Quote

Why? Because until there is PROOF, they are required to call it a theory.

That's not true at all. This sort of misunderstanding comes from a common misinterpretation of the word "theory" as though it's synonymous with "hypothesis". Occurrences can be proven -- and it's easily proven that creatures have evolved. "Theory" is the term applied to the line of reasoning offered to explain why those occurrences happened. As such, a theory inherently cannot be proven, since you can never be sure there isn't another explanation -- but theories can be disproven (by demonstrating that the explanation doesn't work), and they can be confirmed or validated usually by using the theory to predict future occurrences. There is no doubt at all that the theory of evolution is a valid explanation for the way creatures change over time; it has been confirmed and validated literally hundreds of times, and there has never been even a shred of evidence indicating any weakness in it at all. As of this time, nobody has proposed an alternative theory of any sort. Its acceptance among people whose minds aren't clouded by mythology is not just widespread, it is in fact 100%.

Creation theory is not simply another theory on an equal footing with the theory of evolution -- because creation theory isn't really a theory at all. It's not really a theory because it cannot be tested or confirmed or validated; it must merely be accepted on blind faith. It cannot be applied to predict any occurrences, so it cannot be shown to have any value as an explanation at all. For the very same reasons, it cannot be disproven -- but that's not a sign of its strength, it's the reason it should be ignored as unimportant.

Quote

Please, share your proof.

To paraphrase somebody, unfortunately I don't remember who:

"To change your way of thinking, no proof is sufficient. To continue believing what you were raised to believe, no proof is necessary."

Quote

"To change your way of thinking, no proof is sufficient. To continue believing what you were raised to believe, no proof is necessary."

Hmmmm....my question is still not being answered. I'm only asking of you what you are asking of others. They could easily use the same quote back to you when you ask for their proof. Are there two sets of rules - 1 for Kirbert and 1 for everyone else? Do you not have the proof so you are using the technique of distraction? If you don't have proof, it's Ok with me, just say so. I can respect that.

Ever respectful,
Mumma & Bunny Boy =D

Quote

Do you not have the proof...

OK, lemme put it this way: What sort of proof would you accept? You describe the test or the experiment that would prove that God does not exist, and I'll see if I can perform it for you.

Quote

You describe the test or the experiment that would prove that God does not exist...

That's exactly the point. Such a test does not exist.

Quote

OK, lemme put it this way: What sort of proof would you accept? You describe the test or the experiment that would prove that God does not exist, and I'll see if I can perform it for you.

That is exactly my point - you cannot prove that God does not exist - just as no one can prove that he does. You have very strong feelings about the subject and truly believe that he does not exist. Just as others have very strong feelings about and believe that he does exist. No one truly knows until after they die. If others want to have faith in a higher power while making their journey through life, why do you care?

You are upset that sometimes people proselytise to you about their religion when you are doing the same to them about your choice to not participate in a religion. There were several posts from you attacking others for their choice to participate in organized religion and to believe in God. However, I did not read a single post from anyone criticizing your choice to not believe in God. There were a lot of posts explaining why people believe what they do. They were not asking you to believe what they believe. Just explaining how they felt.

Again, I'm merely asking of you what you are asking of others. Not whether God does or does not exist.

Continued respect,
Mumma & Bunny Boy =D

Quote

it has been confirmed and validated literally hundreds of times,

I have heard this many times, but I have never seen the proof. You? Please sight the proof. I like this stuff...science buff.

As I stated earlier, however, and to agree with you in part, micro-evolution has been observed; however, to date, I have never seen a single "proof" of evolutionary theory.

As for those of us who apply faith to our lives, following the teachings of Christ....I do not see how this is any different than you following (on faith) the teachings of Darwin.

Mumma & Bunny Boy were right when they stated:

Quote

You are upset that sometimes people proselytise to you about their religion when you are doing the same to them about your choice to not participate in a religion.

