence of god, but about opposing specific religious establishments over cases of equality, corruption, and discrimination. People who treat media coverage of visits from papal figures and church leaders, with the same disdain they have of major coverage of natural disasters, and charity telethons for interrupting their TV schedules.

As for evidence.

It appears both of you lack a clear understanding of what the scientific method actually is. What you've stated is full of contradictions and paradoxes from your misuse of the words.

Science makes claims and then attempts to disproves them. Science does not make lies. If a scientific claim is a lie, then you have no found a scientific claim at all, you have found a scandal, or a scientist in gross disrepute. This happens and features in the media prominently when said professor or researcher is shunned and brought into disrepute, losing their jobs and their lifes work discredited.

Good science makes a hypothesis, based on what observations there have been, and then attempts to experiment to ascertain if it is accurate or not.

Science has progressed so far, and is moving so fast that it is hard to see how the theories stack up and how they work. Its easier to believe in legends in a Holy Book, legends even the vatican and other major leaders have said are stories, because they're simple and they explain the immediate answers. The questions and problems they bring are easily swept aside by the dogma of never to question your faith, which is silly because many stories mention people of great standing questioning their faith and finding themselves stronger because of it, saints and martyrs.

100% evidence? Im sorry but the onus is not on me to disprove gods existence, No evidence so far supports his existence, and all claims could be attributed to other natural phenomena, or to chance, and hold no statistical significance, an overwhelming majority of which can be attributed to unobjective, subjective evidence.

Your beliefs are your beliefs. It is none of my business what you believe, and none of your business what I believe. I can share my beliefs, and I expect other people will respect them, and I would do the same of others.

Its when people state opinion and belief as fact, and make horrendously outrageous illogical statements. There is not 100% evidence for God, and there never will be until God himself makes an appearance that is unquestionable. No such appearance has been made, despite numerous attempts to invoke it.

Scientific theories are questioned constantly, they are not fact, and the very question of whether they are fact or not is misleading. It is the theory that best describes our universe according to observation.

Although I have long since renounced my religion, I know enough to know that you two are blasphemers, you deny the beauty of Gods creation and Gods wisdom, and disdain it with superstitious stories written by men from millennia ago. Do you think Gods happy that he put work into an elegant cosmos that pretty much built itself from his initial spark? Only to have you then crap all over his work saying all that hard effort he put in, all that intelligence and thought, was actually just a wave of a hand and hey presto, done in about as much effort and thought as a child with play dough.

To deny the rules and order of a universe he made, rules and order that are exploited to power the very thing allowing you to blaspheme in the first place.

I find it laughable for religious people to accuse science of falsehood using the products of science. Do they think their computers and mobile phones are literally fueled by the Holy Spirit and nothing else? That power stations dont use fuel, they just have a mini christ hooked up to electrodes? Heretics! Thats what they are for even suggesting such things. False prophets.

You two should be ashamed of yourselves for denying Gods majesty, for insulting his divine inspiration with the superstitious babble of his children.

[AF]

One of my friends is an extremely devout Catholic. She prays for 5 hours, and goes to mass daily. She aspires to become a nun. She's read books written by the latest pontiff, and all in all she is a very intelligent woman.

She does not aspire to the closed minded ignorance of the Old testament. She embraces the world we live in and sees it as the means of gods creation. She knows better than to adhere literally to the story of genesis, and finds awe and wonder in the discoveries of science. "Isnt it amazing". She knows that this understanding of the world we live in does not conflict with her convictions, it enriches them.

Why must you close yourself off from such fulfillment?

[zwzsg]

She aspires to become a nun. She embraces the world we live in

Convents aren't what they used to be!

AF story reminds me: Hey Swift, Sinbad, do you know about Gregor Mendel?

[SinbadEV]

So, I had limited access to the Internet this weekend and come back to find SwiftSpear having posted some 2000+ words on the subject... took me a while to catch up and I think I need another coffee before I really get into this...   Okay back.