I shamefully have had far more people try to proselytise me and my family to the faith that there is no God than I have proselytise non-believers to believe there is a God.

I too, like Mumma & Bunny Boy, would very respectfully like to know to what proof you have faithfully believed that there is no God.

::tone in my head inquisitive not argumentative::

Quote

It's not that I believe in no god -- although I do.

But that is the whole point. You are calling people who believe in god liars because they have no proof. Yet you hold yourself to no similar standard. How do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

I was raised in a loving Christian Family. I mean 7 day a week Christians. Prayer Daily. Faith based life, etc. At a point in my life, I was seriously entertaining ministry as my life's work.

I always had these nagging doubts though. You know, Christians only make up a small percentage of the world. Is Everyone else going to hell? Is this that loving God that I've been reading so much about?

I know about original sin. I know the theologies as beliefs. And they all fell to pieces when I visited a third world country.

For anyone that has not been, you cannot IMAGINE the suffering that children endure everyday. Elephantitus and Leprosy run RAMPANT in Bangalore, India's "Silicon Valley." Because these kids are untouchable, two and three year olds are kicked and spit on by most of the people on the street. Mafia use these kids to beg, and if they don't bring home enough money they are beaten and sent back out into the street because, after the beating, they look worse and will get more money from people.

Not only did I find it hard to believe humanity could abide this, but what about this LOVING God letting innocents suffer and die everyday. Original Sin is nice to parlay about in a discussion with your bridge group, but it's a hard sell when looking at a kid who has bugs crawling in and out of his leg.

I think our priviledged society allows Westerners to accept the theory of a loving God. In early American times, God was a heck of a lot more vengeful. In third world countries, God is downright aloof or even cruel.

I am Morally an Atheist. I cannot believe in a God that would allow this to happen to "his favorite of creations." And if he does exist, following him would be tantamount to worshipping a sociopath.

I accept that I do not know how everything works and that there is a possibility I could be wrong. I am fallible. But I will not wake up in the morning and and thank some unknown creator figure when I see GLARING evidence of the oppisite.

- Yuk

Mr. Yuk,

I've been reading this thread, and have resisted answering. As Ryan put it, I don't think anyone is changing anyone elses mind here. But your comments struck me. I don't know you, and I'm only offering food for thought.

The most difficult arguments people have about God often stems from this question. How can a loving God allow so much suffering in the world? Especially when children are involved, it can be especially painful.

Sidebar: Christians are not so small a percentage--fully a quarter to one-third of the world's peoples are Christian (Catholic and other Christian traditions). Quite an increase from the insigificant fraction of the population it began with.

Mother Teresa of Calcutta dedicated her life to helping those in the very part of the world you describe--bringing dignity to those who are not given it. Conviction and dedication rose from her free will--she choose to do this work. One person deciding to make a difference. How telling that her missions have spread around the world, including the United States and Europe.

The old saying there are no atheists in foxholes applies--those who have the least often turn to Him for help. I just read that Mother Teresa's detractors focussed not on the good she did, but that she treated the symptoms of individuals in poverty and not the disease of poverty. If I were hungry or sick, in my immediacy I'd want food and medicine, not someone to resolve food and healthcare policies.

Would we turn to Him if we had no poverty and no injustice? Or would we take Him for granted, as most Americans do food, clean water and electricity?

God gives us "free will"--the ability to choose Him or not. He made us rational, and gives us the ability to choose our own way. How incredible that the most enormous force in existence will both pay attention to your specific needs and allow you to have doubt in Him at the same time.

I think the answer to the question rests here: we are the tools to change the poverty and injustice in the world.

God creates. People administer. Who really allows poverty and injustice? We do. He respects His creation (us) enough to allow us to make our own mistakes, to ask Him for help when we are busy tripping over our pride, and is willing to forgive us completely regardless of the mess we make.

How often do we read about someone making a difference now? Women donating their long hair to make wigs for kids who need them; people sponsoring children in impoverished countries around the world; the outpouring of support and blood for the Red Cross following national catastrophies. There are a slew of reality shows on TV about people stepping into other peoples problems and fixing them. Paying something back, paying something forward.

I understand your positions, as I used to share them. With my belief in science and engineering, it was easy to believe that people could do it all. But fundamentally, what causes us to instinctively see and know good and evil? What makes us care enough about the lives of others that we are willing to even doubt God?

Thanks for the opportunity to think through this.

FamilyMan

Quote

you cannot prove that God does not exist - just as no one can prove that he does.

Quite the contrary.

Here, for simplicity let's talk about leprechans. There are exactly two possibilities regarding leprechans: Either they exist or they don't. You cannot prove that they don't exist -- you cannot prove that anything doesn't exist. However, if leprechans did exist, that'd be a simple matter to prove: Just present one. Stand him on the counter and have him dance a little jig for us.

Now imagine those two possible situations again. If leprechans existed, we would expect to have seen them occasionally. Once in a while somebody would capture one and it'd be on the evening news. Every now and then one would be interviewed on Nightline, giving us the leprechani viewpoint on the conflict in Ireland. General Mills would have one or two under contract to make ads for breakfast cereal. Archaeologists would dig up early leprechan bones every now and then and postulate on how leprechans evolved from more primitive species. There wouldn't be the slightest doubt in anyone's mind that leprechans existed, even if they were very secretive indeed.

On the other hand, if leprechans didn't exist, we'd expect to see -- well, pretty much exactly what we see. No hard evidence at all, just some myths and legends that date from long ago.

Now, what a rational thinker would do here is observe that the actual reality fits the pattern of what we would expect to see if leprechans did not exist -- and doesn't at all fit the pattern you'd expect to see if leprechans existed. So the rational thinker would conclude that leprechans do not exist -- even though, technically, it can't be proven.

What an irrational mind would do, apparently, is continue to insist over and over that somebody needs to provide concrete proof that leprechans don't exist.

Now, just for grins, apply the same sort of logic to the following set of possible conditions: Either the founders and leaders of the church were somehow privy to the mind of god, or they are a bunch of scoundrels and charlatans. Think about what you would expect to see presuming either circumstance is true. Then note which fits best with what we actually see happening.

Quote

If others want to have faith in a higher power while making their journey through life, why do you care?

Because people believing in such things are having a ruinous effect on mankind. To use a current example, we wouldn't have our soldiers shedding their blood in Iraq and Afghanistan right now if it weren't for such beliefs. And unfortunately, that particular situation is likely to get progressively and significantly worse for the foreseeable future until nukes are detonated -- and it won't stop then. The only possible way to bring this madness to an end is for everyone everywhere to reject the various mythologies that cause them conflict.

Quote

You are calling people who believe in god liars because they have no proof. Yet you hold yourself to no similar standard. How do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

Clearly I'm having trouble explaining that. I have no problem with believing in things that actually exist independent of belief; I have a problem with believing in something that requires belief for its very existence. Anything I believe would be unchanged whether I or anyone else believed it or not. But if nobody believed in this whole god myth, it would cease to exist. It cannot exist without the faith.

Quote

In third world countries, God is downright aloof or even cruel.

That's because all those people are heathens.

Quote

Sidebar: Christians are not so small a percentage--fully a quarter to one-third of the world's peoples are Christian (Catholic and other Christian traditions).

Really? I didn't think it was that high. I understood that Bhuddism, Hindu, and Islam were all larger percentages, which would relegate Christianity to less than a quarter at most. Or are you counting Islam as Christian?

Really? I didn't think it was that high. I understood that Bhuddism, Hindu, and Islam were all larger percentages, which would relegate Christianity to less than a quarter at most. Or are you counting Islam as Christian?