We seem to be having one of those stereotypical "married couple" arguments where we start with me having forgotten to do the dishes and end up with you calling my mother a bigoted fanatic and I bring up the iPod you bought that I see as having lead to us having to declare bankruptcy... which is pretty normal for religious discussions and the main reason they are typically "taboo" on the Internet (and in workplaces, and social clubs... and at churches, and in schools)... but we've already broken THAT rule so we might as well get on with the game in a logical fashion.

The first area of "discord" is that the "lines" have been drawn between Atheists and Christians when the discussion has mostly pertained to empiricists vs deists. In addition to this basic problem with the discussion we seem to be mostly comprised of "moderates", even SwiftSpear with his strong opinions and statements has taken a moderate standpoint compared to the majority of world religions as far as interpretation of biblical text is concerned (how I feel about the "Bible" is yet a different interpretation so you can see how attacking the other side of the argument based on assumed facts can muddle the discussion).

Most of the people on the other side of the argument seem to be moderate "atheists" whereas what Christians tend to see in the media is your "Atheistic Zealots" who are more of the "a belief in God is harmful to human society, there is no God and trying to convince people there is one is lying and, because truth is the only GOOD thing in the Universe, this practice is EVIL!" variety.

This circles us back to the original discussion and a number of people who attacked my position based on assumptions they made about it and my arguments based on assumptions I'd made about the positions of the people "on the other side".

Now, I am a wembler* when it comes to knowledge which some would attribute to me being born under a water sign and some would attribute to the genetics of my parents and some would attribute to the environment I was raised in... so I am in a very good position to tell you that there are some people who can be swayed by scientific argument to consider a different perspective. In fact I was pretty convinced by my formal education that there was scientific evidence supporting "bacteria to human evolutionism with a touch of Intelligent Design thrown into the mix" until I got talking to a former-atheistic-evolutionist but now Christian-Creationist professional geologist who made a very strong case for what he called "Flood Geology" which basically points out that there is significant scientific evidence that indicates that our interpretation of the "fossil record" is flawed by our assumptions about sedimentation being used to make flawed assumptions about radio-metric dating which calls into question a number of scientific assumptions that have been made based on it, including large parts of what the public schools are teaching about Evolution.

* (term coined in an episode of Fraggle Rock to describe Wembley)

Anyways, if scientific evidence could disprove the existence of God then it would convince me... personally I "believe" that no such evidence does or ever could exist and so I don't even both with those kinds of arguments that are based on the possibility of empirical evidence that cannot be presented to me. But I would claim that an Atheist** would take the stance that any evidence presented to support the existence of God is just ÔÇ£not yet explained by scienceÔÇØ my stance is more scientific.

**(as defined by my "side" of the argument, aka someone who believes that a belief in God is "false" and because of their "truth is the only good" world-view therefore "evil")

LetÔÇÖs go after a few other annoying things IÔÇÖve seen discussed... first is the whole ÔÇ£You claiming your religion is the only right religion is bad because it says what every other person believes is wrong!ÔÇØ thing... If you were, letÔÇÖs say Isaac Newton (because I just finished reading Neal StephensenÔÇÖs ÔÇ£Quick SilverÔÇØ) and you were the only person in the world who knew how the optics of the human eye in relation to color wavelengths worked and you had achieved this knowledge through personal experience and had not quite worked out all of the mathematical details yet that would allow you to present your findings to your peers... You could demonstrate that what you said was true using prisms and such but your couldnÔÇÖt really convince anyone at this point that your ÔÇ£theoryÔÇØ was any better then any other ÔÇ£theorysÔÇØ at the time. Compare this to My (or SwiftSpearÔÇÖs) ÔÇ£theoryÔÇØ that the Christian God (as described in the Holy Bible) does exist... we know it to be True based on our perception of the world. ItÔÇÖs not that we believe something because we choose to believe it (though we obviously made that choice at one time) itÔÇÖs that, given our life experiences as a whole, we no longer have a choice in the matter. Now if you knew something to be true (light is a particles), and by definition that made something that someone else believed false (light is like sound, namely a vibration transmitted through existing particles) does that mean that you should keep your beliefs to yourself? Now in this particular case, NewtonÔÇÖs theories werenÔÇÖt even fully right (he hadnÔÇÖt worked out that the photons were actually travelling in waves), they just happened to be better then existing theories at the time based on the evidence available to him... and very helpful, like the theory of evolution, because this new view of light lead to the abandoning of the theory that the empty space between planets was filled with ÔÇ£aetherÔÇØ and lead to the development of the theory of universal gravitation.