You know, for someone who likes facts, I'm kind of surprised you didn't bother to check any. According to the CIA's World Factbook:

Christians 33.32% (of which Roman Catholics 16.99%, Protestants 5.78%, Orthodox 3.53%, Anglicans 1.25%), Muslims 21.01%, Hindus 13.26%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.35%, Jews 0.23%, Baha'is 0.12%, other religions 11.78%, non-religious 11.77%, atheists 2.32% (2007 est.)

Now stop harassing people and play nice. =)

-- Ryan

mr. yuk said:

In third world countries, God is downright aloof or even cruel

kirbert said

That's because all those people are heathen

I know that when you said heathen, you were playing into the rhetoric or something. It's probably not your personal view. But I take umbrage with such an uncritical representation. It's one thing to deconstruct religions, but it's quite another to thing to call a whole group of people unenlightened or unprincipled, lacking a culture etc (a connotation of heathen) without specific explanation.

The tone of this debate has been serious and I think it's appropriate to keep it that way. :)

Christians 33.32% (of which Roman Catholics 16.99%, Protestants 5.78%, Orthodox 3.53%, Anglicans 1.25%), Muslims 21.01%, Hindus 13.26%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.35%, Jews 0.23%, Baha'is 0.12%, other religions 11.78%, non-religious 11.77%, atheists 2.32% (2007 est.)

I wonder where the CIA is counting mormons...in the 11.78% of "other" or somewhere in the 72.45% of un-accounted-for Christians (which is where they belong)

romana

*sigh*...really tired of the debate....but we limp along.

Quote

Excellent. And why is there a cultural bias, and why is "everyone" saying it?

There are lots of reasons for cultural bias. Part of that is religion, sure. But the way we communicate is substantially different, as well; so when we say "potato," they might hear, "I want to conquer your sister." Part of that is because we developed with substantial geographic separation, and in different environments. Like, in Japan, apparently making big motions is considered aggressive, where in Italy it's seen as a sign of passion and interest. The situation in many cases is ripe for misunderstanding.

It's one of those 'more than one way to open a can of soup' things. If you grow up in a separate place (kept apart by desert, mountains, or whatever), you tend to develop a different way of doing things. There's also the fact that one group of people who tend to do a lot of contacting new peoples is con artists; always looking for new victims. This can lead people to develop an insular attitude.

As far as why "everyone" is saying it, I've seen rumors based on nothing destroy reputation and ruin attitudes; if you're prone to be suspicious of outsiders, rumors like this are more likely to get started, and more likely to spread. And self-defense against the rumors is made more complicated by the culture issue; if I say something, it is more likely to be misunderstood. I might condemn myself in their eyes accidentally....like the time a reporter showed the bottom of his shoe to a Muslim leader; which is a sign of great disrespect.

Also, different environments can change attitudes. Difficult environments tend to polarize attitudes; either everyone is conservative about taking risks of trying new things (except for a few 'heroic' characters) because small errors can result in the death of the whole society, or everyone becomes obsessed with risk-taking, as strength is seen as the only way to defeat one's environment.

Lots of these things. Only a few being religious.

Quote

Perhaps a different definition of "innocent"? Perhaps we insist on finding and eliminating the ringleaders while they consider everyone who supports a policy, even passively, as responsible for that policy?

Maybe. I don't know. Differences in accepted methods can be a source of resentment.

Quote

Nobody in the Twin Towers worked for the CIA, the KGB, and so on. And even when exterminating the guilty, a rational response would be solemn rather than joyous, would it not?

Well, now, what emotional response is most rational depends on your definition of rational. A warlike society (polarized, you see, to see two types of obstacles: those not dealt with, and those destroyed) might find great joy in the destruction of an enemy. And, again, this attitude is more likely in an extreme environment; since any problem in these environments may mean death, extreme action may be the only one they're used to taking.

Quote

Nobody in the Twin Towers worked for the CIA, the KGB, and so on. And even when exterminating the guilty, a rational response would be solemn rather than joyous, would it not?

Well, now. You're talking about secretive organizations. Who knows where they are? Maybe they just see wealthy people, whom they consider enemies, and begin to associate "enemy" with "wealth." As a money target, it makes sense.

Or, maybe they are big believers in corporate responsibility. Since we vote, they may consider all of us part of the problem. I dunno. But these are possible answers.

Quote

Do we enjoy hearing about all the Iraqis that have been killed over the past several years? Or all the Spanish killed in the train bombings? Or the misery in Darfur?

Some racist people, no doubt, do. And if you're hating an enemy, it's not a smart bomb. There's collateral damage. "Those people" are the problem. "Over there" somewhere. Which of them? "Do you think I care enough about my enemy to differentiate between those who are directly assaulting me, and those who merely support them? Kill 'em all!" If you get my point.

Of course, not all of these people hate us. Some are moderate in response and belief about us; they don't appear to be in the majority. And problems with corruption of Iraqi politicians which we support exacerbate the problem....

Quote

And why are they poor and uneducated? They go to school for many years just as we do. "Taliban" translates into "student".

I will grant that this is, partly, a religious issue. Most of their education does appear to be religious. Their poverty, of course, is not caused by their religion, it's caused by their politicians taking more money than their share....basic greed.

Of course, there are many things to study; understanding one's neighbors and enemies requires you to spend most of your time in studying current events, politics, and other similar topics. Even a well-educated populace which didn't study these things (which don't create a great deal of wealth, on their own) might have trouble accepting those with a different culture. And an insular society might view those who studied such things with suspicion, making their opinions less valued.

And sociology and politics encompass facts from which it is possible to draw multitudinous conclusions. Which can be filtered through one's own prejudices. Check out the many books on these topics which are mutually contradictory, in America, alone.

Quote

Why are we "other"? Why aren't we all brethren -- as pretty much every religion claims we should be?

Gee, you didn't even mention forcing the nation of Israel into their midst -- which for them is the big issue.

We are "other" because we're from "somewhere else." We are "other" because we have different ways of communicating feelings and intentions -- if I'm expecting something from you based on what you did, and you meant something different by it, I can use that as proof that you are deceitful. Or you might accidentally insult me.

We are also "other" for a bunch of other reasons; appearance, dress, military policy, and more. The Scots saw anyone who didn't charge into battle as a pansy. There're lots of things other than religion involved, there.

As far as Israel, sure, that's a big religious issue. But it's also a "war" issue. War and resentment and revenge are self-perpetuating. I'll not argue that religion is big in that one, though. As far as "forcing them" on the people of the area, that was a reward (which Balfour promised) for them mobilizing with the Allies in WWII.....there's a mix of things, there; religion, practicality, money, and so on. Religion, sure. But a lot more, too.

Heck, I think one of the reasons they're our allies is that, a.) they make at least an attempt at a stable political system (based upon more than despotism and corruption, though, they're far from perfect), and b.) they're one of the only ones in the region that doesn't decide, once every generation or two, to hate our guts. Oh...and c.) they don't accept political pressure to support those who like bombing airports, just to be left alone by those same nutcases.

Religion might be involved, there. But it's hard to forget that Syria supports those who do bombings; Saudi Arabia does, and so do most of the countries in the region. Whether or not they want to is another issue...for some, it might be blackmail...but it's still a reason to support someone who doesn't do it...even with their killing of locals...but I don't look for simple solutions to unsolvable problems. Random bombings do tend to make one overreact. They shot gramma, NUKE 'EM ALL! A common reaction, if you get my drift. Moderation is hard to value in both Iraq and Israel (and other places with shooting).

Quote

) Either now or sometime in the past, such a spiritual need or longing was helpful to his survival, and those specimens of the human race lacking that particular trait tended to die without reproducing. Perhaps prayer helped him find food or water? Or perhaps the act of worship brought unity to his tribe that helped it survive?

Hmm....that begs the question, is such a spiritual need still helpful to man's survival? I mean, obviously we're experiencing some trouble with religion, but might it also be necessary? Again, dunno.