As for the whole ÔÇ£why doesnÔÇÖt God do anythingÔÇØ argument... from my perspective he is doing everything at all times, indirectly... CanÔÇÖt see any evidence of Prayer making a difference? ThatÔÇÖs because that when God created the Universe he knew that you would someday make that prayer and as such set the Universe in the way it was going such that your prayer would be answered when the time came. God not doing what you asked? ItÔÇÖs probably not something that should happen. People you love suffering? WeÔÇÖve already discussed (different topic) that from a relativistic standpoint that people in the third world with no clean water and in constant pain due to malnutrition and starvation can often be happier then people with a house, job, TV and plenty of food... so who are we to judge? Perhaps this will make that person or someone around them a better person? Now... all of these things are random examples and trite answers and IÔÇÖm the first to admit that telling someone itÔÇÖs GodÔÇÖs will that they are suffering is about as tactful as telling someone their recently deceased relative is in Hell. But my point is that just because YOU donÔÇÖt understand something doesnÔÇÖt mean itÔÇÖs ÔÇ£falseÔÇØ and that this perspective is just as unscientific as my belief in God.

I guess what IÔÇÖm trying to get at is that not all Christians are Blind Zealots and not all Atheists arenÔÇÖt.

Also, I have some Buddhist friends and if you want my hyper simplified description of their belief system itÔÇÖs ÔÇ£Non-Deistic Spiritualism with strong Environmentalist leaningsÔÇØ.

ALSO: @AF: Your idea of the beliefs I hold are Laughable... I skipped right over angry and went to LOLing... come on man! PLEASE don't confuse me with the kind of Christian who would say that the devil put dinosaur bones in the ground to confuse us and would refuse to believe something empirically proven SOLELY on the basis that it conflicted with a classical interpretation of the bible and 16th century dogma... it makes you sound stupid.

Christian Theologians and Philosophers have been arguing for "Intelligent Design" or that God created a wonderfully and self-evident universe that could be understood by men created in his image through Science since before the 17th century... I have no idea why there are still nut-jobs professing to be Christians and arguing against science (except for the obvious answer that it is the Devil causing these people to act in this way and profess to be Christians in an attempt to convince the general public that we're all a bunch of ignorant idiots... that was humour by the way... well mostly anyways)

[zwzsg]

Anyways, if scientific evidence could disprove the existence of God then it would convince me...

I'd say that is why god doesn't heal amputee make a pretty convincing case that God, at least the just and caring and omnipotent God of the christian, is proven not to exist. Basic argument is that he wouldn't let clearly innocent people suffer if he is what the bible claim he is.

Newton didn't find about color because of an intimate personal feeling of presence in its head. He had scientific experiments, for exemple with glass prism, that could be show to, and then repeated, by other people.

You could demonstrate that what you said was true using prisms and such but your couldnÔÇÖt really convince anyone at this point that your ÔÇ£theoryÔÇØ was any better then any other ÔÇ£theorysÔÇØ at the time.

What other theories? I didn't know they had other theory to explain separation of white into rainbow in human's time. And if they had different theory, then the best is:
- The one that's simplest, explaining the most phenomenom with the fewest rules.
- The one that predict otherwise unexpected effect, which are then later found.