Quote

I do feel a little bit badly that people are “ ganging up”on Kirbert.

I'll agree with Kay Ban, here. It does appear that Kirbirt is outnumbered by people who disagree with him, but then, that's not something we did on purpose. And as far as ganging, hmmm...do you mean we're being mean by disagreeing? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

We're not being intentionally rude or mean, if that helps.

And thanks for the support, kb....although I'm terrible at taking compliments, I appreciate the support. Now, all i need is your credit card....:) heh heh....

And, lest I get too big a head, I have TONS of flaws, so, let's not make more of me than is appropriate....worst case, I might believe ya.

Quote

It's not that I believe in no god -- although I do. It's that I require at least some evidence or reason to support the things I do accept as true -- and there is zero evidence or reason to believe in a "creator". The only reason anyone believes it is, as someone else put it here, "because everyone is saying it."

Well, now; that's a heck of an assumption. Knowing that, for sure, requires both omniscience and telepathy.

In which case, do you have the next Derby winners?

Perhaps people have subjective or experiential reasons for believing in a deity. Perhaps, in the absence of "primary evidence" (directly supporting the belief), they make do with "secondary evidence" (circumstantial, perhaps, or things that might imply the existence of the supernatural, or whatever).

Quote

That's not true at all. This sort of misunderstanding comes from a common misinterpretation of the word "theory" as though it's synonymous with "hypothesis". Occurrences can be proven -- and it's easily proven that creatures have evolved. "Theory" is the term applied to the line of reasoning offered to explain why those occurrences happened. As such, a theory inherently cannot be proven, since you can never be sure there isn't another explanation -- but theories can be disproven (by demonstrating that the explanation doesn't work), and they can be confirmed or validated usually by using the theory to predict future occurrences. There is no doubt at all that the theory of evolution is a valid explanation for the way creatures change over time; it has been confirmed and validated literally hundreds of times, and there has never been even a shred of evidence indicating any weakness in it at all. As of this time, nobody has proposed an alternative theory of any sort. Its acceptance among people whose minds aren't clouded by mythology is not just widespread, it is in fact 100%.

Well, actually, a number of problems with Darwin's theory; even most evolutionists agree that evolution, if true, is different than Darwin imagined. There are too many problems with the fossil record, and with intermediate states, and with the actual observed occurence of new species without influence of breeding or survival of fittest.

As far as Creation vs. Evolution, comparison of the Gospels with Genesis shows that they aren't necessarily in any conflict, except to state that God was responsible for what DID happen. Luke remarks that his recounting is important, in that it is chronological (in order) which implies that old Hebrew writings may have jumped around a bit....which would explain the variations in the gospels (if they were written topically), and would make a much more interesting reading of Genesis....if the Bible implies that things may not, always, have included all details, and may be jumping around, timewise, I have to figure it's a guideline, contained IN the text, for READING the text....

Evolution theory, as it stands, is incomplete; Creation theory, as it stands, is poorly written and researched. I think they're both junk science; people want to defend their positions, and so reach conclusions pre-emptively, and before the science part has been completed....

Besides; the theist - antitheist debate is really looking into infinity and guessing what lies beyond it...what Christians dislike is the arrogance of the scientific community in saying "This is fact" in a time that the "fact" is still being tested; the tendency to draw conclusions and state them as fact, rather than theory (two points in a straight line could mean a line, a ray, a segment, a sinewave, or a Ford Taurus), the tendency to equate science with antitheism (when you can't prove God one way or the other; Christians who claim science proves God annoy me), and their own lack of questioning something that seems to prove their pet theory (especially if they believe that it disproves God). Scientists need to remember how to say, "We THINK this is what this means."

I hate the whole argument; people spend so much time defending their trenches, that the other (non-religion-debate-related), more important implications of findings are ignored. And the tendency to hypnotize on the debate keeps us from doing the intermediate, and non-associated science.