While "because God did it" is a very simple explanation that can account for any phenomenom, it's pretty useless theory since you can't predict anything with it. Also, "God did it" is not a scientific theory cause it cannot be refuted (=disproven, aka falsified in metascience language). Whatever the result of whatever experience, you can justify any result with "God wills it, and don't you dare question his motive". You cannot go anywhere with such way of thinking.

"bacteria to human evolutionism"

You had a bad education. Bacteria do not necessarly lead to human.

But I would claim that an Atheist** would take the stance that any evidence presented to support the existence of God is just ÔÇ£not yet explained by scienceÔÇØ my stance is more scientific.

I don't even know of any god-supporting fact "not yet explained by science". I mean, the stuff still mysterious to science is like dark matter in the universe, which is too far away from religious people worldview for them to ponder.

Now if you knew something to be true (light is a particles)

I doubt any people here had first hand experience of how light is particle. Maybe very contrived experiment they read in a text book, but sadly physic like that progressed too much to still be followed by random man from the street. Which allow religious people to operate a confusion between "the corpus of knownledge gathered so far by science", and the "scientific method by which they were acquired". One can be revised, can be proven false. The other is a method, that can even be used to great effect in everyday life, and doesn't force you to adhere any preset of belief. Oh, and you can very well have conflicting scientific theory, as long as they apply in separate fields. Typically, "light" (in the broad sense of electro-magnetic radiation), behave like single particles for high frequency, and like waves for low frequency. Inventing experiment where two theories would yield different results is what doing science is all about.

ThatÔÇÖs because that when God created the Universe he knew that you would someday make that prayer and as such set the Universe in the way it was going such that your prayer would be answered when the time came.

So... God basically sit in his throne out in space, doing nothing?

How much do you believe in the Bible, Sinbad? Did Mose part the sea? Did Jesus ressurect lazarus? Did God create the first human from dust, or did he program fish to eventually become human? Because IIRC, bible is almost entirely filled with account of God directly meddling in human affair to miraculously save people who believe in him. And you did say:

My (or SwiftSpearÔÇÖs) ÔÇ£theoryÔÇØ that the Christian God (as described in the Holy Bible) does exist... we know it to be True

ItÔÇÖs probably not something that should happen.

God knows (he's omniscient), God can (he's omnipotent), God wills (he's love), yet God does not.

The wonder is that your instinctive beliefs in superior authority so easily suppress questions normally raised by such strong internal contradiction.

C'mon! I can understand God has his reason to not save everybody, but we should at least see a measurable statiscal correlation between miraculous recovery and being a good christian. Or else .... God is statistically inexistent!

CanÔÇÖt see any evidence of Prayer making a difference? ThatÔÇÖs because that when God created the Universe he knew that you would someday make that prayer and as such set the Universe in the way it was going such that your prayer would be answered when the time came.

That could explain why we don't have visible direct godly intervention (in total contradiction with the whole bible). But that would still not explain while prayer don't have any measurable effect*. If God had set us the universe so that prayer would be answered when the time came, well, prayer would still be answered more than lack of prayer.

* Beside what you get by forcing people to regularly think about a topic. I mean, sure, if you pray for your mother, she'll go better than if you don't, only because praying for her makes you think about her, and remind you to tend for her needs. People who have no one to pray for them, have no one to help them in times of need, so aren't doing as well. This work without resorting to magical explanation.

ALSO: @AF: Your idea of the beliefs I hold are Laughable... I skipped right over angry and went to LOLing... come on man! PLEASE don't confuse me with the kind of Christian who would say that the devil put dinosaur bones in the ground to confuse us and would refuse to believe something empirically proven SOLELY on the basis that it conflicted with a classical interpretation of the bible and 16th century dogma... it makes you sound stupid.

Can you present us the "Flood Geology" you mentionned earlier as a concing point, that's supposed to allow Christian-Creationist to disregard all fossil evidence?

[SinbadEV]

Can you present us the "Flood Geology" you mentionned earlier as a concing point, that's supposed to allow Christian-Creationist to disregard all fossil evidence?