It is always necessary to question science; destructive testing (much as I'd hate it, if it was MY finding) keeps us from going more wacko than we already do.

Quote

Not only did I find it hard to believe humanity could abide this, but what about this LOVING God letting innocents suffer and die everyday. Original Sin is nice to parlay about in a discussion with your bridge group, but it's a hard sell when looking at a kid who has bugs crawling in and out of his leg.

I think our priviledged society allows Westerners to accept the theory of a loving God. In early American times, God was a heck of a lot more vengeful. In third world countries, God is downright aloof or even cruel.

Well, actually, I did some soul-searching about this, and I came to some rather difficult conclusions. As in, difficult to bear.

First, God gives us an ability to choose. That is a hard thing. If he is to have people with whom he has a relationship, they have to be non-puppets. Socializing with puppets is unsatisfying, for anyone over the age of 12.

Second, if God keeps us from USING the ability to choose, we simply have a more complicated puppet relationship with him. And he's basically given us a self-defeating trait.

If we are immediately punished for doing bad, but rewarded for doing good, how can he, as the judge of the living, prove whether we are doing good because we're greedy, or because we are 'of goodwill?'

Why is he the judge of the living? One: he made us, so he has authority granted by that. Two: he has more power than anyone, so he has the ability to enforce. Three: he was here first, so any precedence of law is in his favor. Four: He is omniscient, so only he has the necessary perspective to judge justly. Five: ultimately, there is no further "up" people can go, when they make their complaints about what is injust.

That's one reason that he does, sometimes, interfere with human history. As the Bible says, "and their cry came up unto God..." But there are a number of reasons he doesn't do it, much. One, it creates great suffering. Think about Pharaoh's armies; those men died in the Red (or Reed) Sea; what happened to their families? The plagues also gave suffering. So he seems to save it for times when it is the last of the last choices.

Two, if he interferes, too much, again we are puppets. He must give us, to judge, "enough rope to hang ourselves." And if he makes it too obvious that only good will succeed, you'll end up with folks parroting good to hide their bad. We already have that with politicians.

That's one of the reasons we're supposed to be "the hands of Christ." Since God keeps himself in certain behaviors to preserve his role as judge and to preserve our ability to choose, WE are supposed to be the ones who fix all this stuff, since we are not limited by being affected by the ethical requirements of being the judge of the universe. This suffering is on US, not God.

There's more, but this is the key issue, for me. And, I know, many atheists will pooh-pooh this argument, because they do not believe that a cosmic judge is NECESSARY. As someone who has seen some of the evil that people do, I really feel that a cosmic judge IS necessary. Not out of vindictiveness, but sheer necessity.

Quote

What an irrational mind would do, apparently, is continue to insist over and over that somebody needs to provide concrete proof that leprechans don't exist.

Actually, a truly rational mind would admit to the POSSIBILITY of the existence of leprechauns (and I do) and decide, based on criteria, the LIKELIHOOD of that existence, and decide on a course of action or inaction based upon what makes most sense, given the situation.

Put it to you another way; I've never met a cannibal, either. Or a penguin. Or a polar bear. Or a unicorn, or a vampire. But I must admit that it's possible for such things to exist. Oh, sure; I don't really BELIEVE in penguins. But I have to admit to the possibility that they exist. Well, I mean, real ones. Outside of snow globes.

I mean, maybe they're just far away; further than anyone I know has gone. Or they're very good at hiding. Or their interests or foraging keeps them in the kind of places I don't look. Maybe penguins can be found in the Railroad Laws section of the library.

Should I carry a sea lion, just in case? They're awfully heavy.

Quote

Because people believing in such things are having a ruinous effect on mankind. To use a current example, we wouldn't have our soldiers shedding their blood in Iraq and Afghanistan right now if it weren't for such beliefs. And unfortunately, that particular situation is likely to get progressively and significantly worse for the foreseeable future until nukes are detonated -- and it won't stop then. The only possible way to bring this madness to an end is for everyone everywhere to reject the various mythologies that cause them conflict.