RE: Flood Geology

Start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology

Then take everywhere that it says "is refuted by modern science" and replace it "is purported to be refuted by modern science which we claim is based on assumptions made about the age of index fossils which are in turn, circularly, based on their depth in strata"

basically... "noah's flood" was the last cataclysmic flood... sedimentation occurred before and after the flood but fossils only rarely formed outside of the context of cataclysmic events (floods/eruptions etc.) and floods may have occurred before (accounting for the various layers.

Species HAVE become extinct, and there may have been mass extinctions (particularly shortly after the last flood)... but it cannot be inferred from this data that the depth of a fossil in the strata confirms it's age or the date of it's extiction... one example is the Coelacanth which was assumed to be long extinct based on it's location on the strata and the radio-metric (or whatever) dating of it's fossils.

Unfortunately all this does is call into question the science of paleontology and "modern geology"... but it's just enough doubt.

Anyways, if scientific evidence could disprove the existence of God then it would convince me...

I'd say that is why god doesn't heal amputee make a pretty convincing case that God, at least the just and caring and omnipotent God of the christian, is proven not to exist. Basic argument is that he wouldn't let clearly innocent people suffer if he is what the bible claim he is.

Newton didn't find about color because of an intimate personal feeling of presence in its head. He had scientific experiments, for exemple with glass prism, that could be show to, and then repeated, by other people.

You could demonstrate that what you said was true using prisms and such but your couldnÔÇÖt really convince anyone at this point that your ÔÇ£theoryÔÇØ was any better then any other ÔÇ£theorysÔÇØ at the time.

What other theories? I didn't know they had other theory to explain separation of white into rainbow in human's time. And if they had different theory, then the best is:
- The one that's simplest, explaining the most phenomenom with the fewest rules.
- The one that predict otherwise unexpected effect, which are then later found.

While "because God did it" is a very simple explanation that can account for any phenomenom, it's pretty useless theory since you can't predict anything with it. Also, "God did it" is not a scientific theory cause it cannot be refuted (=disproven, aka falsified in metascience language). Whatever the result of whatever experience, you can justify any result with "God wills it, and don't you dare question his motive". You cannot go anywhere with such way of thinking.

"bacteria to human evolutionism"

You had a bad education. Bacteria do not necessarly lead to human.

But I would claim that an Atheist** would take the stance that any evidence presented to support the existence of God is just ÔÇ£not yet explained by scienceÔÇØ my stance is more scientific.

I don't even know of any god-supporting fact "not yet explained by science". I mean, the stuff still mysterious to science is like dark matter in the universe, which is too far away from religious people worldview for them to ponder.

Now if you knew something to be true (light is a particles)

I doubt any people here had first hand experience of how light is particle. Maybe very contrived experiment they read in a text book, but sadly physic like that progressed too much to still be followed by random man from the street. Which allow religious people to operate a confusion between "the corpus of knownledge gathered so far by science", and the "scientific method by which they were acquired". One can be revised, can be proven false. The other is a method, that can even be used to great effect in everyday life, and doesn't force you to adhere any preset of belief. Oh, and you can very well have conflicting scientific theory, as long as they apply in separate fields. Typically, "light" (in the broad sense of electro-magnetic radiation), behave like single particles for high frequency, and like waves for low frequency. Inventing experiment where two theories would yield different results is what doing science is all about.

ThatÔÇÖs because that when God created the Universe he knew that you would someday make that prayer and as such set the Universe in the way it was going such that your prayer would be answered when the time came.

So... God basically sit in his throne out in space, doing nothing?

How much do you believe in the Bible, Sinbad? Did Mose part the sea? Did Jesus ressurect lazarus? Did God create the first human from dust, or did he program fish to eventually become human? Because IIRC, bible is almost entirely filled with account of God directly meddling in human affair to miraculously save people who believe in him. And you did say:

My (or SwiftSpearÔÇÖs) ÔÇ£theoryÔÇØ that the Christian God (as described in the Holy Bible) does exist... we know it to be True

ItÔÇÖs probably not something that should happen.