You're KIDDING. You think religion is the ONLY reason we have trouble over there? Goodness gracious, there are TONS of reasons we are having trouble. Religion is, of course, one of them.

The problem is, religion is making all the other reasons we have trouble over there WORSE. That's partly because religion helps make people determined. This can be good AND bad. In this case, mostly bad. But there are other things, happening elsewhere, that it's almost solely good.

I've been seen at a religious hospital, for one.

I think you're still missing the point of my posts. I don't know how many ways there are to say this. I very clearly stated the point of my posts was not to debate the existence or non-existence of God, leprechauns, or any other figure you choose to present. Just that there was no proof either way and that you asking others to defend the existence of God was just as futile as me asking you to defend the non-existence of God.

Quote

What an irrational mind would do, apparently, is continue to insist over and over that somebody needs to provide concrete proof that leprechans don't exist.

Again, this statement could be turned back to you as well. I want to make it very clear - I am not turning this statement around to you. I'm just saying that it COULD apply to your statements also. Engaging in mature, rational debate does not include insulting others. I have not and will not insult you.

However, I do understand your reasoning. You correctly feel as if you are being asked the impossible and cannot "win" this debate so you choose to insult hoping to get somebody's emotions going and distract from the true point of the debate. I understood from the beginning that I could not "win" this debate - neither of us or anyone else was going to "win". People feel very passionately about what they hold true and it is nearly impossible to change someone's mind - no one was going to walk away from the "table" saying "Wow, he/she was right. I'm going to change my whole belief system." I enjoy a good debate and I was merely presenting the other side.

Thanks for the mind exercise,
and yet still respectfully,
Mumma & Bunny Boy =D

Hey Folks,
I have the hard facts about evolution. I am converted to Kirberts viewpoint. Evolution is real. I am watching this post evolve. That proves it. Those that believe God exists are wrong.
Kayak Bandit '(*!*)'

Quote

a number of problems with Darwin's theory

I tend toward a combination of Darwinism and Creationism, but would like something explained regarding evolution. This question is pondered by many in the Evolution camp and there has never been a good answer.

Evolution in creatures is generally believed to be created by diet and circumstances. In the circumstances category many changes can occur due to smaller creatures being chased and eaten by bigger creatures. Thus smaller creatures adapt by getting sneakier, longer legs to increase speed, so on and so forth.

Birds have wings, and many folks believe those wings grew over a period of time (evolved) so that birds could escape predators. Birds present condition of being "flighted" is certainly beneficial for their survival.
If that is the case with birds having legs evolve into wings then one has to wonder how fast was this evolution. Having a half wing or very small wing would have no benefit, in fact it probably would be a detriment. Seems like those birds would have been better off by running on 4 good legs rather than hopping and trying to fly with those stubby little wings that have not fully developed into real wings. A 1/2 wing would absolutely be no benefit to survival.


One could say that maybe it wasn't a 'circumstance' reason that wings developed, but it certainly was a 'circumstance' reason that flightless birds evolved into stubby wings.
A good example is 'flightless commorants' (spelling?) located in the Galapagos. They no longer fly due to a lack of predators there. Their 'evolution' is returning to a flightless mode.

So all you evolutionists, and there have been many that failed to answer this question, that is your conundrum. Explain Birds.

For all you Creationists, in the future, I would appreciate any mention of me and my family in your Sunday visits.

Don

Think about current flightless birds, like ostriches; I think that their wings, while they would never get them off the ground, probably serve as a bit of a stabilizer. Perhaps back in the dawn of birds, the bipedal dinosaur-like ones who kept developing longer and longer stabilizers then found that they could give them a little boost. The ones whose proto-wings stayed too short for flight continued to use them for balance and stabilizing.

I completely made this up; I honestly have no idea. :)

d.a.