God knows (he's omniscient), God can (he's omnipotent), God wills (he's love), yet God does not.

The wonder is that your instinctive beliefs in superior authority so easily suppress questions normally raised by such strong internal contradiction.

C'mon! I can understand God has his reason to not save everybody, but we should at least see a measurable statiscal correlation between miraculous recovery and being a good christian. Or else .... God is statistically inexistent!

CanÔÇÖt see any evidence of Prayer making a difference? ThatÔÇÖs because that when God created the Universe he knew that you would someday make that prayer and as such set the Universe in the way it was going such that your prayer would be answered when the time came.

That could explain why we don't have visible direct godly intervention (in total contradiction with the whole bible). But that would still not explain while prayer don't have any measurable effect*. If God had set us the universe so that prayer would be answered when the time came, well, prayer would still be answered more than lack of prayer.

* Beside what you get by forcing people to regularly think about a topic. I mean, sure, if you pray for your mother, she'll go better than if you don't, only because praying for her makes you think about her, and remind you to tend for her needs. People who have no one to pray for them, have no one to help them in times of need, so aren't doing as well. This work without resorting to magical explanation.

Alright, so I believe SwiftSpear indicated his view on the bible as being that it was inspired by God and requires the further illumination of God... and that's fundamentally what I believe too.

I believe that there is an awful lot of literal "history" in the bible and that we should take anything presented as "theology" as valid, but the Bible is not enough without the illumination of the Holy Spirit and "communion of saints" which is basically the post-biblical writings and sermons etc... all taken together with the "truth" we observe ourselves in reality.

I personally take the "days" in the creation story to mean "days" but God may have made time run faster at the time or whatever... the creation of man from dust and eve from man I take as literal truth... but I don't claim that you would recognize "Man" as what you would see as a mad today... and "dust" could be taken figuratively... so there it's more poetic.

The book of Job is widely considered to be a Poetry/Parable so I take the wisdom from it without taking it as literal

As far as the "God interfering" stuff like... let's say the whole first 5 books of the bible for example... The traditional interpretation is that God was more active in the past... just because he doesn't do anything "obvious" now doesn't mean he never did... in particular I take the new testament account of the Miracles of Jesus to be factual... but part of Jesus's teaching were that it was better to believe without obvious evidence... and the establishment of the "Holy Spirit" as a "direct line to God" removing the need for an intermediary like a priest (yes, Catholics confuse me too) mean that a "hands off" approach makes sense... now, post Jesus we are still told to ask for stuff and expect God to answer but from a "fairness" standpoint it would make sense for good and bad things to continue to happen to good and bad people at about the same rate...

I'll grant that most of the "little miracles" in my life could be accounted for due to my membership in the greater church community and my own assurance that good things will happen to me... which puts a lot more weight behind the idea in Snow Crash that religion is some kind of neuro-linguistic program that has been passed down from the ancients in Babylon (pre-language confusion) that has evolved us to be more likely to thrive then others in a social economy... but I'd prefer to believe that God is looking out for me and my family because we pray that He does and have faith that He will.

Now, as far as "raising my kids" is concerned, I fully intend to present empiricism alongside Christianity because I agree that "God did it" is a TERRIBLE approach to science. "God did it" isn't science, it's theology or philosophy... a "Thinking Christians" approach to scientific advances it to try to fit them into their existing philosophy or to alter their philosophy to match the scientific evidence...

[AF]

I would rather credit myself for my own good fortune, and those who bestow it on me, not any deity. Dont be thankful to god that your neighbour helped you today, be thankful to your neighbour. God didnt give you a neighbour either, your neighbour did by moving to that house.

And please, don't talk to us about being a pious righteous individual then raise starsigns, your breaking the ten commandments right there.

Flood geology is in a position where regardless of the evidence it will be supported. Not because of its factual properties, or because its a good theory, but because its a useful theory for religious people to reference.

Not once have I seen the question asked "why is it refuted by modern science?", or that very convincing science can be pushed with an agenda that is actually based on pseudo scientific word minceing.

To skip to the part most relevant:

Creationists continue to search for evidence in the natural world that they consider to be consistent with the above description, such as evidence of rapid formation. For example, there have been claims of raindrop marks and water ripples at layer boundaries, sometimes associated with the claimed fossilized footprints of men and dinosaurs walking together. Such footprint evidence has been debunked by scientists[46] and some have been shown to be fakes.[47]

You dont declare a theory correct until disproven, and then search for supporting evidence, that's absurd, and this theory currently does not hold up to scrutiny, and is being pushed by people with an agenda.

People can make very sound impressive arguements that are not true. In this day and age it is easy to invoke scientific language and twist it to make something wrong sound correct.


But most of all, and I repeat again

Subjective experience != evidence

Say you believe in God, but don't attempt to pass him off as fact until you have objective evidence that is irrefutable. Sure you'll complain that when something happens scientists explain it away as a natural phenomena, the problem there is you did not conduct a proper experiment. Devise tests and seek evidence where no alternative cause is possible. That's what scientists do. They attempt an observation and predict the outcome beforehand using multiple theories. Where theory does not match observation, said theories are thus discounted, and the theories that matched are bolstered and move on to further tests to ascertain how close to reality the model is.


What is your explanation for people with the same experiences who have strong powerful enriching explanations that do not involve belief in God?

You believe in God, you do not know for a fact, if you did, you'd be able to demonstrate through nonsubjective repeatable means to everyone else. You'd be able to provide us with a method for finding god that always worked, one that could be repeated over and over again with the same results given the same inputs. Gods sentience should not change this as we can do tests to verify humans exist and we are sentient non linear entities.

[zwzsg]

one example is the Coelacanth which was assumed to be long extinct based on it's location on the strata and the radio-metric (or whatever) dating of it's fossils.

And then biologist switched the label over the Coelacanth from "extinct" to "not exinct".
Does it mean that evolution theory was wrong? No.
Does it mean that the old Coelacanth fossiles were dated wrongly? No.
All it means is that a specie that once roamed many oceans in great numbers had dwindled to such a small number that it became hard to find.

[AF]

Did nobody stop to ask how plesiosaurs and over aquatic animals were killed by the global flood? Marine ecosystems should have thrived in these conditions, not all died and turned into fossils. And why should those animals die off yet the ones we have today be left intact? And if so, why are they in such numerous numbers despite the earth not having had enough time for the populations to grow to the sheer scale they're at today?

Such a global flood as described fitting in with the Bible would lead to much harder questions to answer, and numerous nonsensical results. The statements about the absurd number of invertebrates per square acre for example, maybe it was the global swarm of insects that blotted out the sun and caused the flood?

[PicassoCT]

What annoys me about those made up anti-evolution-examples, every time you rip them appart, its suddenly not counting anymore as important. Its a rigged race, we non-believers can win all the time we want, we never get that golden spark of questioning thought we hope for.

It comes down to if you can embrace insecurity as something wonderfull, the universe as a neverending adventure (with some horrors to it, i admit that), or if that scares you, so you take shelter in a tabernacle of some sort.

Once again, gods, religions are quite natural, as natural as seeing faces in clouds, our mirror-neurons project emotions into every beeing on sight, so imagining a storyteller for my life seems very reasonable. But what feels right, still can be wrong.

[Panda]

She aspires to become a nun. She embraces the world we live in

Convents aren't what they used to be!

AF story reminds me: Hey Swift, Sinbad, do you know about Gregor Mendel?

I know about Gregor Mendel, the Augustinian monk and "Father of Genetics" who worked with pea plants. These monks valued knowledge and thought that building upon their knowledge helped them gain a greater appreciation for God's creations, brought them closer to God, and allowed them to have more ways to show the world how awesome God is. Mendel did not do well in school (he failed out due to test anxiety), and was not thought of as being very smart, but he felt inspired, did a lot of work in his garden, and discovered how genes could be passed on from one generation to the next.

But what feels right, still can be wrong.

Yep, that reminds me of this lady in the Catholic church said that the Eucharist was actually transformed into the flesh of Christ and that when it was put under the microscope one time and examined after it was blessed, they found skin cells. She meant well when she told me this (as in she thought it was a miracle because of the Catholic believe that the Eucharist is actually transformed and that she was being nice by telling me about this miracle) and I don't think that she was trying to lie to me or anything, but, you have to admit, if you had not been exposed to that kind of belief and were from another religion, that would have sounded bad. Oh well, sometimes people can believe strange things and discount other evidence such as, even if that did happen, the skin cells could have just been there because they had been rubbed off of the person handling the Eucharist.


However, at other times, I think it is better to follow a belief than emotions. For example, look at these two songs reflecting a views of Christmas and the changes that are happening in her life as she has gotten older. These songs are well-organized, short narratives, so I thought that they would make for a good example:

"Where are you Christmas?"

Where are you Christmas
Why cant I find you
Why have you gone away?

My world is changing,
I'm rearranging,
does that mean Christmas changes too?

Where are you Christmas?
Do you remember
The girl you used you know?
you and I were so carefree,
now nothing's easy,
Did Christmas change?

Or just me?



"Where Are You Christmas"

Where are you Christmas
Why can't I find you
Why have you gone away
Where is the laughter
You used to bring me
Why can't I hear music play

My world is changing
I'm rearranging
Does that mean Christmas changes too

Where are you Christmas
Do you remember
The one you used to know
I'm not the same one
See what the time's done
Is that why you have let me go

Christmas is here
Everywhere, oh
Christmas is here
If you care, oh

If there is love in your heart and your mind
You will feel like Christmas all the time

I feel you Christmas
I know I've found you
You never fade away
The joy of Christmas
Stays here inside us
Fills each and every heart with love

Where are you Christmas
Fill your heart with love


I like the first version of this song better than the second version even though I don't agree with the author's point of view in general. The first version of the song makes Christmas sound more like a belief than the emotion joy unlike in the second song. I like the idea of Christmas being more of a belief than an emotion because people grow and their emotions can change in a second. I think it's better to view holidays as a celebration of what is good in the world, such as altruistic beliefs and behaviors, even though a lot of people get irritable, act a fool around Christmas time, and many people overemphasize shopping during the holidays.

Another example of reasons why it's ok to have beliefs are the symbols associated with Christmas. One of my favorite symbols are the turtledoves which are an emblem for devoted love. Those adorable little birds really are fascinating. They form strong pair bonds, can migrate long distances, and will go through quite a lot for each other. Such symbols can lead to a more positive state of mind.

Christmas also reminds me of a lot of and of famous quotes by the famous Microbiologist, Louis Pasteur, the guy who found he vaccination for small pox and rabies:

ÔÇ£Whether our efforts are, or not, favored by life, let us be able to say, when we come near the great goal, I have done what I could.ÔÇØ

ÔÇ£Let me tell you the secret that has led me to my goal: my strength lies solely in my tenacity.ÔÇØ

ÔÇ£It is surmounting difficulties that makes heroes.ÔÇØ


In conclusion, there are a lot very nice, helpful things that stem from possibly volatile emotions and beliefs, so it could be good to try and use questioning like in the scientific method to continually try to keep those, somewhat chaotic at times, but not really bad aspects of oneself in check and work with what we have to grow as individuals. I think that this is a good idea even though scientists are susceptible to emotion based things like bias even when they are making observations because they're people.

[Panda]

It sucks that NASA is being closed down too, especially after this announcement! I know that a lot of scientists these days think that space exploration and the idea of creating a moon colony is unrealistic and that more time should be devoted to other fields like genetics, but those funds currently being allotted to NASA aren't going to other scientific pursuits once NASA is closed! Besides, space exploration and learning about other forms of life can still lead to many new great discoveries, even in the field of genetics.